Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Irrational quackery isn't science.And so funny that when we look at those things, we get lots of scientific information and no religious information. It's ALL explainable scientifically.
Another post with zero evidence.Well, KTS has not reacted to my invite to her, so I will now invite most seriously another lady atheist, PsychoSarah, to take over from KTS: produce your definition of evidence, and four or more examples of evidence.
[Start of quote on invite to KTS from Pachomius, Yesterday at 3:10 AM #1246]*
Alert to KTS.
__________________
Dear readers:
No, Loudmouth has not been here since my last posting here yesterday.
He must be on one of his leaves of absence, and there goes also unanswered his from my challenge to him, the presentation by him of four or more examples of what is evidence, as to fit his own peculiar definition of evidence, aside from one example with DNA.
In the meantime, please dear lady atheist KTS: let you and me exchange thoughts on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
I see you to be a fan of Bertrand Russell,* but I am sure you know nothing about his departure from mathematics and philosophy, where he got himself badly busted by better minds during his earlier long lifetime, and finally took to become some sort of celebrity in regard to among other things, advocacy against the use of nuclear bombs.
Let me see if you have really done any serious and prolonged reading about Bertrand Russell,
Tell me if you know about this at least well founded anecdote, to his credit or discredit, namely:
When he was no longer into mathematics and philosophy, he was at a dinner and was seated right beside the head mistress of an exclusive girls college
The lady college head asked him:
“I learned that you have given up philosophy, why?”
Bertie answered: “Because I discovered I preferred gnikcuf" [read that in reverse].
Okay, dear lady atheist KTS, fan of Bertrand Russell, see if you can find any link(s) in the internet on that anecdote.
And here is what I expect you to do, since you are parading all the time about evidence required by Bertrand Russell for God to exist, tell me what do you know from your own stock knowledge: what is evidence, and also give some examples of evidence.
Now, dear readers, let us sit back and await KTS to tell us what is her from stock knowledge idea of evidence, and some examples.
And dear lady atheist KTS, Don’t neglect to search for link(s) in the internet on Russell’s answer to why he gave up philosophy.
_______________
*This text from lady atheist KTS is paraded endlessly by KTS as some gem of terrific wisdom from Bertrand Russell:
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." — Bertrand Russell
If you ask me, the man was a consommé escape artist.
[End of quote from Pachomius]
*Everyone, please bear with me, I am really or I find it impossible to write here with the what I imagine to be universal word processing codes: thus my peculiar ways and means as I can manage, to write as to be read quickly and easily and clearly and definitively by people who are yes read and yes write, you get the idea.
I did try to find in the internet the kind of word processing codes employed in this forum, but I did not succeed.
And I can't be investing time and labor into fathoming the codes employed here, besides I am glad that with my way and means of writing here, I see my posts to come out quite clearly, quickly, easy to read, and most definitively carrying forth my ideas to all peoples who happen to read this thread - hehehehehe...
Tomorrow again.
Be specific. What is irrational quackery?
Be specific. What is irrational quackery?
KTS said: ↑
And so funny that when we look at those things, we get lots of scientific information and no religious information. It's ALL explainable scientifically.
Anything that ignores compelling evidence and prefers to reach illogical conclusions instead due to personal preferences. That's quackery. If it waddles like a duck, flies like duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!
Cinco patinhos (Five little ducks) - Xuxa
As you can see from the above post where quackery is understood perfectly for what it is, not everyone agrees with your biased evaluations.Yet another post without any evidence.
As you can see from the above post where quackery is understood perfectly for what it is, not everyone agrees with your biased evaluations.
The Abio-Jennifer goddess needs to offer no evidence at all and yet her worshippers fawn.
Jesus' enemies accused him of being demonized."Abio-Jennifer"? How childish.
Study the subject so you know what you are talking about. So far you seem to be ignorant in both science and theology.
That must been because Jesus was known to make childish remarks about his "enemies".Jesus' enemies accused him of being demonized.
That must be the best example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have read.BTW
I'm not ignorant of science. I'm ignorant of quackery that you in your profound ignorance think is science.
Jesus' enemies accused him of being demonized.
-snip-
Based on experience, I assume the following line of thought:I'm sorry, I really cant make sense of the above. Jesuse enemies accused Jesus of being demonized?
It seems you have mis-written.
And it also has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Doesnt answer my question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?