Login

Oldandeasilyconfused · February 4, 2010 at 10:15 pm

(February 4, 2010 at 5:01 pm)binny Wrote: I love how she called Dawkins closed minded. LOL! My nephew called me that when I said there is no god. Maybe I am, but it was a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Dumb creationist.

Binny, for what it's worth,in my opinion you are far from closed minded. When some calls you 'closed minded' they often mean "how dare you disagree with me!"

Dogmatic people are closed minded by definition.They argue from personal certitude and are unwilling to consider new ideas or different points of view. It is not being closed minded to ask someone making a claim for evidence. Your nephew is an ignorant twat (no offence)

Dotard · February 4, 2010 at 11:16 pm

No Frodo. When Ev says show me the evidence no one gives him any.

Big difference

**Rhizomorph13** · (This post was last modified: February 4, 2010 at 11:40 pm by Rhizomorph13.)

Wow, I don't know if it is just the power of suggestion but this IS giving me a headache! That woman is filibustering! I want to call out, "Senator, do you yield the floor!" The best part was when she accused Dawkins of talking over her; fucking rich!

Rhizo

PS Not even with a borrowed dick would I do her.

~~fr0d0~~ · February 5, 2010 at 4:01 am

(February 4, 2010 at 11:16 pm)Dotard Wrote: No Frodo. When Ev says show me the evidence no one gives him any.

Big difference

My point was it's the same question. In Evies' case of course - it's the question that is idiotic.

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · February 5, 2010 at 5:43 am

fr0d0 you say you have evidence and you say you don't. So my question is only 50% stupid because you change your mind all the time :p

Sometimes you say "there can be no evidence" other times you say there can be "No empirical"/"No corroborative evidence".

Fr0d0, if you dodge me this time I'm not arsed to respond.

Thanks for the upload of this vid Arivaderchi.

EvF

**tackattack** · February 5, 2010 at 5:45 am

That might depend on wheter he's using his understaning of your definition of evidence or clarifying his definition of evidence by qualifying with adjectives??? IDK Just a comment from the peanut gallery

** throws a peanut **

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · February 5, 2010 at 6:44 am

My definition? I just use dictionary.com lol.

EvF

**tackattack** · February 5, 2010 at 7:17 am

but where do you get your connotation from?

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · February 5, 2010 at 8:29 am

I'm not talking about the connotation of the definition of evidence but the definition itself. I use that - or one of them. I use it to sort of mean "proof" (only not exactly of course, nothing is ultimately 'proven' in science, although there are masses of evidence... so there's a different degree of verification there), or "clue". In other words, genuine proper evidence like "the evidence for evolution", or just any old evidence such as what indicates something to somebody in particular. fr0d0 must at least have the latter if he believes there are actual reasons to believe in God.

EvF

~~fr0d0~~ · February 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm

You've tried to understand Evie and we went full circle in our 'debate' ...ie... you began to ask the same questions over, so we reached an end.

Like I keep saying, and possibly I'll have to put it in my sig for you: no one can have verifiable evidence, everyone can have non verifiable evidence. You seem to insist on only using one version at a time "oh look - you said you can't have evidence and that there is evidence". Like wake the fuk up dude.

Yeah... now's your que to vomit your verbal diarrhoea on the intricacies of that ad naseum, like you always do. Listen up: it takes faith to believe - no one can think it out for you... that's something you have to do by yourself.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me