Hi, I'm Mick

[JimC]

Yup.

Moving on...

I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).

Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.

I think there is no evidence for god because I have never seen any. Care to enlighten me?

I've never seen aliens. Does this fact allow me to infer that there are none?

A very different situation. You are saying that many people, including yourself, have seen evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. No one, other than a few deluded UFO cranks, has actually seen aliens to date. However, there certainly is a real possibility that they exist, as life is one of the features of the observable universe; putative aliens are in a different philosophical category to putative supernatural beings...

If someone who had seen aliens wanted to convince others that they exist, he would need a swathe of hard, objective evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and appeals to subjective forms of "evidence".

[Mick]

Vaz: I remember an upset about Dawkins' rejection. Hordes of displaced, euro-atheists created RS, but I was unaware that this forum was also born out of that rejection. That explains the similar membership.

It would be against natural law to replace limbs and things of this sort with whatever devices a person felt was useful. A person's feelings are important, but what the facts about what is good for us qua human being are largely independent of our feelings. If I were to add my Catholicism into the answer (I do not need to, but you're asking for my personal thoughts), i also prohibit it based upon the sanctity of the body, or more particularly, the sanctity of the human being, a composite of soul (form) and body (matter), one ordained by God.

If you were to ask about genuine extensions to the natural function of the arm (like a suit that helps us lift heavy objects) and things of that sort, then i would say it is all good. If we are talking about removing a healthy arm and replacing it with a mechanical arm, then I'll raise an eyebrow or two. I'd have to ponder that some more.

[Mick]

If not from the bible, where do you infer the existence of a theological being from?

I gave a link to an argument of mine. Check it out.

[Mick]

Nowhere did I refer to the Bible; and so I am left wondering what you're taking about.
Mick

well then your philo shite is about as good as your catholicism t'would appear.

Did you not get enough money under the pillow from the tooth fairy Mick...shortchanged on your degree I guess. Let me guess seminary ?

Get a life....like really...

seminary would be nice! I'm not too sure my g/f would like that idea!

[Mick]

Sorry Mick, we are simple atheist folk here. We don't have the imagination for this magical stuff. We can just about "get" Harry Potter.

I'm well aware of just how simple I need to keep things when talking to the atheist crowd

[Mick]

Nowhere did I refer to the Bible; and so I am left wondering what you're taking about.

I did not study biology, but just by looking at shit I can hazard a pretty good guess about which animal it came from.

That's...great.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Nowhere did I refer to the Bible; and so I am left wondering what you're taking about.

I did not study biology, but just by looking at shit I can hazard a pretty good guess about which animal it came from.

That's...great.

it's an analogy
that is not a dirty word, even though it contains the word anal

[Seth]

I have a degree in philosphy Mick....do you?

You wasted a lot of money there macdoc.

Bullshit doesn't cut it here.

You got that right. You are what you write here.

Want to understand something useful start with Alfred North Whitehead....

Take the biblical crap and go bother the nuns

How....philosophical....of you.

[Seth]

similar output



equally odiferous.

At least the manure serves a purpose.

Do you really think anyone here gives a flying fuck bout your crap Mick.? Go seduce some CYC school girls with your profundity

How philosophically erudite of you...

[FBM]

So anyway, got any evidence of this god of yours?

I posted a link.

I'm not interested in chasing your arguments around the internet. You signed up here, bring your evidence here. Evidence. Not rhetorical word games. Otherwise, you still got nothing.

[Seth]

I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.

Evidently he was looking at evidence you didn't find.

I'm pretty sure that he would have presented it if he had it.

Why should he? You're not exactly an unbiased and objective audience. Evidence has been presented to the scientific community for thousands of years now and it still not only flatly refuses to apply it's own methods and standards, it flatly rejects even the possibility that God exists by labeling anything it does not understand to be "supernatural" and therefore non-scientific.

Science, you see, is it's own form of religious dogma and belief.

Poverty of imagination runs rampant in the scientific community, and worse yet whenever someone attempts to engage the scientific method to examine theistic claims, they are shunned and derided for the attempt because theism is heresy to the scientificologist religion...even if it turns out to be true.

[Seth]

So anyway, got any evidence of this god of yours?

I posted a link.

I'm not interested in chasing your arguments around the internet. You signed up here, bring your evidence here. Evidence. Not rhetorical word games. Otherwise, you still got nothing.

Ask your mommy to spoon-feed you. We're not in the business of doing your homework.

[FBM]

[Seth]

You know what, Seth? The next time somebody reports one of your posts for a "fuck off" or a "go fuck yourself", I will vote for a further suspension of increased duration. Because you have just admitted that you are doing so as a tit-for-tat response that (you believe) is not against the rules. How's that?

I told you all that with my introductory post, so I don't know why this comes as a surprise to you. Fuck with the bull and you get the horns. Your hypocrisy is showing again. You won't even admit your own biases in moderation when even rEv says that you are being biased against me while tolerating the same or worse from many, many others.

Pretty typical of leftover RDF mods I'm afraid. I knew you couldn't hold to your principles and would resort to these sort of threats to silence me while approving of making me the philosophical whipping boy for every left wing fuckwit that comes along.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: So long as you, or anyone here argues the question and doesn't malign the individual as a substitute for reasoned if vigorous debate I will be as polite as anyone. But when you, or anyone, starts personalizing and insulting then I'm going to get testy and give better than I get because I know full well that I cannot depend upon the Mods here to moderate in an unbiased and even-handed manner.

So you may suspend or boot me at your whim and caprice but all it will do is demonstrate yet again gross hypocrisy and small-minded, petty bigotry.

I'm okay with standing on the moral high ground even if I have to do it all by myself, because moral behavior means something and is important to society and civilization, which is something the Left needs to learn because it obviously doesn't have a clue.

[Seth]

I'm starting to see why he wasn't considered an honest contributor at ratskep.

Well, it's hard to be honest when you're defending systematic pedophilia, mass murder and anachronistic Bronze Age mythology.

I did not defend that.

It is catholicism.

You lie.

Wake up and smell the coffee. It is directly a result of this fetish with a Bronze Age myth. Bring on the evidence that it is true.

Bring on the evidence that "systematic pedophilia, mass murder and anachronistic Bronze Age mythology" are both approved practices and within the Catholic canon and doctrine and that one causes the other. So far we have nothing but a mendacious and evil lie about Catholicism from you that demonstrates nothing whatever other than grossly bigoted bias and unreasoning hatred.