Religion gives comfort. Having comfort, the mind works better

[questfortruth]

simply being theist proves nothing

Evidence is not proof. There is evidence for God.

Atheism gives comfort. Having comfort the mind works better.

Will you never be rotten and smell like a dead mouse?

 

[RabbiO]

Admittedly, I didn't when I responded. But is there a purpose in your pointing this out? I fail to see how the authorship of the article speaks to its legitimacy.

That the OP wrote the article in question does not, in and of itself, necessarily speak to the article's legitimacy. If the OP had said that he was attaching an article he had written that discusses his position in greater depth that would be one thing. However, as @ChristineM has noted, this is the OP's standard method of operation. He states a position and then indicates that there happens to be an article in a journal that verifies/vindicates/confirms his position, usually not mentioning that he is using himself as his own expert opinion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Evidence is not proof. There is evidence for God.



Will you never be rotten and smell like a dead mouse?

Will you ever be purple and sound like a screaming meemee?

 

[SalixIncendium]

That the OP wrote the article in question does not, in and of itself, necessarily speak to the article's legitimacy. If the OP had said that he was attaching an article he had written that discusses his position in greater depth that would be one thing. However, as @ChristineM has noted, this is the OP's standard method of operation. He states a position and then indicates that there happens to be an article in a journal that verifies/vindicates/confirms his position, usually not mentioning that he is using himself as his own expert opinion.

Ah, I understand now why you mentioned it. Thank you.

 

[Vinayaka]

That the OP wrote the article in question does not, in and of itself, necessarily speak to the article's legitimacy. If the OP had said that he was attaching an article he had written that discusses his position in greater depth that would be one thing. However, as @ChristineM has noted, this is the OP's standard method of operation. He states a position and then indicates that there happens to be an article in a journal that verifies/vindicates/confirms his position, usually not mentioning that he is using himself as his own expert opinion.

Isn't this just a sneaky way of getting around the sock puppet rule?

 

[RabbiO]

Isn't this just a sneaky way of getting around the sock puppet rule?

I'd have to ask the famous Irish expert on that. You may have heard of her - Mary O'Nette.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'd have to ask the famous Irish expert on that. You may have heard of her - Mary O'Nette.

I'll ask the guy in my back yard ... Paddy O'Deck. Him, me, and Nick O'tine had some philosophical times out there.

 

[idea]

Google: mother of all bombs.

Google: bloody religious wars.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidence is not proof. There is evidence for God.

bad evidence, that is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Google: mother of all bombs.

What does that have to do with the post you reply to?

 

[questfortruth]

bad evidence, that is.

But it is evidence.

 

[Audie]

But it is evidence.

Thrre is much better evidence that I am Ms Universe.

 

[questfortruth]

Thrre is much better evidence that I am Ms Universe.

There is a chance, I follow the Presumption of Innocence. You are "Princess of Universe".

 

[Audie]

There is a chance, I follow the Presumption of Innocence. You are "Princess of Universe".

There actually is no chance, since I am not.

Which is kind of the point. Evidence can
be insufficient, tainted, forged, etc, so
saying "there is evidence" ( for God,,
flood, Nesdie )is of no value whatever.