Capitalism: A Love Story!

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. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm sorry if it was too 'wordy' for you. If you knew what you were reading, you'd know it wasn't deflection at all. Science isn't about providing incontrovertible proof. Yes, it's a guess. A very educated guess. Gravity is a theory. Would you care to test it for us by jumping out the nearest window?

Do you have any proof for how you think things began? I'd be interested to hear any 'theories' you might have.

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. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

^

Can you believe this idiot?

IBretard why don't you go and ask Stephen Hawking that question? My guess is that he will drive his electric wheelchair so far up your ass that we might actually have to redefine the big bang. we will then finally have a "black hole" to study for empirical evidence.

^

Can you believe this idiot?

IBretard why don't you go and ask Stephen Hawking that question? My guess is that he will drive his electric wheelchair so far up your ass that we might actually have to redefine the big bang. we will then finally have a "black hole" to study for empirical evidence. Originally Posted by shanm

I knew he was stupid and a troll, but if he actually believes this, he's borderline retarded. I would like him to provide 'incontrovertible' proof for the existence of jeebus crabst.

I'm sorry if it was too 'wordy' for you. If you knew what you were reading, you'd know it wasn't deflection at all. Science isn't about providing incontrovertible proof. Yes, it's a guess. A very educated guess. Gravity is a theory. Would you care to test it for us by jumping out the nearest window?

Do you have any proof for how you think things began? I'd be interested to hear any 'theories' you might have. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You've admitted your "beliefs" are based solely on conjecture, derivations and assumptions, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas; hence, your hypocritical ass cannot produce the same incontrovertible evidence you demand from believers, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

^

Can you believe this idiot?

IBretard why don't you go and ask Stephen Hawking that question? My guess is that he will drive his electric wheelchair so far up your ass that we might actually have to redefine the big bang. we will then finally have a "black hole" to study for empirical evidence. Originally Posted by shanm

Cite where Hawkings ever conducted an experiment that actually reproduced the effects he describes in his theory: a theory which is based wholly on derivations, conjectures and assumptions, shamman. Then cite where that experiment was successfully replicated by another, unaffiliated scientist, shamman.

I knew he was stupid and a troll, but if he actually believes this, he's borderline retarded. I would like him to provide 'incontrovertible' proof for the existence of jeebus crabst. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The real hilarity here, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, is that you cannot produce the same incontrovertible evidence you demand from believers. That makes you one jackass of a hypocrite, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

You've admitted your "beliefs" are based solely on conjecture, derivations and assumptions, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas; hence, your hypocritical ass cannot produce the same incontrovertible evidence you demand from believers, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.



Cite where Hawkings ever conducted an experiment that actually reproduced the effects he describes in his theory: a theory which is based wholly on derivations, conjectures and assumptions, shamman. Then cite where that experiment was successfully replicated by another, unaffiliated scientist, shamman.




The real hilarity here, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, is that you cannot produce the same incontrovertible evidence you demand from believers. That makes you one jackass of a hypocrite, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't have to present any evidence. You are employing an age-old apologist tactic, which is to shift the burden of proof. It won't work. You are asserting there's a god, therefore the burden is on you. Give me some empirical evidence for a deity. Surely, if there is a deity and he is as wonderful as you think, he could provide some form of empirical data to prove his existence. What you believe in is the world's greatest hide and seek player of all time. He's been hiding for about 2K years now.

To say that the theory of evolution is based on derivations, conjecture and assumptions is without a doubt the absolute height of stupidity and may very well be the most retarded thing you've EVER said on here. And that's saying a lot. I have never taken you seriously and this is a perfect example of why. You are a laughingstock. And you should be ridiculed for your stupidity.

Not only does it posit the big bang as how the universe began, but as I told you earlier, science allows us to predict things that we haven't observed yet and this proves Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves in his theory of relativity

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/i...ational-waves/

http://space.io9.com/have-physicists...yes-1545591865

http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-disco...ang-1545525927

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-the-big-bang/

I don't have to present any evidence. You are employing an age-old apologist tactic, which is to shift the burden of proof. It won't work. You are asserting there's a god, therefore the burden is on you. Give me some empirical evidence for a deity. Surely, if there is a deity and he is as wonderful as you think, he could provide some form of empirical data to prove his existence. What you believe in is the world's greatest hide and seek player of all time. He's been hiding for about 2K years now.

To say that the theory of evolution is based on derivations, conjecture and assumptions is without a doubt the absolute height of stupidity and may very well be the most retarded thing you've EVER said on here. And that's saying a lot. I have never taken you seriously and this is a perfect example of why. You are a laughingstock. And you should be ridiculed for your stupidity.

Not only does it posit the big bang as how the universe began, but as I told you earlier, science allows us to predict things that we haven't observed yet and this proves Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves in his theory of relativity

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/i...ational-waves/

http://space.io9.com/have-physicists...yes-1545591865

http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-disco...ang-1545525927

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-the-big-bang/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

The topic being discussed is creation, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, but you keep disingenuously deflecting to "evolution", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Now support your "beliefs" with incontrovertible proof and cite where Hawkings ever conducted an experiment that actually reproduced the effects he describes in his theory about the "Big Bang": a theory which is based wholly on derivations, conjectures and assumptions, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Then cite where that experiment was successfully replicated by another, unaffiliated scientist, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

The topic being discussed is creation, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, but you keep disingenuously deflecting to "evolution", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Now support your "beliefs" with incontrovertible proof and cite where Hawkings ever conducted an experiment that actually reproduced the effects he describes in his theory about the "Big Bang": a theory which is based wholly on derivations, conjectures and assumptions, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Then cite where that experiment was successfully replicated by another, unaffiliated scientist, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, it's not. Support my dick on your chin. The topic being discussed is the existence of a deity. You are trying to switch it to something else, but I won't have any of that. I just linked to four articles about the big bang. If you want to find out whether it's true or not, go google it for yourself you cocktard.

No, it's not. Support my dick on your chin. The topic being discussed is the existence of a deity. You are trying to switch it to something else, but I won't have any of that. I just linked to four articles about the big bang. If you want to find out whether it's true or not, go google it for yourself you cocktard. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You would be the easily refuted fucking liar, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. See at post # 172.




Now produce the same evidence you demand from believers, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, or STFU.

The topic being discussed is creation, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, but you keep disingenuously deflecting to "evolution", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Now support your "beliefs" with incontrovertible proof and cite where Hawkings ever conducted an experiment that actually reproduced the effects he describes in his theory about the "Big Bang": a theory which is based wholly on derivations, conjectures and assumptions, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Then cite where that experiment was successfully replicated by another, unaffiliated scientist, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Jesus Christ you have got to be, by far, the dumbest motherfucker on this board. No contest.

You think that Stephen Hawking came up with the Big Bang theory all on his own?

Then what happened? No one even cared to question his senility? It trumped the prevalent steady state theories and it all just became universally accepted scientific fact all on it's own?

Then cite where that experiment was successfully replicated by another, unaffiliated scientist

Jesus fucking Christ.

You are a pathetic little troll IB, and you're fucking delusional if you think anyone will fall for your bullshit. You are an illiterate piece of shit, I bet you can't read the front cover of Cat in the Hat, you ignorant half-wit.

I am done playing your stupid fucking games. Have fun tugging your dick.

Actually, you're incorrect.... The person making the assertion must bear the burden of proof.... I'm not making an assertion, I'm saying prove it.... I go by what can be proven to be true. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Your retarded sidekick, sham-diablo, made the assertion. I warned him to stay out of the conversation. Instead, he stupidly jumped in and proclaimed that “science proves the non-existence concept.” He made the assertion, so - by your own standards - the burden of proof is on HIM. As you libtards like to say, "the science is settled." So where's the proof?

Science isn't about providing incontrovertible proof. Yes, it's a guess. A very educated guess. Originally Posted by WombRaider

So it's a guess - sorta like a wager? As in Pascal's wager? Good, you're making progress!

Let's recap, shall we?

You call yourself an agnostic atheist, whose beliefs you say differ from those of a simple atheist even though you can't explain how. And you admit there is uncertainty whichever way you turn – science can't prove God doesn't exist, and religion can't prove he does exist, right? So you're stuck in the middle somewhere. Question – Doesn't this mean you think the probability of God's existence is less than 100% but greater than 0%?

.

Your retarded sidekick, sham-diablo, made the assertion. I warned him to stay out of the conversation. Instead, he stupidly jumped in and proclaimed that “science proves the non-existence concept.” He made the assertion so - by your own standards - the burden of proof is on HIM. Originally Posted by lustylad

And I already responded to your bitchy whining you insufferable cocktard. Sending in your alter-ego superior to bury it under a couple hundred useless posts won't change the facts.

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.

You can't "warn" me of shit motherfucker, you're too dumb to string two words together. Your alter-ego IB, stupid and moronic though he is, is still your intellectual superior. Says a lot about you now doesn't it?

the burden of proof is on HIM. Originally Posted by lustylad

Wrong again you stupid motherfucker. Of course you are one of the ignorant cretins who believes in religion, your imbecility is apparent every time you post.

Take away your bible, take away what your parents and what your priests taught you and what do you have? Absolutely fucking nothing. You'll be like a stuttering retard trying to explain how we got here. The burden of proof has ALWAYS been on you to prove god exists, and not the other way around. Because as we all know, there is not a single shred of evidence for an Abrahamic god or any other god.

So take away your presupposition that everything exists because there is a god and you have......nothing! Hardly what I call a burden of proof situation. More like "point at the retard".

And I already responded to your bitchy whining you insufferable cocktard. Originally Posted by shanm

You tried to backtrack like an imbecile. In doing so, you made yourself look even more like an arrogant, know-nothing, self-contradicting cocktard. In case you didn't notice, even your wingman just refudiated you by saying "science isn't about providing incontrovertible proof... it's a guess."

You can't "warn" me of shit motherfucker, you're too dumb to string two words together... Originally Posted by shanm

This is your second warning. Get out now. What gets strung up every time I string two words together is your limp dick.

.

So it's a guess - sorta like a wager? As in Pascal's wager? Good, you're making progress!

Let's recap, shall we?

You call yourself as agnostic atheist, whose beliefs you say differ from those of a simple atheist even though you can't explain how. And you admit there is uncertainty whichever way you turn – science can't prove God doesn't exist, and religion can't prove he does exist. So you're stuck in the middle somewhere. Question – Doesn't this mean you think the probability of God's existence is less than 100% but greater than 0%?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

I explained exactly what the difference was. Your inability to understand is a fault of your genes. I'm not stuck anywhere. Science provides much more in the way of certainty than religion ever will. Religion provides nothing in the way of certainty. Absolutely nothing.

As for the question of existence, regardless of whether you are referring to the abrahamic god or simply a prime mover or watchmaker, the percentage is the same for me. Zero.

I don't accept the cosmological argument. Even if you believe it, there's nothing to say that the first cause was due to a god. The big bang, as a beginning point, conforms to the laws that govern our universe. Knowing this, it could not have been inflicted from outside our universe. So, nothing, is not exactly nothing. Hawking contends we are a self-contained system that did not require any outside source to begin. He calls it the no-boundary condition.