Religions > Atheism > **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS**
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2004 09:17:53 PM |
| Object: |
**BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com> wrote in message
news:<YsoLb.2445$5V2.5411@attbi_s53>...
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FeadnVYjkuV4Q2CiRVn-hA@sti.net...
Jaco Mandolin wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
Jim07D4 wrote:
Here is how an acknowledgment of uncertainty is
(fallaciously) used in an argument ad ignorantiam:
A; Possibly X. B: Show me.
It ends there. There is nothing to show. No one
claiming (except for the theists) that the god exists.
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
Again, they do not. Theist claim a god exists.
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
No, they state that it DOES exist, and what's more, they also state
that they have ample evidence that backs them up.
Nobody can claim that a magic
invisible something does exist.
That's where you're wrong.
In fact, theists DO claim exactly this.
They DO "claim that a magic invisible something does exist". This is
what theists do, this is what theists are.
Theists are people who claim that a magic invisible something does
exist.
To suggest otherwise is simply to misrepresent their position.
All he can do in such a case is argue _ad
ignorantiam_ (as you are doing) that it might exist because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
No, theists assert that a god definitely exists, and they base that
assertion on all the evidence that they claim to have in their
possession.
....
The theist proposition is that such a thing might exist.
No, your statement is not correct.
The theist proposition is that, based on the evidence that they have
observed, there is no way that a rational human can deny that god
exists.
Gods are evidently
hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imaginings with no basis in fact,
remember?
No, not as far as theists are concerned. Theists see no reason to
"imagine" a god, since they believe that there is enough evidence to
justify the conclusion that it definitely exists.
The catholic church (for example) was not formed just on the
off-chance that a god might possibly exist.
The Pope does not ask for catholics to vote on whether a god exists or
not.
Here is a textbook example of typical theist argument _ad ignorantiam_
(arguing that there is no proof their hypothesis is false):
This is *not* the theist's argument (or assertion) at all.
You have dishonestly mis-represented the theist's argument (or
assertion).
Theists believe that there is ample evidence that a god exists.
If you say differently, then you are wrong, because theists believe
that there is ample evidence that a god exists.
Now, repeat after me -
Theists are absolutely certain that god exists.
Theists are absolutely certain that god exists.
Good.
And again.
Theists are absolutely certain that god exists.
I can't hear you...
THEISTS ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT GOD EXISTS.
LOUDer.
THEISTS ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT GOD EXISTS.
I can't HEAR you!!! LOUDER!! LOUDER!!
THEISTS ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT GOD EXISTS!!!
by george i think he's got it!
..
..
..
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
| User: "John Iser" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
18 Jan 2004 10:56:32 AM |
|
|
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote in message news:<4009ee2b.3279897@news.dodo.com.au>...
[snip]
--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
Throaty to me in Message-ID 4013b0ae.44975053@news.dodo.com.au:
"Thanks for all the laughs, John. I hope you enjoy being trolled as
much as I enjoy trolling you."
Not only is he a troll, he's a self-confessed troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
18 Jan 2004 02:49:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) posted in alt.atheism:
"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com> wrote in message
news:<YsoLb.2445$5V2.5411@attbi_s53>...
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
Again, they do not. Theist claim a god exists.
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
No, they state that it DOES exist, and what's more, they also state
that they have ample evidence that backs them up.
Gnostic theists claim that they have proof that their god exists.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god, but do not claim that
they have proof (or even evidence) that it exists.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
20 Jan 2004 04:41:25 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
:On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT,
:(Throatwarbler Mangrove) posted in alt.atheism:
:
:>"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com> wrote in message
:>news:<YsoLb.2445$5V2.5411@attbi_s53>...
:
:>> > > Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
:
:>> > Again, they do not. Theist claim a god exists.
:
:>> Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
:
:>No, they state that it DOES exist, and what's more, they also state
:>that they have ample evidence that backs them up.
:
:Gnostic theists claim that they have proof that their god exists.
:Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god, but do not claim that
:they have proof (or even evidence) that it exists.
That's sort of true, but not relevant to the point. The problem is
that they *don't* go around phrasing their belief as "I believe
there is the possibility that a god exists", as the Multinamed Liar
wants to characterize it (purely so he can pigeonhole every reasonable
atheist into the theist category.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
19 Jan 2004 06:22:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:49:37 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in message <mirl009rvvcqgj1br5nb3dptp7tf92f9l0@Pern.rk>:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) posted in alt.atheism:
"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com> wrote in message
news:<YsoLb.2445$5V2.5411@attbi_s53>...
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
Again, they do not. Theist claim a god exists.
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
No, they state that it DOES exist, and what's more, they also state
that they have ample evidence that backs them up.
Gnostic theists claim that they have proof that their god exists.
Yes. Correct so far.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god,
Yes. Correct so far.
but do not claim that
they have proof (or even evidence) that it exists.
Wrong.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god. They also claim
evidence that it exists.
However, they claim that their knowledge of that god is limited to
very little other than merely knowing that it exists!
Unlike gnostic theists, they do not claim to have any knowledge of any
of the characteristics of this god - they claim that such things are
un-knowable...
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
19 Jan 2004 07:47:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:22:27 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:49:37 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in message <mirl009rvvcqgj1br5nb3dptp7tf92f9l0@Pern.rk>:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) posted in alt.atheism:
"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com> wrote in message
news:<YsoLb.2445$5V2.5411@attbi_s53>...
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
Again, they do not. Theist claim a god exists.
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
No, they state that it DOES exist, and what's more, they also state
that they have ample evidence that backs them up.
Gnostic theists claim that they have proof that their god exists.
Yes. Correct so far.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god,
Yes. Correct so far.
but do not claim that
they have proof (or even evidence) that it exists.
Wrong.
If they claim to have evidence they're gnostic.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god. They also claim
evidence that it exists.
Those who don't claim to have evidence claim to have evidence? You
must be speaking a language I don't understand.
However, they claim that their knowledge of that god is limited to
very little other than merely knowing that it exists!
That's not claiming to have evidence, it's claiming to have an
opinion.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
20 Jan 2004 01:58:17 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:47:11 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in message <fv1p00tb2h0t7h6gil4pmafrjtuqa1b63c@Pern.rk>:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:22:27 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:49:37 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in message <mirl009rvvcqgj1br5nb3dptp7tf92f9l0@Pern.rk>:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) posted in alt.atheism:
"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com> wrote in message
news:<YsoLb.2445$5V2.5411@attbi_s53>...
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
Again, they do not. Theist claim a god exists.
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
No, they state that it DOES exist, and what's more, they also state
that they have ample evidence that backs them up.
Gnostic theists claim that they have proof that their god exists.
Yes. Correct so far.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god,
Yes. Correct so far.
but do not claim that
they have proof (or even evidence) that it exists.
Wrong.
If they claim to have evidence they're gnostic.
Rubbish. The agnostic theist typically asserts that the fact that the
universe exists is sufficient proof that a creator of that universe
must also therefore exist.
The gnostic theist takes this further, though.
The gnostic theist, unlike his slightly more reasonable agnostic
colleague, claims to have knowledge and understanding of some specific
details of what this god is like (i.e., it's a jealous god, it's a
loving god, it's an omnipotent god, blah blah yada yada.)
The agnostic theist maintains that details such as these are
ultimately unknowable.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god. They also claim
evidence that it exists.
Those who don't claim to have evidence claim to have evidence? You
must be speaking a language I don't understand.
Yes, that could be a problem, coz it's written in plain english, Al...
Sorry, I no can do it for you in yiddish already. :)
However, they claim that their knowledge of that god is limited to
very little other than merely knowing that it exists!
That's not claiming to have evidence, it's claiming to have an
opinion.
Nonsense. See above.
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
16 Feb 2004 09:51:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:58:17 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) said in alt.atheism:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:47:11 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in message <fv1p00tb2h0t7h6gil4pmafrjtuqa1b63c@Pern.rk>:
If they claim to have evidence they're gnostic.
Rubbish. The agnostic theist typically asserts that the fact that the
universe exists is sufficient proof that a creator of that universe
must also therefore exist.
No, that's a gnostic statement. Use Huxley's actual definition, not
one you made up.
The gnostic theist takes this further, though.
ANY deviation from not making statements you have no evidence for is
gnostic. There's no degree involved.
The agnostic theist maintains that details such as these are
ultimately unknowable.
Not according to the definition of "agnostic".
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god. They also claim
evidence that it exists.
Those who don't claim to have evidence claim to have evidence? You
must be speaking a language I don't understand.
Yes, that could be a problem, coz it's written in plain english, Al...
So was Huxley's definition of "agnostic".
However, they claim that their knowledge of that god is limited to
very little other than merely knowing that it exists!
That's not claiming to have evidence, it's claiming to have an
opinion.
Nonsense. See above.
Claiming that X exists isn't claiming to have evidence that X exists,
it's claiming to believe that X exists. See a basic English course.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
16 Feb 2004 09:46:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:22:27 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:49:37 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
in message <mirl009rvvcqgj1br5nb3dptp7tf92f9l0@Pern.rk>:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) posted in alt.atheism:
"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com> wrote in message
news:<YsoLb.2445$5V2.5411@attbi_s53>...
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
Again, they do not. Theist claim a god exists.
Theists argue that such a thing might exist.
No, they state that it DOES exist, and what's more, they also state
that they have ample evidence that backs them up.
Gnostic theists claim that they have proof that their god exists.
Yes. Correct so far.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god,
Yes. Correct so far.
but do not claim that
they have proof (or even evidence) that it exists.
Wrong.
Agnostic theists claim to believe in their god. They also claim
evidence that it exists.
Agnostics don't make claims they can't back up. You're talking about
gnostic atheists.
However, they claim that their knowledge of that god is limited to
very little other than merely knowing that it exists!
That's a gnostic statement.
Unlike gnostic theists, they do not claim to have any knowledge of any
of the characteristics of this god - they claim that such things are
un-knowable...
Claiming to have knowledge one doesn't have is gnostic. Try actually
reading Huxley's definition of "agnosticism".
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZEDHIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
17 Jan 2004 10:41:49 PM |
|
|
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
septic wrote
Here is a textbook example of typical theist argument
_ad ignorantiam_ (arguing that there is no proof their
hypothesis is false):
This is *not* the theist's argument (or assertion) at
all.
You have dishonestly mis-represented the theist's
argument (or assertion).
That's the thing; slime KNOWS that. He is just arguing to
get attention. No one could be as stupid as he is playing to
be. There is no reason to expect a serious conversation with
him since that is not what he wants. He just wants attention.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZED HIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
20 Jan 2004 04:38:25 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism David V. <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
:Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
:> septic wrote
:>
:>> Here is a textbook example of typical theist argument
:>> _ad ignorantiam_ (arguing that there is no proof their
:>> hypothesis is false):
:>
:> This is *not* the theist's argument (or assertion) at
:> all.
:>
:> You have dishonestly mis-represented the theist's
:> argument (or assertion).
:
:That's the thing; slime KNOWS that. He is just arguing to
:get attention. No one could be as stupid as he is playing to
:be.
I don't have that much faith in humanity. It's entirely
possible for someone to be as stupid as he seems to be.
Look around the world. Stupidity abounds. As proof of
this, note the existance of Scientologists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Throatwarbler Mangrove" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZEDHIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
18 Jan 2004 06:33:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:41:49 -0800, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote in message <Y9Gdndwz0pUNk5fdRVn-vg@sti.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
septic wrote
Here is a textbook example of typical theist argument
_ad ignorantiam_ (arguing that there is no proof their
hypothesis is false):
This is *not* the theist's argument (or assertion) at
all.
You have dishonestly mis-represented the theist's
argument (or assertion).
That's the thing; slime KNOWS that.
Ah. I did suspect that nobody could be THAT dumb.
I reckon any 8 year old would know that the defining characteristic of
a theist is that he/she has a *firm* belief that god, or gods, exist.
(as opposed to a vague notion that a god, or perhaps something
similar, may possibly exist or have existed in the past.)
He is just arguing to
get attention.
Well, it's working! :)
No one could be as stupid as he is playing to
be.
The fact that his grammar and spelling and punctuation appear to be
quite OK, would seem to indicate that you are correct.
There is no reason to expect a serious conversation with
him since that is not what he wants. He just wants attention.
Oh well, we'll see if he once again tries to deny the obvious fact
that a theist is, by definition, a person who firmly and absolutely
believes that a god, or gods, exist/s.
---------------------
Jesus had himself killed because he needed the publicity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Makohin" |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZEDHIS MISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
18 Jan 2004 11:53:30 AM |
|
|
In article <400c7a9b.7361254@news.dodo.com.au>,
(Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:41:49 -0800, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote in message <Y9Gdndwz0pUNk5fdRVn-vg@sti.net>:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
septic wrote
Here is a textbook example of typical theist argument
_ad ignorantiam_ (arguing that there is no proof their
hypothesis is false):
This is *not* the theist's argument (or assertion) at
all.
You have dishonestly mis-represented the theist's
argument (or assertion).
That's the thing; slime KNOWS that.
Ah. I did suspect that nobody could be THAT dumb.
I reckon any 8 year old would know that the defining characteristic of
a theist is that he/she has a *firm* belief that god, or gods, exist.
(as opposed to a vague notion that a god, or perhaps something
similar, may possibly exist or have existed in the past.)
[snip]
The Poster Formerly Known as "JR2" (AKA "JR3", AKA "B. Corporeal", AKA
"Skeptic") has a problem separating "belief" from "reality". In his
mind, they are one and the same. Therefore, because a deity does not
exist in reality (according to his thinking), people who believe in
this deity must believe that a deity _may_ exist, rather than
believing that it _does_ exist (regardless of whether it actually
exists or not).
This explanation also explains why The Poster cannot alter his beliefs
when he is confronted with facts that contradict them. In The Poster's
mind, his beliefs are synonymous with reality, therefore conflicting
information is not factual. Professional help *may* be in order.
PS: I predict future posting by The Poster Formerly Known as "JR2"
that are consistent with my statements above (i.e., more of the same,
but using a different name).
-Steve Makohin | Reply to
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZEDHISMISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
18 Jan 2004 12:32:06 PM |
|
|
Steve Makohin wrote:
Raymond_Luxury_Y@tcht.com (Throatwarbler Mangrove) wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
septic wrote
Here is a textbook example of typical theist
argument _ad ignorantiam_ (arguing that there is
no proof their hypothesis is false):
This is *not* the theist's argument (or assertion)
at all.
You have dishonestly mis-represented the theist's
argument (or assertion).
That's the thing; slime KNOWS that.
Ah. I did suspect that nobody could be THAT dumb.
I reckon any 8 year old would know that the defining
characteristic of a theist is that he/she has a *firm*
belief that god, or gods, exist. (as opposed to a vague
notion that a god, or perhaps something similar, may
possibly exist or have existed in the past.)
[snip]
The Poster Formerly Known as "JR2" (AKA "JR3", AKA "B.
Corporeal", AKA "Skeptic") has a problem separating
"belief" from "reality". In his mind, they are one and
the same.....
He does have that problem, but I think there's more to it.
He seems to have social and other problems. Even if he knew
something was correct, he'd still argue against it. He needs
the attention he gets from his arguments here. If he
admitted he was wrong or did something that might end the
argument, he wouldn't get any more attention.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: **BREAKING NEWS** SEPTIC HAS *< < F I N A L L Y > >* REALIZEDHISMISTAKE! **BREAKING NEWS** |
18 Jan 2004 11:34:13 AM |
|
|
Throatwarbler Mangrove wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no reason to expect a serious conversation
with him since that is not what he wants. He just wants
attention.
Oh well, we'll see if he once again tries to deny the
obvious fact that a theist is, by definition, a person
who firmly and absolutely believes that a god, or gods,
exist/s.
I have no doubt he'll do that and he will call your argument
an ad ignorantiam.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
