Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 09:02:48 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 25/04/2018 16:25, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
news

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?

It cannot have been incurable if it was cured.

It's notable that the things that "miracles" cure are always the
sorts of things that the body has at least a small possibility
of curing naturally.

I posted his first hand account. Feel free to find other accounts
of spontaneous cures for the condition in question.

What kind of miracles don't we ever see?
Regenerated arms, legs, or eyes. Repaired brains or spinal
cords. Heck, even a simple inguinal hernia has never been
observed to be cured.

And? Only fundamentalist atheists - like you - claim that the
Christian God is a trained monkey. You really should understand
what you hate better. You'd look less *stupid* that way.

--
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.

Gary Harnagel wrote in
:

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:20:38 PM UTC-6, 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. We’ve
had th
is argument
before. I’m an agnostic. As originally defined by Huxley. I
don
’t believe
in any god but there’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.

I've always understood "agnostic" to mean one who "knows not"
since that is the literal meaning of the word; and "atheist" to
mean one who KNOWS that there are no gods.

In common usage (you know, the only definition that matters if you
want to communicate with _other_ people), atheism is the believe
there is no deity. Agnosticism is more expansive, and covers "I
dont' know," "we *can't* know," and "who cares?" all at once.

When there are two perfectly usable, well known words that cover
two very different concepts, and someone insist on using one of
them to describe the other, they look *dishonest* and *stupid*.
This is why so many people do not trust atheists: Thye look
*dishonest* and *stupid*. Except it's not just a look for many of
them, is it?

This is supported
he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Wikipedia isn't a particularly reliable source for what day of the
week it is. On any conversial topic, or any topic on which a
moderator has some degree of passion, their written policy that
Wikipedia is a popularity contest for factoids, and actual facts
don't matter, takes control.[1]

"In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position
that there are no deities."

That is the common usage definition. If you want to communicate
with other people.

As I have written before, it is not possible to "know" so it is

It's quite possible "know." Knowing, and proving, are not the same
thing, and proving for oneself and proving scientificatlly are
equally not the same thing.

not possible to be an atheist in that sense. Those who claim to
be atheists are using a different definition.

Those who claim, loudly, constantly, and obnoxiously on the
internet that they, and millions of agnostics, are atheists are
idiots.




[1]Yes, they really have that as a policy. It starts with their
prohibition on primary sources. So if, for instance, you were
famous enough to have a Wikipedia article about you, and your most
popular biography got your date of birth wrong, you wouldn't be
considered a credible source of information to correct it. And
_neither would your birth certificate._ Their written policy is
that the published seoncdary source is more credible than a primary
source. For an example of how idiotic this can get, do a search for
"haymarket riot wikipedia controversy."

--
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 in
:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:20:22 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I've always understood "agnostic" to mean one who "knows not"
since that is the literal meaning of the word; and "atheist" to
mean one who KNOWS that there are no gods. This is supported
he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position
that there are no deities."

As I have written before, it is not possible to "know" so it is
not possible to be an atheist in that sense. Those who claim to
be atheists are using a different definition.

Indeed. Everybody I've ever met who is an atheist uses the term
to mean they don't believe in deities.

They (and you) might say. But we all know what they (and you)
really believe. And that your belief is an act of faith, same as
the belief there is a deity. You're just not man enough to admit
it.

If you follow any forums populated by atheists, it's clear that

the people there are childish idiots who believe they can get laid
by being kewl and rebelious. But who would really want to stick
their dick into a woman gullible (or stupid) enough to buy that
act?

--
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 08:26:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

It's notable that the things that "miracles" cure are always the
sorts of things that the body has at least a small possibility
of curing naturally.

I posted his first hand account. Feel free to find other accounts
of spontaneous cures for the condition in question.

The condition is not incurable.

What kind of miracles don't we ever see?
Regenerated arms, legs, or eyes. Repaired brains or spinal
cords. Heck, even a simple inguinal hernia has never been
observed to be cured.

And? Only fundamentalist atheists - like you - claim that the
Christian God is a trained monkey. You really should understand
what you hate better. You'd look less *stupid* that way.

I don't believe the Christian god is a trained monkey. Trained monkeys
exist.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:21:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:52:30 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

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.

And yet, you use one to describe the other.

I use "agnostic" as a qualifier.

Which is your error.

As a matter of FACT, you are incorrect.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:40:29 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:20:22 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I've always understood "agnostic" to mean one who "knows not"
since that is the literal meaning of the word; and "atheist" to
mean one who KNOWS that there are no gods. This is supported
he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position
that there are no deities."

As I have written before, it is not possible to "know" so it is
not possible to be an atheist in that sense. Those who claim to
be atheists are using a different definition.

Indeed. Everybody I've ever met who is an atheist uses the term
to mean they don't believe in deities.

They (and you) might say. But we all know what they (and you)
really believe. And that your belief is an act of faith, same as
the belief there is a deity. You're just not man enough to admit
it.

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.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:26:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

It's notable that the things that "miracles" cure are always
the sorts of things that the body has at least a small
possibility of curing naturally.

I posted his first hand account. Feel free to find other
accounts of spontaneous cures for the condition in question.

The condition is not incurable.

I do not think the word means what you think it means.

What kind of miracles don't we ever see?
Regenerated arms, legs, or eyes. Repaired brains or spinal
cords. Heck, even a simple inguinal hernia has never been
observed to be cured.

And? Only fundamentalist atheists - like you - claim that the
Christian God is a trained monkey. You really should understand
what you hate better. You'd look less *stupid* that way.

I don't believe the Christian god is a trained monkey. Trained
monkeys exist.

Which is more than we can say for you.

--
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 in
:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:21:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:52:30 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

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.

And yet, you use one to describe the other.

I use "agnostic" as a qualifier.

Which is your error.

As a matter of FACT, you are incorrect.

I know you are, but what am I?

--
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 in
:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:40:29 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 06:20:22 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I've always understood "agnostic" to mean one who "knows not"
since that is the literal meaning of the word; and "atheist"
to mean one who KNOWS that there are no gods. This is
supported he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the
position that there are no deities."

As I have written before, it is not possible to "know" so it
is not possible to be an atheist in that sense. Those who
claim to be atheists are using a different definition.

Indeed. Everybody I've ever met who is an atheist uses the
term to mean they don't believe in deities.

They (and you) might say. But we all know what they (and you)
really believe. And that your belief is an act of faith, same as
the belief there is a deity. You're just not man enough to admit
it.

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.

But you're not man enough to admit it. Or perhaps just too mentally
ill to accept 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.

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

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. And why do you think I
would stalk anyone. I merely wanted the details.
Trigeminal neuralgia is a terrible disease - some say it is the most
painful. But like multiple sclerosis (with which is has some links) it has
a significant number of cases of spontaneous remission. There has even been
induced remission using relaxation of the facial muscles. Catholic churches
are relaxing places. Centuries of refinement of church architecture has
created spaces which induce peace. I feel it when I walk into an old
fashioned church and it’s missing in modern churches.
I suspect that a combination of this and the possibility of a miracle cure
induced a remission.

The problem with miracle cures is that they fail to explain why a loving
god inflicted this pain in the first place and then didn’t bother to cure
it until he went to a priest. I don’t think you could point to the miracle
cure of a missing leg. That would be a little more convincing.

On a much smaller scale I can cure warts. I could, if necessary give you
the name of my first “cure�. He was a biochemist working with me and when,
during a conversation about miracle cures, he heard me say that my great
aunt charmed off warts and maybe I inherited the ability. So he asked me to
cure the warts on his hands. I examined them and touching the largest said
“That one will be the first to go.� About three week later he came to me
and said. “Look at this!�. The wart had gone. I then touched the others and
they all eventually vanished. He believed, I didn’t. I can’t cure my own
warts because I don’t believe I can. But since then I’ve cured warts on
people who did believe. I only had two failures. One is me. The other is a
Jehovah’s witness who was urged to come to me but didn’t believe I would be
successful. I didn’t cure them. It’s not a miracle. They cured themselves.

Another great “miracle healer� Padre Pio has a famous case where he cured
diabetes insipidus.
Anyone familiar with this disease knows that there are two almost
indistinguishable conditions, Diabetes Insipidus caused by low levels of
antidiuretic hormone and compulsive water drinking. The endochrological
investigations to distinguish between the two are complex and expensive.
Even then they sometimes fail and occasionally clinicians resort to
treating the disease with ADH and seeing whether the patient gets slowly
better or slowly worse.
So this “genuine miracle� suddenly becomes very dubious. Restoring normal
ADH secretion would be a miracle but convincing a compulsive water drinker
that she’d been cured is a massively successful placebo effect.

I’m glad your friend is cured. But I don’t believe in miracles. If I did
maybe I could cure my own warts.