The gig is up.

NMSquirrel said:
atheist argue that there is no 'proof'..
atheist will not accept anything as 'proof'
theist try to show them its not about 'proof', it is about 'evidence'..
atheist cry evidence is not proof..
<sigh> it ain't about the 'proof'
Click to expand...

We do not necessarily think there is no proof. We just wait for it to be offered. BIG LOL!

I will accept ANYTHING as proof if it is logically sound, scientifically robust, and proven using the application of sanity. BIG LOL!

What evidence? BIG LOL!

Evidence can be used to build a picture of proof. So build it!

What is it "about" then?
 
Oh! I know. It's about believing in a maybe. Or deluding oneself and/or others that believing in a maybe, or solipistically transforming a maybe into a internalised false positive, is the true "Road to Awe".
 
I will accept ANYTHING as proof if it is logically sound, scientifically robust, and proven using the application of sanity. BIG LOL!
Click to expand...

If I assert that there is proof that you can hear music, then I give you the means to listen to music and you do, in fact, hear music, is that scientifically robust? Can you apply sanity to the assertion?
Would you then claim that I also need to explain what music "is" to you, or offer a proof that music exists, when you have the proof of your experience?

Would you claim that you can't hear any, even though I've given you the same means to listen to this music, and I claim that I can hear it just fine? I'll let you use your imagination here, as to the nature of this "method of hearing music", but you probably know it can be recorded and played. You do know that, right? Would you claim that it doesn't constitute proof because you haven't read anything that confirms the assertion "humans can hear music"?

"The application of sanity". What a crack up.
 
Last edited:
universaldistress said:
The performance is over. The artists have taken off their masks. The illusion is fading. Once the scenery is burnt out back on the bonfires of religious tradition, and the embers have cooled, up from the ashes will rise a bird so free and perfect; its beauty to cut through the miasmal dew formed steam of false parade will inspire the burnt-out-nest dwellers to curlicue upwards on the heated thermal of the firebirds (a)wake(ning).
Click to expand...

Good for our poem.

Putting a few lines at once should be OK there, too.
 
universaldistress said:
We do not necessarily think there is no proof. We just wait for it to be offered. BIG LOL!
Click to expand...
i have had arguments with some here, that their whole point was how can i be so sure that God exists when there is no proof.
that acknowledges that atheist are waiting for something that does not exist.and argue for something that does not exist.(proof of God)
who is delusional?:rolleyes:


I will accept ANYTHING as proof if it is logically sound, scientifically robust, and proven using the application of sanity. BIG LOL!
Click to expand...
oh now you are moving the goalpost by defining God your self and tell us to present him to you as you see him??

What evidence? BIG LOL!
Click to expand...
evidence equals testimonies..do a search, you will find a million of em..

Evidence can be used to build a picture of proof. So build it!
Click to expand...
you don't want to know..you still think God as 'Do as your told'..(if i believe,i have to obey)

What is it "about" then?
Click to expand...
<sigh>
 
This thread is pathetic. Nobody is paying attention to anything except the dialogue going on in their own minds.

I'm not convinced that the atheists even understand what proof is. Is it a photograph?
Tyre tracks? A group discussion where everyone, or most of them, agree with some assertion--like "the sky has clouds in it"?

Is it something in a book, or a movie? Can we buy it from somewhere?
 
arfa brane said:
If I assert that there is proof that you can hear music, then I give you the means to listen to music and you do, in fact, hear music, is that scientifically robust? Can you apply sanity to the assertion?
Would you then claim that I also need to explain what music "is" to you, or offer a proof that music exists, when you have the proof of your experience?

Would you claim that you can't hear any, even though I've given you the same means to listen to this music, and I claim that I can hear it just fine? I'll let you use your imagination here, as to the nature of this "method of hearing music", but you probably know it can be recorded and played. You do know that, right? Would you claim that it doesn't constitute proof because you haven't read anything that confirms the assertion "humans can hear music"?

"The application of sanity". What a crack up.
Click to expand...

Never have I experienced such a load of old twaddle as this. Fudging packing to the extreme.

The sanction of the OP is already enforced. The theist defense was obliterated by the sane. Picking through the rubble of your mind is the last thing on my list of time consuming activities. LOL.
 
<BIGGER sigh>

(do i really have to keep pointing out the sames points over and over again to insane minds that cannot absorb the scientific principle?)

(No. The OP stands unanswered.)
 
universaldistress said:
What about a new one? New structure? Do you feel the one we've done is still a going concern? or are we ready for a new structure of poem, or prose?
Click to expand...

Yes, a new poem, leaving the rest of the first one to the imagination. You could add the final red parts. I'll leave any new structure to you. We could join some couplets into quatrains if the thought needs more immediate room to complete. Of course there are other, more complicated schemes, which may be more difficult.

Here's the shortest poem:

I,
I?

Beating out:

I,
Why?

but it suffers a bit by having the same rhyme word of 'I'.


As for the longest sentence, it is "I do."
 
o2.jpg


lol..
 
SciWriter said:
Yes, a new poem, leaving the rest of the first one to the imagination. You could add the final red parts. I'll leave any new structure to you. We could join some couplets into quatrains if the thought needs more immediate room to complete. Of course there are other, more complicated schemes, which may be more difficult.

Here's the shortest poem:

I,
I?

Beating out:

I,
Why?

but it suffers a bit by having the same rhyme word of 'I'.


As for the longest sentence, it is "I do."
Click to expand...

As yet not meaningfully passed my lips.

I have reasonably fierce imagination but sadly lack knowledge of poetry. Never got to grips with stress etc. My prose is pretty tidy but an ongoing evolution. I kind of got disillusioned with poetry due to wanting to move towards novel writing.

But hell. I'll give it a go.
 
unmiversaldistress said:
Never have I experienced such a load of old twaddle as this. Fudging packing to the extreme.
Click to expand...
It isn't twaddle, you pathetic idiot.

It's a demonstration that the idea of proof is not what you and several others have been claiming. You appear to want proof, but you don't know really, what proof is.
That's YOUR problem, sunshine.
It also demonstrates that your claim of "willingness to apply sanity" is empty of substance--you are not sane, perhaps.
I think my position here is strong, and the OP stands up.
Click to expand...
I think your position here is exactly the position you were in when you started. I think you're so attached to an idea that it's possible you won't see past it, ever.

You will live your entire life without getting any closer to understanding what your "position" is, still clinging to the same old argument. That's what I think. I think you're obsessed.
 
arfa brane said:
It isn't twaddle, you pathetic idiot.

It's a demonstration that the idea of proof is not what you and several others have been claiming. You appear to want proof, but you don't know really, what proof is.
That's YOUR problem, sunshine.
It also demonstrates that your claim of "willingness to apply sanity" is empty of substance--you are not sane, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Full time whistle blows, and I won . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top