|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"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 -- |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:49:39PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote: I'll just note once again Stevie's absolute and total inability to provide ANY evidence for his assertions. His only tactic now is to try and twist and insult his way out of answering a simple yes/no question about whether he has ANY proof of his assertion. He's just another unthinking religious zealot. I don't particularly care why you're pretending to win this argument. My primary concern is the fact that your attempt at character assassination might be taken seriously by indiscriminate morons. Typical of right-tards is a tendency to project their own failings and insecurities on others. Apparently the act provides some sort of psychological balm that reinforces their weak emotional defenses. Fred, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you abandon your entrenched position in Fred Fantasyland. While it may be a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run. Oh, and Fred, no-one likes a cry-baby. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 11:51:55AM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:49:39PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: Uncle Steve wrote: I'll just note once again Stevie's absolute and total inability to provide ANY evidence for his assertions. His only tactic now is to try and twist and insult his way out of answering a simple yes/no question about whether he has ANY proof of his assertion. He's just another unthinking religious zealot. I don't particularly care why you're pretending to win this argument. And yet you go on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on..... My primary concern is the fact that your attempt at character assassination might be taken seriously by indiscriminate morons. I have yet to see any evidence of character on your part, Stevie. There is a difference between having character and being one. It rather looks like you're the one imposing your prejudices and being an unreasonable bumbler. You made the assertion. You refuse to even answer whether or not you have any proof, much less produce any. And yet you object to it being pointed out that you are precisely like every other religious zealot on the planet; expostulating things based purely on your own faith and then attacking people based on your own delusional stereotypes when they point that out. I can't imagine why you think your rhetorical style is at all respectable. You sound like a petulant spoiled child who will do nearly anything for attention. Grow the **** up. Typical of right-tards is a tendency to project their own failings and insecurities on others. Apparently the act provides some sort of psychological balm that reinforces their weak emotional defenses. Typical of religious zealots is a tendency to be unable to think outside their own religious dogma and stereotypes. This leads to them misunderstanding, well, virtually everyone. If you find the company of infantile egos comforting that have at it. Expecting intelligent people to accommodate themselves to your desired level of stupid is, well, infantile. Fred, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you abandon your entrenched position in Fred Fantasyland. While it may be a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run. Oh, and Fred, no-one likes a cry-baby. Stevie, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you abandon your religious zeal in Fundamentalist AtheistLand. While it may be a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run. Oh, and Stevie, you would certainly know by now how people feel about a cry-baby. You idiots keep breeding them, winding them up, and sending them out, so, yeah, I've seen lots of cry-babies. Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"THIS is my Letter to the World!"
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 03:26:27PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote: On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 11:51:55AM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: Uncle Steve wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 09:49:39PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: Uncle Steve wrote: I'll just note once again Stevie's absolute and total inability to provide ANY evidence for his assertions. His only tactic now is to try and twist and insult his way out of answering a simple yes/no question about whether he has ANY proof of his assertion. He's just another unthinking religious zealot. I don't particularly care why you're pretending to win this argument. And yet you go on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on..... My primary concern is the fact that your attempt at character assassination might be taken seriously by indiscriminate morons. I have yet to see any evidence of character on your part, Stevie. There is a difference between having character and being one. It rather looks like you're the one imposing your prejudices and being an unreasonable bumbler. Fortunately I don't fee responsible for how things look to raving idiots like you. You made the assertion. You refuse to even answer whether or not you have any proof, much less produce any. And yet you object to it being pointed out that you are precisely like every other religious zealot on the planet; expostulating things based purely on your own faith and then attacking people based on your own delusional stereotypes when they point that out. I can't imagine why you think your rhetorical style is at all respectable. You sound like a petulant spoiled child who will do nearly anything for attention. Grow the **** up. You're the one who has found it necessary to devolve into profanity and insults while steadfastly avoiding the original issue. Typical of right-tards is a tendency to project their own failings and insecurities on others. Apparently the act provides some sort of psychological balm that reinforces their weak emotional defenses. Typical of religious zealots is a tendency to be unable to think outside their own religious dogma and stereotypes. This leads to them misunderstanding, well, virtually everyone. If you find the company of infantile egos comforting that have at it. No thanks. I don't care for your company. Expecting intelligent people to accommodate themselves to your desired level of stupid is, well, infantile. Keep raving, assclown. Perhaps someone should point out to you that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should consider doing is STOP DIGGING. Fred, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you abandon your entrenched position in Fred Fantasyland. While it may be a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run. Oh, and Fred, no-one likes a cry-baby. Stevie, it's better to live in the real world, and I recommend you abandon your religious zeal in Fundamentalist AtheistLand. While it may be a difficult move initially, you'll thank me in the long run. Oh, and Stevie, you would certainly know by now how people feel about a cry-baby. You idiots keep breeding them, winding them up, and sending them out, so, yeah, I've seen lots of cry-babies. What are you gibbering on about now? Which collective 'you' do you think you're referring to? Your rhetorical style puts you in the same class as those who breed morons. To simple for ya? Regards, Uncle Steve -- 10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same. 20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch, accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by right-tards, pigs, and their handlers. = 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" | Michael Gray | Misc | 0 | April 18th 06 04:18 AM |
The world trade center "official story" is the biggest lie since "The Holocaust" | Michael Gray | Misc | 0 | April 17th 06 11:58 AM |
On inroads by the right's "ID" and creationism: Open letter to AAAS president Omenn | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 22nd 06 06:42 AM |