Trump 2020

[Mountain Man]

[Roy]

Atheists of your low-calibre deserve no more than a mocking laugh and a dismissive wave. If you wish to prove otherwise then I challenge you to start a thread in Apologetics where you accurately describe the best arguments for theism and then competently explain why those arguments fail.

Been there, done that. You scattered ignorance and fallacies like an incontinent sheep, ran away from most of the points made against you, linked to various websites you hadn't read, and tried to argue that the Lukan census account both "can't be tested" and "was bang-on accurate" while being too impenetrably stupid to work out how you'd contradicted yourself.

You then inadvertently refuted everything you'd ever written:

When you stated that "Until you have hard evidence to that end, we have to conclude that the premise is true" you not only proudly announced your incompetence to evaluate logical arguments, you also accidentally proved everything you ever wrote and ever will write is wrong:

Premise 1: There is a squirrel in my garden.
Premise 2: There is not a squirrel in my garden.
Since I currently have no hard evidence against either of these premises, your approach leads to
Conclusion 1: Premise 1 is true
Conclusion 2: Premise 2 is true
Conclusion 3: There is a squirrel in my garden and there is not a squirrel in my garden.
and from the logical principle that for any (P,Q) P&~P->Q
Conclusion 4: Everything Mountain Man has ever written and ever will write is wrong.

There is no point starting any thread in apologetics since you've already demonstrated that you are incapable of evaluating its contents.

[Mountain Man]

Been there, done that. You scattered ignorance and fallacies like an incontinent sheep, ran away from most of the points made against you, linked to various websites you hadn't read, and tried to argue that the Lukan census account both "can't be tested" and "was bang-on accurate" while being too impenetrably stupid to work out how you'd contradicted yourself.

You then inadvertently refuted everything you'd ever written:

When you stated that "Until you have hard evidence to that end, we have to conclude that the premise is true" you not only proudly announced your incompetence to evaluate logical arguments, you also accidentally proved everything you ever wrote and ever will write is wrong:

Premise 1: There is a squirrel in my garden.
Premise 2: There is not a squirrel in my garden.
Since I currently have no hard evidence against either of these premises, your approach leads to
Conclusion 1: Premise 1 is true
Conclusion 2: Premise 2 is true
Conclusion 3: There is a squirrel in my garden and there is not a squirrel in my garden.
and from the logical principle that for any (P,Q) P&~P->Q
Conclusion 4: Everything Mountain Man has ever written and ever will write is wrong.

There is no point starting any thread in apologetics since you've already demonstrated that you are incapable of evaluating its contents.

Why would you link to a thread where I embarrassed you so badly as an example of your debating prowess?

Yeah, and I stomped on your pathetic attempt at a reductio ad absurdum in this post. The short version is that you couldn't keep up with my argument well enough to even understand what was being debated. I remember having a good laugh during that debate, so thank you for the trip down memory lane.

At any rate, I didn't see a single example in that thread where you "accurately [described] the best arguments for theism and then competently [explained] why those arguments fail." But I'm not going to engage this subject any further in this thread. If you think you have anything that's worth my extremely valuable attention then start a thread in Apologetics and send me a link.