My posts are not anti-science you brain-dead idiot. They include posts that are aimed at the ignorant, illogical pseudo-scientific language you guys use in support of some point you think is important.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:49:43 -0800, in alt.atheism Don Bowey wrote in :
So you tell us. Could you show me how you support science and how 'we guys' use pseudo-scientific language?
Then tell us what your god is. What properties does it have? God, bad, caring, uncaring, intelligent? The Mule was smart enough to answer those questions. Until then your God = Big Bang.
Decide? Gosh, a philosophizer presenting the argument from cause. How clevere. Are you just another parrot or can you tell us what comes next?
No, I am not. You are totally wrong, or more likely, a liar.
Go away. You're too dumb to deal with.
As I have pointed out completely enough for anyone but a buffoon like you to understand, is that I have no intention nor need to convince you that God exists. I am merely pointing out that your illogical, pseudo-science blather purporting to prove that god does NOT exist, fails the test of logic and science.
If any of these words are difficult for you, please go ask your mom or dad for help.
Not my problem!
You think that because you don't have the same insight as the person you are criticizing. AKA ignorant.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:14:31 -0800, in alt.atheism Don Bowey wrote in :
No. There is no evidence that any gods exist. The claims about gods are conflicting and unsupported.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:11:54 -0800, in alt.atheism Don Bowey wrote in :
So you made a claim that you are now unable to back up.
True.
These idiots can't grasp that they have to step aside from any presumptions at all about God.
Then derive it from real world observations, using real world methods and tools.
This one only imagines everything he sees is evidence that God exists, because of childhood brainwashing so that the very meanings of every word in the English language include God.
I've got a friendly cat curled up purring next to me.
But the very meaning of "cat" for him. Includes God.
So he'd say "I've got a friendly cat that God created curled up purring next to me. This is Evidence of God".
Spot the unjustified presumption.
Oops... Spot is the dog.
Can't these guys ever think before putting their foot in their mouth?
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:05:28 -0800, in alt.atheism Don Bowey wrote in :
...
They are your words. You are the one who switched from the word evidence to the word proof.
It must disappoint you that you cannot bamboozle us here.
That is because you cannot. You have no evidence that would allow you to do it.
I have not purported to prove that no gods exist. That is a misrepresentation that _you_ continually try to slip in. I have, on the other hand, pointed out that there is no evidence for any gods and that the lack of such evidence tells us that the null hypothesis that gods do not exist cannot be rejected.
Your smug foolishness will not get you off the hook.
So he shouldn't beg the question by rudely and stupidly talking about it as though it were real, to people outside is religion. Whether atheist or anything else.
It is just as rude to talk God at atheists as it is to talk Jesus at Jews.
But they don't care. And have neither the basic common sense nor common courtesy not to do it.
And he pretends he doesn't understand why he is treated as a liar and an idiot.
They are simplistic binary thinkers who also can't understand that there is a real world beyond their religion. For them God is an absolute certainty and has to be for everybody else so they don't even realise they beg the question.
But what I don't understand is why when this is explained, they turn nasty. It's hardly rocket science
Another reason why he is treated as an idiot.
Idiot.
If you could keep up you would see you are out of touch. Oh, I see, you don't understand what synonym means.
You are bamboozled without my help, dumb one.
Well, I may have proof, though. Not that it's really any of your business.
As I said before, your logic is seriously flawed. Staying with it shows you to be a fool. Well, hell, I could see that anyhow, so hang in there....
Poof!
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:44:46 -0800, in alt.atheism Don Bowey wrote in :
But, of course, they are not synonyms in this case.
No, you do not. If you had, you would have presented it, and you would be the first human ever to have some.
Then he should try to overcome my ignorance.
can
you
Yes, how stupid to expect someone to back up their claim.
"Richard
non-Christian?
Then your unsupported assertions are rejected. Too bad.
-
There are other possibilities.
Don't pout.
Which is merely your strawman.
You should look up the definitions of the terms "proof" and "evidence."
You don't make even a minimal effort to understand what you read, do you?
"Accept unsupported assertions" is part of the scientific method?
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.