Total Posts:303|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

When an atheist says there is no god

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.

Now, lets all be honest. Nobody is thinking wow he made a positive claim he better defend that. The reason nobody believes in dragons is the lack of evidence for them.

Now to go further, if you could please answer these questions:

Do dragons exist? yes or no
Do dogs exist? yes or no
Does mythra exist? yes or no
Do cats exist? yes or no
Do marimacons exist? yes or no

Now for the ones you answer no to lets be honest, the reason is you have no evidence. This also proves another point, that on any of the other questions, it is perfectly fine to have yes or no as an answer, but suddenly you feel the god question has to change and someone can not say no based on the lack of evidence. So from now on understand when an atheist says god does not exist they are only holding god to the same standard as every other being. They don't find evidence so to the best of their knowledge, god does not exist. No proof needed only lack of evidence much like dragons.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 11:31:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.

http://www.pollsb.com...

Dragon 1

Izbo 0
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 11:49:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 11:31:26 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.

http://www.pollsb.com...

Dragon 1

Izbo 0

nice semantics, jackass if you even had half a brain you would not have felt it necessary to respond with absolute nonsense.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 11:52:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 11:31:26 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.

http://www.pollsb.com...

Dragon 1

Izbo 0

I also think its funny, the first response is intellectual dishonesty to the highest degree. Semantical nonsense when the context is clear, is intellectual dishonesty 101.

Reading comprehension 1
You- -10

gotta lot of catching up to do.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:18:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 11:31:26 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.

http://www.pollsb.com...

Dragon 1

Izbo 0

Flawless Victory
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:23:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 11:52:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 11:31:26 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.

http://www.pollsb.com...

Dragon 1

Izbo 0

I also think its funny, the first response is intellectual dishonesty to the highest degree. Semantical nonsense when the context is clear, is intellectual dishonesty 101.

Reading comprehension 1
You- -10

gotta lot of catching up to do.

Dragon's reading comprehension: 100
Izbo10's: -800
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:28:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.
I say there is no such thing as a 'their' to be used in this context.

Now, lets all be honest. Nobody is thinking wow he made a positive claim he better defend that. The reason nobody believes in dragons is the lack of evidence for them.

In a debate (which is characteristic of this site), you have to at least defend your claim, by pointing out a) lack of evidence b) fallacious 'evidence' presented.

Now to go further, if you could please answer these questions:


Do dragons exist? yes or no
No.
Do dogs exist? yes or no
Yes.
Does mythra exist? yes or no
Yes (in the movies).
Do cats exist? yes or no
Yes.
Do marimacons exist? yes or no
No.

Now for the ones you answer no to lets be honest, the reason is you have no evidence. This also proves another point, that on any of the other questions, it is perfectly fine to have yes or no as an answer, but suddenly you feel the god question has to change and someone can not say no based on the lack of evidence. So from now on understand when an atheist says god does not exist they are only holding god to the same standard as every other being. They don't find evidence so to the best of their knowledge, god does not exist. No proof needed only lack of evidence much like dragons.

So evidence is necessary to disprove god? Could not the laws of logic or reasoning to be used to disprove his existence?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:29:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 11:49:39 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 11:31:26 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.

http://www.pollsb.com...

Dragon 1

Izbo 0

nice semantics, jackass if you even had half a brain you would not have felt it necessary to respond with absolute nonsense.

Semantics? Izbo10, you really need to see JustCallMeTarzan after class if you think what Cosmic presented was 'semantics'....though I could be wrong...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:29:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:28:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.
I say there is no such thing as a 'their' to be used in this context.

Now, lets all be honest. Nobody is thinking wow he made a positive claim he better defend that. The reason nobody believes in dragons is the lack of evidence for them.

In a debate (which is characteristic of this site), you have to at least defend your claim, by pointing out a) lack of evidence b) fallacious 'evidence' presented.

Now to go further, if you could please answer these questions:


Do dragons exist? yes or no
No.
Do dogs exist? yes or no
Yes.
Does mythra exist? yes or no
Yes (in the movies).
Do cats exist? yes or no
Yes.
Do marimacons exist? yes or no
No.

Now for the ones you answer no to lets be honest, the reason is you have no evidence. This also proves another point, that on any of the other questions, it is perfectly fine to have yes or no as an answer, but suddenly you feel the god question has to change and someone can not say no based on the lack of evidence. So from now on understand when an atheist says god does not exist they are only holding god to the same standard as every other being. They don't find evidence so to the best of their knowledge, god does not exist. No proof needed only lack of evidence much like dragons.

So evidence is necessary to disprove god? Could not the laws of logic or reasoning to be used to disprove his existence?

Don't attempt to engage with him... he just wants to throw his poo at you like some sort of retarded chimp.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:30:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:28:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.
I say there is no such thing as a 'their' to be used in this context.

Now, lets all be honest. Nobody is thinking wow he made a positive claim he better defend that. The reason nobody believes in dragons is the lack of evidence for them.

In a debate (which is characteristic of this site), you have to at least defend your claim, by pointing out a) lack of evidence b) fallacious 'evidence' presented.

Now to go further, if you could please answer these questions:


Do dragons exist? yes or no
No.
Do dogs exist? yes or no
Yes.
Does mythra exist? yes or no
Yes (in the movies).
Do cats exist? yes or no
Yes.
Do marimacons exist? yes or no
No.

Now for the ones you answer no to lets be honest, the reason is you have no evidence. This also proves another point, that on any of the other questions, it is perfectly fine to have yes or no as an answer, but suddenly you feel the god question has to change and someone can not say no based on the lack of evidence. So from now on understand when an atheist says god does not exist they are only holding god to the same standard as every other being. They don't find evidence so to the best of their knowledge, god does not exist. No proof needed only lack of evidence much like dragons.

So evidence is necessary to disprove god? Could not the laws of logic or reasoning to be used to disprove his existence?

depends on the definition and the intellectual dishonesty of the person you are using it on. Like for this board, the laws of logic, make e.t. look like a native earthling, so they couldn't be used.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:32:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:30:04 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:28:02 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:37:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
I want to take a look at what an atheist means by this. A lot of christians want to be intellectually dishonest and make atheist have to prove this side.

Well lets look at an example:

I say their is no such thing as a dragon.
I say there is no such thing as a 'their' to be used in this context.

Now, lets all be honest. Nobody is thinking wow he made a positive claim he better defend that. The reason nobody believes in dragons is the lack of evidence for them.

In a debate (which is characteristic of this site), you have to at least defend your claim, by pointing out a) lack of evidence b) fallacious 'evidence' presented.

Now to go further, if you could please answer these questions:


Do dragons exist? yes or no
No.
Do dogs exist? yes or no
Yes.
Does mythra exist? yes or no
Yes (in the movies).
Do cats exist? yes or no
Yes.
Do marimacons exist? yes or no
No.

Now for the ones you answer no to lets be honest, the reason is you have no evidence. This also proves another point, that on any of the other questions, it is perfectly fine to have yes or no as an answer, but suddenly you feel the god question has to change and someone can not say no based on the lack of evidence. So from now on understand when an atheist says god does not exist they are only holding god to the same standard as every other being. They don't find evidence so to the best of their knowledge, god does not exist. No proof needed only lack of evidence much like dragons.

So evidence is necessary to disprove god? Could not the laws of logic or reasoning to be used to disprove his existence?

depends on the definition (?) and the intellectual dishonesty (?) of the person you are using it on. Like for this board, the laws of logic, make e.t. look like a native earthling, so they couldn't be used.

I see that a question that might have initiated a rational discussion was just another medium for you to rant about how much you hate this site and 'board'...

@Geo, don't ever think arguing with Izbo10 will dispel his ego.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:32:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:34:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Cerebral, do you mind giving us a list of your favorite Izbo10 quotes?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:37:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:34:51 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
@Cerebral, do you mind giving us a list of your favorite Izbo10 quotes?

Inductive reasoning from the use of logic on this board going completely over the majority of this boards heads, leads me to believe it won't work.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:39:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

And I did like the whole atheists can't use inductive reasoning nor talk about morality... but there is not a great quote that somes up this aspect of the Izbionic logic.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:39:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:37:11 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:34:51 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
@Cerebral, do you mind giving us a list of your favorite Izbo10 quotes?

Inductive reasoning from the use of logic on this board going completely over the majority of this boards heads, leads me to believe it won't work.

Izbo10, you've readily shown yourself to be incapable of addressing or understanding the point of certain comments.

I ask you, is 'inductive reasoning from the use of logic' (a fine verbose phrase, I must say) relevant to my original question?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German, why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic? No, one wouldn't think that.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:41:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German
You could've asked the math question IN German.

why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic?
You have lost much of your credibility these days. And note that your original post discussed lack of evidence to disprove god, not logic or reasoning.

And when you write like an ignoramus, making simple grammatical mistakes, and continually project yourself as the 'pinnacle of intelligence', you find a couple of your enemies harping and jumping all over those silly sentences that you have written.
No, one wouldn't think that.
Izbonic logic has prevailed again, I presume.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:46:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Izbo10, Joseph_Mengele, and Givemeliberty are the Unholy Trinity.

Izbo10--religion (theology, philosophy, logic)
Joseph Mengele--history, ethnic views
Givemeliberty--views and values of life
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:47:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:41:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German
You could've asked the math question IN German.

why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic?
You have lost much of your credibility these days. And note that your original post discussed lack of evidence to disprove god, not logic or reasoning.

And when you write like an ignoramus, making simple grammatical mistakes, and continually project yourself as the 'pinnacle of intelligence', you find a couple of your enemies harping and jumping all over those silly sentences that you have written.
No, one wouldn't think that.
Izbonic logic has prevailed again, I presume.

Grammar policing is a version of red herring, thank you for contributing to the logic discussion by inadvertently using a logical fallacy. Its also ad hom. The discussion is not whether you can disprove, it is whether you should be required to.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:51:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:47:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:41:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German
You could've asked the math question IN German.

why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic?
You have lost much of your credibility these days. And note that your original post discussed lack of evidence to disprove god, not logic or reasoning.

And when you write like an ignoramus, making simple grammatical mistakes, and continually project yourself as the 'pinnacle of intelligence', you find a couple of your enemies harping and jumping all over those silly sentences that you have written.
No, one wouldn't think that.
Izbonic logic has prevailed again, I presume.

Grammar policing is a version of red herring, thank you for contributing to the logic discussion by inadvertently using a logical fallacy.
Strawmanning our positions is another one. Is red herring a logical fallacy?

Its also ad hom. The discussion is not whether you can disprove, it is whether you should be required to.
Either way, you've pointed out that there is a lack of evidence to disprove god, or to find faith in him, even if you are (STILL) discussing the burden of proof needed to.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:54:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I used to think this was a good argument, but now I'm not so sure. The question is, HOW do we know there are no dragons? (assuming the giant fire breathing monstrosities, and not komodo dragons). For what reason do we discount the possibility, for example, that they evolved on another planet or even this one and now live underground? Why not?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:55:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:51:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:47:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:41:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German
You could've asked the math question IN German.

why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic?
You have lost much of your credibility these days. And note that your original post discussed lack of evidence to disprove god, not logic or reasoning.

And when you write like an ignoramus, making simple grammatical mistakes, and continually project yourself as the 'pinnacle of intelligence', you find a couple of your enemies harping and jumping all over those silly sentences that you have written.
No, one wouldn't think that.
Izbonic logic has prevailed again, I presume.

Grammar policing is a version of red herring, thank you for contributing to the logic discussion by inadvertently using a logical fallacy.
Strawmanning our positions is another one. Is red herring a logical fallacy?

Its also ad hom. The discussion is not whether you can disprove, it is whether you should be required to.
Either way, you've pointed out that there is a lack of evidence to disprove god, or to find faith in him, even if you are (STILL) discussing the burden of proof needed to.

not necessarily nice straw man, the existence of child suffering is sufficient to prove the lack of existence of the traditional Omin-god. I have not even addressed whether there is or is not a lack of evidence up this point that god does not exist. I have merely pointed out that with a lack of evidence towards the positive claim, the base belief is disbelief. It is perfectly rational to say no it does not exist.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:57:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:55:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:51:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:47:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:41:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German
You could've asked the math question IN German.

why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic?
You have lost much of your credibility these days. And note that your original post discussed lack of evidence to disprove god, not logic or reasoning.

And when you write like an ignoramus, making simple grammatical mistakes, and continually project yourself as the 'pinnacle of intelligence', you find a couple of your enemies harping and jumping all over those silly sentences that you have written.
No, one wouldn't think that.
Izbonic logic has prevailed again, I presume.

Grammar policing is a version of red herring, thank you for contributing to the logic discussion by inadvertently using a logical fallacy.
Strawmanning our positions is another one. Is red herring a logical fallacy?

Its also ad hom. The discussion is not whether you can disprove, it is whether you should be required to.
Either way, you've pointed out that there is a lack of evidence to disprove god, or to find faith in him, even if you are (STILL) discussing the burden of proof needed to.

not necessarily nice straw man, the existence of child suffering is sufficient to prove the lack of existence of the traditional Omin-god. I have not even addressed whether there is or is not a lack of evidence up this point that god does not exist. I have merely pointed out that with a lack of evidence towards the positive claim, the base belief is disbelief. It is perfectly rational to say no it does not exist.

It is.
Why do you keep bringing up the notion of 'child suffering'?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:58:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:57:08 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:55:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:51:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:47:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:41:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German
You could've asked the math question IN German.

why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic?
You have lost much of your credibility these days. And note that your original post discussed lack of evidence to disprove god, not logic or reasoning.

And when you write like an ignoramus, making simple grammatical mistakes, and continually project yourself as the 'pinnacle of intelligence', you find a couple of your enemies harping and jumping all over those silly sentences that you have written.
No, one wouldn't think that.
Izbonic logic has prevailed again, I presume.

Grammar policing is a version of red herring, thank you for contributing to the logic discussion by inadvertently using a logical fallacy.
Strawmanning our positions is another one. Is red herring a logical fallacy?

Its also ad hom. The discussion is not whether you can disprove, it is whether you should be required to.
Either way, you've pointed out that there is a lack of evidence to disprove god, or to find faith in him, even if you are (STILL) discussing the burden of proof needed to.

not necessarily nice straw man, the existence of child suffering is sufficient to prove the lack of existence of the traditional Omin-god. I have not even addressed whether there is or is not a lack of evidence up this point that god does not exist. I have merely pointed out that with a lack of evidence towards the positive claim, the base belief is disbelief. It is perfectly rational to say no it does not exist.

It is.
Why do you keep bringing up the notion of 'child suffering'?

red herring, insinuated ad hom, is that really all you have.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:59:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:54:55 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I used to think this was a good argument, but now I'm not so sure. The question is, HOW do we know there are no dragons? (assuming the giant fire breathing monstrosities, and not komodo dragons). For what reason do we discount the possibility, for example, that they evolved on another planet or even this one and now live underground? Why not?:

You can't conclusively prove that anything does NOT exist. Why? If something doesn't exist, you can't provide evidence of something's non-existence. That's why the burden of proof has to be with the individual who posits something does exist. At the most, a skeptic can discredit alleged evidence in favor of the existence of (X), but that's all.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 12:59:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:58:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:57:08 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:55:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:51:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:47:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:41:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German
You could've asked the math question IN German.

why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic?
You have lost much of your credibility these days. And note that your original post discussed lack of evidence to disprove god, not logic or reasoning.

And when you write like an ignoramus, making simple grammatical mistakes, and continually project yourself as the 'pinnacle of intelligence', you find a couple of your enemies harping and jumping all over those silly sentences that you have written.
No, one wouldn't think that.
Izbonic logic has prevailed again, I presume.

Grammar policing is a version of red herring, thank you for contributing to the logic discussion by inadvertently using a logical fallacy.
Strawmanning our positions is another one. Is red herring a logical fallacy?

Its also ad hom. The discussion is not whether you can disprove, it is whether you should be required to.
Either way, you've pointed out that there is a lack of evidence to disprove god, or to find faith in him, even if you are (STILL) discussing the burden of proof needed to.

not necessarily nice straw man, the existence of child suffering is sufficient to prove the lack of existence of the traditional Omin-god. I have not even addressed whether there is or is not a lack of evidence up this point that god does not exist. I have merely pointed out that with a lack of evidence towards the positive claim, the base belief is disbelief. It is perfectly rational to say no it does not exist.

It is.
Why do you keep bringing up the notion of 'child suffering'?


red herring, insinuated ad hom, is that really all you have.

Now you're just conflating definitions and terms, Izbo10. Bad show.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 1:01:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 12:58:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:57:08 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:55:53 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:51:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:47:43 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:41:56 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:39:22 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:37:47 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/27/2011 12:36:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I've not really been recording them, but I am fan of the "I make many syllogism". Short retarded and to the point.

Ah, Izbo10...you go about declaring how idiotic this board is and yet you fail to even make a properly grammatical sentence ("I make many syllogism(s)") in your rush to blow your horn.

I don't ask you a math question to see if you know German
You could've asked the math question IN German.

why do you harp on grammar when the discussion is about logic, oh could it be you have nothing at all worth adding to a conversation about logic?
You have lost much of your credibility these days. And note that your original post discussed lack of evidence to disprove god, not logic or reasoning.

And when you write like an ignoramus, making simple grammatical mistakes, and continually project yourself as the 'pinnacle of intelligence', you find a couple of your enemies harping and jumping all over those silly sentences that you have written.
No, one wouldn't think that.
Izbonic logic has prevailed again, I presume.

Grammar policing is a version of red herring, thank you for contributing to the logic discussion by inadvertently using a logical fallacy.
Strawmanning our positions is another one. Is red herring a logical fallacy?

Its also ad hom. The discussion is not whether you can disprove, it is whether you should be required to.
Either way, you've pointed out that there is a lack of evidence to disprove god, or to find faith in him, even if you are (STILL) discussing the burden of proof needed to.

not necessarily nice straw man, the existence of child suffering is sufficient to prove the lack of existence of the traditional Omin-god. I have not even addressed whether there is or is not a lack of evidence up this point that god does not exist. I have merely pointed out that with a lack of evidence towards the positive claim, the base belief is disbelief. It is perfectly rational to say no it does not exist.

It is.
Why do you keep bringing up the notion of 'child suffering'?


red herring, insinuated ad hom, is that really all you have.

Ridiculous, Izbo. If that is the case, than we cannot ask any questions to you, since it is a 'red herring, insinuated ad hom'....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau