Atheists... Your life is pointless

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I haven't said that you're being ill-mannered. Tell me, though, when you say that i am vindictive, when you start calling names, is that evidence that you are well mannered? Keep in mind, you brought this up, not me.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

As i've already pointed out, people exist. Are you disputing that proposition? Are you prepared to argue against it?

You have stated people exist... can you prove it? You've made an assertion, so you now need to prove it or are you someone who makes statements they can't prove?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5271166)
Quote:
Comments about who bears the burden of proof may be tiring, but they are necessary when demands for proof arise. And I honestly do not see how a discussion of this sort can "move along" without adherence to the notion of when a burden of proof exists...and who bears it.

My point was that your "rules" for who bears the burden of proof are dependent upon applying Occam's razor. That is what those "rules" are based on.

Respectfully, Matt...I disagree.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Here is a listing of justifications for Occam's razor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Justifications
Other than empirical reasons, the only others rest on theology (specifically the work of Thomas Aquinas).
The convention you are using of who has the burden of proof comes from evidentialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentialism
Which must makes the tacit assumption of both empiricism and Occam's razor.

To logically invoke the convention in this case, you must demonstrate that "nothing" is simpler than "something" and that simplicity suggests truth.

The last sentence reflects an after the fact edit, replacing "implies" with "suggests".

1 Reply

@igm,

If you deny that people exist, we cannot be having a conversation, so i would not be able to reply.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If you deny that people exist, we cannot be having a conversation, so i would not be able to reply.

Your quote is a straw man. As you can see:

igm wrote:

Setanta wrote:

As i've already pointed out, people exist. Are you disputing that proposition? Are you prepared to argue against it?

You have stated people exist... can you prove it? You've made an assertion, so you now need to prove it or are you someone who makes statements they can't prove?

Answer my question or be "Hoisted with your own petard".

1 Reply

@igm,

The term is commonly rendered "hoist on your own petard." I'm not using any explosives here, so that's your straw man.

Don't give me orders, you dull-witted, intellectual eunuch. For a conversation to take place, or a debate, there need be at least two sentient beings capable of communicating with one another--quod erat demonstrandum. If you want to continue this inanity, you can do so by yourself, and it will be just another example of your addiction to intellectual masturbation. Who won't play that game with you is me.

3 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

Are you looking for attention? Send me an answer and I will discuss things...

No more than anybody else on here. So discuss that eh? It is an answer. And define your own role while you're at it.

I posted a five letter solution to a Georgebob word. A few hours afterwards ci. posts an answer to George. And it is not the first time.

If he has me on Ignore, as he has said, then explain to me how he can play on a consecutive game which I have been on for many years and not be an asshole. It's trolling. And he plays as if he is six as well.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The term is commonly rendered "hoist on your own petard." I'm not using any explosives here, so that's your straw man.

No your new quote is also a straw man (two in row... nice work):

Shakespeare, who gives the line to Hamlet:

"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".

Hoist with your own petard

Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Don't give me orders, you dull-witted, intellectual eunuch.

I didn't (notice the word in blue below?):

igm wrote:

Setanta wrote:

As i've already pointed out, people exist. Are you disputing that proposition? Are you prepared to argue against it?

You have stated people exist... can you prove it? You've made an assertion, so you now need to prove it or are you someone who makes statements they can't prove?

igm wrote:

Answer my question or be "Hoisted with your own petard".

You don't like being accused of what you accuse others of do you?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

For a conversation to take place, or a debate, there need be at least two sentient beings capable of communicating with one another..

Not true, unless you can 'prove' it. You made the assertion not me. How about two computers?

0 Replies

I haven't demanded proof of anyone here, nor have i demanded that anyone answer my questions. Pointing out that someone has failed to answer a question is not a demand. Your grasp of language and the meanings of words is as paltry as your attempts to justify your favorite superstition, while claiming that it is not a religion, nor a superstition. Apparently, you now are implying that computers are independent agents capable of acting on their own. Is it really worthwhile speaking to anyone that delusional?

0 Replies

@igm,

Jesus, you're dense. A straw man is a fallacy based on asserting that someone has said what he or she has not in fact said. So you're obviously clueless about that. You really are a waste of time, you sanctimonious hypocrite.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5271281)
Here is a listing of justifications for Occam's razor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Justifications
Other than empirical reasons, the only others rest on theology (specifically the work of Thomas Aquinas).
The convention you are using of who has the burden of proof comes from evidentialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentialism
Which must makes the tacit assumption of both empiricism and Occam's razor.

To logically invoke the convention in this case, you must demonstrate that "nothing" is simpler than "something" and that simplicity suggests truth.

The last sentence reflects an after the fact edit, replacing "implies" with "suggests".

Respectfully, Matt....I disagree.

If someone makes an assertion...the burden of proving the assertion falls on that person. That is common sense...and it is logical.

If you have to rely on Occam or Aquinas...do so.

I don't.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Very well, then you take evidentialism as your assumption.
You are of course free to do so.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

What you should be concerned about Spade is the fact that Setanta is ready and willing, eager even, to engage with you and he steers away from my posts with very great care.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Matt-- why would an Occamist not solve society's problems with a dictator?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

igm wrote:

Setanta wrote:

As i've already pointed out, people exist. Are you disputing that proposition? Are you prepared to argue against it?

You have stated people exist... can you prove it? You've made an assertion, so you now need to prove it or are you someone who makes statements they can't prove?

You've either evaded or ignored or misquoted each of my posts and been as nasty as you usually are... my posts above are all correct and you're just angry about it.... you're just sad...

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Matt-- why would an Occamist not solve society's problems with a dictator?

Because the simpler solution would be mass suicide.

0 Replies

@igm,

I'm not angry about anything. I didn't misquote your posts, you were babbling about computers talking to one another. You also wouldn't know a straw man fallacy if it bit you in the ass. I guess angry about being shown for the fool that you are.

I've been nasty with you, you're damned right. That's because you're a typical hypocritical Buddhist, who doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone else and just prates about enlightenment while people starve. In the last year, you've been a real trimmer. When ever you find yourself backed into a rhetorical corner, you just adjust your claims, trimming you sails to whatever wind blows. You have in the past claimed that reincarnation is real, but you've backed off of that. You have prated about Siddhartha's teachings, but have backed off that to a position of what he said to have taught because you burned on that one too. But you really disgust me with your hypocrisy toward other religions when you are every bit as superstitious as any other religious practitioner.

So yeah, i make no bones about stating what a nasty little f*ck you are.

1 Reply

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know