XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:22:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:46:01 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>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 <   
   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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>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!   
   >   
   >      .....you admit you have no evidence for your beliefs   
      
       I admit there's obviously no verifiable evidence, as everybody knows.   
      
   >and try to switch the burden of proof.   
      
       I challenge you people to see if any of you have any idea what you think   
   you're trying to talk about when you demand verifiable evidence. So far there   
   hasn't been a single one of you who has the slightest idea at all what you   
   imagine there should be. When I first started presenting the challenge I was   
   interested in what you people think you are imagining, expecting to possibly   
   get   
   some interesting ideas. But by now I've learned that none of you have any idea   
   at all, nor do any of you have any reason at all to think there should be any   
   verifiable evidence, meaning that the demand for it is not only childlike and   
   naive, but truly stupid. I accepted the burden of getting you people to prove   
   that, and you did.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)