Science is closed-minded

[iNow]

Your tit-for-tat is utterly useless, quite aside from its disparity. You are also welcome to spend your holiday attempting to find a logical and scientific conclusive argument, that I'd be unable to refute, proving that no whatsoever god exists. Let me know when you've posted it, if I'll still be online I'll be waiting for it...

One cannot prove the nonexistence of something, only demonstrate that there is no evidence for existence.

Also, things don't get proven 100% in science, as it's continually being refined. Old ideas are used until proven incorrect or not fully accurate. You know this full well, as do I.

 

You're argument fails on many levels, and frankly you're just upset because I'm abrasive towards people who believe in ridiculous fairy tales.

 

 

Either way, C****...

 

Be so kind as to offer a definition of god that everyone accepts and which is falsifiable and your request can be satisfied.

 

Until then, I'll treat it the same way I do the celestial teapot, Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Ba'al, and all of the countless other silly beliefs which are laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology.

 

Anyway, you guys have taken this site down the wrong path far too many times for my taste, and I appreciate the ban. It makes my decision to walk away much easier. Enjoy.

[Qfwfq]

One cannot prove the nonexistence of something, only demonstrate that there is no evidence for existence.

That's exactly what I meant S***. It's the very reason why I'm not atheist, only agnostic.

 

It isn't my argument that was a strawman. You weren't arguing agnostic and you weren't making the distinction between this and atheistic. You were not only arguing atheistic, you were saying that anyone who has faith is silly, stupid, childish and other insults.

 

...and frankly you're just upset because I'm abrasive towards people who believe in ridiculous fairy tales.

S***, here you're almost saying it; you weren't banned for being atheist, even less for being agnostic, you were banned for your behaviour. Kindly understand the distinction and also note that I've always avoided taking the liberty to write your real-life name in public despite your original username being so long, it's just like the rule against copying another members PM in public without asking them first. :naughty:

 

Be so kind as to offer a definition of god that everyone accepts and which is falsifiable and your request can be satisfied.

My challenge was for an argument disproving the existence of any whatsoever god and, for all that could be gathered from your rude and aggressive replies to theists, either you were consistently failing to clarify your meaning or that's what you were arguing against. You did not seem to notice what I said about other reasons for belief besides scientific method, nor about hermeneutics.

 

Now, after November 20th, you will be welcome to post with your original user account, on the condition of being clear about your meaning (instead of rude and aggressive) and respectful (and this goes for PMs to the ladies too).

Meantime, enjoy your holiday. :lol: :hihi:

[iNow_Again]

My challenge was for an argument disproving the existence of any whatsoever god and, for all that could be gathered from your rude and aggressive replies to theists, either you were consistently failing to clarify your meaning or that's what you were arguing against.

You seem to be missing my point, so I'll ask again.

 

Until you present an agreed upon definition of god which is falsifiable then no such thing is possible. If I choose to define god (any god) on your behalf, then I will choose to define it as falsifiable.

 

I openly stated (and you have not refuted) that proving somethings nonexistence is not possible. One can only demonstrate the lack of evidence for existence itself.

 

 

Now, after November 20th, you will be welcome to post with your original user account, on the condition of being clear about your meaning (instead of rude and aggressive) and respectful

While I clearly understand the concept of an original user account, I note that you have still failed to offer adequate definitions. The terms "rude," "aggressive," and "respectful" are really subjective and context dependent. What do YOU mean?

 

My problem is this. What you consider rude others will not, so you would do well to avoid speaking as if your interpretation of my posts is the only one which matters. :lol:

 

Also, it was indeed silly of me to use your real name in the public forums. You are quite right that this was inappropriate, and I was acting out of frustration when I did. My apologies for that.

 

There are many members here frustrated right now with the protections being offered to the trolls and the mindless quacks, as well as your willingness to punish members like me who stand up and speak out in support of critical thinking and rationality. In your desire to make this site a more comfortable community for all, you have failed to protect its core essence of science and the scientific method, and that is truly a shame.

 

Now, I await your clear definition of terms, as well as a falsifiable description of god, but understand that you'll likely reply with the same nonsensical theistic defense where you try to displace the onus of proof on to the nontheist... And I grow increasingly frustrated that you will do this despite the fact that you yourself hold no such ridiculous beliefs in purple unicorns.

 

 

Celestial teapots, indeed. Disprove that.

[Buffy]

See that shiny thing over there? Its called a mirror! You should try it sometime!

 

No one holds a franchise on the truth, not even you Senator, :phones:

Buffy