Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Mike Collins wrote in

rnal-september.org:

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:1707214785.546384002.761204.acridiniumester-gmail.com@news.
ete rnal-september.org:

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
news
On 25/04/2018 11:58, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:25:45 PM UTC-6, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I base my beliefs on evidence.

You have NO evidence for atheism.

Atheism isn't a belief.

Of COURSE it is.

It is a claim that the precise number of deities in the
universe is known to be exactly Zero.

Which is, _by definition_, unprovable. Ergo, a statement of
faith. Pure belief.


It doesn't require evidence. It's simply the
default position when there's no evidence for any deities.
Which, of course, there is not.

Of COURSE there is evidence. You just refuse to accept it.

When did you last see a miracle performed then? Or do you
apply double standards to your religious "evidence" and to
scientific evidence.

I know a guy who was cured of an incurable disease by the
laying on of hands by a Catholic priest. Miracle? Spontaneous
remission? Misdiagnosis? Some unique combination of factors
that actually cured it, unknown to science? Could be any of
them. There's no evidence to support any of them.

And you're a ****ing moron if you believe otherwise. (And we
both know you do.)


What was the name of the man cured and the date and location?

So you can stalk him like a psychopath? Yes, I honestly believe
you would, and intend to. If you want to call me a liar, be a
man for once and just come out and say it so everybody can
dismiss you as a loser who can't admit when he's bested.

What was the disease?

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, since you won't believe it
anyway, but I'm about 99.9999999% sure it's the first reply
here (if it's not, it's an identical experience):

https://forums.catholic.com/t/personal-miracles/34332/2

(He's till cured, 13 years later.)


Call you a liar - no. Gullible yes but not a liar.

So you're calling him a liar, then.

Tells me everything I need to know about you. No point in reading
the rest of your bull****, since all you're worth is to point and
laugh at.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:31:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Epistemological systems are largely divided into two,
non-overlapping areas. Knowledge by faith, and knowledge by
reason. The former depends upon believing what you are told, the
latter on what you infer based on evidence. I make every effort
to use the latter system as much as possible. My opinion about
the existence of gods is evidence based. Provide some evidence
of a god, and I'll look at it and change my mind if it's strong
enough.

Since evidence is, _by definition_, impossible, and the absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence (a pretty classic, and common,
error that folks like you make), your belief is just that: a
religious faith.

Evidence arguing against the existence of _specific_ gods, such as the
Abrahamic one, is not only possible, but exists. And more broadly,
absence of evidence is often powerful evidence of absence.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:31:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Epistemological systems are largely divided into two,
non-overlapping areas. Knowledge by faith, and knowledge by
reason. The former depends upon believing what you are told,
the latter on what you infer based on evidence. I make every
effort to use the latter system as much as possible. My
opinion about the existence of gods is evidence based. Provide
some evidence of a god, and I'll look at it and change my mind
if it's strong enough.

Since evidence is, _by definition_, impossible, and the absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence (a pretty classic, and
common, error that folks like you make), your belief is just
that: a religious faith.

Evidence arguing against the existence of _specific_ gods, such
as the Abrahamic one, is not only possible, but exists.

If it exists, and qualifies as scientific evidence, it's not the
Abrahamic god you're talking about, _by definition_.

You clearly have no ****ing clue what you're talking about.

This surprises exactly no one, since you never do.

And more
broadly, absence of evidence is often powerful evidence of
absence.

Now when evidence is, by definition, impossible.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:21:25 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

If, indeed, they are miracles, and not just something we don't
understand.

What is the difference?

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:34:23 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
Why follow a bad example? Instead, try to be a good example
yourself -
how about that?

Have I disrespected you? Where have I been a bad example? I'm
sorry
if I have, but those on the AGW side have been MUCH worse.

I'm not the only person on Earth. And if you're never ever a bad
example, you would not need to use the argument "but they are much
worse"...

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:34:26 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

My point is that this is all being done,

It is not being done at a rate fast enough to keep the maximum extent of
temperature elevation below two degrees Celsius, at which level serious
consequences can be expected.

Now, the sky is not falling, so _if_ the only way we could avoid those serious
consequences would be to invite economic disaster, then a policy decision not to
follow the recommendations of those who are focused on the climate component of
the issue would not be unreasonable.

I think the climate scientists are right about AGW, and thus I think that the
right way to avoid economic disaster is to advocate nuclear, because trying to
argue that the scientific climate consensus is wrong just leads to a different
bad course of action, and makes one look foolish to boot.

Have I disrespected you? Where have I been a bad example? I'm sorry
if I have, but those on the AGW side have been MUCH worse.

We hold you to a higher standard. Those who *dare* to contradict the TRUTH
handed out by Science are to be meek, and they are to *expect* to be derided as
fools. AGW, like Relativity, and like Newton's Theory of Gravity, is a subject
on which Science has *spoken*!

You may feel this is unfair. You may feel science is breaking its own rules in
the case of AGW.

But the way others see it is: you are a toxic spill of misinformation, which
might actually be taken seriously by some of those people who aren't well-
educated in science but still can vote, and you need to be contained as swiftly
as possible.

Hence ridicule. Hence what you see as "brown shirt" tactics.

So when you notice that self-righteousness can make liberals behave a lot like
fascists, well, you're not hallucinating. I'll give you that. Since for a change
the self-righteous liberals are right here, though, I think you're fighting the
wrong battle.

John Savard

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:21:25 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

If, indeed, they are miracles, and not just something we don't
understand.

What is the difference?

Whether or not you believe in a supernatural diety.

Duh.

Or, on a more objective level, whether or not we can figure it out
eventually. The computer you're reading this on would have been a
miracle to the average person a thousand years ago, but today, it's
so commonplace we don't even think about it.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:30:25 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:13:51 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

This is BY FAR the most common usage.

No, it's not.

Well, you have not demonstrated yourself to be in possession of many
facts about other areas, no reason to expect differently here.


Actually this is one of the few times he is right. WeÂ’ve had this argument
before. IÂ’m an agnostic. As originally defined by Huxley. I donÂ’t believe
in any god but thereÂ’s no way I can disprove the existence of a god or
gods.
You can define me as an agnostic atheist but I define myself as
agnostic.

You can, of course, label yourself anyway you want. But you are, by
definition, an atheist. A skeptical one, which is good.

However, the usage he was incorrect about was mainly "atheist", not
"agnostic". He treated the two words as if they were on the same
spectrum of belief. They're not.


You can use words to mean whatever you want. It seems an American thing to
use atheist to mean agnostic. I’m not American.
I don’t believe in any of the gods offered so far. Or want to.

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

rnal-september.org:

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:1707214785.546384002.761204.acridiniumester-gmail.com@news.
ete rnal-september.org:

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
news
On 25/04/2018 11:58, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:25:45 PM UTC-6, Chris L
Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I base my beliefs on evidence.

You have NO evidence for atheism.

Atheism isn't a belief.

Of COURSE it is.

It is a claim that the precise number of deities in the
universe is known to be exactly Zero.

Which is, _by definition_, unprovable. Ergo, a statement of
faith. Pure belief.


It doesn't require evidence. It's simply the
default position when there's no evidence for any deities.
Which, of course, there is not.

Of COURSE there is evidence. You just refuse to accept it.

When did you last see a miracle performed then? Or do you
apply double standards to your religious "evidence" and to
scientific evidence.

I know a guy who was cured of an incurable disease by the
laying on of hands by a Catholic priest. Miracle? Spontaneous
remission? Misdiagnosis? Some unique combination of factors
that actually cured it, unknown to science? Could be any of
them. There's no evidence to support any of them.

And you're a ****ing moron if you believe otherwise. (And we
both know you do.)


What was the name of the man cured and the date and location?

So you can stalk him like a psychopath? Yes, I honestly believe
you would, and intend to. If you want to call me a liar, be a
man for once and just come out and say it so everybody can
dismiss you as a loser who can't admit when he's bested.

What was the disease?

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, since you won't believe it
anyway, but I'm about 99.9999999% sure it's the first reply
here (if it's not, it's an identical experience):

https://forums.catholic.com/t/personal-miracles/34332/2

(He's till cured, 13 years later.)


Call you a liar - no. Gullible yes but not a liar.

So you're calling him a liar, then.

Tells me everything I need to know about you. No point in reading
the rest of your bull****, since all you're worth is to point and
laugh at.


I tend not to go around calling people liars when they’re not. Point to any
sort of my post when I said otherwise. Generally when people won’t reply to
a post it’s because they don’t have a good answer. You’re good at the
juvenile yah boo type answers. Why not try writing like an adult.

Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:30:25 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:13:51 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

This is BY FAR the most common usage.

No, it's not.

Well, you have not demonstrated yourself to be in possession
of many facts about other areas, no reason to expect
differently here.


Actually this is one of the few times he is right. WeÂ’ve had
this argument before. IÂ’m an agnostic. As originally defined
by Huxley. I donÂ’t believe in any god but thereÂ’s no way I
can disprove the existence of a god or gods.
You can define me as an agnostic atheist but I define myself
as agnostic.

You can, of course, label yourself anyway you want. But you
are, by definition, an atheist. A skeptical one, which is good.

However, the usage he was incorrect about was mainly "atheist",
not "agnostic". He treated the two words as if they were on the
same spectrum of belief. They're not.


You can use words to mean whatever you want. It seems an
American thing to use atheist to mean agnostic.

Not really. It's an American *atheist* (in the common usage sense)
thing to do, but I've seen plenty of obnoxious Eurotrash atheists
do the same thing.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.