beowulf

Members
  • Content

    5,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by beowulf


  1. Nice try but I think my analogy is much more accurate.

    Podesta having his email password as p@ssw0rd is the internet version of leaving the keys in the car.

    Hillary using a private server for government business is also similar and very stupid as she would be a very high profile target. Her losing her phone so many times is just plain stupid also. It's so stupid that it's pretty much a certainty that her server was hacked. If you are going to be that stupid then it is like leaving your keys in your car.

    You can disagree if you want. I will just have to leave it at that and agree to disagree.

    Hillary is a corrupt slimy piece of shit and deserved to lose. Unfortunately Trump isn't much better.

  2. I think they would rather blame Russia then blame themselves or an insider ( which is pretty much the same thing ).

    Even if Russia did it, it's still their own fault for not securing their email. Especially Hillary since she didn't follow standard security protocol.

  3. Who do you blame for leaving the car keys in the car and it getting stolen?

    Insurance companies blame the owner.

    Hillary, DNC and Podesta all had very poor security for their emails. They only have themselves to blame.

    It makes far more sense to me that they are blaming Russia because they are a convenient target and politically they hate them.

    I think it's unlikely that Russia was behind it.

  4. kallend

    ********* No evidence has been provided to support this..



    Just because the US intelligence community chooses not to divulge its methods and technical capabilities to YOU, terrorists and hostile nations, doesn't mean no evidence exists.

    They do provide evidence to the relevant committees of both Senate and House, members of which have security clearances.

    Sometimes we just have to believe that even Republican congresspersons do their jobs.

    I don't think they have provided any evidence to anyone.

    Just because you THINK that doesn't make it true.

    Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

  5. kallend

    *** No evidence has been provided to support this..



    Just because the US intelligence community chooses not to divulge its methods and technical capabilities to YOU, terrorists and hostile nations, doesn't mean no evidence exists.

    They do provide evidence to the relevant committees of both Senate and House, members of which have security clearances.

    Sometimes we just have to believe that even Republican congresspersons do their jobs.

    I don't think they have provided any evidence to anyone.

  6. Well logically the Republican party was torn apart by Trump. Many of them opposed Trump and still do. And many of them are more then happy to demonize and blame Russia.

    Both parties have a lot in common but everyone focuses on the few differences.

    I find it unlikely that Russia did the hacking. I think it's more likely an inside job for the DNC. Podesta's email was too easy and could have been done by anyone. Hillary was dumb ass for using her private email server which made it easy for competent hacker to hack.

    All of this blaming Russia is more because they hate Russia for the fiasco in Ukraine and the absolute mess that was created in Syria.

  7. Podesta's emails being hacked was his own fault for being a dumb ass and having such an easy password to guess that any teenage hacker wannabe could guess it. A brute force attack would have it cracked in seconds. Blaming the Russians for that is just shifting blame to anyone but themselves.

    Like I said this whole thing is just silly. It's just the Democrat's shifting blame and Russia is an easy target. They have been demonizing Russia for so long it just fits with their agenda.

    His password was p@ssw0rd

    How stupid can you be to use a variation of the word 'password' and then blame the Russians!!!

  8. The whole premise is laughable. The claim that Russia "swayed US election" by providing the US public with an inside look into the Hillary campaign by way of Podesta and DNC emails is just silly. No evidence has been provided to support this. All we have are claims by US Intelligence that have a long history of lying to the US public and politicians who have a vested interest in blaming Russia. Giving the US a more honest look at Hillary and her campaign is a good thing. She really needs to look in the mirror to find who to blame for her loss.

  9. rehmwa

    ***I am just enjoying the discussion. Whether or not you are playing devils advocate doesn't matter to me.

    I agree faith is not evidence but many of the "faithful" consider it to be so even though I agree it makes them hypocrites. But I can't call them atheists because they believe based on their own faulty logic and really bad evidence. Nor would they fit the definition of an atheist because the definition only speaks to what someone doesn't believe. I based my opinion of the previous poster being an atheist on the statements that were made.



    nope - the faithful are atheists, I believe this without qualification - you've convinced me. I shall go forth and proclaim it to all the nations

    Good Luck! I am sure they will enjoy that

  10. I am just enjoying the discussion. Whether or not you are playing devils advocate doesn't matter to me.

    I agree faith is not evidence but many of the "faithful" consider it to be so even though I agree it makes them hypocrites. But I can't call them atheists because they believe based on their own faulty logic and really bad evidence. Nor would they fit the definition of an atheist because the definition only speaks to what someone doesn't believe. I based my opinion of the previous poster being an atheist on the statements that were made.

  11. "Whilst I personally believe that there is no god, I don't profess to have much evidence to back that up."

    This statement right here pegs this person as an atheist in my opinion. But the need to have evidence to back up his "belief" is not necessary and logically impossible. In order to say something exists evidence is necessary. But for those questioning the existence an absence of evidence is required. It's not logically possible to have evidence of the non existence of anything.

  12. I think you miss understand what I said. Everyone has different levels of evidence that will convince them of a claim. Those that rely on faith to believe have what I consider the lowest possible of level of evidence. It wouldn't qualify as evidence for me. But it convinces them. So it isn't as broad as you interpreted.

  13. The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it's logically inconsistent in regards to the need to have evidence to support the non existence of God.

    It's not logically possible to have any evidence of the non existence of anything. So because of this I think your logic falls apart.

    The crux of the matter is what is your level evidence or logic for believing something? What does it take to convince you to believe a claim? The answer to this is different depending on the claim being made. The more outlandish the greater the level of evidence and the stronger the logic needed to convince.

    So to me the question of whether or not you are an atheist comes down to one simple question. Are you convinced of the existence of God or gods? It's a yes or no question. Saying 'I don't know if I am convinced of the existence of God' is simply avoiding the question. If you say there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, it's also avoiding the question. Why? Because it's not logically possible to have evidence of the non existence of anything. This is not to say that I would not change my mind if evidence of the existence of gods were to come to light. I would.

    But considering that many define God as being omnipotent and omniscient which is contradictory and is like saying you have a round square. It simply can not exist as a God defined in such a way also can not logically exist.

    I would consider you to be an atheist based on what you have written.

  14. mr2mk1g

    You're confusing agnosticism with atheism.

    Agnostic's don't profess to know and therefore don't hold any particular firm belief one way or the other. They don't have any, (over perhaps a mildly held), belief in the existence or non-existence of a god.

    Atheists believe that there is no god. They positively believe something to be true - that there is no god. That's a belief.

    The clue is in the ancient Greek roots of each word: "a theos" = "without god" vs "a gnostos" = "without knowledge".




    I don't agree with you at all.

    You can say atheists believe that there is no god just like they believe there are no leprechaun's. But it's still not a belief. You are simply wording it in a way to make the claim that it is a belief. In reality it's a disbelief which is the opposite. Disbelief can not be a belief. While this is all semantics you are misrepresenting what atheists believe in an effort to make agnosticism seem more reasonable. When someone identifies as an Atheist the only thing that tells you about that person is that they don't believe in one specific claim and that is they don't believe that any gods exist.

    Agnosticism is simply avoiding the question all together. Because either you believe there is sufficient evidence to convince you there is a god or there isn't but aren't willing to give your opinion.

  15. http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm

    Not impressed. One of William Lane Craig's favorite arguments is the "First Mover" argument of Thomas Aquinas. I have heard him make this argument among others but haven't read the original writings of Thomas Aquinas till now. I wasn't impressed by Dr Craig's rehashing of one of Aquinas's arguments and I am not impressed by the original arguments. The simplest problem that I have with all of the arguments by Thomas Aquinas is that they all assume God to exist. An example is the "First Mover" argument, could there have been some "First Mover" that started this universe into existence? Possibly, but no one really knows for certain. There are different ideas based on what we know about physics. For argument's sake lets assume there is a "First Mover", we can't simply assume that a god must be the "First Mover" or that the Christian God was the "First Mover". The "First Mover" could be a dog in another universe taking a shit on a side walk that caused this universe to exist for all we know.

    So here are the assumptions made by Thomas Aquinas in the First Mover argument.

    1. That there is a First Mover
    2. The First Mover is a god
    3. The First Mover god is the Christian God

    I don't find any of Thomas Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God to be valid or all that impressive.

  16. gowlerk

    Really? Now you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I don't mind having my beliefs questioned. Especially since my main belief is that I don't know. What I don't like is rude people who don't respect other's beliefs. I didn't think you were one of those, was I wrong about that?

    If someone believes something how can that not be a belief? I believe that my grasp of English is strong enough to know the meaning of the word believe. Therefore that is one of my beliefs. My turn to be didactic.



    I find it rude for you to complain about atheists asking for evidence on a thread about arguments for god. If an atheist can't do that in this thread then where can they?


    Let me rephrase your question.

    If someone disbelieves something how can that not be a belief?

    Does that really make sense to you? Is disbelief a belief? Those two words are opposites.

  17. Generally those that say "There is no God" when you press them are on the side of "there is no evidence of any god". I have yet to meet anyone that doesn't believe in any god that isn't on evidence side.

    The lack of evidence is not a reason to believe anything. If it were then we would have to believe everything that anyone imagines regardless of how silly. Asking for evidence before believing anything is purely logical. If there is no evidence or the evidence provided is not compelling then it only makes sense to disbelieve.

  18. Also you are very wrong when you characterize atheism as a belief. By definition it is not a belief but the very opposite. It is disbelief in the claims of the existence of gods. I can only conclude that fairies don't exist because of the lack of evidence. The same can be said for gods or unicorns.

    Here is a fairly short read the explains very clearly pretty much what I think. I put it in a previous post but it's worth repeating. https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/against_the_gods.html

  19. So what you are saying is you don't like anyone who questions your belief and wants evidence to back it up.

    I have a bridge to sell you but don't you dare question anything I say about it!!


    The whole point of this thread was "Arguments for (or against) the existence of God", so what the fuck are you doing here if you don't like people poking holes in the claims for the existence of God???