Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The atheist's 'there is no God' is a positive assertion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. It's the abridged version of "there is *no* evidence for
>>>>>>>> any gods, therefore we reject the god hypothesis".>
>>>>>>>> Take a stab at hypothesis testing. Rejecting a hypothesis is
>>>>>>>> *not* the same as accepting one. Don't come back until you have
>>>>>>>> tried to master this concept. Related topic: why is a verdict
>>>>>>>> to acquit deemed "not guilty" instead of "innocent"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Riight!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too much for you, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense is too much... period.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, applied statistics and hypothesis testing are nonsense! The
>>>> things I learn on Usenet!
>>
>>
>> We've been down that road before, dipshit. You've read a course
>> synopsis. Great! Have you read the book? By your own admission, no.
>> Is Kuhn the ultimate authority on reality? Definitively no.
>
> How do you know I haven't read Kuhn extensively. Why make up a lie
> about me to cover your lack of knowledge in the matter?
Oh, pardon! I can't remember the thread but I could have sworn you said that
you never read the book and that the material in the syllabus was
sufficient. My bad.
> I provide the url so that you could introduce yourself to some
> relevant knowledge.
How is it at all relevant? Regardless, is Kuhn an unquestioned authority on
anything? Hardly.
>> Does anything Kuhn wrote have *anything* at all to do with this
>> thread? Nope. Just Hosehead throwing out red herrings and trying to
>> divert attention away from the fact that he doesn't know shit about
>> hypothesis testing.
>
> There you go again, making up lies you wish were true.
Lies. Harumph. I haven't lied. Until you provide evidence to support the
alternative, we must reject in favor of the null hypothesis. Got it?
> You brought up 'applied statistics and hypothesis testing'. The
> reading I suggested for you is absolutely relevant to both.
If you don't understand why rejection of the "god" hypothesis is not a
positive assertion, then you have zero credibility in this discussion.
>>>>> I'm not the one obsessed with proving that something I believe
>>>>> doesn't exist, doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Neither am I. Nice try, Skippy!
>>>
>>> Riight!
>>
>> Go ahead and show one instance...just one...in all the years I have
>> been posting on Usenet...where i have tried to prove that God
>> doesn't exist. I won't hold my breath.>
>> Point, Geoff. Score: Geoff 37 - Hosehead
>> ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip!
>
> Do you believe God exists or don't you. Try to answer the question
> without resorting to childish hysterics, as above.
Hysterics...haha...there's a laugh. Notice I didn't accuse you of lying even
though I gave you the easiest of tasks to prove your unsupported statement.
All you had to do is provide one post where I tried to prove the
nonexistence of any god. Yet you couldn't do it.
No. I do not believe that any gods exist. I wouldn't waste a single moment
trying to prove it either. It's not possible.
Do you believe that Cupid exists?
>>>>> No religious fanatic is more obsessed with God
>>>>> than the atheist.
>>>>
>>>> Even if that were true, it still wouldn't add one bit credence to
>>>> the "god" hypothesis. No amount of Nessie skeptics are going to
>>>> make a plesiosaur materialize in any Scottish loch, despite how
>>>> "obsessed" they are with this product of fevered imagination and
>>>> single-malts.
>>>
>>> And you say, your not obsessed with God?... LOL
>>
>> Wow...right over your head. *whooooooooooosh*
>
> Riight!
Right...it's manifest that you cannot fathom the point. If you can, you
would address my point instead of segueing with another irrelevant comment.
