XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexu, ality   
   From: niunian@ymail.com   
      
   On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:17:20 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
      
   > mur wrote in news:64sona92jhdgu1neegco16m524duqc37o8@4ax.com:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   >      A variation of the old "Before I post my proof   
   > tell us what proof you will accept" dodge.   
      
   You only wish that was true. The fact is, no one needs to provide you any   
   proof of God. It's you who needs to realize how stupid and clueless you   
   are by making such demand to begin with.   
      
   >   
   >      If you are too ashamed to tell us why you believe   
   > what you believe just say so.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)