XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:59:03 -0500, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:03:43 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:16:38 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   >>wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>In article <9nqqka16g2v0jpntpid0nl2nhipl86hosq@4ax.com>, mur wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:11:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>> .   
   >>>> >In article , mur wrote:   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:45:06 -0500, duke  wrote:   
   >>>> >> .   
   >>>> >> >On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:58:32 -0600, David Johnston    
   >>>> >> >wrote:   
   >>>> >> >   
   >>>> >> >>On 4/18/2015 7:24 AM, duke wrote:   
   >>>> >> >>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:07:02 -0600, David Johnston <   
   avid@block.net>   
   >>>> >> >>> wrote:   
   >>>> >> >>>   
   >>>> >> >>>> On 4/10/2015 2:14 PM, duke wrote:   
   >>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:32:02 -0600, David Johnston   
      
   >>>> >> >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>> >> >>>>>   
   >>>> >> >>>>>> On 4/9/2015 5:28 AM, duke wrote:   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>> Too much hair splitting.  Evidence exists for the presence of   
   God   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>> -   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>> it can't be   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>> denied.  One may not like it, but none the less, it stares   
   them in   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>> the face,   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>> hence:   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>>   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>> An atheist denies   
   >>>> >> >>>>>>   
   >>>> >> >>>>>> I see that you regard consistency as too much trouble to bother   
   >>>> >> >>>>>> with.   
   >>>> >> >>>>>   
   >>>> >> >>>>> You see wrong.  I'm highly consistent.   
   >>>> >> >>>>   
   >>>> >> >>>> Either it can't be denied, or atheists deny it.  Pick one.   
   >>>> >> >   
   >>>> >> >>> The item that nails the supposed atheist is that he rejects   
   evidence   
   >>>> >> >>> we   
   >>>> >> >>> see.   
   >>>> >> >>Yeah.  I've seen a bible too.  But Harry Potter was a more fun read.   
   >>>> >> >   
   >>>> >> >But not any truth at all.  Unless you think you can ride a broom   
   stick.   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >>     These people can't distinguish between things we know are fiction   
   and   
   >>>> >>     things   
   >>>> >> no one could know are fiction.   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >Let's have examples of "things no one could know are fiction". 3-5   
   >>>> >examples would be a good start.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>     Any of the miracles Jesus was said to have performed, including rising   
   >>>>     from   
   >>>> the dead, etc.   
   >>>   
   >>>We KNOW all of that is fiction   
   >>   
   >>    There's no way anyone could know that. Even you SHOULD be able to   
   comprehend   
   >>that much.   
   >>   
   >>>because there's not even one piece of   
   >>>evidence that any of that happened or even that Jesus ever existed.   
   >>   
   >>    Other than the evidence we do have, WHAT more do you think there SHOULD   
   BE?   
   >>WHERE do you think it SHOULD BE? WHY do you think it SHOULD BE available?   
   Just   
   >>desperately maundering that you think there should be some sort of verifiable   
   >>evidence somewhere for some unknown reason does NOT explain anything other   
   than   
   >>to clearly show that you don't have the slightest clue what you think you're   
   >>trying to talk about.   
   >   
   >     There is enough evidence for YOU to believe   
   >in this deity.   
      
       No there isn't. But there's enough to make me consider the possibility that   
   there is.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)