Trouble at mill

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Only what actually happens is:

Theist: Here’s my argument for god…(insert ad pop, argument from incredulity, post hoc ergo propter hoc etc here).

Atheist: But that argument fails because it’s logically false, and here’s why….(insert explanation here). 

Theist: Here’s my argument for god…(insert ad pop, argument from incredulity, post hoc ergo propter hoc etc here).

Atheist: What’s the point?

You have for example been corrected countless times on your “argmentum ad ridiculum” misrepresentation yet you repeat it over and over again. Why then demand yet further corrections of your various mistakes when you won't respond to any of them?

Where the use of a non ridiculous substitute is possible and not used. It is fair to deduce that an argumentum ad ridiculing is being exploited.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Where the use of a non ridiculous substitute is possible and not used. It is fair to deduce that an argumentum ad ridiculing is being exploited.

And again you repeat your fundamental misrepresentation of what the argument actually entails despite been corrected many times.

Why bother?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

And again you repeat your fundamental misrepresentation of what the argument actually entails despite been corrected many times.

Why bother?

Once again you repeat your pisstaking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Once again you repeat your pisstaking.

Identifying your mendacity isn't "pisstaking" - it's just identifying your mendacity. If ever you stopped doing it, there'd be nothing to identify.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Identifying your mendacity isn't "pisstaking" - it's just identifying your mendacity. If ever you stopped doing it, there'd be nothing to identify.

Use of the argumentum ad ridiculum is pisstaking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Use of the argumentum ad ridiculum is pisstaking.

Probably would be if anyone actually did it. No-one does though - that's just your corruption of the actual argument.