Jerry Shit - The Ultimate Collection

[ILOVEJESUS]

Ahhhhhh back to Jerry closing his eyes and grabbing wildly in the dark. How can one prove a lack of faith in a God? That is all atheism is and you now know this. I have an atheist friend that truly believes we are being visited by alien invaders....without a shred of evidence. She is still an atheist and cannot abide discussions about God as much as I cannot stand her drivel about reptilian beings.

If you have something to show, prove it or shut up. That is pretty much all that is being told to you...over and over again. Just stating that there is a philosophical possibility, or that you cannot know everything or whatever is absurd as a piece of evidence. Would you accept a doctor telling you your headache was being caused by aliens from the planet Zarrgon because we simply cannot know, absolutely, that isn't the case? Go wash your bum out with mouthwash!

[Michael]

Michael wrote

Now, I know you. You'll say "but you haven't provided evidence", and then I'll link you to the times I have - at least the ones that weren't deleted. Then you'll say "that's not evidence". There won't be any reasoning behind why it's not evidence. There won't be anything offered to counter what I provide. It will simply be your assertion that what I provide is not evidence: we just have to take your word for it.

selliedjoup wrote

You've never provided any evidence for anything. If you claim to have provided evidence, it's better to actually prove that you have as opposed to stating you have in a non-existent post.

I think I've just proven psychic powers are real.

So not going to surprise me with any new strategies, then? Just going to keep up the same old charade that failed you last time?

[Michael]

Well, if you're not going to mix it up, I'm going to. Otherwise this gets very stale, very fast.


So, what would do you consider evidence?

Put it another way. You always say "you haven't provided evidence" or "that's not evidence".
Okay. Let's imagine a situation. Somebody has posted something, and you've responded something along the lines of "okay, that's good evidence. You have definitely given me evidence here, and I won't dispute that fact".

What is it that the person you're responding to has posted? What kind of thing?


$20 says it's theistic in nature, since you only respond to things that confirm your biases.

[Smellyoldgit]

[Smellyoldgit]

[Smellyoldgit]

[selliedjoup]

Michael wrote

I think I've just proven psychic powers are real.

So not going to surprise me with any new strategies, then? Just going to keep up the same old charade that failed you last time?

You claim to have provided evidence, I ask you to show where and then you project it's all part of my charade to ask you this?

Fucking genius. That you can't back up that you have provided evidence is your problem, that you don't admit this doesn't change it.

[selliedjoup]

Michael wrote

Well, if you're not going to mix it up, I'm going to. Otherwise this gets very stale, very fast.


So, what would do you consider evidence?

Put it another way. You always say "you haven't provided evidence" or "that's not evidence".
Okay. Let's imagine a situation. Somebody has posted something, and you've responded something along the lines of "okay, that's good evidence. You have definitely given me evidence here, and I won't dispute that fact".

What is it that the person you're responding to has posted? What kind of thing?


$20 says it's theistic in nature, since you only respond to things that confirm your biases.

I agree that it's stale, this is symptomatic of the atheist position. This is why there is no point of atheism. By your definition I am also an atheist, however I don't identify as one due to it's pointlessness of saying you lack belief in what any religious person believes to be true.

Anyway, to answer your question I would need some indisputable proof of a cause for existence which doesn't depend on conjecture, or filling in some gaps which just happens to meet the same conclusion as you assumed to be true. E.g. Dawkins/Hitchens/Krauss vs. Lennox/McGrath/Craig.

Both use the same failed method to meet their desired conclusion, neither know anything.

[ILOVEJESUS]

The fact you see it as pointless doesn't stop it from being a fact. I think golf is pointless, but every day there are still thousands, neigh millions,who play the game.
All an atheist is is someone who does not believe in a God or Gods. That is it. We will laugh as theists will tie themselves in knots trying to make us believe because they do and need to know they are not the only idiots. We will ask for prove knowing this will tie people like you into knots. If someone were to show evidence of this God(s) then most atheists would become theists. The point of this thread is to see just what that evidence would be. Why don't you try and come up with something and see whether you can actually prove your deity?

[Saturday]

selliedjoup wrote

I would need some indisputable proof of a cause for existence

What is "indisputable" to you? Like, is the theory of relativity indisputable? Is evolution indisputable?

[dogpet]

selliedjoup wrote

This is why there is no point of atheism. By your definition I am also an atheist, however I don't identify as one due to it's pointlessness of saying you lack belief in what any religious person believes to be true.

How is rejection of an unfounded proposition pointless? If you said everyone had to obey you because of some outlandish claim of superior knowledge we would tell you to go fuck yourself same as anyone else.

Atheism is neutral regarding causes of existence., there are none so far save doing the natural baby.

But you knew that.

It will be pointless when all theists are totally benign, & not b4.

[Michael]

selliedjoup wrote

By your definition I am also an atheist, however I don't identify as one due to it's pointlessness of saying you lack belief in what any religious person believes to be true.

You lack belief in a god? Sure. If you claim that, then yeah you would be.

I'm still not convinced that's true about you, though. I think you profess it but don't believe it.

selliedjoup wrote

Anyway, to answer your question I would need some indisputable proof of a cause for existence which doesn't depend on conjecture, or filling in some gaps which just happens to meet the same conclusion as you assumed to be true. E.g. Dawkins/Hitchens/Krauss vs. Lennox/McGrath/Craig.

Both use the same failed method to meet their desired conclusion, neither know anything.

I didn't ask you what you would be convinced by, I asked you what you would consider evidence. Evidence isn't "Only the things that get me to x conclusion". Evidence is everything that points to A conclusion, regardless of where it takes you.

See, that's the problem with your worldview. You look at the conclusion you want and say "what do I need to get to this conclusion", so you ignore everything that doesn't get you there as invalid.

What you should be doing is looking at EVERYTHING and asking "what conclusion does all this get me to"

I never said "what do I need to present to you to say 'this all points to the specified conclusion'?".

I asked you what you would consider evidence. Because if you discard everything that doesn't get you to your conclusion as "not evidence", then you're missing out on the rest of the picture.

I knew you'd get it backwards, that's the problem with everything about you.

[selliedjoup]

Saturday wrote

What is "indisputable" to you? Like, is the theory of relativity indisputable? Is evolution indisputable?

Can they change?

[selliedjoup]

dogpet wrote

How is rejection of an unfounded proposition pointless? If you said everyone had to obey you because of some outlandish claim of superior knowledge we would tell you to go fuck yourself same as anyone else.

Atheism is neutral regarding causes of existence., there are none so far save doing the natural baby.

But you knew that.

It will be pointless when all theists are totally benign, & not b4.

People say that I need to obey many things, which I don't. They can say what they want, it doesn't affect my life at all.

[selliedjoup]

Michael wrote

You lack belief in a god? Sure. If you claim that, then yeah you would be.

I'm still not convinced that's true about you, though. I think you profess it but don't believe it.

I didn't ask you what you would be convinced by, I asked you what you would consider evidence. Evidence isn't "Only the things that get me to x conclusion". Evidence is everything that points to A conclusion, regardless of where it takes you.

See, that's the problem with your worldview. You look at the conclusion you want and say "what do I need to get to this conclusion", so you ignore everything that doesn't get you there as invalid.

What you should be doing is looking at EVERYTHING and asking "what conclusion does all this get me to"

I never said "what do I need to present to you to say 'this all points to the specified conclusion'?".

I asked you what you would consider evidence. Because if you discard everything that doesn't get you to your conclusion as "not evidence", then you're missing out on the rest of the picture.

I knew you'd get it backwards, that's the problem with everything about you.

Your position is built on the lack of evidence being evidence for your own conclusion. That you disregard the lack of evidence for any answer highlights the issue in your position.

So you don't think what evidence I would accept or be convinced by are the same thing? Don't know why.

I look at everything and despite a lack of evidence, the issue of everything still requires an answer.

You will need to cite what you propose the "everything" in "everything that doesn't get you to your conclusion" actually is. I'll assume this is where you footnote a non-existent post you made sometime, somewhere in a galaxy far far away.