Catholic from Twitter. Epic argument lol.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 11:30 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2015 11:35 PM by Shadow Fox.)
Catholic from Twitter. Epic argument lol.
Had a REALLY Long talk about religion from this guy. The conversation doesn't get really good until we get to him trying to special plead his way out of his burden of proof.


I tried REALLY hard not to argue with this guy at first. we were going to start out having a pleasant chat but it just didn't happen. I am the Toxic Atheist.


HOPEFULLY I edited it correctly. It didn't copy well.

[Image: rK5rjrfd_bigger.png]
Quote:Almost Orthodoxy
I just said God isn't a being. He doesn't exist
1h 39 minutes ago

The Toxic Atheist
He doesn't exist? I thought you were catholic?
1h 38 minutes ago
Have you been trolling me this whole time?
YOU POE!
The Toxic Atheist
lol

Almost Orthodoxy
I wish!!!
Im just following Pseudo-Denys, Aquinas, Paul Tillich, and Jean Luc Marion. Nothing new

The Toxic Atheist
Have you investigated counter arguments for any of those before?

Almost Orthodoxy
what do you mean by "those"?

The Toxic Atheist
For the arguments made by Aquinas, paul tillich arguments for god etc?

Almost Orthodoxy
I was talking about how God is classically defined as not a being

The Toxic Atheist
I see.

The Toxic Atheist
You know, I am quite surprised you haven't tried using Pascal's wager yet lol.

Most atheists don't even know what they are claiming to disbelieve in! Im as much of an atheist as you are, probably more tbh!!

Almost Orthodoxy
And I would never use that lol its disgusting

tbh you are starting to making zero sense. You just claimed that he doesn't exist. Now you are claiming you are atheist and before that at
the beginning you claimed that you were catholic which means you DO believe in yahweh.
and jesus

The Toxic Atheist
You cannot have it both ways, thats called doublethin



Almost Orthodoxy
Yes I believe in the Trinity
Which is not a being

The Toxic Atheist
So you are not an atheist then,

The Toxic Atheist
It doesn't matter if its a being or not. You still believe in IT.

Almost Orthodoxy
There is not "it" haha! Only being's can be called "it"

The Toxic Atheist
Stop play semantics with me.

Almost Orthodoxy
Sorry... But I'm totally serious about this

The Toxic Atheist
You are not an atheist and it does not matter what your definition of god is, you are still making that claim, stop pushing the burden of it

Almost Orthodoxy

God is is.

ok! That is your claim and I do not believe in that.
The Toxic Atheist
That makes me atheist.

Almost Orthodoxy
Why don't you believe in "is"
You use it in sentences all the time!

Almost Orthodoxy
This is all classical theism btw

The Toxic Atheist
You are being completely incoherant again. Are you trying to say god is the English word IS in which is compased of the kletters I and S?

Almost Orthodoxy
he isn't the word duh, he is what the word signifies, just like a cow is what the word cow signifies

The Toxic Atheist
Ok, so you are still playing semantics and are trying to push the burden of proof.

Almost Orthodoxy
No I am just telling you what Catholics define God as. Right?

Moving the goal posts fallacy or other wise known as special pleading.
Yes, and your definition is still a claim. which you are responsible for positive evidence for. Since there is no positive evidence I do
not believe
Your definition regardless of what it the definition is, is irrelevant.

The Toxic Atheist
its still a claim, an extraordinary claim which requires positive evidence to back it up.

Almost Orthodoxy
How is the definition irrelevant lol???

The Toxic Atheist
Because its still YOUR claim. You are the one making the claim what god is be giving him a definition and stating that he exists. Therefor,

its your responsibility to provide evidence.

If you tell me that you disbelieve in unicorns, and then I ask you to define a unicorn and you describe a car, then you can't be said to

Almost Orthodoxy
actually disbelieve in unicorns.

If I were to tell you that I have an invisible teal dragon in my back pocket, you would want evidence. If I told you the dragon Is...IS...
that would not change the fact that I still need to provide evidence for it

The Toxic Atheist
Otherwise you are perfectly reasonable to reject my claim.

Almost Orthodoxy
So would you like me to provide evidence?

The Toxic Atheist

yes if you will.

Almost Orthodoxy
Ok haha
So describe to me what you are typing these messages to me on

Almost Orthodoxy
You don't have to go in depth lol

The Toxic Atheist
religion.

Almost Orthodoxy
no i meant to describe like what device are you using to send these messages haha
38m 4 minutes ago

The Toxic Atheist
A computer

Almost Orthodoxy
ok what color is it? is it big or small?

The Toxic Atheist
It is a normal desk top computer and it is black.

Almost Orthodoxy
Okay. So are these facts describing the essence of this computer independent of whether it exists?

The Toxic Atheist
These are facts OF its existence.

Almost Orthodoxy
Ok well how about if you described a unicorn to me instead of your computer? Would your description be facts of its existence then?

The Toxic Atheist
I do not believe in unicorns.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y194/A4...vp0tgq.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y194/A4...wvebkm.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y194/A4...mhtnpv.jpg

here. evidence,


The Toxic Atheist
Check the second one.

Almost Orthodoxy
Ok my point exactly. The description of an object (say its color) is always independent of its existence. Would you agree?

The qualities of anything that does exist can be examined by the actual person itself. We know unicorns do not exist because there is
no evidence that they exist as defined by their description.

The Toxic Atheist
Just like the evidence for the existence of my computer I just took

Almost Orthodoxy
But one can still describe what a unicorn would be like tho, right?

The Toxic Atheist
Because we have paintings of them as defined by the origins of where the myth came from that tells us what one looks like

The Toxic Atheist
So there is a well established definition of what they are.

Almost Orthodoxy
Ok. So we are on the same page.

The Toxic Atheist
continue.

Almost Orthodoxy
So now, objects in the universe are composed of their descriptions and the existence of which actualizes the descriptions, right?

The Toxic Atheist
continue.

Almost Orthodoxy
So take the unicorn, which it is not an object in the universe. It has a description, yet it doesn't have the existence which actualizes the

Almost Orthodoxy
description, do you agree?

The Toxic Atheist
No. It doesn't exist. Just because we have a description of it does not mean it exists. Its made purely out of human imagination. That is wh

The Toxic Atheist
y the description matches the character, because we made it up.

Almost Orthodoxy
yes i agree with you. reread my message, you misunderstood what I was saying

The Toxic Atheist
oh..well yes. I misread the second line.

Almost Orthodoxy
Ok, so would you agree up to this point then?

The Toxic Atheist

So far yes. we both agree that unicorns do not exist as described of what a unicorn is.

Almost Orthodoxy
Ok, big surprise now!
Almost Orthodoxy
If you agree with me up to this point, you have shown that God (as Existence Itself) "exists".


The Toxic Atheist
No I have not.

Almost Orthodoxy
Explain.
So you are claiming that god is existence itself?
The Toxic Atheist
if its a yes just reply with that.

Almost Orthodoxy
Yes.

The Toxic Atheist
OK!
Prove it.

The Toxic Atheist
You are have not provided any evidence for your claims, you are special pleading and making positive claims without providing any evidence

Almost Orthodoxy
Thats what I just did for the past 20 min! And you agreed with everything I said

The Toxic Atheist
No you did not
We have only established that you think god IS existence and that we both do not believe in fairies.
Saying that god is existence and then saying that because existence exists does not prove your deity exists.
it is just shifting the burden of proof so you do not have to provide evidence for your claims.


Almost Orthodoxy
So you are saying that things don't exist now?

The Toxic Atheist
Post Hoc ergo propter hoc, existence exists therefor god. ..that is your fallacy.
Things exist, we can prove that, you are making the claim that god exists and that he is existence and I am telling you to prove it.
Which you cannot.
The Toxic Atheist
Post Hoc Ergo Propter hoc and special pleading.

Almost Orthodoxy
No lol. I defined God as existence itself. Then I showed things. Therefore, God exists. That is not circular.

The Toxic Atheist
yes it is.
I need real evidence. Not some half assed post hoc
I am sorry but this is not evidence for any kind of claim, you cannot sit there and give me a definition for your claim and just say

oh well because everything exists he exists because he is existence because you still have the burden of proof of proving he exists.


Almost Orthodoxy
That is not circular. Say I come up to and are like dogs are [insert description]. Then I show you a dog. Therefore, dogs exist. Same thing as what I did with God. Its not circular.

The Toxic Atheist
God is existence is what you said right?

Almost Orthodoxy
Yes. Then I showed that things exist. So God exists.

The Toxic Atheist
and you then stated that stuff exists...therefor your premise again.

Almost Orthodoxy
Did you read my dog message?

The Toxic Atheist
That is circular. Your premise is your conclusion.

The Toxic Atheist
yes and your logic concerning your god is circular logic.


The Toxic Atheist
It really is.

Almost Orthodoxy


Is that dog argument circular also?



Almost Orthodoxy
The dog argument is circular??????

The Toxic Atheist
Man, sorry but I have just lost my patience. DAMN Your fuckign stupid. OK first off.
You showed me a dog. So dog exists.

You cannot show me god because the only thing we know is the universe.
In order to prove to me that he exists you need to show him to me. Saying he is the universe and showing me that.
is nothing more then a post hoc and a half assed special plead.
Universe exists does not mean god exists regardless of your description of your own deity. Logic and evidence
does not work like that.
You are still burned with the evidence that is required from you.

Almost Orthodoxy
You are forgetting that I defined the dog first. Then I show you the dog. Therefore dog exists.
My argument with God is exact same logic as that.

The Toxic Atheist
No its not.


Almost Orthodoxy
How? You can insert God for the dog and my argument is the same

The Toxic Atheist
god is a supernatural being. a beign that created the universe and us according to your religion. you need to show me that HE exists.
you cannot say that he IS existence and then show me existence and then just expect me to buy that fucking shit.
It doesn't fucking work like that.,
Like I said, Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc and that is the last time I am going to say that to you.

Almost Orthodoxy
Ok no problem. I will pray the rosary for you. And never forget that Jesus loves you no matter what.

The Toxic Atheist
and I will think for you.

Holy fucking shit the post hoc and special pleading is off the charts on this one.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
26-06-2015, 11:44 PM
RE: Catholic from Twitter. Epic argument lol.
Well because of that it is this before that until this gets to that. Get it?

Sheesh, sometimes it is just so obvious. Tongue

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: