How are people like this getting elected?

[mysticjbyrd]

Ok, substantiate this claim.

You substantiate the claim that your religion is different. If you can't, thne you concede that they are the same.

No evidence = Same level of unsubstantiated claim = all religions

 

[buckshot24]

It's arrogant to think there won't be another civilization that exists within the vast universe over the lifetime of the universe.

Please provide the evidence for these alien races.

Near infinite universe over a near infinite time scale.

"So we really do not know if the universe is infinite at this point, but since the value is so close to flat, even if the universe is positively curved and finite, it would definitely be much much bigger than the observable universe."

What are you on about?

You have this backwards, you need to prove your religion is better, as you claim. The burden of proof is on you.

I haven't made that claim, you've made some claims and assumptions that all religions are equally just as likely as any other. How do you calculate this?

 

[fskimospy]

You substantiate the claim that your religion is different. If you can't, thne you concede that they are the same. No evidence = Same level of unsubstantiated claim = all religions

Yep, the null hypothesis is that there's no difference in evidence for various religions. If he wants to argue there is a difference the burden of proof is on him.

 

[buckshot24]

You substantiate the claim that your religion is different. If you can't, thne you concede that they are the same.

Wait a minute are you now saying that all religions are not only equally as likely to be true but are actually the same?

 

[buckshot24]

No evidence = Same level of unsubstantiated claim = all religions

Substantiate this claim.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Sorry, my friend, but this is what you said, and this is what I addressed:

"Your religion is 1 out of an infinite number created by mankind over the quarter million years or so we have.been around.

"Thus the probability you have chosen the correct one is 1/infinite =0"
​

That is wrong, plain and simple. It is a fallacy. I know you don't want to admit error, and perhaps you truly don't understand why, but it is wrong.

Perhaps you really meant, "There are a lot of different religions, and there's little chance Christianity is the only true one." That statement would be fine, a reasonable expression of opinion (an opinion I share, by the way). Nonetheless, it is NOT what you said. It is NOT what you asserted as fact. I am addressing what you said, not whatever you think you meant.

Would you like to recant your earlier statements, acknowledge your error, and rephrase your point? Until you do, BS24 will continue to justly dismiss your nonsense while ignoring those who've challenged him with meaningful arguments.

You have to be an agnostic that rejects atheism to argue semantics this much.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

Stars will burn out in about 100 trillion years.

So we really do not know if the universe is infinite at this point, but since the value is so close to flat, even if the universe is positively curved and finite, it would definitely be much much bigger than the observable universe.

I would call that near infinite....

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I haven't made that claim, you've made some claims and assumptions that all religions are equally just as likely as any other. How do you calculate this?

So is your belief superior!? If so, why?

100:1 you can't answer this question, because it would kill your fallacious argument of burden of proof.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm convinced. I am now going to support and vote for Bernie Sanders.

 

[buckshot24]

So is your belief superior!? If so, why?

I don't need to show this to know that your argument is crap.

100:1 you can't answer this question, because it would kill your fallacious argument of burden of proof.

I can but it has nothing to do with your ridiculous argument.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I don't need to show this to know that your argument is crap.
I can but it has nothing to do with your ridiculous argument.

So you failed.... You can't answer the question... I win! thx for playing

 

[Bowfinger]

His logic is crap, we agree 100% on that.

Yes we do.

If I was trolling I wouldn't block people, I'd welcome trolling more people, not less. When a person continually misinterprets my words and attacks that misinterpretation, I put them on ignore. When a person continually insults me personally, they are put on ignore.

It is telling that your reply ignores the most significant points of mine to fixate on one word: "trollish". "Engaging honestly"? Nada. "willing to engage -- on-topic and directly -- to those who challenge me"? It's as if those words aren't even there. "Trollish"? You launch a dishonest, semantics-based duhversion about how what you do isn't exactly trolling since you limit your replies ... to those who haven't nailed you into a corner. You create great volumes of noise while diligently avoiding anything of substance. It is yet another example of you engaging in bad faith.

I assure you that the list is real.
Again, your opinion. I'm not sure how many lies and insults I'm supposed to endure.

As many as you've earned. You reap what you sow. Take accountability for your behavior. If you cannot tolerate insults, stop engaging in behavior that deserves to be insulted.

 

[Bowfinger]

You have to be an agnostic that rejects atheism to argue semantics this much.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

Stars will burn out in about 100 trillion years.

So we really do not know if the universe is infinite at this point, but since the value is so close to flat, even if the universe is positively curved and finite, it would definitely be much much bigger than the observable universe.

I would call that near infinite....

This is like arguing with a small child who wants a candy bar before dinner. Your exact words: "infinite number created by mankind over the quarter million years or so".

Perhaps you really meant, "There are a lot of different religions, and there's little chance Christianity is the only true one." That statement would be fine, a reasonable expression of opinion (an opinion I share, by the way). Nonetheless, it is NOT what you said. It is NOT what you asserted as fact. I am addressing what you said, not whatever you think you meant.

Would you like to recant your earlier statements, acknowledge your error, and rephrase your point? Until you do, BS24 will continue to justly dismiss your nonsense while ignoring those who've challenged him with meaningful arguments.

 

[buckshot24]

It is telling that your reply ignores the most significant points of mine to fixate on one word: "trollish". "Engaging honestly"? Nada. "willing to engage -- on-topic and directly -- to those who challenge me"? It's as if those words aren't even there. "Trollish"? You launch a dishonest, semantics-based duhversion about how what you do isn't exactly trolling since you limit your replies ... to those who haven't nailed you into a corner. You create great volumes of noise while diligently avoiding anything of substance. It is yet another example of you engaging in bad faith.

How long must I be willing to engage when I find their comments dishonest? I am willing to engage but I will not do so endlessly while continually correcting lies about what I have said or enduring insults to me and my family.

As many as you've earned. You reap what you sow. Take accountability for your behavior. If you cannot tolerate insults, stop engaging in behavior that deserves to be insulted.

Sigh...

If one cannot control themselves enough to cut the insults and personal attacks then I will not, nor do I have any obligation, to continue to engage them. Life is too short.

 

[buckshot24]

So you failed.... You can't answer the question... I win! thx for playing

Can't isn't the same thing as won't. More failure.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

This is like arguing with a small child who wants a candy bar before dinner. Your exact words: "infinite number created by mankind over the quarter million years or so".

Perhaps you really meant, "There are a lot of different religions, and there's little chance Christianity is the only true one." That statement would be fine, a reasonable expression of opinion (an opinion I share, by the way). Nonetheless, it is NOT what you said. It is NOT what you asserted as fact. I am addressing what you said, not whatever you think you meant.

Would you like to recant your earlier statements, acknowledge your error, and rephrase your point? Until you do, BS24 will continue to justly dismiss your nonsense while ignoring those who've challenged him with meaningful arguments.

If it would make your ignorant ass feel better, I meant near near infinite, which I later clarified. It's easier to write 1/inf =0 than to say 1 over the sum of x, n = lifespan of human race, and x is a function of the number of religions created yearly. Which is impossible to solve, because we don't have the data.

You are so fucking stupid to argue semantics with me, and lose the debate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I good forum friend of mine from a long time ago had a saying:

"Atheists do not reject any god. They simply reject poor arguments in favor if his existence."

It must also be true, in the pursuit of intellectual integrity, that we should reject poor arguments against the existence of gods. I join Bowfinger in his criticisms of this particularly poor argument.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Can't isn't the same thing as won't. More failure.

It's effectively the same, because you admitted defeat by not answering.

I win.

Thx for playing

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How long must I be willing to engage when I find their comments dishonest? I am willing to engage but I will not do so endlessly while continually correcting lies about what I have said or enduring insults to me and my family.
Sigh...

If one cannot control themselves enough to cut the insults and personal attacks then I will not, nor do I have any obligation, to continue to engage them. Life is too short.

Grow up, pussy. You earned your treatment with your disingenuous behavior, so take your poor little me shtick and shove it in your ass.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I good forum friend of mine from a long time ago had a saying:

"Atheists do not reject any god. They simply reject poor arguments in favor if his existence."

It must also be true, in the pursuit of intellectual integrity, that we should reject poor arguments against the existence of gods. I join Bowfinger in his criticisms of this particularly poor argument.

Yet, another twat that offers no argument.

Premise: Some religious zealots believe the religion they were born into is the one true religion.
Premise: Religion is defined as supernatural beliefs involving deities. This includes people we would deem insane today.
Premise: Sentient beings can create religions.
Premise: The universe can support life for roughly another 100 trillion years. See source above.
Premise: The universe is infinite,or nearly so. See source above.
Premise: All unsubstantiated beliefs are equal. The belief Santa exists is equal in credibility, thus likelihood, as the belief the easter bunny exists.
Conclusion: When the universe is no longer capable of supporting life there will have been a near infinite number of religions created, perhaps infinite if the universe itself is infinite. Thus the probability of being born into the correct religion is zero, or so it close it doesn't matter.


Now, tell me the flaw in that argument, and I will give you ten forum cookies.

 

[buckshot24]

When CT, Bowfinger, Moonbeam, and buckshot24 blast your argument as ridiculous you know you've done something wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

It's effectively the same, because you admitted defeat by not answering.

I win.

Thx for playing

It is time for you to go on "The List". Goodbye.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

When CT, Bowfinger, Moonbeam, and buckshot24 blast your argument as ridiculous you know you've done something wrong.

You already lost, so be quiet.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yet, another twat that offers no argument.

Premise: Religious zealots believe the religion they were born into is the one true religion.

I do not accept this premise.

Premise: Religion is defined as supernatural beliefs involving deities.

I do not accept this premise.

Premise: All unsubstantiated beliefs are equal. The belief Santa exists is equal in credibility, thus likelihood, as the belief the easter bunny exists.

I do not accept this premise.

Conclusion: When the universe is no longer capable of supporting life there will have been a near infinite number of religions created, perhaps infinite if the universe itself is infinite. Thus the probability of being born into the correct religion is zero, or so it close it doesn't matter.

You do not appear to have a firm grasp on number theory at all.

Now, tell me the flaw in that argument, and I will give you ten forum cookies.

Your premises are unsubstantiated so your conclusion is unsound.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

When CT, Bowfinger, Moonbeam, and buckshot24 blast your argument as ridiculous you know you've done something wrong.

But when literally EVERYONE on the forum blast YOUR arguments... You're just a poor victim? Fuck off.

 

[zinfamous]

buckshot is the mildly more literate version of Texashiker, wherein he has decent command of multisyallabic verbiage.