(July 3, 2012 at 8:51 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: Are you implying that my logic is incorrect as I haven't reached your conclusion?

No, I believe he's implying that you haven't demonstrated the use of logic in this thread. Plenty of assertions and strawmen but I haven't seen anything approximating a logical argument yet.

How would you propose I combine these assertions (disregard whatever straw men I have made) into something which you would accept as logical, and still make the same point?

You've made a point? When was that?

I have an idea: You could start by BEING logical. But, really, from your OP here, I'm not expecting much. I am actually not expecting anything. I'm expecting a load of more bullshit spewing, littered liberally with some statements of "OH I DISAGREE SO YOU SAY I'M ILLOGICAL, I SEE HOW IT IS!" Reality-check, fuckface: Few of us here actually see eye-to-eye on much more than just the concept of there being no Abrahamic god, and yet we all have intellectual discourse quite easily. Conversation threads on here can run on for 20+ pages worth on a single topic between individuals all disagreeing and yet none of us ever pull the "YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME, AND THAT'S WHY YOU SAY I'M NOT LOGICAL!" bullshit. Only the stupid twits who barely squeaked through high school by the skin of their D average grade ever use such tripe.

Take your trolling bullshit and begone, you fucking moron. You have nothing to add on a level of intellectual or philosophical discourse, clearly, and your only purpose here is to incite. Congratulations; you can piss people off. Get this, numbnuts, EVERYONE can do it, but for the most part, we all got out of high school years ago and realized how absurdly immature such activities are. Clearly you're still stuck in that high school mentality; HILARIOUS given your early condescending claims. Get the fuck out, kid.

(July 3, 2012 at 9:27 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Few of us here actually see eye-to-eye on much more than just the concept of there being no Abrahamic god

You are quite wrong about that, of course.

---

(July 3, 2012 at 9:09 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: How would you propose I combine these assertions (disregard whatever straw men I have made) into something which you would accept as logical, and still make the same point?

You might consider starting here.

(July 3, 2012 at 9:09 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: How would you propose I combine these assertions (disregard whatever straw men I have made) into something which you would accept as logical, and still make the same point?

I recommend suicide.

You haven't asserted anything BUT straw men.

---

(July 3, 2012 at 4:48 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: I am actually agnostic, each time I dare to question any atheist perspective i get bombarded with the inevitable "he must be religious". So I just thought I'd take the piss and say I'm a creationist, seemingly this joke was lost.

Which is confirmation that you are a fucking lying fucking troll, and nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Quote:Ok you got me, i shall leave with my tail between my legs.

---

(July 3, 2012 at 5:18 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: Meh I'll change my answer.

More proof that you are a lying troll.

Quote:You may base your atheism solely on theism, I base my agnosticism on not knowing WILLFUL IGNORANCE. Two different things.

fixed that for ya.

---

(July 3, 2012 at 5:55 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote:

(July 3, 2012 at 5:52 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Did you know that 'atheism' means 'without' 'theism'? A = without. Theist = belief in god, A-theist = Without belief in god.

Just thought you should know.

Yeah I know. You're welcome to get hung up on definitions, it holds no practical relevance for me.

Yeah. Like the definition of science.

in other words, you are a pathological liar.

---

(July 3, 2012 at 6:12 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: It doesn't take much to amuse you. I can only guess as you're all over my perspective it's funny for you.

I find your perspective limited, but not funny at all.

Let's see: Wasn't it Xenophilius Lovegood who said that? Yes, he was talking about the existence of Crumple-Horned Snorkacks....

---

(July 3, 2012 at 6:27 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: By "ground" you mean solely depending on science to answer the question. It's self-refuting and circular.

It is clear to anyone who can rub two brain cells together that you wouldn't know self-refuting and circular if it bent you over and fucked you in the ass.

---

(July 3, 2012 at 6:41 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: Feel welcome to retort or let me in on the joke.

See my last comment. Thanks for confirming it.

Quote: I'd be surprised if you can as it tends to be those of a certain belief set who can rationalise it (for what they deem to be suitable level) or find it funny.

Atheism is not a belief. FAIL.

Quote:Atheists tend to be like theists in how they approach any opposition, as they're both lucky enough to hold the 'truth'.

Except atheists do not base their lives on superstitions and fairy tales. Big difference. Sad you can't tell it.

---

(July 3, 2012 at 6:57 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote:

(July 3, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Skepsis Wrote: Ok, you don't know. Neither do I.
What do you believe?
That is what defines you as an atheist or a theist.
As theist/atheist is a true dichotomy, you must by logical necessity be one or the other. Trying to shirk this off is... silly.

Not at all. I don't believe or disbelieve, as I have no reason to justify either. Can I say I 50% believe and 50% disbelieve?

So you accept superstitions and fairy tales just as much as you claim to accept what can be demonstrated to be true.

Sorry, that still makes you a complete idiot.

I thought I made the point in my first post. Happy to revisit it.

The number of atheists who view science has disproved the need for a god/creator, as:

1. the total energy in the universe is equal to zero and that:
2. causaltiy is dismised due to the big bang creating time, therefore, causality is only required up to the big bang.

Therefore, no god is required.

So, if these really are the primary scientific points used to disprove a god, I think the atheist would either need to outline specifically why they place so much significane on these points I.e the relevance of the the total amount of energy amassing to 0, and causality being dismissed, (but allowing the invocation of imaginery time) to eluciate their position. The dismissal of a creator by Stehphen Hawkins is not scientifically based, it's based on his belief, yet it's confused as science not what it actually is, the metaphsycial belief of a scientist, nothing more.

So many atheists believe I'm attacking science, i'm not, I'm attacking their use of science to disprove something it has not. If atheists didn't attempt to hijack science as a some sort of atheistic expression, then criticise those who disagreed as being against science, I wouldn't have a problem.

All I require is the admission form atheists that their position is a valid as any, and not take a such a self-righteous tone (which has become a religious tone)

You. Really. Don't. Get. It.

'Taqiyya Mockingbird'

You seem so angry. I find your perspective retarded as well, but I'm not going to respond to each of your posts as I'm fully aware of the futility of it.

At least you can get it off your chest so someone in the real world doesn't have to get bear the brunt of it.

---

(July 3, 2012 at 10:18 pm)Epimethean Wrote: You. Really. Don't. Get. It.

Unless you tell me what you think, how would I get it?.

You haven't responded to anyone's posts with anything remotely approaching a cogent system of logic or anything resembling a thesis that has any meaning.