Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Actually I don't 'deny' god's existence, I simply don't believe he exists. I lack belief in god. Can't deny something you don't believe exists.

Do you act as though there's no God? If so, then under Pragmatism you do deny the existence of God.

Lovely bit of semantic prestidigitation there. Has anyone here claimed to subscribe to your straw man of Pragmatism?

I just love asswipe armchair philosophers.

It in no way demonstrates the existence of a god.

Now that's interesting. Care to explain?

Pretty self-explanatory. Except for willfully ignorant retards.

Well if things can be explained without the need for a god and in which case would be more credible then that's that. A god isn't required to answer why or how. Before you add god into the equation you must first demonstrate god's existence. A does not prove B without first proving A.

Simples.

Almost none of that made sense.

To you, anyway -- but that is the product of your own willful ignorance.
[quoye]
"Before you add god into the equation you must first demonstrate god's existence"? So you can't even hypothetically consider what 'adding God into the equation' does until you've proved that God, in fact, exists?[/quote]

Correct.

[quite]"A does not prove B without first proving A." This makes zero sense to me. [/quote]

Fallacious appeal to personpersonal incredulity. You simply refuse to accept reality.

Do you mean that you need to know both "A is true" and "A implies B" in order to know "B is true"--that is, "A implies B" doesn't prove B unless you prove that A also holds?

It means d that if you cannot demonstrate that A is true, your argument is invalid. This is basic stuff here. No surprise that it is foreign to you.