Where did I say that, liar?
It's how even mindless religionists like you treat anything else other than their pretend friend.
But then you knew that and were just being dishonest. Yet again.
Because it's not, liar.
The liar pretends that conclusions where it is explained how we get there, Popperian falsifiability and a whole slew of other things are "assertions we haven't shown to be true".
He is being deliberately dishoinest.
I did err in my generalization. I should have said few people know except....
IMHO there is evidence, but this isn't really the place for a serious discussion.
Even more interesting is that I DID comment in response to what was said and that your reading skills are too poor to perceive it.
Cast pearls before the swine? No thanks.
(Ok everyone, watch the circuitous nonsense)
Explain why "it's not." What is your proof?
There is none.
Keep your bullshit to yourself and you won't be told to prove it.
Say there is and you have to provide it.
But you can't, because the information from which to derive it simply isn't there.
It's a religious presumption. But outside that religion there is nothing that leads one to postulate it. And people wouldn't give it a thought if its believers had the common sense and courtesy to keep it within their religion.
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:54:15 -0800, in alt.atheism Don Bowey wrote in :
Sounds like you know you have absolutely nothing. Thanks.
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:48:47 -0800, in alt.atheism Don Bowey wrote in :
He said 'verifiable evidence' you dishonestly changed the words to 'proof'. You lied.
I believe organized religions are responsible for that confusion.
None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see. Your attitude is such that meaningful discourse is impossible.
All we can do is have these enjoyable chatty pastimes.
Your welcome, out to lunch.
Which is why I plonked the fool. I'm bored with is ilk.
-- Dave You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. - Abbie Hoffman
No, neither you nor him have a clue about logic, and his restating something does NOT change the rules of logic.
His stated conclusion is crap: "The total lack of objective verifiable evidence of the existence of any Gods is evidence that no Gods exist."
I repeat: The apparent absence of something is *not* proof of it's non-existence.
I really don't care a whit that you folks believe there is no God, but your arguments are vacuous and do nothing but make you appear as idiots.
Why do you need meaningful discourse in order to post your evidence? Just post it.
I take it that you've never received a long, rambling email from Rich when he's drunk, or high?
-- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
The standard Christian slander and personal falsehood used as a dishonest excuse to cop out.
You Liars For God talk about some hypothetical evidence that has never, ever been presented. And always find excuses not to provide it.
Prove it or admit you have been lying about it
You would be the first in 2000 years.
Standard Christian lies and nastiness.
It's all they've got.
He has none. Just like all the other Liars For God who claim it, talk about it, lie about why we ignore it, lie about why they won't provide it, etc.
If he does provide this hypothetical "evidence" he'll be the first.
Ever.
But he won't.
He'll continue to lie, divert and slander.
Which he knows he is doing.
(snip)
Nothing useful. It was based on deceitful, creative trimming of posts in order for him to shift the topic and make his points, which were not germane to my post.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.