Just my two cents here, but from what I’ve seen thus far, Sid is not stupid at all. He’s actually pretty damn smart. He’s not interested in winning any arguments or proving any points. He simply enjoys stirring the pot and leading everybody around by the nose. I dare say he really doesn’t give a rip about god(s) one way or the other. This is just cheap entertainment for him. Fair enough, I suppose. Can’t really fault the guy for that. Besides, as long as he is “playing nice”, his dishonest and evasive tactics give ample opportunities for others here to highlight the absurdities of “god-think”. So, in that respect, one could almost say dear ol’ Sid is actually mildly useful. But he is certainly not stupid, in my opinion. Again, just an observation… (shrugging shoulders)…
@Tin-Man, nice post, Grasshopper! 
I think we can both agree that nobody is “winning” any arguments here . There isn’t any eureka moment or the light bulb suddenly coming on with the brilliance of somebody’s arguments .
The fact that I question the “proof of god” argument is valid and the fact I question where the burden of proof lays based upon what I consider to be legitimate circumstantial evidence is valid .
The reason I would spend time in debate on a site such as this is because I think there is a lot of value in conversing with people who believe differently to myself . Peace
I disagree, since your arguments have been almost exclusively irrational. Though I accept making illogical claims my be less important to you than preserving your beliefs. of course the term winning here might be subjective, but from a rational standpoint any arguments using known logical fallacies are obviously not valid.
Well there you go, a straw man fallacy, most posters here have not asked for proof nor would they, you can’t demonstrate a shred of objective evidence, most atheists here understand that proofs are for logic and mathematics, and differ from evidence.
Not for atheism as you keep asserting, though some atheists may go further, and incur a burden of proof, but even then the larger claim is the one for a deity, and of course you have not even attempted to accept the fact that atheism is not a claim, nor need an atheist make a contrary claim in order to disbelieve. A cursory look in any dictionary could disavow you of that.
Again whilst i may hold beliefs that differ to yours, my atheism is not a belief, and if you want to learn from the atheists here, then a good start would be at least to accept they know better than you what they do and do not believe. It’s also bad form to make unevidenced claims, then refuse to acknowledge they are unevidenced, and to ask for evidence then dishonestly deny that it has been presented.
If you genuinely want to learn, then I am wondering why you are still basing arguments on the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies you started with?
Adding further insult to injury by using the Just Joking Defense. Offensive and dishonest.
That’s why I defined stupid in a meme.
Exposure to information. Setting a standard for evidence.
I don’t think @sid has a standard for evidence regarding claims. OR he picks and chooses when to apply the standard.
Example: @Sid do you believe in alien abduction, secret space programs, Bigfoot, flat-earth?
Any or all of the above?
You have to admit the irony of @sid clinging to a word definition here, even if it was in jest, when he has repeatedly and arbitrarily ignored and contradicted word definitions throughout this discourse, is pretty funny.
So fucking what if the words man and woman have to change to encompass a new understanding of things like gender dysphoria. When people focus on the word definition, I strongly suspect that more often than not their objection has nothing whatsoever to do with the word, especially where they exhibit nothing but contempt for the dictionary when it suits their purpose.
That’s because you’ve made no argument.
We’re not asking you to prove God(s), we ask for your best evidence for the claim all theists make.
That, I give props for.
But he is a coward. Unwilling or unable to express a clear opinion and debate it honestly. Then, follow the evidence where it leads. He is in fact a dishonest coward.
If I were a coward I wouldn’t venture into the opposition camp and subject myself to the abuse and bullying that is prevalent among some posters here .
Liar , dishonest , fallacy , troll , goat herder ( don’t mind that one actually , I’m in good company looking at the goat herders I posted up) , strawman , ignorant , I’m sure there are plenty more that someone will remind me of . It’s all rather boring and is a reflection not on me but of the people who continuously use the above to denigrate people who won’t play by the rules that they insist upon .
Boring is probably an understatement if truth be told
See ya
Calling out your egregious offences against the proper rules of discourse isn’t “bullying”, though we’re used to seeing your ilk play the persecution card, it’s a well-documented part of the modus operandi of your brand of mythology fanboys. Who frequently wheel out the “I’m being persecuted” trope when they’re told to abide by the strictures of their own mythology, and treat other people with decency, when what they want to do is subject others to bigotry without facing any consequences. The whole recent torrent of transphobic hatred emanating from the usual suspects being a case in point.
Severeal of your assertions have been exposed as being manifest and blatant lies. But you persist in peddling them. Your numerous strawman caricatures of scientific postulates being a case in point.
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we’re almost certainly dealing with a bona fide member of the Family Anatidae.
Which I’ve always used to refer to the authors of your favourite mythology, not you. So you’ve introduced another lie into your whiny response.
That was your apologetic fabrication, not ours. Once again, stop lying.
You’re presented plenty of these in your time here. Your repeated peddling of blatant strawman caricatures of atheism alone speaks volumes about your idea of discourse.
You’ve manifestly demosntrated that you were ignorant of relevant facts, when you posted all manner of assertions that were roundly shredded when those facts were brought to the table.
And I’m sure they’ll also remind you of why the requisite epithets were apposite.
Such as your lame attempt to characterise my mentioning the Innes book on tropical fish as “an appeal to authority”, when it was nothing of the sort - remember me infroming you that its statements about fish behaviour had been verified by millions of tropical fishkeepers over the past century? Including myself, courtesy of those photos of my catfish spawning I posted?
I also note your wholly mendacious demand for peer reviewed evidence after several relevant instances thereof had already been provided, and which you chose wilfully to ignore.
Your tiresome attempt at tone policing in order to distract from your complete lack of substance is boring …
Oh you mean rules such as the proper rules of discourse, as understood in every rigorous academic environment? Or the requirement to display at least a basic level of honesty when posting?
Let’s see, you’ve resorted to fake “quotes” in a blatant act of credential worship (as is common among your ilk), while completely inoring the fact that NONE of those quotes bear any relevance, to whether or not genuine evidence for a cartoon magic man was ever presented by the people being “quoted” … misrepresentation of the scientific endeavour as “atheistic materialism” … fake accusations of fallacies (such as the “appeal to authority” example I’ve just cited above) … sneering and snide condescension when peer reviewed papers were presented destroying the assertions of your sad little goat herder mythology … your discoursive criminal record here runs to several pages …
Your whiny tone policing certainly fits this description …
Don’t slam the door too hard when you flounce out.
Dishonestly playing the victim. Wow. Could you be any more pathetic? No one is bullying you.
Hey, I was TRYING to be nice, Banana Breath. But if it makes you feel any better, I agree that I have known some highly intelligent cowards over the years. Speaking of which…
I wholeheartedly agree, there IS value in chatting with those who have different beliefs. Gives an opportunity for everybody to learn something new. Howwwwwwever… When one of the individuals involved is constantly being dishonest and evasive during the chat, the only thing anybody learns is that anything coming from that individual cannot (and SHOULD NOT) be trusted. Therefore, as I said earlier, you DO have some small amount of “value” here, as you are a fine example of such evasive dishonesty. Now, you are either: A. Totally unaware of your actions. (Which is really sad.); or, B. You ARE aware if what you are doing intentionally. (Which is really pathetic.) So, uh, either way, thank you for your service, I suppose.
Not much risk or danger involved, and not much honesty from your posts, and I think you were guilty of being abusive and bullying from the very first, so it’s a bit lame to complain when it is reciprocated. Had you been honest and open, or shown any willingness to have reasoned debate, then I suspect your reception would have been different. Though obviously your constant and disingenuous use of logical fallacies would always be denigrated, as would making claims you then refused to evidence or even explain.
FOR EXAMPLE, you claimed love alone was sufficient to evidence a deity, yet beyond an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you then refuse any further explanation or evidence. So whining that people have called your posts dishonest is rather futile, the proof of the pudding etc…
If you want credit for simply coming here then forget it, your behaviour here is what you will inevitably be judged on, and the closed minded dishonest way you posted from the very first was only ever going to be met with hostility, indeed I’m not sure that provoking that reaction wasn’t precisely what you intended. Either way you came here to preach at us, and not for honest debate, all anyone need do is read the thread to confirm that.
You have demonstrably been dishonest, and your posts are littered with logical fallacies, so what your point could be there is baffling.
Well the overall impression I got from the very first was that you were more interested in provoking a response than honest debate, so again you have only yourself to blame there. Though to varying degrees we are all guilty of this at some point, and again generally one reaps what one sows so to speak.
Well that’s pretty disingenuous right there, this is a debate forum, and from the first you have refused to debate, or least to debate honestly. Again the evidence is there for anyone to see, the hostility of course is generally to unevidenced ideas, and I make no apologies for that, you cannot come to an atheist debate forum and complain they won’t respect irrational argument and beliefs for which you can demonstrate no objective evidence. If you don’t want such notions subjected to critical scrutiny then a public atheist debate forum is an odd choice to air them.
Well since you fromt he first refused to debate, in a debate forum, and lied about what atheism means in a futile and irrational attempt to reverse the epistemological burden of proof, then yes it has been boring I agree, but again you are entirely to blame for your post content and tone, and again I make no apologies for decrying irrational argument, and unevidenced claims.
I know we have a few fans on here of Tim Minchin, this one is funny and apropos.
Christin: “Why don’t you believe in god”
Tim: “Well for the same reason anyone doesn’t believe in anything, I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to allay my doubts.”
Christian; “Well you don’t go through life just believing things you have evidence for?”
Tim: “Well,er yeah, that is how I live out my turgid existence.”
Christian “Well what about love?”
Tim “Well what about love?”
Christian “You don’t have any evidence for love?”
Tim: “Well…er yeah I do, I love I am loved? Love without evidence is…well, stalking.”
It appears we have with our coarse scepticism driven another theist away, on reflection I think I shall let Shakespeare handle this particular disappointment:
" I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition; that this goodly frame the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy the air, look you, this brave o’er hanging firmament, this majestical roof, fretted with golden fire: why, it appeareth no other thing to me, than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so."
Well, quite… 
Neeeexxxttttt… 
Oh boy, yet another theist complaining that they are being mistreated for their beliefs.
Listen, when you guys were in charge, you were burning us alive and stoning us to death.
Now you aren’t in charge, and all we are doing is asking questions and ridiculing your responses.
I don’t think you have it all that bad.
If you don’t like being ridiculed, stop with the absurdities and start being intellectually honest.
I have to ask Sid, do you actually know what logical fallacies are?
Please, I implore you, if you are sincere with these posts, go look into them.
If you don’t learn these common mistakes and intellectual pitfalls, how the heck do you expect to avoid them?
Interesting how it was thought that the eye being wired backwards was stupid come to find out we would be blind if it weren’t so, it’s our limitations on understanding how a system works that makes it seems “stupid” until we truly have a full understanding. Same thing can be said about pandas thumbs and photosynthesis
Sheldon, how do you reconcile this with Jesus? He came God incarnate who humbled himself, taught us, and suffered being innocent to the point of death on a cross for our sins because he loves the world and gives eternal life where there are no tears sorrow or pain. Saves us from the second death and gives us resurrection