Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Usually in discussions such as this, statements like your first one above is something that would be supported by the person making it. Why would you claim you can demonstrate it, then claim a few posts later that you didn't post anything that needed supporting?

What do I want you to defend? Your claim that you can support your beliefs in a nonobjective manner.

Well that's weird because I actually answered the question in that original statement.

http://youtu.be/EIRMEk71Vb4

[Simon Moon]

Fr0d0, I don't see why you even bother elaborating. It has to be obvious by now that we're all intentionally ignoring your arguments because we don't want to accept your position. You might as well be talking to Bart Simspon's butt.

It's not that I don't want to accept his position. It's that he has not offered any evident or reasoned justification for his position.

I don't believe or disbelieve propositions because I want or don't want to. If someone is able to support their position, I am compelled to accept it.

[Ryantology]

Straw man again.

I'm saying the opposite.

"We call what cannot be faulted knowledge. If you can't fault a premise, then you can build on that premise, as long as it stands unrefuted."

The alleged 'straw man' is simply a different way of describing that first sentence. You do consider "assertions which cannot be tested" valid knowledge. Someone else even bolded it above my post. That's why it caught my attention. It is a bold and proud declaration of cognitive failure.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Straw man again.

I'm saying the opposite.

[fr0d0]

(Yesterday 16:26)fr0d0 Wrote:
Straw man again.

I'm saying the opposite.

"We call what cannot be faulted knowledge. If you can't fault a premise, then you can build on that premise, as long as it stands unrefuted."

The alleged 'straw man' is simply a different way of describing that first sentence. You do consider "assertions which cannot be tested" valid knowledge. Someone else even bolded it above my post. That's why it caught my attention. It is a bold and proud declaration of cognitive failure.

And so it boils down to you not bothering to read.

Nice.

I expected no more.

I'm tired of you clowns.

Summon me when you think of something interesting to say.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So no response other than claiming you already responded?

No glitter for you! And you better pick up the macaroni and clean up that glue before it dries, mister, or no more construction paper for you!

[The Reality Salesman01]

There is no try

There is only do or do not...

[Coffee Jesus]

And so it boils down to you not bothering to read.

Nice.

I expected no more.

I'm tired of you clowns.

Summon me when you think of something interesting to say.

Could you please elaborate on your disapproval of us?

[Ryantology]

(Yesterday 16:26)fr0d0 Wrote:
Straw man again.

I'm saying the opposite.

"We call what cannot be faulted knowledge. If you can't fault a premise, then you can build on that premise, as long as it stands unrefuted."

The alleged 'straw man' is simply a different way of describing that first sentence. You do consider "assertions which cannot be tested" valid knowledge. Someone else even bolded it above my post. That's why it caught my attention. It is a bold and proud declaration of cognitive failure.

And so it boils down to you not bothering to read.

Nice.

I expected no more.

I'm tired of you clowns.

Summon me when you think of something interesting to say.

"We call what cannot be faulted knowledge".

You do, because that way you can lie and invent and basically make up whatever the fuck you want and never have to worry about it being debunked. And you do it because you know it would be if you didn't. Because you're a dishonest and fraudulent piece of shit.

If it can be faulted, but isn't, it is knowledge. If it can't be faulted, it's pointless babble. Like pretty much everything you say. So follow through on your threat and just fuck off.

[Rampant.A.I.]