Post by Bob CasanovaOn Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:35:35 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_ungerPost by Bob CasanovaOn Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:32:03 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_ungerPost by Bob CasanovaOn Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:24:58 +1100, the following appeared
Post by felix_ungerPost by Christopher A. LeePost by m***@.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
Post by Christopher A. LeeAnd 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... :)
Post by Bob Casanovabut 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.
Post by Bob CasanovaPost by felix_unger, 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).
Post by felix_ungerbut 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
Post by Bob CasanovaPost by felix_ungerPost by Bob CasanovaPost by felix_ungerhttp://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
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?
Post by felix_ungerevidence 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)
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.
Post by Bob CasanovaIs 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.
Post by Bob CasanovaIt 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