Glad to help since you laugh every time you look in the mirror.
Nobody is lying or doing anything other than trying to talk about something far above Pink UnicornsWhat a strawman. You are unbelievably dishonest.
My question has a simple yes or no answer. Stop trying to lie and deflect.Talk abouit stupid.
There is no ..yes/no..here. There are way too many things to take into consideration not surprised you aren't aware of that. You really don't seem to comphrehend anything. It's frustrating.
Who is arguing? I like "MOST" people aren't stupid enought to think all this just happened. That's for the dummies. I don't know what caused all this, but something did, right now God will have to do.
To think...oh it just happened...is ridiculous and stupid.
Thinking some big bang started it all is ridiculous and stupid unless of course you believe God created the big bang.
It is not about Pink Unicorns, you freaking idiot. You comically miss the point yet again. Replace Invisible Pink Unicorns with any other mythical being and the question still stands.Nobody is lying or doing anything other than trying to talk about something far above Pink Unicorns
I'll dumb the question down so that you might actually understand my point:
If one person believes in <insert supernatural en y of your choosing here>, does that in and of itself prove that said being exists? Yes or no?
What great lengths will you go to dodge this simple question?
Thank you for defeating your own argument ad populum. It's hilarious how you try to oversimplify things by using the "If all these people believe in it, it must be true" argument, then turn around and criticize others for oversimifying things.There is no ..yes/no..here. There are way too many things to take into consideration not surprised you aren't aware of that. You really don't seem to comphrehend anything. It's frustrating.
This is an argument from ignorance.
If we don't know what caused X, you don't get to fill it in with your favored theory.
We haven't yet figured out exactly how life sprang from non-life therefore God did it, is an argument from ignorance.
It has the same logical form as "We haven't yet figured out exactly how life sprang from non-life therefore Bigfoot did it".
2,000 years ago, we hadn't yet figure out what the sun was, so the prevailing theories of the time were sun-chariots of some sort.
This argument has already been pretty thoroughly debunked as spurious, decades ago when it was fist made.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
This assertion is dismissed.
Next fallacy?
You're still pinked for being immature, princess. That's hilarious.
Yeah, that's beyond your usual stupid.Work with me here...
The locals have talked about a giant creature in the woods, you know better than that so you take nothing with you while everyone else has a rifle. You head off west, everyone else in other directions, guess what...yep, a giant creature and he doesn't like you.
You didn't cover your ass because you are just too ing smart to beleive in a giant creature, you need proof, well now you have it.
please move aside.
thanks
Appeal to popularity.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html
I can non-chalantly dismiss any logical fallacy, no matter how seemingly significant you might think it is. Someone in the future might discover some evidence that God exists, but people like you have yet to show any. Your claim, your burden of proof.
also debunked as spurious
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA112.html
Ok, what needs to be taken into consideration?Nobody is lying or doing anything other than trying to talk about something far above Pink Unicorns
There is no ..yes/no..here. There are way too many things to take into consideration not surprised you aren't aware of that. You really don't seem to comphrehend anything. It's frustrating.
What are we missing?
Do tell.
Avante is purposefully being obtuse. It would be embarrassing if he actually does not understand the point I am trying to make.
one error is enough to throw the entire Bible out as truth.
Sidebar: Why do you continue to talk out of your ass hole?
Even more reason to ignore it as bunk.
A variation on Pascal's wager.
With the exception that you have credible eye witnesses telling you something that they themselves have seen.
The other foil is that there tend to be no shortage of things in the woods that would require firearms to protectoneself, from, so there is a whole logic to taking firearms that is missing, but this line of reasoning is beside what you are getting at, so pardon my digression.
Work with me here:
You talk to 15 locals, each telling you about a huge creature in the woods. Each of them has a different story about how to repel this creature, some of them directly contradictory.
Who do you believe about how to repel this huge creature that you have no evidence for?
You have shown me...0. There is no God because............? Hopefully you aren't stupid enought to..."can't see him".
The question then is.. what made God happen?
To think God just happened... doesn't seem logical to me.
Technically, KJB was from 3 different languages.
Translated by committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authori..._James_Version
I know all about the CoN (Council of Nicaea). Accurate acronym however.
Examples?
See posts under "Mouse" and about 200 other user names with the same M.O. which is to pretend you are completely autistic about science.
No, it does not.
Verifiable evidence, reproducible experiments performed by different people in different places at different times, would produce evidence, but a single person believing in something has no bearing whatsoever as to its truth.
e.g. Cosmored.
QED
Darwin did it.
I don't have to show you anything.
If you make a claim that there is an invisible magic man out there, then you prove it.
It's already a foregone conclusion that the flying spaghetti monster is way past your comprehension of simple logic...
...so again, please get out of way, princess. Thanks.
Well, there is your example of dishonesty.
This is shifting the burden of proof.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html
The claim that requires validating is:
There is a God.
The position that there is no God is presumed true, until proven otherwise to a reasonable degree.
Logic 101.
It isn't up to an Atheist to prove a negative. It is up to someone who claims God exists to prove that positive claim.
Don't have to wait too long for Alienz gotz da powaz to weigh in on how modern science is a spoooky conspiracy... whooooooo oooooohhhhh (scary ghost noises here)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote