XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexu, ality
From: niunian@ymail.com
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:03:52 -0400, mur wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
Apparently, they know nothing of God, and they know nothing of the
evidence of God. They only ask such stupid question in order to
demonstrate their complete utter ignorance about God and be proud of who
they are.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
