[split] Taq Vs Chippy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2014, 12:48 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(28-01-2014 12:23 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Chippy - trying to reason with him is pointless. Either he knows that he's antagonising or he doesn't and just thinks he right. Time to give it up there's nowhere to go, unless of course you just like the fight. Which is a perfectly justified reason in my eyes.

Yes, ChimpyChump -- even your cheerleader boyfriend can see that you are getting mauled, and advises you to run. Again.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:22 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(28-01-2014 12:48 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 12:23 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Chippy - trying to reason with him is pointless. Either he knows that he's antagonising or he doesn't and just thinks he right. Time to give it up there's nowhere to go, unless of course you just like the fight. Which is a perfectly justified reason in my eyes.

Yes, ChimpyChump -- even your cheerleader boyfriend can see that you are getting mauled, and advises you to run. Again.


You wouldn't know how pointless you are, as your perspective is obviously justified to you.

I must admit I'm curious as whether you know how ineffectual you are. All you have is ad hominem, strawman accusations and whatever fallacy you blindly pluck from a list (possibly from here).

The problem is you present nothing remotely resembling an argument. Perhaps you fool some and feel this is how you gain credibility here. Who knows.

Are you a homoobe or something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 04:49 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
Sterling piece of logic from Tourette's Chimp:

Quote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specific

1: constituting or falling into a specifiable category


That category being "creators which do not begin to exist".

That's is akin to saying that "quadripedal animals" identifies a specific animal because "having four legs" is a specification. Many otherwise disparate animals answer the description "having four legs". Only when we have gone down to the species (and sub-species) level do we actually identify the most specific and (non-arbitrary) taxon and even by that point we still haven't identified an individual quadriped, i.e. we are still referencing a taxon.

Yes "creators which do not begin to exist" is a specification but it still only defines a taxon of creators rather than an individual deity. Allah, Trinity and Yahweh actually identifies a specific deity. No cosmological argument references a specific deity, they all lead only to some unspecified creator and not even necessarily a god.

A demiurge is consistent with all cosmological arguments, i.e. a demi-god with creative ability created by some ultimate deity.

Moron.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(27-01-2014 08:49 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is besides the point.

"Beside the point" not "besides the point".

[Image: GrammarNaziTiny.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-01-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
I agree with chippy that the kalam cosmological argument does not lead to a specific deity.


The argument is

1.everything that has a begining of it's existence
2.the universe had a begining of it's existence
3.therefore,the universe had a cause of it's existence
look at 3. It just concludes that the universe had a cause of it's existence

then they follow with an argument that the cause must have been a deity,then another argument tht leads to a specific deity.


I also agree with chippy's logic that evidence alone without any sort of reasoning does not excist.

The rest is stuff i do not understand good 'nuf to comment on,so.....
Also taq,pot.kettle.
You have constructed so many strawman arguments (or there is something teribly wrong with my interpretation skills) and yet you call him out on doing it


*sneaking out silently*

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(28-01-2014 01:22 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 12:48 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Yes, ChimpyChump -- even your cheerleader boyfriend can see that you are getting mauled, and advises you to run. Again.


You wouldn't know how pointless you are, as your perspective is obviously justified to you.

I must admit I'm curious as whether you know how ineffectual you are. All you have is ad hominem, strawman accusations and whatever fallacy you blindly pluck from a list (possibly from here).

The problem is you present nothing remotely resembling an argument. Perhaps you fool some and feel this is how you gain credibility here. Who knows.

Are you a homoobe or something?

You are too fucking stupid to follow the discussion, I see. No surprise here.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 10:59 AM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(28-01-2014 10:30 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  I agree with chippy that the kalam cosmological argument does not lead to a specific deity.


The argument is

1.everything that has a begining of it's existence
2.the universe had a begining of it's existence
3.therefore,the universe had a cause of it's existence
look at 3. It just concludes that the universe had a cause of it's existence

then they follow with an argument that the cause must have been a deity,then another argument tht leads to a specific deity.


I also agree with chippy's logic that evidence alone without any sort of reasoning does not excist.

The rest is stuff i do not understand good 'nuf to comment on,so.....
Also taq,pot.kettle.
You have constructed so many strawman arguments (or there is something teribly wrong with my interpretation skills) and yet you call him out on doing it


*sneaking out silently*

Translation from SycophantSpeak: "I don't know what the fuck I am talking about, but I thought I'd come in here and kiss ChimpyChump's ass so maybe he won't get stupid at me down the road".


Cite ONE strawman argument I have raised.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2014 08:00 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(28-01-2014 04:49 AM)Chippy Wrote:  That's is akin to saying that "quadripedal animals" identifies a specific animal because "having four legs" is a specification blah blah blah....

No, it's not, ChimpyChump. All you have left anymore is disingenuous quibbling. The question-begging, specially-pled premise of a "creator" as the only thing in existence that "doesn't begin to exist" is not the trivial matter you would pretend to cast it as. The entire "argument" hinges on this sleight of hand.


And you still haven't asked Craig about his "gawd".


These two cartoons exemplify the fallacies of the Kalam:

[Image: CA230_1Trever.gif]

The "miracle", of course being the concealed premise of a "creator" that "doesn't begin to exist".

[Image: then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
(28-01-2014 10:51 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:22 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You wouldn't know how pointless you are, as your perspective is obviously justified to you.

I must admit I'm curious as whether you know how ineffectual you are. All you have is ad hominem, strawman accusations and whatever fallacy you blindly pluck from a list (possibly from here).

The problem is you present nothing remotely resembling an argument. Perhaps you fool some and feel this is how you gain credibility here. Who knows.

Are you a homoobe or something?

You are too fucking stupid to follow the discussion, I see. No surprise here.

I understand you have no points to make. Your entire perspective works on the basis of "Woof woof woof" or "Have no evidence". You have nothing worthwhile to contribute, yet argue as if you do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:33 PM
RE: [split] Taq Vs Chippy
quote='Brownshirt':

[Image: blah-blah-blah-o.gif]







----------------------------------------


Drinking Beverage





.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: