Disproofs of God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

Well , to be honest my heart did warm strangely when someone suggested I was “utterly fucking shameless “…

What else do you expect when you doctor quotes?

…but the standard of most posts grieves me.

Then stop posting them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

So far, yes.

And one I haven’t made.

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.

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

Gibberish. What are you even trying to say here?

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?

The claim you have made is that theist have failed to satisfy the burden of proof. Please demonstrate how.
Plausible alternatives to your claim are an inability in logical argument on the part of atheist, an inability to detect the divine, lying about their experience of the divine or the logic of the divine, just being mistaken about the divine.

[Roses]

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.

It should be your own posts which give you the most grief, they are well below the standard of those of most other posters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

The claim you have made is that theist have failed to satisfy the burden of proof.

Actually strictly it’s that I’ve never seen an argument from a theist that does this, but near enough.   

Please demonstrate how.

I have done every time one such has been attempted here. If you think any argument for “god” has been attempted that isn’t fallacious, then it’s your job to tell us what it is.

Plausible alternatives to your claim are an inability in logical argument on the part of atheist,…

Could be. Luckily though logical fallacies are codified, so it’s easy to see whether or not the argument of the theist aligns with one (or more) of these codified fallacies. So far at least, they all have. 

…an inability to detect the divine,…

And speaking of aligning with codified logical fallacies, that one is called begging the question.

…lying about their experience of the divine…

And so’s that (with a sprinkle of ad hom thrown in).

…or the logic of the divine,

No lying needed – the logic tried so far is bust (see above).

…just being mistaken about the divine.

More begging the question, plus some shifting of the burden of proof again. It’s not about being mistaken about “the divine” – even if every possible argument to justify the claim “the divine” was as flat wrong as the ones you try, there could still be a divine (or leprechauns) just as a matter of dumb luck. It’s actually only about being mistaken about the arguments attempted to justify the claim “the divine”. And your only way to show that would be to find some logic of your own more coherent or robust than that which, currently at least, knocks you out of the park.       

And no, ignoring, misrepresenting, quote doctoring or just plain lying about that doesn’t do that job for you no matter how much you cling to it.

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?
 

[Stranger]

The claim you have made is that theist have failed to satisfy the burden of proof. Please demonstrate how.

Already explained to you multiple times, by myself and others. See #614

Plausible alternatives to your claim are an inability in logical argument on the part of atheist...

Is that a joke?

...an inability to detect the divine, lying about their experience of the divine or the logic of the divine, just being mistaken about the divine.

Here we go with the burden of proof again. Define "the divine" and give an argument or evidence for why we should take the notion seriously?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It should be your own posts which give you the most grief, they are well below the standard of those of most other posters.

If the standard is turdpolishing I would agree with you.

[Roses]

If the standard is turdpolishing I would agree with you.

Your posts are way below that standard.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

Actually strictly it’s that I’ve never seen an argument from a theist that does this, but near enough.   

I have done every time one such has been attempted here. If you think any argument for “god” has been attempted that isn’t fallacious, then it’s your job to tell us what it is.

Could be. Luckily though logical fallacies are codified, so it’s easy to see whether or not the argument of the theist aligns with one (or more) of these codified fallacies. So far at least, they all have. 

And speaking of aligning with codified logical fallacies, that one is called begging the question.

And so’s that (with a sprinkle of ad hom thrown in).

No lying needed – the logic tried so far is bust (see above).

More begging the question, plus some shifting of the burden of proof again. It’s not about being mistaken about “the divine” – even if every possible argument to justify the claim “the divine” was as flat wrong as the ones you try, there could still be a divine (or leprechauns) just as a matter of dumb luck. It’s actually only about being mistaken about the arguments attempted to justify the claim “the divine”. And your only way to show that would be to find some logic of your own more coherent or robust than that which, currently at least, knocks you out of the park.       

And no, ignoring, misrepresenting, quote doctoring or just plain lying about that doesn’t do that job for you no matter how much you cling to it.

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?
 

I am not trying to shift burden of proof.
You need to demonstrate your conclusion that theism fails in its burden of proof.

The second thing you need to do is, since you think it necessary to mention our aleprechaunism to say why you have not found it necessary to mention our mutual anaturalism.

In fact I could in your scheme of things state that I am anaturalistic for the same reasons as I am a leprechaunist is. Since your scheme of things is flawed though it probably isn’t a good idea,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Already explained to you multiple times, by myself and others. See #614

Is that a joke?

Here we go with the burden of proof again. Define "the divine" and give an argument or evidence for why we should take the notion seriously?

Look you guys are the brains trust who decided that I never make an argument and those arguments I make are always wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your posts are way below that standard.

Not being an atheist I cannot expect the Lord Dawkins to bestow or develop the gift of shitshining in me can I?

[Roses]

Not being an atheist I cannot expect the Lord Dawkins to bestow or develop the gift of shitshining in me can I?

I don't know what you are actually supposed to be? If you are a Christian you are not doing the faith any good at all, your posts make a mockery of the faith. Satan must be rubbing his hands with glee, assuming he exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

Actually strictly it’s that I’ve never seen an argument from a theist that does this, but near enough.   

I have done every time one such has been attempted here. If you think any argument for “god” has been attempted that isn’t fallacious, then it’s your job to tell us what it is.

Could be. Luckily though logical fallacies are codified, so it’s easy to see whether or not the argument of the theist aligns with one (or more) of these codified fallacies. So far at least, they all have. 

And speaking of aligning with codified logical fallacies, that one is called begging the question.

And so’s that (with a sprinkle of ad hom thrown in).

No lying needed – the logic tried so far is bust (see above).

More begging the question, plus some shifting of the burden of proof again. It’s not about being mistaken about “the divine” – even if every possible argument to justify the claim “the divine” was as flat wrong as the ones you try, there could still be a divine (or leprechauns) just as a matter of dumb luck. It’s actually only about being mistaken about the arguments attempted to justify the claim “the divine”. And your only way to show that would be to find some logic of your own more coherent or robust than that which, currently at least, knocks you out of the park.       

And no, ignoring, misrepresenting, quote doctoring or just plain lying about that doesn’t do that job for you no matter how much you cling to it.

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?
 

These are plausible alternatives Hillside and you are a prime user of the term don’t blame my if you are hoist by/on/up your own petard.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know what you are actually supposed to be? If you are a Christian you are not doing the faith any good at all, your posts make a mockery of the faith. Satan must be rubbing his hands with glee, assuming he exists.

Since you have kin who are Christians shows what a good atheist you are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

I am not trying to shift burden of proof.

That’s exactly what you do every time you complain that theism doesn’t disprove the claim “God”. You’ve tried it several times in your recent posts alone. That’s why you’re continually corrected when you do it albeit that you just ignore the corrections and then try it again.

You need to demonstrate your conclusion that theism fails in its burden of proof.

I have done. Every time you (or anyone else here) has tried an argument to justify their claim “God”, I’ve shown you (and them) why it’s fallacious. That you ignore, misrepresent, quote doctor of just flat out lie about the falsifications you’re given doesn’t change that. 

The second thing you need to do is, since you think it necessary to mention our aleprechaunism to say why you have not found it necessary to mention our mutual anaturalism.

Was there a cogent thought in your head when you typed that incomprehensible gibberish?

In fact I could in your scheme of things state that I am anaturalistic for the same reasons as I am a leprechaunist is.

I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here. Have you?

Since your scheme of things is flawed though it probably isn’t a good idea,

My only “scheme of things” is that believing things for bad (or no) reasons is a bad idea. If you think that’s “flawed” then why not say why rather than just assert it?

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?

[Roses]

Since you have kin who are Christians shows what a good atheist you are.

I know many decent Christians who would be more than shocked by your posts!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I know many decent Christians who would be more than shocked by your posts!

As, presumably, would Jesus be. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

That’s exactly what you do every time you complain that theism doesn’t disprove the claim “God”. You’ve tried it several times in your recent posts alone. That’s why you’re continually corrected when you do it albeit that you just ignore the corrections and then try it again.

I have done. Every time you (or anyone else here) has tried an argument to justify their claim “God”, I’ve shown you (and them) why it’s fallacious. That you ignore, misrepresent, quote doctor of just flat out lie about the falsifications you’re given doesn’t change that. 

Was there a cogent thought in your head when you typed that incomprehensible gibberish?

I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here. Have you?

My only “scheme of things” is that believing things for bad (or no) reasons is a bad idea. If you think that’s “flawed” then why not say why rather than just assert it?

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?

Your argument fails whenever I acknowledge the burden of proof onTheism.
There is thence no shifting of anything at all.

You and anyone else in your position needs to demonstrate your conclusion that theism fails in its burden.

Since you also say that anything has the burden of proof any argument based in the following needs proof. Naturalism, Materialism, Physicalism, Scientism, empiricism.

Since you are generally shite in flagging up when you are arguing from one of these I have made it encumbent on myself to remind you. No thanks or reward from you is necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Floo,

As, presumably, would Jesus be.

I suppose you haven’t asked him how he feels every time you try to pull a tarpaulin over him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I know many decent Christians who would be more than shocked by your posts!

Put em on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop tha Pigeon!

Your argument fails whenever I acknowledge the burden of proof onTheism.

No, it succeeds every time you complain the atheism doesn’t “disprove God”.

There is thence no shifting of anything at all.

Yes there is, every time you complain the atheism doesn’t “disprove God”.

You and anyone else in your position needs to demonstrate your conclusion that theism fails in its burden.

Again, I have done every time I’ve shown the argument attempted to justify theism to be fallacious. Find me an argument to justify theism I haven’t shown to be fallacious and you’ll have a point. 

Since you also say that anything has the burden of proof any argument based in the following needs proof. Naturalism, Materialism, Physicalism, Scientism, empiricism.

So?

Since you are generally shite in flagging up when you are arguing from one of these…

…he lied. Again.

[qupte]I have made it encumbent on myself to remind you. No thanks or reward from you is necessary.[/quote]

Why remind me of something that has no relevance to the failings of theism in logic?

I suppose you haven’t asked him how he feels every time you try to pull a tarpaulin over him.

So far as I know Jesus (reportedly) said nothing about tarpaulins. He did though have something to say about bearing false witness – which is why he’d be ashamed of you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

These are plausible alternatives Hillside and you are a prime user of the term don’t blame my if you are hoist by/on/up your own petard.

So we should add "plausible" to the ever-growing list of words you don't understand then. Fair enough.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop tha Pigeon!

No, it succeeds every time you complain the atheism doesn’t “disprove God”.

Yes there is, every time you complain the atheism doesn’t “disprove God”.

Again, I have done every time I’ve shown the argument attempted to justify theism to be fallacious. Find me an argument to justify theism I haven’t shown to be fallacious and you’ll have a point. 

So?

…he lied. Again.

[qupte]I have made it encumbent on myself to remind you. No thanks or reward from you is necessary.

Why remind me of something that has no relevance to the failings of theism in logic?

So far as I know Jesus (reportedly) said nothing about tarpaulins. He did though have something to say about bearing false witness – which is why he’d be ashamed of you.

He’s ashamed of people who are ashamed of him definitely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

He’s ashamed of people who are ashamed of him definitely.

Are there such people? Either way, that wouldn't get the liars off the hook.

[Stranger]

Look you guys are the brains trust who decided that I never make an argument and those arguments I make are always wrong.

Firstly, you're avoiding the point and secondly, I didn't say either of those things. What I do say is that you don't seem to get what an argument entails, even though you (sometimes) seem to be attempting them, so what you actually come up with is fallacies (shifting the burden of proof being your latest favoutite), assertions, avoidance (as in this case), or total incoherence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop that Pigeon!

Are there such people? Either way, that wouldn't get you liars off the hook.

Blessed are the Turdpolishers, for they shall inherit the earth
Blessed are the New atheists for the kingdom of Essexheaven is theirs.
Blessed are those who play the man for evidently it give them them some kind of hard on.

The sermon on the Stansted Mountfitchet by His eminence the very reverend B. Lou Hillside.

Reverend Hillside I believe you have some form in eventually losing it in discussions with Christians and calling them liars. Since I am almost your last adversary on this particular forum I expect no other description from you.