Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 108109110111112 191>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 10:08
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

I can't be arsed to view the video clip....but what is this about tides?  I thought it was well known that the gravitational forces exerted by the moon (among other things) caused tides.


He says that "The tides go in, the tides go out" (shouldn't use quotes the wording might be different like tide comes in but you get the idea). He says Atheists can't explain this.

I'm assuming that he knows that the moon causes tides. I think he's making some sort of modified watchmaker's argument. I think he's saying that the perceived order and balance in the universe can't be explained by atheists.

I hope anyway.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 10:09
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I know Bill Reilly is a jerk, but even jerks have the right to express their opinions.

Now David Silverman is a jerk of worst kind (And an ignorant, because instead of replying why the tides exist, he answered "I don't know but it's not a magic man in the sky").



He is accusing all religions of being scammers in a billboard paid for him, and if he can't prove why he posted "ALL RELIGIONS ARE SCAMS", he will be facing (I believe already is) several sues (and will loose them), because accusing somebody of a crime without evidence, is a crime and a scam is a fraud.

His reply was worst, he even said "I know that religious leaders know religion is a scam", he was asked how can you affirm this and he replied "I don't know, but I am sure they know"

Iván




I seriously doubt he loses a legal case.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 10:16
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I know Bill Reilly is a jerk, but even jerks have the right to express their opinions.

Now David Silverman is a jerk of worst kind (And an ignorant, because instead of replying why the tides exist, he answered "I don't know but it's not a magic man in the sky").



He is accusing all religions of being scammers in a billboard paid for him, and if he can't prove why he posted "ALL RELIGIONS ARE SCAMS", he will be facing (I believe already is) several sues (and will loose them), because accusing somebody of a crime without evidence, is a crime and a scam is a fraud.

His reply was worst, he even said "I know that religious leaders know religion is a scam", he was asked how can you affirm this and he replied "I don't know, but I am sure they know"

Iván




I seriously doubt he loses a legal case.

Of course exclusively with that billboard alone, he wouldn't because it's ambiguous saying "They are all scams".. It was obviously designed with legal support.

But the idiot on national TV said that this billboard was talking about Churches and mentioned the leaders of religions being scammers...That is defamation..

The jerk gave him rope and Silverman took it an placed it in his neck, he will have to prove in court that God doesn't exist to avoid a trial, and in this case saying "I son't have to prove anything, I'm not making a positive affirmation" won't be enough.

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 07 2011 at 10:32
            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 10:58
I agree that he would have little luck in showing that what he said is true, but of course the burden doesn't lie with him. I think the plaintiff will have equal trouble in showing that the statement is false.

The bigger problem though is showing actual damages from the statement.

Seems like a hard case to win to me.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 11:08
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I know Bill Reilly is a jerk, but even jerks have the right to express their opinions.

Now David Silverman is a jerk of worst kind (And an ignorant, because instead of replying why the tides exist, he answered "I don't know but it's not a magic man in the sky").


It's actually a good reply. It doesn't matter whether we know why the tides exist, even if we don't it still doesn't follow that the God of the bible exists. If you base your argument on the fact that we have a good explanation of the tides today, the theist will move to the creation of the universe - or some other phenomenon that science can't yet explain.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:




He is accusing all religions of being scammers in a billboard paid for him, and if he can't prove why he posted "ALL RELIGIONS ARE SCAMS", he will be facing (I believe already is) several sues (and will loose them), because accusing somebody of a crime without evidence, is a crime and a scam is a fraud.

His reply was worst, he even said "I know that religious leaders know religion is a scam", he was asked how can you affirm this and he replied "I don't know, but I am sure they know"

Iván



On that I agree. Some atheists go way too far with their claims. Not that the good ones (like Dawkins with the "There's Probably No God" campaign) get much praise from you ... Wink
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 11:12
Incidentally: Is he even being sued? I can't find any news article to that effect. And it would surprise me if that was the case ... unless he named a particular person, it's still too vague.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 14:18
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I agree that he would have little luck in showing that what he said is true, but of course the burden doesn't lie with him. I think the plaintiff will have equal trouble in showing that the statement is false.

That's the interesting thing of laws...The plaintiff doesn't have to prove anything.

Many politicians have been accused of being corrupt and probably they are, but they don't have to prove anything, if I say "X" is a corrupts, I have to prove it.

Plus there's a legal argument, SCAM (fraud) means asking for money or benefits KNOWING THAT WHAT YOU ARE OFFERING IS FALSE OR DOESN'T EXIST (ANIMUS DELICTI)

Quote Common law fraud has nine elements:[3][4]
  1. a representation of an existing fact;
  2. its materiality;
  3. its falsity;
  4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
  5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
  6. plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
  7. plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
  8. plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
  9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

Nobody can prove that a priest, cardinal Pope or whatever religious leader doesn't believe in God.

It only would be a scam if I receive money saying I believe in God and I don't believe in God, the idiot said that Cardinals know God doesn't exist..It's impossible for him to prove this, even if one renegade Cardinal accepts he doesn't believe in God, you can't prove all the others don't.

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The bigger problem though is showing actual damages from the statement. .

False, it's the easiest part, if somebody calls me a scammer, I can ask easily 10 dollars or more because they are affecting my good name and I value my good name in what I want, even more, they are causing me suffering, and that's invaluable, but if a cardinal or a well known and massively respected pastor is accused of committing a fraud, he can claim 100 millions and win.

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Seems like a hard case to win to me. 

I would win it blindfolded.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 14:24
Are you 12? You're responding like it.

How much do you even know about American law let alone the particular State's statutes?

Anyway I trust my analysis more than yours so I don't really care.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 14:59
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Are you 12? You're responding like it. 

How much do you even know about American law let alone the particular State's statutes? 

Anyway I trust my analysis more than yours so I don't really care. 

I have not only studied the US PENAL CODE, but the concept of fraud is similar in all the world.

I studied six years of laws, studied compared law as it's required in my country to obtained the degree, also got a master in compared International Laws, so I believe my analysis is transparent, you are only protesting without any knowledge.

BTW: The penal codes of US and all states are available in the net, you can check them, 

Just in case:

Quote

Defamation per se

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missourii, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. "Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":[5]

  • Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
  • Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
  • Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
  • Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of Moral Turpitude)

Just in case...Fraud or Scam is a crime of moral turpitude

Or

Quote
Slander is a type of defamation (a false statement which causes damage to a person’s reputation, giving rise to a legal claim) which is spoken, as opposed to written or recorded.

(...)

In a lawsuit for slander per se, all a plaintiff needs to prove is that the statements were made, and not that he or she suffered direct harm as a result. The statements themselves are considered to be the harm.

http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/slander-per-se-782976.html#ixzz1ANwh32i0 

So, unless the debate took place and the billboards were posted exclusively in Arizona, Missouri, Arkansas and Tennessee (where defamation and fraud also exist bit not aggravation), this is a clear case of  DEFAMATION PER SE, so your analysis is wrong 

Being that at least one of the billboards have been placed in the Lincoln Tunnel in New York...It's defamation "per se"

So please. don't try to teach me laws. LOL

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 07 2011 at 15:02
            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 15:08
The last statement was mocking the way you responded. I guess you didn't catch that?

I asked you a question buddy. You might want to cool your jets. Again, back to the acting like your 12 thing.

If you would have just posted some actual legal specifics the first time we wouldn't have had this problem.


"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 18:13
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The last statement was mocking the way you responded. I guess you didn't catch that?

I asked you a question buddy. You might want to cool your jets. Again, back to the acting like your 12 thing.

If you would have just posted some actual legal specifics the first time we wouldn't have had this problem.




This was not a joke or mockery Equality, 

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Are you 12? You're responding like it. 

How much do you even know about American law let alone the particular State's statutes? 

Anyway I trust my analysis more than yours so I don't really care. 

You were simply refusing to recognize what is obvious in a very rude way..

I respond with legal arguments, I assumed everybody understood the terms defamation and fraud as Mike did..

And if it was a joke, there's no way somebody could guess it, don't try to fix it when you are proven wrong.

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 07 2011 at 18:16
            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 18:15
ITT: Ivan the mind reader tells you what you meant by your posts.

5$ a ticket. 





EDIT: You assume everyone knows the exact legal onus required for particular crimes? Seems like a terrible assumption to make. 


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - January 07 2011 at 18:17
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Xanatos View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
Banned

Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Latin America
Status: Offline
Points: 305 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 07 2011 at 18:16
Epic thread is epic!
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2011 at 19:25
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2011 at 22:20
^Exactly the thread that needed bumping... LOL
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2011 at 22:55
Nah, already bored me.

As we say, and T will understand it...Cada loco con su tema" (This include me).

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 26 2011 at 22:57
            
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:07
Oh slarti slarti slarti....you just had to you LOL

Fiendish lil troll ye are!
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:17
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:36
I'll just leave these here...
(OK, at least he hates racists)
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 27 2011 at 00:43
Damn, Pat and Brian stealing the spotlight from Slarti... Think you can beat him in the pic/cartoon-posting game? Think again... 

At least this bump will give Mike a chance to remember good ol' threads... Tongue
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 108109110111112 191>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.285 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.