(August 24, 2009 at 7:31 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 24, 2009 at 3:39 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Not when the very same system of logic justify almost anything you want! That's the fucking problem! That's why empirical evidence is NECESSARY!So you're scared to consider logic because you're afraid of the unknown? Is that your logic for denying it?
What fucking part of what I said led you to the conclusion that I fear it? Only a moron would conclude that!
(August 24, 2009 at 7:31 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 24, 2009 at 3:39 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Well just to consider logic would be a start Kyu. After that you can start thinking what your opinion is on the questions at hand.
Want testable and reliable evidence, that satisfies the rigourous standards of the scientific method?
Yeah Jon Paul's interminable prattle ... been there, done that and this time I bought property!
They are in consistent correlation with things that don't exist but the logic of them distinguishes them as rational conclusions. Simples.
Or not ... what you like to conveniently ignore is that HAVE considered it and REJECTED IT on the simple basis that philosophy and metaphysics alone HAVE NEVER PROVEN A THING TO BE SO!
What's more you have STILL avoided the question (why am I not surprised?) ... why is it that the things you claim exist, the things that you claim are non-evidential and cannot be proven by the usual methods show such a consistent correlation with things that DON'T EXIST!
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator