Ebola Nurse Leaves The Building

[pErvinalia]

Well I just did using logic, albeit not in formal notation. If anyone knows formal logic notation, it would be pretty easy to prove it.

[Hermit]

You can't prove a negative

Can you prove that.... ?

Yes. Positively so.

[mistermack]

You can't prove a negative

Can you prove that.... ?

Yes. Positively so.

Now I'm really confused.

[pErvinalia]

You're always confused...

[piscator]

Can one really prove anything via induction, or must we limit ourselves to the domain of practical purposes and warrantless assumptions that the future will be like the past?

[Hermit]

Can one really prove anything via induction, or must we limit ourselves to the domain of practical purposes and warrantless assumptions that the future will be like the past?

Been reading David Hume?

[Seth]

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to you since it is not I who has made an assertion regarding the accuracy of the Bible as a historical record, either pro or con.

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives. Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Oh but I do, which is exactly my point. I made no assertion that the Bible was or was not an accurate historical record. I was challenging the assertion that the Bible is NOT a valid historical record. This is not "proving negatives" it's demanding substantive evidence for a positive assertion of the falsity of the Bible's claims made by your side of the debate. This burden of proof can be met by providing critically robust scientific evidence that the historical events and claims of the bible are factually false. Can you prove, for example, that God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? Can you prove that Moses did not part the Red Sea? Can you prove that a plague of locusts was not sent upon Pharaoh by God? Can you prove that any of the events set forth in either the Old Testament or the New Testament did not occur?

No? I didn't think so.

Therefore, any claim by you or anyone else asserting that the Bible is not an accurate historical record is nothing more than specious opining having nothing to do with science or fact and may therefore be summarily dismissed as unreasoning and illogical expressions of bigotry.

Now, I'm certain you will posit the fallacy of composition by stating that the geological record proves that the earth was not created in "six days" and that therefore the entire bible is false and unreliable, but the obvious refutation of this logical error is that one error, or even many errors in a historical document do not mean that no part or claim in that document is true. As we know, the historical record of everything is filled with mistakes, errors, omissions, additions, mischaracterizations and yes, outright fraud. But if YOU claim any of the aforesaid faults in a historical document, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your assertions are correct. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to prove the truth of the claims merely because you are skeptical of their veracity. If you think it's false, then prove it.

But the point I'm making is that to meet the standards of scientific review that you yourself and every other Atheist here demands of theistic claims your claims must also be critically scrutinized using that same criteria and just as thoroughly rejected and vilified when YOU commit the same logical and rational errors that you accuse theists of committing.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so either comply with your own requirement for intellectual and scientific rigor or shut the fuck up about "science" and admit that you're merely making ex-recto assertions of disbelief and bigotry.

[Seth]

Which means that your demand can be summarily dismissed as arbitrary. So be it.

Of course it can, you silly fucker. Everything I write is an opinion. You might notice, if you look carefully, that I give my reasoning to explain why I think something. But at the end of the day, you can dismiss anything you like. Didn't you know that?

Of course I do, but it's clearly evident that you and others far too often get caught up in a cycle of self-affirmation of the speciousness of your arguments and at least appear to believe your own press releases.

IOW, nothing whatever gives you any power or authority to determine anything at all and therefore may be utterly ignored. Thanks for confirming that.

See above. I'm amazed that you were under the impression that ANYONE has power or authority to determine anything.
Would you care to explain who or what you mean by that?

Nothing, really. I'm merely reminding you of your insignificance and worthlessness as a rational debater and the utter lack of probity of your opinions. It's a public service I like to perform from time to time.

And I like to express my contempt for ignornat, intolerant religious Atheist bigots who like to express contempt for things they neither understand nor have a mandate to render judgment upon.

Feel free. I've had a full Catholic upbringing, and I know very well what Christians are taught, and the "reasoning" and "evidence" that exists for that shit.
So I do know as well as most Christians what I'm talking about. Better than most actually, which doesn't say a lot.

Surveys and tests regularly find that atheists know and understand more about religion than believers. That's a statistical fact established by testing.

Now, if true (which you have not yet supported with critically robust evidence), one must ask why it's true? Why would a person professing a "lack of belief" in theistic religious memes be better educated and have a better understanding of religion that those who are immersed in religion for their entire lives or who spend decades studying religion as part of the priesthood?

Could it be that such a person is not really an atheist, but is actually a devoutly religious Anti-theist who had a firmly established set of beliefs and practices built around the very obvious, yet entirely unsubstantiated and irrational assertion that God does not exist?

Why yes, yes it is.

Welcome to religion my religiously zealous friend.

[Seth]

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives.

What are the concepts of proving negatives?

You can't prove a negative of the kind: Prove that there isn't an invisible teapot floating around the earth. You can't only prove that there is. Searching for one and not finding it doesn't prove that it isn't there.

This is not about proving or disproving anything, it's about where the burden of proof lies with respect to an assertion made by you or someone else you are supporting in this debate.

Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Can you prove this?

Yes. Read anything he has to say on science and evidence. It is objectively wrong. Sciences and scientific evidence follow the principles of the scientific method. Seth shows no inkling that he understands the scientific method.

Prove it.

I understand the scientific method much better than you do, which is why I'm so adept at ferreting out your non-scientific failures in reasoning and logic when it comes to making claims about religion or theistic claims. You see, it's because I do understand the scientific method that I take umbrage at your stupid assertions of fact that actually have no basis whatsoever in actual scientific or rational fact or reasoning.

This is where you stupidly get the idea that I'm a Christian when I'm not. I'm not making positive claims about Christian (or any other) theistic claims, I'm just pointing out the egregious and ubiquitous errors in logic and reasoning that you commit whenever you opine on the subject of religion. It's actually an educational effort aimed at the lurkers in the forum who might think that your intensely religious anti-theistic beliefs constitute some sort of logical, rational or scientific arguments. They don't. You're as much a mindless anti-theist zealot as Pat Roberts is a mindless theist zealot. The only difference between the two of you is polarity.

Reason, logic and science exist in neither your nor his arguments.

[Seth]

Well I just did using logic, albeit not in formal notation. If anyone knows formal logic notation, it would be pretty easy to prove it.

Well then, get to it boy, so I can embarrass you even further by tearing apart your false logic again.

[pErvinalia]

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to you since it is not I who has made an assertion regarding the accuracy of the Bible as a historical record, either pro or con.

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives. Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Oh but I do, which is exactly my point. I made no assertion that the Bible was or was not an accurate historical record. I was challenging the assertion that the Bible is NOT a valid historical record. This is not "proving negatives" it's demanding substantive evidence for a positive assertion of the falsity of the Bible's claims made by your side of the debate. This burden of proof can be met by providing critically robust scientific evidence that the historical events and claims of the bible are factually false. Can you prove, for example, that God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? Can you prove that Moses did not part the Red Sea? Can you prove that a plague of locusts was not sent upon Pharaoh by God? Can you prove that any of the events set forth in either the Old Testament or the New Testament did not occur?

No? I didn't think so.

That's because you are asking people to prove a negative! You really are clueless about this stuff

Therefore, any claim by you or anyone else asserting that the Bible is not an accurate historical record is nothing more than specious opining having nothing to do with science or fact and may therefore be summarily dismissed as unreasoning and illogical expressions of bigotry.

Well you can do that, despite all the inductive evidence pointing to it being a load of bullshit. But when you ask someone to "prove" it, you are asking them to prove a negative. Regardless of what the other person originally claimed, this shows that you don't understand logic (not that we needed any more proof).

But the point I'm making is that to meet the standards of scientific review that you yourself and every other Atheist here demands of theistic claims your claims must also be critically scrutinized using that same criteria and just as thoroughly rejected and vilified when YOU commit the same logical and rational errors that you accuse theists of committing.

You can't definitively find evidence of absences, particularly in the supernatural bollocks realm that is the bible. This is basic logic. Atheists understand this. Religionists like you apparently don't, for some reason.

[pErvinalia]

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives.

What are the concepts of proving negatives?

You can't prove a negative of the kind: Prove that there isn't an invisible teapot floating around the earth. You can't only prove that there is. Searching for one and not finding it doesn't prove that it isn't there.

This is not about proving or disproving anything, it's about where the burden of proof lies with respect to an assertion made by you or someone else you are supporting in this debate.

No it's not. You ask someone to prove that the bible is an inaccurate account of history.

Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Can you prove this?

Yes. Read anything he has to say on science and evidence. It is objectively wrong. Sciences and scientific evidence follow the principles of the scientific method. Seth shows no inkling that he understands the scientific method.

Prove it.

I have. I've shown how you don't understand basic logic. The same logic which underpins part of the scientific method

I understand the scientific method much better than you do,

Yes, I'm sure you've got an honours, masters or doctorate in science.

This is where you stupidly get the idea that I'm a Christian when I'm not.

I'm trolling you, you dolt!

I'm not making positive claims about Christian (or any other) theistic claims, I'm just pointing out the egregious and ubiquitous errors in logic and reasoning that you commit whenever you opine on the subject of religion. It's actually an educational effort aimed at the lurkers in the forum who might think that your intensely religious anti-theistic beliefs constitute some sort of logical, rational or scientific arguments. They don't. You're as much a mindless anti-theist zealot as Pat Roberts is a mindless theist zealot. The only difference between the two of you is polarity.

You consistently make positive claims about atheist "beliefs" and capital A atheism as a religion. You have been utterly unable to logically support those arguments, and just repeat the same idiocy over and over again. And you clearly don't understand evidence as the God thread has shown us. Despite people overwhelmingly telling you via the poll that they don't assert that God doesn't exist, you still claim they do. You live in a fantasy world of your own retarded mind. You aren't in any position to lecture anyone on the concepts of proof, evidence and logical reasoning. FFS, please learn how to logically reason. You're embarrassing.

[rainbow]

Yes, I'm sure you've got an honours, masters or doctorate in science.

I do.

Do you, Rev?

[pErvinalia]

Yes.

[mistermack]

See above. I'm amazed that you were under the impression that ANYONE has power or authority to determine anything.
Would you care to explain who or what you mean by that?

Nothing, really. I'm merely reminding you of your insignificance and worthlessness as a rational debater and the utter lack of probity of your opinions. It's a public service I like to perform from time to time.

You are trolling obviously. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such stupid posts.
But just to humour you, I'll make the obvious reply, which is that it's the post that's supposed to stand on it's own, and the identity or standing of the poster should have zero importance. This is why your posts of ''who are you to pronounce on this or that?'' are so silly.
I give an opinion, and give my reasoning. That's what you should be arguing with, if you had any brains.

Or do you blindly believe people who you respect, and discard any argument from people you normally disagree with? That would put you among the dumbest of the dumb.

If you ever make a telling argument, I'll be happy to learn from it and give credit for it.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.