Cosmos on Fox & NGC

[Bill_Brasky]

also @ "mature, reasonable, and sane"

Yes, a mature, reasonable, and sane person makes it their mission to "bring this place down." a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends his entire day photoshopping pictures for 4 months straight of a random guy on the internet, a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends 90% of their day online in a forum they consider to be a cesspool, and a mature, reasonable, and sane person really engages in "troll bashing" to prove some kind of point and wage some kind of re ed war against the trolls


What's even funnier is that a like Rob who is trolling this out of people, you actually agree with the angle of his trolling so you refuse to see what he is doing. trolled again. You're not good at this at all. Now kindly go back to your chumpdumper photoshop topic or polishing sbm/sa210's ball sack because to everyone on this forum that isn't those two you are their personal and lapdog

[RandomGuy]

Scientific method

So you don't have a way of determining what is true and what isn't.

Wow.

Do you believe in magic crystals and things like that too?

[RandomGuy]

There is a lot science has as of yet cannot answer such as love, gravity, time, etc., but they are working on it, as they are on God as well.

Science is working on God?

Do tell.

About all I am aware of is that they can test certain attributes of a potential God.

We can at least rule out that prayer works. It doesn't.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

CONCLUSIONS:
Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

If there is such a thing as God, we can say that it does not answer prayers.

[RandomGuy]

Rob displaying his trolling prowess imo impressive

I think he genuinely believes the bull he peddles. But then a good troll will get his marks believing that, I guess.

[RandomGuy]

Obviously you have a lot to learn, otherwise you would not have made such an offhand ignorant claim.
I did not make this up.
This came from authorized sources that I got off the internet who are considered the authorities on the subject.
You may of course believe whatever you want such as your 2 + 2 = 5, but I will stick with the truth which basically is 2 + 2 = 4.
Your argument will never be true except maybe in some alternate bizarro universe.
I prefer to stick with the truth and not fantasy. And when it comes to "burden of proof", I have given you the accepted and authority backed definitions.
It is what it is, regardless of what you wish it was.
Sorry, you lose this argument convincingly.

I am not now, nor have I ever wasted time, arguing over the non-existence or existence of God.
It is what it is, and has nothing to do with "burden of proof" in general.

(sighs)

It all depends on who is making whichever claim first. The burden of proof rests with that initial person.

It doesn't matter who says what first or second or what ever. The requirement for proof is not ordinal, and I would challenge you support that.

To wit:

The Philosophical Burden of Proof

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy?

As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.

Or shall we talk about LEGAL burden of proof?
To wit:

The Legal Burden of Proof

In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.

In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.

Or since we are on the subject of science,
to wit:

The Scientific Burden of Proof

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.

Seems to be a bit of a miscommunication more than anything else. Although it is ironic that you think the quotes you gave somehow support your statement.

A claim is a claim, and it doesn't matter in what order it is presented it still bears a burden of proof before it is accepted.

If two people in a discussion make the following claims:

A: Banana's are good for you.
B: Apples are good for you.

Both bear a burden of proof, not just A, as is implied by the first statement you made.

Do you get it now?

[RandomGuy]

Who, who has any sort of higher education at all, believes in a literal translation of the bible?

Liberty university.. .cough cough

[Blake]

In this case I think it's more:

A: I don't believe that apples are good for you
B: Apples are good for you

"A" has no burden of proof unless the statement becomes "apples are not good for you"

[RandomGuy]

I'm sure if you google, "Is there any scientific proof that God exists?", you will find a lot of studies so far.

I just googled what I told you to google and was very surprised to see so many scientific arguments for existence.
It was no surprise to find for non-existence.

I googled the term.

I found neither scientific studies, nor scientific arguments.

I highly doubt that the change in wording from "scientific studies" before you looked, and "scientific arguments" to after you looked was an accident. Gotcha.

That aside, give me what you found to be the most effective "scientific argument", or , give me a link to a "scientific study".

Bull has been called. Walk the walk or GTFO.

[RandomGuy]

In this case I think it's more:

A: I don't believe that apples are good for you
B: Apples are good for you

"A" has no burden of proof unless the statement becomes "apples are not good for you"

Yup.

Which is why the people who think that God exists work so hard to shift that burden of proof, and fail so hard by using strawman logical fallacies that they aren't quite smart enough to know they are using.

[RandomGuy]

I would put the burden of proof on you for stating the non-existence of God in the first place.
I only stated what I believed, and my beliefs come from experience that is "subjective" and as I said since they are subjective they are not replicable scientifically or in any other way, they are based on faith.
You and others are welcome to criticize that all you want to, but it just makes you look really foolish to criticize someone based on that someones' subjective experience.
Get it now?

Like you, I very carefully avoided making any concrete claim about God's existence or non-existence. Yet you keep insisting that I did.

Feel free to post a link to where I made such a claim at any time.

I will be happy to criticize faith. It is stupid.

Believing in something without a good reason leads one to all sorts of bad outcomes, as you don't take the time to examine if your model of reality is as accurate as it could be.

These two had faith, and that lack of examination of their faith caused the death of two children.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...death/5612317/

These people had faith that their spirits would be carried up to a comet, and all died:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven'...ligious_group)

The list of faith's victims is a long.

[SnakeBoy]

Historians of Science Poke Holes in New ‘Cosmos’ Series

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news...#ixzz2wQwbw6yg

Pretty funny that a show intended to demonstrate fact based science gets it's facts wrong when taking a shot at religion.

[SnakeBoy]

Which is why the people who think that God exists work so hard to shift that burden of proof, and fail so hard by using strawman logical fallacies that they aren't quite smart enough to know they are using.

One person misinterprets the concept of God and uses it as an argument against science, another person misinterprets science and uses it as an argument against the existence of God. I'm not sure how one is better, or even different, than the other.

[redzero]

Can science prove love exist?

This has to be one of the dumbest robdiaz questions ever, along with the "How much do you know?" question he asked Blake. This guy is really a complete ing moron.

[RD2191]

This has to be one of the dumbest robdiaz questions ever, along with the "How much do you know?" question he asked Blake. This guy is really a complete ing moron.

Answer the question, son.

[Leetonidas]

rob's tactics are subtle tbh but I've realized that while he most likely is a believer the way he presents his arguments and posts are in such a way as to troll and enrage atheists with ridiculous questions and dismissals...kinda respect the work he's put in imo he's gotten a lot of people incensed over time

[Blake]

Pretty funny that a show intended to demonstrate fact based science gets it's facts wrong when taking a shot at religion.

all I see from that link is a bunch of ass hurt catholics.

[Blake]

One person misinterprets the concept of God and uses it as an argument against science, another person misinterprets science and uses it as an argument against the existence of God. I'm not sure how one is better, or even different, than the other.

which god do you believe in

[Leetonidas]

Pretty funny that a show intended to demonstrate fact based science gets it's facts wrong when taking a shot at religion.

Did you even read that article? cool story bro, doesn't detract from the validity of the show itself

[redzero]

Answer the question, son.

1.) Why would scientists need to prove that love exists in the first place?
2.) What does that have to do with evolution?
3.) Love is an emotional state produced by chemical reactions in the brain. If you took five seconds to actually search for an answer instead of asking another moronic question, you would have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love.

Now I await your handwaving my response away like you always do, while dodging anybody who asks you to defend your ty religious beliefs that are based on zero evidence (otherwise known as "faith").

[Blake]

Answer the question, son.

when are you going to answer the ones asked to you

[RD2191]

1.) Why would scientists need to prove that love exists in the first place?
2.) What does that have to do with evolution?
3.) Love is an emotional state produced by chemical reactions in the brain. If you took five seconds to actually search for an answer instead of asking another moronic question, you would have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love.

Now I await your handwaving my response away like you always do, while dodging anybody who asks you to defend your ty religious beliefs that are based on zero evidence (otherwise known as "faith").

Ha, I said prove love exist. Which science can't do. Why did Blake cry like a baby when his wife was getting smashed by another dude? Evolution? Nope. Its because he's a Human created by God.

[ChumpDumper]

Ha, I said prove love exist. Which science can't do.

Sure it has. The mere fact science studies the effects of love and its manifestations proves it exists.

You really don't grasp much of anything, do you?

[RD2191]

rob's tactics are subtle tbh but I've realized that while he most likely is a believer the way he presents his arguments and posts are in such a way as to troll and enrage atheists with ridiculous questions and dismissals...kinda respect the work he's put in imo he's gotten a lot of people incensed over time

You would think they'd stop responding after I pull the same over and over.

[Blake]

Ha, I said prove love exist. Which science can't do. Why did Blake cry like a baby when his wife was getting smashed by another dude? Evolution? Nope. Its because he's a Human created by God.

What a fine Christian you are.

Prove God created love.

Go.

[Blake]

You would think they'd stop responding after I pull the same over and over.

why stop when it's this much fun to make fun of your intelligence.