XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sat, 30 May 2015 00:49:10 -0400, Olrik  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!   
   >   
   >Translation: «When I ask them to tell me they do think like me, they say   
   >"no"!»   
   >   
   >Every time! The NERVE!   
      
       Correction: «When I ask them to tell me if they think, they say "no"!»   
      
   Every time! The TRUTH!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)