Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

I mean clearly u have some idea of this 'god' or u wouldn't have so quickly answered. See what i mean? Entrapment bro.

I appreciate the warning, but it's probably an exaggeration to say that Skepdick is a halfwit.

Doesn't matter if I am a half; or a quarterwit. Seems I am the unit of wit in this conversation. And you are a fraction thereof.

[Will Bouwman]

Duh! Asking you to prove your claim is not the same as rejecting it.

There's two kinds of rejection dummy.

Ha! I am not rejecting your claim. As it happens I think it is probably true, the point is you can't prove it.

[Skepdick]

Ha! I am not rejecting your claim. As it happens I think it is probably true, the point is you can't prove it.

That depends on what you would accept (if anything) as proof of impossibility.

If your answer is "nothing" apriori then yeah, I can't prove it to you...That's the epitome of dogma. No amount of evidence can overturn a dogmatic premise.

Funny thing though...If you accept the premise as true (which makes the argument sound in your view), why do you reject the conclusion?

[Will Bouwman]

Funny thing though...If you accept the premise as true (which makes the argument sound in your view), why do you reject the conclusion?

The argument isn't even valid, but other than the fact that therefore it's not really a conclusion, what makes you think I reject the conclusion? You're a computer scientist you say. Do any of the computers you play with ever work again?

[Skepdick]

Funny thing though...If you accept the premise as true (which makes the argument sound in your view), why do you reject the conclusion?

The argument isn't even valid

That's also one of those counter-example requiring claims

Please provide it.

Give me an example where the premises are true but the conclusion is none the less, false

but other than the fact that therefore it's not really a conclusion, what makes you think I reject the conclusion?

Yeah, your on-going refusal to accept it. As well as nit-picking the soundness and validity of the argument.

But most of all, the fact that you haven't said "Yeah, that's true" or something to that effect.

You're a computer scientist you say. Do any of the computers you play with ever work again?

Funny you should ask.. The halting problem being such a big deal in computer science, some times computers don't halt for a very long time so it's a little bit tricky proving the liveness property of the system.

Some times they are just stuck in a loop - not making any progress.

Like fucking philosophers.

[Atla]

Funny thing though...If you accept the premise as true (which makes the argument sound in your view), why do you reject the conclusion?

The argument isn't even valid

That's also one of those counter-example requiring claims

Please provide it.

Give me an example where the premises are true but the conclusion is none the less, false

but other than the fact that therefore it's not really a conclusion, what makes you think I reject the conclusion?

Yeah, your on-going refusal to accept it. As well as nit-picking the soundness and validity of the argument.

But most of all, the fact that you haven't said "Yeah, that's true" or something to that effect.

You're a computer scientist you say. Do any of the computers you play with ever work again?

Funny you should ask.. The halting problem being such a big deal in computer science, some times computers don't halt for a very long time so it's a little bit tricky proving the liveness property of the system.

Some times they are just stuck in a loop - not making any progress.

Like fucking philosophers.

Hmm looks like you collected a lot of attention with your thread. Good for you

[Skepdick]

Hmm looks like you collected a lot of attention with your thread. Good for you

Yep! It's all in the wank bank. I'll use it on the weekend.

[Sculptor]

Follow your own advice, cupcake: Learn to read, then fuck off.

I have no idea what the premise of atheism is, nor do I care to know - I am not the one talking about it.

Most likely it has no premise - it's probably just a knee-jerk position lacking any logical aforethought.

THis shows what a fucking lightweight you are
you said

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:30 pm
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:25 pm
...you still live with your mother.
The premise is unsound. Just like atheism

If you are too stupid to know what the premise is then you are not clever enough to know the premise is "UNSOUND"

This is why you avoided the question "what is the premise of atheism" becuase you are a dumb fuck

I am repeating myself. Learn to read, then fuck off.

I said atheism is unsound.
I didn't say the premise of atheism is unsound.

unsound /ʌnˈsaʊnd/ adjective not based on sound or reliable evidence or reasoning.

If you (as an atheists) don't know what the premises of your atheism are then you are absolutely affirming the unsoundness of your atheism!

Atheism has no premise.

[Skepdick]

Atheism has no premise.

That's what I fucking said!

Learn to read, then fuck off.

Most likely it has no premise - it's probably just a knee-jerk position lacking any logical aforethought.

And since you agree and understand THAT atheism has no premise, then you should also understand why I characterised atheism as "unsound". Which it is!

unsound /ʌnˈsaʊnd/ adjective not based on sound or reliable evidence or reasoning.

[Sculptor]

Atheism has no premise.

That's what I fucking said!

No. You said the premise was unsound.

[Skepdick]

Atheism has no premise.

That's what I fucking said!

No. You said the premise was unsound.

No, I didn't you fucking imbecille.

Learn to read.

[Sculptor]

That's what I fucking said!

And I told you where morals came from.

[Skepdick]

That's what I fucking said!

And I told you where morals came from.

I know. The source of morals you described is NOT natual.

Which is precisely what my argument concludes. Q.E.D!

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

[LuckyR]

That's what I fucking said!

And I told you where morals came from.

I know. The source of morals you described is NOT natual.

Which is precisely what my argument concludes. Q.E.D!

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

... Uummm... it's "derive", just sayin'...

[Skepdick]

And I told you where morals came from.

I know. The source of morals you described is NOT natual.

Which is precisely what my argument concludes. Q.E.D!

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

... Uummm... it's "derive", just sayin'...

Is the extra "r" all you could find wrong?