Moderated Infinity!!!

[Foster Zygote]

I am amusingly bemused by your persistent concerted consternations on behalf of Christian apologists... but thanks for all the confirmations of... well... QED!!!

The word you're looking for is "amusedly". Just as a tip, if you are amused, then use the adverb "amusedly". If you're amusing, use the adverb "amusingly". I realize you have your hands full trying to master basic punctuation, but maybe you could work your way around to things like adjectives and adverbs one day.

But back to the subject at hand. Is it not right to seek truth? If someone made a claim about a group of people that you felt was untrue, would you refrain from saying so if they were a religious group?

 

[Foster Zygote]

How does it feel now... QED!!!

Well, it kind of feels like everyone here thinks you're wrong. It's classic conspiracy theorist behavior to dismiss the notion that maybe they are wrong by inventing a big, groupthink conspiracy to explain the opposition arrayed against them.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas, when you say we shouldn't point out your errors because we're all atheists, that's tribalism. And it isn't just atheists who think you're wrong.

Any errors you perceive are purely your errors I assure you... you do not even read the posts you strawman.

And REPEATEDLY fabricating strawmen out of posts you REFUSE to read in order to attack the ERRORS YOU DEVISED in defense of Christian Apologists... is the furthest thing from rationality let alone atheism.

 

[Foster Zygote]

a) Hilarious.
b) But less so than before.
c) Now veering more towards pathetic than funny, actually.
d) After this it'll get completely boring.

Or, in visual form:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jHn3Y_jSELw&pp=ygUac2ltcHNvbnMgaW5zZXJ0IGJyYWluIGhlcmU=

(Can't get YT link to work properly.)

How long can you go on talking nonsense?

Judging by his Coin Flipper thread, quite a while. As long as he can get the final "QED" in before he dies, he wins.

QED?

DIQ?

 

[Leumas]

The word you're looking for is "amusedly". Just as a tip, if you are amused, then use the adverb "amusedly". If you're amusing, use the adverb "amusingly". I realize you have your hands full trying to master basic punctuation, but maybe you could work your way around to things like adjectives and adverbs one day.

But back to the subject at hand. Is it not right to seek truth? If someone made a claim about a group of people that you felt was untrue, would you refrain from saying so if they were a religious group?

Thanks for your and Chanakya's emotional and CONCERTED CONSTERNATIONS all in the name of defending Christian apologists.

I am amusingly bemused by how the OP that you have not read even once managed to evoked such fervent emotions in y'all.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Any errors you perceive are purely your errors I assure you... you do not even read the posts you strawman.

And REPEATEDLY fabricating strawmen out of posts you REFUSE to read in order to attack the ERRORS YOU DEVISED in defense of Christian Apologists... is the furthest thing from rationality let alone atheism.

I've specifically asked you to explicate what I or anyone else has falsely attributed to you, and I've asked you to defend your statement that religious apologists "keep telling" us that they reject the concept of infinity as a matter of orthodox doctrine. You are either incapable of doing either, or you are unwilling, possibly because these threads of yours really are nothing more than excuses to abuse the English language with a thesaurus and poor punctuation, and write "QED!!!" as many times as possible.

 

[Leumas]

I've specifically asked you to explicate what I or anyone else has falsely attributed to you, and I've asked you to defend your statement that religious apologists "keep telling" us that they reject the concept of infinity as a matter of orthodox doctrine. You are either incapable of doing either, or you are unwilling, possibly because these threads of yours really are nothing more than excuses to abuse the English language with a thesaurus and poor punctuation, and write "QED!!!" as many times as possible.

See... yet another falsity stemming out of REFUSING TO READ.

All one has to do to see the extent of fallacious falsity in your above post is read... which you refuse to do because otherwise you might not be able to fabricate the strawmen you want to defend against in fervent sympathy with Christian apologists

But especially when they say things that counter your assertion that Christians keep telling us that they regard the very notion of infinity as absurd.

....

Thanks for the above vivid demonstration of the depths of fallaciousness and falsehoods which atheists on a forum for atheists and skeptics are willing to spread in defense of Christian apologists.

Christian and other apologists and casuists keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality.

Of course they do this in the context of trying to cobble together coherent apologetics and sophistry for their gods.

Well... what do you say to this then

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.

The OP assures us that Christians keep telling us that they reject the concept of infinity...

Strawmanning is a fallacy... I suggest you read the OP again... you either misread it or are deliberately strawmanning it.

I suggest in addition to reading the OP again... to also read this

One of the common claims which is utilized in arguments for the existence of God is that actual infinities cannot exist, implying that there cannot be an infinite regress of causal events in the history of the universe. If there cannot be such an infinite regress, then there must be some First Cause. Theologians then put forth other arguments attempting to show that this First Cause must be God. Blake Giunta, a Christian apologist,

And this

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.

...

... Are you going to attempt to mask your inability to support that part of the claim <snip stuff for many QEDs>

Here have a look how wrong you are... QED!!!

• Why Islam Is True E08: Infinity Is an Imaginary Concept
• Al Ghazali and the Impossibility of an Infinite Regress
• Creator of The Creator: The Problem of the Infinite Regress

And

Temporal finitism

Temporal finitism is the doctrine that time is finite in the past. The philosophy of Aristotle, expressed in such works as his Physics, held that although space was finite, with only void existing beyond the outermost sphere of the heavens, time was infinite. This caused problems for mediaeval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian philosophers who, primarily creationist, were unable to reconcile the Aristotelian conception of the eternal with the Genesis creation narrative

ETA: And have you read the list in this post?



.

 

[Doubt]

Thank you Chanakya for that emotional outburst and fervent demonstration of fealty.... all in the name of defending Christian Apologists.

QED!!!

Been reading your threads for some time. Generally not inclined to comment because others usually do that better.

There is a hidden logical fallacy in behind every one of these threads you start. They end up being examples of the black and white fallacy. At least hidden from you by you. And do not for a moment think it is the only fallacy you have been committing.

People telling you your arguments are BS is not the same thing as supporting Christian apologists. The only way for that to be true is if the only options are that either the Christian apologists are correct and you are wrong or the opposite.

Anybody that made it to adulthood with a functioning brain knows that reality is more complicated than that. Both you and the apologists cannot be right. But you can both be wrong. And when a bunch of people who have beliefs that come closer to aligning with your own keep telling you that you have something wrong, you should start considering that you might be wrong.

As an exercise in self examination, you should go back over your various threads and ask yourself two things:

1.) Can I be wrong?
2.) Where might I have been wrong?

If the answer to 1 is anything other than yes, you failed at critical thinking.
if the answer to 2 ends up being no where, then you still failed at critical thinking.

If you instead, persist with claiming everybody else here is wrong and you lean on black and white reasoning to claim that, then there is no hope that you start reasoning correctly.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Thanks for your and Chanakya's emotional and CONCERTED CONSTERNATIONS all in the name of defending Christian apologists.

The only thing I've defended Christian apologists from is your claim that they "keep telling" us that they reject the very concept of infinity. In my seventeen years on this forum I've probably written thousands of pages arguing against all manner of religious apologia. But I've done so using rational arguments, not baseless attacks made out of some sense of visceral hatred. If someone comes along and makes the nauseating case that a toddler being raped and murdered doesn't support the Problem of Evil because she must have done something to deserve that fate, then I'm going to call that person on their ********. But if someone comes along and says "Christians keep telling us that children who die horribly did something to deserve that", I'm going to call that person on their ******** too.

You've accused us of tribalism for disagreeing with you, but also invoked tribalism by suggesting that we should agree with you because you are a fellow atheist. It seems pretty clear to me that you are trying to win the favor of this imagined tribe with your OP. But if you want people to agree with your arguments, don't base them on false generalizations. This isn't a schoolyard clique in which you gain status by inventing derogatory rumors about the out group.

I am amusingly bemused...

Yes, you certainly are amusing.

...by how the OP that you have not read even once managed to evoked such fervent emotions in y'all.

The only one getting emotional is you.

 

[Leumas]

Just reading about the Cosmological Argument on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. I can't say I understand the arguments being made, but they differentiate between "actual infinities" and "potential infinities".

Yes... they do... which you and others denied that they do... so I guess thanks for proving it for yourself... despite the numerous posts in which I cited other Christian Liars for Jesus doing the same....(here and here)

But... do you know what a "potential infinity" is and what an "actual infinity" is and what is the difference if you think there is one and can define either?

Here is Craig denying the "actual infinite" exists



And here he denies it again

 

[Leumas]

Been reading your threads for some time. Generally not inclined to comment because others usually do that better. ...

You very evidently have not read this one... because your argument is arrant codswallop... as evinced by the post just above this one... as well as

this

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.

and this

One of the common claims which is utilized in arguments for the existence of God is that actual infinities cannot exist, implying that there cannot be an infinite regress of causal events in the history of the universe. If there cannot be such an infinite regress, then there must be some First Cause. Theologians then put forth other arguments attempting to show that this First Cause must be God. Blake Giunta, a Christian apologist,

And this

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.

And here have a look how wrong you are... QED!!!

• Why Islam Is True E08: Infinity Is an Imaginary Concept
• Al Ghazali and the Impossibility of an Infinite Regress
• Creator of The Creator: The Problem of the Infinite Regress

And Temporal finitism

Temporal finitism is the doctrine that time is finite in the past. The philosophy of Aristotle, expressed in such works as his Physics, held that although space was finite, with only void existing beyond the outermost sphere of the heavens, time was infinite. This caused problems for mediaeval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian philosophers who, primarily creationist, were unable to reconcile the Aristotelian conception of the eternal with the Genesis creation narrative

 

[Steve]

How does it feel now... QED!!!

Makes me feel all warm and tingly. Beads of sweat on my brow! I think maybe.....ohh, ohh, OOOHHH!!!

Yep, that was it alright.

 

[Leumas]

The only thing I've defended Christian apologists from is your claim that they "keep telling" us that they reject the very concept of infinity.....

Yup... which is correct and you refusing to read the posts and citations that prove you wrong in defending the Christian apologists... makes it your error and refusal to see the evidence... which is not a rational thing to do.... I suggest you read the above three posts again and again... you might eventually spot where you errors are (This one and this one and this one).... and of course the OP and this one and this one and this one and this one where you kept on repeating your strawmanning and refusing to look at any evidence and then saying I gave you no evidence.

And thanks for admitting that you were so concerned to defend the Christian apologists against your PERCEIVED offense to them by refusing to even look once at the evidence that rives your wrong perception.

 

[Leumas]

Makes me feel all warm and tingly. Beads of sweat on my brow! I think maybe.....ohh, ohh, OOOHHH!!!

Yep, that was it alright.

Yes... indeed... tribalism is a primitive and visceral desire inherent in the nature of humanity.

Unfortunately... not many can attain rationality where they can overcome this primitive drive.

 

[Steve]

Yes... indeed... tribalism is a primitive and visceral desire inherent in the nature of humanity.

Unfortunately... not many can attain rationality where they can overcome this primitive drive.

Your ability to twist any post to pretend that it says what you want it to is uncanny. I stand (well, sit) in awe!

 

[Leumas]

Your ability to twist any post to pretend that it says what you want it to is uncanny. I stand (well, sit) in awe!

I pale in contrast to y'all... I am only still learning from the gurus at it... namely y'all.... and in this thread... in defense of Christian apologists... y'all are bringing your A-game indeed.

 

[sackett]

Tribalism? Goddammit, I thought we'd be talking about TRIBADISM! With pix and gifs and heavy soundtracks!

No wonder this forum is perishing.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Tribalism? Goddammit, I thought we'd be talking about TRIBADISM! With pix and gifs and heavy soundtracks!

No wonder this forum is perishing.

That would be an improvement.

 

[jsfisher]

NM

 

[Steve]

I pale in contrast to you'll... I am only still learning from the gurus at it... namely y'all.... and in this thread... in defense of Christian apologists... y'all are bringing your A-game indeed.

Ok, I guess. Bizarre, but ok,I guess.