Re: What are atheists for?

On 19 Apr 2017, at 12:56, David Nyman wrote: On 19 April 2017 at 08:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: John has never write one clear post refuting the step-3 which would make it possible to answer by one post. There is no need for this, as the answer is in the publications,

Re: What are atheists for?

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: ​>> ​ >> Ah yes that mythical magical post that you've been talking about for >> years, the wonderful post where you logically refute all my points and make >> your theory crystal clear with no circularity or ambiguity, the post

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/19/2017 3:56 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 19 April 2017 at 08:24, Bruno Marchal > wrote: John has never write one clear post refuting the step-3 which would make it possible to answer by one post. There is no need for this, as the

Re: What are atheists for?

On 19 April 2017 at 16:48, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2017, at 12:56, David Nyman wrote: > > On 19 April 2017 at 08:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > John has never write one clear post refuting the step-3 which would make >> it possible to answer by one

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/19/2017 10:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 Telmo Menezes >wrote: ​>> ​ Ah yes that mythical magical post that you've been talking about for years, the wonderful post where you logically refute

Re: What are atheists for?

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > Read the paper. Then comment. > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > ​I read the paper till it got stupid, and then I did comment. John K Clark​ -- You received this

Re: What are atheists for?

On 19 Apr 2017 7:50 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 4/19/2017 3:56 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 19 April 2017 at 08:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: John has never write one clear post refuting the step-3 which would make it > possible to answer by one post.

Re: What are atheists for?

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:56 AM, David Nyman wrote: ​> ​ > ​I've often wondered whether Hoyle's heuristic could be a way of > short-cutting this dispute. Hoyle gives us a way to think about every > subjective moment > ​As a kid I remember reading ​ Fred Hoyle's ​Novel "

Re: What are atheists for?

On 19 April 2017 at 08:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: John has never write one clear post refuting the step-3 which would make it > possible to answer by one post. There is no need for this, as the answer is > in the publications, which makes clear the 1-3 distinction, so the >

Re: What are atheists for?

On 20 Apr 2017 12:57 a.m., "John Clark" wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:56 AM, David Nyman wrote: ​> ​ > ​I've often wondered whether Hoyle's heuristic could be a way of > short-cutting this dispute. Hoyle gives us a way to think about every >

Re: What are atheists for?

On 4/19/2017 6:42 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Apr 2017 12:57 a.m., "John Clark" > wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:56 AM, David Nyman >wrote: ​> ​ ​I've often

Re: What are atheists for?

On 18 Apr 2017, at 18:10, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:48 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: John Clark has no need to precisely define the word "you" because John Clark has no need

Re: What are atheists for?

I think you're overthinking it... The motivation of John is clear, plain and simple, he is a troll... He likes to contradict, if his contradiction is plainly false the better... He has no other motivation than being a troll... he must enjoy it that much for doing it since so long. So don't feed

Re: What are atheists for?

Bruno and Quentin, In my view John is not a troll -- in the sense that I don't think he is insincere. I think he's an intellectual bully, and I think there are many of them in the world of academia or otherwise. I think all the horrible stuff of organized religion does not come from religion