Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2025110 > unrolled thread

www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love mur@. - 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500
    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-15 03:19 +0000
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-15 10:25 -0700
        Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-17 00:10 +0000
          Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:28 -0700
          Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 12:22 -0600
      Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-15 11:47 -0600
        Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-17 20:24 +1100
          Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:29 -0700
            Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 11:38 -0600
              Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:37 +1100
            Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:32 +1100
              Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-18 11:22 -0700
                Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-18 12:55 -0600
                  Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:50 +1100
                  Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:01 -0700
                    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:24 +1100
                Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:35 +1100
                  Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:11 -0700
                    Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:23 +1100

#2025110 — www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love

    You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run by
the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that challenges strong
atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his cowardly brain is able to
take into consideration. The challenge I defeated all you people with defeated
him and all his fellow pussies ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in
these forums. So you people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to
cowardly hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond what your
horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take into consideration.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2025614 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:

> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
> into consideration.

You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2025876 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>:

>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:

>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>> into consideration.

>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?

That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle,
Black) or MBE (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome.

And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-)
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2026635 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:25:02 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
> sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>:
> 
>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
> 
>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum,
>>> run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>> into consideration.
> 
>>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
> 
> That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) or MBE
> (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome.
> 
> And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-)

I have too much fun knocking these loonies down to killfile them.

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2026906 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:10:08 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>:

>On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:25:02 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
>> sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>:
>> 
>>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>> 
>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum,
>>>> run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>> into consideration.
>> 
>>>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
>> 
>> That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) or MBE
>> (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome.
>> 
>> And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-)
>
>I have too much fun knocking these loonies down to killfile them.

Point... ;-)
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2026935 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:10:08 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:25:02 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in
>> sci.skeptic, posted by Smiler <smiler@jo.king>:
>> 
>>>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>> 
>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum,
>>>> run by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>> into consideration.
>> 
>>>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
>> 
>> That seems to be the trend, along with PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) or MBE
>> (Mote, Beam, Eye) Syndrome.
>> 
>> And BTW, killfiles are Your Friends (TM). ;-)
>
>I have too much fun knocking these loonies down to killfile them.

That got boring very quickly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2025883 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>
>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>> into consideration.

How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
non-event, even strong atheism. 

"There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
UFOs". "no psychics", etc.

And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
is obvious.

>You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?

Let me guess - the author doesn't put up with nonsense and treats
creationists etc as the pig-ignorant, uneducated morons they are which
they imagine is undeserved?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2026774 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>
>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>> into consideration.
> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
> non-event, even strong atheism.
>
> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.

those are all beliefs

>
> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
> is obvious.


you're confusing evidence with proof

>
>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
> Let me guess - the author doesn't put up with nonsense and treats
> creationists etc as the pig-ignorant, uneducated morons they are which
> they imagine is undeserved?


-- 
rgds,

Pete
-------
Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White,
Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide!
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
the picture that shocked the world!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/hypocrisy.jpg
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2026908 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:

>On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>
>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>> into consideration.
>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>
>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>
>those are all beliefs
>
>>
>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>> is obvious.
>
>
>you're confusing evidence with proof

No, he's not. But *you* are confusing evidence with
anecdote.

>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
>> Let me guess - the author doesn't put up with nonsense and treats
>> creationists etc as the pig-ignorant, uneducated morons they are which
>> they imagine is undeserved?
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2026912 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:29:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:

When this psycho crawl back out of the woodwork?

>>On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>> into consideration.
>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>
>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>
>>those are all beliefs

Only to the stupid.

It's the frustrated and falsifiable response to morons who can't keep
their beliefs where they belong.

Which the dishonest, pathetic, lying little shit has had explained ove
and over again.

>>>
>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>> is obvious.
>>
>>you're confusing evidence with proof

And Unger can't stop lying.

>No, he's not. But *you* are confusing evidence with
>anecdote.

These morons don't understand "put up or shut up", or the falsifiable
conclusion pending the evidence they never provide.

>>>> You've claimed 'Victolly'. Are you going to run away now?
>>> Let me guess - the author doesn't put up with nonsense and treats
>>> creationists etc as the pig-ignorant, uneducated morons they are which
>>> they imagine is undeserved?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2027125 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On 18-December-2015 4:38 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:29:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
> When this psycho crawl back out of the woodwork?
>
>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>
>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>> those are all beliefs
> Only to the stupid.

'there are no ghosts' is a belief that a person has. same for the others.

>
> It's the frustrated and falsifiable response to morons who can't keep
> their beliefs where they belong.
>
> Which the dishonest, pathetic, lying little shit

that would be you

>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>> is obvious.
>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
> And Unger can't stop lying.

prove it

>
>> No, he's not. But *you* are confusing evidence with
>> anecdote.
> These morons don't understand "put up or shut up",

you can't understand that these are discussion groups.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2027122 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>
>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>> into consideration.
>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>
>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>> those are all beliefs
>>
>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>> is obvious.
>>
>> you're confusing evidence with proof
> No, he's not.

yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already 
evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. 
evidence that will create proof

http://ausnet.info/evidence

>   But *you* are confusing evidence with
> anecdote.
>


-- 
rgds,

Pete
-------
Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White,
Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide!
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
the picture that shocked the world!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/hypocrisy.jpg
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2027428 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:

>On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>
>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>
>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>> those are all beliefs
>>>
>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>> is obvious.
>>>
>>> you're confusing evidence with proof

>> No, he's not.

>yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already 
>evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. 
>evidence that will create proof

Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
evidence which explains the data at least as well, and
preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no
such evidence has been presented.

>http://ausnet.info/evidence

Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the
same way, "theory" means something completely different, and
much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of
"reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn
something about the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

>>   But *you* are confusing evidence with
>> anecdote.
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2027440 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>
>>On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>
>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>> those are all beliefs

A stupid lie.

A falsifiable conclusion is  not a belief - it's the  only way to
treat ridiculous claims.

These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any
other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to
Christians.

>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>
>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof

Another stupid lie.

>>> No, he's not.
>
>>yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already 
>>evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. 
>>evidence that will create proof

So provide some of it, liar.

These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence.

They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list
that has been debunked over and over again.

>Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>evidence which explains the data at least as well, and
>preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no
>such evidence has been presented.

The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out
over and over again.

>>http://ausnet.info/evidence
>
>Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the
>same way, "theory" means something completely different, and
>much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of
>"reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn
>something about the subject:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
>
>>>   But *you* are confusing evidence with
>>> anecdote.

It's a theist doing what theists do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2027662 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On 19-December-2015 5:55 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>
>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>> those are all beliefs
> A stupid lie.

"there is no (whatever)" is an assertion, a statement of belief that 
something is true. idiot!

>
> A falsifiable conclusion is  not a belief - it's the  only way to
> treat ridiculous claims.
>
> These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any
> other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to
> Christians.

I can

>
>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
> Another stupid lie.
>
>>>> No, he's not.
>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>> evidence that will create proof
> So provide some of it,

I don't need to because I don't claim there is any

>   liar.

yes, you are!

>
> These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence.
>
> They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list
> that has been debunked over and over again.

oh yes, very logical.. the evidence that doesn't exist can be debunked. 
how does that work exactly?

>
>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and
>> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no
>> such evidence has been presented.
> The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out
> over and over again.

see my reply to BobC. oh, that's right you can't. because you have me 
blocked. but that doesn't stop you from commenting on what I say, but 
without having to address any rebuttal. guess what that makes you.. a 
fuckwit!

>
>>> http://ausnet.info/evidence
>> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the
>> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and
>> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of
>> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn
>> something about the subject:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
>>
>>>>    But *you* are confusing evidence with
>>>> anecdote.
> It's a theist doing what theists do.

it's an atheist doing what atheists do.. hate!

might I suggest that you stick with the abuse and insults because you 
suck at logic and reason!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2027992 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:55:41 -0600, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
<c.lee@fairpoint.net>:

>On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>
>>>On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>> those are all beliefs
>
>A stupid lie.
>
>A falsifiable conclusion is  not a belief - it's the  only way to
>treat ridiculous claims.
>
>These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any
>other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to
>Christians.
>
>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>
>Another stupid lie.
>
>>>> No, he's not.
>>
>>>yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already 
>>>evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie. 
>>>evidence that will create proof
>
>So provide some of it, liar.
>
>These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence.
>
>They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list
>that has been debunked over and over again.
>
>>Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>evidence which explains the data at least as well, and
>>preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no
>>such evidence has been presented.
>
>The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out
>over and over again.
>
>>>http://ausnet.info/evidence
>>
>>Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the
>>same way, "theory" means something completely different, and
>>much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of
>>"reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn
>>something about the subject:
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
>>
>>>>   But *you* are confusing evidence with
>>>> anecdote.

>It's a theist doing what theists do.

Not all theists are like him. I've known many who accept
science in scientific fields while still believing in a
deity, but they're rational enough to not usually post their
beliefs in Usenet, at least not in groups dedicated to
scientific investigation such as sci.skeptic. They know that
science doesn't deal with unsupported belief regarding
things which are inherently not susceptible to scientific
investigation. It's a self-selective process, and the losers
(multiple meanings) post here.
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2028089 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On 20-December-2015 5:01 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:55:41 -0600, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Christopher A. Lee
> <c.lee@fairpoint.net>:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:22:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>
>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>> those are all beliefs
>> A stupid lie.
>>
>> A falsifiable conclusion is  not a belief - it's the  only way to
>> treat ridiculous claims.
>>
>> These morons can't grasp that saying "God did it" to an atheist or any
>> other non-Christian is the same as Jesper insisting Krishna did it to
>> Christians.
>>
>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>> Another stupid lie.
>>
>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>>> evidence that will create proof
>> So provide some of it, liar.
>>
>> These liars have never provided anything remotely resembling evidence.
>>
>> They claim it exists, and when cornered they offer a standard list
>> that has been debunked over and over again.
>>
>>> Sorry, but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and
>>> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no
>>> such evidence has been presented.
>> The proven serial liar knows this, because it has been pointed out
>> over and over again.
>>
>>>> http://ausnet.info/evidence
>>> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the
>>> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and
>>> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of
>>> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn
>>> something about the subject:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
>>>
>>>>>    But *you* are confusing evidence with
>>>>> anecdote.
>> It's a theist doing what theists do.
> Not all theists are like him.

you don't know what I am

>   I've known many who accept
> science in scientific fields while still believing in a
> deity, but they're rational enough to not usually post their
> beliefs in Usenet, at least not in groups dedicated to
> scientific investigation such as sci.skeptic.

I replied to a post by YOU in alt.agnosticism. so one might just as well 
ask why are you posting your scientific stuff in alt.agnosticism?

>    They know that
> science doesn't deal with unsupported belief regarding
> things which are inherently not susceptible to scientific
> investigation. It's a self-selective process, and the losers
> (multiple meanings) post here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2027652 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On 19-December-2015 5:22 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>
>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>
>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>
>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>> is obvious.
>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>> No, he's not.
>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>> evidence that will create proof
> Sorry,

you should be... :)

> but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and
> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no
> such evidence has been presented.

but we are/were not talking about evidence constituting scientific 
proof, we were talking about evidence in general. there was never any 
mention of your so-called scientific proof. and you say there is no such 
thing as proof, yet cite what is tantamount to proof as being required!. 
but of course there is such a thing as proof. conclusive evidence 
amounts to proof. you're just creating a red herring to try to justify 
denying the existence of any evidence for those things. and we know why 
atheists do that. so they can deny there is any evidence for the 
existence of God.

>
>> http://ausnet.info/evidence
> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the
> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and
> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of
> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn
> something about the subject:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

these may help you keep on track..

evidence for ghosts: http://tinyurl.com/nm2kldx (29 million hits)

evidence for UFO's: http://tinyurl.com/h9rofds (2.7 million hits)

evidence for god: http://tinyurl.com/havebuk (174 million hits)

but poor old psychics only get less than half a million: 
http://tinyurl.com/zukvv4v

and while I have your attention.. might I suggest that science does not 
provide an explanation for everything. how would science explain the 
appreciation of art, or 'gut feeling' for example?

-- 
rgds,

Pete
-------
Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White,
Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide!
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
the picture that shocked the world!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/hypocrisy.jpg
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2027998 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:35:35 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:

>On 19-December-2015 5:22 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>
>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>>
>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>>> No, he's not.
>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>> evidence that will create proof
>> Sorry,
>
>you should be... :)
>
>> but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and
>> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no
>> such evidence has been presented.
>
>but we are/were not talking about evidence constituting scientific 
>proof

That's implied by the group in which I'm reading your post;
it isn't sci.skeptic because it's about philosophy or
semantics. Write that on your hand.

>, we were talking about evidence in general. there was never any 
>mention of your so-called scientific proof. and you say there is no such 
>thing as proof, yet cite what is tantamount to proof as being required!. 

Nope, and your insistence that evidence and proof are
synonymous simply reinforces the fact that you're
scientifically illiterate (not a flame; you're far from
unique in that).

>but of course there is such a thing as proof. conclusive evidence 
>amounts to proof. you're just creating a red herring to try to justify 
>denying the existence of any evidence for those things. and we know why 
>atheists do that. so they can deny there is any evidence for the 
>existence of God.

Post the evidence. Remember that it must be objective; no
"the Bible says" anecdote.

>>> http://ausnet.info/evidence
>> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the
>> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and
>> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of
>> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn
>> something about the subject:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
>
>these may help you keep on track..

No need; I'm still on track. Any of those provide objective
evidence? You *do* know what "objective" means, right?

>evidence for ghosts: http://tinyurl.com/nm2kldx (29 million hits)
>
>evidence for UFO's: http://tinyurl.com/h9rofds (2.7 million hits)
>
>evidence for god: http://tinyurl.com/havebuk (174 million hits)
>
>but poor old psychics only get less than half a million: 
>http://tinyurl.com/zukvv4v
>
>and while I have your attention.. might I suggest that science does not 
>provide an explanation for everything. how would science explain the 
>appreciation of art, or 'gut feeling' for example?

It doesn't, except in a *very* general way. Nor does it
explain anything else it can't investigate using the methods
of science, including the existence of deities which use
their abilities to stay hidden; they may or may not exist,
but we have no way to verify either. Is that a problem for
you? It shouldn't be, since you've chosen to post in a sci
newsgroup.
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2028087 — Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love

On 20-December-2015 5:11 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:35:35 +1100, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>
>> On 19-December-2015 5:22 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>
>>>> On 18-December-2015 4:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <me@nothere.biz>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16-December-2015 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 03:19:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:52:20 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You atheists would probably love it because it's such a pussy forum, run
>>>>>>>>> by the biggest pussy on the internet who trashes everything that
>>>>>>>>> challenges strong atheism and bans peope who challenge what little his
>>>>>>>>> cowardly brain is able to take into consideration. The challenge I
>>>>>>>>> defeated all you people with defeated him and all his fellow pussies
>>>>>>>>> ENTIRELY, just as it did all of you atheists in these forums. So you
>>>>>>>>> people would probably love it there!!! You would be safe to cowardly
>>>>>>>>> hide in your tiny little mental safety zone, instead of being bullied
>>>>>>>>> and picked on by a very few people who challenge you to think beyond
>>>>>>>>> what your horribly restricted little minds are mentally able to take
>>>>>>>>> into consideration.
>>>>>>> How many times does this moron need to be reminded that atheism is a
>>>>>>> non-event, even strong atheism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "There's no God" is said in exactly the same vein as "no ghosts". "no
>>>>>>> UFOs". "no psychics", etc.
>>>>>> those are all beliefs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it is falsifiable - all believers have to do is provide the
>>>>>>> missing evidence, which none of them have ever done so the conclusion
>>>>>>> is obvious.
>>>>>> you're confusing evidence with proof
>>>>> No, he's not.
>>>> yes he is, because he asked for the 'missing' evidence. there is already
>>>> evidence for those things, so what he wants is conclusive evidence ie.
>>>> evidence that will create proof
>>> Sorry,
>> you should be... :)
>>
>>> but in science there is no such thing as "proof";
>>> everything is subject to revision as new evidence becomes
>>> available. What he's asking for is *objective*, *verifiable*
>>> evidence which explains the data at least as well, and
>>> preferable better, than current scientific theory. And no
>>> such evidence has been presented.
>> but we are/were not talking about evidence constituting scientific
>> proof
> That's implied by the group in which I'm reading your post;
> it isn't sci.skeptic because it's about philosophy or
> semantics. Write that on your hand.

and shove this up your arse!.. I am reading and posting in 
alt.agnosticism. YOU are posting here. a nice attempt at avoidance, but 
the fact remains that this was never about any scientific 
interpretations. If you don't want to see my replies to your comments 
then DON'T POST IN ALT.AGNOSTICISM. you can safely post in sci.septic 
without fear of criticism or rebuttal from me.

>
>> , we were talking about evidence in general. there was never any
>> mention of your so-called scientific proof. and you say there is no such
>> thing as proof, yet cite what is tantamount to proof as being required!.
> Nope, and your insistence that evidence and proof are
> synonymous simply reinforces the fact that you're
> scientifically illiterate (not a flame; you're far from
> unique in that).
>
>> but of course there is such a thing as proof. conclusive evidence
>> amounts to proof. you're just creating a red herring to try to justify
>> denying the existence of any evidence for those things. and we know why
>> atheists do that. so they can deny there is any evidence for the
>> existence of God.
> Post the evidence. Remember that it must be objective; no
> "the Bible says" anecdote.

It's been done over an over, and I know you have seen and commented in 
the past, so I'm not going to indulge you just so you can say 'that's 
not evidence'. and haven't you just been grizzling about ppl posting 
stuff that isn't about science? so why are you even asking? but you can 
look here if you're REALLY interested.. http://tinyurl.com/havebuk

>
>>>> http://ausnet.info/evidence
>>> Those are general definitions, not scientific ones. In the
>>> same way, "theory" means something completely different, and
>>> much more rigorous, in science that the general usage of
>>> "reasonable guess". Try this; it may help you learn
>>> something about the subject:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
>> these may help you keep on track..
> No need; I'm still on track. Any of those provide objective
> evidence? You *do* know what "objective" means, right?
>
>> evidence for ghosts: http://tinyurl.com/nm2kldx (29 million hits)
>>
>> evidence for UFO's: http://tinyurl.com/h9rofds (2.7 million hits)
>>
>> evidence for god: http://tinyurl.com/havebuk (174 million hits)
>>
>> but poor old psychics only get less than half a million:
>> http://tinyurl.com/zukvv4v
>>
>> and while I have your attention.. might I suggest that science does not
>> provide an explanation for everything. how would science explain the
>> appreciation of art, or 'gut feeling' for example?
> It doesn't, except in a *very* general way. Nor does it
> explain anything else it can't investigate using the methods
> of science, including the existence of deities which use
> their abilities to stay hidden; they may or may not exist,
> but we have no way to verify either.

right. so science doesn't have an answer for everything. keep that in mind.

>   Is that a problem for you?

no, not at all. but it might be a problem for someone who want's to 
believe that science can explain everything. science is a discipline. 
just like mathematics, or philosophy. science does what science does, so 
it should stick to that.

>   It shouldn't be, since you've chosen to post in a sci
> newsgroup.


-- 
rgds,

Pete
-------
Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White,
Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide!
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
the picture that shocked the world!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/hypocrisy.jpg
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web