View Single Post
Unread 3 Jan 2007, 23:46   #61
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: The Scientific Proof of Life After Death

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
I bet JBG and Jakiri would have been a real laugh when people tried to tell them the earth wasn't flat as they'd been led to believe, but was in fact round
It would have still been a stupidly illogical belief if you based it on the amount of cheese produced by in Normandy in a given six month cycle. Much like it would still be a stupid belief today if based on that same evidence. It's like :logic: dude.


Incidentally hebdomad I prefer to call such things opinions. This avoids the hassle of having to continuously divide beliefs into warranted and unwarranted types.



PS That guy has just decided to randomly reassign burden of proof and assume certain things are more fundamental than evidence we can gather ourselves. It's not much use arguing with him as you've got clearly incompatible foundations to start with. What you can do is take his argument and attempt to prove it's logically inconsistent internally but there's of course guarantee he will then move to your "side". (You is general in the last few sentences, dunno if that's actually you he's arguing with ste.)
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote