UPSB v4
Spammer's Bin / Your god doesn't exist.
-
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 17:23:44
Convince me otherwise.
-
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 17:25:52
banana fish
-
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 17:28:09
My life is ruined.
-
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 17:34:37
Infallible theory. Being right solely based on not being shown to be wrong = broken logic. ./end world.
-
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 17:57:46
iMatt wrote: Infallible theory. Being right solely based on not being shown to be wrong = broken logic. ./end world.
Arguement from ignorance. If something hasn't been proven false then it must be true = your logic. -
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 18:07:30
nateiskewl wrote: Arguement from ignorance. If something hasn't been proven false then it must be true = your logic.
That's the exact opposite of what my statement says. 1.) Being right only because somebody can't prove you wrong = broken logic. It's not definitive. Brush up on your philosophy a bit ;) -
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 18:18:35
iMatt wrote: That's the exact opposite of what my statement says. 1.) Being right only because somebody can't prove you wrong = broken logic. It's not definitive. Brush up on your philosophy a bit ;)
I don't care about philosophy. How about you just do what my original post said and stop trying to tell yourself that you're right because the list of logical fallacies on Wikipedia says you are. -
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 18:28:25
-
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 20:58:48
ur doing something my teacher calls the "burden of truth", u want other to prove ur wrong, and if they can't than that means your right.
-
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 21:26:28
VendettaBF wrote: ur doing something my teacher calls the "burden of truth", u want other to prove ur wrong, and if they can't than that means your right.
You're assuming he's assuming he's correct lolz, but really nate, by taking the stance that their god doesn't exist rather than almost certainly doesn't exist, you place a major burden of proof on yourself to prove your initial claim. Personally I'm satisfied with the agnostic atheist position that there is almost certainly no god, until shown otherwise, because no evidence has been provided that could use methodological naturalism to prove god's existence. -
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 21:38:26
lmao im not assuming, by saying "prove me wrong", etc. he is doing burden of truth. i dont thin kthat is assuming... i think
-
Date: Tue, Aug 24 2010 00:36:46
Why are you such a faggot?
-
Date: Tue, Aug 24 2010 00:42:30
YOU'RE ALL MAD TROLLING SUCCEEDED!!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
-
Date: Tue, Aug 24 2010 01:12:49
nateiskewl wrote: YOU'RE ALL MAD TROLLING SUCCEEDED!!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
-
Date: Tue, Aug 24 2010 03:38:29
nateiskewl wrote: TROLLING SUCCEEDED!!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
There's still something wrong with my cactus ): -
Date: Tue, Aug 24 2010 03:46:59
-
Date: Tue, Aug 24 2010 07:07:16
This was way too easy, nate.
-
Date: Tue, Aug 24 2010 07:14:57
VendettaBF;16998]ur doing something my teacher calls the "burden of truth", u want other to prove ur wrong, and if they can't than that means your right.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sadistic wrote: You're assuming he's assuming he's correct lolz, but really nate, by taking the stance that their god doesn't exist rather than almost certainly doesn't exist, you place a major burden of proof on yourself to prove your initial claim. Personally I'm satisfied with the agnostic atheist position that there is almost certainly no god, until shown otherwise, because no evidence has been provided that could use methodological naturalism to prove god's existence.
OMG GAIZ ITS THEN, NOT THAN UGHAGHHGAHGHADHFLAKDSJRLK12J31LK2J3ASDFADF QWV32ER -
Date: Tue, Aug 24 2010 09:23:59
SJ wrote: OMG GAIZ ITS THEN, NOT THAN UGHAGHHGAHGHADHFLAKDSJRLK12J31LK2J3ASDFADF QWV32ER
I feel your pain man.