Read my article, dang it!

[The Laughing Man]

I mean it! :rant:

Over Three Hundred Disproofs of God’s Existence (http://www.tektonics.org/300proof.html)

Special thanks to J.P. Holding for giving my article a home (and a high-profile one to boot!). :cheers:

(Yeah, I know there's a few minor typos.)

[Captain Ochre]

Good stuff, but I could only make it about 20% through before onset of burnout.

[The Laughing Man]

Imagine what it was like adapting it from the original! :duh: I don't think I'll be doing anything of a similar vein again in a long time. Gotta recover.

[Faramir]

Great article. It explains a lot of the arguments from atheist here.

[Solly]

I like this one, it's so...well, it's just so.

ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
[Atheist asks "stumper" question]
[Christian answers question]
[A lapse of time]
[Atheist repeats question]
[Christian repeats answer]
[A lapse of time]
[Atheist repeats question]
[Christian repeats answer]
[A lapse of time]
Christian, you never answered my question.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

[ACow]

Bah! I'm offended! Granted someone's done alot of work, but i was in a forum around the time this originally came out some years ago.

Only then it was "insert significantly smaller number here" logical fallacies arguing for the existance of god, and just switch around the words "christian" and "athiest" in half of them. Although i'll read through it, some of the titles for the arguement such as "oprah's" arguement were quite humerous, it should be interesting to see if they're still in there.

[ACow]

And i'll love to see how they switch around the ray charles one, which was something along the lines of:

1. God is love.
2. Love is blind.
3. Ray charles is blind.
4. Ray charles is god.
5. Therefore, god exists.

[EDIT: Just saw it. Damn you people, you butchered it:argh: ]

[EDIT AGAIN: AH!!!! MY BABIES!!! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THE "ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION! *sigh* and the "ARGUEMENT FROM INCOHERANT BABBLE" actually use to be humorous damn it....]

[EDIT ONE LAST TIME: You changed oprah's arguement to donahue's arguement....for shame.]

[The Laughing Man]

02-25-2003 @ 09:25 AM
ACow:Bah! I'm offended!

Don't be. I wasn't offended by the list aimed at poking fun at theists, so no one should be offended by this. It's all in good fun.


Granted someone's done alot of work,

Ugh! You don't know the half of it. :duh:


but i was in a forum around the time this originally came out some years ago.

Only then it was "insert significantly smaller number here" logical fallacies arguing for the existance of god, and just switch around the words "christian" and "athiest" in half of them.

Well, that was kind of my point. I was showing how an article meant to poke fun at theists could relatively easily be adapted to poke fun at the atheists who came up with it.


Although i'll read through it, some of the titles for the arguement such as "oprah's" arguement were quite humerous, it should be interesting to see if they're still in there.

The Oprah argument became the Donahue argument.

[Ryokan]

Go for the eyes Boo! I love your avatar jinx. Remeber a determined man and his hamster are not easily parted.

[The Laughing Man]

02-25-2003 @ 09:31 AM
ACow:

And i'll love to see how they switch around the ray charles one, which was something along the lines of:

1. God is love.
2. Love is blind.
3. Ray charles is blind.
4. Ray charles is god.
5. Therefore, god exists.

[EDIT: Just saw it. Damn you people, you butchered it:argh: ]

*shrug* Technically, I butchered a lot of them. Deal with it.


[EDIT AGAIN: AH!!!! MY BABIES!!!

Uh... "My babies?" A little too attached to the original list, are we? :tongue:


WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THE "ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION!

Turned it into the argument from complete devastation. If the "proof for God" is going to be that one person survived, then it follows that the "disproof of God" would be that no one survived.


*sigh* and the "ARGUEMENT FROM INCOHERANT BABBLE" actually use to be humorous damn it....]

What's wrong with it? Maybe you need to look at it from a theist point of view.


[EDIT ONE LAST TIME: You changed oprah's arguement to donahue's arguement....for shame.]

Yes, I'm very ashamed of even mentioning his name. :rofl:

[ACow]

Just for the record, "i'm offended" can roughly be translated into:

I'm posting because i can.:yipee:

[Sauron]

02-24-2003 @ 08:42 PM
Jinx72:

I mean it! :rant:

Over Three Hundred Disproofs of God’s Existence (http://www.tektonics.org/300proof.html)

Special thanks to J.P. Holding for giving my article a home (and a high-profile one to boot!). :cheers:

(Yeah, I know there's a few minor typos.)

I guess this one's been circulating the Internet for a few years. I saw a similar one, except it was the christian arguing (and losing) on the topic of why their god was better / more true / etc. than the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

:rofl:

[Sher]

ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS
Ask theists how the universe came to be.
Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
Continue process until the theist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
You win!
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
:lol: :thumb:

[Sher]

Argument from Love and Errancy:

1. If God is love and love is blind, then God is blind.
4. The Bible says God sees all the sons of men (Ps 33:13)
5. This is Biblical errancy.
6. Therefore, God doesn't exists.