Does antitheism exist?

[Nearly Sane]

It's a good job i'm on hand to correct you.......and talking of being on hand did you hear about Hume............?

Trouble is you are always in hand when you think of Hume.  There was a time that that you only had wood for Dawkins.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trouble is you are always in hand when you think of Hume.  There was a time that that you only had wood for Dawkins.

You do go onan on.

[Nearly Sane]

You do go onan on.

Oh look you have again spilled your seed and thought it was a post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh look you have again spilled your seedHumed and thought it was a post.

Not your night is it?

[Nearly Sane]

Not your night is it?

  Seems fine to me but then I'm not a liar. Must be difficult for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Seems fine to me but then I'm not a liar. Must be difficult for you.

Where's your sense of Hume-er?

[Owlswing]

Unless this is some BDSM site I've blundered into then I see no reason why you shouldn't answer some of the questions and not be so reticent............ on the other hand you do give the impression of strutting about referring to yourselves as ''My interlocutors''.

Hark who's talking about strutting about! POT KETTLE BLACK!

[Nearly Sane]

Where's your sense of Hume-er?

With my sense of li-ar

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Owlswing,

Hark who's talking about strutting about! POT KETTLE BLACK!

The issue here I think is that he doesn’t know what the word “interlocutor” means (as with various other words he misuses or redefines), combined with his continuing problem with the burden of proof – ie, when he makes assertions of fact then it’s legitimate to be asked to justify them. Instead though he just demands endless answers from the people asking why he believes what he believes, and then ignores or lies about the answers he’s given.

It’s very odd behaviour, but there it is nonetheless.   

It’s particularly dispiriting too by the way to see his behaviour when he blunders into areas about which people here (Outy, Stranger, torridon et al) clearly know much more than he does and they take the time to explain things only for him to evade, lie, abuse etc in reply.   

[Owlswing]

Hi Owlswing,

The issue here I think is that he doesn’t know what the word “interlocutor” means (as with various other words he misuses or redefines), combined with his continuing problem with the burden of proof – ie, when he makes assertions of fact then it’s legitimate to be asked to justify them. Instead though he just demands endless answers from the people asking why he believes what he believes, and then ignores or lies about the answers he’s given.

It’s very odd behaviour, but there it is nonetheless.   

It’s particularly dispiriting too, by the way, to see his behaviour when he blunders into areas about which people here (Outy, Stranger, torridon et al) clearly know much more than he does and they take the time to explain things only for him to evade, lie, abuse etc in reply.

A major waste of brain cells, then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

A major waste of brain cells, then?

Should be his tagline... 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Owlswing,

The issue here I think is that he doesn’t know what the word “interlocutor” means (as with various other words he misuses or redefines), combined with his continuing problem with the burden of proof – ie, when he makes assertions of fact then it’s legitimate to be asked to justify them. Instead though he just demands endless answers from the people asking why he believes what he believes, and then ignores or lies about the answers he’s given.

It’s very odd behaviour, but there it is nonetheless.   

It’s particularly dispiriting too by the way to see his behaviour when he blunders into areas about which people here (Outy, Stranger, torridon et al) clearly know much more than he does and they take the time to explain things only for him to evade, lie, abuse etc in reply.

Regards their knowledge and we can throw you into the mix some of the intellectual wunderkinder mentioned neither want to share it or own it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Owls,

Should be his tagline... 

If you give an ear to New atheism it's no surprise you get your minds fucked. Now that IS a tagline.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Regards their knowledge and we can throw you into the mix some of the intellectual wunderkinder mentioned neither want to share it or own it.

Using words that actually are words (well, most of them anyway) is a good start. Your problem though is in throwing them together apparently at random. By all means have another go if you like though, only this time as a comprehensible sentence. 

If you give an ear to New atheism it's no surprise you get your minds fucked. Now that IS a tagline.

See above. If you think “new” atheism (ie just atheism) has its arguments wrong then (finally) try at least to explain why rather revisit your usual recipe of misrepresentation and insult.

Oh, any progress by the way on an honest-to-goodness, not fallacy-reliant argument to show why you think the universe itself must have been caused by something else?

Anything?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Using words that actually are words (well, most of them anyway) is a good start. Your problem though is in throwing them together apparently at random. By all means have another go if you like though, only this time as a comprehensible sentence. 

See above. If you think “new” atheism (ie just atheism) has its arguments wrong then (finally) try at least to explain why rather revisit your usual recipe of misrepresentation and insult.

Oh, any progress by the way on an honest-to-goodness, not fallacy-reliant argument to show why you think the universe itself must have been caused by something else?

Anything?   

The very thing you have to say that is actually worth hearing and you won't share it.
Why not tell us about quantum borrowing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The very thing you have to say that is actually worth hearing and you won't share it.

Just out of interest, before you start to type does it feel like there’s a coherent thought in your head that somehow always gets mangled when you type it, or are your thought processes as chaotic as your posts?

Why not tell us about quantum borrowing?

I already have, and I’ve posted links about it too. Even if that wasn’t the case though, it would make no difference. All I have to show is that there are plausible possibilities (lots of them in fact) which, if true, would remove the need for the universe necessarily having an external cause. Moreover, don’t know” serves the purpose equally well – “given the current state of physics, no-one can with any certainty answer certain questions” is a perfectly legitimate statement. The evidential bar for both these positions is fairly low – after all, anything is possible.

You in the other hand have dug a huge hole for yourself because your assertion “God” relies not only on removing any other possible answer to how the universe came to be, but also on knowing better than all of physics, all of cosmology, all off… etc soo as to be certain that these disciplines won't at some time close the “don’t know” gap. The evidential bar for you in other words is stratospherically high. The fact that you’ve never even tried to scale it (or even to suggest that you’re aware that it exists at all) doesn’t change that.

So rather than keep ducking and diving, why not finally try that argument to justify the clam that the universe necessarily, must have been caused by something else?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

See above. If you think “new” atheism (ie just atheism) has its arguments wrong then (finally) try at least to explain why rather revisit your usual recipe of misrepresentation and insult.

Oh, any progress by the way on an honest-to-goodness, not fallacy-reliant argument to show why you think the universe itself must have been caused by something else?
 

There is nothing honest to goodness about argument on here, Hillside. I have told Strangers I will gladly debate any issue in a more formal setting with a chairperson for debate and I extend the same invitation to you. Unfortunately IMO you lack the necessary discipline to use the freedom of this board properly, others suffer a similar lack of emotional and intellectual continence and so we end up with posse-ism.

Coming back on this board after a good absence and seeing the same argument the posse had with Alan Burns being played over almost makes one believe that the universe is infinitely old with virtual fallacies coming out of your quantum foam. I shan't even mention the treatment of Nicholas Marks or the intellectually bankrupt nadir of Nearly Sane's bisyllabic responses which only have the virtue of economy.

There cannot be any natural balance, no self control and composure around here because unfortunately the religionists and the reasonable were bored off. Just like ''just atheism'' was hounded away by the loud and incontinent New atheists.

So how about it....? A proper Debate?.

[Nearly Sane]

There is nothing honest to goodness about argument on here, Hillside. I have told Strangers I will gladly debate any issue in a more formal setting with a chairperson for debate and I extend the same invitation to you. Unfortunately IMO you lack the necessary discipline to use the freedom of this board properly, others suffer a similar lack of emotional and intellectual continence and so we end up with posse-ism.

Coming back on this board after a good absence and seeing the same argument the posse had with Alan Burns being played over almost makes one believe that the universe is infinitely old with virtual fallacies coming out of your quantum foam. I shan't even mention the treatment of Nicholas Marks or the intellectually bankrupt nadir of Nearly Sane's bisyllabic responses which only have the virtue of economy.

There cannot be any natural balance, no self control and composure around here because unfortunately the religionists and the reasonable were bored off. Just like ''just atheism'' was hounded away by the loud and incontinent New atheists.

So how about it....? A proper Debate?.

  Stop lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Stop lying.

My Goodness.....Three syllables.

[Nearly Sane]

My Goodness.....Three syllables.

yawn

[Walt Zingmatilder]

yawn

I knew it was to good to last.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is nothing honest to goodness about argument on here, Hillside. I have told Strangers I will gladly debate any issue in a more formal setting with a chairperson for debate and I extend the same invitation to you. Unfortunately IMO you lack the necessary discipline to use the freedom of this board properly, others suffer a similar lack of emotional and intellectual continence and so we end up with posse-ism.

Ah, the old poisoning of the well fallacy. You haven’t tried that for while. More to the point though, how would you propose that I debate anything with a pathological liar? Just now for example I explained to you perfectly clearly why you were shifting the burden of proof and you’ve just replied as though nothing had been said.   

Coming back on this board after a good absence and seeing the same argument the posse had with Alan Burns being played over almost makes one believe that the universe is infinitely old with virtual fallacies coming out of your quantum foam. I shan't even mention the treatment of Nicholas Marks or the intellectually bankrupt nadir of Nearly Sane's bisyllabic responses which only have the virtue of economy.

Your reliance on various fallacies has been explained to you countless time, only for you to ignore the explanations. If you think your interlocutors (look it up) use fallacious arguments, then try at least to identify them rather than just assert them to be there. You’ve never managed it yet, but hope springs eternal…   

There cannot be any natural balance, no self control and composure around here because unfortunately the religionists and the reasonable were bored off. Just like ''just atheism'' was hounded away by the loud and incontinent New atheists.

Or perhaps because no theist here has ever been able to make a sound argument to justify his beliefs. To be fair to you, you don’t even bother with the attempt though preferring as you do to ignore, mispresent or throw abuse at the arguments that undo you. 

So how about it....? A proper Debate?.

With you? How would such a thing be possible unless you abandoned your unremitting mendacity?

Tell you what though, why not make a start: you set out a non fallacy-reliant argument for why you think the universe must necessarily have been caused by something else and we’ll see where we go…

[Nearly Sane]

I knew it was to good to last.

Boring

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Stop lying.

He can't. That's all he has.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

He can't. That's all he has.

Well there is the penchant for writing gibberish, his random use of terms he appears not to understand or want to define, and his fellation of fallacies as well.