Geoff wrote:
> 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.
Your 'bad' is right.
>
>
>>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.
Moron.
>
>
>>>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're a pathological liar.
>
>
>>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.
Riight!
>
>
>>>>>>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.
Then why do you spend so much time asserting God's non existence. Looks
like clinical obsession. Y'know, if it looks, swims, quacks and flies
like a duck its a good bet its not a pink elephant.
>
> Do you believe that Cupid exists?
Relevance?
>
>
>>>>>>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.
Riight!
