Disproofs of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon,

Right, so in the last few posts alone you’ve been educated in epistemology 101, corrected on your mistakes about the meanings of atheism and agnosticism, and schooled on the burden of proof. Yet you just ignore all that as if nothing had been said, and instead you slide sideway into yet another trolling effort. Is there perhaps some crab in your ancestry?

“Meaningful definition” is necessary for any discourse (you know, that thing you have no interest in) and as “God” is your claim, it’s your job to define the term. You’ve been asked this before, and (in one of the vanishingly rare times you actually tried to answer a question) the best you could do was to suggest a CV as if what your (supposed) god (supposedly) does would tell us what he (supposedly) is.

It’s your claim, you define it. And while you're about it, maybe too give some indication that you finally understand the various other matters in which you've been schooled.   

Again, and again, and again I have to tell you that this theist is not seeking to remove any burden of proof from himself. That of course is what Religionethics Atheists are for.

What we want to know is on what grounds can atheism be established as the status quo or default position. That should be, for an atheist a simple thing. The reason should be meaningful. So Hillside, state what those reasons are.......or leave this board and perhaps consider becoming a hermit.

[Outrider]

Right since now meaningful definition seems to be the latest thing from atheist central you need to define what you mean by meaningful definition. Careful now.....because not making what you mean by meaningful might mean you undo your argument.

Confucius says 'Do not ask the question unless you are certain you can handle all of the possible answers'...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon,

Right, so in the last few posts alone you’ve been educated in epistemology 101, corrected on your mistakes about the meanings of atheism and agnosticism, and schooled on the burden of proof. Yet you just ignore all that as if nothing had been said, and instead you slide sideway into yet another trolling effort. Is there perhaps some crab in your ancestry?

“Meaningful definition” is necessary for any discourse (you know, that thing you have no interest in) and as “God” is your claim, it’s your job to define the term. You’ve been asked this before, and (in one of the vanishingly rare times you actually tried to answer a question) the best you could do was to suggest a CV as if what your (supposed) god (supposedly) does would tell us what he (supposedly) is.

It’s your claim, you define it. And while you're about it, maybe too give some indication that you finally understand the various other matters in which you've been schooled.   

The claim may be mine. The need to make definitions of terms clear eg meaningful.....is Outriders.

You are welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Confucius says 'Do not ask the question unless you are certain you can handle all of the possible answers'...

O.

Confucius says is onomatopoeia taken from an engine stalling ......in this case the one driving your argument ha ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

Again, and again, and again I have to tell you that this theist is not seeking to remove any burden of proof from himself.

Again and again and again that’s exactly what you do.

That of course is what Religionethics Atheists are for.

Stop lying.

What we want to know…

Who’s “we”?

…is on what grounds can atheism be established as the status quo or default position.

You know that already because it’s been explained to you countless times. A-theism, a-leprechaunism, a-anything ism is the “status quo or default position” because the burden of proof is always with the person making the claim to justify it. The only alternative is to treat all such claims as true, which collapses immediately you try it.   

That should be, for an atheist a simple thing.

It is – see above.

The reason should be meaningful.

It is – see above.

So Hillside, state what those reasons are.......or leave this board and perhaps consider becoming a hermit.

I just did – see above.

Oh, and I see you’re still sliding away from your various cock ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism, burden of proof etc.

Why is that?

The claim may be mine. The need to make definitions of terms clear eg meaningful.....is Outriders.

You are welcome.

Bollocks. Your claim = your job to define what you mean by it. 

You're welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You know that already because it’s been explained to you countless times. A-theism, a-leprechaunism, a-anything ism is the “status quo or default position”

So would you agree that the following are the status quo and the default position.
Simple yes or no.

Anaturalism
Amaterialism
Aphysicalism
Ascientism
A-empiricism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

So would you agree that the following are the status quo and the default position.
Simple yes or no.

Anaturalism
Amaterialism
Aphysicalism
Ascientism
A-empiricism.

You really are utterly fucking shameless aren’t you. What was the rest of the sentence you just carefully cropped?: “…because the burden of proof is always with the person making the claim to justify it.”

If the burden of proof is satisfied, it’s reasonable to accept the claim; if the burden of proof isn’t satisfied, it isn’t reasonable to accept the claim. What the claim happens to be is a second order issue.

Any news on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

You really are utterly fucking shameless aren’t you. What was the rest of the sentence you just carefully cropped?: “…because the burden of proof is always with the person making the claim to justify it.”

If the burden of proof is satisfied, it’s reasonable to accept the claim; if the burden of proof isn’t satisfied, it isn’t reasonable to accept the claim. What the claim happens to be is a second order issue.

Any news on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

You couldn’t even bring yourself, even after making the definition to give a yes/no answer to the question provided.

So I will answer yes
Anaturalism
A materialism
A physicalist
A scientism
A empiricism

Are all under the definition provided by you are all the status quo and default positions.

In which case, on what grounds are we disputing the existence of God?

Hillside........over to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

You couldn’t even bring yourself, even after making the definition to give a yes/no answer to the question provided.

So I will answer yes
Anaturalism
A materialism
A physicalist
A scientism
A empiricism

Are all under the definition provided by you are all the status quo and default positions.

In which case, on what grounds are we disputing the existence of God?

Hillside........over to you.

So you’ve just been caught in yet another lie and you blithely carry on as if nothing happened. What does this behaviour say about you do you think?

Yet again, no claim should be accepted just because it’s been made. When though the claim is justified with reason, then there’s no good reason to reject it. Once you grasp the principle you can populate it with any claim you like.

Any news on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

So you’ve just been caught in yet another lie and you blithely carry on as if nothing happened. What does this behaviour say about you do you think?

Yet again, no claim should be accepted just because it’s been made. When though the claim is justified with reason, then there’s no good reason to reject it. Once you grasp the principle you can populate it with any claim you like.

Any news on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

You are really playing the man here.
I am proceeding in the light of your declaration that a-anything represents the status quo and default position.

Regardless of whether you and/or I are bullshitters of the order of Melchizedek. The situation remains that naturalism, materialism, empiricism, physicalist and scientism carry the burden of proof so if not from these where does the argument against theism actually come from?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

You are really playing the man here.

I haven’t done that at all. Stop lying.

I am proceeding in the light of your declaration that a-anything represents the status quo and default position.

Dear god, have you finally got it then?

Regardless of whether you and/or I are bullshitters of the order of Melchizedek. The situation remains that naturalism, materialism, empiricism, physicalist and scientism carry the burden of proof so if not from these where does the argument against theism actually come from?

Down to the level of axioms, every truth claim carries the burden of proof if it's to be accepted – gravity making things fall, germs causing disease, anything at all. Where “the argument against theism actually come from” is the failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof. It’s not difficult.

Any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

I haven’t done that at all. Stop lying.

Dear god, have you finally got it then?

Down to the level of axioms, every truth claim carries the burden of proof if it's to be accepted – gravity making things fall, germs causing disease, anything at all. Where “the argument against theism actually come from” is the failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof. It’s not difficult.

Any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

Unless there is appeal to naturalism, materialism, physicalist, scientism,empiricism how can your CLAIM of “The failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof” be satisfied?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

Unless there is appeal to naturalism, materialism, physicalist, scientism,empiricism how can your CLAIM of “The failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof” be satisfied?

Because, obviously, the case against theism requires none of these positions. Either the arguments attempted for theism fail in their own right as matters of logic, or they don't. And so far at least, it's the former.

Any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?



 

[Stranger]

So would you agree that the following are the status quo and the default position.
Simple yes or no.

Anaturalism
Amaterialism
Aphysicalism
Ascientism
A-empiricism.

Of course, but, yet again, you are trying to pretend that people are adopting philosophical positions (which is what these are) that they are not.

Empirical evidence (science) and the use of logic have been shown to work (hence your ability to post nonsense on the internet), and one does not need to adopt a philosophical stance, such as naturalism, to make that observation.

[Stranger]

Unless there is appeal to naturalism, materialism, physicalist, scientism,empiricism how can your CLAIM of “The failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof” be satisfied?

Once again, the "claim" is a statement of personal experience. I have never seen a definition of "god" and a reason to take it seriously. A reason could be a sound argument, evidence, or the presentation of another means to distinguish probable truth from guessing, and the use of that.

There is no appeal to the endless philosophical -isms you keep on pretending that people are using.

[SteveH]

So would you agree that the following are the status quo and the default position.
Simple yes or no.

Anaturalism
Amaterialism
Aphysicalism
Ascientism
A-empiricism.

For an obviously reasonably intelligent bloke, you are really spectacularly stupid.

[Roses]

For an obviously reasonably intelligent bloke, you are really spectacularly stupid.

Or more likely, he is enjoying winding up other posters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Slart,

For an obviously reasonably intelligent bloke, you are really spectacularly stupid.

Or spectacularly dishonest. I've never been sure which - probably some of each.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or more likely, he is enjoying winding up other posters.

Stop projecting.

[Roses]

Stop projecting.

Do you deny enjoying the reactions your comments get from others posters?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

Because, obviously, the case against theism requires none of these positions. Either the arguments attempted for theism fail in their own right as matters of logic, or they don't. And so far at least, it's the former.

Any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

No you’ve said that theists have failed to satisfy the burden of proof.
Obviously to argue that they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof because they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof is no argument.

Some arguments have failed in logic maybe. But big arguments are made and have not been refuted certainly the only way to refute an external cause for the universe would be to conclusively demonstrate either spontaneous existence or infinite substance both of which come out of an ism.

Secondly, since the burden of proof is, according to you on “anything” when are you going to use theterm a-physicalist instead of a- leprechaunist? The answer is never because your a-leprechaunist  Schlick is pure horses laugh.



 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For an obviously reasonably intelligent bloke, you are really spectacularly stupid.

But you aren’t sure you want to say why at this stage?

[Outrider]

Confucius says is onomatopoeia taken from an engine stalling ......in this case the one driving your argument ha ha.

I'm impressed that you think you recognise an argument - it's telling that you identify an argument when I'm not making one, but at least it shows that you're aware of the concept...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

No you’ve said that theists have failed to satisfy the burden of proof.

So far, yes.

Obviously to argue that they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof because they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof is no argument.

And one I haven’t made.

Some arguments have failed in logic maybe. But big arguments are made and have not been refuted certainly the only way to refute an external cause for the universe would be to conclusively demonstrate either spontaneous existence or infinite substance both of which come out of an ism.

You’ve fucked up on the burden of proof again. It’s not necessary to “refute an external cause for the universe” – all that’s necessary is to refute the arguments attempted to demonstrate the positive claim that that there is an external cause.

Secondly,…

You don’t have a “secondly” when your attempt at a firstly just crashed and burned.

…since the burden of proof is, according to you on “a-anything” when are you going to use theterm a-physicalist instead of a- leprechaunist?

Gibberish. What are you even trying to say here?

The answer is never because your a-leprechaunist  Schlick is pure horses laugh.

The answer is “never” because the question is incoherent.

Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you deny enjoying the reactions your comments get from others posters?

Well , to be honest my heart did warm strangely when someone suggested I was “utterly fucking shameless “ but the standard of most posts grieves me.