that's better, stick to "teaching" language. It doesn't demand Logic..... where you under-perform — Nickolasgaspar

Teaching others is always a positive, as long as you have honorable intentions towards your students and you are a capable teacher. So if I am helping you with your English, then I hope you are grateful.
The idea that language does not demand logic is yet another under-performance from you.
Nouns, pronouns, verbs, sentences, paragraphs etc no logic in any of them whatsoever.
Do you live in the land of the brainless where the single brain cell you have makes you king?

again your excuse is on trial — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: and you gasbag have elected yourself accuser, judge and jury! when you cant even climb out your pram! Your musings on logic are hilarious BEPO :rofl:

Wanted to write exactly the same! Heigh vife, broother Uni! — Hillary

I think he must be a masochist. He could turn this off anytime he chose to but he wants to continue his tantrum. Go figure?

and how would you know! After all you are the one assigning percentages on things with zero verified samples and you suppor the use of atomic bombs on civilians as a way to say soldier's lives — Nickolasgaspar

Lets me help you, it's not 'suppor' its 'support'. It's not 'say soldier's lives,' it's 'save soldiers lives.'
Also, you need to keep reading my posts to try to understand what I actually typed.
Please offer your detailed evidence of the communications between the Allies and the Japanese during WW2 which explain exactly why Truman made the decision he made.

Here is a small begining for you:

The ensuing war was costly. Years of fighting brought the US armed forces closer and closer to Japan as they “hopped” from one island to another. The Japanese were vicious fighters, however, and every victory cost more time, material, and, sadly, lives. The last major battle, the fight for Okinawa, lasted almost three months and took more than 100,000 Japanese and American lives.

After President Roosevelt died on April 12th, 1945, it became Harry Truman’s job to decide how to end the war. The thought of invading Japan gave Truman and his advisors pause. The war had shown that the Japanese were fighting for the Emperor who convinced them that it was better to die than surrender. Women and children had been taught how to kill with basic weapons. Japanese kamikaze pilots could turn planes into guided missiles. The cost of invasion, they knew, would be high.

Upon becoming president, Harry Truman learned of the Manhattan Project, a secret scientific effort to create an atomic bomb. After a successful test of the weapon, Truman issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government, warning of “prompt and utter destruction.” Eleven days later, on August 6, 1945, having received no reply,

Yes, trek means journey, pull, or appetite. Three meanings of one word! You know more words with three such diverse meanings? Or are pull and journey related (pulling of a horse during a trek by chart). — Hillary

I like English examples like 'tear.'
I like the fact that it can mean 'the quanta involved in crying' or 'to rip a material such as paper.'
Both are spelled the exact same way. 'Tier' sounds exactly the same but can mean 'a sectional level of cake,' 'A societal or political strata,' ect. Then there is tear and tare, two different spellings which can refer to the same action of ripping a material. Tare can also mean crazy or mad.

So "trek" just means journey, like in Star Trek? Trek is a Dutch word too. "Vogel trek" means the great journey of the birds to warmer regions. Oddly it can also mean lust to eat — Hillary

Being a Geek, I just looked up the etymology of 'trek' on google and got:

1849 (n.) "a stage of a journey by ox wagon;" 1850 (v.), "to travel or migrate by ox wagon," from Afrikaans trek, from Dutch trekken "to march, journey," originally "to draw, pull," from Middle Dutch trecken (cognate with Middle Low German trecken, Old High German trechan "to draw"). Especially in reference to the Groot Trek (1835 and after) of more than 10,000 Boers, who, discontented with the English colonial authorities, left Cape Colony and went north and north-east. In general use as a noun by 1941. Related: Trekked; trekking.

Seems like its origins do indeed involve Dutch. I love learning new stuff I never knew before!

Strange that I never saw Satan in Santa! There are many of these word "coincidences", like evil and devil — Hillary

A few years ago, an atheist told me that 'evil' and 'devil' don't merit the level of fear they can invoke in many humans because 'evil' just means 'one who follows or supports the biblical Eve.
'Devil,' or D'evil just indicates a person who 'acts like the biblical eve,' and disobeys the dictates of the god of the old testament who he said the Christian hierarchy secretly believe, was 'overthrown,' by the god of the new testament. This all seemed very plausible to me at the time so I eagerly researched this for evidential support. Unfortunately, I found very little evidential support for these claims.
So some atheists employ pure hearsay as well. Exaggeration is not just a theistic tendency, so I try to be careful of that particular pit.

Where the fuck did you criticize MD? — Hillary

:rofl: I know, I actually praised Matt but that does not suit the agenda of the fool on the hill, trying to drown out the opposition. Gasbag wants to fire every toy he has in his cradle towards me because he is wound so tight and has no idea how to feel significant in his own skin.
Most divas are insecure people. Mr Minutia is just desperate to be recognised as a significant intellect but he is too full of nasties to become such. Who knows if he will ever be able to defeat his nasties.

.thinks he can criticize me or Dillahunty — Nickolasgaspar

Matt Dillahunty is a skilled debater. You are not. Now you type like a pathetic diva!

Why should I care if people dont want to eat what I offer? I'm happy with it, and if others dont want or arent able to eat it, who cares? It could be maybe that my brain is fried by certain substances. — Hillary

It's just that the fringes can be a tough place to occupy. Most people who choose to place themselves there, do so because their minority viewpoint is ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL to who they are and what they represent. They feel so strongly about their position that they are willing to stand against a large majority. many of whom will ridicule their viewpoint with equal fervour and will label them very harshly.

What's a Pony trek? And just outof interest, what's your birthday?

Maybe Im the Christ of the new age (my wife thinks Im a nutter...). — Hillary

Well, I take it she does so in jest as she married you!
A pony trek is a slow journey on small horses, normally for the pleasure of the natural surroundings involved in the trek. The ponies normally follow the lead pony so the lead pony dictates the direction of the trek. I used the analogy to exemplify my opinion that you were the lead pony in our trek through your polytheistic dalliances.
At least, this exchange has given me further insight into your reasoning.
I have not moved much from my earlier opinions on your proclaimed polytheism.

It does apply to gods just as well. And they worked it out pretty well. — Hillary

In what way have they 'worked it out pretty well?' You just agreed that they do have a responsibility towards that which they created so in what ways have they met that responsibility?

You think all gods are human like. — Hillary

No, I think you are perfectly aware that I think all gods are fictitious, so are you just being evasive again.
The artful dodger?

But the dino gods have literally dino shapes. It are no human shapeshifters (that's why I asked the last question). The bird gods are literally eternal birds, etc. So they did a good job in taking care of their creation. The people gods, as can be seen from their mortal material counterparts, fucked up in the preambles to creation. — Hillary

This is repetitive. I already know you think each species has its own god in the image of that species.
99% of all species that have ever been on the Earth have gone extinct so what do their gods do now?
Do they rely on you to entertain them as none of their own species is left?
It's interesting to find out how far your imagination can take this.
You will need to come up with something more Intelligible or you will remain open to constant ridicule but perhaps that's what you want as somewhere inside you think that's all you deserve.

No. I give attention to the inner box. Im curious about the innards. Especially the pre big bang era and the neural network — Hillary

Yet you want others to accept gods with no evidence accept the mere existence of life and the
Universe and you complain about science opening every box it can and you call this 'pressurising nature' You seem to struggle to balance your equations.

Yes, it's me that's bored with life! Come on! You can do better than that — Hillary

You are directing this Pony trek, only you know what's really going on in your head that manifests in your shall we say fringe polytheism. Is it mere attention seeking?

Then how can you make claims that they are inadequate? They ard, in fact. All of them, from dog to whale, just got bored. And the used their bundled intelligences and creation power to create the necessary ingredients. Divine elementary virtual particles with the right properties and a bulk space to let them evolve in. And again, these wicked, sneaky people gods.. — Hillary

You often try to merge your science knowledge with your polytheist dalliances.
Your attempts are a bit 'Hans Christian Anderson,' in style.
Your polytheistic shape will never fit into any space found in Science.
You offer a meal of sugar-coated beef steak. The vast majority of humans will reject your offer.

Not sure if I understand this. They take no responsibility for their creation? What should they be responsible for? — Hillary

Do humans have any responsibility to the children they create? Should this not apply even more to gods?

Almost! I'm happy to be a handsome guy with an almost clownesque intelligence and maybe I make my god counterpart or other gods, in heaven laugh, cry, or neither. Frankly, I don't care what they think of me. — Hillary

This is the kind of comment that you type which adds to my evidence that you are merely playing the polytheist for the sake of 'pressing the atheist's buttons.' I can play in that pen to help you sate that need but it would be more beneficial for you to seek support and inspiration for your scientific work than seek to satisfy your rather pointless dalliances with polytheism. Your theism seems to play a very insignificant role in your psyche.

The whole process of evolution is not to pass genes or memes (though of course this happens) but just to make life appear. — Hillary

All you suggest here is let's just focus on the pretty box rather than worry about its internal workings.
This does not match with your deep dive into physics. Why do you look inside the physics box? Why don't you pay much more attention to your gods and find new fun ways to entertain them. You suggest that you are perfectly happy to leave all the boxes closed. If you are content with life just appearing then why do you have any interest AT ALL regarding how or why it appears. You are just entertainment for inadequate gods, why do you try to be more significant than that?

I don't think that will stop him. Neither will it stop the evanhellicals — Hillary

So the point you were making is moot!

I have never surrendered to woowoo. I keep my mind wide open, but at the same time I keep it closed for attempts to kill my "theology". — Hillary

Surely your theology cannot be killed if you won't let it die so what are you worried about?

They don't only dance. And yes they get bored. It's what actually happened! — Hillary

I know, you have already suggested your gods are inadequate and heaven failed for them.
They seem to fail much more than they succeed. I think you project human frailties onto them. Perhaps you project your own personal frailties onto them to make sense of yourself.

How you think my vision of heaven and the gods looks like — Hillary

That's for you to offer not for me to guess!

And not only pigs. Monkeys, mice, trees, bacteria, flees people, and even my pussies! And I like to give them a nice show! And so do all other forms of life. If they are worthy or not is not my interest. Maybe they are, maybe not. I take joy from the fact that they took care of it — Hillary

I find it hard to follow your thought processes at times. Lost in translation perhaps.
Are you saying you are happy to be a performing monkey to entertain inadequate gods?

Okay, but scientific knowledge is not needed to dance — Hillary

Well, it depends what you are referring to as dance. People bobbing about to music or those who study and perform dance as a science. Do you think ballet and body poppin have no science or knowledge behind them? What is choreography, is it randomised movement to sound or does it involve intense thought that needs years of study to create those who are called expert dancers? Your birds of paradise do the same mating dance every time. Do you think your gods ever get bored watching the birds of paradise repeat their dance?
Do you think they prefer watching Michael Flately and his various versions of Riverdance, Lord of the dance etc?

To take pictures, a camera is needed, to paint, linen, knowledge of paint or how to use it, knowledge of varnish, and we can use computers to translate communicate or create new stuff with — Hillary

So you agree with what I said earlier then? Scientific endeavor gives us these options, not faith in god(s).

How else can the paradise bird dance? — Hillary

Do you expect me to answer for paradise birds?

It's not who is better. We dance differently, and most people worse than the paradise bird! Science says it's a mating dance to pass on genes. But its just the way of the paradise bird gods. That's another reason I believe in gods. Science tries to explain all human and animal behavior like that — Hillary

So these birds dance to entertain their god and it has nothing to do with attracting a mate as Science suggests it is? Is that your claim?

And ourselves! It works both ways. — Hillary

How does it work both ways? I don't see the gods you claim to commlink within your dreams and they seem to be incapable of appearing to me despite me giving them my permission.
So they provide no entertainment for me, they only cause me concern that someone with a good knowledge of science like you can be so sidetracked by woo woo god posits.
I accept your polytheism because you give me little choice even though I still think your reasons are a mix of roleplay, pissed off at cosmologists, and primal fear. You would call me fake if I did not make it clear to you that I think your beliefs are at best, irrational. I cant hide my true opinions from you.
Would you prefer I did?

And I really don't care a jot about his preachings, like I don't give a jot about the phony theist TV vanhellicals — Hillary

So, you don't care so will that stop him or does it defeat the points he makes?

I engaged myself in all that reasoning against theism too. "But if god... then how...and what...? Against the view I hold no, no reasoning or argument suffices — Hillary

My advice would be keep engaging! Don't just surrender to woo woo, at least keep your mind open. I remain open to gods. All the cowards have to do is show up and submit themselves to scientific scrutiny. If they can't then they are not gods and they don't and never have existed.

I consider him not the nemisis. I consider him on the same level as any other TV preacher. Nothing interesting to offer. — Hillary

Matt Dillahunty:
I say Yay! you say Nay! I doubt he cares one jot. He proves himself imo, every time he chews up another theist viewpoint, espoused by the theist callers to his show.

To cheer them up and fill their existential void — Hillary

Your god(s) sound like selfish pigs and imo, seem unworthy of your need for them or your determination to assign them existence.

You need knowledge of the pre big bang era to dance? — Hillary

Where did I mention knowledge from before the big bang as a prerequisite for human dance?

All animals have knowledge? — Hillary

I don't know, do they?

Have you seen the mating dance of the paradise birds? — Hillary

Yeah, I've seen some of it. I think from Gene Kelly, Fred Astair to Darcey Bussell, Rudolph Nureyev all the way to even.....Lady Gaga and my nieces are much better.

Knowledge is just a necessary prior to life. It's not whats it about — Hillary

and your alternative 'what it's all about,' is to keep inadequate fictitious gods entertained?

Well, actually I have used logic and reason my whole life in everything I do because I was taught to. And I still do — Ken Edwards

A good strategy of life and for living the human experience sir. But not just because you were taught to but also because you accepted that teaching as offering a good strong foundation to build upon. Your use of intuition compliments your foundations in logic and reason.

You also seem to be comfortable with the use of intuition — Ken Edwards

Since I took early retirement, I oil paint as one of the hobbies I love.
I have read all of Carl Sagans books and enjoyed his description of the triune human brain and the various functions of the R-complex, the limbic system and the cortex. I like the me, myself and I aspects that I use to represent my triune brain. I have used this to stabilise their interrelationships and enforce common cause and union between me, myself and I.
I want to be part of the solutions and not part of the problems. A very difficult navigation on a case by case basis when full information is not available or is open to misinterpretation.
But my goal to get it right continues.

And creative greetings to you, dear brother from a living body. But not so much a walking one. I am 97 and don't walk too good.
Much love, Ken Edward — Ken Edwards

97! FANTASTIC SIR! I am 57. I read a new scientist article a few months ago which suggested that the first person to live between 125 and 170 is alive today. I vote for you to be one of those first ones to do so, as your sentiments above are sooooooo kind! :up: :clap: :flower:
Regardless of my longevity, my fate, or the contributions I have made or will make towards helping the world become a better place, you sound like a great person to be around.

The purpose is to life like the human gods. — Hillary

How horrible to live like amoral gods who are according to you bored with their own existence!
Amoral because they take no responsibility for their own creations, something you accuse Science of.

Creating knowledge is an art. With math — Hillary

There is knowledge in Science, maths and art. Cant do an oil painting without first creating some oil-based pigments to paint with, along with a paintbrush, canvas, thinners, dryers etc. You even need to invent a tool to scratch an image onto a cave wall before you can have an artist.

What about art, dance, music, clothes, etc — Hillary

All activities/objects that need knowledge. You cant dance if you don't learn how to move rhythmically!
Cats, dogs, monkeys, elephants, and ants don't dance as well as humans can in my opinion.

It's nice to invent planes, cars, computers, etc. but at the same time it's a step away from humanity. — Hillary

They can also enhance humanity or would you rather swim and walk to visit another country?
Would you prefer it if humans could not communicate with each other the way we can now.
Would the actions of autocrats like Putin be easier or harder to combat if we had less global communication ability than we have at present?

Matt Dillahunty! The atheist preacher! Helliluyeah!!! — Hillary

Matt Dillahunty, a nemesis of theism.

Matt Dillawhoty? — Hillary

Try a YouTube search!

The point is, science (I don't see why you write it with a capital S, it's only knowledge) — Hillary

What is your purpose for humans if it's not to pursue new knowledge and seek to confirm the knowledge we have? god worship? Nature worship?

And they say theism is the cause of war. As I read you two atheists fighting with words, no gods are needed! And the gods laugh at you from heaven! Luckily there is a large space between you. The Greek Log vs. The Scottish Tap. Fifteenth round! — Hillary

:rofl: Matt Dillahunty says he has more problems trying to set atheists straight, who use poor arguments and bad logic than he does with theists. I dont think Matt would think much of Nickerless Gasbag but perhaps he would plague both our houses! :halo:

the mind boggling thing about you is that you objectively make really silly claims about probabilities, about war crimes...but you keep defending them, by talking about "the concept of civilian"and what Churchill's bombings etc etc.,,,
What's wrong with you? Are 13 yo or what? Are you honest enough to admit your screw ups? Why do you have to pollute this thread with your shenanigans ...do your self a favor and grow up — Nickolasgaspar

You are back at your mirror again wicked queen! Asking that same old BS question, when you know fine well that you are the tubthumper, the brat, the toy thrower, the child in a permanent tantrum. Mommies little soldier!

I can answer it. I would have made the exact same decision as Churchill but unlike him, I could not live with it. After the war, I would have destroyed myself from the guilt of it.
I think Churchill was a narcissist a self-aggrandising horror, a butcher who could live with such things.
We needed horror to combat horror. I would still have made the same decision as him but I would have tried other methods first before dropping the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. I would have invited the Japanese to a demonstration in the desert somewhere first.
I don't know if that was attempted and refused by the Japanese. There are various conspiracy theories out there regarding what happened. None are compelling against that which was reported in the mainstream.

So are you a professional dancer or you just tap dance in forums? — Nickolasgaspar

You want me to be more like you, a professional CHANCER? No, that wont happen. I choose not to mimic the fool BEPO.

btw do you know anything about atomic bombs?....one thing people can not do is throw one and make excuses about being inaccurate lol

Again we are not comparing war crimes. Your silly excuse is on trial here.
Justifying the bombing of civilians for sparing soldiers' lives. Imagine if that excuse stick up......What a pleasant place to live earth would be! lol
Are you Putin's advisor.....if not....don't become one — Nickolasgaspar

This is just more conflated BS!
You ignored the Churchill question. How about offering your solution Sherlock?

Irrelevant. We are not chronicling about these rules, we are addressing your immoral statement (justifying the killing civilians over soldiers). plus we judged the Nazis based on some kind of standards...so those standards should apply on anyone — Nickolasgaspar

The concept of soldiers and civilians is the reality of what is changing. Soldiers don't stay away from civilians during war. You need to go back to something like the Napoleonic wars to find big armies fighting in a field somewhere with few or no civilians in danger.
Many civilians will die in modern warfare. No legislation will ever prevent that. Only the victors will be able to enforce justice on those who committed or commanded attrocities AFTER THE WAR IS OVER.
It gives hope to all when the victors also prosecute those who committed atrocities from their own side but that tends to be only based on the most extreme examples reported and can be pure tokenism but should still be pursued. The standards do apply to everyone.
Churchill allowed the bombing of Coventry without evacuating the civilians because he did not want the Nazis to find out that the British has broken the enigma code. Many call that a war crime. Others say his decision saved many more lives than it cost. What would you have done Sherlock?

You see, I accept your claim (criminal wars) for the shake of the argument and still it doesn't hold up!
Why reasoning is so difficult for you???? — Nickolasgaspar

Yeah, you keep 'shakin' those arguments BEPO, perhaps they will hold up for you eventually once you have learned how to proofread or at least use the provided edit facility that becomes available after you click on the 'Post Comment' button. Learn how to use the three small dots that appear when you hover the mouse cursor to the right of the time indicator for your posting. It's not difficult Sherlock!

Learn the uses of an Ad Hominem and then we can talk. I can not address ignorant accusations...its a waste of time.
If you want academic material ...I can provide you...let me know — Nickolasgaspar

And you accuse me of insulting you! :rofl:
All you are doing is offering me more reasons to continue to insult you.
I think I am much better at it than you are! :rofl:

Therefore please lay down your life so that I can start to believe what you say — SpaceDweller

Oh come on SpaceDweller, you can do better than that. The Jesus fable of human sacrifice was supposed to pay all debts of sin. Why are you asking for another from a mere mortal?

Ok the word credence isn't mentioned so you changed your statement, cool!
So next time think twice before criticizing other people's use of English.....
Now I guess you don't know that you can express your doubt about god without using numbers... — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: Mr Minutia bleats again! The fact that you don't have enough command of English to be able to connect the concept of 'credence' with 'personal conviction,' because you think that credence is only applicable toward objective truth, is an example of how shallow your thinking is.
Especially when there is not much CREDENCE in the posit that objective truth even exists!
My use of percentage to express my personal conviction towards a particular posit or to use it as a personal statement towards how credible a particular posit is TO ME, is perfectly valid amongst the vast majority of all other human beings I have ever talked to in my life.
It's just little small-minded fools like you who create the bad smells in debates between grownups.

So you try to justify a war crime by appeal to the nature of war and when I point out that we have standards by which we judge war practices — Nickolasgaspar

Such standards were put in place BECAUSE of WW2. You put the cart before the horse as usual!

Strawman, You are missing the point of what an ad absurdums is and does and this shows that you don't understand it. — Nickolasgaspar

Your interpretation of strawmanning you mean. You keep making Latin excuses for your poor skills in dialogue with others. Do you expect people to steelman you when you offer such poor logic?
You invented a beef with me and you have made every pathetic effort you can to gain a hit and you have failed miserably. This exposes you as a prideful prat who sucks on sour grapes.

The theistic argument is irrational by default....so I need an irrational analogy to expose the absurdity.
Plus Cosmos as a concept is bigger then our universe and it includes god so you meshed up again in your critique.
I am not sure that you are that bad in reasoning. Your anger for me exposing your weaknesses in your reasoning must be clouding your thinking and that is obvous in your arguments — Nickolasgaspar

How naive are you? You think any part of OUR exchange has been about the atheism/theism debate?
Your admission to having sinister purpose is beginning to surface and manifest.
I originally informed you that @Hillary was not female, simply because I did not want to read the posts that he would have allowed you to continue with down that particular rabbit hole. He would have done so as a harmless gigglefest that's all. I just wanted to bat it away.
You then tried to browbeat me with Imo, disrespectful commentary. That was a bad idea. You have typed like a pompous ass, ever since. We can continue as long as you like Mr Minutia!

Who cares? It is science that produced them. Without science no such weaponry. How logical can it be. Even my primitive logic can understand that — Hillary

You anthropomorphise Science! I choose not to. Put the blame where it fits! with humans, not gods!

If you want to change or clarify what you meant....I will accept it. — Nickolasgaspar

Ok Sherlock, I will repeat again to aid your slow wit! My typing on the multiverse posit and the god posit where BOTH personal estimates of MY conviction towards both posits. The god posit...0.1%
The multiverse...>0.1% So I was indicating that I find the multiverse posit more convincing than the god posit and you dragged over those embers so vigorously to come up with contrived bullshit about mathematical probability and the rules of statistical analysis and even attempted to throw in more bullshit about contrived logical fallacy to remain standing on quicksand of your own making.
You expect me to respect your musings as fair-minded? Hah! Keep trying to work the megaphone fool on the hill or prat in the pit. You shame yourself BEPO!

Why both of you, instead of acknowledging the argument exposing your irrational position you prefer to ridicule yourselves by acting like clowns? — Nickolasgaspar

An accusation from BEPO GASBAG in full clown makeup and costume! :rofl: Go figure?

- 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 — Nickolasgaspar

Again you offer 'no shit Sherlock' comments.

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" — Nickolasgaspar

Which word in 'all war is criminal' did you fail to understand 'Mr English is not my first language?'

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. — Nickolasgaspar

You ask for data I have posted many times. Pay attention Mr minutia.
As for digging holes, I think you display a much bigger shovel than I, along with a far greater tendency to dig holes.

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

:lol: Now that's a hellspawn partnership if ever there was one! Good luck with that.
The antichrist is born of such a union!

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

I answered you fully it's just that your attention span and cognitive ability are limited.
I can only work with the ingredients you offer. You are asking us to turn you into an enlightened individual but you offer very poor materials to work with.
Perhaps you watch too many cartoons on the internet instead of its more useful offerings.

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?

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:

-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.

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!

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.

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.