If it's proven there's no god

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Perhaps you would like to take your holier than thou posts and shove them
where the sun doesn't shine.

For example, you might note that you have provided no reference for this
debate, nor demonstrated that the debate focussed on the same meaning
of proof as I am talking about, demonstrated that Bertrand Russell was
familiar with Bayesian Probability, which was rather obscure at the time.
And he certainly was not familiar with modern scientific discoveries...

If I were able to talk with him today, I rather suspect he would [based on
what I have read of his] agree with the statement "it can be proven probabilistically
beyond reasonable doubt that the Christian god of the bible does not exist"
But he's dead, and I can't ask him.

He was living in a different time, in a different social climate, with different context.

I can disagree with his positions, without importuning him.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Why the hell would I randomly challenge an Oxford Academic to a debate?
And what on Earth would motivate the same to accept such a challenge?
How deluded are you??

I am more than confident I could refute his arguments.

I am not at all confident I could beat him in a debate.

Debating takes skill and practice, which I am sure he has to a much greater
extent than I do.

Anyhow, I said VALID probabilistic proofs. There are none FOR the existence
of the bible god, thus I didn't mention any.

It's really that simple.

But I don't expect you to get your fizzy little mind around that.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

i dont like name calling............but im smarter than you, nah-nah-naaaah!!!!!


grow-up.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

With his characteristic arrogance, Googlefudge resorts to bluster, personal
attacks, and attempting to project his beliefs onto Bertrand Russell.

No, I just dislike you for being a stuck up over sensitive know-it-all who likes to
miss-interpret other peoples posts and then never admit to being wrong...
And you are off to a great start here, I didn't attempt to project my beliefs onto
anyone. Try again.

And, given my knowledge of his life and work, I would submit it's wrong
for Googlefudge to insinuate that Bertrand Russell was unduly influenced
by any pro-theist bias in the culture of his times.

That's nice... and might be relevant if that's what I actually did.

However as I insinuated nothing of the sort, it's really pointless.

I am not going to argue in favour of arguments that supposedly prove the
existence of God because, after all, I am an atheist. Yet I acknowledge
that some atheists seem determined to reduce some theistic positions to
oversimplified caricatures because that makes it easier to attack them.

Again, that's nice... But given that at no point did I do that... Completely irrelevant.

The reason any rational person rejects the arguments that supposedly prove god
exists is BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT VALID. If they were valid the rational person would,
upon understanding these arguments, cease to be an atheist and become a theist.

I think that most of the intellectual dishonesty comes from the theists,
but atheists are hardly immune from intellectual dishonesty too.

And? So? Would you like to stop making self serving moralistic holier than thou
points that have absolutely no bearing on what anyone else has actually said?

No... Didn't think so.

Incidentally... For whom are you providing this commentary for this deb.. argument?
Instead of... Oh, I don't know, participating in it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i dont like name calling............but im smarter than you, nah-nah-naaaah!!!!!


grow-up.

Yeah, I noticed that. 😉

I have no idea if I am smarter than she is, although I'm puzzled as to why she
thinks that maths or chess ability marks one out as supremely intelligent...

Would she challenge Shakespeare to a Mathathon?

However I don't care, because what matters is not how smart a person is, but
whether they are actually right [have valid arguments].

"I'm smarter than you, therefore I am correct" is not a valid argument, and not
one I am stupid enough to make.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

What makes you think anyone cares what you think about me?

Or doesn't remember from the last time you flipped out at me?

I may well often be arrogant, just as you are.

But unlike you I don't claim not to be.

I'm arrogant. You're a hypocrite.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Au Contraire.

The insult "fizzy little mind" wasn't even close to being my first attack.

At no point was I, or did I act "shocked" that you responded.

And I wasn't unprovoked. Your every post drips with condescension, which
gets right up my nose [in addition to your inability to accurately read my
posts, or those of many others]. hence the hostility.

And it wasn't actually a put down of your intellect, but your ability or willingness
to apply it.

RJHinds doesn't irritate me nearly so much because he's stupid.

You don't have that excuse.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Really.

Go on and find one place where I have LIED in this exchange.

Point out where I have intentionally said something I KNOW to be false.

If I lie as a matter of course it should be easy for you, being so intelligent.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Um... Please point out where I claimed to be smarter than you.

While you're accusing me of being a liar it would be a good idea that
you don't lie about what I said. Don't you think?