'Splain this one Atheists...

[pErvinalia]

As i figured, you don't get the context. I'm going to bed. Please nitpick some more. I can't wait to read your analysis of inconsequential minutiae, when I wake up in the morning.

[Hermit]

Whatever you say, dear.

I'll stay up for a wee while longer. TestDisk is98. 35% done with creating an image file of my crashed drive. I am curious to see what the mess it comes up looks like.

[JimC]

The Great Gherkin wants you all to suck his giant green member!

[Svartalf]

only if it's been marinated in vinegar and spices, and I swallow.

[Hermit]

Don't forget to chew first.

[Brian Peacock]

Aren't you supposed to peel gerkins first?

[JimC]

Jerkin' the Gherkin'...

[Brian Peacock]

... with a Merkin' ...

[Seth]

It proves that real miracles are simply wishful thinking, wrongly attributing the action of a putative supernatural being to natural phenomena; it simply never occurs when there are no natural causes available, as in the case of human limb regeneration...

Perhaps God does not care to regenerate human limbs. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Oh, wait, I've told you that before.

Anyway, we know that some creatures do regrow limbs, like starfish, so it is possible. Humans don't appear to have that "natural" capacity. But the fact that you have never observed, nor have you ever heard of anyone who has ever observed a human regrow a limb proves absolutely nothing, any more than the fact that you have never observed a gluon or a quark is meaningless insofar as the existence or non existence of gluons and quarks.

So, we see that your claim that you don't know any humans with self-regrown limbs and therefore God does not exist is entirely unscientific and irrational because you have no evidence meeting even the most superficial of scientific examinations that there is a link between human inability to regrown limbs and the existence or non-existence of God.

And therein lies the lesson of the thread.

[Seth]

They said "Irreversible brain damage". It reversed. I don't need any more goddamned evidence they were wrong.

Of course you don't, you're a religious believer making a statement of faith.

I see you're bowing down to my god this very second. It's good that you renounce faith in the God of Abraham to worship my TRUE god.

And that would be a problem because...???

[Seth]

Every post he makes he must, perforce, bow down at my altar and express his profound Faith in the "Enter" key. Every time he does this, he renounces God in his heart, and causes a kitten to die.

I wish. Fucking male cat got trapped in the garage the other day and pissed all over the place and now the whole garage smells like cat piss.

[Seth]

He's trolling. Just ignore him, everyone.

Everyone with a functioning brain knows that it's not irrational to refuse to accept evidence that doesn't meet one's own personal standards of truth and/or proof particularly when it falls short of the only method we know for advancing knowledge of the natural world - the scientific method. Anything else is just trolling by the troll. He's just trying to get under your skins.

And fuck, am I ever good at it!

[Seth]

That's nothing. Before ignoring him, I would have replied probably 50 times. It might still seem like a lot to you, but it's a lot less than I used to. I'm feeling more calm, and hopefully contributing to discouraging him from being such an annoying troll.

How wonderful! Finally I've managed to teach you how to control your temper a bit and use some adult discretion when choosing whether or not to allow yourself to be controlled by others. This is the first step to real personal autonomy. You're finally discovering the core truth about "trolls" and the Internet, which I've been trying to pound into your head for what, over a dozen years now, which is that only you can allow yourself to be trolled, which means that it's not the problem of the "troll", it's a personality disorder on your part that you ought to learn to recognize and take control of. A small victory over obsession, but an important one that will hopefully help you move towards mental health as you take control of your life and stop letting other people lead you around by the nose.

Congratulations!

...and you're very welcome.

[Brian Peacock]

It proves that real miracles are simply wishful thinking, wrongly attributing the action of a putative supernatural being to natural phenomena; it simply never occurs when there are no natural causes available, as in the case of human limb regeneration...

Perhaps God does not care to regenerate human limbs. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Oh, wait, I've told you that before.

Anyway, we know that some creatures do regrow limbs, like starfish, so it is possible. Humans don't appear to have that "natural" capacity. But the fact that you have never observed, nor have you ever heard of anyone who has ever observed a human regrow a limb proves absolutely nothing, any more than the fact that you have never observed a gluon or a quark is meaningless insofar as the existence or non existence of gluons and quarks.

So, we see that your claim that you don't know any humans with self-regrown limbs and therefore God does not exist is entirely unscientific and irrational because you have no evidence meeting even the most superficial of scientific examinations that there is a link between human inability to regrown limbs and the existence or non-existence of God.

And therein lies the lesson of the thread.

This is no argument for the existence of anything - any thing.

Rather than fallaciously shifting the burden in favour of evidence for the non-existence of a thing we should be examing possible evidences which support or justify a claim for the existence of that thing. Have you got some? This is the only reasoned and reasonable approach to arguing for, over, or about the existence of anything - any thing.

Don't make me call cousin Rupret on you now.

[Seth]

It proves that real miracles are simply wishful thinking, wrongly attributing the action of a putative supernatural being to natural phenomena; it simply never occurs when there are no natural causes available, as in the case of human limb regeneration...

Perhaps God does not care to regenerate human limbs. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Oh, wait, I've told you that before.

Anyway, we know that some creatures do regrow limbs, like starfish, so it is possible. Humans don't appear to have that "natural" capacity. But the fact that you have never observed, nor have you ever heard of anyone who has ever observed a human regrow a limb proves absolutely nothing, any more than the fact that you have never observed a gluon or a quark is meaningless insofar as the existence or non existence of gluons and quarks.

So, we see that your claim that you don't know any humans with self-regrown limbs and therefore God does not exist is entirely unscientific and irrational because you have no evidence meeting even the most superficial of scientific examinations that there is a link between human inability to regrown limbs and the existence or non-existence of God.

And therein lies the lesson of the thread.

This is no argument for the existence of anything - any thing.

I did not claim it was. Ever. And that's not the lesson involved anyway.

Rather than fallaciously shifting the burden in favour of evidence for the non-existence of a thing we should be examing possible evidences which support or justify a claim for the existence of that thing.

I completely agree.

Have you got some?

Well, there's the OP....so get to 'splain'in it.