this argument assumes that your original argument is correct without evidence. you claim xzy is saying 2+2 = 5 by saying there is no god but you have yet to provide real evidence for this god so it's just your conjecture to say so.


there is no creator. oh look I just did. this is your opinion. this is an emotional argument which is a logical fallacy you have not made a real argument for the existence of god you're just saying "how dare you say he isn't" which suggests you dont actualy have any evidence for him or you would provide it. your general tone is that of anger too suggesting that deep down you know there is no real evidence for god so you're getting frustrated and need to furiously beat down your own doubts vicariously through xzy. you are right about there being a creator though - your father. not a god though.


there is evidence for there being a government though - a parliment building, politicians, police forces, armed forces, numerous institutions. where as once again all god has is a book full of desert scriblings from antiquity and bunch of clergymen saying its so and pocketing your cash. if religions were smaller it would be considered a cult - think about that.

oh, and leave xzy alone. I'm the one who wants to debate you on this so go ahead and refute the points I brought up in my previous post. bet you can't.

talk to you soon babe.

I already adressed the argument you are presenting, and I did it without the need for the ad homine attacks which you ahve presented with your post, a logical fallacy of the highest order (although I will admit being called rascal pig was the highlight of my day - pure gold). simply because I cannot recall every second of my life does not mean there was a god that I have forgotten.the burdon of proof in this case falls on the person making the claim, which in this case is you making the claim that there is a god, so you would have to provide evidence for such a being, which you haven't.

what you are attempting to employ is an unfalsifyable claim (which does not neccessarily mean the claim is not false it just means it can't be proven to be either false or true.) for instince I could say "whenever I am alone and noone is watching or filming a flying pig swoops in and talks to me" and since one of the pre-requisites would be noone else present you could never prove me wrong, but it is quite clearly very unlikely to be true and the burdon of proof of the existance of the flying pig would fall on me. not you.

therefore, provide me with concrete evidence there was a god I forgot and I would gladly accept it, but you have not as of yet done so. all you have done is slung mud around in the form of terribly composed ad homines and repeated an already rebuted argument with no adendum to discredit my rebuttle.

if you need help with any of the big words let me know, hot shot.

you are not adressing my arguments so how do you hope to be taken at all seriously? you are just embarassing yourself, as religious debaters often do. replacing huge swades of my post doesnt make you seem whitty. it just shows everyone that you actualy can't refute what was said so the only option you have is to attempt to dismiss it as "garbage" and therefore dissmissable without explaination. but, if it is truly garbage then you should have an easy time composing a refutation, so go ahead.

but, you won't. you'll just keep parroting the same argument that I already refuted over and over again thinking you're the (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..) in your own head while anyone with real intelect can see what a laughing stock you are and how quickly your arguments have crumbled under my scrutiny. on the off chance that any of this is getting through your stubborne little head: everytime you repeat the same argument, you're just hurting your own side of the debate, you need to adress my refutations if you are to stand any chance of being taken seriously by third parties observing the discourse.

good day.

how can you possibly know if I have provided a sufficient rebuttle or not if you refuse to read it?

it's fine though, the censorship of new ideas and criticism of the "holy" groupthink is a classic and fundamental character trait of both religions and cults alike. it really just shows people how stubbourne, unreasonable and intelectualy dishonest you are

if what I'm saying is so stupid, then provide a rebuttle. it should be easy for you. if the next post you make is another "the things you have said are not worth reading so I'll just dismiss them and call you a rascal pig" then you're just showing everyone that you have nothing of real value to add to the debate.

yes, I am. and I have provided an in depth post explaining exactly why your explaination was sub par as evidence for an afterlife or god.


I am not shifting the burdon of proof, you are. I simply stated where it lies and that is on the person making the claim. you are making the claim that god is real so you have the burdon of proving that claim, I do not have the burdon of disproving it. otherwise, it would be called the burdon of disproof. yet still I have provided you with a substantial body of counter points to your argument proving the invalidity of the claim and you just ignore them.


what are you even trying to say here? this is non sensical drivel.


I think you'll find what I said was there is a government and there is a creator, the creator just isn't god. my creator is my father and mother whose sperm and egg met 17 years and some 8 months ago and began the pregnancy process. to say that because I have an opinion or viewpoint that differs from your own I have no intelegence is an increddibly arrogant and self centred stance to take. and once again we have the parroting of the same god-damned argument (or should I say krishna-damned) that I already rebuted once again without any adendum or mention of my rebuttle. just because I cannot remember every second of my life does not mean there was deffinately a god at one point during it. that is a claim. and a claim you are making. therefore, prove it!


I will talk wherever I please. this is a public forum and I am breaching none of its terms of service by debating with you here. also free speech mother (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..).

oh and if fellow atheists are "street dogs" and you're the standard of a heaven-bound saint, then I'd rather spend an eternity in hell with the street dogs than a day in "heaven" with you.