What is it with atheists and fairy stories?

[Owlswing]

If you are asserting the Bible is fiction could you also break the habit of as long as I've been on this message board, do the decent thing and justify that assertion.

That request also goes to Owlswing.

And Owlswing tells, or has told, you to read what has been written on these boards more times than I care to count, that you skim read and make you own twisted mistranslations of, written by people whose inteligence is a monumental distance above yours, that you belittle because you don't understand and, when people try to explain the same things over and over again you just  rephrase the same old rubbish over and over again!

I will tell you one thing of which you have absolutely ZERO KNOWLEDGE! Good manners.



I, of course, am not one of those i mention above, what I do know is when I am reading the ramblings of a mean-minded foul mouthed wind-up-merchant!

I do admit my ignorance on a lot of things written here, sometimes I request explanations, when it comes to the various -isms I usually pass, I am well aware that I am not as clever as I once was and I was never university level clever even at my best, but I never stooped to abusing those who were either cleverer or less clever than I was.

Farewell!

[Outrider]

If you are asserting the Bible is fiction could you also break the habit of as long as I've been on this message board, do the decent thing and justify that assertion.

Is the fact that it talks about magic, demon-possessed pigs and the living dead not enough of a clue for you?  Although, to be fair, I think it's fairer to describe it as 'based on a true story'... but still, essentially, fiction.

O.

[Owlswing]

Is the fact that it talks about magic, demon-possessed pigs and the living dead not enough of a clue for you?  Although, to be fair, I think it's fairer to describe it as 'based on a true story'... but still, essentially, fiction.

O.

Your servant, Sir!

Thanks!

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is the fact that it talks about magic, demon-possessed pigs and the living dead not enough of a clue for you?  Although, to be fair, I think it's fairer to describe it as 'based on a true story'... but still, essentially, fiction.

O.

Fine piece of Bowdlerisation. As if the living dead were legion. Apparently there were about 4 of them in the whole of biblical times.

Your shitty knowledge of the bible doesn't bode well for your forthcoming exposition of how the bible is fiction. Which, as it is a positive assertion and you believe you are a decent sort of chap, you are going to justify...….I look forward immensely to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Fine piece of Bowdlerisation. As if the living dead were legion. Apparently there were about 4 of them in the whole of biblical times.

Your shitty knowledge of the bible doesn't bode well for your forthcoming exposition of how the bible is fiction. Which, as it is a positive assertion and you believe you are a decent sort of chap, you are going to justify...….I look forward immensely to it.

Matthew 27:53. And you have misused the term Bowdlerisation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your shitty knowledge of the bible doesn't bode well for your forthcoming exposition of how the bible is fiction.

Been a while since you tried the Courtier’s reply fallacy. Presumably you have a detailed knowledge of every work of fiction ever written so as to be sure that they are all works of fiction?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Been a while since you tried the Courtier’s reply fallacy. Presumably you have a detailed knowledge of every work of fiction ever written so as to be sure that they are all works of fiction?

Courtiers reply aka the Myers shuffle designed to let people like Dawkins talk shite, get it wrong, straw man and argue from caricatures....a bit like thee sen, me Essex beauty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Courtiers reply aka the Myers shuffle designed to let people like Dawkins talk shite, get it wrong, straw man and argue from caricatures....a bit like thee sen, me Essex beauty.

All of which is completely untrue of course, but scattergun lying enables you to make your escape from your latest car crash attempt at an argument. 'twas ever thus.

Just out of interest, do you think you'll ever, ever find it in yourself actually to post an honest answer here? Do trolls really never get a day off? Really though?

Must be exhausting for you.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

All of which is completely untrue of course, but scattergun lying enables you to make your escape from your latest car crash attempt at an argument. 'twas ever thus.

Just out of interest, do you think you'll ever, ever find it in yourself actually to post an honest answer here? Do trolls really never get a day off? Really though?

Must be exhausting for you.

Courtier's reply fallacy. So fresh out of the arse of New Atheism it's still a bit warm.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Courtier's reply fallacy. So fresh out of the arse of New Atheism it's still a bit warm.

And off he scuttles, strewing scatological abuse behind him as he makes good his escape and never actually dealing with the car crash he's just engineered for himself.

Classic Vlad.

 

[Owlswing]

Vlad,

And off he scuttles, strewing scatological abuse behind him as he makes good his escape and never actually dealing with the car crash he's just engineered for himself.

Classic Vlad.

 

Sorry BHS, but you have been around long to know precisely the response you are going to get from that direction so why bother rsponding to it!

It is a total waste of time and effort to try to have an intelligent conversation.

[Outrider]

Fine piece of Bowdlerisation. As if the living dead were legion. Apparently there were about 4 of them in the whole of biblical times.

How many instances of the living dead does a story require in order to no longer qualify as fiction?

Your shitty knowledge of the bible doesn't bode well for your forthcoming exposition of how the bible is fiction.

Which is odd, as you've not actually suggested that I was wrong about what I said the Bible contained...

Which, as it is a positive assertion and you believe you are a decent sort of chap, you are going to justify...….I look forward immensely to it.

I wouldn't look forward, I'd look back at what I've already said, it doesn't get any more complicated than that.  You have a work that deals in magical beings, possession and ghosts/spirits/the living dead - if you can't see that's a reasonable case for it being considered, at best, a fictionalised account of possibly real events then you I'd like to ask you to help me find where Hogwarts really is.

O.

[Owlswing]

. . . help me find where Hogwarts really is.

O.

In all probability Hogwarts is in the same location as a civilian friend of one of  my brothers was told that the R A F Base at Masirah, to which said brother had been posted for a 6 month detachment, was, a place he had told his mother was "200 miles up the Persian Gulf", he told his mate it was actually 200 miles up the arsehole of the World, the description due to the fact that there were only thwo things there apart from the runway and the accomodation huts, birds and birdshit!!

It seems to be a suitably remote place to hide a school for wizards!

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And off he scuttles, strewing scatological abuse behind him as he makes good his escape and never actually dealing with the car crash he's just engineered for himself.

Classic Vlad.

 

I'm just getting started with the Courtiers reply but for starters, No one seems to have spotted the irony of New Atheists saying they don't need to know any details of what they consider a fairy story...... by appealing to the details of a fairy story (The kings new clothes.). Ha Ha Ha! Another own goal!!! Myers shits, he scores!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And off he scuttles,

It's a sad day when atheists think their views so important as to come between a man and his cocoa!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Owls,

Sorry BHS, but you have been around long to know precisely the response you are going to get from that direction so why bother rsponding to it!

It is a total waste of time and effort to try to have an intelligent conversation.

Or even an honest one. Yeah I know - makes you wonder how many chapters of my epic work "The Daily Adventures of the Wilbur, The Invisible Dragon In My Garage" it would be necessary to absorb before thinking, "hang on a mo...".

That's Vlad for you though - "the Bible's true because the Bible says it's true, and you really, really need to study the ways it says it's true for you to know it's true. Or something." 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's Vlad for you though - "the Bible's true because the Bible says it's true, and you really, really need to study the ways it says it's true for you to know it's true. Or something."

You need to study the bible to dismiss it all as a work of fiction.

Any way the Courtier's reply fallacy as created by Myers to defend Dawkins right to talk bollocks about details on.....well anything, on the grounds of it being a fairy tale is based on…..er….the details of a fairy tale.

How is Dawkins not in the same position as the fundamentalist preacher who states that because Darwinian evolution is obvious rubbish he doesn't need to study it properly to talk about it?

[Outrider]

How is Dawkins not in the same position as the fundamentalist preacher who states that because Darwinian evolution is obvious rubbish he doesn't need to study it properly to talk about it?

Because evolution is an observed phenomenon, and the (neo-)Darwinian theory is the currently conventional, incredibly well-supported explanation for how it occurs - there is evidence that anyone can go and see and investigate and question.

You can't go and definitely examine any of the magic claims in the Bible - it's not 'observed phenomena', it's not well-evidenced, it's incredible claims with insufficient evidence.

It's like why you can dismiss flat-Earthers, but it's harder to question quantum mechanics.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

(Hushed voice) “And welcome back everybody to this year’s Fallacy Championships. It’s been a while now since Vladdo retired hurt to lick his wounds under his bridge after Alan “Any Faith Statement in Bold Must Be a Fact” Burns took the gold medal last time out, but the rumours coming out of Vlad's training camp are that he’s firing on all false reasoning cylinders this time so let’s see shall we…?”

You need to study the bible to dismiss it all as a work of fiction.

“Ooh, and he opens with a straw man – no-one says that all of the Bible is a work of fiction of course – not very imaginative, but a solid fallacy to open with nonetheless. Let’s see where he’ll go next shall we?” 

Any way the Courtier's reply fallacy as created by Myers to defend Dawkins right to talk bollocks about details on.....well anything, on the grounds of it being a fairy tale is based on…..er….the details of a fairy tale.

“Oh my word, what’s happened here? He’s abandoned even the pretence of an argument and instead just attacked the motive of the person who devised the Courtier’s reply and thrown in an ad hom to boot! IT’S THE OLD ONE-TWO! DIVERT AND INSULT! We can really see his hard work at fallacy training camp paying off here folks! Let’s see shall we whether anyone notices that he’s done it to escape having to engage with the argument itself?

OK, we're in to the final round now – let’s see where he goes next…”

How is Dawkins…

“Ooh, he’s sticking with the diversionary tactic for now – Richard Dawkins is nothing to do with the Courtier’s reply argument of course. Maybe he’s softening us up for a big fallacy finish though?”

… not in the same position as the fundamentalist preacher who states that because Darwinian evolution is obvious rubbish he doesn't need to study it properly to talk about it?

“Oh my gosh, he’s done it! He’s only gone for the big knock out fallacy – THE FALSE EQUIVALENCE! My word, there’s pandemonium here! Will anyone notice that evolutionary theory relies on reason and argument and evidence so can be investigated, but the Bible miracle stories are just fantastical claims with no means of investigation no matter how many of them you read? There’s a stunned silence here – the judges are conferring – the results are in. NO-ONE’S NOTICED! HE’S DONE IT! HE’S ONLY REGAINED HIS FALLACY CROWN! HE’S BEING MOBBED NOW - I’VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS!

And there we have it - another Fallacy Championship knock out final over. OK folks, don’t forget to tune in next year. I can’t see old AB taking this BS lying down, so we could be in for an epic re-run I reckon...

This is Bob Rationalist, your friendly ringside commentator wishing you well and saying “over and out!”

[Owlswing]

BHS

The Competition post is too long to quote, but it will be interesting to see just how big a load of bullshit is going to be shovelled in an attempt to destroy it when no facts to do so are available!

Bring you umbrella!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because evolution is an observed phenomenon, and the (neo-)Darwinian theory is the currently conventional, incredibly well-supported explanation for how it occurs - there is evidence that anyone can go and see and investigate and question.

You can't go and definitely examine any of the magic claims in the Bible - it's not 'observed phenomena', it's not well-evidenced, it's incredible claims with insufficient evidence.

It's like why you can dismiss flat-Earthers, but it's harder to question quantum mechanics.

O.

The observation of the phenomenon is purely academic regarding the debunking of the Myers courtiers reply fallacy.

Which because it relies on appeal to the details of a fairy tale to justify not appealing to details of a fairy tail is self debunking.

Your argument about evolution is a bit iffy since it disregards Dawkins inability to demonstrate God's inability to raise from the dead. Both the pastor and Dawkins proceed from belief.

Since the Courtirs reply is an appeal to the details of a fairy tale it is to the chosen fairy tale we must turn to demonstrate category confusion in new atheism and appeal to ridicule/horse laugh inherent in it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The observation of the phenomenon is purely academic regarding the debunking of the Myers courtiers reply fallacy.

Which because it relies on appeal to the details of a fairy tale to justify not appealing to details of a fairy tail is self debunking.

Your argument about evolution is a bit iffy since it disregards Dawkins inability to demonstrate God's inability to raise from the dead. Both the pastor and Dawkins proceed from belief.

Since the Courtirs reply is an appeal to the details of a fairy tale it is to the chosen fairy tale we must turn to demonstrate category confusion in new atheism and appeal to ridicule/horse laugh inherent in it.

Utter gibberish. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter gibberish.

Courtiers reply is self debunking Hillside. Live with it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Courtiers reply is self debunking Hillside. Live with it.

Utter gibberish redux. You don't need to hear what my pet dragon likes for breakfast to realise that the claim "pet dragon" is probably false.

Live with it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter gibberish redux. You don't need to hear what my pet dragon likes for breakfast to realise that the claim "pet dragon" is probably false.

Live with it.

What then is at the heart of the fairy story of the Kings new clothes. It is the right to ridicule the idea of invisible finery and the logical impossibility of admiring it.

That is how new atheists conceptualize God and that is where the category blunder lies.

Theology is not asking us to appreciate something that should be empirically detected.

We should see Leprechauns.....we should see pet dragons.

Of course Myers is trying to preserve and justify ridicule.
Bluehillside has wasted years of his time here on a horses laugh fallacy.