josephw vs. Atheism

Originally posted by Agerg
Wrong, you impute onto to the thinking of others your own miscomprehension of an argument and then attempt to steer the discussion away from the actual issue using your own confusion as a basis for rejecting the premises of an argument. (see my last response in the "Greatest Conceivable Being???" ) thread.
You then dance around as though you've slain a dragon ...[text shortened]... a vague answer to some different question and assert the opposition is a crapola debater.

I have addressed every point, just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't give them.

Your logic is feeble and weak, you consistantly fail to be consistant, you should give up philosophy and stick to maths

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I don't recall any occasion on which you 'soundly drubbed' Agerg in debate - perhaps you could remind us bystanders of the thread number(s)?

I don't recall any thread were you added anything whatsoever to the discussion

Originally posted by Doward
I have addressed every point, just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't give them.

Your logic is feeble and weak, you consistantly fail to be consistant, you should give up philosophy and stick to maths

Yeah yeah...and I am rubber you are glue 😞

*edit* you are lying when you say you addressed every point.

Originally posted by Agerg
Yeah yeah...and I am rubber you are glue 😞

*edit* you are lying when you say you addressed every point.

which point have I not addressed? post them here, but be warned, when I prove that I have addressed them Ii expect a full and contrite apology

Originally posted by Doward
which point have I not addressed? post them here, but be warned, when I prove that I have addressed them Ii expect a full and contrite apology

There's a whole gallery of them in Thread 138037, in particular, see my last reponse which references a point you dodged prior to your last (a point which refined in light of your bullchit objections, takes away from you the standard theist defence: God can see how things may be better by its inaction, when we cannot). There are many others as well. In fact most of your responses I would be wise to consider as jokes.

Originally posted by Agerg
There's a whole gallery of them in Thread 138037, in particular, see my last reponse which references a point you dodged prior to your last (a point which refined in light of your bullchit objections, takes away from you the standard theist defence: God can see how things may be better by its inaction, when we cannot). There are many others as well. In fact most of your responses I would be wise to consider as jokes.

Anyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar. I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments. Shore up your argument and then you won't run into these troubles.


edit: The main thrust of my counter argument was that your premis can not hold to be universally true (and thus false), nor could be held true in any specific instance, a point that I believe I made fairly well

Originally posted by Doward
Anyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar. I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments. Shore up your argument and then you won't run into these troubles.


edit: The main thrust of my counter argument was that y ...[text shortened]... se), nor could be held true in any specific instance, a point that I believe I made fairly well

Anyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar. I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments. Shore up your argument and then you won't run into these troubles.
Nope, you avoided most of my points and for a select few you tried to recast a specific scenario into an altered form which allows you to give a poorly justifed, over general response.

The main thrust of my counter argument was that your premis can not hold to be universally true (and thus false), nor could be held true in any specific instance, a point that I believe I made fairly well
Let me tell you how disproving a claim via a counter example works: Person A makes the claim P(X) is true for all X. Person B then comes along and finds some particular X_0 where P(X) fails to be true. Then it is clear that the claim made by A is false.
In this context the claim by theists such as yourself is:

for all actions towards humans on the part of your god, these actions are maximally benevolent.

There is no need for me to show any sort of universality at all - I need just find one case, one iddy biddy little case where the proposition fails and I'm done - it doesn't matter if for all other cases your proposition holds, the fact that there exists one where it doesn't is sufficient. Or in other words, even if X_0 is part of a family {X_0, X_1, ... , X_n} and P(X_i) holds for all 1 =< i =< n then the fact P(X_0) fails to hold is damning. As for specific instances you are terrible at even acknowledging these.

Originally posted by Doward
Anyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar.

You are probably the only one in this forum with an open mind.

I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments.
I guess I am no one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are probably the only one in this forum with an open mind.

[b]I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments.
I guess I am no one.[/b]

correct... you are no one...glad we established that.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Anyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar. I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments. Shore up your argument and then you won't run into these troubles.
Nope, you avoided most of my points and for a select ...[text shortened]... to hold is damning. As for specific instances you are terrible at even acknowledging these.[/b]

here is your response in a nut shell:

nu uhhn, I tol' you that's not right but you di'nt lissen

for all actions towards humans on the part of your god, these actions are maximally benevolent.

You: I need just find one case, one iddy biddy little case

Me: show that case, you have failed to do so.

Originally posted by Doward
here is your response in a nut shell:

nu uhhn, I tol' you that's not right but you di'nt lissen

for all actions towards humans on the part of your god, these actions are maximally benevolent.

You: I need just find one case, one iddy biddy little case

Me: show that case, you have failed to do so.

No Doward you just fail to acknowledge or understand those specific cases. Your tactic of argument by thoughtless gainsaying carries no merit.

Originally posted by Doward
correct... you are no one...glad we established that.

twhitehead is a far more respected member of this forum than you are (or ever will be) - you just have a problem with anyone who points out your obvious failings.

Originally posted by Agerg
No Doward you just fail to acknowledge or understand those specific cases. Your tactic of argument by thoughtless gainsaying carries no merit.

In the thread "greatest concievable being (or whatever)" You first accuse me of being too broad, then on the same page you accuse me of being too narrow. You remind me of Goldilocks, you won't be satisfied until its juuuust right. Sorry, I don't play that way. No wonder you think "Twithead" is so "respected' you share the same brain.


pathetic

Originally posted by Doward
I don't recall any thread were you added anything whatsoever to the discussion

Hmm...lest we forget this piece of garbage (it was justified because...???)

Avalanchethecat usually avoids adding *anything whatsoever*, indeed he is far more judicious, articulate, and thoughtful with respect to what he posts. Any old chit is what we expect mainly from you Doward.

Originally posted by Doward
In the thread "greatest concievable being (or whatever)" You first accuse me of being too broad, then on the same page you accuse me of being too narrow. You remind me of Goldilocks, you won't be satisfied until its juuuust right. Sorry, I don't play that way. No wonder you think "Twithead" is so "respected' you share the same brain.


pathetic

Yeah yeah Cowar...ahem... Doward!