Atheism is unreasonable

[pocaracas]

@Madge:

I'm not sure he'll understand that you're referring to him.
Try this:
@His Majesty: "serious question, if you'll indulge. What is science to you? What do you think it means, how does it work, how do you recognise what is science and what isn't? Thanks."

[Cyberman]

Ok, let's go with that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A laughable misunderstanding of the sequence of events.

You don't even know -- or you deliberately chose to ignore -- the standard format for debate.

Tell us again how educated you are.

Actually, both. Before the fight I was prepared for an all out war...I was preparing to punch, kick, elbow, hit with chairs, poles, and bats...but instead I get a referee in the ring telling me that elbows, chairs, poles, and bats are prohibited...I can only punch

It is ok, tho..he can get intellectually owned on the threads.

You let me know how that works out for you, Hoss. Link to updates in this thread, there's a good lad.

[abaris]

Ok, let's go with that.

Wouldn't hold my breath though. Science seems an utterly alien concept to him.

And I can only reapeat what I alreay said. He's fundamentally boring. Not because of the stupid things he said, but because these stupid things aren't even remotely novel.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Even though the bulk of your post is bio-babble, I appreciate you correcting Esquilax on his bullcrap...he thinks he knows everything and is apparently a fan favorite on this forum...so to see someone besides me correct him, it gives me great pleasure

This isn't the Bible; no cherry-picking allowed.

[pocaracas]

Ok, let's go with that.

Wouldn't hold my breath though. Science seems an utterly alien concept to him.

And I can only reapeat what I alreay said. He's fundamentally boring. Not because of the stupid things he said, but because these stupid things aren't even remotely novel.

Now, you've reminded me of something I quoted a while back ago in this thread:https://atheistforums.org/thread-29068.html

THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM.
[NOTE -- The Necessity of Atheism was published by Shelley in 1811.]

A CLOSE examination of the validity of the proofs adduced to support any proposition, has ever been allowed to be the only sure way of attaining truth, upon the advantages of which it is unnecessary to descant; our knowledge of the existence of a Deity is a subject of such importance, that it cannot be too minutely investigated; in consequence of this conviction, we proceed briefly and impartially to examine the proofs which have been adduced. It is necessary first to consider the nature of Belief.

When a proposition is offered to the mind, it perceives the agreement or disagreement of the ideas of which it is composed. A perception of their agreement is termed belief, many obstacles frequently prevent this perception from being immediate, these the mind attempts to remove in order that the perception may be distinct. The mind is active in the investigation, in order to perfect the state of perception which is passive; the investigation being confused with the perception has induced many falsely to imagine that the mind is active in belief, that belief is an act of volition, in consequence of which it may be regulated by the mind; pursuing, continuing this mistake they have attached a degree of criminality to disbelief of which in its nature it is incapable; it is equally so of merit.

The strength of belief like that of every other passion is in proportion to the degrees of excitement.

The degrees of excitement are three.

The senses are the sources of all knowledge to the mind, consequently their evidence claims the strongest assent.

The decision of the mind founded upon our own experience derived from these sources, claims the next degree.

The experience of others which addresses itself to the former one, occupies the lowest degree,--

Consequently no testimony can be admitted which is contrary to reason, reason is founded on the evidence of our senses.

Every proof may be referred to one of these three divisions; we are naturally led to consider what arguments we receive from each of them to convince us of the existence of a Deity.

Maybe his majesty would like to read what atheists in the 1800's wrote. I must say, they were much more eloquent than we can be in this forum.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't recall saying that God is infinite.

Lest we forget:

Um...of course you can't hide from something/someone that is omnipresent.

Classic opportunistic argumentation from an Internet Christian. You can't even keep track of what you're saying to folks, and so you talk out both sides of your mouth trying to "win" the discussion. You lack a coherent rational basis for your beliefs and as a result you aren't stopping to think about what you write, but rather only adopting the appearance of dicussion in order to talk and not listen.

I mean, you're not even listening to yourself, never mind anyone else.

---

Do you read anything at all before you disagree with it?

As I've just shown, he doesn't read what he himself posts, apparently.

I don't often argue for bannage, but I think the case has been strongly made that 1) this asshole isn't here for discussion, but preaching; 2) this asshole is as dishonest as the year is long; and 3) this asshole will probably sock up and earn the perma if you mods take this step.

[pocaracas]

We're calling for the hammer, now?
That's what they want. Let him break the rules first.... blatantly.

[abaris]

I don't often argue for bannage, but I think the case has been strongly made that 1) this asshole isn't here for discussion, but preaching; 2) this asshole is as dishonest as the year is long; and 3) this asshole will probably sock up and earn the perma if you mods take this step.

To quote Leonard Cohen. Punishing us with boredom is his major crime. Don't know if that's a banning offense.

[His_Majesty]

And I can only reapeat what I alreay said. He's fundamentally boring.

Yet you continually make posts on a thread that I started??? If I am so boring, stop posting in my threads. Plain and simple.

Not because of the stupid things he said, but because these stupid things aren't even remotely novel.

Yeah, I am saying stupid things, but everyone else on here is saying shit worthy of Nobel Prizes, huh?

That is a sarcastic laugh, as they all are.

---

Classic opportunistic argumentation from an Internet Christian. You can't even keep track of what you're saying to folks, and so you talk out both sides of your mouth trying to "win" the discussion. You lack a coherent rational basis for your beliefs and as a result you aren't stopping to think about what you write, but rather only adopting the appearance of dicussion in order to talk and not listen.

Looks like Columbo solved the crime, didn't he? You've got it all figured out, huh wise guy? Man please.

I mean, you're not even listening to yourself, never mind anyone else.

How the hell can I not listen to myself or anyone else when I am quoting what people are saying and responding to the quote???

Makes no sense.

As I've just shown, he doesn't read what he himself posts, apparently.

I don't often argue for bannage, but I think the case has been strongly made that 1) this asshole isn't here for discussion, but preaching; 2) this asshole is as dishonest as the year is long; and 3) this asshole will probably sock up and earn the perma if you mods take this step.

How many signatures do you expect to get for the "ban him" legislature to pass?