A good case against God

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You haven't? Then take that "Protestant x-tard" off your title. But you have attempted to defend the preposterous kalaam argument, which is a claim of your sky fairy. Your "pragmatism" claim coming back to bite you in the ass, you know. And I have said "you" in the plural, meaning ALL of you idiots who claim a sky fairy have failed to present a shred of evidence to support it.

Just because I identify as Protestant doesn't mean that I'm advancing the claim that Protestant is true in this thread.

Again, asshole: "You -plural".

And I never defended the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. All I did was ask you where Harris addressed it, and apparently that was too challenging for you.

And like I said: You see his lips moving.

[quoet]My "Pragmatism" claim was just a bit of trivia about what a Pragmatist might say about what it means to affirm or deny a belief. Since I'm not even a Pragmatist, I'm not sure how that can "bite me in the ass".[/quote]

Yes, it was simply you playing armchair asshole philosopher, trying to make yourself look not as fucking dumb as you are. Lot of good that did you.

You cannot claim to have provided a shred of evidence.

True. But I have advanced no claims that require me to.

You -- plural.

"YOU" = You fucktard xturds. NO more shell games, Miss Priss.

Not being a "fucktard xturd", I do not fall within the scope of your claim.

Yhat would be "christian" in your vernacular. All three apply to you.

I have pointed out that you xtards have failed to meet your burden of proof.

Then it seems we're in the same unsupported-claim boat, since you have continued in your refusal to support your own assertions.

Nice wishful thinking there, Miss Priss.

Are you REALLY still squealing about that, Miss Priss?

Are you still failing?

In other words, yes you are.

Note: that's rhetorical. You are still failing.

Wishful thinking.

For which you xtards have provided not a shred of evidence.

A claim that I have not disputed. Why are you bringing it up to me? It's irrelevant to my argument.

Still the fucking backward idiot child I see.

You haven't in the course of human history. Go on, then, trot out your big Nasty.

"You have not done X" and "You cannot do X" are very different claims. Do I need to explain the difference?

NO you don't. I said the first. the second is your own straw man.

Your extraordinary claim of a big Sky Daddy required extraordinary evidence. Of which you have not provided a shred in the entire course of human history.

Well, to be fair I've only been alive for a very small portion of that history. But again, this isn't a claim that I've disputed, and in fact this claim is irrelevant to my argument. So it's a red herring to bring it up.[/quoet]

Not at all.

Fucking liar. Cite where I said "impossible". I said you assholes have not provided any evidence. All of this bullshit is simply you squirming to dodge your burden of proof.

Okay:

Here is my argument: Your god is a superstitious fucking fairy tale, and you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not.

Show me where I said "impossible"

If I can't produce any evidence to prove that God isn't a "superstitious fucking fairy tale", then it is impossible for me to produce such evidence.

QED, bitch.

That is not necessarily so, bitch. Perhaps in some future time you might come to be able to, for example. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, since you assholes haven't in the last two or three thousand years.

Again: you have been wanking away at a straw man of your own making. What an asshole.