Discussion:
Burden of Proof
(too old to reply)
Joe Bruno
2017-04-05 21:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
j***@gmail.com
2017-04-05 21:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
You are obsessed. Step away from the computer and do something interesting.
b***@m.nu
2017-04-06 01:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
You are obsessed. Step away from the computer and do something interesting.
no matter what it does or tries, it can't fix stupid
b***@m.nu
2017-04-06 01:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
%
2017-04-06 02:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
you just said there was , look

I do believe the christian god would say
Joe Bruno
2017-04-06 02:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
default
2017-04-06 18:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Don Martin
2017-04-06 21:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-06 23:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
LOL! Is that why I have lived alone for 40 years, asshole? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
default
2017-04-07 17:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:52:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Don Martin
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
LOL! Is that why I have lived alone for 40 years, asshole? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You've lived alone because no will have you.
John Locke
2017-04-06 23:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:58:02 -0400, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
..a round what ?
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-06 23:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 16:54:50 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:58:02 -0400, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
..a round what ?
A big zero - you can't get much rounder than that/
Don Martin
2017-04-07 11:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 16:54:50 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:58:02 -0400, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
..a round what ?
Blank space, as in zero.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-07 11:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 16:54:50 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:58:02 -0400, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
..a round what ?
Blank space, as in zero.
--
You did so well on all my quizzes, you must be regarded as a "learned" man.
Why don't you assemble all your thoughts into a single volume? We can have a Book of Don in the bible. We'll slip you in neatly between Josiah and Ezekiel.
default
2017-04-07 17:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 16:54:50 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:58:02 -0400, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
..a round what ?
Blank space, as in zero.
--
You did so well on all my quizzes, you must be regarded as a "learned" man.
Why don't you assemble all your thoughts into a single volume? We can have a Book of Don in the bible. We'll slip you in neatly between Josiah and Ezekiel.
Why not? Can't hurt, the bible is incredible enough that it can only
help lend credibility.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-08 02:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 16:54:50 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:58:02 -0400, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by default
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
So why bother posting? What do you hope to gain?
Somebody noticing that he is around.
..a round what ?
Blank space, as in zero.
--
You did so well on all my quizzes, you must be regarded as a "learned" man.
Why don't you assemble all your thoughts into a single volume? We can have a Book of Don in the bible. We'll slip you in neatly between Josiah and Ezekiel.
Why do you think Don wish to be a con man, establishing another fraud cult????
Not all man will have your evil thoughts.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-08 03:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
I didn't say you were, I just asked you prove god which is something you appear to believe in. I don't. You also seem to want others to believe the same things you do or there would be no reason for you to be here.
Why do you believe in a god?
b***@m.nu
2017-04-08 16:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:44:54 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
I'm not trying to convert you. Judaism won't have you.
I didn't say you were, I just asked you prove god which is something you appear to believe in. I don't. You also seem to want others to believe the same things you do or there would be no reason for you to be here.
Why do you believe in a god?
Ahem.... Fairies....
Joe Bruno
2017-04-09 18:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
That rule only applies to a debate. I am not debating you on the existence of God because I don't care if you believe in Him or not.
Kevrob
2017-04-09 18:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
That rule only applies to a debate. I am not debating you on the existence of God because I don't care if you believe in Him or not.
Your every action in this group belies your claim of
disinterest. Why even post here?

Ahh, I forget myself. You are just a troll, poking sticks
at the non-believers and littering the group with off-charter
posts just to be a total prick.

Kevin R
b***@m.nu
2017-04-09 22:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
That rule only applies to a debate. I am not debating you on the existence of God because I don't care if you believe in Him or not.
Your every action in this group belies your claim of
disinterest. Why even post here?
Ahh, I forget myself. You are just a troll, poking sticks
at the non-believers and littering the group with off-charter
posts just to be a total prick.
of course it is. it has to get attention from somewhere.
b***@m.nu
2017-04-09 22:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
and you claim that there is a god so prove it...
That rule only applies to a debate. I am not debating you on the existence of God because I don't care if you believe in Him or not.
Wow you are sexist and stupid, congrats on that.
Davej
2017-04-06 01:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
[...]
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So? You're an idiot. Stop lecturing. Go away.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-06 02:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
[...]
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So? You're an idiot. Stop lecturing. Go away.
What you gonna do when I refuse?
Yap Honghor
2017-04-06 02:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Davej
Post by Joe Bruno
[...]
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So? You're an idiot. Stop lecturing. Go away.
What you gonna do when I refuse?
What you prefer, give you a bloody nose?
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-06 02:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
Unles they are YOUR claims, whereupon you insist that
everyone prove them wrong.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-06 02:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
Unles they are YOUR claims, whereupon you insist that
everyone prove them wrong.
Show me where I said thaT.
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-06 02:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
Unles they are YOUR claims, whereupon you insist that
everyone prove them wrong.
Show me where I said thaT.
Every time you tell someone doubting your claims to
call your university or call the Navy or call the court
that handled your divorce.
Post by Joe Bruno
No. The issue was your illiteracy, and a rational doubt that you played
any legal role in the US navy.
Post by Joe Bruno
ROTFL! There would be no issue if you assholes would contact the Navy and
ask them. You're afraid to.
Joe Bruno, Apr 5 2017
%
2017-04-06 03:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
Unles they are YOUR claims, whereupon you insist that
everyone prove them wrong.
Show me where I said thaT.
Every time you tell someone doubting your claims to
call your university or call the Navy or call the court
that handled your divorce.
Post by Joe Bruno
No. The issue was your illiteracy, and a rational doubt that you
played any legal role in the US navy.
ROTFL! There would be no issue if you assholes would contact the
Navy and ask them. You're afraid to.
Joe Bruno, Apr 5 2017
did you call
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-06 12:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by %
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
Unles they are YOUR claims, whereupon you insist that
everyone prove them wrong.
Show me where I said thaT.
Every time you tell someone doubting your claims to
call your university or call the Navy or call the court
that handled your divorce.
Post by Joe Bruno
No. The issue was your illiteracy, and a rational doubt that you
played any legal role in the US navy.
ROTFL! There would be no issue if you assholes would contact the
Navy and ask them. You're afraid to.
Joe Bruno, Apr 5 2017
did you call
"The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim"
viva padrepio
2017-04-06 02:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
I've always thought Manson would be free in today's judicial system. Imagine trying to prove that he was trying to take over the world using one of The Beatles songs. :-)

The defense would've had a field day with Bugliosi.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-06 02:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
%
2017-04-06 02:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
bilgat said I do believe the christian god would say ,
so there must be one an atheist said so
Joe Bruno
2017-04-06 02:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-06 02:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
%
2017-04-06 03:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 7:23:31 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
no they aren't
Joe Bruno
2017-04-06 03:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-06 03:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
aaa
2017-04-08 08:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
Smiler
2017-04-08 23:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to
a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
You have no logic, so that must show there is no god.
Post by aaa
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
I have lived without any god for over 70 years, liar.
And you can't show evidence that your supposed god exists.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
aaa
2017-04-09 08:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to
a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
You have no logic, so that must show there is no god.
My logic is too simple. That's why it's a perfect logic. My simple logic
is a testimony for the truth of God that it is standing on.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
I have lived without any god for over 70 years, liar.
No. You have lived with God for over 70 years like everybody else in
this world except without realizing God at all. That doesn't prove anything.
Post by Smiler
And you can't show evidence that your supposed god exists.
I don't have to because God is always the evidence of himself for
everybody to realize in life personally and individually.
Smiler
2017-04-10 01:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others
to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
You have no logic, so that must show there is no god.
My logic is too simple. That's why it's a perfect logic. My simple logic
is a testimony for the truth of God that it is standing on.
Your logic is non-existent, much lie your supposed god character.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
I have lived without any god for over 70 years, liar.
No. You have lived with God for over 70 years like everybody else in
this world except without realizing God at all. That doesn't prove anything.
And neither does that.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
And you can't show evidence that your supposed god exists.
I don't have to because God is always the evidence of himself for
everybody to realize in life personally and individually.
Why would I want to do that? I value my sanity.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
aaa
2017-04-10 03:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others
to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
You have no logic, so that must show there is no god.
My logic is too simple. That's why it's a perfect logic. My simple logic
is a testimony for the truth of God that it is standing on.
Your logic is non-existent, much lie your supposed god character.
That's just your blind denial.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
I have lived without any god for over 70 years, liar.
No. You have lived with God for over 70 years like everybody else in
this world except without realizing God at all. That doesn't prove anything.
And neither does that.
Neither does what exactly? I don't get it.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
And you can't show evidence that your supposed god exists.
I don't have to because God is always the evidence of himself for
everybody to realize in life personally and individually.
Why would I want to do that? I value my sanity.
Not true. You only value your ignorance of God.
John Locke
2017-04-09 00:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
...let's test it. Tell yourself "there is no god" and see if you fall
over dead.
aaa
2017-04-09 08:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
...let's test it. Tell yourself "there is no god" and see if you fall
over dead.
Your empty denial doesn't mean anything to God. God is always greater
than that. However, the actual spiritual denial of God in real life
would be the unforgivable sin which no one would even dare to imagine.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-10 02:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Locke
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
...let's test it. Tell yourself "there is no god" and see if you fall
over dead.
Your empty denial doesn't mean anything to God.
Nothing means nothing to an imaginary entity.

God is always greater
Post by aaa
than that.
Only in the minds of those who believe. In the minds of sane people, he is just more imagination and nonsense.

However, the actual spiritual denial of God in real life
Post by aaa
would be the unforgivable sin which no one would even dare to imagine.
There is no god, there is no sin, there is no such thing as intelligent design.
There was no Passover, no Moses, No Abraham, no Exodus, no Noah, no flood. and probably no philistines either.
http://www.livescience.com/55429-philistines.html
Joe Bruno
2017-04-10 03:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by John Locke
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
...let's test it. Tell yourself "there is no god" and see if you fall
over dead.
Your empty denial doesn't mean anything to God.
Nothing means nothing to an imaginary entity.
God is always greater
Post by aaa
than that.
Only in the minds of those who believe. In the minds of sane people, he is just more imagination and nonsense.
However, the actual spiritual denial of God in real life
Post by aaa
would be the unforgivable sin which no one would even dare to imagine.
There is no god, there is no sin, there is no such thing as intelligent design.
There was no Passover
You are NUTS

Passover

1.
Also called Pesach, Pesah. a Jewish festival that commemorates the exodus of the Jews from Egypt and is marked chiefly by the Seder ritual and the eating of matzoth. It begins on the 14th day of Nisan and is celebrated for eight days by Orthodox and Conservative Jews outside of Israel and for seven days by Reform Jews and Jews in Israel.
aaa
2017-04-10 03:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by John Locke
Post by aaa
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 11:07:25 AM UTC+8, Joe Bruno
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 7:59:30 PM UTC-7, Yap
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 10:34:53 AM UTC+8, Joe
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 7:23:31 PM UTC-7, Cloud
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 2:16:04 PM UTC-7, Joe
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by John Locke
Post by aaa
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter,
Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong? Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince
others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying
to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without
God. Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can
live without God.
...let's test it. Tell yourself "there is no god" and see if you
fall over dead.
Your empty denial doesn't mean anything to God.
Nothing means nothing to an imaginary entity.
You can never support your claim that God is indeed imaginary with
evidence. It's just your blind belief. Your ignorance of God is too
strong for you to overcome.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
God is always greater
Post by aaa
than that.
Only in the minds of those who believe. In the minds of sane people,
he is just more imagination and nonsense.
That's just your ignorance speaking. You have no love for knowledge and
understanding. You live in your utter spiritual darkness with the
absolute self unawareness.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
However, the actual spiritual denial of God in real life
Post by aaa
would be the unforgivable sin which no one would even dare to
imagine.
There is no god, there is no sin, there is no such thing as
intelligent design. There was no Passover, no Moses, No Abraham, no
Exodus, no Noah, no flood. and probably no philistines either.
http://www.livescience.com/55429-philistines.html
That's nothing but your stupid blind denial. Have I reduced you to a
mere stuttering idiot as well?

:-)
Don Martin
2017-04-09 14:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 17:01:16 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
...let's test it. Tell yourself "there is no god" and see if you fall
over dead.
Now, THAT event would convert a lot of atheists at a stroke!
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-09 15:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 17:01:16 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
...let's test it. Tell yourself "there is no god" and see if you fall
over dead.
Now, THAT event would convert a lot of atheists at a stroke!
ROTFL! You cannot convert to any religion just by changing your thoughts.
Each religion has certain requirements for conversion.

First, you must be accepted for conversion.
John Locke
2017-04-09 16:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Don Martin
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 17:01:16 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
...let's test it. Tell yourself "there is no god" and see if you fall
over dead.
Now, THAT event would convert a lot of atheists at a stroke!
ROTFL! You cannot convert to any religion just by changing your thoughts.
Each religion has certain requirements for conversion.
First, you must be accepted for conversion.
....well hell then...who needs them. Any fool can fabricate a religion
in about 10 minutes and convert to it. Nothing to it. No bullshit
requirements for conversion. Done. Simple. In fact, I just invented
one as we speak. Church of the Big Fucking Lavender Monkey Monster.
...just say to yourself "ook, hoo hoo hoo hoo" and you're converted.
Kevrob
2017-04-09 17:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 12:55:31 PM UTC-4, John Locke wrote:
=
Post by John Locke
....well hell then...who needs them. Any fool can fabricate a religion
in about 10 minutes and convert to it. Nothing to it. No bullshit
requirements for conversion. Done. Simple. In fact, I just invented
one as we speak. Church of the Big Fucking Lavender Monkey Monster.
...just say to yourself "ook, hoo hoo hoo hoo" and you're converted.
Give out bananas at the services and WTMMHP is a pptemtial
convert.

There's always the religion from "The Sirens of Titan."

http://vonnegut.wikia.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_Indifferent.

Kevin R



Kevin R
Alex W.
2017-04-09 02:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others
to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
Post your address.

I shall ensure that representatives from Jehovah's Witnesses,
Scientology, Islam, the LDS and any other religion I can think of will
call on you to proselytise. And I will make doubly sure to include
missionaries from polytheist religions, just to give you that extra
headache.
Don Martin
2017-04-09 14:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others
to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
Post your address.
I shall ensure that representatives from Jehovah's Witnesses,
Scientology, Islam, the LDS and any other religion I can think of will
call on you to proselytise. And I will make doubly sure to include
missionaries from polytheist religions, just to give you that extra
headache.
You are more than kind, Mr W, to offer the solace of companionship to
one so obviously lonely and needy. May thy compassionate ministry
thrive!
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
aaa
2017-04-09 15:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others
to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
Post your address.
I shall ensure that representatives from Jehovah's Witnesses,
Scientology, Islam, the LDS and any other religion I can think of will
call on you to proselytise. And I will make doubly sure to include
missionaries from polytheist religions, just to give you that extra
headache.
Not a problem. My current address is alt.atheism. I'm here everyday open
for any discussions about God.
Alex W.
2017-04-10 00:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Alex W.
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others
to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
Post your address.
I shall ensure that representatives from Jehovah's Witnesses,
Scientology, Islam, the LDS and any other religion I can think of will
call on you to proselytise. And I will make doubly sure to include
missionaries from polytheist religions, just to give you that extra
headache.
Not a problem. My current address is alt.atheism. I'm here everyday open
for any discussions about God.
Chickening out big-time, I see ....
aaa
2017-04-10 03:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by aaa
Post by Alex W.
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to
understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others
to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
Post your address.
I shall ensure that representatives from Jehovah's Witnesses,
Scientology, Islam, the LDS and any other religion I can think of will
call on you to proselytise. And I will make doubly sure to include
missionaries from polytheist religions, just to give you that extra
headache.
Not a problem. My current address is alt.atheism. I'm here everyday open
for any discussions about God.
Chickening out big-time, I see ....
Well, my actual physical address is in Eastern City District in Beijing,
China. Do you really want to come?
Yap Honghor
2017-04-10 08:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Jews are forbidden to proselytize.
Proving god and proselytizing are two different matter, Mad Joe!
WRONG.
What wrong?
Proving god and proselytizing are the same??????
Am I right to say that proving god is trying to convince others to understand it is real, but proselytizing is trying to convert others to a cult religion?
Proving God is wrong because there can be no logic without God.
Proselytizing for God is never wrong because no one can live without God.
If you can't provide the evidence for the existence of any deity, you have nothing. A very simple fact.

Your insistence of a god is pure STUPIDITY AND nonsense.
WE ALL LIVE IN THIS WORLD WITHOUT A PROTO=PIXIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
duke
2017-04-06 19:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
So prove god.
Don't need to. You're the one that's going to lose.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
John Locke
2017-04-06 12:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-06 13:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
Kevrob
2017-04-06 15:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.

When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.

Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.

Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.

It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.

Kevin R
John Locke
2017-04-06 15:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
...we can't prove that there is no god but we can certainly infer its
non-existence becuase the lack of empirical evidence means that the
probablity of the existence of any god is near zero. That's good
enough. Now, with the god bullshit under the table, we should be able
to move ahead and determine the real origin of the universe and life
is. Then "God" will have no corner.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-07 01:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
...we can't prove that there is no god but we can certainly infer its
non-existence becuase the lack of empirical evidence means that the
probablity of the existence of any god is near zero. That's good
enough. Now, with the god bullshit under the table, we should be able
to move ahead and determine the real origin of the universe and life
is. Then "God" will have no corner.
Ancient people have so many imaginations....
Are we suppose to disprove that there is a Thor, a god in the sky?
If the theists insist on their truth because they inherited the stories, modern normal people aren't going to run experiments or pray like they do.....
John Locke
2017-04-07 02:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by John Locke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
...we can't prove that there is no god but we can certainly infer its
non-existence becuase the lack of empirical evidence means that the
probablity of the existence of any god is near zero. That's good
enough. Now, with the god bullshit under the table, we should be able
to move ahead and determine the real origin of the universe and life
is. Then "God" will have no corner.
Ancient people have so many imaginations....
Are we suppose to disprove that there is a Thor, a god in the sky?
If the theists insist on their truth because they inherited the stories, modern
normal people aren't going to run experiments or pray like they do.....
...we would simply ignore their senseless religious buffoonery if they
would simply keep their fairy tales to themselves. But they don't.
Here in the U.S. they're frothing at the mouth to inject their snake
oil into government, into the public school system and into this
newsgroup as you have no doubt observed.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-07 02:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by John Locke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
...we can't prove that there is no god but we can certainly infer its
non-existence becuase the lack of empirical evidence means that the
probablity of the existence of any god is near zero. That's good
enough. Now, with the god bullshit under the table, we should be able
to move ahead and determine the real origin of the universe and life
is. Then "God" will have no corner.
Ancient people have so many imaginations....
Are we suppose to disprove that there is a Thor, a god in the sky?
If the theists insist on their truth because they inherited the stories, modern
normal people aren't going to run experiments or pray like they do.....
...we would simply ignore their senseless religious buffoonery if they
would simply keep their fairy tales to themselves. But they don't.
Here in the U.S. they're frothing at the mouth to inject their snake
oil into government, into the public school system and into this
newsgroup as you have no doubt observed.
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The rights guarranteed by the 1st amendment have been extended by the Supreme Ct to apply to the states by way of the 14th amendment.


If neither the feds nor the states can censor us, you can't, either.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-07 04:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by John Locke
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by John Locke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
...we can't prove that there is no god but we can certainly infer its
non-existence becuase the lack of empirical evidence means that the
probablity of the existence of any god is near zero. That's good
enough. Now, with the god bullshit under the table, we should be able
to move ahead and determine the real origin of the universe and life
is. Then "God" will have no corner.
Ancient people have so many imaginations....
Are we suppose to disprove that there is a Thor, a god in the sky?
If the theists insist on their truth because they inherited the stories, modern
normal people aren't going to run experiments or pray like they do.....
...we would simply ignore their senseless religious buffoonery if they
would simply keep their fairy tales to themselves. But they don't.
Here in the U.S. they're frothing at the mouth to inject their snake
oil into government, into the public school system and into this
newsgroup as you have no doubt observed.
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The rights guarranteed by the 1st amendment have been extended by the Supreme Ct to apply to the states by way of the 14th amendment.
If neither the feds nor the states can censor us, you can't, either.
Yes, but the laws and constitutions also cannot allow you to lie, mislead, misinterpret or misrepresent too.

So, without your process of providing the evidence, can you vouch for the existence of a deity????
Just because con scriptures say so???????????????????????????????????????
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-06 16:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.

If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.

If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.

Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".

But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.

Ok?
Kevrob
2017-04-06 18:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
It's the difference between being technically correct, as per formal
philosophical proofs, and being colloquial.

I have no problem with anything you just wrote in this post. I'm just sick
of these theists screaming "aha!" everytime an atheist or agnostic
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.

`Sawright?

Kevin R
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-07 17:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
It's the difference between being technically correct, as per formal
philosophical proofs, and being colloquial.
I have no problem with anything you just wrote in this post. I'm just sick
of these theists screaming "aha!" everytime an atheist or agnostic
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.
`Sawright?
Kevin R
awright.
Siri Cruise
2017-04-07 19:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.
`Sawright?
Kevin R
awright.
Your religion is man-made myth.
Are you speaking colloquially?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
aaa
2017-04-08 08:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
It's the difference between being technically correct, as per formal
philosophical proofs, and being colloquial.
I have no problem with anything you just wrote in this post. I'm just sick
of these theists screaming "aha!" everytime an atheist or agnostic
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.
In a philosophical debate, the evidence of God's existence is life and
this universe. You only deny such evidence based on your total lack of
philosophical understanding of God, life, and the universe. IOW, you
have no idea how to debate God's existence philosophically.
Post by Kevrob
`Sawright?
Kevin R
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-08 19:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
It's the difference between being technically correct, as per formal
philosophical proofs, and being colloquial.
I have no problem with anything you just wrote in this post. I'm just sick
of these theists screaming "aha!" everytime an atheist or agnostic
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.
`Sawright?
Kevin R
awright.

[just to stir the shit...]

Actually, all atheists do assert "There is no god".

"I don't 'believe in' any god" means "I don't believe a god exists"
means "I believe no god exists"
means "No god exists"
means "There is no god".

So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.

QED. LOL
Tim
2017-04-08 19:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
It's the difference between being technically correct, as per formal
philosophical proofs, and being colloquial.
I have no problem with anything you just wrote in this post. I'm just sick
of these theists screaming "aha!" everytime an atheist or agnostic
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.
`Sawright?
Kevin R
awright.
[just to stir the shit...]
Actually, all atheists do assert "There is no god".
No, they assert a disbelief in gods. Gnostic atheists claim there is no god.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
"I don't 'believe in' any god" means "I don't believe a god exists"
means "I believe no god exists"
means "No god exists"
That does not follow. You really need to hone up your logic skills.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
means "There is no god".
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-08 19:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
It's the difference between being technically correct, as per formal
philosophical proofs, and being colloquial.
I have no problem with anything you just wrote in this post. I'm just sick
of these theists screaming "aha!" everytime an atheist or agnostic
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.
`Sawright?
Kevin R
awright.
[just to stir the shit...]
Actually, all atheists do assert "There is no god".
No, they assert a disbelief in gods. Gnostic atheists claim there is no god.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
"I don't 'believe in' any god" means "I don't believe a god exists"
means "I believe no god exists"
means "No god exists"
That does not follow. You really need to hone up your logic skills.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
means "There is no god".
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
Tim
2017-04-08 19:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
It's the difference between being technically correct, as per formal
philosophical proofs, and being colloquial.
I have no problem with anything you just wrote in this post. I'm just sick
of these theists screaming "aha!" everytime an atheist or agnostic
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.
`Sawright?
Kevin R
awright.
[just to stir the shit...]
Actually, all atheists do assert "There is no god".
No, they assert a disbelief in gods. Gnostic atheists claim there is no god.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
"I don't 'believe in' any god" means "I don't believe a god exists"
means "I believe no god exists"
means "No god exists"
That does not follow. You really need to hone up your logic skills.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
means "There is no god".
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
In logic that's called an ad hominem. Your evasion is noted.
Kevrob
2017-04-08 19:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
What I posted was that my technical position was
"There hasn't been sufficient evidence for the existence
of a ghod or ghodz"

Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you, but I did not
agree to a blanket statement that "there is no ghod."
I think it ridiculously unlikely, and so I am at least
a "functional atheist," until stronger evidence convinces
me otherwise.

Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."

In common parlance it is close enough.

Kevin R
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-08 20:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
What I posted was that my technical position was
"There hasn't been sufficient evidence for the existence
of a ghod or ghodz"
Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you, but I did not
agree to a blanket statement that "there is no ghod."
Correct, but you did agree [snipped] that "There is no god" has burden of proof.
Post by Kevrob
I think it ridiculously unlikely, and so I am at least
a "functional atheist," until stronger evidence convinces
me otherwise.
Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."
Well "technically" yes (since, e.g., even a theist could say "not yet proven"),
but saying "I am an atheist" is an assertion of "I think no god exists" and
has the burden. If burden not wanted then one should not proclaim "I am an atheist".

An atheist must show good reason for his assertion; any assertion has burden.
"Technically" even "There is no evidence for a god" is an assertion, thus the burden.
Post by Kevrob
In common parlance it is close enough.
It's the imprecise language, but we all [should] agree any assertion has burden.
That's how science works.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
[stirring the shit, getting my fellow atheists riled up, challeging their thinking....]
Kevrob
2017-04-08 20:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."
Well "technically" yes (since, e.g., even a theist could say "not yet proven"),
but saying "I am an atheist" is an assertion of "I think no god exists" and
has the burden.
I am perfectly fine with including those who have not accepted the
existence of a ghod or ghodz under the term "atheist" for whatever
reason. "The theists haven't proven their point yet" is a perfectly
cromulent reason to wear the atheist label. It does not come
attached to your assertion of choice.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
If burden not wanted then one should not proclaim "I am an atheist".
An atheist must show good reason for his assertion; any assertion has burden.
"Technically" even "There is no evidence for a god"
But there is evidence. It is just insufficient evidence, from my POV,
so I'm not making that claim.

Let me know when you are elected "Pope of Atheism."
What color will the smoke be? :)
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
is an assertion, thus the burden.
Post by Kevrob
In common parlance it is close enough.
It's the imprecise language, but we all [should] agree any assertion has burden.
That's how science works.
And in common parlance we say "the sun will set in about an hour,"
but that has no connection to the heliocentric theory of the solar
system. We are extremely sure it is the earth's rotation causing
the phenomenon of "sundown."
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
[stirring the shit, getting my fellow atheists riled up,
challeging their thinking....]

Picking unnecessary nits....

Kevin R
Don Martin
2017-04-09 14:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."
Well "technically" yes (since, e.g., even a theist could say "not yet proven"),
but saying "I am an atheist" is an assertion of "I think no god exists" and
has the burden.
I am perfectly fine with including those who have not accepted the
existence of a ghod or ghodz under the term "atheist" for whatever
reason. "The theists haven't proven their point yet" is a perfectly
cromulent reason to wear the atheist label. It does not come
attached to your assertion of choice.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
If burden not wanted then one should not proclaim "I am an atheist".
An atheist must show good reason for his assertion; any assertion has burden.
"Technically" even "There is no evidence for a god"
But there is evidence. It is just insufficient evidence, from my POV,
so I'm not making that claim.
Let me know when you are elected "Pope of Atheism."
What color will the smoke be? :)
For this one? Plaid.
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
[stirring the shit, getting my fellow atheists riled up,
challeging their thinking....]
I am an athiest, but I do not choose to be this one's "fellow."
Post by Kevrob
Picking unnecessary nits....
To a louse, no nit is unnecessary.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-08 21:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
What I posted was that my technical position was
"There hasn't been sufficient evidence for the existence
of a ghod or ghodz"
Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you, but I did not
agree to a blanket statement that "there is no ghod."
I think it ridiculously unlikely, and so I am at least
a "functional atheist," until stronger evidence convinces
me otherwise.
Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."
In common parlance it is close enough.
Kevin R
On second reading....

You're not just "weak", you're a wimp, a milquetoast, a pussy.

You state a god "ridiculously unlikely" but then "not sufficient evidence",
and "not yet proven" as if proof is just around the corner.

Do you have *any* verifiable evidence of a god? No, you don't have a
shred, and you will remain a pussy.
Kevrob
2017-04-08 23:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
What I posted was that my technical position was
"There hasn't been sufficient evidence for the existence
of a ghod or ghodz"
Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you, but I did not
agree to a blanket statement that "there is no ghod."
I think it ridiculously unlikely, and so I am at least
a "functional atheist," until stronger evidence convinces
me otherwise.
Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."
In common parlance it is close enough.
Kevin R
On second reading....
You're not just "weak", you're a wimp, a milquetoast, a pussy.
So sue me.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You state a god "ridiculously unlikely" but then "not sufficient evidence",
and "not yet proven" as if proof is just around the corner.
You are reading things into my words that aren't there.
I never stated I expect such evidence to show up. I
plainly don't. The horse might talk, though.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Do you have *any* verifiable evidence of a god?
Verifiable? Certainly not.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
No, you don't have a shred,
"Not a shred of verifiable evidence" isn't "no evidence."
There's tons of flimsy, non-reproducible "evidence."
I suppose we could define that as "no evidence,"
rounding off, as it were.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
and you will remain a pussy.
Here you exhibit the nastiness that gives us atheists
a reputation as assholes. we have enough theist trolls.

Kevin R
Joe Bruno
2017-04-09 05:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
What I posted was that my technical position was
"There hasn't been sufficient evidence for the existence
of a ghod or ghodz"
Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you, but I did not
agree to a blanket statement that "there is no ghod."
I think it ridiculously unlikely, and so I am at least
a "functional atheist," until stronger evidence convinces
me otherwise.
Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."
In common parlance it is close enough.
Kevin R
On second reading....
You're not just "weak", you're a wimp, a milquetoast, a pussy.
So sue me.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You state a god "ridiculously unlikely" but then "not sufficient evidence",
and "not yet proven" as if proof is just around the corner.
You are reading things into my words that aren't there.
I never stated I expect such evidence to show up. I
plainly don't. The horse might talk, though.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Do you have *any* verifiable evidence of a god?
Verifiable? Certainly not.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
No, you don't have a shred,
"Not a shred of verifiable evidence" isn't "no evidence."
There's tons of flimsy, non-reproducible "evidence."
I suppose we could define that as "no evidence,"
rounding off, as it were.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
and you will remain a pussy.
Here you exhibit the nastiness that gives us atheists
a reputation as assholes. we have enough theist trolls.
Kevin R
An atheist definition of "troll"-anyone who disagrees with him.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-10 02:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
What I posted was that my technical position was
"There hasn't been sufficient evidence for the existence
of a ghod or ghodz"
Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you, but I did not
agree to a blanket statement that "there is no ghod."
I think it ridiculously unlikely, and so I am at least
a "functional atheist," until stronger evidence convinces
me otherwise.
Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."
In common parlance it is close enough.
Kevin R
On second reading....
You're not just "weak", you're a wimp, a milquetoast, a pussy.
So sue me.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You state a god "ridiculously unlikely" but then "not sufficient evidence",
and "not yet proven" as if proof is just around the corner.
You are reading things into my words that aren't there.
I never stated I expect such evidence to show up. I
plainly don't. The horse might talk, though.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Do you have *any* verifiable evidence of a god?
Verifiable? Certainly not.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
No, you don't have a shred,
"Not a shred of verifiable evidence" isn't "no evidence."
There's tons of flimsy, non-reproducible "evidence."
I suppose we could define that as "no evidence,"
rounding off, as it were.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
and you will remain a pussy.
Here you exhibit the nastiness that gives us atheists
a reputation as assholes. we have enough theist trolls.
Kevin R
An atheist definition of "troll"-anyone who disagrees with him.
No, a troll is an asshole like you that has nothing to offer the conversation.
A troll is someone who seeks to cause trouble and lies about the people he is supposed to be discussing things with. Who refuses to follow the rules of decent conduct. A troll is YOU.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-10 03:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 7:09:23 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:

A list of Hobbit's LIES(The list is up to date as of a week ago. This list does not include the ones he's told since then.)

https://tinyurl.com/kw9jvq6
Yap Honghor
2017-04-10 08:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Tim
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
LOL indeed.
Shut up, old woman.
What I posted was that my technical position was
"There hasn't been sufficient evidence for the existence
of a ghod or ghodz"
Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you, but I did not
agree to a blanket statement that "there is no ghod."
I think it ridiculously unlikely, and so I am at least
a "functional atheist," until stronger evidence convinces
me otherwise.
Answering "A exists" with "not yet proven" is not the same
thing as declaring "A does not exist."
In common parlance it is close enough.
Kevin R
On second reading....
You're not just "weak", you're a wimp, a milquetoast, a pussy.
So sue me.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
You state a god "ridiculously unlikely" but then "not sufficient evidence",
and "not yet proven" as if proof is just around the corner.
You are reading things into my words that aren't there.
I never stated I expect such evidence to show up. I
plainly don't. The horse might talk, though.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Do you have *any* verifiable evidence of a god?
Verifiable? Certainly not.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
No, you don't have a shred,
"Not a shred of verifiable evidence" isn't "no evidence."
There's tons of flimsy, non-reproducible "evidence."
I suppose we could define that as "no evidence,"
rounding off, as it were.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
and you will remain a pussy.
Here you exhibit the nastiness that gives us atheists
a reputation as assholes. we have enough theist trolls.
Kevin R
An atheist definition of "troll"-anyone who disagrees with him.
No....a troll is one who has nothing in life to look forward to, merely living day by day in order that he can speak or post nonsense.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-09 08:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you,
You're not just "weak", you're a wimp, a milquetoast, a pussy.
So sue me.
I really don't care; the world is full of "weak" momma-boy pussies.

And your "ghod" is annoying, as if you're afraid using "god" will get
you struck dead. Be an adult, use "god".

Your entire weak imprecise non-committal demeanor is annoying.
Post by Kevrob
"Not a shred of verifiable evidence" isn't "no evidence."
There's tons of flimsy, non-reproducible "evidence."
I suppose we could define that as "no evidence,"
rounding off, as it were.
See what I mean. Annoying pussified words.
We don't simply define-away; we evaluate using reason and logic.

Post what you think is evidence of a god, your best.
Kevrob
2017-04-09 10:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Perhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you,
You're not just "weak", you're a wimp, a milquetoast, a pussy.
So sue me.
I really don't care; the world is full of "weak" momma-boy pussies.
"Momma-boy" "Pussy." The misogyny and homophobia is palpable.
I'm straight and it pisses me off.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
And your "ghod" is annoying, as if you're afraid using "god" will get
you struck dead. Be an adult, use "god".
I write what I like. Tolkien used "dwarves" instead of "dwarfs."
I put an "h" in the common spelling of the "g-word" to mock, but
also to avoid connotations I don't agree with.*

You must have noticed the Xtian trolls who think their deity's
name, rather than title, is "God."

When I want to call out a particular ghod, I call it by it by the
name its followers give it. I use Allah or Yahweh or Zeus where
appropriate. Nobody really knows how to pronounce YHWH, and '"Jesus"
is a Greek transliteration of Yeshua (Joshua)as converted into
Latin. Hence,I like to call the Christian trinity Yahooey, Josh
and the pigeon.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Your entire weak imprecise non-committal demeanor is annoying.
Deal with it. Not every atheist is a flame-thrower.

I have the exact same attitude towards the existence of deities as I
do towards that of extra-terrestrial intelligent life. I actually
think the latter more likely to have once existed, or to exist now,
or could arise later, than any ghod existing. In both cases
conjecture and unreliable testimony are the "best evidence,"
and the wonder-stories accompanying both legends make the testimony
less than credible. Dead people aren't revived by magic and
there's no known way to overcome the light speed limit for practical
interstellar travel.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
"Not a shred of verifiable evidence" isn't "no evidence."
There's tons of flimsy, non-reproducible "evidence."
I suppose we could define that as "no evidence,"
rounding off, as it were.
See what I mean. Annoying pussified words.
Again with the disdain for girl-cooties.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
We don't simply define-away; we evaluate using reason and logic.
Proper philosophy starts with univocal definitions.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post what you think is evidence of a god, your best
It wouldn't be my best, but the usual hooey given to us
by the believers: visions, "answered prayers," scriptures
that fail basic minimum standards of historiography.


Kevin R

* From Fancyclopedia

[quote]

The "h" indicates that the reference is to fannish deities. Art Rapp
reports this to be the only genuine superstitious taboo known in the
Microcosm. He points out its probable source: with intellectual maturity
fans as a rule realize the dubious nature of evidence for a deity, but
they've been so well inculcated in childhood with the various religious
precepts against direct blasphemy that rejection of theism is sublimated
in burlesque rather than manifested in militant forms. Fussiness over
spelling God's name is a characteristic of Western religions, and such
points of etiquette are natural objects for burlesque.

[/quote] - http://fancyclopedia.wikidot.com/ghods
Smiler
2017-04-10 01:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 3:14:51 PM UTC-4, !! Atheist
<snip>
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
"I don't 'believe in' any god" means "I don't believe a god exists"
means "I believe no god exists"
means "No god exists"
<piggybacking>

Does the sun exist in your world? Many ancient cultures worshipped the sun
as a god. Do you 'believe in' the sun? If not, according to your
definition, you must believe the sun doesn't exist.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Irreverend Dave
2017-04-09 15:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
[just to stir the shit...]
Actually, all atheists do assert "There is no god".
I don't, so you're already wrong.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
"I don't 'believe in' any god" means "I don't believe a god exists"
I don't accept the existence of any gods as having been demonstrated to
be a fact.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
means "I believe no god exists"
means "No god exists"
means "There is no god".
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
What you've demonstrated here is the typical theist mindset on the issue,
with the typical manipulation of words to gain a desired outcome.
--
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist
in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-10 02:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
It's the difference between being technically correct, as per formal
philosophical proofs, and being colloquial.
I have no problem with anything you just wrote in this post. I'm just sick
of these theists screaming "aha!" everytime an atheist or agnostic
colloquially states "there's no ghod." For all intents and purposes,
I agree there isn't, but the more formal statement is more correct and
is the form I'd use in a philosophical debate.
`Sawright?
Kevin R
awright.
[just to stir the shit...]
Actually, all atheists do assert "There is no god".
"I don't 'believe in' any god" means "I don't believe a god exists"
means "I believe no god exists"
means "No god exists"
means "There is no god".
So, stating one is an atheist is asserting "There is no god", having
burden of proof, as we agreed above.
QED. LOL
Stating one is an atheist means that the atheist does not believe in god(s).
It means that in order to get the atheist to believe in God(s), someone who does believe has to come up with reasons why one should believe in god(s).

Obviously, that does not happen much because there are only so many drunks and drug addicts and others who have become desperate and most atheist parents are not going to allow their children to be indoctrinated by idiots.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-07 01:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
What about "There is no god in this universe because there is no evidence for it"?
Kevrob
2017-04-07 01:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
What about "There is no god in this universe because there is no evidence for it"?
Technically better as:

"Since there isn't sufficient evidence for any,
I'm not going to act as if a ghod or ghodz exist."

Functionally similar, though.

Kevin R
Yap Honghor
2017-04-07 02:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
What about "There is no god in this universe because there is no evidence for it"?
"Since there isn't sufficient evidence for any,
I'm not going to act as if a ghod or ghodz exist."
I have to stress that there is not a single shred of evidence!

"isn't sufficient evident" means there is a bit of evident out there.....
What can it be?
Post by Kevrob
Functionally similar, though.
Kevin R
Kevrob
2017-04-07 02:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Kevrob
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
What about "There is no god in this universe because there is no evidence for it"?
"Since there isn't sufficient evidence for any,
I'm not going to act as if a ghod or ghodz exist."
I have to stress that there is not a single shred of evidence!
There's personal testimony by people who have claimed to have
seen a ghod, or spoken to one, or payed for a miravle and are
convinced they got one. It isn't very good evidence.
Post by Yap Honghor
"isn't sufficient evident" means there is a bit of evident out there.....
What can it be?
No, "there isn't sufficient" can be any value from zero to
"Not quite enough."
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Kevrob
Functionally similar, though.
Kevin R
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-04-08 07:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Kevrob
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
The "question of ghod(ghodz)" is a long conversation.
When first Og, sitting around the campfire, told a story about some
hero or other who had passed into legend, and insisted he was a still
existing being, of a different or higher sort than the members of the
tribe warming themselves there, that was the initial claim.
The first tribe member to rebut it - "I remember old Thog. He was a man
like you or I. The rest of what you said is just a story" - he was
putting the burden of proof on Og.
Modern atheists who, in passing, mention that there is no ghod are
only continuing this long conversation of theist proposing that a ghod
or ghodz exist, and the skeptics replying "prove it." The burden of
proof doesn't reset and shift to the atheist or agnostic just he or she
picks up the disagreement where it was last left off.
Sill, I much prefer stating: "There hasn't been sufficient evidence for
the existence of a ghod or ghodz" to a simple declaration that there
are none, if one is sticking to philosophical-style argument, exactly
because to state it otherwise leavse one open to theists claiming that
the burden of proof has been shifted.
It's like "We have yet to find life on Mars" v "There is no life on Mars."
Who knows, someday we may find some extremophile whatsit on ol' Ares.
Kevin R
This is simple stuff and I wonder how someone with college degree fucks it up.
If one stated "There is life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no life on Mars" then one has the burden.
If one stated "There is no evidence of life on Mars" then one does not have the burden.
If one states "There is a god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no god" then one has the burden.
If one states "There is no evidence of a god" then one does not have the burden.
Some atheists do take on the burden with, for example, "There is no Christian god",
and their evidence is far better than evidence for "There is no Tooth Fairy".
But virtually all atheists say "There is no evidence of a god", and they have no burden.
Ok?
What about "There is no god in this universe because there is no evidence for it"?
I avoid multi-universe nonsense....and gods existing in one universe but not other universes....NONSENSE.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-06 18:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:49:25 -0700, John Locke
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years ! So now, go find some evidence for your Biblical claims.
"But that's different"
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
Joe Bruno
2017-04-06 18:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years !
Show me where an atheist has posted that.
John Locke
2017-04-07 00:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years !
Show me where an atheist has posted that.
"When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the
other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or
substantiate that claim"
...exactly...you have asserted a bold claim for an Exodus and it is up
to you to substantiate that claim. But, thus far, you have provided
no verifiable evidence to back it up. If it had actually happened,
there'd be tons of archeological evidence and voluminous Egyptian
records of the event. But so far, nothing. Not a scrap of credible
evidence.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-07 01:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by b***@m.nu
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
The burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim
...you just now figured that out ? We've been posting that bit of info
for years !
Show me where an ATHEIST has posted that.
Loading...