Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is difficult to get someone to see the evidence when they do not even comprehend what constitutes evidence. Ignorance is so boring.
Insult is in the eye of the beholder . . . truth is what I speak.
I repeat : It is difficult to get someone to see the evidence when they do not even comprehend what constitutes evidence. Ignorance is so boring. Exposing the implications of what someone said is not lying . . . it is educating. Continuing to confront intransigent ignorance or deliberate ignorance is pointless.
Utter BS.
I know evidence when I see it and I know a load of crap when I see it. You fall into the latter.
Your insults cover your lack of any substantially verifiable evidence into anything supernatural.
Exposing the implications of what someone said is not lying
No but saying they said something they absolutely did not say IS lying and thats what you did, not what you just claimed you did.
If you do X then saying doing Y is not a bad thing doesnt absolve you of having done X. I said one thing, you claimed I said another. Thats a lie. One your pride will not let you admit to or retract.
Your line above makes as much sense as a person accused of murder going into court and talking about whether its ok or not to steal an apple to feed ones family. Talking about how something else is ok, does not absolve you of the thing you actually did.
Again my words were that I "have not been shown any evidence" those were my words. You then wholesale lied and said that I have been going around claiming we should IGNORE the evidence. You plain and simple outright lied about what I said. And I am perfectly happy to keep pointing that out until the day you retract the lie because it serves my ends to let as many people as possible know just how you conduct yourself on this forum. So every denial of what is there in those links in black and white for all to see serves my ends wonderfully. So please, keep it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Neither group is accessible by reason until their ignorance is repaired.
See once again you do not give ANY evidence, you just go to ad hominem and calling people ignorant. Calling people names is clearly much easier than giving actual evidence. It does not however replace giving evidence. Try giving some some time instead of name calling and making things up about people.
IF your only defence of your evidence devoid claims is to call people who do not accept them names, I am not sure why you even bother to post.
Again I said I have not been shown any evidence for god. You changed that and claimed I have been actually saying we should ignore the evidence.
Now if you think I am ignoring evidence, thats a different thing. However that is entirely different from claiming I SAID we should be ignoring the evidence.
So what you are doing here is compounding your outright lie with obfuscation and digging your own hole deeper. There is a world of difference between saying I AM doing X and saying I said we should be doing X. Your lie was to claim I said we should be doing it, that we SHOULD ignore the evidence.
A lie you can neither back up with a quote, nor retract due to your pride.
As I said though (before you edited it out of my post in your reply I note) each time you deny the lies that everyone can follow the link and see in black and white, you just make yourself look worse and serve my ends nicely. So once again: Keep it up. Do. It's great.
However all I am asking is that you admit that what I said is not what you said I said, and that you are unable to find me saying what you claimed ANYWHERE on this forum. Thats all. Cant be so hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Moderator cut: Orphaned
See? My point proven. Every time you have no evidence, or argument to make, you just turn to insulting people. Insults are all you have. Evidence however, you have none.
What I am not about to fall for however is your usual linguistic game of redefining "god" to mean "nature" and then acting like since nature exists, god must too because you are saying they are the same thing. This is not evidence, this is just playing with linguistics in order to define yourself into being "right". No game. No evidence. No way. No Thanks. Try again.
IF you think playing with definitions is "giving evidence" then the fact you accused me of not understanding evidence is only more comical. Especially when you cover up the lack of evidence with your usual "I dont have time" card.
Spiritual, mystical, divine, metaphysical, ethereal, occult, preternatural, call it what you want, it's all the same...unverifiable and not able to be substantiated by scientific method.
and not able to be substantiated by scientific method.
Or by any other argument, evidence, data or reasoning either it seems too.
The entire approach of people like MysticNoPHD seems to be to redefine the meaning of the word "god" to be exactly the same as something else we think exists, and then claim that this means god exists because that other thing exists. That and of course aggressively insulting anyone who does not agree and pretending that the burden of proof lies on the person disputing a claim not on the one making it.
Last edited by Nozzferrahhtoo; 09-07-2011 at 12:44 AM..
I think that Thomas Paine said it best in "Age Of Reason":
Quote:
Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.
As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
Or by any other argument, evidence, data or reasoning either it seems too.
The entire approach of people like MysticNoPHD seems to be to redefine the meaning of the word "god" to be exactly the same as something else we think exists, and then claim that this means god exists because that other thing exists. That and of course aggressively insulting anyone who does not agree and pretending that the burden of proof lies on the person disputing a claim not on the one making it.
No, worse than that he will claim that atheists believe in 'god' because we believe that nature exists. He claims that nature is the same thing as 'god', and thus we're not really atheists. So yeah, he's full of it, and of himself for no apparent reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
