The right thing to say

Poppycock. And to illustrate just how much this assertion of yours is poppycock, I’ll introduce you to my six foot cockroach. Or, to be more correct, the six foot cockroach that I was hallucinating one of the nurses to be, whilst being treated for bacterial meningitis in 1994, an occasion that saw my body temperature rise to 104°F.

Now most people upon experiencing this hallucination, would probably start trying to climb the walls, but thanks to my background as an invertebrate zoologist, I was still sanguine enough, despite my fevered state, to put this hallucination to some good use, and see if I could determine what species of cockroach I was hallucinating.

Human brains are capable of cooking up all sorts of fantasy entities and scenarios even without the influence of disease or certain types of drug. It’s the reason we have fiction as a literary genre. Cartoon magic men are simply another offshoot of this.

According to your fatuous assertion, my six foot cockroach is as real as your cartoon magic man.

We can discard the assertion that your cartoon magic man is real, on several grounds:

[1] The mythology within which this entity is asserted to exist, is replete with errors that are fatuous and absurd, errors that any genuine god type entity would not allow itself to be associated with;

[2] The cartoon magic man asserted to exist within your favourite mythology is asserted to possess logically contradictory attributes;

[3] The same cartoon magic man is asserted within your favourite mythology, to possess a mindset that combines the worst attributes of a spoiled toddler and a sociopathic Bronze Age warlord, a mindset that would not lead to an entity in possession thereof being genuinely productive;

[4] We can discard your cartoon magic man, and for that matter, every cartoon magic man from every pre-scientific mythology, courtesy of the fact that several million peer reviewed scientific papers, document in exquisite detail the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years. That testable natural processes are sufficient for this task, renders cartoon magic men superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Meanwhile, moving on …

Wrong. But I’m used to seeing mythology fanboys trying to define our thinking to conform to their presuppositions and outright bigotries.

Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That it IT. Equivalently, it consists of “YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertion”, preferably with something better than “My mythology says so” and accompanying ex recto apologetic fabrications.

Indeed, suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions, is the ONLY observable common feature among atheists. I’m something of an outlier even among the more freewheeling atheists for several reasons, one of them being that I’m on public record in several places as welcoming genuine evidence for a god type entity, on the grounds that the arrival of said evidence will toss all of our pre-scientific mythologies into the bin. I’ll enjoy the butthurt arising from the mythology fanboys if I’m lucky enough to observe the arrival of said evidence.

And, once again, you don’t understand how the rules of proper discourse work. Assertions, when first presented, possess the status “truth value unknown”, and remain in that epistemological limbo until a proper test of the assertions in question is both devised and conducted. Until that deficit is addressed by the means just described, assertions remain safely discardable.

Once that proper test is devised and conducted, assertions found to be false are again discardable, except for pedagogical purposes, while assertions found to be true become the evidentially supported postulates forming our knowledge base.

Oh, and by “proper test” I don’t mean “here’s some apologetic fabrications I pulled out of my arse”.

And now it’s food time. Exert diligent effort studying the above while I’m eating.

5 Likes

That’s the best you can do ?
Just remember to apply that to yourself the next time you are asking somebody who makes a God claim for Proof ……………….NOT

And your response is?

@Sid You really dropped the ball on that one. Not exactly an intelligent and articulate reply.

2 Likes

I see you’re making up shit already. Don’t bitch about it and play the victim when the rest of the members rip you an ass like we did the last one.

I can’t remember ever asking that of someone. Can you provide a citation of me asking someone that? Didn’t I already tell you that I thought it was a silly request?

It’s almost as if you aren’t reading what I write; and are just responding to what you think I might be writing.

1 Like

I think the articulate and intelligent reply went out of the window awhile back , don’t you ? Asking somebody to prove they were born on this planet being passed off as a coherent rebuttal to the question of evil being unprovable is as stupid as it gets . As the poster is on your team he gets a free pass, I get it.
It’s ok , I understand how it works , your sandbox, your rules . Au revoir

It’s a hint for you to look in the mirror. You asked a stupid question. Now to prove a point, they’re asking you questions you don’t like. You see how that works?

1 Like

LOL :laughing:

Yah…he definitely got the point that was being made.

Ohhhh. They’re always so good at connecting dots :woozy_face: (once the picture has been drawn for them).

1 Like

There’s teams around here?? Geez, never been big on tribalism.

Unless it’s for chess. So many good memories of losing matches while being distracted by a Japanese exchange student’s breasts.

Officially joining Team Mammary Talk, if no other.

2 Likes

You asked someone to do something impossible. Then I asked you to do a similar impossible task. If that makes me unreasonable; what does it say about you?

4 Likes

How to combine two different subjects into a pithy comment.

Tit for tat.

1 Like

Like he old saying goes. He walked right into that one.

Like me ol’ pappy use ta say, “If’n ya cain’t haing wit-da big dawgs, den don’t be-a gettin’ cawt shootin’ a bird inna bush bee-hinda oneuv them-thare new-fangledy glass houses.”

(Okay, to be honest… I never did know what the fuck he meant by that.)

1 Like

The Jackrabbit always wins…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlsCFW3gKtY

I LIKE that version of that story. :smiley:

1 Like

Not really, no deity need exist for humans to express strong emotions described by the word love, however as @Tin-Man points out, the notion a perfectly merciful omniscient and omnipotent deity exists in a world with ubiquitous suffering, violates the law of non-contradiction.

3 Likes

I laughed at the part where the old man asked her if her mom told her that story lmao.