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

Groups > alt.atheism > #2028087

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

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web