Posted: Mar 08, 2010 2:38 am
by Sween
hackenslash wrote:
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.


Demonstrate that claim to me a in rigorously robust style [/quote]

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

I don't know how that's done. All I can do as far as concepts go is give you a definition.

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.


Could you demonstrate in a critically robust fashion that you have a consciousness? Or that the external world exists? No

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?


I generally don't think of "objection" as synonymous with "opinion" or "assertion"

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


Way to miss the fucking point.


I suppose I would have missed the point even if it had hit me in the face with a big fucking fish

Nonetheless, I'm honest in my inquiries.


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


That's the thing young earther's have isn't it? That's not my view.

The complete lack of any robust evidence supporting your masturbation fantasy is evidence contrary to theism. Not proof, but evidence...Not to mention that many of these claims are completely untestable, meaning that they still amount to no more than arguments from ignorance.


Insofar as the assumption of theism would lead you to expect to find robust evidence, then yes it's evidence against theism. But since you say all of theism's claims are untestable, you would expect to find no robust evidence if it were true, in which case the lack of evidence (if there is such a lack) isn't evidence against theism.

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.


Sure, we were discussing the Kalam argument - that's evidence

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

But aren't you a determinist? (with respect to free will, not causality in general - I assume you don't think quantum indeterminacy is a means for freedom).

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?


I guess it's the part where you stated a claim without any support. I want to see some evidence for that.

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.[/quote][/quote]

If that constitutes robust evidence, then I've got all kinds of support for theism.