XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: me@nothere.biz
On 18-July-2014 8:16 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 19:03:14 +0100, Catpain Merca
> wrote:
> ..
>> On 08/07/2014 17:02, mur@.not. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:17:24 +0100, Catpain Merca
>>> wrote: .
>>>> On 02/07/2014 16:27, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:41:18 +0100, Catpain Merca
>>>>> wrote: .
>>>>>> On 26/06/2014 21:59, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:17:37 +0100, Catpain Merca
>>>>>>> wrote: .
>>>>>>>> On 24/06/2014 16:05, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For how long have atheists been begging for and
>>>>>>>>> demanding "evidence" of The Great Wallaby of Frink's
>>>>>>>>> existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when
>>>>>>>>> challenged to try to explain WHAT sort of evidence they
>>>>>>>>> think "should be" where, they can't even address the
>>>>>>>>> challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the supposed
>>>>>>>>> evidence "should be" they again are helpless.
>>>>>>>> (with laughter)
>>>>>>>>> When challenged to explain WHY it "should be" to Great
>>>>>>>>> Wallaby of Frink's benefit to provide us with it AGAIN
>>>>>>>>> they have no clue at all what they think they think, or
>>>>>>>>> even what they want other people to think they think
>>>>>>>>> they think.
>>>>>>>> You think so?
>>>>>>>>> It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire
>>>>>>>>> group of atheists none of their small minds can answer
>>>>>>>>> these questions,
>>>>>>>> (not our job)
>>>>>>>>> nor can they as a group figure out what they think
>>>>>>>>> they're trying to talk about. Why is it sad? Because it
>>>>>>>>> would be interesting to learn what they thought they
>>>>>>>>> were trying to talk about IF they had any idea
>>>>>>>>> themselves. We've seen that they don't.
>>>>>>>> We've seen you don't
>>>>>>> Life itself is evidence.
>>>>>> Material life is not evidence for supernatural agencies or
>>>>>> entities.
>>>>> Try to get this far and then see if you can move on from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
>>>>> magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
>>>> God the mechanic is not a refutation of my assertion.
>>> Then what do you think you're trying to talk about?
>>>
>>>>>>> All accepted miracles are evidence.
>>>>>> Accepted by whom? Invariably when pressed for a miracle which
>>>>>> can be subjected to scrutiny, all that is offered is poor
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>> Things which occur and appear to be miracles are poor evidence
>>>>> that they occur?
>>>> Things which are recounted from persons of unknowable veracity and
>>>> ability are poor evidence. Which is more likely, that the
>>>> physical laws of the universe were temporarily suspended or that
>>>> some witnesses either got it wrong or lied?
>>> If God exists I've no reason to doubt he performs "miracles" to
>>> demonstrate his existence to some people. If he doesn't exist then
>>> all reported miracles are wrong.
>> There you go then, matter settled. No significant evidence of miracles,
>> negligible one might say.
> Explain which of these:
>
> http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_appar
tions/lourdes/miracles1.html
>
> are false and how you think you know they are.
the miracle will be if any atheists ever thinks realistically and
honestly about theistic matters. and the irony is that they're happy to
be a-theistic without any real appreciation or consideration of theism
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg
“People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
