Psychotic Parrot

Joined

• started 19 topics
• posted 683 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Psychotic Parrot

• 
  120

  Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

  by Psychotic Parrot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

  as for the arguments themselves:.

  the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  The Scotsman,

  Sorry, but your post was full of issues & i did what anyone would do & pointed them out, there was no hate, only reason with a tinge of irritation, due to the fact that i'm constantly being presented with this stuff everywhere i go & it just gets boring after a while. And i did propose alternatives, you can claim i didn't all you like, but i did, you just don't know how to respond to them, so you dishonestly claim they aren't there.

  If it really is arrogant of me to point out falsehood when i see it, then i'm afraid it is utterly impossible to have a debate with you. So don't be so stupid & claim you want a debate, only to then accuse me of being arrogant just because you aren't knowledgeable enough to respond to my reply, which is of course what you really meant when you said you couldn't be bothered to respond. You obviously did not want a debate, you just wanted to preach. If you want to do that, then make your own thread for it.

  It really is beyond me how someone thinks it's okay to avoid discussion with someone just because they see that person as being arrogant. I think you're all pretty arrogant, but it doesn't stop me debating you.

  I refer you to the post i made at the bottom of the last page, it sums you up to a tee.
• 
  47

  OMG! I am 50 this year! Why am I freaking out? Anger - how do you cope?

  by hamsterbait in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was told when i hit thirty and was catastrophising, "just wait till you are 40, it just gets better.".

  ha!.

  i am fifty in a few weeks.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  You're all roughly the same age as Madonna Ciccone, does that make you feel better?
• 
  47

  OMG! I am 50 this year! Why am I freaking out? Anger - how do you cope?

  by hamsterbait in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was told when i hit thirty and was catastrophising, "just wait till you are 40, it just gets better.".

  ha!.

  i am fifty in a few weeks.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  I'm 22, do you envy me at all?
• 
  120

  Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

  by Psychotic Parrot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

  as for the arguments themselves:.

  the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  To be fair on pisswordprotected, knowing he's a wife beater & drunkard raises my opinion of him slightly.
• 
  99

  Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

  by wobble in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.

  many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.

  if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  Oh right, sorry about that, you should have put Not Very Likely in bold. I didn't realise it was a username.
• 
  99

  Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

  by wobble in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.

  many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.

  if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  Your agenda appears to be pro-theist. And in this thread anti-scholarship (unless it's pro-biblical authorship divinity).
• 
  99

  Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

  by wobble in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.

  many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.

  if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  Okay you've lost me now. I have no interest in obvious business principals or practices, my area of interest is ancient history. Call it immaturity, but i'd rather remain ignorant of capitalism since i benefit too much from it to want to know how evil it is, would ruin my conscience heh

  But if i suddenly decide i care about it, you'll be on the list of people to go to for information, & i'll be all ears

  And err, what meeting? I told you, i left the troof when i was 18.
• 
  99

  Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

  by wobble in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.

  many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.

  if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  Sorry Jaguarbass, but your posts are just very long & i already know what your agenda is. And no, i always read the information if i'm trying to make up my mind about something, but this was nothing major, just a small curiosity.

  And like you, i was born in (3rd generation). I grew up with the internet but didn't begin reading apostate literature until after i left the troof, which was when i was 18.
• 
  120

  Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

  by Psychotic Parrot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

  as for the arguments themselves:.

  the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  wobble,

  Yeah, i don't so much mind being accused of being biased against the possibility of the existence of God or of hating God. Although i think the idea of me hating someone i don't believe in is silly, but i appreciate that for the people saying i hate God, He is very real & it is very possible for someone to hate him, even an atheist, & let's face it, the God they believe in is a bit of a jerk!

  But i do hate it when my arguments are misrepresented as being attempts to prove that God doesn't exist, that really irks me & it is exactly the same fallacious tactic that William Lane Craig uses in his debates, he is such a snake, he really is!

  It's also really annoying to see the arguments i am attempting to refute pasted as responses to my refutations! How circular & just plain dumb is that! It's like a conversation something going like this:

  Apologist: "God must exist because we exist!"

  Atheist: "Maybe, but are there not alternate explanations for our existence?"

  Apologist: "No, because God must exist because we exist!"

  GAHHH!!!!!!

  But yeah, thanks wobble
• 
  120

  Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)

  by Psychotic Parrot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.

  as for the arguments themselves:.

  the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  I rather regret making this thread now, it's distracted me from my work.