French religious leaders have called for more security at places of worship

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes: "...the fact that there is zero evidence for any god, and increasingly reliable evidence for the scientific method, then if they can do something to direct people's credulity and gullibility away from God/god beliefs and towards the testability of science, then I think that would be a good thing."

God versus science.

I rest my case.

Can we move on now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God versus science.

I rest my case.

Can we move on now?

No. For your "case" to be valid you would need to show that Susan (or anyone else for that matter) thinks that science demonstrates a universe in which there is no god ("godfree" in your neologism). Neither Susan nor anyone else does that - what they actually do is to say that science provides provisional truths about the universe, but is indifferent to claims about "God" - as it is about claims for unicorns, and for the same reason.

God or unicorns could exist, but only for the trivial reason that anything else could too.

You've been caught out in a lie about Susan. If you want to move on, why not do the decent thing and apologise to her first? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No. For your "case" to be valid you would need to show that Susan (or anyone else for that matter) thinks that science demonstrates a universe in which there is no god ("godfree" in your neologism). Neither Susan nor anyone else does that - what they actually do is to say that science provides provisional truths about the universe, but is indifferent to claims about "God" - as it is about claims for unicorns, and for the same reason.

God or unicorns could exist, but only for the trivial reason that anything else could too.

You've been caught out in a lie about Susan. If you want to move on, why not do the decent thing and apologise to her first?

Can I suggest Johnsons ''Turdo''......it brings out the grain of a stiff log and adds lustre to a cluster......far better than Cillit ''Shat''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Can I suggest Johnsons ''Turdo''......it brings out the grain of a stiff log and adds lustre to a cluster......far better than Cillit ''Shat''.

You won't be, but you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You won't be, but you should be ashamed of yourself.

I don't think an attack on an open facility a reason to score points or religious leaders discussing security after an attack a reason to tubthump about your desire to deprive clergy of expressing anything in a public forum.
Do you have any proof that at any point in those discussions divine imperative of security was even put forward or put against the common sense argument for discussing it?............

..........I think you might be the one who should be ashamed?

....can you even outline what your issue is about religious leaders discussing security after an attack is in a sensible meaningful way?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You lied about Susan's post, you were caught out in the lie, rather than apologise you tried to laugh it off. Now you try to change the subject in the hope that no-one has noticed.

I don't think an attack on an open facility a reason to score points or religious leaders discussing security after an attack a reason to tubthump about your desire to deprive clergy of expressing anything in a public forum.

Nor do I. That's why I didn't do that.

Do you have any proof that at any point in those discussions divine imperative of security was even put forward or put against the common sense argument for discussing it?............

Why would I as I've never suggested any such thing?

.........I think you might be the one who should be ashamed?

Then, as ever, you think wrongly - doubly so given your latest straw men.

....can you even outline what your issue is about religious leaders discussing security after an attack is in a sensible meaningful way?

I can "even" outline my point - which wasn't about security at all - because I have done so already in the OP. Try reading it and responding to that rather to your straw man version of it   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You lied about Susan's post, you were caught out in the lie, rather than apologise you tried to laugh it off. Now you try to change the subject in the hope that no-one has noticed.

Nor do I. That's why I didn't do that.

Why would I as I've never suggested any such thing?


Then, as ever, you think wrongly - doubly so given your latest straw men.

I can "even" outline my point - which wasn't about security at all - because I have done so already in the OP. Try reading it and responding to that rather to your straw man version of it

We're done Hillside.......have a nice day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We're done Hillside.......have a nice day.

Doubtless you'll be back though when you think up some more lies to throw at posters here.

Why bother?

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside

Super posts, as usual; a pleasure to read - thank you..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

Super posts, as usual; a pleasure to read - thank you.

Aw stop it now, you're embarrassing me.

I really can't tell whether our mutual friend just cannot see the difference between, "there is no god" and "there is no evidence for god" or he can see it but to acknowledge it would cause the whole edifice of his "argument" to come tumbling down so he clings to it nonetheless. Neither option is particularly flattering, but you make your bed and all that...

That at root is his problem. By inventing a straw man version of atheism - ie, that atheists say there is no god - and then by re-inventing the meaning of "philosophical naturalism" into, "the natural is categorically all there is or can be" he can then to his heart's content chuck rotten tomatoes at the straw men he's created.

They do say that it's a bad idea to cling to a mistake just because you've invested heavily in making it. Maybe someone should share that thought with him some time?