XPost: sac.politics, alt.atheism, alt.politics.homosexuality   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
      
   On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 23:10:48 -0800, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >In article , mur wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 01:11:31 -0800, Jeanne Douglas    
   >> wrote:   
   >> .   
   >> >In article <6100d646e56f3a56945d8feb86f3cea3@dizum.com>,   
   >> > "Carmine"  wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >> In article    
   >> >> Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > mur wrote in news:gcqveahsh60t4eggnur0t96k60ocq57g9r@4ax.com:   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > > On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:45:13 -0600, Mitchell Holman    
   >> >> > > wrote: .   
   >> >> > >>mur wrote in news:5iafeah6t3his33euknmf31kdqkhokde4i@4ax.com:   
   >> >> > >>   
   >> >> > >>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 20:52:56 -0600, Mitchell Holman   
   >> >> > >>>  wrote: .   
   >> >> > >>>>On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 20:49:17 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >> >> > >>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:41:18 -0600, Mitchell Holman   
   >> >> > >>>>> wrote: .   
   >> >> > >>>>>>mur wrote in news:dl4ldalk1uqlcf3qnh8f4e5hhp8n28a1ul@4ax.com:   
   >> >> > >>>>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:44:43 -0600, Mitchell Holman   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>>>     Here's a fact for you: Atheists have nothing at all   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>>>     constraining them in any   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>>> way.   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>>    Which means their morality is independent   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>>of any system of divine rewards or punishments.   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>>Sounds like a superior form to me.......   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>     How does lying that there's no evidence of God's existence   
   >> >> > >>>>>>>     sound better to   
   >> >> > >>>>>>> you than not lying about it and dealing with what evidence   
   there   
   >> >> > >>>>>>> is?   
   >> >> > >>>>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>>      What evidence is that?   
   >> >> > >>>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>>    Life itself is evidence.   
   >> >> > >>>>   
   >> >> > >>>>      Life is evidence of life.   
   >> >> > >>>   
   >> >> > >>>     Even IF humans eventually are able to produce life from   
   lifeless   
   >> >> > >>>     material   
   >> >> > >>> life might STILL remain evidence of God's existence.   
   >> >> > >>   
   >> >> > >>   
   >> >> > >>    "Might"?   
   >> >> > >>   
   >> >> > >>    Your whole faith is based on what MIGHT be evidence?   
   >> >> > >   
   >> >> > >     I don't have faith that there's a God associated with Earth. I'm   
   a   
   >> >> > >     weak   
   >> >> > > agnostic so I consider the possibility that there is not, and also   
   >> >> > > that there is. What I pointed out is still a fact though. Is there   
   >> >> > > something you don't like about it, and if so, how would you rather   
   >> >> > > things be different?   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >      What you accept on faith is your business.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Then why are you atheists always sticking your nose up the arses   
   >> >> of Christians?   
   >> >   
   >> >They invade our home newsgroup.   
   >>   
   >>     We challenge your claims and beliefs to see if there's anything of value   
   >>     to   
   >> them. So far there doesn't appear to be, which we also point out for you but   
   >> you   
   >> can't appreciate that aspect of it. From there we consider why that might   
   >> be...   
   >>   
   >> >What do you think   
   >>   
   >>     I seems somewhat significant that all of you people can't do any better   
   >>     than   
   >> you're able to against a much smaller number.   
   >>   
   >> >we shouldn't defend our home turf against invaders?   
   >>   
   >>     There's one particular challenge that has totally defeated every one of   
   >>     you   
   >> for months now both as individuals and as a group. If any of you were able   
   to   
   >> give a respectable answer to the challenge it would suggest that you people   
   >> might have some idea what you think you're trying to talk about. But so far   
   >> not   
   >> one of you has been able to provide any respectable responce to it. Here it   
   >> is   
   >> again, in case any of you can finally provide one:   
   >>   
   >> 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 answered your "challenge" every single time you've posed it.   
      
       That's a horribly blatant lie.   
      
   >It's not our fault that you don't like our answer.   
      
       On the VERY FEW times anyone has made any attempt to answer it has usually   
   been that they think God should regrow limbs on amputees, which is incredibly   
   stupid and makes no more sense than saying God should give everyone a new car,   
   or new house, or anything and everything else they ever ask for. It's not my   
   fault that you can't comprehend how stupid you are for making such a demand.   
      
   >Evidence should be objective and verifiable   
      
       Only if that's how God wants it to be. If he doesn't, then it "should" not.   
   That's another obvious aspect of the situation you can't comprehend. What it   
   comes down to is that you're too stupid to comprehend that fact that there's no   
   reason why God should do what YOU want him to do unless it's what HE wants to   
   do. You just can't comprehend that, along with the other things you can't   
   comprehend of course. You can't even try to explain HOW you want people to   
   think   
   the evidence should be "verifiable".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)