A good case against God

[CliveStaples]

Nonsense. I'm talking directly to you.

Provide evidence that your god exists and we can move on from there. If you cannot provide evidence, that we all have as much reason to agree with Taq re: you being unable to provide evidence.

I say I can fly around the earth in 2 seconds akin to that of superman. I don't provide evidence for it, but we get into discussions about how you not being able to refute my claim leads you to have no argument against my proposition. Absurd, no?

I find it ironic that you would post a WIKI link on an argument from ignorance as well...

Bullshit. I'm not making an argument from ignorance.

Here's the argument I'm criticizing:

"You cannot provide a shred of proof to support the existence of God."

Here's my counter:

"How do you know that's true? What is your support for your claim?"

Here's your counter to my counter:

"Provide your proof and we'll know that his claim was false."


Here's what an argument from ignorance is (from the wiki link):

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa).

If you claim that X is true, I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to support your claim. This is Atheism 101.

If we're going to accept bald assertions of fact without support--like "You cannot provide a shred of evidence that God exists", or "You cannot rationally deny that God exists", or "Santa Claus exists"--then I will simply assert the negation of Taq's claim, "I can provide a shred of evidence that God exists". Since my claim and his claim have equal support at this point--zero--our conclusions have equal weight, and we are left at an impasse. That's why it's unproductive to accept bald assertions.

---

If your pansy ass can't handle adult language, I suggest you avoid web sites and forums where adults are present.

"Adult language"? This is high school crap. Hitchens insulted with adult language. You're more like Jersey Shore.

Did I claim to subscribe to Harris' vision of a "moral landscape" Stuff yoru straw man up your ass and light it on fire.

I never said that you subscribed to Harris's vision of a "moral landscape". Where are you getting this??? I was just telling you that I didn't see where Harris addressed the KCA, and gave what I thought were enough details to show that I actually bothered to watch some of the video.

i watched it the day it came out, fuckwit. All anyone needs to point out about kalaam is that it is built entirely upon a special pleading fallacy.

...so you don't know where Harris addresses the KCA, then? Guess we can just dispose of your claim, then.

i have known it for quite some time. It is interesting and amusing to see you bleat about it like some prissy schoolgirl.

It's not that I'm offended by it. Well, actually I am, but not because it's obscene. It's because it's boring. And really, really lazy.

If you had a shred of evidence you would have already trotted it out in front of the cameras at fucking CNN.

That I lack evidence does not imply that it is impossible to provide such evidence. Don't you guys know about logical fallacies? How can you be atheists and be this ignorant?

Correction: because I can see through your pack of lies.

Clearly. That must be why you are unwilling to support any of your claims. That piercing insight.

You can show it to be a cheap rhetorical trick by trotting your fairy tale monster over to my house for a firsthand visit. Bring CNN.

...what?

It would be still be a cheap rhetorical trick even if its content were true. Saying "You should think that 1+1=2 because otherwise you hate America" is bullshit emotional manipulation, regardless of the fact that 1+1 really does equal 2.

Glad you finally got that figured out. Now run along back to the kiddie pool, little girl, the adults are having a conversation here.

Yeah, a conversation where you don't support any of your assertions. Less of a 'conversation' and more of a circle-jerk.