Re: The Fool [ported-over from Payments forum]

[falcon9]

So you are saying that your religion of atheism is on trial here?

No, myself and others have established that atheism is not a religion, despite your futile attempts to force-fit skeptical disbelief into a religious mold.  Am online forum is not a courtroom, (although your irrational remarks seem to indicate that you view D+D as a 'kangaroo-court').

And myself and others have established that it is.  Your claims that your cat is colorless because it is black argument does not work and never really did, it is just your attempt to deflect and obfuscate and redefine.

On the contrary, your simplistic argument under the premise that "atheism is a religion" has not been established by evidence, nor by your repetition of that false premise.  It has been your tenuous syllogisms which have failed to support your argument by way of the documented record of the deflections, obfuscations and attempts to redefine skeptical disbelief as being conflated with a "religion".  There is no "religion" of skeptical disbelief, no matter how many times you insist upon touting such an unsupportable false premise.
  

You brought up the courtroom and now wish to dismiss it ...

The prosecution/defense example was raised as just that; as a parallel of the burden of proof requirement.  I'm not dismissing the burden of proof requirement that you and other religious adherents flee from and implicitly dismiss by avoided the responsibility to provide evidence which supports your religious claims.  Even this tangential diversion of yours fails because it does not succeed in diverting my attention from the fact that no such viable evidence supporting your claims has been presented.  This is in contrast to evidence and reasoning presented which challenges the initial claims made by religious adherents, (even while they dodge the burden of proof requirement a claimant has).

Rather typical weaseling from you isn't that.

The only "weaseling" involved in that regard is the continued disingenuous one of avoiding the burden of proof responsibility which lies with the religious adherent claimants.

[ ...]

This is the typical method used by atheists, attack Christianity ... and then claim you are the defendant and the other is the prosecution.

Firstly, challenging the unsupported claims of xtianity and xtians who initally made them is disingenuously being characterized as an "attack" in order to dodge the burden of proof responsibility for making such initial claims.  Since xtians are asserting their religious claims, the burden of proof to substantiate them lies with them, not with those challenging such claims.  This aspect of the 'debate' has recurred often enough that you are certainly aware of it and dishonestly continue attempting to shift the burden of proof onto those who challenge xtian claims.  It's a "fallacious and weak form of argument" and it's also unclear why you continue to pursue it.

Why are you so afraid to admit you are attacking Christians?

I'm not "afraid" of such strawman arguments since I'm not "attacking xtians", I'm challenging their unsupported claims.  Why are xtians so  fearful of the burden of proof in providing evidence which would support or, invalidate their claims?
  

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defender.

To reiterate; the burden of proof rests with those who make the initial claims.  In this context, those initial claims have been made by religious adherents, (e.g., citing "belief" that a supernatural being exists, sans attributible evidence; citing the efficacy of 'prayer', sans attributible evidence; citing the "creation" of the universe to an unattributible source and so on).
  

You are accusing Christianity of being false and you cannot prove it ...

Your contention in that regard is false.  Numerous citations of evidence supporting the premise that xtianity has plaguarized other religious beliefs throughout history have been referenced.  The most recent one, (in the "evolution" thread), indicated that "The Israelites borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to their belief in one God as expressed by the shema,[9] and their over-riding purpose was to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[10]" -[9] - Sarna 1997, p. 50
-[10] -Leeming 2004").
 

... so instead you insist that they have to prove it to be true.

Not at all; the insistance remains that the religious adherents who made the initially asserted claims provide evidence to support those claims under the burden of proof responsibility which they, (which means you too), continue to dodge.

You know that you cannot prove your religion to be true ...

It doesn't bolster your argument to huck-up another strawman; I don't have a religion, the inherent implication that "atheism" being a "religion" is the other strawman.  Both have been set ablaze by reason and have been merrily burning away even as you repeat your sophist songs around that fire.
 

The frequency of an event doesn't reduce its right/wrong qualities.

Conversely, your repetition of false premises doesn't increase their validity by an iota.  

You admit here that you are challenging Christian claims and this place you in the position of accuser/prosecution ...

Yours is a false dichotomy; the burden of proof for making the initial claims lies with the religious adherents who made such claims and not with those who challenge the claimants to substantiate their claims with valid evidence.

Yours is the weak form of argument, relying on the inability of others to prove ...

It isn't a "weak form of argument" to require the claimant, (religious adherents making specious claims), to provide evidence which supports the claims they  made under the burden of proof responsibility.  A pattern of evidence has emerged from this debate which consists of your inability to accurately apply the burden of proof to the correct claimant.

[ ... ]
 

I don't know why this fallacious and weak form of argument isn't obvious to everyone it is used against ...

It could be speculated that, (on the basis of posted evidence provided to these forums), that some religious adherents are being 'selectively irrational' in that regard - which is obvious to almost anyone but themselves.

... but it just proves to me how zealous and irrational you devout atheists are.

Your ad hom is completely unsupported by evidence while coincidentally providing substantiation for the 'selectively irrational' arguments made against those who are non-religious. In the immediately previous decade, the slang term for that was "epic fail".  

As a related observation; animals caught in hunter's traps will twist and turn and even chew off a leg to escape. It seems such a cruel practice, doesn't it?
[/quote]

This isn't 'ad hom' because it is truth.

On the contrary, it isn't the "truth" merely because you assert the unsubstantiated claim that it is; " ... zealous and irrational you devout atheists ..." is merely your completely unsupported opinion which is in no way conflated with "the truth".  It is therefore an empty ad hominem opinion, (a weak form of rebuttal).  

Speaking of unsupported evidence, why don't you prove your religion?

Since I've never claimed to subscribe to any "religion", there is no burden of proof to satisfy, (and again, "atheism" is not a "religion", despite your continued and repetious irrational opinion).  

Fancy yourself the hunter now do you?

I learned to hunt at an early age and was never taught to trap animals.  Some humans are of a different sort; having a tendency to be ensnared by "traps" of their own making, they will often chew off any leg they believed they were standing upon by repeating the false premise which snapped-closed on their leg.

[Abrupt]

So you are saying that your religion of atheism is on trial here?

No, myself and others have established that atheism is not a religion, despite your futile attempts to force-fit skeptical disbelief into a religious mold.  Am online forum is not a courtroom, (although your irrational remarks seem to indicate that you view D+D as a 'kangaroo-court').

And myself and others have established that it is.  Your claims that your cat is colorless because it is black argument does not work and never really did, it is just your attempt to deflect and obfuscate and redefine.

On the contrary, your simplistic argument under the premise that "atheism is a religion" has not been established by evidence, nor by your repetition of that false premise.  It has been your tenuous syllogisms which have failed to support your argument by way of the documented record of the deflections, obfuscations and attempts to redefine skeptical disbelief as being conflated with a "religion".  There is no "religion" of skeptical disbelief, no matter how many times you insist upon touting such an unsupportable false premise.
  

You brought up the courtroom and now wish to dismiss it ...

The prosecution/defense example was raised as just that; as a parallel of the burden of proof requirement.  I'm not dismissing the burden of proof requirement that you and other religious adherents flee from and implicitly dismiss by avoided the responsibility to provide evidence which supports your religious claims.  Even this tangential diversion of yours fails because it does not succeed in diverting my attention from the fact that no such viable evidence supporting your claims has been presented.  This is in contrast to evidence and reasoning presented which challenges the initial claims made by religious adherents, (even while they dodge the burden of proof requirement a claimant has).

Rather typical weaseling from you isn't that.

The only "weaseling" involved in that regard is the continued disingenuous one of avoiding the burden of proof responsibility which lies with the religious adherent claimants.

[ ...]

This is the typical method used by atheists, attack Christianity ... and then claim you are the defendant and the other is the prosecution.

Firstly, challenging the unsupported claims of xtianity and xtians who initally made them is disingenuously being characterized as an "attack" in order to dodge the burden of proof responsibility for making such initial claims.  Since xtians are asserting their religious claims, the burden of proof to substantiate them lies with them, not with those challenging such claims.  This aspect of the 'debate' has recurred often enough that you are certainly aware of it and dishonestly continue attempting to shift the burden of proof onto those who challenge xtian claims.  It's a "fallacious and weak form of argument" and it's also unclear why you continue to pursue it.

Why are you so afraid to admit you are attacking Christians?

I'm not "afraid" of such strawman arguments since I'm not "attacking xtians", I'm challenging their unsupported claims.  Why are xtians so  fearful of the burden of proof in providing evidence which would support or, invalidate their claims?
  

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defender.

To reiterate; the burden of proof rests with those who make the initial claims.  In this context, those initial claims have been made by religious adherents, (e.g., citing "belief" that a supernatural being exists, sans attributible evidence; citing the efficacy of 'prayer', sans attributible evidence; citing the "creation" of the universe to an unattributible source and so on).
  

You are accusing Christianity of being false and you cannot prove it ...

Your contention in that regard is false.  Numerous citations of evidence supporting the premise that xtianity has plaguarized other religious beliefs throughout history have been referenced.  The most recent one, (in the "evolution" thread), indicated that "The Israelites borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to their belief in one God as expressed by the shema,[9] and their over-riding purpose was to establish a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of Israel's historic enemy, Babylon.[10]" -[9] - Sarna 1997, p. 50
-[10] -Leeming 2004").
 

... so instead you insist that they have to prove it to be true.

Not at all; the insistance remains that the religious adherents who made the initially asserted claims provide evidence to support those claims under the burden of proof responsibility which they, (which means you too), continue to dodge.

You know that you cannot prove your religion to be true ...

It doesn't bolster your argument to huck-up another strawman; I don't have a religion, the inherent implication that "atheism" being a "religion" is the other strawman.  Both have been set ablaze by reason and have been merrily burning away even as you repeat your sophist songs around that fire.
 

The frequency of an event doesn't reduce its right/wrong qualities.

Conversely, your repetition of false premises doesn't increase their validity by an iota.  

You admit here that you are challenging Christian claims and this place you in the position of accuser/prosecution ...

Yours is a false dichotomy; the burden of proof for making the initial claims lies with the religious adherents who made such claims and not with those who challenge the claimants to substantiate their claims with valid evidence.

Yours is the weak form of argument, relying on the inability of others to prove ...

It isn't a "weak form of argument" to require the claimant, (religious adherents making specious claims), to provide evidence which supports the claims they  made under the burden of proof responsibility.  A pattern of evidence has emerged from this debate which consists of your inability to accurately apply the burden of proof to the correct claimant.

[ ... ]
 

I don't know why this fallacious and weak form of argument isn't obvious to everyone it is used against ...

It could be speculated that, (on the basis of posted evidence provided to these forums), that some religious adherents are being 'selectively irrational' in that regard - which is obvious to almost anyone but themselves.

... but it just proves to me how zealous and irrational you devout atheists are.

Your ad hom is completely unsupported by evidence while coincidentally providing substantiation for the 'selectively irrational' arguments made against those who are non-religious. In the immediately previous decade, the slang term for that was "epic fail".  

As a related observation; animals caught in hunter's traps will twist and turn and even chew off a leg to escape. It seems such a cruel practice, doesn't it?

This isn't 'ad hom' because it is truth.

On the contrary, it isn't the "truth" merely because you assert the unsubstantiated claim that it is; " ... zealous and irrational you devout atheists ..." is merely your completely unsupported opinion which is in no way conflated with "the truth".  It is therefore an empty ad hominem opinion, (a weak form of rebuttal).  

Speaking of unsupported evidence, why don't you prove your religion?

Since I've never claimed to subscribe to any "religion", there is no burden of proof to satisfy, (and again, "atheism" is not a "religion", despite your continued and repetious irrational opinion).  

Fancy yourself the hunter now do you?

I learned to hunt at an early age and was never taught to trap animals.  Some humans are of a different sort; having a tendency to be ensnared by "traps" of their own making, they will often chew off any leg they believed they were standing upon by repeating the false premise which snapped-closed on their leg.

I have done an extremely effective job of proving atheism as a religion (especially since you cannot prove that it isn't a religion).  It is very odd that you claim my argument to be simplistic.  Let us see your argument is based on a definition in an online dictionary and to counter that I also used definitions from online dictionaries -- and the exact same one which you used (where you later said it didn't count because it didn't agree with your definition).  I also showed where the law considers atheism to be a religion -- including the Supreme Court of the United States.  Your basic argument is that atheism is not a religion because you and other (not all though) atheists claim it isn't.  It is undeniable, I handily won that exchange with supporting evidence far beyond anything you could deliver including exactly what you delivered also.

I don't flee from burden of proof arguments.  The reason I don't is because I don't have to.  I am not trying to convince you of my beliefs and I am sharing my beliefs here for those that are interested.  You on the other hand are trying to browbeat others into believing in your religion.  Your argument is that since those of other religions (especially Christianity) cannot prove to you their religions, that yours must be true.  The problem is you cannot prove your own religion.  Since you are the one attempting to force your religion upon others then the onus and burden of proof is on you.  It is absolutely entirely dishonest of you to continue to inject yourself into any religion debate with your same tired and weak diatribe and still pretend that you are some innocent defender that doesn't have to prove what you are saying.  It is intellectually dishonest for you to not admit that you are logically incapable of proving your religion while using that same set of rules to try and force those of other religions to try and prove theirs to you.

I think it easy to conclude that nobody here would deny that you are the most devout purveyor of personal beliefs and opinions upon these forums.  I now hand you the very scales and noose you put to others and insist that you measure and pay your own debts and taxes, and at the exuberant excise you have placed upon others.  Oh wait, you can't do that though can you (as we both well know).

[Cubboo]

I think abrupt just tore your butt up! Lol nice job abrupt you win

[Falconer02]

You on the other hand are trying to browbeat others into believing in your religion.

"My religion is right."
"Well, if it's correct, why are there a lot of errors in your religion that conflict with history?"
"...STOP TRYING TO PUSH YOUR RELIGION ON ME!"

The problem is you cannot prove your own religion.

I think it easy to conclude that nobody here would deny that you are the most devout purveyor of personal beliefs and opinions upon these forums.  I know hand you the very scales and noose you put to others and insist that you measure and pay your own debts and taxes, and at the exuberant excise you have placed upon others.  Oh wait, you can't do that though can you (as we both well know).

This is getting very odd as I read this. Pointing out problems in a specific belief does not mean you're pushing for another specific belief in a militaristic fashion (in the sense that if I point out a problem in capitalism, it does not make me a communist. It just means I found a problem and want to discuss that problem). It's ultimately just to get the other person to think about something they probably hadn't considered in the past. I guess you could label this as pushing freethought (something I image you COULD label as a belief system)? If we could agree on that, is there really a problem?

It is intellectually dishonest for you to not admit that you are logically incapable of proving your religion while using that same set of rules to try and force those of other religions to try and prove theirs to you.

People cannot disprove any mythology, so no one can disprove a religion. There! I said it! lol

[falcon9]

I think abrupt just tore your butt up! Lol nice job abrupt you win

Hardly.  His use of a false premise, (or more than one), is easily refuted.  Naturally, your inherent biases will prevent you from realizing this while you plant a smooch on his posterior.

[falcon9]

Speaking of unsupported evidence, why don't you prove your religion?

Since I've never claimed to subscribe to any "religion", there is no burden of proof to satisfy, (and again, "atheism" is not a "religion", despite your continued and repetious irrational opinion).  

I have done an extremely effective job of proving atheism as a religion ...

No, you've presented a refuted argument which failed to prove/substantiate your premise.  That refutation is archived for the record and it entirely contradicts your specious 'declaration of victory'.

(especially since you cannot prove that it isn't a religion).

While the burden of proof isn't normally applied to 'proving' a negative assertion, (being that the burden of proof requirement falls to those who make the positive assertion of an initial claim), atheism means "a-theism"; not theism.  Further, atheism does not meet the requirements of a superstitious religious belief since its adherents nominally disbelieve religious claims.  Lastly, your attempts to re-argue your falied arguments remain repetitiously-false and previously refuted.

I handily won that exchange with supporting evidence ...

Sure you did - in the same sense that the "Black Knight" in the Holy Grail movie "won" the duel and falsely claimed 'victory'. Unfortunately for that specious declaration, some others noted the failure of your argument, (plus, that failure is archived), so your declaration is contradicted by evidence.
  

I don't flee from burden of proof arguments.  The reason I don't is because I don't have to.

Although the burden of proof requirement lies with those who make an initial claim, (like yours, claiming that "atheism is a religion"), it's true that you don't need an excuse, (not a "reason" since that word implies a logical process not extant in your "I don't have to" petulant remark), to avoid that responsibility.  It remains entirely your choice to huck-up a false premise, fail to substantiate it and then speciously claim to have "handlily won".  Conversely, merely claiming to have "won" is not equivalent to actually having done so, (although it is equivalent to announcing your own self-deception).  

I am not trying to convince you of my beliefs and I am sharing my beliefs here for those that are interested.

Yet, that sort of evangelizing has diddly-squat to do with your fleeing from a burden of proof responsibility regarding your initial claim that "atheism is a religion", (although you did offer what you considered 'evidence' to support your claim, each of those 'exhibits' were refuted in detail - as the archived record shows).

You on the other hand are trying to browbeat others into believing in your religion.

That is false since I don't subscribe to a religion, (and reject your inherent strawman that "atheism is a religion"; a circular premise), and am not 'evangelizing' any religion.  On the contrary, what I've consistantly done is to challenge the unsupported religious claims made by religious adherents such as yourself.  Such challenges on the basis of reason and logic may be considered to be 'browbeating' to those unable to meet such challenges, (and apparently prefer that their specious superstitions go unchallenged), however logic and the ability to reason do not constitute a 'religious belief' any more than aethism does, (which is, not at all).  

Your argument is that since those of other religions (especially Christianity) cannot prove to you their religions, that yours must be true.

Once again, I don't have a "religion".  Secondly, that's not my argument.  My argument has been and remains that xtians making religious claims have been unable to provide evidence to support those claims and therefore, they default to being specious assertions lacking evidence.
  

It is absolutely entirely dishonest of you to continue to inject yourself into any religion debate ...

No, anyone can challenge specious religious claims if they so desire.  What's "absolutely entirely dishonest of you" is your continued insistance that "atheism" or questioning the unsupported claims religious adherents make somehow constitutes a "religion". That premise has been refuted and remains false.  Any specious conclusions and arguments you continue to derive from that false premise are false.  If your premise were applied to a college professor questioning the premises of his students and challenging them to support it, that would make the instructor a "religious adherent" of the falsely-designated "religion of skepticism".  However, since neither skepticism nor atheism are religions, your entire premise collapses on itself while you defiantly declare a false 'victory' from its smoking ruins.  That's some imagery alright.