XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 01:16:50 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
.
>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:22:27 -0400, mur wrote:
>
>>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 <
avid@block.net> 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? 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.
>
>Of what? Be specific.
What sort of verifiable evidence you imagine there should be for God's
existence if there's a God associated with Earth. Also explain why you couldn't
figure that out for yourself.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
