A good case against God

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

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.

Lovely straw man. It goes up your ass too. I didn't say "PROOF". I said "EVIDENCE". figures you don't know what the fucking difference is.

If we're going to accept bald assertions of fact without support--like "You cannot provide a shred of evidence that God exists",

That is not a bald assertion without support. That is pointing out that you and every other christard in the history of the world has failed to meet your burden of proof.

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.

You are wearing out the wheels on your goalpost there, Miss Priss.

---

[quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='305676' dateline='1341417569']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.

And yet it gets your little panties all in a bunch anyway. Back to the Kiddie Pool, Miss Priss.

[quote]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.[/quote]

DILLIGAF?

[quote]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.[/quoet]


Go ahead, if you like. I note your attempt to dodge the inherent special pleading fallacy in the kalaam.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I find it lovely. Again you have nothing else to argue with, so you cry like a scalded bitch over colorful language. How fucking puerile.

[quote]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?[/quote]

You christards HAVE NOT provided a shred of evidence to support your claim. We know all about logical fallacies. And we know a fucktard xtian trying to play a shell game and dodge its burden of proof when we see one.

[quote]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.[/quote]

What we are unwilling to do is to allow you to shift your burden of proof.

[quote]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.[/quote]


Look, asshole. You claim your sky fairy exists. Show it to us and make believers of us Put The Fuck Up Or Shut The Fuck Up.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

My assertion is that you have not provided any evidence whatsoever. Show me where you have and you shut me up for good.

Good luck with that.


Oh, yeah -- you already admitted you have no evidence.

/thread