XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:19:41 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
.
>mur wrote in news:s12ima9pc971423jdua48839mqq66gk2i3@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:59:03 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> wrote: .
>>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:03:43 -0400, mur wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:16:38 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>> wrote:
>>>>.
>>>>>In article <9nqqka16g2v0jpntpid0nl2nhipl86hosq@4ax.com>, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>We KNOW all of that is fiction
>>>>
>>>> There's no way anyone could know that. Even you SHOULD be able to
>>>> comprehend
>>>>that much.
>>>>
>>>>>because there's not even one piece of
>>>>>evidence that any of that happened or even that Jesus ever existed.
>>>>
>>>> Other than the evidence we do have, WHAT more do you think there
>>>> SHOULD BE?
>>>>WHERE do you think it SHOULD BE? WHY do you think it SHOULD BE
>>>>available? Just desperately maundering that you think there should be
>>>>some sort of verifiable evidence somewhere for some unknown reason
>>>>does NOT explain anything other than to clearly show that you don't
>>>>have the slightest clue what you think you're trying to talk about.
>>>
>>> There is enough evidence for YOU to believe
>>>in this deity.
>>
>> No there isn't. But there's enough to make me consider the
>> possibility that
>> there is.
>
>
> And there is the possibility that the Tooth
>Fairy exists, Santa Claus exists,
Not to me.
>UFO's exists,
There are plenty of them.
>Shiva exists, and Ra exists.
If God does exist I've no doubt people have a number of differing beliefs
about "him" and refer to "him" in a number of different ways.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
