"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
Uncle Steve wrote on 1/6/2012 in :
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 03:58:36PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:35:14PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:14:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:32:38PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:19:52PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Science does not require the falsification of negative
propositions.
Actually, yes, it does. You don't understand science very
well, do you?
Not that proposition.
Yes, that proposition.
Look. I might assert that the Earth's moon is
a hologram generated by hyper-sophisticated machinery, capable of
simulating physical reality sufficiently to accommodate lunar
probes and primitive moon landings by 20th century technology,
and then ask you to disprove my assertions. Your question
amounts to the same thing. No sane person is going to allow you
to make that kind of set-up and then get down to work to disprove
your idiot assertions.
I've made no assertions. You have. Put up or admit you have no
proof and that you're basing it on 'faith'.
There is an implied assertion in asking someone to prove that 'god'
doesn't exist.
Nonsense.
To ask that question at all, you must first assume
that 'god' exists.
Really? Why? Are your logical faculties so deranged?
One more time - An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
So you are just wasting my time with your pointless questions.
No, I'm just asking for your PROOF of what you have asserted. Failing
that, I await your admission that you have none other than 'faith'.
Bull****. You're shilling for faith because you're a brainwashed
moron. And that's your problem. No one else is responsible for your
committal to religious ideology. Just you.
No, I'm am 'shilling' AGAINST faith as an argument, including YOUR
faith. That's why I keep asking you for PROOF of your assertions.
Thanks for the fine example of how you religious fundamentalists are
unable to think outside your own hidebound dogmas.
Not
only that, but you deny your own position in the discussion.
Poppycock. Apparently your only 'defense' of your assertion is to
constitute twisting and outright lies. So be it.
You're only going to convince morons that a projection of your own
rhetorical shortcomings magically absolves you of the responsibility
of your own ideological convictions. It must suck to be so weak that
you can't even stand behind your own thoughts and opinions.
What are you gibbering about now? YOU are the one making assertions
and then proving unable to offer any proof for them. Just like every
other religious zealot.
Well assume all you want, but manufacturing the
conditions of your premise and then asking someone to disprove your
assumptsion is a little like a right-tard wasting people's time with
the abortion debate.
My only 'assumption' is that you have no proof for your assertions,
which makes them the same as any other fundamentalist religionist;
purely based on faith.
Ok, so in other words you are unable to discuss matters intelligently
with people who disagree with you.
This appears to be the outcome in this case, presumably stemming from
the poor quality of the person disagreeing with me.
If you had a clue you wouldn't be sitting on your fat ass pretending
to be arguing your position when in fact you are engaging in PR spin-
doctoring. Again, it must suck to be so weak as to make one unable to
handle the real world as it is.
What really sucks is to be a religious zealot like you, who, when
called on his assertions devolves into insult as his only tactic.
Have fun speaking with people
who'll kiss your ass and put up with your PR bull****.
Which "PR bull****" would that be?
So, can you PROVE your claim or not? Yes or no?
I'm sure all the morons on Usenet are impress with your rhetorical
prowess.
Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Why are you afraid to answer the question?
Actually, you answer comes as something of a surprise as I
thought you might make some sort of pointless excursion
towards illustrating how or why religious people claim to know
certain things as contrasted to the way I use the verb 'know',
as in my previous message above.
You've asserted an absolute claim based on no evidence. I'm
still waiting for you to trot out said evidence.
Note that an absence of evidence FOR something is not the same
as evidence of an absence OF something....
As above, so below.
Indeed.
Next.
You keep running away, Stevie. The only people you're making a
convincing case with is your co-religionists.
You may as well declare victory and move on the the next sucker. As
they say, your dog don't hunt.
And your dog is apparently stuffed.
Can you offer any proof for your assertion? Yes or no?
As much as you might find it amusing to insist that your opponents are
required to address and answer stupid questions, those of us with more
than half a brain are not so encumbered. If I were you, I wouldn't be
asking someone to prove that 'god' doesn't exist as it is a
meaningless question as stated. For one thing, it assumes that there
is some reason to presuppose that 'god' exists, and does so without
one shred of evidence.
Nonsense. It's pathetic that this is the only 'argument' you can come
up with. YOU made specific claims. YOU act as if you're not the same
as other folks making claims based on faith. So where's your proof?
It is much better to ask what people mean when they use the term 'god'
in speech or writing. So, Fred, what do you mean when you use the
term 'god' and 'exists' in the same sentence?
That would rather depend on the remainder of the sentence, now
wouldn't it?
I recognize the
futility of imagining that you'll supply an honest response to this
question. As we know, religious people behave very differently when
someone is watching, as opposed to times when you feel you are not
observed.
Hell, you won't even answer a simple yes/no question and now you're
bawling your eyes out from all the smoke you're trying to raise over
the whichness of the why?
The real problem here, which you seem desperate to conceal, is that
'god' in colloquial use is a word without a proper definition. That
is, when people use the term they may be making reference to any of
several distinct and contradictory meanings, but invariably they fall
back on the 'supreme being' definition when called on it. This
follows from the idea that some people hold that their calling in life
is to manifest 'god's' will on Earth through the mechanics of their
actions and faith. In doing so, they recapitulate the agency of their
will to a fictional concept and deny personal responsibility for
their actions. Never mind people who have a 'god complex', such as
doctors with an inflated sense of their own importance.
This is not to say some stupid and credulous individuals don't believe
in a supreme deity owing to their inability to conceive natural
phenomenon in rational terms. But the point to be made here is that
'god' isn't the simple concept you right-tards make it out to be, and
your insistence in proof of non-existence is merely one way that you
confuse the issues. I imagine you think that all the distortion and
misdirection is helpful in brainwashing your children so they will be
largely unable to think clearly about religion and its real-world
costs.
So declare yourself the 'winner' of the discussion and move on to the
next sucker.
Now that you've raved away through all that, I'll simply point out
that I tend to use the word "deities" when I ask the question, not
'god' as you try to misdirect things.
Might I suggest you learn to read and then buy yourself a nice
dictionary?
But you keep stroking yourself, Stevie. I'm sure SOMEONE must be
convinced...
I know what the problem is. You're hoping to get your very own entry
in my active killfile. Nice try, but it won't work. The killfile is
for people who deserve killfiling. You're just an annoying git who
tries too hard to be an annoying git.
PKB noted and giggled at.
What a ********
Regards,
Uncle Steve
Regards,
Uncle Fred
--
|