| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2007 11:29:56 PM |
| Object: |
Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
\
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
27 Aug 2007 09:34:26 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net...
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
Whoo are you to decide?
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 07:57:06 AM |
|
|
In article <13d72qfca6onf27@corp.supernews.com>,
accordiondoc@mindspring.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net...
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
Whoo are you to decide?
It's reason that makes the decision. I know that people have a hard time
making this leap, but you don't have to have 100% certainty in order to
make a good argument. Probabilistically, it should sound more reasonable
that there is not a ghost than that there is a very powerful ghost who
chooses to not to exercises its very formidable powers (except if you pay
a medium $40). There is also the principle of parsimony or occam's razor
in which we do not multiple entities unnecessarily. It's easier to think
that there is no ghost than that there is a powerful, complex entity
which merely chooses to hide for no apparent reason. Hope that helps.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 03:21:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:34:26 -0400, "ike milligan"
<accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net...
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
Whoo are you to decide?
Casper Wienberger.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
27 Aug 2007 12:13:58 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net...
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
\
I'd like to share this tale of ghosts:
A visiting professor at Rice University is giving a seminar on
the supernatural. To get a feel for his audience, he asks, "How many
people here believe in ghosts?" About 90 students raise their hands.
"Well that's a good start. Out of those of you who believe in ghosts,
do any of you think you've ever seen a ghost?" About 40 students raise
their hands.
"That's really good. I'm really glad you take this seriously. Has
anyone here ever talked to a ghost?" 15 students raise their hands.
"That's a great response. Has anyone here ever touched a ghost?" 3
students raise their hands.
"That's fantastic. But let me ask you one question further... Have any
of you ever made love to a ghost?"
Patrick Lee Humphrey, sitting in the back, raises his hand. The professor
is astonished.
He takes off his glasses, takes a step back, and says, "Son, all the
years I've been giving this lecture, no one has ever claimed to have
slept with a ghost. You've got to come up here and tell us about your
experience."
Patrick replies with a nod and begins to make his way up to
the podium.
The professor says, "Well, tell us what it's like to have sex with a
Ghost."
Patrick replies, "Ghost?!? I thought you said 'goats.'"
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
27 Aug 2007 04:24:48 PM |
|
|
Repetitive netloon "J Young" <younginsights@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fatmo002e2@news2.newsguy.com...
I'd like to share this tale of ghosts:
A visiting professor at Rice University <kookslap>
OCD much, "J"?:
A visiting professor at Texas A & M University is giving a seminar on
thesupernatural. To get a feel for his audience, he asks: "How many people
herebelieve in ghosts?" About 90 students raise their hands."
From: "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: OT: Another lame, lame, LAME blond joke
Date: 23 May 2005 11:46:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1116873990.573395.81200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.203
"A visiting professor at Texas A & M University is giving a seminar on
thesupernatural. To get a feel for his audience, he asks: "How many people
herebelieve in ghosts?" About 90 students raise their hands."
From: "LC" <LCis...@bluebottle.com> aka "J Young"
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks,ne.weather
Subject: Re: Sex with goats
Date: 22 Feb 2006 09:46:26 -0800
Message-ID: <1140630386.354689.28030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <HeydnZI-c-HF52nenZ2dnUVZ8qqdn...@pipex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.131
"A visiting professor at Texas A & M University is giving a seminar on
thesupernatural. To get a feel for his audience, he asks: "How many people
here believe in ghosts?" About 90 students raise their hands."
From: "loose cannon is a lying, stalking, forging scumbag"
<superasswipe@hotmail.com> aka "J Young"
Newsgroups:
alt.abortion,alt.bible,alt.christnet,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Ghost Hick
Date: 19 Jan 2005 19:35:43 -0800
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.117.7
LC~ Etc., etc., etc.
"Trolling? Espousing decency is trolling? By the way, don't give yourself so
much credit. I would post to my groups with or without any response from
you."
From: "Father Kelly" <father.kelly1@gmail.com>, just "J Young" in a dress
and pointy hat.
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,tx.politics,seattle.politics
Subject: Re: Family groups ask Justice Dept. to collar hotel porn
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:36:39 -0400
Message-ID: <46af4986$0$9712$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 08:54:33 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:29:56 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
\
This may well be the stupidest argument I have yet to see in this
newsgroup. You have asserted a large set of characteristics to these
ghosts, characteristics you simply don't know. If such things existed
perhaps they are hurt by our knowing about them. Or hurt by being
watched. Or any of a pretty much infinite number of things. The reason
to think that they don't exist is the enormous amount of evidence that
does not exist that would if they existed. Absence of evidence is not
(necessarily) evidence of absence, but massive lack of evidence that
should be there is a pretty good indication.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 05:50:02 PM |
|
|
In article <74a8d39dckf67padcacuj4iqg548i658k8@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:29:56 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
\
This may well be the stupidest argument I have yet to see in this
newsgroup.
Only because you're acting like an idiot and pretending that you don't
understand the point. By the end of your post you indicate that you
actually do grasp the legitimate point that I made. You simple refuse to
acknowledge it up front so that you can bluster. You're taking the
opportunity to attempt to clobber an argument that was never intended to
be all that serious and then thumping your chest about it.
You have asserted a large
It wasn't "large", you deluded moron. The entire post was 24 lines and,
not counting my sig or intro, it was only about 12 lines of informal
argument.
set of characteristics to these
ghosts, characteristics you simply don't know.
Nor did I claim to know it, you fucking moron. But you knew that because
you correctly noted that these were assertions, for the sake of argument,
not knowledge claims.
If such things existed
perhaps they are hurt by our knowing about them.
Yeah, your bizarre speculations could go on forever. But we have to have
some reason to buy your strange alibis for these ghosts, as opposed to
the more reasonable notion that ghosts of humans would act in ways
similar to what we would expect of the humans from which they hailed.
Or hurt by being
watched. Or any of a pretty much infinite number of things. The reason
to think that they don't exist is the enormous amount of evidence that
does not exist that would if they existed.
That's exactly what I was suggesting.
Absence of evidence is not
(necessarily) evidence of absence, but massive lack of evidence that
should be there is a pretty good indication.
Yep you understood what I was saying, despite your ridiculous and
insincere protestations.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 06:31:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:50:02 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213e54812b50d61098a059@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <74a8d39dckf67padcacuj4iqg548i658k8@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:29:56 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
\
This may well be the stupidest argument I have yet to see in this
newsgroup.
Only because you're acting like an idiot and pretending that you don't
understand the point. By the end of your post you indicate that you
actually do grasp the legitimate point that I made. You simple refuse to
acknowledge it up front so that you can bluster. You're taking the
opportunity to attempt to clobber an argument that was never intended to
be all that serious and then thumping your chest about it.
Touched a nerve did I? Anyway, I guess we can agree that your post was
not all that serious and leave it at that.
You have asserted a large
It wasn't "large", you deluded moron. The entire post was 24 lines and,
not counting my sig or intro, it was only about 12 lines of informal
argument.
set of characteristics to these
ghosts, characteristics you simply don't know.
Nor did I claim to know it, you fucking moron. But you knew that because
you correctly noted that these were assertions, for the sake of argument,
not knowledge claims.
If such things existed
perhaps they are hurt by our knowing about them.
Yeah, your bizarre speculations could go on forever.
Whereas you want to stop with your own bizarre speculation. Ok.
But we have to have
some reason to buy your strange alibis for these ghosts, as opposed to
the more reasonable notion that ghosts of humans would act in ways
similar to what we would expect of the humans from which they hailed.
You made a claim about their abilities, not their motivation.
Or hurt by being
watched. Or any of a pretty much infinite number of things. The reason
to think that they don't exist is the enormous amount of evidence that
does not exist that would if they existed.
That's exactly what I was suggesting.
Poorly I guess.
Absence of evidence is not
(necessarily) evidence of absence, but massive lack of evidence that
should be there is a pretty good indication.
Yep you understood what I was saying, despite your ridiculous and
insincere protestations.
But that was not the actual argument you made, you made what you now
seem to admit was not a serious one. Though why you, in another post,
claim to be a philosopher I don't quite get.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
29 Aug 2007 02:24:44 PM |
|
|
In article <3ub9d394eq63ckc24vulpbcjhvl7elgaje@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
Touched a nerve did I?
No, you misunderstood as usual. I really don't give a ***** what you do,
but I was pointing out your time antics.
Anyway, I guess we can agree that your post was
not all that serious and leave it at that.
Nor were your arguments. I'd be glad to leave your nonsense at that,
but you never seem able to shut up.
Yeah, your bizarre speculations could go on forever.
Whereas you want to stop with your own bizarre speculation. Ok.
No, fool, my speculation was based upon reasonable expectations about
how people behave, whereas your speculation was based on nothing other
than making excuses after the fact.
But we have to have
some reason to buy your strange alibis for these ghosts, as opposed to
the more reasonable notion that ghosts of humans would act in ways
similar to what we would expect of the humans from which they hailed.
You made a claim about their abilities, not their motivation.
They were suggestions, not claims and I made several, not merely one.
Or hurt by being
watched. Or any of a pretty much infinite number of things. The reason
to think that they don't exist is the enormous amount of evidence that
does not exist that would if they existed.
That's exactly what I was suggesting.
Poorly I guess.
You guess wrong. The only objections which have been raised so far are
childish ones which could not be rightly taken seriously.
Absence of evidence is not
(necessarily) evidence of absence, but massive lack of evidence that
should be there is a pretty good indication.
Yep you understood what I was saying, despite your ridiculous and
insincere protestations.
But that was not the actual argument you made, you made what you now
seem to admit was not a serious one.
I didn't put any serious time or effort into it, but that doesn't mean
there was anything invalid about it. I didn't bother to address any
number of purient objections, because I implicitly assumed that the
audience to which I was talking would have the intellect to dispose of
those trivial issues without my help. That was not a good assumption to
make with you and some of the other usenet denizens.
Though why you, in another post,
claim to be a philosopher
I didn't claim that, liar. I pointed out to you that you are holding my
arguments to a standard that is not expected even in most philosophical
work, which you might know if you bother to read that stuff some time.
<remaining bloviation snipped>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
27 Aug 2007 12:44:30 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:29:56 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently, in
the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they did
then they would have no reason to hide. In fact, they would be more
powerful than humans. They would be able to survive without food or
water and would be invulnerable to physical actions by flesh and blood
humans. OTOH, they apparently can act on physical objects, if one
believes the ***** at the above and other "haunted" sites.
In short, if ghosts existed in the way described then they would be
running things, since they would have many advantages over human beings.
Instead we get ***** about them only appearing in glimpses to
believers and giving cryptic messages. That's not what we'd reasonably
expect, if there really were such a thing as a ghost.
\
Just like Ghost Busters I & II. That's exactly how it happened. ;-)
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
27 Aug 2007 12:26:11 AM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently,
in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to hide,
and B) that having no reason to hide means they _can't_ hide.
In other words, you are *exactly* as looney, and stupid, as the theists.
And are making *exactly* the same mistakes.
--
Terry Austin
History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
27 Aug 2007 08:11:45 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently,
in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron. Please learn something about
elementary argumentation and reasoning. What I did was to defend my
premise. Furthermore, I didn't claim that this was a rigorous, deductive
proof. It is, in fact an abductive "proof". It looks at what is likely.
Now, as to the specific facts in the story, it's claimed at the camp that
these ghosts do not hide. So you might want to pay attention on that
score too, dumbass.
and B) that having no reason to hide means they _can't_ hide.
1. People who claim to have seen ghosts, by definition are seeing ghost
who are not "hiding". 2. I'm talking about what is reasonable. If you
are telling me that ghosts exist and have advantages over humans in just
about every way, but choose to hide *for no reason* then you're being a
time-wasting moron and people would do well to pay you no heed.
In other words, you are *exactly* as looney, and stupid, as the theists.
Listen you mush-brained *****, I know that your simple mind has to
see things only in black and white, so you need to think that one thing
is "exactly" the same as the other, because you can't handle details.
But the fact is that I made an argument for why it is unreasonable to
think that these ghosts would exist. No sane person would think that
this is *exactly* the same as merely asserting "ghosts *do* exist" with
no argument or evidence to back it up.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 08:59:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:11:45 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently,
in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up with
what looked like supporting claims. But if it is a premise either
support it with evidence or accept that you don't have a proof, you
have an unsupported claim.
Please learn something about
elementary argumentation and reasoning. What I did was to defend my
premise.
One does not defend a premise, one builds from them.
Furthermore, I didn't claim that this was a rigorous, deductive
proof. It is, in fact an abductive "proof". It looks at what is likely.
Now, as to the specific facts in the story, it's claimed at the camp that
these ghosts do not hide. So you might want to pay attention on that
score too, dumbass.
So you have shown that this particular claim seems unlikely. Not
exactly a "proof" that ghosts don't exist.
and B) that having no reason to hide means they _can't_ hide.
1. People who claim to have seen ghosts, by definition are seeing ghost
who are not "hiding".
Or doing a bad job at it. Or stopping hiding for the moment.
2. I'm talking about what is reasonable.
So it is not a simple proof. Did you worry that some people here
believed in ghosts and were being unreasonable?
If you
are telling me that ghosts exist and have advantages over humans in just
about every way, but choose to hide *for no reason* then you're being a
time-wasting moron and people would do well to pay you no heed.
No, he, like me, are showing you that you made a bad argument. That
you have resorted to insult after insult suggest you are aware of
that.
In other words, you are *exactly* as looney, and stupid, as the theists.
Listen you mush-brained *****,
It is a good thing that atheists are reasonable people. Otherwise this
would look like someone resorting to insult because they said
something stupid and were caught.
I know that your simple mind has to
see things only in black and white, so you need to think that one thing
is "exactly" the same as the other, because you can't handle details.
Sort of like presenting a "proof" that is not a proof.
But the fact is that I made an argument for why it is unreasonable to
think that these ghosts would exist. No sane person would think that
this is *exactly* the same as merely asserting "ghosts *do* exist" with
no argument or evidence to back it up.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 05:35:41 PM |
|
|
In article <59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:11:45 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently,
in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up with
what looked like supporting claims.
No, it's supporting argumentation/evidence.
But if it is a premise either
support it with evidence
As you just noted, I do support it. You simply assert that my
arguments/evidence are more claims. But they are not merely claims. It
is a fact that ghosts do not prominently reveal themselves in an
unequivocal manner, despite the fact that there ought to be many billions
of them sinced the beginning of recorded history alone. Do you deny that
it is a fact that we see no clear evidence of billions of ghosts who
should to literally be all over the place?
or accept that you don't have a proof, you
have an unsupported claim.
In both Terry's and your case, it is a mistake to conclude that you are
adults who are capable of analyzing mature arguments. As usual, you
think that you know better, but that's a large part of the reason that
you (to a lesser extent) and Terry (altogether) fail to understand how
most serious philosophical arguments actually go. Let me give you this
hint. Philosophers almost ever even attempt to prove the arguments they
make in a rigorous fashion. Most of them are not under the illusion that
such an exercise would be worth their time. Instead, they just
informally state something which seems probable to be convincing, based
upon a sampling of likely evidence. If you still think that most
philosophy consists of rigid, formal, deductive arguments then you
haven't really been paying attention to most of the literature for at
least the last past half century (and likely longer than that)
Please learn something about
elementary argumentation and reasoning. What I did was to defend my
premise.
One does not defend a premise, one builds from them.
No, one also defends the selection of premises, because one wants it to
appear reasonable that those premises were selected in the first place.
Furthermore, I didn't claim that this was a rigorous, deductive
proof. It is, in fact an abductive "proof". It looks at what is likely.
Now, as to the specific facts in the story, it's claimed at the camp that
these ghosts do not hide. So you might want to pay attention on that
score too, dumbass.
So you have shown that this particular claim seems unlikely. Not
exactly a "proof" that ghosts don't exist.
There's very little which actually gets proved and I was using the term
in the colloquial, not the formal sense. I am quite familiar with the
formal process of proof. Again, I expected that an adult would pick up
on that and give me the benefit of the fucking doubt. Naturally, I don't
appear to be dealing with adults.
<remaining tripe snipped>
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 06:28:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:35:41 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213e5124d0fa94b98a057@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:11:45 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts, because
they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For example a
"spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the news recently,
in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up with
what looked like supporting claims.
No, it's supporting argumentation/evidence.
It isn't evidence. Where is your observation, you evidence, of their
lack of reason to hide.
But if it is a premise either
support it with evidence
As you just noted, I do support it. You simply assert that my
arguments/evidence are more claims. But they are not merely claims. It
is a fact that ghosts do not prominently reveal themselves in an
unequivocal manner, despite the fact that there ought to be many billions
of them sinced the beginning of recorded history alone.
Says who? I certainly don't know of anyone who claims that everyone
becomes a ghost when they die.
Do you deny that
it is a fact that we see no clear evidence of billions of ghosts who
should to literally be all over the place?
I agree that we don't see any evidence of them but that is not
relevant. I objected to your "proof", not your conclusion.
or accept that you don't have a proof, you
have an unsupported claim.
In both Terry's and your case, it is a mistake to conclude that you are
adults who are capable of analyzing mature arguments.
Ah, a nice ad hom to round out your presentation.
As usual, you
think that you know better, but that's a large part of the reason that
you (to a lesser extent) and Terry (altogether) fail to understand how
most serious philosophical arguments actually go.
Where was this serious philosophical argument? Certainly you can't now
claim that your "proof" of the non-existence of ghosts was a serious
philosophical argument.
Let me give you this
hint. Philosophers almost ever even attempt to prove the arguments they
make in a rigorous fashion.
Are you now claiming that you are a philosopher? Certainly some
philosophers don't make rigorous proofs, but equally certainly some
do. And they certainly try for something more rigorous than your post.
Most of them are not under the illusion that
such an exercise would be worth their time. Instead, they just
informally state something which seems probable to be convincing, based
upon a sampling of likely evidence. If you still think that most
philosophy consists of rigid, formal, deductive arguments then you
haven't really been paying attention to most of the literature for at
least the last past half century (and likely longer than that)
What does that have to do with your post?
Please learn something about
elementary argumentation and reasoning. What I did was to defend my
premise.
One does not defend a premise, one builds from them.
No, one also defends the selection of premises, because one wants it to
appear reasonable that those premises were selected in the first place.
Furthermore, I didn't claim that this was a rigorous, deductive
proof. It is, in fact an abductive "proof". It looks at what is likely.
Now, as to the specific facts in the story, it's claimed at the camp that
these ghosts do not hide. So you might want to pay attention on that
score too, dumbass.
So you have shown that this particular claim seems unlikely. Not
exactly a "proof" that ghosts don't exist.
There's very little which actually gets proved and I was using the term
in the colloquial, not the formal sense.
The key part was that you did not disprove the existence of ghosts,
you tried to refute one particular claim for them.
I am quite familiar with the
formal process of proof. Again, I expected that an adult would pick up
on that and give me the benefit of the fucking doubt. Naturally, I don't
appear to be dealing with adults.
<remaining tripe snipped>
That is, you don't like that I showed that your assertions were full
of holes.
I wonder, do many of these philosophers you seem to claim to emulate
deal with critiques of their claims by ignoring them?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
29 Aug 2007 11:12:37 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:aab9d3t3kbj25pjdaoenj4s1c3p2p9v16r@4ax.com:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:35:41 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213e5124d0fa94b98a057@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:11:45 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts,
because they often feel it confirms their religious biases.
For example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was
in the news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If
they did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason
to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up with
what looked like supporting claims.
No, it's supporting argumentation/evidence.
It isn't evidence. Where is your observation, you evidence, of their
lack of reason to hide.
The best he's got is "because the monkeys that fly out of my butt told
me."
Literally, that's the best he's got.
--
Terry Austin
History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 10:43:42 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:11:45 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about
ghosts, because they often feel it confirms their religious
biases. For example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc
Wisconsin was in the news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist.
If they did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no
reason to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up
with what looked like supporting claims. But if it is a premise
either support it with evidence or accept that you don't have a
proof, you have an unsupported claim.
If he knew what any of those words mean, he'd feel real stoopid
now.
--
"You weren't born prematurely, son. You just survived the
abortion."
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 05:36:41 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns999A58C9FA6EAtaustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:11:45 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about
ghosts, because they often feel it confirms their religious
biases. For example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc
Wisconsin was in the news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist.
If they did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no
reason to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up
with what looked like supporting claims. But if it is a premise
either support it with evidence or accept that you don't have a
proof, you have an unsupported claim.
If he knew what any of those words mean, he'd feel real stoopid
now.
No, in fact you've both made asses of yourselves, not that this was
particularly hard for either of you to do.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
29 Aug 2007 11:11:26 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in news:MPG.213e5166218d5d4298a058
@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns999A58C9FA6EAtaustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:11:45 -0600, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about
ghosts, because they often feel it confirms their religious
biases. For example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc
Wisconsin was in the news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist.
If they did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no
reason to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up
with what looked like supporting claims. But if it is a premise
either support it with evidence or accept that you don't have a
proof, you have an unsupported claim.
If he knew what any of those words mean, he'd feel real stoopid
now.
No, in fact you've both made asses of yourselves, not that this was
particularly hard for either of you to do.
I know you are, but what am I?
--
Terry Austin
History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 07:02:27 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com:
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up with
what looked like supporting claims. But if it is a premise either
support it with evidence or accept that you don't have a proof, you
have an unsupported claim.
This is absurd. It amounts to, "it's a conclusion and not a premise
because it's supported. If it's a premise then support it".
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
29 Aug 2007 11:00:45 AM |
|
|
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns999B660C593EEnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com:
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up
with what looked like supporting claims. But if it is a premise
either support it with evidence or accept that you don't have a
proof, you have an unsupported claim.
This is absurd. It amounts to, "it's a conclusion and not a
premise because it's supported. If it's a premise then support
it".
Except the "support" amounts to "because I'm as delusional as the
theists."
--
"You weren't born prematurely, son. You just survived the abortion."
Terry Austin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
29 Aug 2007 08:09:24 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns999B5BAE595E0taustingmail@216.168.3.64:
Kenneth Doyle <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns999B660C593EEnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:59a8d3h7saul0kujaft6rm3iesn3f889bs@4ax.com:
Actually it looks more like a conclusion since you follow it up
with what looked like supporting claims. But if it is a premise
either support it with evidence or accept that you don't have a
proof, you have an unsupported claim.
This is absurd. It amounts to, "it's a conclusion and not a
premise because it's supported. If it's a premise then support
it".
Except the "support" amounts to "because I'm as delusional as the
theists."
oops! I misread that. The equivication on the word "support" (supporting
claims vs supporting evidence), fooled me into thinking I saw a
contradiction.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
27 Aug 2007 08:27:47 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts,
because they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For
example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the
news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to
hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
That God exists is a premise. Ergo, by claiming that He doesn't, by your
own "logic," you *must* admit you are a fucking moron. You *cannot* deny
it, without admitting you are *identical* to the theists you hate so much.
Listen you mush-brained *****,
No matter how much you beg, and you will, you cannot ***** again
until you get that chipped tooth fixed.
You're just another flavor of theist - retarded and dishonest.
--
Terry Austin
History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
27 Aug 2007 11:06:57 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9999BBC8BC9D8taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts,
because they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For
example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the
news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to
hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
That God exists is a premise.
In which argument, dumbass?
Ergo, by claiming that He doesn't,
You obviously don't know jack ***** about logic or argumentation. You
seem to think that argument by assertion is somehow convincing. If God
were a premise of some argument then what would it be used to establish
anyway? You do realize that you can't use the premise P = "God exists"
to prove that P is true, right? Well probably not in your case, but now
you know that's not gonna work.
by your
own "logic," you *must* admit you are a fucking moron.
No, God was not a premise in my argument(s) or most of the ones I've
seen, so you're just completely clueless.
You *cannot* deny
it, without admitting you are *identical* to the theists you hate so much.
I know that your simple mind can't handle actual logic, but there is
nothing identical about me denying god while they affirm it. They are
differents acts, done with different levels of justification. That
you're too stupid to understand this does not mean that I'm even remotely
like theists. Furthermore, I don't hate theists, despite the fact that
they are wrong on the issues.
Listen you mush-brained *****,
No matter how much you beg, and you will, you cannot ***** again
until you get that chipped tooth fixed.
It sounds like you're doing way too much projecting of your personal
fixations onto others, hoover boy.
You're just another flavor of theist
Nope. You're just too dumb to actually understand what atheist is and
therefore are an embarrassment to yourself and all you pretend to
represent.
- retarded and dishonest.
No, you're just too ignorant to understand how real arguments are made.
I assumed you were an adult, but apparently that is not the case, at
least mentally. You're merely an infant who doesn't understand that all
proofs contain premises and that, in the final analysis, proof really
just means providing decent evidence. Theists make a lot of claims about
ghosts, but the evidence suggests that there are no ghosts to be found
when any careful methods of scrutiny are applied in the hunt.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 03:20:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:06:57 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <Xns9999BBC8BC9D8taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts,
because they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For
example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the
news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to
hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
That God exists is a premise.
In which argument, dumbass?
:
You have checked out this terminal teratoma's fake moniker, haven't
you?
"terry.notaniceperson"
It says most of it up front.
A deliberate pest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
28 Aug 2007 07:41:44 AM |
|
|
On Aug 28, 4:20 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:06:57 -0600, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <Xns9999BBC8BC9D8taustingm...@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceper...@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingm...@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceper...@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts,
because they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For
example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in the
news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If they
did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason to
hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
That God exists is a premise.
In which argument, dumbass?
:
You have checked out this terminal teratoma's fake moniker, haven't
you?
"terry.notaniceperson"
It says most of it up front.
A deliberate pest.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And this is not the first group this persona: Terry Austin/Secretary
33 makes themselves into an *****/troll in. While Terry does tailor his
trolling in a very specifc manner, still his posts are not intended
for anything other than to feed his pathetic ego through denigrating
others, and he is very very fond of the word "retard."
So the best way to think of TA/33 is that the posts are not by a real
person but from an automaton trying to evoke a negative emotional
response.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
29 Aug 2007 11:11:05 PM |
|
|
Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1188304904.612782.237440@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Aug 28, 4:20 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:06:57 -0600, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <Xns9999BBC8BC9D8taustingm...@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceper...@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingm...@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceper...@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about
ghosts, because they often feel it confirms their religious
biases. For example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc
Wisconsin was in the news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist.
If they did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no
reason to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
That God exists is a premise.
In which argument, dumbass?
:
You have checked out this terminal teratoma's fake moniker, haven't
you?
"terry.notaniceperson"
It says most of it up front.
A deliberate pest.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And this is not the first group this persona: Terry Austin/Secretary
33 makes themselves into an *****/troll in. While Terry does tailor his
trolling in a very specifc manner, still his posts are not intended
for anything other than to feed his pathetic ego through denigrating
others, and he is very very fond of the word "retard."
So the best way to think of TA/33 is that the posts are not by a real
person but from an automaton trying to evoke a negative emotional
response.
And yet, my fan club - like you and Mikey, *cannot* stop yourselves from
talking about me.
*Cannot* tsop yourselves.
And you know it.
--
Terry Austin
History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Simple Proof That Ghosts Don't Exist |
29 Aug 2007 11:10:09 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213d4d50c7417be598a052@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns9999BBC8BC9D8taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c7b7cf8be9fe898a050@news.readfreenews.net:
In article <Xns9998E4351DE94taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.213c012ecac7684798a04e@news.readfreenews.net:
Religious people love to feed into superstitions about ghosts,
because they often feel it confirms their religious biases. For
example a "spiritualist camp" was in Wonewoc Wisconsin was in
the news recently, in the oddities section.
But here's a simple reason that these spirits can't exist. If
they did then they would have no reason to hide.
Please provide a logical proof that A) they would have no reason
to hide,
That's a premise, you fucking moron.
That God exists is a premise.
In which argument, dumbass?
The one you're trying (and failing) to refute, retard.
Ergo, by claiming that He doesn't,
You obviously don't know jack ***** about logic or argumentation.
You obviously know way too much about sucking my *****, retard.
--
Terry Austin
History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress TargetsMORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "Peoplewill feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don'tknow how you get a deficit down witho
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress TargetsMORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "Peoplewill feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don'tknow how you get a deficit down witho
Proof of LORD Almighty GOD: Pastorio's death on April Fool's day is a sign from GOD and this angers convicted atheist Don Kirkman.
Why Cheaters Don't Win: A Proof
Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: convicted neighbor Don Kirkman's writing is edited to remove sarcasm and instill truthfulness.
Proof of LORD Almighty GOD: dear convicted neighbor Don Kirkman used by HIM for HIS glory.
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress Targets MORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "People will feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don't know how you get a deficit down wi
Don't Be Scared
| Christian hate mongers don't want equality
Re: DON SWAYSER, TAKE A LESSON FROM SADDAM
Re: Don't de-Word the Pledge
Don't bash Bush
Re: [if the drugs don't kill you, the lifestyle will]
Don't forget!
It's like you don't even ex-
|
|
|
