XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:36:34 +0100, "Alex W."  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:36:27 -0600, David Johnston wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 5/22/2015 10:03 AM, mur wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:01:33 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   >>> .   
   >>>> On 5/8/2015 8:03 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:49:38 -0600, David Johnston    
   wrote:   
   >>>>> .   
   >>>>>> On 4/29/2015 5:58 PM, 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    
   David@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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Really?  So we can't know that there was no world wide flood that wiped   
   >>>>>> out all life on land some four thousand years ago?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>       Sure we can.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Then what were you referring to?   
   >>>   
   >>>      We can't know if Jesus was a virgin birth.   
   >>   
   >> Does that matter when the only indication that he was a virgin birth is   
   >> a book that claims that all life on land was wiped out four thousand   
   >> years ago?   
   >   
   >We know it doesn't matter because we now know that the issue   
   >of Mary's virginity was a translation error.   
      
       How did we find that out?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)