Posted: Mar 08, 2010 1:24 am
by hackenslash
RichieDickins wrote::clap: Let's see here...

Your characterizations - discarding reality, denial of reality - are question-begging.

No, they're a simple statement of fact with regard to your view of the world, namely that while you look through your god-goggles you deny reality.

A perfection is a property that is necessarily better to have than not. A perfect being is one such that it is impossible for something to be greater and impossible for there to be something else than which it is not greater

Empty word salad. Demonstrate that perfection is even a viable concept.

I have no clue what "Demonstrate in a critically robust fashion" means.

Am I speaking fucking Klingon or something? It means 'show that your assertion has any basis in reality in a manner that stands up to critical scrutiny'. It's fairly straightforward English I'm employing here.

And once you've defined that, is it the case that everything which exists can be demonstrated "in a critically robust fashion"?

Yes it is.

Didn't know that you thought so highly of the Old Testament's historical reliability.

It's about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard, frankly.

Or are you attributing to me the view of Biblical inerrancy?

No, I'm demonstrating that your own book of turgid wibble shows that your magic man is no moral arbiter.

I think you're even more articulate here than you were back at RDF, keep up the good work :thumbup: . But I don't see anything constituting an objection here, so I'll leave it at that.

So once again you are experiencing reading comprehension issues? The objection is that your rectally extracted apologetic is fucking worthless. Would you like me to rephrase that in words of one syllable?

You're right, a fish hitting me in the face would not bring to mind "honest inquiry."

Way to miss the fucking point.

Nonetheless, I'm honest in my inquiries.

Except for the glaring case of Morton's Demon, you mean?

For one thing, it's not question-begging. I'd like to hear more about all this contrary evidence to theism though - but I'm guessing you'll retract that and say instead that there's no evidence supporting theism.

The complete lack of any robust evidence supporting your masturbation fantasy is evidence contrary to theism. Not proof, but evidence. Further, that the vast majority of claims erected by the credulous in support of their fantasies have been comprehensively eviscerated by paying attention to reality renders the remainder of those bullshit claims shaky in the extreme. Not to mention that many of these claims are completely untestable, meaning that they still amount to no more than arguments from ignorance. Not that that surprises anybody here, given the level of ignorance displayed by the various propagandists for these puerile wibblings.

We've discussed the evidence a number of times before, and as I remember, last time it ended with red herrings about quantum indeterminacy and virtual particles - would you like to pick up where we left off?

Utter shit. You have never once presented any evidence in support of your stellar pervert.

What's your moral authority? And don't say yourself - you can't issue a moral law to yourself, I don't care what Kant says.

On the contrary. I am my moral authority, and the only moral authority I recognise.

You seem to know quite a bit about my motives. Maybe you've got some kind of critically rigorous, robust, "insert honorific adjective," reproducible evidence that I'm dishonest?

Which part of 'the god-goggles stifle honest enquiry' are you struggling with?

:lol: no you don't take the question seriously at all.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. I take the question very seriously. It's your bullshit answers I can't take seriously, extracted as they are from your anus.

You must have missed it.

Then point it out to me.

And excuse the tu quoque, but you're entire post has consisted of nothing but assertion (albeit colorful and entertaining).

My assertions are supported by your entire posting history, which consists of nothing more than very weak apologetics and arguments from abject ignorance, with liberal doses of word-salad.