"In all those bodies I am sure that some contain life."

Sure?

But there's precisely no evidence for extraterrestrial life.

A strong belief based on credence rather than evidence . Now what does that sound like?

mhaze ,

That analogy fails for the same reason your dark matter analogy fails.

How can you still not get it?

<<But there's precisely no evidence for extraterrestrial life.>>

Yes, there is. There’s us, and we’re extraterrestrial life to other planets.

My apologies, mhaze. My response to this claim of yours sounded a little confused:

<<… you demand that I prove [your changing of the original terms] knowing that there is now a labyrinth of your false claims that I'd have to negotiate to demonstrate the obvious.>>

Contrary to what I had said, no, you hadn’t yet attempted to prove that I had changed the terms in the atheism-agnosticism debate. That’s what I’ve been trying to get you to do, hence the advice in my last post yesterday regarding how you could accomplish this.

You had, however, claimed that there was a “labyrinth” of false claims, which I had just finished demonstrating there wasn’t.

That’s what your arguments have been reduced to, isn’t it? Porky pies which you hope to conceal the truth of in the sheer volume of content already discussed in order to sow confusion about what has happened. Yet every time you do, I’m able to provide quotes and links back to what had actually happened and expose your lies.

Heck, one can even tell at a glance who here is dealing with the facts and it ain’t the one without the courage of his convictions to provide quotes and links in support of his slander.

You’re happy to slander others with porky pies about what has transpired, but when asked to provide evidence for those claims, you slink out of your duties by claiming that it would mean going down a rabbit hole.

How convenient.

Since I’m here though, let’s examine your claim that you were arguing that agnosticism “isn't a subset of atheism”:

1. I first mentioned subsets (or variations) of atheism at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252769

2. You then respond with definitions of ‘agnostic’ (none of which contradict anything I’ve said), presumably to highlight the fact that they describe you:

“Wow, those definitions certainly sound like me…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252793)

3. I explained how this changes nothing: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252805

4. You then attempt to make it sound like I’m cornered again: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252853

Nope, nothing there about agnosticism not being a subset of atheism at all. Just more porkies.

"There’s us, and we’re extraterrestrial life to other planets."

That only sort of makes sense if there is life elsewhere and since there's no evidence of that...

But if that's the best you can do then it pretty much proves that my point was on the mark, much as your feeble dissembling on the DM analogy demonstrated its accuracy.

But just to avoid chasing you down another hole (where AJ excruciatingly spends innumerable posts asserting that when he said 'x' he clearly alluded to 'y' and how dare you suggest he didn't mean 'z')....

Read "But there's precisely no evidence for extraterrestrial life" as
"But there's precisely no evidence for life beyond earth

No, it doesn’t, mhaze.

<<That only sort of makes sense if there is life elsewhere and since there's no evidence of that...>>

There doesn’t need to be a conscious awareness on other planets for us to be “extraterrestrial” to them.

<<But if [the fact that we’re extraterrestrial to other planets is] the best you can do …>>

It doesn’t have to be good. Given that there is no evidence for the supernatural at all, it just has to be something.

<<… much as your feeble dissembling on the DM analogy demonstrated its accuracy.>>

There was nothing feeble about my debunking of your terrible and naive ‘dark matter’ analogy. Your analogy utterly failed for the same fundamental reason this latest silly analogy fails:

“… no appeals to the supernatural are needed to explain it.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252533)

<<But just to avoid chasing you down another hole …>>

You have not yet chased me down any holes. In fact, you have studiously avoided supporting any of your slanderous claims, despite my demonstration of how doing so would not lead to any rabbit hole journeys.

<<… (where AJ excruciatingly spends innumerable posts asserting that when he said 'x' he clearly alluded to 'y' and how dare you suggest he didn't mean 'z')....>>

Try giving one example of me doing that.

<<But there's precisely no evidence for life beyond earth>>

Not really, it can at least be determined that the likelihood of life not existing somewhere out there (however simple) is exceedingly small, and only gets smaller the more discover about our universe. Where gods are concerned, on the other hand, there is no way of gauging in any way the probability of their existence.

There’s another reason why your analogy is silly.

"Not really, it can at least be determined that the likelihood of life not existing somewhere out there (however simple) is exceedingly small, and only gets smaller the more discover about our universe. "

Working out the likelihood isn't evidence. Its guess-work based upon assumptions based on an imperfect knowledge of the universe. It'll be evidence when someone has a picture of a bacterium or such-like from some other world or when SETI hears ET's radio signal. Until then, no evidence, just suppositions. It may be guesses based on assumptions you think are valid but guesses still aren't evidence. Just like DM is based guess-work based upon assumptions based on an imperfect knowledge of the universe.

But Davidf was sure life is there. Just like NNS is sure based on his suppositions. I suspect you understand this. I know (and that's no supposition) that you'll deny it because you just don't want it to be true.

"It doesn’t have to be good. "

The philosophy behind most of your posts?