Well either Jo believes in unicorns and fairies, or he can demonstrate objective evidence they dont exist, and offer rational arguments for their non- existence. Arguments and evidence of course that can't apply to his deity, or else Jo would be a dishonest hypocrite.
So Jo, please enthrall us all with your evidence and arguments for the non-existence of unicorns and fairies.
Or are your claims dishonest hypocrisy?
While you're at it I'd like your objective evidence that all the Hindu deities don't exist please. Indeed let's have your objective evidence for the non-existence of every deity humans have ever created, but evidence and arguments that obviously don't apply to your deity.
Off you go, Jo....
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Everytime Jo repeats his dishonest, hypocritical and fallacious demand that atheists disprove the existence of his deity from now on, I encourage everyone to cut him dead, and simply post a link to this thread OP. Until he gives a candid cogent response that doesn't involve his trademark dishonesty and evasion.
Let's see how Jo enjoys it when we all respond by endlessly repeating the same thing over and over and over again. Time to cut the oxygen to this particular troll....
If he repeats his lies in this thread, but avoids an honest response to the op question then just respond with a link to the original question.
@Sheldon
Happy to oblige... *thumbs up*...
A new low, Sheldon. If we were to bother you as much as you do people.. yea, what if.
So, why exactly is calling someone out on their BS considered a "low?" I understand why you would want to think this way when it is a theist being challenged, but seriously... if you can't take a little scrutiny of your beliefs/opinions and you can't even answer SIMPLE QUESTIONS, then what do you even think you are doing entering a conversation about these things in the first place? If you can't answer the questions put to you then YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR DEPTH. You can stay and watch yourself get ripped to shreds, of course - that's up to you... just DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.
Lalala, you this and you that but no substance after all.
That's shocking hypocrisy given all you have offered here are two fallacious ad hominem attacks on me, without even any pretence you are addressing content.
Then again, this does seem to be true of almost all your posts. You have salient questions addressed to you elsewhere that remain unanswered. If you wish to be taken at all seriously, let alone have your beliefs taken seriously, you'd be wise to address those...and leave your trolling alone.
@ Flatland
"Lalala, you this and you that but no substance after all."
Butthurt that your tactics are now going to be reversed against your kind?
There is a simple solution, just stop being such a dick, be more honest, and reply to posts instead of evasion or ad hominem attacks.
Psssst.... *whispering*.... Hey... David.... *looking around in paranoid manner*... Uh, Flat-head got sent to the Netherworld several days ago.
Fuck, that memo got lost between the pages of my favorite midget porn magazines.
I took me longer than expected, it was .. umm, a little messy, but a fun search.
@AccretedMinutiae
Best to ignore vapidland, he's just trolling clearly. Note how he never ever addresses the post, always playing the man, never the ball is old lalaland.
@Flatland.
Nice try champ, but your trolling won't affect me. Now have you anything of value to add for once?
@AccretedMinutiae
"... just DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT IT."
Why do you complain and why do you give yourself that right but ask others to deny theirs?
And just what did I complain about? All I did was point out that calling someone on incorrect methods of thinking or pointing at the FACT that they have consistently avoided questions and come back with unrelated garbage is not some kind of "low" or spurious activity. I believe Sheldon has only been trying to HELP Flatland. To help this person redeem themselves from what very much appears to be a complete lack of honor or backbone. This is NOT me "complaining." You theists are completely allowed to show all the lack of backbone you want to. Completely fine by me, if that is your choice. Me telling you about it is me trying to help you get out of it, because I do not think it is your choice. You simply end up there, and people around you are trying to lead you back to safety and sanity... and yet most of the time, you refuse. That's what I see, and that's my experience.
@ AccretedMinutiae
Sadly, ad hominem attacks are the flavor of the month for a few theists in here.
They get touchy when they realize they have no cogent argument. Or proof.
I'm off to the pub, do please feel free Jo, to show some integrity and address the many refutations of your fallacious claims over the many months you've been posting them.
@Jo
Still waiting for Jo to prove unicorns and mermaids don't exist.
I see he has now promised to post his best evidence for his beliefs in a new thread. Why would he have waited this long one wonders?
Should we get excited?
I think mermaids and unicorns probably do/did exist.
@ Lion IRC
"I think mermaids and unicorns probably do/did exist."
I hope you understand that there has not been any evidence uncovered for those two species. There is also no reason for their existence based on genetics or environmental conditions.
Just to sate my curiosity, do mermaids have lungs or gills?
And boobs, mermaids had boobs?
edit: to add last paragraph. I just had to know.
Why wouldn't you, it's no less well evidenced a belief than your religion, but I think you're rather missing the point of the thread.
Jesus likes! I'm at work and don't have my little Jesus emoji.
Here ya go:
†
Err that sucks.
How about...
☢☣
☢☣
☢☣☢☣☢☣☢☣☢☣
☢☣☢☣☢☣☢☣☢☣
☢☣
☢☣
☢☣
☢☣
☢☣
☢☣
Jo keeping us on tenterhooks. This'll be dazzling when it comes, well worth the (inexplicable) delay...
Unicorns don't have mass or extension, so from your "objective" perspective, they don't exist.
But "objectivity" doesn't have mass or extension either so it appears to be in the same category as Unicorns.
You consistently fail to objectively evidence "objectivity".
Wow, way to miss the point apollo.
I, at least, fully agree with your assessment that objectivity and unicorns are in the same category as it does not have mass or extension.
But I can think of something else that is exactly the same way..... your god idea, anyones god idea.
Says you...tell Jo...
Apollo "You consistently fail to objectively evidence "objectivity"."
To someone deluding themselves objectivity doesn't exist you mean, well duh.
Is it an objective fact that the earth is not flat? Do take your time...
Apollo lives on a flat earth, fnarrr...
Yes, I think that belief in a creator God, and belief in objectivity has similarities.
But I don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of a creator God. Never have believed that, and was never taught that it was possible.
But some atheists claim to prove their views. Ok, so when someone such as Sheldon, claims to be objective and demands other be objective What precisely is he talking about ? So when I strive to be objective as he insists, I ask him to objectively prove he is objective. What is his objective proof?
Too, what is meant by "object". Does he mean only physical objects? What about a sociologist who claims to use objective methods in sociology and comes up with an objective fact such as the average family has 2.6 children. What is 2.6 children? is it an object? Can you see 2.6 children? Can you meet a family with 2.6 children? Apparently not, so a question is a family with 2.6 children considered an object? Would objective sociology be rejected by Sheldon because the family with 2.6 children can not be seen, and apparently does not even really exist?
In an objective pursuit does the object have to be physical, or can it be abstract?
There are many other questions as well. For example, if someone tells me there are invisible protons in the universe, and I believe that, even though I have never seen them myself, am I being objective? Do I really know there are protons if I just take it on somone else word? Or would Sheldon say I have to directly see them myself? Would I have to smell them, feel them see them taste them? or can I just believe what someone else says, and Sheldon would say I am objective?
In order for one to be objective, to satisfy Sheldon, what does one have to do? and what type of objects are legitimate objects? And what is Sheldon's objective proof that he is objective? If he doesn't objectively prove he is objective, is he really objective?
Too, I'd like to know the title of an epistemology book on the subject of objectivity that you have read and that you agree with.
Offer something beyond mere unevidenced opinion. That's what objective means.
adjective
1.(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
You know what a fact is right, and evidence?
I ask again , is it an objective fact that the world is not flat? Or do you think this is epistemologically an unsafe assertion?
@Sheldon
Perhaps I should remind you who are you talking to:
@Nyarlathotep
You make a very reasonable point.
Proper distance of what object or objects? give an example of a real object.
Pages