Whether he is able to assess what I say is true or not, does not make me ignorant or, a liar. So, he must in fact have proof to the contrary of what I'm saying.
This is no doubt your claim, and it's the kind of double-speak one goes up against when confronting the establishment. Remember this ... I am David; you are Goliath.
No, he only needs proof if he makes a claim of fact. He did not. You have repeatedly made claims, and without proof. There is nothing wrong with his pointing that out.
This is my analysis of your claim. When you have made your arguments, I and others have dissected them. That is not a claim on our part, that is a response to a claim on yours.
No, you must prove that what you are saying is true. It is not up to others to prove your harebrained musings incorrect. Besides, your ideas are internally contradictory, so there is no need to prove them wrong. They are nonsensical. It would be like asking someone to prove that "This sentence is a lie," is wrong.
LOL. Is that what this is all about? You want to be the hero who challenges the establishment and wins victory against all odds? Well Davy-Poo, science is littered with the corpses of ideas that didn't cut it. From N-rays to Lamaarkism to creationism, bad ideas are sorted out using evidence. Sure, lots of ideas are originally unpopular, but gain support as they gain evidence. Unless you learn science (and learning is a concept you reject), you cannot even give the slightest hint of evidence to your ideas because you don't even know what evidence is. All you are doing is repeating (endlessly) your personal feelings.
Which, is why I'm asking whether he is willing to assert it one way or the other, otherwise he shouldn't be claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about? What, are you that dense or, is it pathological?
While it is quite possible that, due to the fact that everyone is wearing their "scientific blinders," they may be suffering from a lack of peripheral vision. But, since our "master of reality," Science, tells us to do so, we insist on wearing them.
And all it takes is one well placed pebble. Perhaps Goliath wasn't even aware of what hit him?
Yes, and we stand a lot to gain or lose, when we become "entrenched" in our views.
And forgive me for saying so, but you're full of rubbish!
It doesn't matter, the truth is the truth.
Yours perhaps?
So, what then, are you dismissing "any" evidence that God exists or, is it just my arguments in particular?
In other words I'm full of crap, right? Or, are you trying to "lead" me to believe something else?
And it is not I who casts the stone, "big boy."
Why should he have to assert something for which there is no conceivable evidence? That would be a faith-based claim, which is what yours is, rather than a claim about the real world. You keep getting those confused. He can very easily say that you don't know what you are talking about (as Trixie said, both your lack of internal logic and your contradictions with observed evidence point to the conclusion that your claims, when comprehensible at all, are baseless).
Quite possible? Not terribly probable, considering the fame and fortune that comes along with a new discovery. There is much more incentive to be the one to peek past the blinders than there is to keep them on.
And a pebble, even a pebble, is real. Do you have even a pebble? No, not so far.
You should know. I have never seen anyone so entrenched.
Yes, but it doesn't require that I get "comfortable" with anyone in order to back me up.
Oh, no, I agree, you are quite alone in your beliefs.
So, you can't accuse me of appealing to popularity then, huh?
I would never accuse you of appealing to anybody.
What's the matter Mercky boy, the water's getting a little bit too Mercky for you?
I forgive you. Flames from you are no more than a trifle. I wish you could do better, but that would take some wit.
The truth has evidence. Without evidence, it is faith. You have a lot of the latter, none of the former.
Perhaps. I've had some bad ideas in my time. I learned from them. Learning is a good thing, Iacchus. You should try it some time.
I don't dismiss any evidence. Claims, however, are not evidence. I don't dismiss all circular claims though. I give the claimant ample opportunity to learn why their claims are nonsensical or come up with better evidence. You've had more than enough chances. You seem to have no interest in learning, so I consider you fair game for ridicule. If you truly were a seeker of knowledge rather than a willfully ignorant, repetitive, self-centered whiner, I'd treat you much differently.
Finally, you got one of your "in other words" correct!
I don't have much hope for you. I just want to make sure others to see how anemic your beliefs are. But if by some miracle, you decided to start to study that of which you speak with self-ascribed authority, or if you suddenly sought evidence for your claims, then I would be very happy for you. It could turn your life around. I don't rejoice in your ignorance, Iacchus. Really.
So you are not "David" as you claimed earlier? Well, it wouldn't be the first time you have contradicted yourself. I suspect it won't be the last.
It is not "I" who guides my hand.
Well, let's just say the truth has a way of hitting its mark.
Well, let's just say the truth has a way of hitting its mark.
Well, let's just say the truth has a way of hitting its mark.
Which is to say, you freely admit that a designer does not exist, correct? Do you have any proof? Surely, your implications that I don't know what I'm talking about is not the criteria to be used in determining whether something actually exists or not is it? How scientific is that?