On May 14, 10:39Â am, Frank Mayhar
exit.com> wrote:> On Wed, 14 May 2008 06:10:05 -0700, beelzebub wrote:
>> On May 13, 10:21 pm, Frank Mayhar
exit.com> wrote:>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:24:53 -0700, beelzebub wrote:
>>>> On May 13, 11:27 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
>>>>> beelzebub wrote:
>>>>>> We all have heard
>
>>>>> This crap a million times.
>
>>>>> Yawn.
>
>>>> Still can't refute it, can you? Â That has to suck.
>
>>> There's nothing to "refute." Â You used a lot of words to say absolutely
>>> nothing.
>
>> "A lot of words to say nothing" Â Brilliant....
>
>> 1. You can't provide proof of non-existence.
>
> By definition. Â You can't prove a negative. Â But of course this is lost
> on you.
>
It is funny beause it is lost on so many that Atheists have three
different parodies, the obrbiting teapot, the invisible pink unicorn,
and The Flying Spaghetti monster to demonstrate how ludicrous the
position is.
Furthermore, they compound the error by taking the underwear gnomes
model of Christian philosophy.
For those of you unfamiliar with Underwear Gnomes: They are from
SouthPark where they had a threefold plan.
1: Steal Underwear
2: ?????Hrm
3: Profit!
Similarly, these Christian Philosphers go with a threefold plan:
1: State thet you cannot disprove the existence of a nebulous
deitistic god
2. ??????Hrm
3. This is proof the the god of Christendom Exists!
Hatter
