When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Cyberman]

Very true. I will just add for clarity that childish is distinct from child-like, with its implications of innocence and wide-eyed wonder. Childish just equates to throwing a tantrum when you can't have Skittles for dinner. Interesting how the more devout the person, the less inclined they seem to be to "put away childish things", isn't it?

[drfuzzy]

False. You've failed to comprehend the argument. The argument isn't just talking about some things, it talks about propositions specifically, and the widely held idea (held by many atheist philosophers) is that propositions depend on minds. 

You are an idiot. Really. 

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest. How can I take an idiot like you seriously after you don't even know how to read?

I made an 800 on the critical reading portion of the SAT and a 35 (out of 36) on the reading portion of the ACT when I was 17, so I'm fairly certain that it was not a failure of reading comprehension on my part. The arguments there are, simply, bad. I'm sorry you think those are good arguments; I would acknowledge them if they were, but truly, they're not-- those are comedy fodder to any philosophy professor on the planet, as Dr. Fuzzy already noted. Hurling insults my way doesn't change that.

But please, tell me more about how I'm stupid.  

Delicate actually thinks that believing in gawd makes a person superior.  Delicate doesn't need to pay attention to things like logic.  Delicate has an imaginary friend.  That makes Delicate better and smarter than all of us.   Delicate just gets off on insulting people . . . it feeds the enormous ego.  As I said in another post, trying to get ANY explanation past that mind-numbing fog is about as worthwhile as trying to nail jello to the wall.  You guys keep at it, I'm done.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Delicate actually thinks that believing in gawd makes a person superior.  Delicate doesn't need to pay attention to things like logic.  Delicate has an imaginary friend.  That makes Delicate better and smarter than all of us.   Delicate just gets off on insulting people . . . it feeds the enormous ego.  As I said in another post, trying to get ANY explanation past that mind-numbing fog is about as worthwhile as trying to nail jello to the wall.  You guys keep at it, I'm done.

You meant to say "I am of inferior intellect and know nothing about religion (despite working in a church), and so I will run away before the mighty genius of Holy Delicate.", I'm sure. Clearly.

[Crossless2.0]

I doubt Plantinga resorts to such behavior when arguing philosophy. Delicate is, quite simply, an asshole and no amount of his aping Plantinga's work (or supposedly following Jesus) is likely to change that.

Vinegar doesn't catch flies.

Or, as Grandma would have put it, fuck him.

[Cyberman]

Actually, vinegar catches more flies than just about anything else except shit. I wonder which we're supposed to swallow..?

[drfuzzy]

Delicate actually thinks that believing in gawd makes a person superior.  Delicate doesn't need to pay attention to things like logic.  Delicate has an imaginary friend.  That makes Delicate better and smarter than all of us.   Delicate just gets off on insulting people . . . it feeds the enormous ego.  As I said in another post, trying to get ANY explanation past that mind-numbing fog is about as worthwhile as trying to nail jello to the wall.  You guys keep at it, I'm done.

You meant to say "I am of inferior intellect and know nothing about religion (despite working in a church), and so I will run away before the mighty genius of Holy Delicate.", I'm sure. Clearly.

Oh yeah, that was it.  Right.      Thanks Rocket.

[Delicate]

False. You've failed to comprehend the argument. The argument isn't just talking about some things, it talks about propositions specifically, and the widely held idea (held by many atheist philosophers) is that propositions depend on minds. 

You are an idiot. Really. 

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest. How can I take an idiot like you seriously after you don't even know how to read?

I made an 800 on the critical reading portion of the SAT and a 35 (out of 36) on the reading portion of the ACT when I was 17, so I'm fairly certain that it was not a failure of reading comprehension on my part. The arguments there are, simply, bad. I'm sorry you think those are good arguments; I would acknowledge them if they were, but truly, they're not-- those are comedy fodder to any philosophy professor on the planet, as Dr. Fuzzy already noted. Hurling insults my way doesn't change that.

But please, tell me more about how I'm stupid.  

Between taking those tests and today, did you hit your head at some time?

How else can you expect to mischaracterize an argument so badly?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Just lucky, I suppose.

In my defense, I have half a dozen or so high speed crashes from my mid-20s, when I used to endurance race motorcycles.

And no, I didn't mischaracterize the arguments. I only simplified them for the sake of satire. I felt that's all they deserved. Despite my tone, I have read and familiarized myself with all of those arguments (and more), both while I was a Christian and after I left faith behind. As I said, it's possible to clean up a few of those into decent arguments--whoever wrote that needs a good editor--but the fact remains that none of those are proofs or even evidence for a deity.

[Esquilax]

Between taking those tests and today, did you hit your head at some time?

How else can you expect to mischaracterize an argument so badly?

So, like, can we ever expect you to understand the difference between an insult and an argument? Because grandstanding ad hominems do not a cogent point make.

[Nay_Sayer]

My question to the op is why they have not gotten with the one true religion yet. FSM is waiting but he grows impatient, Yes I'm being serious.