XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:31:56 -0800, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >In article <65o7dat16h43pa4uok40rufbrktkodnl62@4ax.com>, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 19:49:37 -0500, "M.I.Wakefield"    
   wrote:   
   >> .   
   >> >On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 19:11:36 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >>On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:50:46 -0500, "M.I.Wakefield"    
   >> >>wrote:   
   >> >>.   
   >> >>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:45:15 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:51:04 -0500, "M.I.Wakefield"    
   >> >>>>wrote:   
   >> >>>>.   
   >> >>>>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:09:13 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>>    Strong atheism is a religious belief. How much faith a person has   
   >> >>>>>>    that   
   >> >>>>>> there   
   >> >>>>>>is no God associated with this planet is what determines how strong an   
   >> >>>>>>atheist   
   >> >>>>>>that person is or is not. Someone with no faith about it is a weak   
   >> >>>>>>atheist.   
   >> >>>>>>So   
   >> >>>>>>what is there that you don't like about those facts?   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>Did you have an older sibling who used your head to practice their   
   >> >>>>>basketball dribbling skills while you were an infant?   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>Or, is your father also your grandfather, and your mother is your   
   >> >>>>>sister?   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>Or, did you eat a lot of lead and mercury as a child?   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>Or, all of the above?   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>Because your level of stupidity doesn't happen on its own.   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>>    Notice that though you can hurl childlike insults like any stupid   
   >> >>>>    moron can,   
   >> >>>>you are too stupid to be able to present any evidence that I was wrong   
   >> >>>>about   
   >> >>>>anything. You clearly displayed the fact that you don't like the facts I   
   >> >>>>pointed   
   >> >>>>out, and you also clearly displayed the fact that you can't even pretend   
   >> >>>>I was   
   >> >>>>wrong about any of them. All you did was to prance and flaunt your own   
   >> >>>>moronic   
   >> >>>>childlike stupidity and nothing more. What did you think you could gain   
   >> >>>>by doing   
   >> >>>>that, do you have any idea?   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>You're the one claiming that there are gods   
   >> >>   
   >> >>    Present your supposed quotes or it will reveal you as a liar.   
   >> >   
   >> >If there were any gods, one of you bozos would have stumbled across *some*   
   >> >reliable evidence in the last nine or ten thousand years.   
   >>   
   >>     Here's a challenge that has completely defeated every atheist in these   
   >>     ngs   
   >> for months and months to the point that none of them have been able to   
   >> provide a   
   >> single respectable reply to it. See if you can be the first to: Try to   
   >> explain   
   >> WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think it should   
   >> be,   
   >> WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think it should   
   >> have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God associated   
   >> with   
   >> this planet.   
   >   
   >   
   >We've told you many times. It has to be objective and VERIFIABLE.,   
   >VERIFIABLE means any person, believer or not, must be able to VERIFY   
   >that the evidence is valid.   
      
       You need to explain specifically WHAT you think should be available. As yet   
   there's no reason to believe any should be available ESPECIALLY if he wants   
   things to be as they are. You atheists have shown that the concept that if God   
   wants things to be as they are they should be as they are, is beyond your   
   mental   
   ability to compehend much less appreciate, but to some other people it's easy   
   to   
   understand and makes perfect sense.   
      
   >The fact that you refuse to even try to understand such a simple concept   
   >is very telling.   
      
       Not only do I understand it but I challenge you to try to explain WHAT YOU   
   think it should be. You make the fact that you don't have the slightest clue as   
   obvious as it can be. NONE OF YOU have any clue.   
      
   >But I'll throw you a bone--a medically-verified case of an amputee   
   >growing back a limb would be valid evidence.   
      
       Now that you've pulled something out of your ass, even though there's   
   nothing respectable about your favorite wish, you need to explain WHY he should   
   do that. You also need to explain WHERE and WHEN you think he should do that.   
      
   >But just so you know--having evidence that you're god exists does not   
   >mean than I (or most of the atheists here) would worship your genocidal   
   >torturing psychopathic monster of a god.   
      
       More reason for him NOT to do YOUR bidding, not less. You people still have   
   NOTHING.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)