The Persistent Avoidance by godless

Because the following exchange with godless has gotten lengthy I have made it into a post.


godless,

If you're still around, here is a list of things from previous threads for you to address, some of which you have avoided for the term of your duration here.

1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.

2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.

3. Regarding Hitchens and unsupported claims:

godless:
”Yes you can. I've said at least twice now. You can rack up all the unsupported claims made which have been validated, and rack up all the unsupported claims made which have never been validated, and deduce a probability of the likely truth of future unsupported claims.”

Stan:
Interesting. Where is the link to this fascinating calculation? Where is the data? How many claims have been included in this data? Or is this just more bullshit, with no actual calculations, only a fairy tale to cover up for a Jump To Conclusion?

Without data for evidence, this can be dismissed – without evidence.
So provide the data, method of data taking, etc.

4(a). godless:
This is always way theism is so tenacious and impossible to disprove. You provide evidence or reason on one theists interpretation and a billion others chime in "well that's not MY god".”

Stan:
godless, brace yourself: I am going to wake you up by yelling at you. You have reverted in a knee-jerk fashion to your old, failed arguments. Time to wake up, bro.

We’ve been through this too many times now. SHOW ME the theists who deny the basic theism syllogism. Provide EVIDENCE of their denial of that deduction. You are making claims without evidence, which can be dismissed without evidence!!

4(b). Show why it is not necessary to disprove the basis for Theism, without the excuse that there might be other definitions. If Theism is false, then all definitions of Theism are false. Disprove the one (1) definition which you have been given here by me.

godless:
” If the people that supposedly believe this bullshit can't agree, and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.”

Stan:
”The actual question du jour is why should anyone not dismiss your rejections, when you have not proven that theists will reject the basis for Basic theism, the necessary and sufficient conditions which even you do not refute after being provided with them time and time and time again. Your argument is not against Basic Theism - which you are now actively avoiding: ACTIVELY AVOIDING. You want to argue ecclesiasticism as if that were the actual basis for Theism, so that you can AVOID ARGUING AGAINST THE ACTUAL COMMON BASIS FOR THEISM. You are making excuses, not arguments.”

The rational evidence has been given to you; there is physical evidence for you to refute (still there at Lourdes); your claim ( "and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.") is blatantly and obviously FALSE.

Disprove the rational and physical evidence presented to you. WITHOUT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS, YOUR CLAIMS MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

5. godless:
”Theists frequently make tangible claims on the nature of reality. There is no Category Error requesting evidence of such extraordinary claims.”

Aside from the issue that your complaint is not relevant to the ACTUAL RATIONAL BASIS FOR THEISM, you have been given claims of tangible evidence to refute – the claims made at Lourdes, 150 years ago – and you have not refuted and cannot refute those EITHER.

However, your position blatantly disregards the specific issue of (a) demanding PHYSICAL evidence, of (b) NON_PHYSICAL existence. That is a Category Error.

Your comment does not reflect the question you must answer:

Why are you comfortable with logic errors in your thought process?

Is it just this(?):

godless:
And if you don't make tangible claims on the nature of reality? Who cares? Your claim is then meaningless. Literally immaterial.”

First: Provide evidence showing specific material evidence that a deductive claim has no meaning. WITHOUT EVIDENCE, YOUR CLAIM MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Second: You have confused the two separate definitions of material: (a) physical, vs. (b) pertinent. When you confuse definitions, you demonstrate your own confusion.

Third: And if you don’t “care”, then why not go somewhere else to waste time?

6. Stan:
”Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence.

godless:
Right. Which is why your insistence on placing a burden of evidence on atheists is dishonest.”

It is made specifically in order to illuminate the exact demand made by Atheists on Theists, and which you made just above: your demand is intellectually dishonest and your complaint is Special Pleading for poor Atheists, who can’t prove their own claims. If your demand on Theists is OK, then it is also OK to make that same demand on Atheists.

7. godless:
”You can't ever prove a negative. Certainly not something with such a flimsy immaterial description such as theism”

Stan:
First you say that Theism must have material components (and I say, here: refute Lourdes);

And here you say that non-material existence is flimsy and can’t be proven. ( I say: then you admit that Atheist's demanding such evidence is a rational failure under Philosophical Materialism, that failed philosophy, and that Atheism, being without logic or evidence is flimsy and can't be proven).

Most importantly, proving a negative is absolutely and definitely possible if only material existence is considered as you wish: I can prove that you are not now present in this room. So if Materialism is your only source of knowledge, then you can prove negatives of material things, IFF you do not make ridiculous, universal, material claims. Atheism is a ridiculous, universal, material claim. And it is without material evidence and can be rejected on that count alone.

"Flimsy" is an excuse for no action on your part. None. Excuses only. Flimsy excuses. All without evidence in their support.

8. godless:
”But it is just because theism is such a flimsy, immaterial, undefinable, extraordinary, evidence-less, etc etc etc BULLSHIT claim, that it is dismissed.”

Stan:
”You are radically asleep, hoot. Both logical and physical evidence has been given to you many, many times; you do not refute it, but you do claim it does not exist. Other than that you avoid it like the plague, in fear of what would happen to your ideology, I suppose. Claiming that there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence, and the evidence given to you proves that your claim of no evidence is wrong, false, and irrational.

This is getting boring, repetitively going through your persistent failures to engage with actual arguments. Kindly at least engage the arguments being made, OK? One last time, if you cannot do the following, you and your Atheism have failed:

1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.

2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.