XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 20:38:29 -0500, Mitchell Holman wussed again:   
   .   
   >On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:03:46 -0400, mur continued to challenge:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 21:09:45 -0500, Mitchell Holman wussed horribly:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:22:27 -0400, mur challenged:   
   >>>   
   >>>>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.   
   >>>   
   >>>      So with no evidence why do you believe it is fact?   
   >>   
   >>    Believe what is fact?   
   >>   
   >>>>>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.   
   >>>   
   >>>       The issue is what YOU "imagine" the proof of what   
   >>>you believe might be.   
   >>   
   >>    This issue is what proof YOU imagine there should be or even could be,   
   and   
   >>of course by now the obvious fact that you haven't any clue at all. So you're   
   >>demanding proof that you don't think should exist and you can't imagine how   
   it   
   >>could exist, regardless of whether or not there's a God associated with   
   Earth.   
   >>Of course that raises the question of WHY you demand something you don't   
   think   
   >>should exist, so try answering it.   
   >   
   >    Opps,   
      
       LOL. Not only do you have no reason to believe what you're demanding should   
   be available, but you don't even know why you keep demanding it.   
      
   >you tried to change the burden again.   
      
       The burden is for you to try to explain what you think you're trying to   
   talk   
   about, and by now you've proven without question that you don't have any idea   
   at   
   all. None of you do, though a very few of you appear to be trying to figure it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)