XPost: alt.atheism, sci.skeptic   
   From: malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk   
      
   On 04/10/2014 01:20, felix_unger wrote:   
   > On 29-September-2014 11:05 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:46:00 +1000, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >> ..   
   >>> On 26-September-2014 8:35 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:26:17 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >>>> ..   
   >>>>> Le 2014-09-18 17:15, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 01:12:24 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>> Le 2014-09-13 11:56, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:10:07 -0400, Olrik    
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>> Le 2014-09-10 15:07, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:15:22 -0400, Olrik    
   >>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:46:51 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:54:56 -0400, Olrik   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 2014-09-03 19:13, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:44:54 +1000, felix_unger   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 31-August-2014 11:00 PM, grabber wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/08/2014 13:44, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:32:06 +0100, grabber    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/08/2014 01:04, Smiler wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:47:19 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Smiler, you risk perpetrating mur's own brand of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silliness here.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If he says he is not convinced that god exists, then   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insist that he produce the evidence that convinces   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him. Just as it is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous for him to demand to know what exactly what   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence should   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist, from people who have pointed out there is no   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason to expect   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular form of evidence to exist, or indeed any   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence at all.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's all about getting stupid, rude, sociopathic   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theists like   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mur/Nando to shut the duck up when they can't put up.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they imagine their deluded religious fantasies are   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exempt.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't mind at all whether they shut up or   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not, though I   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognise that you and others would like them to.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that just shows how silly atheists are. they want to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be atheists,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but they don't want to have to address theism.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>           It produces cognitive dissonance in their tiny   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> little minds because it   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges what they have put their own faith in, and what   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they WANT to believe.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Awwwwwwwwwww!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ain't them cute!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>         In some cases cognitive dissonance is a positive   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> thing and in some cases   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> it's a negative thing. Atheists hiding in their tiny little   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> mental safety zone   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> is more pathetic than cute, though you might like to think   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> there's something   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> cute about it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Show human limbs regrowing.   
   >>>>>>>>>>          LOL...you really do desperately wish you had   
   >>>>>>>>>> something to work with, but you   
   >>>>>>>>>> have nothing as you consistently continue to demonstrate.   
   >>>>>>>>> I'm working with you lacking the «miracle» of human limbs   
   >>>>>>>>> regrowing.   
   >>>>>>>>         You have nothing but wish badly that you did. You wish   
   >>>>>>>> the fact that people   
   >>>>>>>> go bald and their hair doesn't grow back was somehow proof God   
   >>>>>>>> doesn't   
   >>>>>>>> existence, but you can't make it seem like it is.   
   >>>>>>> That, too. Teeth also.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Your definition of «miracle» lacks miracles...   
   >>>>>>        You're supposed proof that God doesn't exist lacks   
   >>>>>> everything except   
   >>>>>> whatever amount of faith you have in that possibility being the   
   >>>>>> correct one, but   
   >>>>>> you certainly have nothing to support it.   
   >>>>> Growing limbs back would be a miracle.   
   >>>>       The absence of your favorite miracle doesn't even suggest that   
   >>>> God doesn't   
   >>>> exist. That's one of the starting lines you can't get as "far" as.   
   >>> however, the point is that if limbs were to grow back 'on demand' to   
   >>> some deity, that would prove the existence of it   
   >>      Why stop with that particular wish? Why accept that particular   
   >> wish? Why   
   >> wouldn't we go on to say that hair should grow back on bald people,   
   >> and lost   
   >> eyes should grow back, and lost teeth, and that dead people and   
   >> animals should   
   >> return to life, and that people should get rich when they pray for it,   
   >> and that   
   >> people should be made to fall in love with whoever prays for them to,   
   >> and people   
   >> should get whatever job they pray for, and whatever car, and whatever   
   >> house, and   
   >> whatever children, etc.....ect.....etc.....? Unless someone can   
   >> explain why   
   >> limbs growing back should be the one and only thing that "should be"   
   >> evidence of   
   >> God's existence it has no more meaning than any of the other things I   
   >> mentioned   
   >> specifically, and the countless millions of other things I didn't. At   
   >> this point   
   >> they still have nothing.   
   >   
   > the point is that growing back of limbs in direct response to prayer for   
   > it to happen would be evidence for the existence of God.   
      
   Or it could just be evidence of "Psychic powers". Prayer is a form of   
   magic. And attempt to, in Crowley's phrase "to cause change in   
   conformity to the will". And magicians don't require understanding of a   
   _mechanism_ through which magic operates.   
      
      
   > It's just one   
   > example of many that could be used, as you say. however, the converse is   
   > not true, that limbs not growing back after prayer for it to happen does   
   > not disprove the existence of God.   
   >   
      
   It's clearly impossible to disprove the existence of a god when there's   
   no definition of the characteristics of of the God in question. But you   
   can disprove the existence of gods with certain combinations of   
   characteristics. For example the existence of suffering proves that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)