XPost: sac.politics, alt.atheism, alt.politics.homosexuality
XPost: rec.arts.tv
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:59:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
.
>On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:10:47 -0400, mur <> wrote:
>
>>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
noemail@att.net>
>>>> >> > > 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.
>
>Why do you hate amputees?
Why do you hate blind people? Why do you hate deaf people? Why do you hate
people with HIV? Why do you hate people who have lost their homes? Why do you
hate people with ebola? Why do you hate people with cancer? Why do you hate
people with polio? Why do you hate people with influenza? Why do you hate
people
with Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease? Why do you hate people with diabetes? Why do
you
hate people with asthma? Why do you hate people with heart disease?
>>>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)
|
