Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2080375 > unrolled thread
| Started by | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-26 12:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-04-05 18:44 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 90 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-26 12:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-26 19:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-29 22:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-30 18:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 15:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 20:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-01 16:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 23:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 19:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 23:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 07:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-05 17:16 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 13:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 19:23 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-05 15:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-04-06 18:31 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 23:31 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-04-07 17:37 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-05 15:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-08 13:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-09 15:06 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-12 14:52 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 08:11 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 16:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 14:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 20:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-04-13 18:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 23:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 19:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-06 14:46 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 23:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 23:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 08:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 16:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 14:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:37 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 20:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-13 16:02 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 20:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:44 +0000
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 07:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oec7gbh14fvak50p56qf3unmc9i74cqpq4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2085245 |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' exists, >>>>>>>>>>>liar. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced claims. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own beliefs >>>>>>>> with evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>> >>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>> >>>>>That isn't my belief, moron. >>>> >>>>>I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in any of >>>>>them, I remain an atheist. >>>> >>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer support >>>> for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>> >>>Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >> >> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. > >Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there is exactly zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 17:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dmi374FejiqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2085452 |
On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' exists, >>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced claims. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own beliefs >>>>>>>>> with evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>> >>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>> >>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in any of >>>>>> them, I remain an atheist. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer support >>>>> for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>> >>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>> >>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >> >> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. > > Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there is exactly > zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the scientific method. Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and indicative as any positive evidence. Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That is good, hard, solid evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ciu7gbtbchmccauvl8ocqargl2ealm000p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2085507 |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' exists, >>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced claims. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own beliefs >>>>>>>>>> with evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in any of >>>>>>> them, I remain an atheist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer support >>>>>> for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>>> >>>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>>> >>>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >>> >>> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. >> >> Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there is exactly >> zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. > >More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >scientific method. > >Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >indicative as any positive evidence. > >Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. >That is good, hard, solid evidence. > Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not conclusive. Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there is no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to support there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. Ever. -- Cheers, Dreamer AA 2306 "If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another." Epicurus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne13bg$13r8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2085559 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: <snip> >>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>scientific method. >> >>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>indicative as any positive evidence. >> >>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That >>is good, hard, solid evidence. >> > Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. > > Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not > conclusive. > > Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there is > no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to support > there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. > > It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. > Ever. I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding in my garage! What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. -- 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]
| From | Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 15:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mt48gb1mn1s185rlslom65gt80s4iis6su@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2085619 |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>scientific method. >>> >>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>>indicative as any positive evidence. >>> >>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That >>>is good, hard, solid evidence. >>> >> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. >> >> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >> conclusive. >> >> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there is >> no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to support >> there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >> >> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >> Ever. > >I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >in my garage! If we really wanted to get silly about it, we could argue both those things ad nauseam. The elephant could have taken a walk when you went to check, for example.... The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two legs." Framing the non-existence of a deity is stupid when the argument is predicated on existence in the first place. The logic devolves to humour at this point. >What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. Yeah, I'll go with this. Thanks for refining the semantics, Mr. Smiler. -- Cheers, Dreamer AA 2306 "If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another." Epicurus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 15:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bq78gb5ca98e7nri4bc3rt0l79ib79a5eq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2085625 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:40:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >wrote: > >>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>scientific method. >>>> >>>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>>>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>>>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>>>indicative as any positive evidence. >>>> >>>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That >>>>is good, hard, solid evidence. >>>> >>> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. >>> >>> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >>> conclusive. >>> >>> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there is >>> no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to support >>> there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >>> >>> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >>> Ever. >> >>I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >>in my garage! > >If we really wanted to get silly about it, we could argue both those >things ad nauseam. The elephant could have taken a walk when you went >to check, for example.... > >The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't >have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two >legs." > >Framing the non-existence of a deity is stupid when the argument is >predicated on existence in the first place. No. Look up "Popperian falsifiability" - which was around long before Popper formulated it. It's the way to deal with unsupported claims. >The logic devolves to humour at this point. > >>What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. > >Yeah, I'll go with this. Thanks for refining the semantics, Mr. >Smiler. Which is why you use a methodology which works with them better than "I don't know", which actually applies to the entire spectrum apart from the two extremes and takes no account of likelihood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 11:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7deagbp0ogap2piji4rfma92bd9llhdq64@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2085625 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:40:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >wrote: > >>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>scientific method. >>>> >>>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>>>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>>>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>>>indicative as any positive evidence. >>>> >>>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That >>>>is good, hard, solid evidence. >>>> >>> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. >>> >>> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >>> conclusive. >>> >>> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there is >>> no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to support >>> there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >>> >>> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >>> Ever. >> >>I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >>in my garage! > >If we really wanted to get silly about it, we could argue both those >things ad nauseam. The elephant could have taken a walk when you went >to check, for example.... You fool, grik. That means there is no elephant in the closet. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne3qhl$1u5f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2085625 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:40:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> >>> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>scientific method. >>>> >>>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of >>>>equal value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for >>>>something and cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as >>>>important and indicative as any positive evidence. >>>> >>>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. >>>>That is good, hard, solid evidence. >>>> >>> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. >>> >>> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >>> conclusive. >>> >>> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there >>> is no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to >>> support there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >>> >>> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >>> Ever. >> >>I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >>in my garage! > > If we really wanted to get silly about it, we could argue both those > things ad nauseam. The elephant could have taken a walk when you went to > check, for example.... As I don't have a garage, that's not even a remote possibility. But logically, if it had taken a walk, it would have been in plain sight and, therefore, not hiding. I also suspect that, if it had been hiding in my supposed garage, I would have a very dented car and there would be a large pile of elephant dung there as evidence. > The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't > have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two > legs." That doesn't take into account the morons we get here that may accuse me of having three legs. > Framing the non-existence of a deity is stupid when the argument is > predicated on existence in the first place. > > The logic devolves to humour at this point. > >>What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. > > Yeah, I'll go with this. Thanks for refining the semantics, Mr. Smiler. You're welcome. -- 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]
| From | Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 18:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <b20bgbp8ioms7q9fhqp3r9v3k5cgm138mg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2086319 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:11:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote
to Dreamer in Colore:
>> The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't
>> have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two
>> legs."
>
>That doesn't take into account the morons we get here that may accuse me
>of having three legs.
They're just looking for a little rough trade, Mr S. Pay them no
mind.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 23:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne469e$gdn$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2086417 |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:31:39 -0400, Don Martin wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:11:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote > to Dreamer in Colore: > >>> The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't >>> have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two >>> legs." >> >>That doesn't take into account the morons we get here that may accuse me >>of having three legs. > > They're just looking for a little rough trade, Mr S. Pay them no mind. It's just wishful thinking on their part. -- 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]
| From | Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 17:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d2jdgblp6g195g4oa51fj48km1c76rkk5b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2086449 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 23:31:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:31:39 -0400, Don Martin wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:11:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote
>> to Dreamer in Colore:
>>
>>>> The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't
>>>> have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two
>>>> legs."
>>>
>>>That doesn't take into account the morons we get here that may accuse me
>>>of having three legs.
>>
>> They're just looking for a little rough trade, Mr S. Pay them no mind.
>
>It's just wishful thinking on their part.
Wishful thinking is all that the godly have. Be kind.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v44dgbl8np0db0ikutfahsvrb5e5dpc7go@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2086319 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:11:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 15:40:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>>scientific method. >>>>> >>>>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of >>>>>equal value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for >>>>>something and cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as >>>>>important and indicative as any positive evidence. >>>>> >>>>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. >>>>>That is good, hard, solid evidence. >>>>> >>>> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. >>>> >>>> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >>>> conclusive. >>>> >>>> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there >>>> is no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to >>>> support there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >>>> >>>> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >>>> Ever. >>> >>>I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >>>in my garage! >> >> If we really wanted to get silly about it, we could argue both those >> things ad nauseam. The elephant could have taken a walk when you went to >> check, for example.... > >As I don't have a garage, that's not even a remote possibility. >But logically, if it had taken a walk, it would have been in plain sight >and, therefore, not hiding. I also suspect that, if it had been hiding in >my supposed garage, I would have a very dented car and there would be a >large pile of elephant dung there as evidence. Bailout, bailout, bailout. >> The whole point is how you frame the issue. You'd never say "I don't >> have three legs", or "I don't have four legs". You'd say "I have two >> legs." >That doesn't take into account the morons we get here that may accuse me >of having three legs. Do you? > >> Framing the non-existence of a deity is stupid when the argument is >> predicated on existence in the first place. >> >> The logic devolves to humour at this point. >> >>>What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. >> >> Yeah, I'll go with this. Thanks for refining the semantics, Mr. Smiler. >You're welcome. Haahaahaa. The evidence of a creator is overwhelming even if you don't have a garage to house your elephant. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 15:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8s68gb1t5p0i2bv9t8p0ecpd779i634vqm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2085619 |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:23:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>scientific method. >>> >>>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>>indicative as any positive evidence. >>> >>>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That >>>is good, hard, solid evidence. You left out the bit about falsifiability. The inductive conclusion stands until it is falsified - and the more it stands up without falsification the greater the confirmation, >> Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. An apocryphal story. But what it actually does, is give an example of falsifiability. >> Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >> conclusive. It's only part of it. And it's falsifiable. >> Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there is >> no god is exactly the same logic that there is no evidence to support >> there is no leprechaun. Or unicorn. Or dragon. >> >> It's a seriously stupid argument because you cannot prove a negative. >> Ever. Which is why you use a different methodology. You can prove the positive by producing evidence. And you can disprove the negative by producing the evidence. Which is why unsupported claims get rephrased in the negative, and stand until the positive is proven. I'm surprised that so may people don't seem to understand this, even some of the atheist regulars - especially as it's not just part of the scientific method, even kids in the schoolyard use it... "My Dad just bought a Lamborghini" "No, he didn't - prove it" Two answers: "Prove he didn't" vs "Come round tonight and he'll show it to you. He's so proud of it he'll even give you a ride in it". The answer which shows he actually _does_ have one, is obvious. >I can prove I don't have three legs, or that there is no elephant hiding >in my garage! >What you mean is that it's impossible to prove a _universal_ negative. Which is why you use Popperian falsifiability. The problem is that those who don't understand this imagine it is some kind of equivalent but opposite counter-claim to theirs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 11:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <59eagb9s8ti6o9nqmaagacqfbb6f1d1r5e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2085559 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:50:38 -0400, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> >wrote: > >>On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' exists, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own beliefs >>>>>>>>>>> with evidence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in any of >>>>>>>> them, I remain an atheist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer support >>>>>>> for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>>>> >>>>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >>>> >>>> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. >>> >>> Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there is exactly >>> zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. >> >>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>scientific method. >> >>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>indicative as any positive evidence. >> >>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. >>That is good, hard, solid evidence. >> > >Oi. That's what they said about black swans. And then they found one. > >Absence of evidence is perhaps evidence of absence, true. But it's not >conclusive. >Ultimately, saying that there is zero evidence to support that there >is no god Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. You griks have trouble understanding that. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne3qq7$1u5f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2086193 |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: <snip> > Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. > Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, Who claims that, other than you demented believers? > is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. Nope. Merely your stupid belief. > You griks have trouble understanding that. You demented morons have trouble understanding that. > ***** > "Telling lies about evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 11:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <aa4dgbtv0earnipa47e95emtutqk8j045h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2086325 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: > > ><snip> > >> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, > >Who claims that, other than you demented believers? > >> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >Nope. Merely your stupid belief. Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. >> You griks have trouble understanding that. >You demented morons have trouble understanding that. Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO God. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne8pib$7s6$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2086729 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >> >>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >> >>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. > >>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. > > Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. What elephant would that be, liar? >>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. > > Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. > If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an > alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO > God. What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. > ***** > "Telling lies about having evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <itrfgbl41big8r84tfi3iajng8nsvop392@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2087271 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>> >>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>> >>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >> >>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >> >> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. > >What elephant would that be, liar? > >>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >> >> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. > >There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. > >> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >> God. *L*I*A*R* Many times over. >What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. Exactly. There is none. Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of physics. The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. All of which the in-your-face liar knows already - so why does he lie about this to the more knowledgeable, better educated and more intelligent? >> ***** >> "Telling lies about having evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." >> Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q1vfgbpchcr4eldpsnl5uuka6hnhr3do63@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2087297 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>>> >>>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>>> >>>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >>> >>>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >>> >>> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. >> >>What elephant would that be, liar? >> >>>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >>> >>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. >> >>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >> >>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >>> God. >*L*I*A*R* >Many times over. Nope. Never. >>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >Exactly. There is none. I have it. Creation. >Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws >of physics. The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of creation, not by whom. >The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists >that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. I have ALL that evidence. You have none. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nebj0p$1dsa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2087321 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: <snip> >>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>> creator. >>> >>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>> >>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>> NO God. > >>*L*I*A*R* >>Many times over. > > Nope. Never. > >>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>Exactly. There is none. > > I have it. Creation. Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>physics. > > The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of > creation, > not by whom. > >>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. > > I have ALL that evidence. No you don't, liar. > ***** > "Telling lies about evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web