Delicate Offers a Truce

[Cato]

You're still cordially invited to fuck off.

[Athene]

There are places where the caliber of atheist thought is more sophisticated. There the positive case is more cost-effective to make.

Why don't you go there, then?

[Delicate]

You're still working on the assumption that I want to prove theism.

I don't.

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.

You don't get it, do you? The only claim most atheists make is that they are unaware of any god and are unimpressed by theists' "evidence" and arguments. All you've proven is that you don't listen.

And you claim that your unimpressed stance is rationally warranted right?

[Excited Penguin]

If you can't prove theism, then you didn't disprove atheism, so to speak. Atheism means not believing in Gods. You can only "dispel" atheism by convincing all atheists that God exists. If you can't convince me that God exists, then you didn't do a damn thing to atheism, even if I were the only atheist in the world.

Not necessarily, because I see two distinct projects: refuting objections to theism and making arguments for theism.

One is a negative project another is positive.

And frankly, the positive case requires far more background work, especially given that many people here aren't even capable of rational responses, and I mean that as a matter of fact, not an insult.

There are places where the caliber of atheist thought is more sophisticated. There the positive case is more cost-effective to make.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're simply a product of bad, outdated philosophy. I know you're sincere, but you're simply wrong as a matter of fact. And you don't get to redefine terms to suit your case whenever you want it too. You can't provide any evidence or sound reasoning for your god's existence, and that's that. There's literally nothing more to it.

[Delicate]

Let's talk about a specific case. Pick your favorite.

Stop trying to turn the tables, this reversal trick you keep trying is incredibly annoying. Either pick an existing claim from an atheist and attempt to disprove it(Which still wouldn't make your belief any more valid), or try to prove your own claim, the fact that you keep dodging this evidence of god being asked for repeatedly is starting to unveil the curtains in to your insecurity about the authenticity and validity it has in the first place.

Well you claim you have valid objections to theistic arguments. I want to see your objections. Any objection to any argument.

Then I can either admit it's successful, or refute it.

Without you being able to provide an objection, we can't have a conversation.

[Nay_Sayer]

Not necessarily, because I see two distinct projects: refuting objections to theism and making arguments for theism.

One is a negative project another is positive.

And frankly, the positive case requires far more background work, especially given that many people here aren't even capable of rational responses, and I mean that as a matter of fact, not an insult.

There are places where the caliber of atheist thought is more sophisticated. There the positive case is more cost-effective to make.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're simply a product of bad, outdated philosophy. I know you're sincere, but you're simply wrong as a matter of fact. And you don't get to redefine terms to suit your case whenever you want it too. You can't provide any evidence or sound reasoning for your god's existence, and that's that. There's literally nothing more to it.

[Delicate]

There are places where the caliber of atheist thought is more sophisticated. There the positive case is more cost-effective to make.

Why don't you go there, then?

Who says I don't?

[Delicate]

Not necessarily, because I see two distinct projects: refuting objections to theism and making arguments for theism.

One is a negative project another is positive.

And frankly, the positive case requires far more background work, especially given that many people here aren't even capable of rational responses, and I mean that as a matter of fact, not an insult.

There are places where the caliber of atheist thought is more sophisticated. There the positive case is more cost-effective to make.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're simply a product of bad, outdated philosophy. I know you're sincere, but you're simply wrong as a matter of fact. And you don't get to redefine terms to suit your case whenever you want it too. You can't provide any evidence or sound reasoning for your god's existence, and that's that. There's literally nothing more to it.

Can you point to where, specifically I'm wrong and why?

[Excited Penguin]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're simply a product of bad, outdated philosophy. I know you're sincere, but you're simply wrong as a matter of fact. And you don't get to redefine terms to suit your case whenever you want it too. You can't provide any evidence or sound reasoning for your god's existence, and that's that. There's literally nothing more to it.

Can you point to where, specifically I'm wrong and why?

Everywhere, duh.

[Excited Penguin]

As for why, pfff, man, I have no fucking idea why you're so messed up.