"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[flying fish]

---

hey, i get that feeling tooooo. minus the speak in tounges and rick rolling.

usually when i'm HORNY as a crazy monkey in heat.

hesus! gino-o ko!

[Hellblazer 2.1]

hey, i get that feeling tooooo. minus the speak in tounges and rick rolling.

usually when i'm HORNY as a crazy monkey in heat.

oh my God! oh my God! oh my God! YES!!! that kind of feeling sir?

[regnauld]

hesus! gino-o ko!

Santa maria ig ampo mo kaming mga biga-on, amen!

[mannyamador]

There is no evidence for the existence of god. Until such time said evidence is presented, I withhold belief in god's existence.

Granting that such evidence is lacking (actually it is not), why then should atheism be the default choice? Agnosticism (simply not knowing whether God exists) is a much more logical response. The lack of evidence does not mean no evidence will ever be found. Atheism is an ILLOGICAL response to such a situation.

The only time you can justify atheism (a claim that God does NOT exist) is if you can prove God actually does not/cannot exist. You have been unable to provide any such proof, and all your efforts against the Argument from Contingency have thus far failed completely.

[schmuck]

Granting that such evidence is lacking (actually it is not), why then should atheism be the default choice? Agnosticism (simply not knowing whether God exists) is a much more logical response. The lack of evidence does not mean no evidence will ever be found. Atheism is an ILLOGICAL response to such a situation.

The only time you can justify ateism (a claim that God does NOT exist) is if you can prove God actually does not/cannot exist. You have been unable to provide any such proof, and all your efforts against the Argument from Contingency have thus far failed completely.

big claims there. Are you witholding this evidence you speak of manny? Bring it out so we can examine it.

compare:
a. I do not believe that gods exist
b. I beleive that gods don't exist

notice the difference? My position is (a) btw.
Mag role play ta gamay ha.

You: god exists!
Me: i don't believe you. Prove it!

The (base)ball is on your court manny.

[mannyamador]

big claims there. Are you witholding this evidence you speak of manny? Bring it out so we can examine it.

I already gave you the Argument from Contingency. You couldn't even address it (unless I missed your post). Others tried though. That was good and sincere effort on their part and I commend them for it. Perhaps you would like to try?

The (base)ball is on your court manny.

First, let's examine your claim.

You: God does not exist.
Me: I don't believe you. Prove it.

You are making a definite claim. You are not merely claiming that you don't know whether God exists. You are saying God doesn't exist; that you know God doesn't exist. So you have to prove it.

Let's see you try. Or are you going to make lame excuses for not doing so again?

[NASYO]

nindot ang mga pagtuki.

go sir manny
go sir smuck

[schmuck]

I already gave you the Argument from Contingency. You couldn't even address it (unless I missed your post). Others tried though. That was good and sincere effort on their part and I commend them for it. Perhaps you would like to try?



First, let's examine your claim.

You: God does not exist.
Me: I don't believe you. Prove it.

You are making a definite claim. You are not merely claiming that you don't know whether God exists. You are saying God doesn't exist; that you know God doesn't exist. So you have to prove it.

Let's see you try. Or are you going to make lame excuses for not doing so again?

lame excuses? like what? your failure to understand the concept of burden of proof and proving negatives? To think nga naa ka kai hubris to say nga dili logical, nga gitagaan na kag clear replies.
Sa tinoud lang, kapoi na balik2x pasabot nimo aning mga butanga.

Challenge for you: pangita ang post nga niingon ko nga I believe that god does not exist.

*crickets*

Well asa?

Wala ka kabantay nga ang akong pirmi isulti: I don't believe that god exists?
Stop putting words into my mouth manny.

Excercise kuno ta beh.
Define the following:

Burden of Proof
og
Negative Proof

Pass your pepper pines or not pines tonight.

[mannyamador]

lame excuses? like what? your failure to understand the concept of burden of proof and proving negatives?

No. YOU fail to understand it.

One who chooses to be an atheist is not claiming ignorance. He is not simply claiming he does not know God does/does not exist. He is not merely resting on the absence of evidence of God's existence.

An atheist claims God does not exist. HE IS CLAIMING TO KNOW THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. despite the fact that an alternative to the alleged lack of evidence is quite available: agnosticism.

I am quite justified then in asking for proof as to how one can come to this knowledge, which an atheist chooses instead of agnosticism. But now you come up with the lamest excuses for NOT giving proof!!!

The atheist claim as such is baseless and irrational. If one has the humility to choose agnosticism as a result of alleged lack of proof, perhaps one could get away with that. But to be absurd enough to make a claim one cannot defend? And you expect me to respect such sophistry?

There's no point in discussing anything with someone who makes claims then refuses to substantiate them.

By the way, you STILL haven't made a dent in the Argument from Contingency. You haven't even addressed it! How long will I have to wait for that? Or are you going to make more excuses?

[schmuck]

There's no point in discussing anything with someone who makes claims then refuses to substantiate them.

You mean like what you do?