Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Huggy Bear]

So Huggies evidence is a guys testimony. And a biography on the guy as if that relevant. Oh and a dumb meme. I can play too.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain

Twain was a Presbyterian.

[Amarok]

[I_am_not_mafia]

Where are these lights?

This is fucking hilarious. Huggy shows us a picture taken from a lower angle of the same place during the day with the circular lights set in the ceiling turned off and demands us to tell him where the lights are ...

Right Huggy, you see those elipses above the people in the picture? Those are circles that are seen from the side on.

You may find this link useful:

Drawing a Circle When Turning it Left or Right, or Tipping it Forwards or Backwards

[Huggy Bear]

When a believer wants to believe they will believe fucking anything.

...And fanatical atheists refuse to accept truth no matter how much evidence is presented... hence why the Denmark thread exists.

I was literally doing the same thing in that thread that I'm doing here, go figure.

---

Where are these lights?

This is fucking hilarious. Huggy shows us a picture taken from a lower angle of the same place during the day with the circular lights set in the ceiling turned off and demands us to tell him where the lights are ...

Right Huggy, you see those elipses above the people in the picture? Those are circles that are seen from the side on.

You may find this link useful:

Drawing a Circle When Turning it Left or Right, or Tipping it Forwards or Backwards

Of course Mathilda is clueless as usual, I was talking about the lights that Minimalist was trying to claim were there 20 years later.

Besides what you're claiming to be lights are most likely to be ventilation ducts, this is an auditorium in Texas...

[I_am_not_mafia]

This thread reminds me of this Daily Mail article where they posted a picture of a seagull asking if it was an alien space ship.





Is it a bird? Is it a plane? UFO sparks mystery after it is pictured hovering over beach in Cornwall - and you'll never guess what it actually is


After the published it many people pointed out that it was in fact a seagull they changed their article to:

However, it has now been claimed the mystery object was a radio-controlled seagull, which was fitted with a camera before being flown through the skies.

It doesn't even need to be a remote controlled seagull.  Sea breezes are famed amongst paraglider pilots for the potential of magical weather conditions where the wind provides constant and predictable lift for many hours. In the picture you can see the seagull gliding around the cliffs where there would be great lift.

But the person who first reported it?

The great UFO mystery began on Thursday when David Gillham, of Cornwall UFO Research Group, posted a photo on his Facebook page of the object.

Yet even when the owner of the remote controlled seagull came forward, the guy from the UFo research group still refused to be convinced.

However, Mr Gillham said he was still rather dubious that the object was the remote-controlled seagull and not something more sinister, such as aliens.

So Huggy, photographic proof of aliens!

[Huggy Bear]

'UFO' doesn't mean 'alien spacecraft'...

Sad that I have to explain that to someone who claims to be a scientist.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Light being recorded above a man's head does not mean God.

[Huggy Bear]

I believe person that examined the negative used the term 'supernatural' im reference to the light, seeing how there was no explanation for the light being there...

Then you'd have to dismiss eyewitness testimony of a woman who says she saw a hovering light.

[robvalue]

If no one can explain the light then... you get to make up whatever conclusion you want?

This is called an argument from ignorance. I can make up a conclusion too. It's Odin. He makes "supernatural light" sometimes.

At best you have unexplained light. The rest is your imagination and excessive confirmation bias.

We don't have to have an explanation to point out that your explanation is a total non-sequitur.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I believe person that examined the negative used the term 'supernatural' im reference to the light, seeing how there was no explanation for the light being there...

He didn't use the term 'supernatural' in the image you linked to. This is an example of you seeing what you want to see.

"no explanation" does not mean there aren't perfectly simple and natural causes that could be explained if we had more data available. All the paper says is that he cannot find any obvious signs of tampering. That is not the same as saying that it wasn't tampered with or that light was not deliberately used to create a halo effect, or even that it wasn't an accident.

Then you'd have to dismiss eyewitness testimony of a woman who says she saw a hovering light.

Provide the details first and stop being intellectually dishonest:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53768-p...pid1713658