SUBWAY NOT SELLING PORK COS OF MUSSIES

[M H]

This gets even more interesting.

I find the notion of an omnipotent being as ludicrous as the moon being made out of green cheese, but that is purely my belief. I accept and respect the belief of others which are contrary to my own asking only that they don't preach to me as I wont to them.

They have a faith that their God exists and we all know faith has no foundation in science or fact. However, no amount of discussion will break that faith but that doesn't make them right or wrong. There's only one way to find out for certain which side the coin will land on and I've no desire to find out today

[Justin Credible]

thats more or less my opinion, those that want to believe in a god can, so expect those to respect my belief he dont exist

[M H]

It's impossible to prove either assertion though the odds would stack heavily on the side of no deity. Then we've all seen odds on bets go down which does make this an argument that simply cannot we won or lost

[Randall]

i shall never be crossing subways doorway again.

as i have never been in before this announcement its probably no loss.

if greggs employ mussies it would be a different story.

[Justin Credible]

never eaten from a subway either, I am very very very particular in what i eat, wife reckons i am the most fussiest eater she has ever come across in her life, my ex's said the same as did my own mother growing up, and have no intention now

[Darts101]

"but I dont have to prove it, this is the whole point you are either ignoring or simply to dense to comprehend, or simply know deep down you cannot prove your god or higher existence exists"

You are the one showing that you are dense. I told you that I have a belief. I didn't say that I can prove it. I told you that proof is subjective, what one considers proof another may not. It is about an interpretaion of the evidence. You can dismiss anything like that and say it is not proven according to your criteria therefore it is not true. Like I said, if you want to play the proof game then we can do it. You don't seem to know the difference between belief and a claim to knowledge, however if you want to play your game we can play. Why don't you prove that you are an atheist, seeing as you think that I should not believe something without proof.

"so in an effort to switch from proving what you believe in you now expect me to provide proof of a so called god or higher existence not existing when there is no proof of one existing."

That is your criteria that you have to prove something in order to believe it. Where is the proof for this claim?

What scientific test was carried out on the claim that it is not reasonable to believe something without proving it?

it is your position that in order to believe something then you have to have proof yet you cannot prove you are an atheist. You are not consistent with your own criteria.



You are forgetting that it is your criteria of requiring proof in order to believe something as true. yet you are wanting me to believe that you are an atheist without proof.

"You jumped feet first into this claiming the existence of a god or higher existence"

Incorrect, I made no claim of existence, you were the one that claimed non existence and used terms like bullshit. You have also used ad hom and ridicule against instead of reasoned argument and I have called you on it.

"and as i said you can believe in the bullshit"


Claim to knowledge.


" invisible man"

Invisible Ghost lineages

"brainwashing"

not believing in dumb luck as the explanation is not brainwashing.


"but asking me to prove something to you that does not exist"

That's funny. You are making a claim of truth. You claim to know there is no Creator for the Creation and living things and yet you are claiming that you cannot prove that there is no Creator. If you are really an atheist then you would have an unproven belief. I don't know if you are an atheist though. You may be desperately trying to convince yourself there is no God because you do actually believe there is one. I would have to take it on belief that you are an atheist and yet your criteria of belief requiring proof means that to be consistent you would not want me to believe you are an atheist without proof.

I asked you to prove that you are an atheist, As Your criteria is that it is not rational to believe something without proof then you will not want me to accept that you are an atheist without proof. This is your criteria not mine. You are not consistent with your own criteria.

"( and which you cannot prove does) in order to appease your insecurity"

You can't prove that you are an atheist, does it mean that one should not believe you are an atheist? This is your logic

You may be insecure and trying to prove to yourself that a creator does not exist because you hate the thought of there being one. I don't know if you believe there is a Creator and desperately trying to prove to yourself that there is not in order to appease your insecurity. I could accept you are an atheist but you do not expect me to believe things without proof. So why don't you prove to me that you are an atheist? Why aren't you consistent with your own criteria?


"Rather than argue the same points over and over which you are not grasping or choosing to ignore wont change anything, god and all this crap is a myth made up by people to control other people, or for insecure people who fear death and want to believe in something to appease their fears and give them some hope, I dont buy into it."

Back to your logical fallacy of a circumstantial ad hom, Repeating your fallacy does not make your argument any less fallacious, Atheists may hate the idea of there being a Creator and hate the idea of being judged and want it to end at death, it may bring them security to believe there is no Creator and believing in dumb luck evolution may bring them so hope but that is a seperate issue to whether sheer dumb luck evolution is true or not.

You seem to think repeating your fallacious argument over and over makes it a logical one.






"or for insecure people who fear death and want to believe in something to appease their fears and give them some hope,"

The fallacy of attacking the motive.

"god and all this crap is a myth made up by people to control other people"

If that were true then that would be the genetic fallacy, If the origin really was to control other people as you claim then that still wouldn't prove that the idea of a creator is false, Chemistry arose out of alchemy and astronomy arose out of astrology, Do you reject the existence of Chemistry and Astronomy because of how they arose?




"now you can accept that or keep drinking the koolaid"

But rejecting your logical fallacies does not mean one is drinking the Kool Aid, However if I were to drink something that is laced with something that screws up logical thinking then I might accept your logical fallacies as a valid argument.

"but hearsay, the church, brainwashing wont change the fact no god exists"


Tha fallacy of sweeping generalizations. repeating your fallacies are not a logical argument. Furthermore, When you say hearsay then give me some examples.



"wont change the fact no god"

A claim of knowledge which you cannot prove. You can't even prove that you are an atheist and yet just for belief your criteria is proof.

" you or no one can ever provide proof he does and why you cannot just accept that is beyond me."

Proof is a subjective thing, What one person may consider proof another person may claim is not proof, Asking for proof just means that you can dismiss what anyone says and say it is not proven. Like i said, it is about an interpretation of the evidence not proof. However I also said that I can play your proof game and demand proof from you. So prove that you are an atheist, You are not consistent.

"Yet you expect others to believe your theory of a god or higher existence"


Nope.

If Mh doesn't believe in God I have no problem with it. I am challenging you on stuff you have said.

" but cannot accept when a realist refuses to place faith is something their is no proof of."

I never said that you have to have faith in a creator. People can believe in dumb luck if they like. However we are still to find out if you are an atheist or not, based on your criteria for belief.

What would be hypocrisy is if a person holds the position that the heart, the lungs, the kidneys etc are the result of sheer dumb luck, something for which there is no proof and then chastize a belief in God by claiming that there is no proof.








"Thats some pretty warped logic you have to try and validate the existence of something there is no proof of"

What scientific test was carried out on the claim that it is not logical to believe in something without proof?

" brainwashing the church has instilled in you above faith in you above faith in something you cannot see hear, touch, taste etc"

BTW...Which one of your 5 senses told you that it is only reasonable to believe what you can experience through your 5 senses?

[Darts101]

This gets even more interesting.

"I find the notion of an omnipotent being as ludicrous as the moon being made out of green cheese, but that is purely my belief. I accept and respect the belief of others which are contrary to my own asking only that they don't preach to me as I wont to them.

They have a faith that their God exists and we all know faith has no foundation in science or fact. However, no amount of discussion will break that faith but that doesn't make them right or wrong. There's only one way to find out for certain which side the coin will land on and I've no desire to find out today

I have no problem if you believe there is no God MH, You didn't claim non existence and then run from your claim like gaz. You did not personally attack others with ad homs about psychological motivation like gaz. You didn't appeal to ridicule like gaz. You didn't use emotional language like gaz who thinks his emotional language, ridicule and AD Hom attacks are a substitute for reasonable discussion. You weren't a hypocrite and didn't hold a double standard about proof like gaz.

[M H]

This gets even more interesting.

"I find the notion of an omnipotent being as ludicrous as the moon being made out of green cheese, but that is purely my belief. I accept and respect the belief of others which are contrary to my own asking only that they don't preach to me as I wont to them.

They have a faith that their God exists and we all know faith has no foundation in science or fact. However, no amount of discussion will break that faith but that doesn't make them right or wrong. There's only one way to find out for certain which side the coin will land on and I've no desire to find out today

I have no problem if you believe there is no God MH, You didn't claim non existence and then run from your claim like gaz. You did not personally attack others with ad homs about psychological motivation like gaz. You didn't appeal to ridicule like gaz. You didn't use emotional language like gaz who thinks his emotional language, ridicule and AD Hom attacks are a substitute for reasoned debate. You weren't a hypocrite and didn't hold a double standard about proof like gaz.

It's simply something that cannot be proven either way mate but I do feel the odds are in my favour as I stated earlier. That said being odds on favourite doesn't guarantee coming first.

I appreciate people actually draw strength and comfort from their faith so who am I to judge. It's a fascinating discussion but also an argument that can never be won or lost.

[Darts101]

This gets even more interesting.

"I find the notion of an omnipotent being as ludicrous as the moon being made out of green cheese, but that is purely my belief. I accept and respect the belief of others which are contrary to my own asking only that they don't preach to me as I wont to them.

They have a faith that their God exists and we all know faith has no foundation in science or fact. However, no amount of discussion will break that faith but that doesn't make them right or wrong. There's only one way to find out for certain which side the coin will land on and I've no desire to find out today

I have no problem if you believe there is no God MH, You didn't claim non existence and then run from your claim like gaz. You did not personally attack others with ad homs about psychological motivation like gaz. You didn't appeal to ridicule like gaz. You didn't resort to name calling. You didn't use emotional language like gaz who thinks his emotional language, ridicule and AD Hom attacks are a substitute for reasoned debate. You weren't a hypocrite and didn't hold a double standard about proof like gaz.

It's simply something that cannot be proven either way mate but I do feel the odds are in my favour as I stated earlier. That said being odds on favourite doesn't guarantee coming first.

I appreciate people actually draw strength and comfort from their faith so who am I to judge. It's a fascinating discussion but also an argument that can never be won or lost.

People may draw strength and comfort mate, just as atheists may draw comfort for believing there is no God, the atheist Thomas Nagel admitted that he does not like the idea of God, It would be fallacious if i attack his motivation and say therefore he is wrong because of his psychological motivation. The truth or falsity of atheism is a separate issue from his psychological motivation. It is a sweeping assertion fallacy to say that anyone that takes either position does so because of some psychological need, it is also a fallacy of attacking the motive, the truth or falsity of the existence or non existence is a seperate issue.

I already pointed out that there may be people on either side that have a psychological motivation and that it is however a fallacy to focus on the motivations as that is a seperate issue to the truth or falsity of their position.


Gaz has repeated the psychological need argument over to me. He seems to think repeating a fallacious argument makes a logical argument. You know what else mate? gaz also seems to think that using personal attacks and emotional language is a substitite for rational argumentation. he is only making himself look bad in the process.

[Justin Credible]

no attack,if you see my comments on a god as a personal attack then that says more about your state of mind.

The fact a person would have their feeling hurt or care deeply what someone else might think of their belief in an invisible man is rather strange.


This is the very reason people die because of religion, one loony who believes in his invisible man is upset because someone else belives in a different invisible man, or they hate people who refuse to buy into any of the shit.

My personal opinion is that those that believe in a god do so to appease all the fears, give themselves hope, and use it to try to convince themselves all the horrible things in life are part of a plan.If you take solace in that , thats good, but I dont buy that bullshit, to me its a whole scam made up by other people to fool the weak and insecure.

If that offends you then thats your problem, maybe ask your god to forgive

[Darts101]

"If you see my comments on a god as a personal attack then that says more about your state of mind."

Calling people morons who believe differently than you do is a personal attack, I never said your comments about God were a personal attack. This just displays your lack of comprehension.

"The fact a person would have their feeling hurt"

Pointing out that personal attack is not a reasoned argument does not mean that a persons feelings have got hurt. That is called a non sequitur, The conclusion does not logically follow. Come on Gaz, You talk about logic and yet your posts are full of terrible logic.

"of their belief in an invisible man is rather strange."

Invisible Ghost lineages


"one loony"

name calling shows you are insecure in your argument. Things haven't got to well for you on this thread. I could understand if you are upset.

"who believes in his invisible man"

Invisble Ghost Lineages.

"is upset"

I know you are upset that is why you have nothing but name calling, ad hom and emotional outbursts. What i said to MH about your behaviour has upset you because you know it is true. You know that you cannot argue with logic and reason but have nothing but ad homs, emotional outburts and name calling. I am waiting for you to use logical argumentation instead of your emotional outbursts. No wonder you are upset. Logic is not your strong suit mate.



"or they hate people who refuse to buy into any of the shit."

You haven't shown that believing in a creator is shit, however I don't hate MH, he says he doesn't believe in a God. I don't hate him at all. If you really are an atheist. you didn't meet your own criteria by the way for me to believe that you are., then I wouldn't hate you either.




"My personal opinion is that those that believe in a god do so to appease all the fears, give themselves hope, and use it to try to convince themselves all the horrible things in life are part of a plan."

yeah I know you say that. It is called attacking the motive. You seem to think repeating fallacious arguments make them logical. Like I said. Logic is not your strong suit. No wonder you are so angry and upset.

"but I dont buy that bullshit, to me its a whole scam made up by other people to fool the weak and insecure."

A person can be weak and insecure about the thought there is a creator. They might want to believe in dumb luck instead because of it. Irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the claims.

"If that offends you then thats your problem"

You seem to be offended that is why you are upset and ranting instead of arguing in a logical manner. Your resorting to name calling and emotion al outbursts shows to me that you are offended of how things have gone for you on this thread. Hey I didn't mean to upset you but if getting that anger out makes you feel better, then I am glad you vented it out.


You don't need to be forgiven. You are a great example of how not to argue logically. People who want to study logic can study your poor reasoning and learn to avoid arguing in the same way.


Hey gaz i will give you a break though seeing as you haven't done very well. Even though you haven't proven you are an atheist and thus didn't meet your own criteria. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are seeing as you have struggled so much.

I will take it that you really are an atheist that believes in dumb luck evolution and believes that turnips are your cousins.

OK

[Tungsten Terrorist]

Is Darts101 Rout???

Fucking right long winded in his posts.
is there a summarize function??

[Justin Credible]

Is Darts101 Rout???

Fucking right long winded in his posts.
is there a summarize function??

I say god does not exist, he says a higher power exists
He says I must prove no god exists, 9not sure why or how)
Insulting religion is a personal attack seemingly.

hope this helps TT

[Darts101]

Is Darts101 Rout???

Fucking right long winded in his posts.
is there a summarize function??

[Tungsten Terrorist]

Just a word of note.
Subway is a franchise operation and as such is run by the person who set up and paid for that particular franchise.

No surprise certain branches are Halal as they will be owned by Muslims in the Muslim areas.
Another perfect example of Islamification in the UK. Not long before Greggs will be cutting out bacon slices.

[fandarts]

hey tungy, hows it hanging?

[Justin Credible]

Just a word of note.
Subway is a franchise operation and as such is run by the person who set up and paid for that particular franchise.

No surprise certain branches are Halal as they will be owned by Muslims in the Muslim areas.
Another perfect example of Islamification in the UK. Not long before Greggs will be cutting out bacon slices.

Greggs ?

Thought they were a chain of gay bars

[Darts101]

"Insulting religion is a personal attack seemingly."

gaz showing his lack of comprehension there.

[Darts101]

Hi fanny, how are you?

[Darts101]

Is Darts101 Rout???

Fucking right long winded in his posts.
is there a summarize function??

I'll give you a summary. gaz has done very badly on this thread and he is not happy about it. He had nothing but name calling. ie moron, loony. Ad hom and emotional outbursts. He is upset because he got made a fool of. I never claimed that insulting religion is a personal attack, In my previous post to him I pointed out why he was wrong to claim so. But gaz thinks repeating a fallacious claim makes it a logical argument. Logical argument is not his strong point seemingly.