Jerry Shit - The Ultimate Collection

[Davin]

selliedjoup wrote

Trying looking at what I quoted. Cryptic I know.

That is cryptic... maybe, try writing in English next time.

[Kinich Ahau]

Forget that, when does bingo start?

[Michael]

selliedjoup wrote

Trying looking at what I quoted. Cryptic I know.

I would, but it appears you forgot to actually quote anything.
I know it's difficult, but do try in future to keep track of your bullshit.

Now then, back to my last question, which you failed spectacularly to answer. Where do you think you see this?

[selliedjoup]

Michael wrote

I would, but it appears you forgot to actually quote anything.
I know it's difficult, but do try in future to keep track of your bullshit.

Now then, back to my last question, which you failed spectacularly to answer. Where do you think you see this?

Michael wrote

.... when really, it's not.....

selliedjoup wrote

....

So the atheist argument rests on "when really, it's not". Does anyone here, ever, have anything to say?.

I only hope this somehow reaches you. I don't expect, just hope.

[Irreligious]

It's explained in the name: Atheist, which means one who is without a belief (or faith) in the existence of a god or God.

Hence, atheism is explicitly about nonbelief or a lack of faith. Nothing more.

[selliedjoup]

Saturday wrote

fixed

Weak atheism is weak, who cares what someone does not believe in?

[selliedjoup]

Irreligious wrote

It's explained in the name: Atheist, which means one who is without a belief (or faith) in the existence of a god or God.

Hence, atheism is explicitly about nonbelief or a lack of faith. Nothing more.

"When really it's not" is a statement of what is true, not what Michael lacks belief in.

[Irreligious]

selliedjoup wrote

Weak atheism is weak, who cares what someone does not believe in?

You do, apparently.

[Irreligious]

selliedjoup wrote

"When really it's not" is a statement of what is true, not what Michael lacks belief in.

It is quite true that atheism has nothing to do with faith, only the lack of faith in the existence of a God or gods. The word atheist literally mean without belief in God. The definition of the word does not speak at all to what atheists are required to believe.

[Michael]

selliedjoup wrote

"When really it's not" is a statement of what is true, not what Michael lacks belief in.

Okay, I see what you've done there.

You've taken something I said about theists trying to reposition their worldview of hear-say and false assertions as being equal footing with the mountains of evidence that points away from their proposition, and tried to re-phrase it as me saying that the entire atheist position comes down as "it's not because I say it's not".

That's incredibly dishonest. My statement there was in regards to this exact type of thing. When faced with the evidence - provided here, and in other conversations with you and others ad infinitum, all you can come back with are statements. Not facts. Not "X says Y, therefore Z is unlikely". You come back with "This is how it is. I know it is because it is". Then you've held onto the one, lone sentence that looks like your argument from me, and held it out there as "being the atheist argument".

You are, unfortunately, guilty of the very thing I was writing about in that post. You are taking the evidence, ignoring it, then trying to change the argument so that it's "your word against mine".

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.
This is how it went last time, and the time before that, and the time before that.

Notice a pattern there? You state something as a fact, rather than provide evidence. We provide evidence, so you wave it away, hoping desperately your dancing act will distract from the facts, and instead re-issue another statement - unsupported by anything but your own word - as fact, rather than provide evidence.

You will continue to try to represent the argument as "50/50", because to misrepresent the mountains of evidence contrary to the bullshit you have splayed here is the only way your argument can hold.
To stand on it's own against everything there is that points in directions other than that precious belief you want to hold, would be to show your argument for what it's really worth - nothing.

This is the game that you must play to keep up. You have nothing to say, nothing to add, and you never have.

But please, feel free to prove me wrong.



Somehow, given your history, I doubt you will.

[selliedjoup]

Michael wrote

Okay, I see what you've done there.

You've taken something I said about theists trying to reposition their worldview of hear-say and false assertions as being equal footing with the mountains of evidence that points away from their proposition, and tried to re-phrase it as me saying that the entire atheist position comes down as "it's not because I say it's not".

That's incredibly dishonest. My statement there was in regards to this exact type of thing. When faced with the evidence - provided here, and in other conversations with you and others ad infinitum, all you can come back with are statements. Not facts. Not "X says Y, therefore Z is unlikely". You come back with "This is how it is. I know it is because it is". Then you've held onto the one, lone sentence that looks like your argument from me, and held it out there as "being the atheist argument".

You are, unfortunately, guilty of the very thing I was writing about in that post. You are taking the evidence, ignoring it, then trying to change the argument so that it's "your word against mine".

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.
This is how it went last time, and the time before that, and the time before that.

Notice a pattern there? You state something as a fact, rather than provide evidence. We provide evidence, so you wave it away, hoping desperately your dancing act will distract from the facts, and instead re-issue another statement - unsupported by anything but your own word - as fact, rather than provide evidence.

You will continue to try to represent the argument as "50/50", because to misrepresent the mountains of evidence contrary to the bullshit you have splayed here is the only way your argument can hold.
To stand on it's own against everything there is that points in directions other than that precious belief you want to hold, would be to show your argument for what it's really worth - nothing.

This is the game that you must play to keep up. You have nothing to say, nothing to add, and you never have.

But please, feel free to prove me wrong.



Somehow, given your history, I doubt you will.

No, all you've done once again, is say you're right without justification. That's all the resident atheists here do.

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.

[selliedjoup]

Irreligious wrote

You do, apparently.

If you base your entire perspective on what you lack belief in at, and then actively dwell on your lack of belief someone needs to call you out on your bullshit.

The world doesn't need more bullshit, all you lot do is contribute to it.

[selliedjoup]

Irreligious wrote

It is quite true that atheism has nothing to do with faith, only the lack of faith in the existence of a God or gods. The word atheist literally mean without belief in God. The definition of the word does not speak at all to what atheists are required to believe.

If you're going to quote what I write, at least address it. This is bollocks.

[Irreligious]

selliedjoup wrote

If you base your entire perspective on what you lack belief in at, and then actively dwell on your lack of belief someone needs to call you out on your bullshit.

The world doesn't need more bullshit, all you lot do is contribute to it.

I don't base my "entire perspective" on the unsupported claims of others. I merely react to the claims, or ignore them when possible.

[Irreligious]

selliedjoup wrote

If you're going to quote what I write, at least address it. This is bollocks.

My response to your post directly addresses your claim that the atheist position is based on "when really it's not."

I'm telling you what the atheist position is: It is a rejection of unsupported claims of the supernatural, or a lack of faith in such claims.