Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[objectivitees]

How could you not get that??

The grammar in your text does not allow for that interpretation.

You said: your view is irrational (or something similar to rhythm)

I said: No more than your's.

You somehow conclude that I think that the grape jelly was more likely. You should read more carefully. Clearly says I think any theism is as likely or unlikely as grape jelly.

How fucking hard is that?

---

I was not defending rhythyms belief in jelly grape God, but ridiculing you belief that his belief is irrational, and yet you are a theist who's religion has no proof of anything it claims, just like rhythms.

You clearly cannot fathom the fact that your response was made in respect to my retort to another post, and carried with it a presupposition that my view is not irrational. If you then attack my retort by aligning with the original comment, contextual hermeneutics require that you be consistent with my presupposition. Since my presupposition was that my view is not irrational, your view accordingly must be expressed within that context and therefore aligned with the opposing theory, which in this case was "jelly created...", rationally implying you also believe in a creator. (jelly)

How stinking hard was that?

By the way... stop cussing, it makes it look like you don't have a valid argument.

[5thHorseman]

Firstly I'll cuss all I want, especially as your posts are quite rude and condescending.

Secondly, it's not personal, if you think it is, it isnt. I'm probably the friendliest atheist on here to the theists.

Thirdly, all I want to know, is why you think rhythms view is irrational. You said it was, so why is it. That's the reason I joined this thread. Otherwise I avoid this thread like the plague, unless statlers being a retard.

I hope that is easier to interpret.

[DeistPaladin]

Again guys, these Christians don't understand humor or parody. Don't tell them you're looking forward to how much fun Hell will be for the company or you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster causes Intelligent Falling. They'll think we're serious and try to debate that point. I don't know why they fail to detect sarcasm or parody when it's offered but there you go.

I'd like to get back to my request for his explanation of the Trinity. How can anything be three distinct separate persons and yet all be part of one being?

Anytime. Good luck.

[DeistPaladin]

Hello? Is this thing on? Come in, Objectivitiees, over.

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't realize he answered his own question does he?

[Statler Waldorf]

There's no Heaven or Hell, Statler. The evidence is what we know about the human brain.

You are going to present evidence proving a supernatural place does not exist? Please do, this should be entertaining.

Memory is stored and accessed in the brain.

So?

These memories can be lost if the brain is ever damaged by illness, injury or the wrong use of pharmaceuticals.

So?

What makes you even hope that when you die and the brain is destroyed completely that these memories will travel with your ghost to this other place?

I don’t know whether all of these memories travel with me or not, all I know is that I am given a glorified body and mind on the new heaven and new earth.

And why can't those suffering from Alzheimer's access these indestructible memories located in the spirit?

Sin.

Sorry to rain on your parade,

Don’t apologize, you did no such thing.

Christians, but we're been to the moon and back and planes travel through the clouds regularly. We haven't found an angel colonies yet. There just aint nothing "up there" but wisps of condensation, an occasional flock of birds and depending on where you stand, a few Russian astronauts.

You were seriously looking for Heaven in the clouds? You’re silly.

Sup Object, you could of course read through the pages of this thread for a fairly exhaustive list of problems with this sort of argument.

Sure, he could have looked for that list, but he would have never found it because it doesn’t exist. However, he could find some pretty good examples of Ryft laying waste to you all, I cherish those moments when the Law Enforcement Officer takes the time to deal death blows.

Again guys, these Christians don't understand humor or parody.

It’s more like Christians realize that an appeal to ridicule is nothing more than a logical fallacy, but hey if it really is all that ya got….

[The Grand Nudger]

When Ryft provides some justification for his assertions you'd have room to speak, fanboi. Ever wonder if he respects you and your arguments? Ask him sometime.

[Statler Waldorf]

When Ryft provides some justification for his assertions you'd have room to speak, fanboi.

I know his arguments tend to go over your head, but this is getting ridiculous.

Ever wonder if he respects you and your arguments?

Nope.

Ask him sometime.

Why would I? I have not wondered whether he does or not.

[DeistPaladin]

I don’t know whether all of these memories travel with me or not, all I know is that I am given a glorified body and mind on the new heaven and new earth.

And why can't those suffering from Alzheimer's access these indestructible memories located in the spirit?

Sin.

---

I know his arguments tend to go over your head, but this is getting ridiculous.

Oh we understand them just fine. The logical fallacy, I've learned, it called the bare assertion fallacy.

It's not sufficient to posit god exists and then use that assumption to prove something else. You have to provide evidence for your assertions before you can use them to prove anything else.

[objectivitees]

Doesn't realize he answered his own question does he?

Still avoiding the direct response eh?

Is ad hominem all you can do? Come on rhythm...you can provide a simple response to my question.

See, what you guys don't get is all knowledge begins with an axiom. Some axioms bear out reason upon examination, some don't. You have essentially claimed Presuppositional Apologetics cannot demonstrate that other belief systems are irrational. You threw in a bunch of humorous quips at it's expense, and hoped everyone would find them convincing.
(actually you aimed the quips at Christianity) I did not find them convincing, I found them to be ad hominem, though they were funny.

Again, do you have an actual argument? Just how is P.A. an inadequate method?

Why is a jelly creator more rational as an axiom than an intelligent being?