Hi, I'm Mick

[Mick]

...I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary...

Which is?

You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.

Yes, I can and I did. Yes, they do, and yes it is. At least until you cough up some evidence.

Oh? You can do that. Then so can I. I will just claim my bare assertions about your magical thinking to be true until you provide evidence to the contrary.

See what happens when we both take your puerile approach? Now we can both sit smugly, with a sense of accomplishment despite the fact that we have accomplished fuck all.

That's exactly right. You haven't accomplished anything at all by returning my comment like an adolescent schoolboy. You could make some progress if you produced some evidence for your god claim. The reason you're playing these rehetorical games is that you know very well that you can't produce any evidence.

And yet your claim that my belief and those of theists has no evidence in its favour (which is different from saying you're not aware of any evidence in its favour) can be stated without evidence? Gotcha. With that sort of reasoning, you must be one of the Brights, eh?

[FBM]

All you have to do is prove me wrong by presenting some evidence.

[pErvinalia]

I said "evidence", not arguments.

Enough of the hand waving. I'll make the same point as I did earlier.

I'll offer evidence. You will deny it. We will both be unimpressed with the case of the other. Then what? You go on feeling smug? I can do that too. You will claim I offered no evidence. Fine. I will deny, and then claim that you offered no good reason to reject my evidence, that your case is weak and unsupported. Where does this leave us?

I'd rather make the historical note that professional philosophers have been arguing about this for 2500 years and that it has thus become a perennial issue in philosophy; and so it seems that reasonable people can disagree.

It hasn't become a perennial issue in the slightest. And professional philosophy is only a modern invention. For much of it's history, philosophy has been synonymous with thinking. When most of the population is uneducated and struggling to survive day to day, it's not surprising that philosophers of the time appeared to be intellectual giants. By today's standards, most of them are pretty pedestrian thinkers. Regarding philosophers of today, I'd doubt very much there are enough of them who argue for the existence of God (again, what god??) for it to be more than a passing curiosity, let alone a "perennial issue". In any case, I only care about evidence - so basically logical reasoning or empirical evidence. You've got no empirical evidence, so it's down to the usual old silly arguments peddled by creationists and religionists that we've seen before since the RD.net days. I personally don't care that much about whether God is real or not to inflict that sort of pain on myself. Hence why I don't really care for whatever specious "arguments" you are likely to bring up. But bring them up, if you want. There will be people here who will debate and likely debunk them.

[pErvinalia]

No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.

The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?

That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.

I answered this question for you. Look back.

[pErvinalia]

No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.

The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?

That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.

What, that theists are engaged in magical thinking, which is a characteristic of adolescent mentality? You're convinced, despite an utter and complete lack of evidence, that an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity is watching you from another dimension and who works miracles when things suit him. What part of that is NOT magical thinking?

So, we can at least agree that your previous claim wasn't what you initially said, what I took issue to. Great.

Going back to the above post, you're not offering anything more than baseless assertions snuck (or loaded into) questions. I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary, and maintaining their skepticism without good evidence.

No you can't, because that is a position that can't be backed up by evidence. And besides, I already addressed this. Starting out like a true theist troll. Well done.

You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.

Are you claiming that theists don't believe that there is an omnipotent and omniscient god/gods?

[JimC]

What seals it for me is the vast array of theists who argue (often murderously) that their particular god delusion is the only true faith, and that other religious people are no better than pagans or atheists!

[Svartalf]

Catholicism boasts some of the West's greatest thinkers, just so you know.

It's easy to boast.

and a real waste of thinking... just to think what Thomas Aquinas could have accomplished had he done real science rather than glossing on nonsense...

[tattuchu]

So it would appear that Mick is Seth's sockmonkey

monkey6.gif (4.59 KiB) Viewed 2238 times

[Scott1328]

Mick's appeal has been denied on RatSkep. I feel sorry for both forums now.

[Agi Hammerthief]

There is a lot of [...] groupthink in RS.

oh, do tell:

is there anything more "groupthink" than (defending) religious dogma?

if not, methinks this reeks of hypocrisy

But the point is that everyone knows that Catholicism is groupthink, whereas Atheists try to maintain the fiction that they are independent, rational thinkers, which they are not...mostly.

THAT is hypocrisy.

what a very convenient POV: The theists get to paddle their groupthink and accuse at the atheists of the same when they** (collectively) demand evidence.

**the atheists

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It is no more necessary to provide evidence for the non-existence of god as it is to provide evidence for the non-existence of talking goldfish. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with those making the claims of existence. Prove it or STFU.

[FBM]

It is no more necessary to provide evidence for the non-existence of god as it is to provide evidence for the non-existence of talking goldfish. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with those making the claims of existence. Prove it or STFU.

I, for one, don't claim to know that gods in general or the Abrahamic god in particular doesn't exist, but I don't hesitate to claim that every attempt at theists presenting evidence that I have witnessed so far has been blown to bits by logic and reasoning.

The dilemma that xtian theists face is that their scriptures say that faith is central to salvation. Once you have evidence, however, faith is obliterated by knowledge. They don't present evidence, they're blown to shit by people who can think. They do present evidence, and they're blown to shit by their own belief system. What a theatre of the absurd!

[Svartalf]

I'm still waiting for proof that there is a Godot, I've been waiting for 2000 years already.

[Lion IRC]

As a biblical theist, Mick was a pretty frequent thread-starter at RS.
For a predominantly/notionally atheist board, I can see how that might eventually come to be seen as deliberate baiting/trolling.

On boards like that, I practically never instigate threads.

Yeah, why rile up the pinheads and idiots?

Nah, 'they' still lose self-control and the 'Mr Spock' Vulcan, calm, collected, rational pretence dissapears.
It's just that I like reminding them who is trolling whom with anti-theism Ops and polemics.

They launch an Op about pedophile clergy.
I assume that's an invitation for me to discuss the number of atheists hiding in the clergy.

THAT'S why I get banned by gutless atheists.
...and Mods like Cali who make barbed-wire dildo rape jokes about Justin Beiber

[HomerJay]

It is no more necessary to provide evidence for the non-existence of god as it is to provide evidence for the non-existence of talking goldfish.