(September 28, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Jiggerj Wrote: And, 'ain't' wasn't acceptable when I was a kid.

It still is not.

(September 28, 2013 at 2:20 pm)Big Blue Sky Wrote: fuck it an argument is an argument even if its an poor one it's still better than being quite.And even if it's an stupid argument you didn't write anything back on what can you say to disprove this argumetn.You only seem to know how to bitch about my grammar.

A bad argument is a bad argument and doesn't do anyone any good.

OK, constructive criticism.

And I could care less about your grammar, as long as the argument is understandable.

Quote:Does god know the felling of shooting an hooker then sniffing coke from her tits then rape and kill some innocent people? If so he is evil and he does not exists.

This mess of an argument has the following fallacy:

Non-sequitur: Your conclusion, 'does not exist' does not follow from your premises.

If a god knows how those things feel, then he\she\it could be evil. But a god that has the attribute of being evil still exists.

The syllogism looks like this:

Premise 1: If an omniscient god exists, he would know how it feels to do evil actions
Premise 2; therefore he is evil
Conclusion: Therefore he does not exist

I believe it may also be guilty of the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, but it's a little hard to decipher and it's not worth the time.

Quote:If he doesn't know that,he is not all knowing and therefor he does not exists.

Your second argument is no better.

Premise 1: If god does not know how it feels to do evil
Premise 2: Then he is not omniscient.
Conclusion: Therefore god does not exist

Again, just because a god does not have the attribute of being omniscient, does not mean he doesn't exist. He\she\it is just lacking that attribute.

Maybe the Christian you shutted up has a decent grasp of logic and didn't want to waste his time dissecting you poor arguments.

Does the atheist know what manure tastes like?

No. Well in that case they have no rational basis to claim it tastes bad.
Yes. Well in that case they must be insane to eat fecal matter.

Atheists dont be needed to shutting up of the mouth but is should not be talk with a mouth full.

(September 28, 2013 at 5:41 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: No. Well in that case they have no rational basis to claim it tastes bad.
Yes. Well in that case they must be insane to eat fecal matter.

In the "yes" instance, an atheist bothered to find out so that he wasn't making unfounded assertions. You know, like a true atheist would do.

Once again a discussion about dialogue with xtians devolves into eating shit. Now, once could be an amusing coincidence, but I'm starting to think something subconscious is going on.

I blame the True Atheists™ .

(September 28, 2013 at 5:48 pm)Heir Apparent Wrote:

(September 28, 2013 at 5:41 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: No. Well in that case they have no rational basis to claim it tastes bad.
Yes. Well in that case they must be insane to eat fecal matter.

In the "yes" instance, an atheist bothered to find out so that he wasn't making unfounded assertions. You know, like a true atheist would do.

"He"?
Why are male atheists so adventurous in their tastes?

(September 28, 2013 at 9:09 pm)catfish Wrote: I blame the True Atheists™ .

You'll notice it's not atheists who keep bringing up the 'eating shit' topic.

(September 28, 2013 at 5:41 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Does the atheist know what manure tastes like?

No. Well in that case they have no rational basis to claim it tastes bad.
Yes. Well in that case they must be insane to eat fecal matter.

Atheists dont be needed to shutting up of the mouth but is should not be talk with a mouth full.

Atheists are infallible omniscient beings? Who knew?

This thread needs to die. Reading the title gives me a headache.