XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/5/2015 9:03 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   > "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in news:zI9cx.292955$an3.186732   
   > @fx23.fr7:   
   >   
   >> On 5/23/2015 9:56 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>> mur wrote in news:oqkulahndeb52016sog6b8dffeg37ae7jh@4ax.com:   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>  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?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>        Evasion noted.   
   >>>   
   >>>        If you believe there is verifiable evidence   
   >>> for this deity then post it.   
   >>>   
   >> There is no empirical or verifiable evidence of the existence of a   
   >> deity,   
   >   
   >   
   >         Then why do you believe it?   
   >   
   >   
   >> however there _is_ the _appearance_ of design in nature and   
   >> the universe.   
   >   
   >   
   >         Every constellation is the "appearance of   
   > design" but in fact is just human perception at   
   > work. Nothing "designed" about it.   
   >   
   This is a non sequitur, since no one has claimed the   
   constellations have the appearance of design: nor do   
   the constellations appear designed.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)