Yes I did! I made up, out of thin air, a god that is more powerful than the made up god of that theist. — Nickolasgaspar

Now who is using logical fallacy! How can you 'make up a god,' more powerful than a god that the theists have already posited is OMNIPOTENT, you buffoon!

Anyone would prefer that over the death of civilians. Don't try to sugarcoat a war crime. — Nickolasgaspar

And again, I actually agree. Goddamnit! I actually lost all reason indeed!

I don't have to do anything...Your comments do all the work for me.
I exposed your ignorance on how Statistical Probabilities work.
You are trying to hide the damage your claim did to your credibility and image...but without success.
Look at the positive side...at least you learned how we calculate probabilities....and you learned the use of an Ad Absurdum argument — Nickolasgaspar

The only thing you offer to teach, comes through demonstration of your own confused contradictory musings and postings.

lol....Ad Absurdum isn't always a logical fallacy when the argument includes a true analogy.
In this case, he created a ultimate judge out of thin air, I created one above him. I created an apagogigal argument (επαγωγικό επιχείρημα).

Again, to remind, can use your internet connection to educate yourself...not just for spicy videos and social media....

The only thing you offer to teach, comes through demonstration of your own confused contradictory musings and postings. — universeness

-Not true.
I compared your initial claim and your excuse directly. They do not refer to the same statistical figure.
The first one was referring to "credence of the claim" while the second to your personal certainty.
Sorry.

And again, I actually agree. Goddamnit! I actually lost all reason indeed! — Hillary

So one can still get a faint heartbeat in the general area of your brain....that is hopeful! lol ; )

btw mr universeness tap danced and never addressed my answer on his immoral comment about this war crime.

So one can still get a faint heartbeat in the general area of your brain....that is hopeful! lol ; ) — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, dear Nickolast, it's still possible! A double heartbeat, actually. One for the scientific ratio and logic and one for the other. :lol:

Don't the emoticons or quote possibilities show up from wherever you type? You can make the lol (meaning "fun" in Dutch, no kidding!) laugh! And you can directly quote.

Funny! Brother Uni called me a panto player. So him being a tap dancer combines us in a powerful duo package! Panto Tap!

Weel, I actually had the nuclear tests in mind and their effects. And the development of even bigger thermonuclear devices with 3000 times the destructive power of the two thrown — Hillary

Human politicians and human military brass decided to do such tests. Perhaps many of them were theists. Perhaps some scientists completely sanctioned and even took part. ALL HUMANS!
Science is not at fault here, science is a method of understanding empirical data and using any new knowledge gained in whichever way humans decide to use it. The responsibility for the use of tech lies with humans, atheist and theist (and every flavour in-between) humans have equal responsibility for how tech is used.

And what about all extinct species or the animals killed in the atomic bomb tests.. — Hillary

99% of all species ever on the planet have gone extinct, most of them due to natural selection. Humans are responsible for some extinctions but are you really trying to claim that all the damage done to the environment by human activity such as industrialisation was sanctioned and actioned by non-theists only?

But with what do they kill...? — Hillary

Humans will kill using the best tech available as they usually want to kill their enemies but survive themselves regardless of the preferred label an individual chooses between theist and atheist.

lol....Ad Absurdum isn't always a logical fallacy when the argument includes a true analogy.
In this case, he created a ultimate judge out of thin air, I created one above him. I created an apagogigal argument (επαγωγικό επιχείρημα). — Nickolasgaspar

Talk about special pleading! :roll:
Your tools of conflation and sophistry are obvious, unconvincing and childlike.

Human politicians and human military brass decided to do such tests. Perhaps many of them were theists. Perhaps some scientists completely sanctioned and even took part. ALL HUMANS! — universeness

It were scientists who invented them. Los Alamos was the biggest science experiment ever. Oppi later whined about him becoming death, but as always, after the fact. Edward Teller was the mad father and adviced intense testing!

Humans will kill using the best tech available as they usually want to kill their enemies but survive themselves regardless of the preferred label an individual chooses between theist and atheist. — universeness

Yes. But the technological means are provided by scientific investigation.

You are confused. I can not help you if you are not willing to educate yourself.
Fallacy is an argument that proposes a conclusion without epistemic foundations (unsound) but not necessarily wrong.
Since we don't know the truth value of the conclusion, its irrational to use this argument to justify a belief.
An Ad Absurdum can be used by applying a true analogy(an example that matches all the characteristics of the claim) but with a small change. You use a similar assumption that he is forced to reject based on the same reasons you rejected yours. That technique exposes the absurdity of the initial belief in a fallacious argument.

Now later I can help you with the alphabet........

Yes. But the technological means are provided by scientific investigation. — Hillary

Are you still making this silly argument? What men decide to do with our knowledge depends on Pseudo Philosophical establishments...not science.
Get over it mr Hillary.

Anyone would prefer that over the death of civilians. Don't try to sugarcoat a war crime.
IT was a terrorist act by all standards.
The Japanese would not have surrendered easily because this is what nations do when they are in war. Japan was an imperialistic threat like the US and Russia are till to this day, but the answer is not to bomb cities with civilians in them — Nickolasgaspar

You demonstrate the musings of a simpleton. Thank goodness we had better minds than dolts like you to decide between the deaths of thousands or the death of millions. War is hell, all war is criminal but defeating your enemy whilst protecting your own is a valid approach. No one can come out of a war with clean hands. Most veterans find it very traumatic to even talk about their experiences.

The Italians surrendered easily in WW2 compared to the Japanese and the Italians inherited the legacy of the Romans. I think this actually speaks well for the Italians as does their own personal execution of Il duce. They were only fooled some of the time, whereas the Japanese were fooled all of the time based on their god-like projections regarding their f****** emperor Hellohito!

You can use a knife to gather food or to kill your Dutch neighbor....lol
Science enables technology. Technology is managed by the Market and Governments..not science.
Your brain is dead again mate.

Are you still making this silly argument? What men decide to do with our knowledge depends on Pseudo Philosophical establishments...not science.
Get over it mr Hillary. — Nickolasgaspar

Argument? You accuse me of an argument, a silly one even? I make progress!

You can use a knife to gather food or to kill your Dutch neighbor....lol — Nickolasgaspar

Jesus, you are a clearvoyant! Im sitting in the front garden of the street. And the SOB is fucking with his camper! And there lies a knife on the table! :lol:

You demonstrate the musings of a simpleton. Thank goodness we had better minds than dolts like you to decide between the deaths of thousands or the death of millions — universeness

biased personal opinions are not arguments.

War is hell, all war is criminal but defeating your enemy whilst protecting your own is a valid approach. No one can come out of a war with clean hands. Most veterans find it very traumatic to even talk about their experiences. — universeness

- This is why we have rules and Laws of WAR. Does the Term "Geneva Convention" rings any bells?
Stop attempting to justify the phenomenon we are trying to regulate through laws.
Your reasoning could be used by any criminal to defend his crimes "Human nature in unequal and competitive societies becomes a bitch....why trying to regulate it"
How old are you sir???
Did you ever thought taking a course on Logic?
With every comment you dig a deeper hole for you.....you never getting out of there mate.

-Not true.
I compared your initial claim and your excuse directly. They do not refer to the same statistical figure.
The first one was referring to "credence of the claim" while the second to your personal certainty.
Sorry — Nickolasgaspar

Again your fake apology. The truth is you CONFLATED my typings for your own self-admitted sinister reasons. You are just in pain because I have put you on the canvas so often. You crawl back up again in true tubthumping fashion as all sophists do but you were rendered unconscious time after time ages ago.
You just hang around now like a bad smell, typing bullshit.

That whole fucking war was made possible by science in the first place. Zycklon B, radar, planes, bombs, tanks, rockets,etc.

Jesus, you are a clearvoyant! Im sitting in the front garden of the street. And the SOB is fucking with his camper! And there lies a knife on the table! :lol: — Hillary

Why both of you, instead of acknowledging the argument exposing your irrational position you prefer to ridicule yourselves by acting like clowns?
Science provides us with knowledge on how to produce sharp knifes.
Does this make science responsible for the act moron who chose to cut his wife's throat instead of the bread.????

The whole war was caused by political and economical interests and ideas...I don't see you talk shit about philosophy...though.

Does this make science responsible for the act moron who chose to cut his wife's throat instead of the bread.???? — Nickolasgaspar

Logically speaking, yes. If there was no sharp edged knife, I couldn't kill him with it. So in a sense I should be thankful towards science! :lol:

-''The truth is you CONFLATED my typings"
-I didn't have to....you did a great job on your own.
If you want to change or clarify what you meant....I will accept it. Just say that this is not what you implied.
So the next time you decide to criticize my English....think twice. After all English is not my first language...I have excuses, you don't

The whole war was caused by political and economical interests and ideas... — Nickolasgaspar

Economical or political interests cant cause war. It are people causing war. And science gives them the technological means.

Logically speaking, yes — Hillary

Again you don't understand what logic is....lol
If there were sharp knifes humans would be unable to process their foods and they would have other far more serious problems than the dude who killed his wife.
You can not cherry pick and accuse on the same time.
well you can because ..its you mr Hillary.

You are confused. I can not help you if you are not willing to educate yourself. — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: This from the fool on the hill, who cannot figure out how his megaphone works!

An Ad Absurdum can be used by applying a true analogy(an example that matches all the characteristics of the claim) but with a small change — Nickolasgaspar

:lol: This is the argument you are using to posit a god called Cosmos which is 'more omnipotent' than omnipotent! In your world infinity + 1 is bigger than infinity? You really are a buffoon!
Then you think that throwing in some Latin helps your case.
Your epistemology is to peddle bullshit that you have tried to sprinkle with fairy dust to attempt to turn it into a valid point. :rofl:

That whole fucking war was made possible by science in the first place. Zycklon B, radar, planes, bombs, tanks, rockets,etc — Hillary

And who brandished such tech for such a purpose? god(s)? theists? atheists? or just HUMANS?