The illogic of Atheism

For a thorough breakdown of Feser's book:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752

Five more impotent arguments.

Another habit I've notice of late is you think you know my emotion state of mind.
That makes me giggle.

P.S. I wonder why a man that certainly has the smarts to search out new topics to post asks for refutations from someone when said man could easily find these refutations himself.

Actually I'm just mirroring your posts where you just know every immaterialists' state of mind. I've long said I don't believe any of your biographical information, I think it's all manipulative lies, so I really don't believe I know anything about you.

As for why I'm asking, I think if you cannot actually defend your statements you don't belong on this - or really any - forum. You could quote yourself, provide a link to someone else's refutation, just any sign you have ability to back up your posts.

Five more impotent arguments.

Can you explain why? Have you looked at the actual Carrier post? Have you read Feser's book? Have you read Feser's responses to Carrier? Do you understand the arguments at all? Can you even tell us what they are?

You're a troll.

For a thorough breakdown of Feser's book:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752

This is the same Carrier that Arouet liked to reference as providing an avenue for materialist morality? Because, well:

I liked Richard Carrier, past tense

Here, Carrier admits expressing interest to a newly accepted member of FreeThought Blogs. You know, it was less than a year ago that I was a newly accepted member of FreeThought Blogs. I also have reason to believe that Carrier was part of the reason I was admitted onto the network. Imagine that you just got a job, and then someone on the hiring committee asked you on a date. That’s how I feel about this.
Richard Carrier is of course very sorry for the incident, as well as several other incidents he has admitted, but apparently not sorry enough to call off his lawyer. Asshole.

Richard Carrier used to live in Northern California, near where I live. I’ve met him before. I saw him give a talk related to his book Hitler Homer Bible Christ. I found the talk very entertaining and enlightening. I even recommended him to my local atheist student group as a potential speaker.

Over the years, I have heard many grievances against Richard Carrier, most of which I dismiss. Carrier argued extensively that Jesus did not exist; I am not inclined to agree with Jesus mythicism, but I definitely think it is a worthwhile scholarly project. I’ve been told that Carrier had some misguided ideas about physics; I have seen his ideas and agree they are terribly misguided, but I don’t believe that being wrong about physics makes someone a terrible human being. I know that Carrier has asked, on his blog, whether anyone is interested in a date; I find this strange but not wrong.

Nonetheless, because of the recent accusations against Carrier, and Carrier’s responses to those accusations, I am disgusted with him.  I don’t believe he is really sorry for what he did if he continues to sue critics.

Five more impotent arguments.

Well have you looked at Feser's replies? Could you explain to us why they are "impotent arguments", as in where does Feser fail in his rebuttals?

Can you explain why? Have you looked at the actual Carrier post? Have you read Feser's book? Have you read Feser's responses to Carrier? Do you understand the arguments at all? Can you even tell us what they are?

You're a troll.

Not so much as a troll but as fanatic who needs others to believe in the same faith as him. Just in this case it's an anti-God, anti-supernatural faith.

He got banned from Skeptiko, IIRC, for trying to insult every proponent as being unwilling to really confront the reality of death. On JREF the physicists there told him they wouldn't bother with his requests to help him attack other forums and if he wanted to waste his life it was his choice to do so.

I'm half convinced he's a proponent purposefully trolling as a fanatical skeptic, embarrassing their side, but I've never come to a firm conclusion on what his antics represent though.

This is the same Carrier that Arouet liked to reference as providing an avenue for materialist morality? Because, well:

I liked Richard Carrier, past tense

Let’s stick to the core arguments, not the sideshows.

What, iyo, is Feser’s best proof?

All this rubbish about the tooth fairy is making it hard to find the proper threads for discussion of fairies 
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-th...sciousness
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-mo...of-fairies

All this rubbish about the tooth fairy is making it hard to find the proper threads for discussion of fairies 
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-th...sciousness
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-mo...of-fairies

Perhaps the most amusing thing is my reply that got us to veer further into this God vs Fairies stuff was actually critical of Proofs of God getting anyone to a personal god, or even necessarily a conscious Being.

More data-points for the "Skeptics just want to mock rather than understand" hypothesis.

Perhaps the most amusing thing is my reply that got us to veer further into this God vs Fairies stuff was actually critical of Proofs of God getting anyone to a personal god, or even necessarily a conscious Being.

More data-points for the "Skeptics just want to mock rather than understand" hypothesis.

Are you mocking skeptics' inability to understand?

Is it then the prime-mover style entity that you're agnostic to?

As we've seen over the last few pages there is now, as there always has been, an argument for the sort of god that hides in the cracks in our current understanding of reality; thus anything inexplicable or beyond our monkey brain understanding = "god". Such an entity may exist, or we may be just like the children, waiting for the tooth to be exchanged for the dollar, who haven't totally worked it out yet.