XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:03:14 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
.
>On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:03:38 -0400, mur wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:03:14 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
>>.
>>>On 5/8/2015 8:03 PM, 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
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2015 2:14 PM, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:32:02 -0600, David Johnston <
avid@block.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>What evidence do we see of that?
>>
>> Other than what we have, what else do you like to think there should be,
or
>>even could be? So far no one has been able to make any respectable attempt to
>>answer that question, meaning that those who demand it not only have no
reason
>>to believe any should be available, but they can't even imagine what it could
>>possibly be, or where, or why it should be available. Jeanne Douglas is a
great
>>example in a bunch of clueless individuals. She's convinced that if God
exists
>>there should be some sort of verifiable evidence of it. She has no idea what
it
>>should be, where it should be, why it should be available, or when she thinks
>>God should or should have made it available, but still she thinks it should
be
>>available if God exists. She did make one extremely naive and completely
>>unrespectable claim that God should re-grow limbs on amputees immediately
>>whenever they ask him to if he exists, but that's the "best" she could come
up
>>with. It's also the "best" these people as a group could come up with, and
their
>>"best" can't be considered a respectable explanation at all. None of them
have
>>the slightest clue what they think they're trying to talk about when they
demand
>>evidence.
>
>What evidence do we see of that?
When I challenge them to explain what evidence they think there should be,
where they think it should be, why they think it should be available, and when
they think God should or should have made it available if he exists, they
consistently reveal the fact that they don't have the slightest clue what they
think they're trying to talk about. Every time!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
