Capitalism: A Love Story!

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Were you drunk when you posted this or just experiencing your usual loutish spasms of stupidity? "Is that dumb enough?" It's way TOO dumb to respond to. I have yet to encounter a scientist who argues that “science proves the non-existence concept”. Stay out of the conversation, dipshit.

.

Lack of evidence isn't evidence. I'm not sure how many actual scientists you encounter though. The burden of proof is on the person claiming there's a god. And I've yet to see any empirical data that supports the existence of a god.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You've popped up and lusty the inbred tard is nowhere to be found.

Just turn around, dickhead, I'm breathing down your neck.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Lack of evidence isn't evidence. I'm not sure how many actual scientists you encounter though. The burden of proof is on the person claiming there's a god. And I've yet to see any empirical data that supports the existence of a god.

No, your retarded sidekick said most scientists are "decidedly atheist" because "science proves the non-existence concept." Proving God doesn't exist is not the same as not proving he does exist. Scientists reach conclusions based on "evidence" and "empirical data", right? The burden of proof is on the person claiming to have proven something - in this case, that God doesn't exist. Where are all those scientists shammyteufel is talking about?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Were you drunk when you posted this or just experiencing your usual loutish spasms of stupidity? "Is that dumb enough?" It's way TOO dumb to respond to. I have yet to encounter a scientist who argues that “science proves the non-existence concept”. Stay out of the conversation, dipshit.

.

I understand you've been handed your ass again but please, IBjunior, control your meltdown.

I have yet to encounter a scientist who argues that “science proves the non-existence concept”

Please don't venture down topics you're absolutely clueless about. (that's a lot of them). Science does prove the non-existence concept. NOT by proving that god doesn't exist. But by proving that we don't need and never needed a god to come into existence. You need some more wikipedia research for a certain man named Stephen Hawking. Get to it.

I'll pose a question to you, LustyTard. Maybe you'll actually learn something today. Who was the first proposer of the big bang theory? Apart from being an astrophysicist, who or what was he?

I'm sure your answer will be "I already knew that blah blah blah" but I'm curious to see you try.

It's always hilarious to me to see ignorant idiots like you try debating topics you're utterly clueless about. This debate has already been done by minds much much more advanced than yours.

Stay out of the conversation, dipshit

You'd like that wouldn't you. Sniveling wimp.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

Science does prove the non-existence concept. NOT by proving that god doesn't exist. But by proving that we don't need and never needed a god to come into existence.

Shammytard, I notice a strong positive correlation in your posts between the amount of ignorance you spew and the amount of lame, mouth-foaming, unconvincing posturing you do.


You're backtracking like a bitch now. "Proving the non-existence concept" is simply another way of saying "proving that God doesn't exist." You need to choose your words carefully in the first place, shammydick. Then you won't find yourself constantly flailing around looking for a way out, like Bubba talking about Monica's blowjobs. So now you're backtracking and saying Hawking and other scientists have FAILED to prove God doesn't exist?

.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Shammytard, I notice a strong positive correlation in your posts between the amount of ignorance you spew and the amount of lame, mouth-foaming, unconvincing posturing you do.


You're backtracking like a bitch now. "Proving the non-existence concept" is simply another way of saying "proving that God doesn't exist." You need to choose your words carefully in the first place, shammydick. Then you won't find yourself constantly flailing around looking for a way out. So now you're backtracking and saying Hawkings and other scientists have FAILED to prove God doesn't exist?

.

Looking for a way out?

You're right, maybe I could have chosen my words more carefully.

Firstly, not all scientists are the same. So a doctor might be considered a scientist but he wont have the same grasp on astrophysics and cosmology as a scientist that practices in that field.
Secondly, it's true that you can't (yet) prove that god doesn't exist, but as you said, sceintists base their beliefs on evidence and empirical data. The big bang theory, general theory of relativity and quantum physics explain the that the universe can indeed be conceived from nothing. Couple that with the ridiculousness of mainstream religion, incompatibility of religious miracles with science or possibility, and you've got "evidence and empirical data" for the implausibility of god, i.e. the non-existence concept. That is what "most scientists" believe that makes them DECIDEDLY an atheist and not an agnostic atheist.

I would argue that I was explaining to you the difference between an ahtiest and an agnostic atheist, by which I stand. You're the only one back tracking by nitpicking on words like a little bitch and trying to change the subject.
Is the definition of an atheist vs an agnostic atheist still not clear to you? My first analysis was correct then: you're as dumb as a bag of rocks.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You've popped up and lusty the inbred tard is nowhere to be found.

Those things you listed can all be explained by science. You're as bad as the goat herders who thought the night sky was a blanket with holes poked in it.

Your duplicitous use and misrepresentation of science to support your position if and when it is convenient has already been established, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. That you are a congenital liar has also been proved, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

No, your retarded sidekick said most scientists are "decidedly atheist" because "science proves the non-existence concept." Proving God doesn't exist is not the same as not proving he does exist. Scientists reach conclusions based on "evidence" and "empirical data", right? The burden of proof is on the person claiming to have proven something - in this case, that God doesn't exist. Where are all those scientists shammyteufel is talking about?

Actually, you're incorrect. You don't start with god. Religious people claim the existence of a deity, therefore the burden of proof is on them. The person making the assertion must bear the burden of proof.

I'm not making an assertion, I'm saying prove it. If there is this deity you assert, prove it to me. They will immediately turn to faith, and that's where the argument goes off the rails. Faith and belief are not knowledge. I go by what can be proven to be true.

[shanm]

Where is IBjunior? Can he come out and play?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by shanm

Where is IBjunior? Can he come out and play?

They're taking turns, just like they do with each other's dicks.

"You suck mine first"

"I sucked first last time"

It's a whole thing.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

They're taking turns, just like they do with each other's dicks.

"You suck mine first"

"I sucked first last time"

It's a whole thing.

damn....you think he's flexible enough?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by shanm

damn....you think he's flexible enough?

Yeah, he probably just pops his hip out.

[I B Hankering]

Everyone noticed how you two retards, shamman and you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, didn't and cannot substantively defend your belief in the infallibility of science with incontrovertible proof that the "Big Bang" is anything more than a "theory" that has not been demonstratively proved.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Everyone noticed how you two retards, shamman and you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, didn't and cannot substantively defend your belief in the infallibility of science with incontrovertible proof that the "Big Bang" is anything more than a "theory" that has not been demonstratively proved.

Science doesn't claim infallibility. Religion, on the other, hand, does.

Your use of quotations around theory also displays an utter lack of understanding of even basic science. Evolution is both a theory AND a fact. Theory, as the word is used in science, does not mean the same as it does in everyday usage.

The heliocentric THEORY says the earth orbits around the sun. It is both a theory AND a fact.

Cell theory says living things are made of cells. It's a theory AND a fact.

In science, a theory is something that is backed up with so much research and experimentation, that scientists are confident it will not be overturned by new research. Science gives us the ability to predict things that we have not necessarily observed yet. Transitional species are a good example of this. Biologists predicted what age the sediment would be in which we would find these fossils. And there they were. Roughly 375 million years ago, as they had predicted.

Newton's laws of motion don't apply when working with small things or very fast things. That doesn't mean that Newton was wrong. His laws still apply perfectly to baseballs and cannon balls. They're not useful at small scale or at high speeds, which is why we have quantum mechanics and general relativity.

As of right now, the Big Bang theory is the best possible educated guess on how the universe formed. The Large Hadron Collider has just been fired up again after a few years taken off in order to upgrade it, and it should be yielding some very interesting results pertaining to the big bang, dark matter, etc.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Science doesn't claim infallibility. Religion, on the other, hand, does.

Your use of quotations around theory also displays an utter lack of even basic science. Evolution is both a theory AND a fact. Theory, as the word is used in science, does not mean the same as it does in everyday usage.

The heliocentric THEORY says the earth orbits around the sun. It is both a theory AND a fact.

Cell theory says living things are made of cells. It's a theory AND a fact.

In science, a theory is something that is backed up with so much research and experimentation, that scientists are confident it will not be overturned by new research. Science gives us the ability to predict things that we have not necessarily observed yet. Transitional species are a good example of this. Biologists predicted what age the sediment would be in which we would find these fossils. And there they were. Roughly 375 million years ago, as they had predicted.

Newton's laws of motion don't apply when working with small things or very fast things. That doesn't mean that Newton was wrong. His laws still apply perfectly to baseballs and cannon balls. They're not useful at small scale or at high speeds, which is why we have quantum mechanics and general relativity.

As of right now, the Big Bang theory is the best possible educated guess on how the universe formed. The Large Hadron Collider has just been fired up again after a few years taken off in order to upgrade it, and it should be yielding some very interesting results pertaining to the big bang, dark matter, etc.

That's a lot of words and a whole lot of deflection, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, but you failed to substantively support your "belief" with incontrovertible scientific proof, and you admitted that what you do believe in is nothing more than a guess not supported by incontrovertible scientific proof, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.