DAILY THOUGHT

[falcon9]

God is a better manager than we can hope to be. 

There is zero evidence for this proselyting religious belief because it relies upon specious faith and shifts personal responsibility onto a hypothetical egregore.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
--– Richard Dawkins

[duroz]

"Let me ask you this:  Did you ever eat a hamburger and there's a hard thing in it?  It's like a toenail.  You know it's not part of the hamburger, but you separate the meat and the lettuce and the pickle all on one side of your mouth and finally on your tongue you get this little thing. And it's like a bone...but it's not a bone.  I keep asking myself, Roseanne Roseannadanna, if they can make a coffee I like without caffeine, how come they can't make a hamburger I like with no toenails?"
-- Roseanne Rosannadanna/Gilda Radner
 

OMG....I was laughing, gagging and fighting the urge to hurl all at once as I read this..

MMMMmmmm.......nummy! Toenail burgers.

[falcon9]

"Let me ask you this:  Did you ever eat a hamburger and there's a hard thing in it?  It's like a toenail.  You know it's not part of the hamburger, but you separate the meat and the lettuce and the pickle all on one side of your mouth and finally on your tongue you get this little thing. And it's like a bone...but it's not a bone.  I keep asking myself, Roseanne Roseannadanna, if they can make a coffee I like without caffeine, how come they can't make a hamburger I like with no toenails?"
-- Roseanne Rosannadanna/Gilda Radner
 

OMG....I was laughing, gagging and fighting the urge to hurl all at once as I read this..

I strongly suspect that Gilda often aimed for that reaction, especially from the look on Jane Curtain's face.

MMMMmmmm.......nummy! Toenail burgers.

Be warned - tomorrow's "daily thought" might be another Roseannrosannadanna "gem".
 

[jcribb16]

God is a better manager than we can hope to be. 

There is zero evidence for this proselyting religious belief because it relies upon specious faith and shifts personal responsibility onto a hypothetical egregore.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
--– Richard Dawkins

Really?  Again?  Please prove the "zero evidence" since you disagree so vehemently and over and over again.  Perhaps we could see what evidence you have that proves everything created was not created by God.  Thank you.

[duroz]

....Please prove the "zero evidence".....

HUH?? WTF.....?

Perhaps we could see what evidence you have that proves everything created was not created by God.

You show us yours first....
 

[duroz]

"Let me ask you this:  Did you ever eat a hamburger and there's a hard thing in it?  It's like a toenail.  You know it's not part of the hamburger, but you separate the meat and the lettuce and the pickle all on one side of your mouth and finally on your tongue you get this little thing. And it's like a bone...but it's not a bone.  I keep asking myself, Roseanne Roseannadanna, if they can make a coffee I like without caffeine, how come they can't make a hamburger I like with no toenails?"
-- Roseanne Rosannadanna/Gilda Radner
 

         

     

Would you care for MUSHROOMS on that burger, sir?


                 

[hudsonmike09]

I love the Daily Quote that comes with the Daily email - Does anyone else notice those or do you even scroll down to read them?

Today's quote is:

Your Daily Quotation:
"The great French Marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The Marshall replied, "In that case, there is no time to lose. Plant it this afternoon!""
-- John F. Kennedy
I haven't noticed those, but I'll be sure to look for it in tomorrows email. Thanks for the tip!!
Thanks FusionCash!   

Yes, I scroll down first thing to see what the Daily Quote is.  There are a lot of great ones provided.  I'm glad FC adds them to their paid emails - I do enjoy reading them.  

[falcon9]

God is a better manager than we can hope to be. 

There is zero evidence for this proselyting religious belief because it relies upon specious faith and shifts personal responsibility onto a hypothetical egregore.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
--– Richard Dawkins

Really?  Again?  

That was similar to my impression when yet another specious religious propagandizing was posted.

Please prove the "zero evidence" since you disagree so vehemently and over and over again.  
Perhaps we could see what evidence you have that proves everything created was not created by God.  Thank you.

You really don't grasp the concept of "negative assertions", (claims regarding 'proving there isn't' something), do you?  The burden of proof requirement applies to 'positive asertions', (which regards claims 'proving there is' something).  Otherwise, people would go around trying to 'prove there isn't' an "invisible pink unicorn", "blue elf mirage", "santa", "tooth fairy" or "easter bunny".  That's not the function of the burden of proof since Occam's Razor shows it's more efficient to prove what is claimed, rather than the reverse.

“They say Jerusalem is proof Jesus walked on earth. I say the Empire building is proof King Kong scaled it."
-– Ben Rodriguez

[falcon9]

 

....Please prove the "zero evidence".....

HUH?? WTF.....?

That one wouldn't be difficult; it's essentially a lazy attempt to get an opponent to do all the work for the one dodging the burden of proof requirement for making a declaration that something exists, (and not providing evidence to support their claim).  The tactic is usually employed by those with no understanding of how logic functions.

Perhaps we could see what evidence you have that proves everything created was not created by God.

You show us yours first....
 

That one from "Julie" was actually three logical fallacies for the price of one irrationality.  First, it includes an inherent assumption of creationism, ("begging the question").  Secondly, the same type of logical fallacy of asking that a negative claim be 'disproven' and thirdly, no such negative claim, (e.g., 'g-d' didn't create everything'), was made so that's a "strawman argument" logical fallacy.

I'm just surprised none of these irrational xtians have hucked-up the ole "not everything has to be logical" chestnut yet.  It never ceases to entertain me when illogical folks try to use illogic against logic and then wonder why that doesn't work, though perhaps I'm less easily amused.

[jcribb16]

....Please prove the "zero evidence".....

HUH?? WTF.....?

That one wouldn't be difficult; it's essentially a lazy attempt to get an opponent to do all the work for the one dodging the burden of proof requirement for making a declaration that something exists, (and not providing evidence to support their claim).  The tactic is usually employed by those with no understanding of how logic functions.

Perhaps we could see what evidence you have that proves everything created was not created by God.

You show us yours first....
 

That one from "Julie" was actually three logical fallacies for the price of one irrationality.  First, it includes an inherent assumption of creationism, ("begging the question").  Secondly, the same type of logical fallacy of asking that a negative claim be 'disproven' and thirdly, no such negative claim, (e.g., 'g-d' didn't create everything'), was made so that's a "strawman argument" logical fallacy.

I'm just surprised none of these irrational xtians have hucked-up the ole "not everything has to be logical" chestnut yet.  It never ceases to entertain me when illogical folks try to use illogic against logic and then wonder why that doesn't work, though perhaps I'm less easily amused.

Can you or can you not fully and completely prove that God does not exist?  Can you or can you not prove exactly how this earth and world and space were created, along with humans and animals, etc.?  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, not theories that have not been proven.

[falcon9]

Can you or can you not fully and completely prove that God does not exist? 

"If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
--http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Can you or can you not prove exactly how this earth and world and space were created, along with humans and animals, etc.?  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, not theories that have not been proven.

http://godisimaginary.com/

[jcribb16]

Can you or can you not fully and completely prove that God does not exist? 

"If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
--http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Can you or can you not prove exactly how this earth and world and space were created, along with humans and animals, etc.?  Beyond a shadow of a doubt, not theories that have not been proven.

http://godisimaginary.com/

That's just it - you can't.  And I have asked you before, to please not call me anything but my screen name "jcribb16" or "jcribb."   Thank you.

[falcon9]

Can you or can you not fully and completely prove that God does not exist? 

"If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
--http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

That's just it - you can't. 

Apparently, you remain unable to comprehend the term "negative proof".  Fine. No one can 'prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist', (that's requesting the same type of negative proof).  A "positive proof" means that the claimant for the existence of something has an obligation under burden of proof to provide tangible evidence which supports their claim.  It isn't logical to require tangible evidence that something doesn't exist since a non-existing hypothetical 'something' doesn't have attributible tangible evidence, (otherwise, it would exist).  Whether or not you, personally are able to follow logical reasoning is immaterial to the point; claims that 'g-d' exists are bereft of attributible tangible evidence.  That means randomly attributing 'everything to 'g-d', (sans a chain of evidence to support such a claim), is not only illogical, it's sanctimoniously-presumptive and disrespectful of other beliefs/philosophies and rational thought.

[jcribb16]

Can you or can you not fully and completely prove that God does not exist? 

"If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."
--http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

That's just it - you can't. 

Apparently, you remain unable to comprehend the term "negative proof".  Fine. No one can 'prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist', (that's requesting the same type of negative proof).  A "positive proof" means that the claimant for the existence of something has an obligation under burden of proof to provide tangible evidence which supports their claim.  It isn't logical to require tangible evidence that something doesn't exist since a non-existing hypothetical 'something' doesn't have attributible tangible evidence, (otherwise, it would exist).  Whether or not you, personally are able to follow logical reasoning is immaterial to the point; claims that 'g-d' exists are bereft of attributible tangible evidence.  That means randomly attributing 'everything to 'g-d', (sans a chain of evidence to support such a claim), is not only illogical, it's sanctimoniously-presumptive and disrespectful of other beliefs/philosophies and rational thought.

Pink unicorns are pretend and in kids' books.  You know that, so that is a ridiculous point for you to even try to make and stand on.  History, scrolls, historic people/leaders, the Bible (which contains information agreeing with the prior listed things), and archeological digs/discoveries provide a lot more evidence that  1. You choose to ignore, instead of researching for yourself to see the agreements and similarities,  2. Pink unicorns can't even provide since you like bringing them up, and 3. Is logical and NOT disrespectful of other beliefs/philosophies and rational thought. 

How dare you insinuate strongly the number 3 point.  Believers in God are NOT stopping anyone from making their own choices for their own particular beliefs/philosophies.  And just because they don't choose to believe what I believe does not mean they are irrational - they are not.  And their other choices are NOT disrespecting my beliefs - they are entitled to their own beliefs.  Which means my choice is NOT disrespecting theirs, because I am entitled to my own beliefs. 

Once again, you are bold in your misconceptions of the rights of people to believe how they wish, and in the disrespect because some do not choose to accept your way of thinking.  Your way is your choice - it's your business.  My way is my choice - it's my business.  There should be no cause nor reason for disrespect here.  Period.

[falcon9]

Pink unicorns are pretend and in kids' books. 

Several other supernatural entities are depicted in another "kid's book" nominally called "the bible", (in several various forms).

History, scrolls, historic people/leaders, the Bible (which contains information agreeing with the prior listed things), and archeological digs/discoveries provide a lot more evidence that.

“They say Jerusalem is proof Jesus walked on earth. I say the Empire building is proof King Kong scaled it."
-– Ben Rodriguez

This quote is intended to emphasize the difference between equating some archeological evidence with confirming the specious religious beliefs contained in the same sources.  It's a logical fallacy to conflate one with the other.  Finding a fragment of a stone wall doesn't mean that any religious beliefs associated with it are valid.  In fact, arguing that it does is an irrational argument. {otherwise a child who finds some pink glitter could argue that it's "evidence" of the existence of their 'invisible pink unicorn'}
 

2. Pink unicorns can't even provide since you like bringing them up

Neither can claimants who keep insisting upon the existence of their supernatural entity provide valid evidence of its existence, (just to be clear, I never claimed that invisible pink unicorns exist; that's one of those metaphors you abhore).

3. Is logical and NOT disrespectful of other beliefs/philosophies and rational thought. 

Are you actually claiming that religious proselytizing is "logical"?  Seriously?  Oh, and that it's "not disrespectful of other beliefs/philosophies and rational thought" even though adherents to other beliefs/philosophies/rational thought often find such
proselytization of a particular religious belief system to be offensive?  Wow, your simple denial has the *weight* of a neutrino.

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”
-– Thomas Jefferson