SAD defeat of the atheist community :-(

[m***@.not.]

For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

[Catpain Merca]

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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?

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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 O Molecule Mind. Hence our skepticism.

Hey it's your ficticious creation, you can assign it all the attributes
you want. If some of those are testable, then so much the better.

Catpain Merca

[m***@.not.]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:17:37 +0100, Catpain Merca <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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?

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. All medical
miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.

WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it
"should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to
provide us with it if he exists.

[Catpain Merca]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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?

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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.

Post by m***@.not.
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. If the
situation were otherwise, we would see significant parts of the
scientific community dedicated to investigation of such phenomena.
In other words very fucking poor evidence, negligible in fact.

Post by m***@.not.
All miracles> recorded in the Bible are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

Post by m***@.not.
All saints are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

Post by m***@.not.
All medical miracles are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

Post by m***@.not.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.

Evidence only of wishful thinking and gullibility.

Post by m***@.not.
WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it
"should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to
provide us with it if he exists.

I neither know nor care. I've already said he's a figment of your
imagination. Purport some testable qualities for your figment and let
them be tested.

Catpain Merca

[b***@m.nu]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:41:18 +0100, Catpain Merca

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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?

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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.

Post by m***@.not.
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. If the
situation were otherwise, we would see significant parts of the
scientific community dedicated to investigation of such phenomena.
In other words very fucking poor evidence, negligible in fact.

Post by m***@.not.
All miracles> recorded in the Bible are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

there arent any recorded miracles in the bible. Unless you want to
also consider frodo getting and keeping the ring a miracle

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
All saints are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

Boy Those saints have only won one superbowl, granted as bad as they
are it may be considered a miracle

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
All medical miracles are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

when you take into consideration all the study and years of experments
that has happend iin order for medicine to get where it is today it is
not much of a miracle just alot of work ad sacrifice

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.

Evidence only of wishful thinking and gullibility.

Prayers being answered is the dumbest shit I have ever heard.
1st the boble says in the first chapter that god will not ever answer
any prayers.. ya know that entire issue with free will and stuff,
However I will say this. If anyone were to believe anything in the
bible actually happend the way it is described in the bible they truly
have a mental problem

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it
"should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to
provide us with it if he exists.

I neither know nor care. I've already said he's a figment of your
imagination. Purport some testable qualities for your figment and let
them be tested.
Catpain Merca

Captain you know mur has posted thius same shit again and again and it
is its desperate attempt to get on santas nice list... The fucker
thinks it will get a car this year or something

[m***@.not.]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:41:18 +0100, Catpain Merca <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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?

Post by m***@.not.
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)

Post by m***@.not.
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

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
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?

Post by Catpain Merca
If the
situation were otherwise, we would see significant parts of the
scientific community dedicated to investigation of such phenomena.
In other words very fucking poor evidence, negligible in fact.

Post by m***@.not.
All miracles> recorded in the Bible are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

There's no way you could know that.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
All saints are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

There's no way you could know that either.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
All medical miracles are evidence.

Very fucking poor evidence.

There's SURE no way you could know that.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.

Evidence only of wishful thinking and gullibility.

I must wonder if you're stupid enough to believe that, or if you're really
not that stupid.

Post by Catpain Merca

Post by m***@.not.
WHAT sort of evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it
"should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to
provide us with it if he exists.

I neither know nor care.

Then you have nothing at all. That's what this thread is about, btw.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God's existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when challenged to try to

No atheists dont demand evidence oof your faries. Atheists dont want
or even need any evidence that there is or is not a god. Atheists know
that there is no god except the one that has formed out of delusion
that only lives inside your head.

secondly there isnt a shred of evidence that you can provide so it is
pretty much a moot point anyway.

And I was wondering why you think an atheist would beg for evidence of
gods existence when 1. There is none and an atheist will know that 2.
an atheist will know that god does not exist so why would an atheist
want you prove that it does? 3. God is a fairy that lives inside you
head much like Harry Potter, Buggs Bunny, and the Tooth Fairyand
finally 4. You are a total nutjob that think by coming to a.a you will
be able to make a difference.

I can promise that more people have been converted to atheist than
has to theist. What you dont realize is that once a person is an
atheist that person will always be an atheist. Much like you except
you are a moron and shall always remain a moron

<The rest of what you said was a bunch of nonsensical babble so I had
to snip that shit>

[felix_unger]

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

[b***@m.nu]

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?

YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.

No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

[BruceS]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus. At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious. A few months later
he had regained his sense, but later still had a relapse. He's not the
only one I've known to suddenly embrace irrationality and superstition,
just the one who came to mind first. Many people who go through life as
atheists suddenly start one or another form of "spiritualism" when faced
with their own mortality. I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown
merely from taking an abstract reality and bringing it to the
foreground. When I went through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found
no more urge to religion than before, but apparently many people deal
with their fear of imminent death by believing in some system that
allows them to live forever.

[felix_unger]

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one.

I have to wonder why anyone would disagree. it's common knowledge plenty
of ppl have converted either way - to or from religious faith

Post by BruceS
I've known atheists who became religious, nearly always Christian. I
had a HS friend who was no more interested in invisible sky monkeys
than I was; more focused on scoring some weed and getting high.

ahhh.. a typical atheist then.. :)

Post by BruceS
After we graduated and went our separate ways, he seemed to keep "the
faith" for a while,

yet many atheists want to deny there's faith involved. the reality is
however that atheism is a belief that one has faith in the veracity of

Post by BruceS
but then one vacation he had become "saved" and talked about little
but Jesus. At first I thought he was pulling my leg, but he was
serious. A few months later he had regained his sense, but later still
had a relapse. He's not the only one I've known to suddenly embrace
irrationality and superstition, just the one who came to mind first.
Many people who go through life as atheists suddenly start one or
another form of "spiritualism" when faced with their own mortality.
I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown merely from taking an
abstract reality and bringing it to the foreground. When I went
through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found no more urge to
religion than before, but apparently many people deal with their fear
of imminent death by believing in some system that allows them to live
forever.

a lot would depend on how comfortable ppl are within themselves, and
with what they believe, I would suggest

[b***@m.nu]

Post by felix_unger

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one.

I have to wonder why anyone would disagree. it's common knowledge plenty
of ppl have converted either way - to or from religious faith

No felix they have not. That is just what you feel you need to tell
yourself in order to make your self feel better about believing in
tinkerbell

Post by felix_unger

Post by BruceS
I've known atheists who became religious, nearly always Christian. I
had a HS friend who was no more interested in invisible sky monkeys
than I was; more focused on scoring some weed and getting high.

ahhh.. a typical atheist then.. :)

There was no description of an atheist in there you moron

Post by felix_unger
<Snip horse shit>

[BruceS]

Post by felix_unger

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one.

I have to wonder why anyone would disagree. it's common knowledge plenty
of ppl have converted either way - to or from religious faith

Post by BruceS
I've known atheists who became religious, nearly always Christian. I
had a HS friend who was no more interested in invisible sky monkeys
than I was; more focused on scoring some weed and getting high.

ahhh.. a typical atheist then.. :)

Post by BruceS
After we graduated and went our separate ways, he seemed to keep "the
faith" for a while,

yet many atheists want to deny there's faith involved. the reality is
however that atheism is a belief that one has faith in the veracity of

No, not any sort of faith in regards to atheism. He (like me) was an
atheist by default. With no evidence to support any one of the many
gods proposed, he had no reason to believe. I meant "keep the faith" in
terms of being a bit of a stoner. He took a kilo of grass to college,
for instance.

Post by felix_unger

Post by BruceS
but then one vacation he had become "saved" and talked about little
but Jesus. At first I thought he was pulling my leg, but he was
serious. A few months later he had regained his sense, but later still
had a relapse. He's not the only one I've known to suddenly embrace
irrationality and superstition, just the one who came to mind first.
Many people who go through life as atheists suddenly start one or
another form of "spiritualism" when faced with their own mortality.
I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown merely from taking an
abstract reality and bringing it to the foreground. When I went
through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found no more urge to
religion than before, but apparently many people deal with their fear
of imminent death by believing in some system that allows them to live
forever.

a lot would depend on how comfortable ppl are within themselves, and
with what they believe, I would suggest

I agree. It seems that some people are suddenly very uncomfortable with
their lives and their (likely short) futures when faced with serious
disease, etc. That's when they start looking for some magical way to
avoid death. I wasn't at all happy with the idea of dying in my forties
(no longer possible!), but I accepted that could happen and that I
couldn't invoke any magic to avoid it. I've made plenty of mistakes,
but I'm comfortable with that.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

That person either has fears that there may actually be a heaven and a
hell or that person is just to embarassed to say they believe or
perhaps that person just wants attnetion so they act like they are
atheist or agnostic even just to have thier desires met

. If they fear the heaven or hell thing then there are a closet theist
and they actually do have a belief in a god purely out of fear,
chances are though they will never admit that

Post by BruceS
At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious. A few months later
he had regained his sense, but later still had a relapse. He's not the
only one I've known to suddenly embrace irrationality and superstition,
just the one who came to mind first. Many people who go through life as
atheists suddenly start one or another form of "spiritualism" when faced
with their own mortality. I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown
merely from taking an abstract reality and bringing it to the

That is a prime example of a closet theist. Those kind of people even
like to call themselves agnostic for example "%" that comes here is
like that. After it is all said and done though he is a theist purely
our of fear and lack of education or perhaps even the wrong kind of
education

If a person has enough forethough so say GOD DOES NOT EXIST and know
alll the reasons why then that person is an atheist. IF a person says
they are atheist just ask them why and if they can not give you a
rather detailed answer then chances are that person is not an atheist

Post by BruceS
foreground. When I went through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found
no more urge to religion than before, but apparently many people deal
with their fear of imminent death by believing in some system that
allows them to live forever.

religon really doesnt have alot to do with if a person is a theist or
not.
just ask yourself can you say will complete honesty that there is no
god.
I can......"THERE IS NO GOD NEVER HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GOD AND THERE
WILL NOT EVER BE A GOD mainly because the idea of a god is an
imposibility in this universe and because I dont believe in faries or
magic."

some people have experienced death <me for example> and does not have
that fear of an afterlife.

If you think about it when you die and go to heaven you will spend
eternity with a rapist a liar and a mass murderer in other words with
god <I am using the only reference for a god and that is the bible>

or you can go to hell and spend eternity without god.

if I thought there was a heaven or hell.. I think I would choose
hell. What about you?

<all acording to christian beliefs>

So you go right on ahead and agree with felix because he is another
one of those theists that are here just for the attention, however, he
really has no idea what the hell he is even talking about

[BruceS]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

Post by b***@m.nu
That person either has fears that there may actually be a heaven and a
hell or that person is just to embarassed to say they believe or
perhaps that person just wants attnetion so they act like they are
atheist or agnostic even just to have thier desires met

No to all of that. I have no fear of magical places for living after
death, or anything like that, and am not at all embarrassed to say I
have no firm beliefs regarding magic, including gods. I lack belief in
gods. In my opinion, that makes me an atheist. If I wanted attention,
I'd do better by pretending to belief.

Post by b***@m.nu
. If they fear the heaven or hell thing then there are a closet theist
and they actually do have a belief in a god purely out of fear,
chances are though they will never admit that

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious. A few months later
he had regained his sense, but later still had a relapse. He's not the
only one I've known to suddenly embrace irrationality and superstition,
just the one who came to mind first. Many people who go through life as
atheists suddenly start one or another form of "spiritualism" when faced
with their own mortality. I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown
merely from taking an abstract reality and bringing it to the

That is a prime example of a closet theist. Those kind of people even
like to call themselves agnostic for example "%" that comes here is
like that. After it is all said and done though he is a theist purely
our of fear and lack of education or perhaps even the wrong kind of
education
If a person has enough forethough so say GOD DOES NOT EXIST and know
alll the reasons why then that person is an atheist. IF a person says
they are atheist just ask them why and if they can not give you a
rather detailed answer then chances are that person is not an atheist

You have a dictionary failure.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
foreground. When I went through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found
no more urge to religion than before, but apparently many people deal
with their fear of imminent death by believing in some system that
allows them to live forever.

religon really doesnt have alot to do with if a person is a theist or
not.
just ask yourself can you say will complete honesty that there is no
god.
I can......"THERE IS NO GOD NEVER HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GOD AND THERE
WILL NOT EVER BE A GOD mainly because the idea of a god is an
imposibility in this universe and because I dont believe in faries or
magic."
some people have experienced death <me for example> and does not have
that fear of an afterlife.

Please excuse my skepticism that you have actually experienced death.

Post by b***@m.nu
If you think about it when you die and go to heaven you will spend
eternity with a rapist a liar and a mass murderer in other words with
god <I am using the only reference for a god and that is the bible>
or you can go to hell and spend eternity without god.

Isn't Hell supposed to be run by its own god? From all accounts, Satan
certainly qualifies.

Post by b***@m.nu
if I thought there was a heaven or hell.. I think I would choose
hell. What about you?
<all acording to christian beliefs>
So you go right on ahead and agree with felix because he is another
one of those theists that are here just for the attention, however, he
really has no idea what the hell he is even talking about

No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

[felix_unger]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under
that definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call
me. I define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

Post by b***@m.nu
That person either has fears that there may actually be a heaven and a
hell or that person is just to embarassed to say they believe or
perhaps that person just wants attnetion so they act like they are
atheist or agnostic even just to have thier desires met

No to all of that. I have no fear of magical places for living after
death, or anything like that, and am not at all embarrassed to say I
have no firm beliefs regarding magic, including gods. I lack belief in
gods. In my opinion, that makes me an atheist. If I wanted attention,
I'd do better by pretending to belief.

Post by b***@m.nu
. If they fear the heaven or hell thing then there are a closet theist
and they actually do have a belief in a god purely out of fear,
chances are though they will never admit that

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

and he is

Post by b***@m.nu

At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious. A few months later
he had regained his sense, but later still had a relapse. He's not the
only one I've known to suddenly embrace irrationality and superstition,
just the one who came to mind first. Many people who go through life as
atheists suddenly start one or another form of "spiritualism" when faced
with their own mortality. I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown
merely from taking an abstract reality and bringing it to the

That is a prime example of a closet theist. Those kind of people even
like to call themselves agnostic for example "%" that comes here is
like that. After it is all said and done though he is a theist purely
our of fear and lack of education or perhaps even the wrong kind of
education
If a person has enough forethough so say GOD DOES NOT EXIST and know
alll the reasons why then that person is an atheist. IF a person says
they are atheist just ask them why and if they can not give you a
rather detailed answer then chances are that person is not an atheist

You have a dictionary failure.

Post by b***@m.nu

foreground. When I went through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found
no more urge to religion than before, but apparently many people deal
with their fear of imminent death by believing in some system that
allows them to live forever.

religon really doesnt have alot to do with if a person is a theist or
not.
just ask yourself can you say will complete honesty that there is no
god.
I can......"THERE IS NO GOD NEVER HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GOD AND THERE
WILL NOT EVER BE A GOD mainly because the idea of a god is an
imposibility in this universe and because I dont believe in faries or
magic."
some people have experienced death <me for example> and does not have
that fear of an afterlife.

Please excuse my skepticism that you have actually experienced death.

Post by b***@m.nu
If you think about it when you die and go to heaven you will spend
eternity with a rapist a liar and a mass murderer in other words with
god <I am using the only reference for a god and that is the bible>
or you can go to hell and spend eternity without god.

Isn't Hell supposed to be run by its own god? From all accounts, Satan
certainly qualifies.

Post by b***@m.nu
if I thought there was a heaven or hell.. I think I would choose
hell. What about you?
<all acording to christian beliefs>
So you go right on ahead and agree with felix because he is another
one of those theists that are here just for the attention, however, he
really has no idea what the hell he is even talking about

No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

shame on you!.. :)

[b***@m.nu]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:54:23 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote
nothing at all, as usual

[b***@m.nu]

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

so are you trying to say that you can not state that there is no god
at all? if you can not say that then no you are not an atheist, at
least not in my opinion. You have said that you have no "belief in
god", but do you "know" that god does not exist.

And every theist has in thier own mind what atheist means but when it
comes down to it the meaning is simple. Atheist = no gods. and that is
it. You can further define it as a lack of belief in any gods.
However you have stated you have no belief in gods so that would mean
you are an atheist. So why cant you say "there are no gods"?

saying you have no belief is the exact same thing

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
That person either has fears that there may actually be a heaven and a
hell or that person is just to embarassed to say they believe or
perhaps that person just wants attnetion so they act like they are
atheist or agnostic even just to have thier desires met

No to all of that. I have no fear of magical places for living after
death, or anything like that, and am not at all embarrassed to say I
have no firm beliefs regarding magic, including gods. I lack belief in
gods. In my opinion, that makes me an atheist. If I wanted attention,
I'd do better by pretending to belief.

Post by b***@m.nu
. If they fear the heaven or hell thing then there are a closet theist
and they actually do have a belief in a god purely out of fear,
chances are though they will never admit that

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

Not making assumptions, just stating observations.

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious. A few months later
he had regained his sense, but later still had a relapse. He's not the
only one I've known to suddenly embrace irrationality and superstition,
just the one who came to mind first. Many people who go through life as
atheists suddenly start one or another form of "spiritualism" when faced
with their own mortality. I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown
merely from taking an abstract reality and bringing it to the

That is a prime example of a closet theist. Those kind of people even
like to call themselves agnostic for example "%" that comes here is
like that. After it is all said and done though he is a theist purely
our of fear and lack of education or perhaps even the wrong kind of
education
If a person has enough forethough so say GOD DOES NOT EXIST and know
alll the reasons why then that person is an atheist. IF a person says
they are atheist just ask them why and if they can not give you a
rather detailed answer then chances are that person is not an atheist

You have a dictionary failure.

why would you say that? I dont understand how that relates to if a
person is artheist or not.

Tell me bruce Why are you an atheist?

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
foreground. When I went through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found
no more urge to religion than before, but apparently many people deal
with their fear of imminent death by believing in some system that
allows them to live forever.

religon really doesnt have alot to do with if a person is a theist or
not.
just ask yourself can you say will complete honesty that there is no
god.
I can......"THERE IS NO GOD NEVER HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GOD AND THERE
WILL NOT EVER BE A GOD mainly because the idea of a god is an
imposibility in this universe and because I dont believe in faries or
magic."
some people have experienced death <me for example> and does not have
that fear of an afterlife.

Please excuse my skepticism that you have actually experienced death.

I dont care if you are able to believe me or not. I mean can you say
that anyone has ever experienced death? can you say that if a persons
heart stops then they are dead? what if they just stop breathing? what
if they are in a coma and are ranked a 3 on the glascow coma scale,
which basically means they have a heart beat and that is about all?

or does it mean when a person experiences some magical experience and
see themselves floating above thier bed?

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
If you think about it when you die and go to heaven you will spend
eternity with a rapist a liar and a mass murderer in other words with
god <I am using the only reference for a god and that is the bible>
or you can go to hell and spend eternity without god.

Isn't Hell supposed to be run by its own god? From all accounts, Satan
certainly qualifies.

well if you want my opinion <according to the bible and christian
beliefs> god is actually satan..... they are actually the same being,
maybe with MPD or something to that effect. but as far as I know satan
never murdered any humans and god murderd countless millions.

But that is only if you "believe" in a god and the stories of the
bible, of which I have no belief in so to me anyone that does believe
any of that is actually just freakin mental

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
if I thought there was a heaven or hell.. I think I would choose
hell. What about you?
<all acording to christian beliefs>
So you go right on ahead and agree with felix because he is another
one of those theists that are here just for the attention, however, he
really has no idea what the hell he is even talking about

No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

Thing is FELIX "believes" in magin and tinkerbell and santa claus and
devils and demons and ogers and goblins and ghosts and superman and
green lantern and humpty dumpty..... Can you really say you agree
wiith felix about anything at all?

[felix_unger]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

so are you trying to say that you can not state that there is no god
at all? if you can not say that then no you are not an atheist, at
least not in my opinion. You have said that you have no "belief in
god", but do you "know" that god does not exist.
And every theist has in thier own mind what atheist means but when it
comes down to it the meaning is simple. Atheist = no gods. and that is
it. You can further define it as a lack of belief in any gods.
However you have stated you have no belief in gods so that would mean
you are an atheist. So why cant you say "there are no gods"?
saying you have no belief is the exact same thing

an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in God. (or gods if
you want) It's that simple. knowledge does not come into it.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

Not making assumptions, just stating observations.

observations are based on fact. you make assumptions. you have made so
many about me, which if they were all printed out they would defoliate
at least 50% of the world's forests, and create massive an irreversible
climate change, ultimately resulting in the annihilation of all human
life on earth.!

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

Thing is FELIX "believes" in magin and tinkerbell and santa claus and
devils and demons and ogers and goblins and ghosts and superman and
green lantern and humpty dumpty..... Can you really say you agree
wiith felix about anything at all?

case in point. and of course he can, because unlike you, but like me,
he's both sensible and rational

[b***@m.nu]

Post by felix_unger

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

so are you trying to say that you can not state that there is no god
at all? if you can not say that then no you are not an atheist, at
least not in my opinion. You have said that you have no "belief in
god", but do you "know" that god does not exist.
And every theist has in thier own mind what atheist means but when it
comes down to it the meaning is simple. Atheist = no gods. and that is
it. You can further define it as a lack of belief in any gods.
However you have stated you have no belief in gods so that would mean
you are an atheist. So why cant you say "there are no gods"?
saying you have no belief is the exact same thing

an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in God. (or gods if
you want) It's that simple. knowledge does not come into it.

why are you people <theists> so damn stupid. ATHEISTS HAVE NO BELIEF
IN GOD<S>

Post by felix_unger

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

Not making assumptions, just stating observations.

observations are based on fact. you make assumptions. you have made so
many about me, which if they were all printed out they would defoliate
at least 50% of the world's forests, and create massive an irreversible
climate change, ultimately resulting in the annihilation of all human
life on earth.!

yeah and I have reported on the observations I have made.. oh and BTW
you are still an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about

Post by felix_unger

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

Thing is FELIX "believes" in magin and tinkerbell and santa claus and
devils and demons and ogers and goblins and ghosts and superman and
green lantern and humpty dumpty..... Can you really say you agree
wiith felix about anything at all?

case in point. and of course he can, because unlike you, but like me,
he's both sensible and rational

So you are stating bruce believes in tinkebelll like you do....
Hmmm.... I am reporting my observation of what you just said

Post by felix_unger
case in point. and of course he can,

and just as you also said

Post by felix_unger
observations are based on fact

that makes it a fact right?

dude you are seriously fucked up and I dont think bruce wants you
speaking for him

[felix_unger]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

so are you trying to say that you can not state that there is no god
at all? if you can not say that then no you are not an atheist, at
least not in my opinion. You have said that you have no "belief in
god", but do you "know" that god does not exist.
And every theist has in thier own mind what atheist means but when it
comes down to it the meaning is simple. Atheist = no gods. and that is
it. You can further define it as a lack of belief in any gods.
However you have stated you have no belief in gods so that would mean
you are an atheist. So why cant you say "there are no gods"?
saying you have no belief is the exact same thing

an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in God. (or gods if
you want) It's that simple. knowledge does not come into it.

why are you people <theists> so damn stupid. ATHEISTS HAVE NO BELIEF
IN GOD<S>

Post by felix_unger

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

Not making assumptions, just stating observations.

observations are based on fact. you make assumptions. you have made so
many about me, which if they were all printed out they would defoliate
at least 50% of the world's forests, and create massive an irreversible
climate change, ultimately resulting in the annihilation of all human
life on earth.!

yeah and I have reported on the observations I have made.. oh and BTW
you are still an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about

Post by felix_unger

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

Thing is FELIX "believes" in magin and tinkerbell and santa claus and
devils and demons and ogers and goblins and ghosts and superman and
green lantern and humpty dumpty..... Can you really say you agree
wiith felix about anything at all?

case in point. and of course he can, because unlike you, but like me,
he's both sensible and rational

So you are stating bruce believes in tinkebelll like you do....
Hmmm.... I am reporting my observation of what you just said

Post by felix_unger
case in point. and of course he can,

and just as you also said

Post by felix_unger
observations are based on fact

that makes it a fact right?
dude you are seriously fucked up and I dont think bruce wants you
speaking for him

you're a very confused and screwed up person

[BruceS]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

so are you trying to say that you can not state that there is no god
at all? if you can not say that then no you are not an atheist, at
least not in my opinion. You have said that you have no "belief in
god", but do you "know" that god does not exist.

You appear to completely fail to understand the difference between not
believing in A and firmly believing in !A. There's a huge difference,
represented by a large population. If you have a definite belief in !A,
there's even a burden of proof on you to provide evidence for !A. Your
opinion of the nature of atheism is overly limited.

Post by b***@m.nu
And every theist has in thier own mind what atheist means but when it
comes down to it the meaning is simple. Atheist = no gods. and that is
it. You can further define it as a lack of belief in any gods.
However you have stated you have no belief in gods so that would mean
you are an atheist. So why cant you say "there are no gods"?
saying you have no belief is the exact same thing

No, it isn't.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
That person either has fears that there may actually be a heaven and a
hell or that person is just to embarassed to say they believe or
perhaps that person just wants attnetion so they act like they are
atheist or agnostic even just to have thier desires met

No to all of that. I have no fear of magical places for living after
death, or anything like that, and am not at all embarrassed to say I
have no firm beliefs regarding magic, including gods. I lack belief in
gods. In my opinion, that makes me an atheist. If I wanted attention,
I'd do better by pretending to belief.

Post by b***@m.nu
. If they fear the heaven or hell thing then there are a closet theist
and they actually do have a belief in a god purely out of fear,
chances are though they will never admit that

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

Not making assumptions, just stating observations.

Your "observations" appear to be based on naive assumptions about things
you cannot know, such as the motivations and beliefs of others.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious. A few months later
he had regained his sense, but later still had a relapse. He's not the
only one I've known to suddenly embrace irrationality and superstition,
just the one who came to mind first. Many people who go through life as
atheists suddenly start one or another form of "spiritualism" when faced
with their own mortality. I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown
merely from taking an abstract reality and bringing it to the

That is a prime example of a closet theist. Those kind of people even
like to call themselves agnostic for example "%" that comes here is
like that. After it is all said and done though he is a theist purely
our of fear and lack of education or perhaps even the wrong kind of
education
If a person has enough forethough so say GOD DOES NOT EXIST and know
alll the reasons why then that person is an atheist. IF a person says
they are atheist just ask them why and if they can not give you a
rather detailed answer then chances are that person is not an atheist

You have a dictionary failure.

why would you say that? I dont understand how that relates to if a
person is artheist or not.

Quite simply, the fact that someone is an atheist does not imply that
that person has some set of reasons, acceptable to a misinformed and
narrow-minded observer, for being an atheist. It doesn't even imply
that he is sure there are no gods, simply that he does not believe there
to be any.

Post by b***@m.nu
Tell me bruce Why are you an atheist?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Atheism is the default
condition for a sensible, logical person in the absence of any objective
evidence for one or more gods. As I have never seen any such evidence,
I remain an atheist. Various theists claim to have evidence for their
particular god, but that evidence consistently turns out to be no
evidence for the god at all, but rather evidence for their fellow
believers having *belief* in that god, or something like that. Things
like "life itself is evidence of my god" (implying that only a god, or
worse that only *that* god, could cause life), or "existence itself
implies a Creator", are dead ends with no validity as evidence except to
those who already assume the existence of their god. If someone
provides me with actual evidence for their god, and that evidence turns
out to be valid, I could very well become a theist. I'm not holding my
breath.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
foreground. When I went through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found
no more urge to religion than before, but apparently many people deal
with their fear of imminent death by believing in some system that
allows them to live forever.

religon really doesnt have alot to do with if a person is a theist or
not.
just ask yourself can you say will complete honesty that there is no
god.
I can......"THERE IS NO GOD NEVER HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GOD AND THERE
WILL NOT EVER BE A GOD mainly because the idea of a god is an
imposibility in this universe and because I dont believe in faries or
magic."
some people have experienced death <me for example> and does not have
that fear of an afterlife.

Please excuse my skepticism that you have actually experienced death.

I dont care if you are able to believe me or not. I mean can you say
that anyone has ever experienced death? can you say that if a persons
heart stops then they are dead? what if they just stop breathing? what
if they are in a coma and are ranked a 3 on the glascow coma scale,
which basically means they have a heart beat and that is about all?

I've stopped breathing plenty of times, so that certainly doesn't count.
In fact, if I'd continued breathing in some of those circumstances, I
would have experienced death, and wouldn't be here to discuss it. As
for temporary heart failures or similar, that's hardly more of an
experience of death. If a person truly has no vital signs other than a
heartbeat (IOW, no brain activity), it seems to me that he's dead, but
not able to be revived. If a person *is* revived, that implies that he
had enough vital activity to maintain his self, and if the instruments
indicated no activity, it implies a failure in the equipment.

Post by b***@m.nu
or does it mean when a person experiences some magical experience and
see themselves floating above thier bed?

I've had out-of-body experiences, and recognize them for the
hallucinations they are. I didn't even need to die to have those
experiences.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
If you think about it when you die and go to heaven you will spend
eternity with a rapist a liar and a mass murderer in other words with
god <I am using the only reference for a god and that is the bible>
or you can go to hell and spend eternity without god.

Isn't Hell supposed to be run by its own god? From all accounts, Satan
certainly qualifies.

well if you want my opinion <according to the bible and christian
beliefs> god is actually satan..... they are actually the same being,
maybe with MPD or something to that effect. but as far as I know satan
never murdered any humans and god murderd countless millions.

That differs from my understanding, which is that the Judeo-Christian
belief system has myriad magical persons who could qualify as gods, and
only the three-for-one special are considered a single person. Satan
appears to be distinct from the outset, and in opposition to Jehova.
Sure, Satan comes across as a nicer, saner, and less megalomaniac god
than Jehova (with that notable advantage in kill count), but he's still
his own guy.

Post by b***@m.nu
But that is only if you "believe" in a god and the stories of the
bible, of which I have no belief in so to me anyone that does believe
any of that is actually just freakin mental

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
if I thought there was a heaven or hell.. I think I would choose
hell. What about you?
<all acording to christian beliefs>
So you go right on ahead and agree with felix because he is another
one of those theists that are here just for the attention, however, he
really has no idea what the hell he is even talking about

No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

Thing is FELIX "believes" in magin and tinkerbell and santa claus and
devils and demons and ogers and goblins and ghosts and superman and
green lantern and humpty dumpty..... Can you really say you agree
wiith felix about anything at all?

I haven't seen Felix claim to believe in "magin", "tinkerbell", or
pretty much anything specific. I strongly suspect what a few of his
magical beliefs are, but he seems careful to not specify them. But all
that aside, I believe there are probably many things on which he and I
agree. I could picture sitting over a few pints, arguing all the things
we disagree about and carefully avoiding those areas of common opinion.

[walksalone]

whole lotta snippin goin on.

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
well if you want my opinion <according to the bible and christian
beliefs> god is actually satan..... they are actually the same being,
maybe with MPD or something to that effect. but as far as I know
satan never murdered any humans and god murderd countless millions.

That differs from my understanding, which is that the Judeo-Christian
belief system has myriad magical persons who could qualify as gods,
and only the three-for-one special are considered a single person.
Satan appears to be distinct from the outset, and in opposition to
Jehova. Sure, Satan comes across as a nicer, saner, and less

Actually, Satan, or more properly, hasatan is und El's supervision. Read
the book of Job which some say is a morality play. It is not until the
return from the Babylonian vacation that he is not considered a direct
flunky of the GOTD, & no longer held in high esteem but the elohim, or
council of the gods.
Under xianity, he is not even the same deity. They further modified the
Zoroastrian version & elevated him to a direct power instead of a flunky
of god.
Ref:
Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible
PG 726-732

Post by BruceS
megalomaniac god than Jehova (with that notable advantage in kill
count), but he's still his own guy.

Only in the xian version. until then, he is subservient to the god of
Judea.

Nother snip.

walksalone who is not surprised that so few know the office of satan,
after all, he is a boggy man for xians & the priesthood would never lie.
or so it is claimed.


The Painter Chap
RW Service of course.


He gives me such a bold and curious look,
That young American across the way,
As if he'd like to put me in a book
(Fancies himself a poet, so they say.)
Ah well! He'll make no "document" of me.
I lock my door. Ha! ha! Now none shall see. . . .

Pictures, just pictures piled from roof to floor,
Each one a bit of me, a dream fulfilled,
A vision of the beauty I adore,
My own poor glimpse of glory, passion-thrilled . . .
But now my money's gone, I paint no more.

For three days past I have not tasted food;
The jeweled colors run . . . I reel, I faint;
They tell me that my pictures are no good,
Just crude and childish daubs, a waste of paint.
I burned to throw on canvas all I saw --
Twilight on water, tenderness of trees,
Wet sands at sunset and the smoking seas,
The peace of valleys and the mountain's awe:
Emotion swayed me at the thought of these.
I sought to paint ere I had learned to draw,
And that's the trouble. . . .
Ah well! here am I,
Facing my failure after struggle long;
And there they are, my croutes that none will buy
(And doubtless they are right and I am wrong);
Well, when one's lost one's faith it's time to die. . . .

This knife will do . . . and now to slash and slash;
Rip them to ribands, rend them every one,
My dreams and visions -- tear and stab and gash,
So that their crudeness may be known to none;
Poor, miserable daubs! Ah! there, it's done. . . .

And now to close my little window tight.
Lo! in the dusking sky, serenely set,
The evening star is like a beacon bright.
And see! to keep her tender tryst with night
How Paris veils herself in violet. . . .

Oh, why does God create such men as I? --
All pride and passion and divine desire,
Raw, quivering nerve-stuff and devouring fire,
Foredoomed to failure though they try and try;
Abortive, blindly to destruction hurled;
Unfound, unfit to grapple with the world. . . .

And now to light my wheezy jet of gas;
Chink up the window-crannies and the door,
So that no single breath of air may pass;
So that I'm sealed air-tight from roof to floor.
There, there, that's done; and now there's nothing more. . . .

Look at the city's myriad lamps a-shine;
See, the calm moon is launching into space . . .
There will be darkness in these eyes of mine
Ere it can climb to shine upon my face.
Oh, it will find such peace upon my face! . . .

City of Beauty, I have loved you well,
A laugh or two I've had, but many a sigh;
I've run with you the scale from Heav'n to Hell.
Paris, I love you still . . . good-by, good-by.
Thus it all ends -- unhappily, alas!
It's time to sleep, and now . . . blow out the gas. . . .

[b***@m.nu]

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

so are you trying to say that you can not state that there is no god
at all? if you can not say that then no you are not an atheist, at
least not in my opinion. You have said that you have no "belief in
god", but do you "know" that god does not exist.

You appear to completely fail to understand the difference between not
believing in A and firmly believing in !A. There's a huge difference,
represented by a large population. If you have a definite belief in !A,
there's even a burden of proof on you to provide evidence for !A. Your
opinion of the nature of atheism is overly limited.

Post by b***@m.nu
And every theist has in thier own mind what atheist means but when it
comes down to it the meaning is simple. Atheist = no gods. and that is
it. You can further define it as a lack of belief in any gods.
However you have stated you have no belief in gods so that would mean
you are an atheist. So why cant you say "there are no gods"?
saying you have no belief is the exact same thing

No, it isn't.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
That person either has fears that there may actually be a heaven and a
hell or that person is just to embarassed to say they believe or
perhaps that person just wants attnetion so they act like they are
atheist or agnostic even just to have thier desires met

No to all of that. I have no fear of magical places for living after
death, or anything like that, and am not at all embarrassed to say I
have no firm beliefs regarding magic, including gods. I lack belief in
gods. In my opinion, that makes me an atheist. If I wanted attention,
I'd do better by pretending to belief.

Post by b***@m.nu
. If they fear the heaven or hell thing then there are a closet theist
and they actually do have a belief in a god purely out of fear,
chances are though they will never admit that

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

Not making assumptions, just stating observations.

Your "observations" appear to be based on naive assumptions about things
you cannot know, such as the motivations and beliefs of others.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious. A few months later
he had regained his sense, but later still had a relapse. He's not the
only one I've known to suddenly embrace irrationality and superstition,
just the one who came to mind first. Many people who go through life as
atheists suddenly start one or another form of "spiritualism" when faced
with their own mortality. I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown
merely from taking an abstract reality and bringing it to the

That is a prime example of a closet theist. Those kind of people even
like to call themselves agnostic for example "%" that comes here is
like that. After it is all said and done though he is a theist purely
our of fear and lack of education or perhaps even the wrong kind of
education
If a person has enough forethough so say GOD DOES NOT EXIST and know
alll the reasons why then that person is an atheist. IF a person says
they are atheist just ask them why and if they can not give you a
rather detailed answer then chances are that person is not an atheist

You have a dictionary failure.

why would you say that? I dont understand how that relates to if a
person is artheist or not.

Quite simply, the fact that someone is an atheist does not imply that
that person has some set of reasons, acceptable to a misinformed and
narrow-minded observer, for being an atheist. It doesn't even imply
that he is sure there are no gods, simply that he does not believe there
to be any.

That would be incorrect. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection
of belief in the existence of deities. .If you say you dont believe in
god, that is not atheism

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there
are no deities.

in other words if you say you are an atheist you are saying "There are
no gods"

why are you not agnostic. you sound alot more agnostic than atheist.

Agnostic holds the position that the existence of a god<s> is
unknowable

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
Tell me bruce Why are you an atheist?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Atheism is the default

yes it is the default

Post by BruceS
condition for a sensible, logical person in the absence of any objective
evidence for one or more gods. As I have never seen any such evidence,

atheist are not concerned with evidence. An atheist does not need
evidence as I said an atheist can state "There are no gods" and know
this to be true evidence is not needed. but if asked why are you not a
theist why dont you beliewve in a god then any true atheist can give
you a laundry list of reasons why. Quite frankly when you look at it
from an agnostic point of view there is no evidence either way and
there can not be evidence either way.

you can not have evidence wither way for a fantasy.

Just like tinkerbell and harry potter.... do you have evidence they do
or do not exist? no bbecause they are a fantasy. You know there were
created from an imagination and you know 100% they are not real only
fantasy. That is what a god is to an atheist. 100% fantasy no evidence
is needed.

Post by BruceS
I remain an atheist. Various theists claim to have evidence for their
particular god, but that evidence consistently turns out to be no
evidence for the god at all, but rather evidence for their fellow
believers having *belief* in that god, or something like that. Things
like "life itself is evidence of my god" (implying that only a god, or
worse that only *that* god, could cause life), or "existence itself
implies a Creator", are dead ends with no validity as evidence except to
those who already assume the existence of their god. If someone
provides me with actual evidence for their god, and that evidence turns
out to be valid, I could very well become a theist. I'm not holding my
breath.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
foreground. When I went through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found
no more urge to religion than before, but apparently many people deal
with their fear of imminent death by believing in some system that
allows them to live forever.

religon really doesnt have alot to do with if a person is a theist or
not.
just ask yourself can you say will complete honesty that there is no
god.
I can......"THERE IS NO GOD NEVER HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GOD AND THERE
WILL NOT EVER BE A GOD mainly because the idea of a god is an
imposibility in this universe and because I dont believe in faries or
magic."
some people have experienced death <me for example> and does not have
that fear of an afterlife.

Please excuse my skepticism that you have actually experienced death.

I dont care if you are able to believe me or not. I mean can you say
that anyone has ever experienced death? can you say that if a persons
heart stops then they are dead? what if they just stop breathing? what
if they are in a coma and are ranked a 3 on the glascow coma scale,
which basically means they have a heart beat and that is about all?

I've stopped breathing plenty of times, so that certainly doesn't count.
In fact, if I'd continued breathing in some of those circumstances, I
would have experienced death, and wouldn't be here to discuss it. As
for temporary heart failures or similar, that's hardly more of an
experience of death. If a person truly has no vital signs other than a
heartbeat (IOW, no brain activity), it seems to me that he's dead, but
not able to be revived. If a person *is* revived, that implies that he
had enough vital activity to maintain his self, and if the instruments
indicated no activity, it implies a failure in the equipment.

Post by b***@m.nu
or does it mean when a person experiences some magical experience and
see themselves floating above thier bed?

I've had out-of-body experiences, and recognize them for the
hallucinations they are. I didn't even need to die to have those
experiences.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
If you think about it when you die and go to heaven you will spend
eternity with a rapist a liar and a mass murderer in other words with
god <I am using the only reference for a god and that is the bible>
or you can go to hell and spend eternity without god.

Isn't Hell supposed to be run by its own god? From all accounts, Satan
certainly qualifies.

well if you want my opinion <according to the bible and christian
beliefs> god is actually satan..... they are actually the same being,
maybe with MPD or something to that effect. but as far as I know satan
never murdered any humans and god murderd countless millions.

That differs from my understanding, which is that the Judeo-Christian
belief system has myriad magical persons who could qualify as gods, and
only the three-for-one special are considered a single person. Satan
appears to be distinct from the outset, and in opposition to Jehova.
Sure, Satan comes across as a nicer, saner, and less megalomaniac god
than Jehova (with that notable advantage in kill count), but he's still
his own guy.

Post by b***@m.nu
But that is only if you "believe" in a god and the stories of the
bible, of which I have no belief in so to me anyone that does believe
any of that is actually just freakin mental

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
if I thought there was a heaven or hell.. I think I would choose
hell. What about you?
<all acording to christian beliefs>
So you go right on ahead and agree with felix because he is another
one of those theists that are here just for the attention, however, he
really has no idea what the hell he is even talking about

No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

Thing is FELIX "believes" in magin and tinkerbell and santa claus and
devils and demons and ogers and goblins and ghosts and superman and
green lantern and humpty dumpty..... Can you really say you agree
wiith felix about anything at all?

I haven't seen Felix claim to believe in "magin", "tinkerbell", or

sorry that was magic not magin

Post by BruceS
pretty much anything specific. I strongly suspect what a few of his
magical beliefs are, but he seems careful to not specify them. But all
that aside, I believe there are probably many things on which he and I
agree. I could picture sitting over a few pints, arguing all the things
we disagree about and carefully avoiding those areas of common opinion.

but you said yourself you dont believe in the fantasy that is magic or
tinkerbell however the reason that I say that the theists do is
because they must. They dont really have a choice. If there is a being
that can do magic like creating t hings out of t hin air or raising
the dead or whatever than that person can not dismiss ANY other being
or creature that was created though fantasy. so if a person believes
in god then they muast believe in Gandalf if they think jesus is real
then they must believe in harry potter if they thing angels and
deamons are real then they must also0 believe in faires and ogers.
and every other creature entity or tree that walks and talks

[BruceS]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

so are you trying to say that you can not state that there is no god
at all? if you can not say that then no you are not an atheist, at
least not in my opinion. You have said that you have no "belief in
god", but do you "know" that god does not exist.

You appear to completely fail to understand the difference between not
believing in A and firmly believing in !A. There's a huge difference,
represented by a large population. If you have a definite belief in !A,
there's even a burden of proof on you to provide evidence for !A. Your
opinion of the nature of atheism is overly limited.

Post by b***@m.nu
And every theist has in thier own mind what atheist means but when it
comes down to it the meaning is simple. Atheist = no gods. and that is
it. You can further define it as a lack of belief in any gods.
However you have stated you have no belief in gods so that would mean
you are an atheist. So why cant you say "there are no gods"?
saying you have no belief is the exact same thing

No, it isn't.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
That person either has fears that there may actually be a heaven and a
hell or that person is just to embarassed to say they believe or
perhaps that person just wants attnetion so they act like they are
atheist or agnostic even just to have thier desires met

No to all of that. I have no fear of magical places for living after
death, or anything like that, and am not at all embarrassed to say I
have no firm beliefs regarding magic, including gods. I lack belief in
gods. In my opinion, that makes me an atheist. If I wanted attention,
I'd do better by pretending to belief.

Post by b***@m.nu
. If they fear the heaven or hell thing then there are a closet theist
and they actually do have a belief in a god purely out of fear,
chances are though they will never admit that

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the beliefs and motives of
other people. I suggest that you do so at great risk of being wrong
most of the time.

Not making assumptions, just stating observations.

Your "observations" appear to be based on naive assumptions about things
you cannot know, such as the motivations and beliefs of others.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious. A few months later
he had regained his sense, but later still had a relapse. He's not the
only one I've known to suddenly embrace irrationality and superstition,
just the one who came to mind first. Many people who go through life as
atheists suddenly start one or another form of "spiritualism" when faced
with their own mortality. I've been appalled at the mental lapses shown
merely from taking an abstract reality and bringing it to the

That is a prime example of a closet theist. Those kind of people even
like to call themselves agnostic for example "%" that comes here is
like that. After it is all said and done though he is a theist purely
our of fear and lack of education or perhaps even the wrong kind of
education
If a person has enough forethough so say GOD DOES NOT EXIST and know
alll the reasons why then that person is an atheist. IF a person says
they are atheist just ask them why and if they can not give you a
rather detailed answer then chances are that person is not an atheist

You have a dictionary failure.

why would you say that? I dont understand how that relates to if a
person is artheist or not.

Quite simply, the fact that someone is an atheist does not imply that
that person has some set of reasons, acceptable to a misinformed and
narrow-minded observer, for being an atheist. It doesn't even imply
that he is sure there are no gods, simply that he does not believe there
to be any.

That would be incorrect. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection
of belief in the existence of deities. .If you say you dont believe in
god, that is not atheism

So you retain your definition, contrary to that of many atheists. While
I'm here, I'll just go ahead and make my own definition for "Christian",
being "someone who has heard of the Bible and possibly read parts of it."

Post by b***@m.nu
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there
are no deities.

In a narrower sense, Christianity is specifically having heard of Jesus
of Nazareth.

Post by b***@m.nu
in other words if you say you are an atheist you are saying "There are
no gods"

In other words, you are now a Christian. Congratulations!

Post by b***@m.nu
why are you not agnostic. you sound alot more agnostic than atheist.
Agnostic holds the position that the existence of a god<s> is
unknowable

There's the rub. Agnosticism holds that it's not possible to know
whether gods exist. I don't buy that. I'm perfectly willing to accept
the existence of gods, given objective evidence for their existence.
Having not seen any such evidence, I remain without any belief in their
existence.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
Tell me bruce Why are you an atheist?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Atheism is the default

yes it is the default

Post by BruceS
condition for a sensible, logical person in the absence of any objective
evidence for one or more gods. As I have never seen any such evidence,

atheist are not concerned with evidence. An atheist does not need
evidence as I said an atheist can state "There are no gods" and know
this to be true evidence is not needed. but if asked why are you not a
theist why dont you beliewve in a god then any true atheist can give
you a laundry list of reasons why. Quite frankly when you look at it
from an agnostic point of view there is no evidence either way and
there can not be evidence either way.

You present atheism as a matter of faith. This should be quite
acceptable to the local theistic audience. I say instead that atheism
is independent of a concern for evidence. Some atheists may be so
because of their faith, as appears to be the case for you. Others, such
as I, are atheists at least in part because of evidence, or the lack of
same. Theism and atheism are about the belief in gods or the lack
thereof, not about how one reaches that situation. Your "any true
atheist" bit really sounds like the call to arms for some sort of
organized group of people sharing a faith.

Post by b***@m.nu
you can not have evidence wither way for a fantasy.

Now I would say this statement makes you agnostic.

Post by b***@m.nu
Just like tinkerbell and harry potter.... do you have evidence they do
or do not exist? no bbecause they are a fantasy. You know there were
created from an imagination and you know 100% they are not real only
fantasy. That is what a god is to an atheist. 100% fantasy no evidence
is needed.

That is what a god is to the particular kind of atheist that you want to
rebrand as the only "true atheists", but it isn't the only way.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
I remain an atheist. Various theists claim to have evidence for their
particular god, but that evidence consistently turns out to be no
evidence for the god at all, but rather evidence for their fellow
believers having *belief* in that god, or something like that. Things
like "life itself is evidence of my god" (implying that only a god, or
worse that only *that* god, could cause life), or "existence itself
implies a Creator", are dead ends with no validity as evidence except to
those who already assume the existence of their god. If someone
provides me with actual evidence for their god, and that evidence turns
out to be valid, I could very well become a theist. I'm not holding my
breath.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
foreground. When I went through my own little dance with Mr. D, I found
no more urge to religion than before, but apparently many people deal
with their fear of imminent death by believing in some system that
allows them to live forever.

religon really doesnt have alot to do with if a person is a theist or
not.
just ask yourself can you say will complete honesty that there is no
god.
I can......"THERE IS NO GOD NEVER HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GOD AND THERE
WILL NOT EVER BE A GOD mainly because the idea of a god is an
imposibility in this universe and because I dont believe in faries or
magic."
some people have experienced death <me for example> and does not have
that fear of an afterlife.

Please excuse my skepticism that you have actually experienced death.

I dont care if you are able to believe me or not. I mean can you say
that anyone has ever experienced death? can you say that if a persons
heart stops then they are dead? what if they just stop breathing? what
if they are in a coma and are ranked a 3 on the glascow coma scale,
which basically means they have a heart beat and that is about all?

I've stopped breathing plenty of times, so that certainly doesn't count.
In fact, if I'd continued breathing in some of those circumstances, I
would have experienced death, and wouldn't be here to discuss it. As
for temporary heart failures or similar, that's hardly more of an
experience of death. If a person truly has no vital signs other than a
heartbeat (IOW, no brain activity), it seems to me that he's dead, but
not able to be revived. If a person *is* revived, that implies that he
had enough vital activity to maintain his self, and if the instruments
indicated no activity, it implies a failure in the equipment.

Post by b***@m.nu
or does it mean when a person experiences some magical experience and
see themselves floating above thier bed?

I've had out-of-body experiences, and recognize them for the
hallucinations they are. I didn't even need to die to have those
experiences.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
If you think about it when you die and go to heaven you will spend
eternity with a rapist a liar and a mass murderer in other words with
god <I am using the only reference for a god and that is the bible>
or you can go to hell and spend eternity without god.

Isn't Hell supposed to be run by its own god? From all accounts, Satan
certainly qualifies.

well if you want my opinion <according to the bible and christian
beliefs> god is actually satan..... they are actually the same being,
maybe with MPD or something to that effect. but as far as I know satan
never murdered any humans and god murderd countless millions.

That differs from my understanding, which is that the Judeo-Christian
belief system has myriad magical persons who could qualify as gods, and
only the three-for-one special are considered a single person. Satan
appears to be distinct from the outset, and in opposition to Jehova.
Sure, Satan comes across as a nicer, saner, and less megalomaniac god
than Jehova (with that notable advantage in kill count), but he's still
his own guy.

Post by b***@m.nu
But that is only if you "believe" in a god and the stories of the
bible, of which I have no belief in so to me anyone that does believe
any of that is actually just freakin mental

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
if I thought there was a heaven or hell.. I think I would choose
hell. What about you?
<all acording to christian beliefs>
So you go right on ahead and agree with felix because he is another
one of those theists that are here just for the attention, however, he
really has no idea what the hell he is even talking about

No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

Thing is FELIX "believes" in magin and tinkerbell and santa claus and
devils and demons and ogers and goblins and ghosts and superman and
green lantern and humpty dumpty..... Can you really say you agree
wiith felix about anything at all?

I haven't seen Felix claim to believe in "magin", "tinkerbell", or

sorry that was magic not magin

Ah, I thought that was just another pretend character that I wasn't
familiar with. Point stands with the correction, though.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
pretty much anything specific. I strongly suspect what a few of his
magical beliefs are, but he seems careful to not specify them. But all
that aside, I believe there are probably many things on which he and I
agree. I could picture sitting over a few pints, arguing all the things
we disagree about and carefully avoiding those areas of common opinion.

but you said yourself you dont believe in the fantasy that is magic or
tinkerbell however the reason that I say that the theists do is
because they must. They dont really have a choice. If there is a being
that can do magic like creating t hings out of t hin air or raising
the dead or whatever than that person can not dismiss ANY other being
or creature that was created though fantasy. so if a person believes
in god then they muast believe in Gandalf if they think jesus is real
then they must believe in harry potter if they thing angels and
deamons are real then they must also0 believe in faires and ogers.
and every other creature entity or tree that walks and talks

If someone can provide evidence in support of one or another kind of
magic, I'll at least consider it. In this (a.skeptic) forum I've helped
a claimed psychic "test" his magic. As you may guess, I was not
convinced, and I wasn't at all surprised, but I was open-minded and
remain so. As for believers in one faith being required to accept all
others, I don't buy that. Some faiths require, as part of the faith, a
rejection of all other faiths. Some people may readily believe in some
kinds of magical creatures but reject others. For example, some may
believe in the faerie people as some sort of natural creatures with
powers we don't understand, but reject the "Superman" kind of god that's
all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-creating. And if someone were to
convince me that telekinesis is real, that would in no way mean that I'd
also have to accept homeopathy, or astrology.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
why would you say that? I dont understand how that relates to if a
person is artheist or not.

Quite simply, the fact that someone is an atheist does not imply that
that person has some set of reasons, acceptable to a misinformed and
narrow-minded observer, for being an atheist. It doesn't even imply
that he is sure there are no gods, simply that he does not believe there
to be any.

That would be incorrect. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection
of belief in the existence of deities. .If you say you dont believe in
god, that is not atheism

So you retain your definition, contrary to that of many atheists. While
I'm here, I'll just go ahead and make my own definition for "Christian",
being "someone who has heard of the Bible and possibly read parts of it."

Dude do you think I am just making this up?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence
of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position
that there are no deities.

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there
are no deities.

In a narrower sense, Christianity is specifically having heard of Jesus
of Nazareth.

Post by b***@m.nu
in other words if you say you are an atheist you are saying "There are
no gods"

In other words, you are now a Christian. Congratulations!

Post by b***@m.nu
why are you not agnostic. you sound alot more agnostic than atheist.
Agnostic holds the position that the existence of a god<s> is
unknowable

There's the rub. Agnosticism holds that it's not possible to know
whether gods exist. I don't buy that. I'm perfectly willing to accept
the existence of gods, given objective evidence for their existence.
Having not seen any such evidence, I remain without any belief in their
existence.

again do you think I am making this up?
ag·nos·tic
ag'nästik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the
existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a
person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Tell me bruce Why are you an atheist?
Can you say "There is no god"

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Atheism is the default

yes it is the default

Post by BruceS
condition for a sensible, logical person in the absence of any objective
evidence for one or more gods. As I have never seen any such evidence,

atheist are not concerned with evidence. An atheist does not need
evidence as I said an atheist can state "There are no gods" and know
this to be true evidence is not needed. but if asked why are you not a
theist why dont you beliewve in a god then any true atheist can give
you a laundry list of reasons why. Quite frankly when you look at it
from an agnostic point of view there is no evidence either way and
there can not be evidence either way.

You present atheism as a matter of faith. This should be quite

No I dont a belief requires faith. I have not spoken of belief other
than to say I dont have any

Post by BruceS
acceptable to the local theistic audience. I say instead that atheism
is independent of a concern for evidence. Some atheists may be so
because of their faith, as appears to be the case for you. Others, such

atheists dont have faith

Post by BruceS
as I, are atheists at least in part because of evidence, or the lack of
same. Theism and atheism are about the belief in gods or the lack
thereof, not about how one reaches that situation. Your "any true
atheist" bit really sounds like the call to arms for some sort of
organized group of people sharing a faith.

nah I am jsut trying to educate people. I have seen many people say I
am an atheist and could not even define the term properly much less
say "there is no god"

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
you can not have evidence wither way for a fantasy.

Now I would say this statement makes you agnostic.

Post by b***@m.nu
Just like tinkerbell and harry potter.... do you have evidence they do
or do not exist? no bbecause they are a fantasy. You know there were
created from an imagination and you know 100% they are not real only
fantasy. That is what a god is to an atheist. 100% fantasy no evidence
is needed.

That is what a god is to the particular kind of atheist that you want to
rebrand as the only "true atheists", but it isn't the only way.

are you one of those that subscribe to the terms weak and strong
atheist/agnostic? I surely hope not..

There are no strong or weak jews or christians you either are or you
arent

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
I remain an atheist. Various theists claim to have evidence for their
particular god, but that evidence consistently turns out to be no
evidence for the god at all, but rather evidence for their fellow
believers having *belief* in that god, or something like that. Things
like "life itself is evidence of my god" (implying that only a god, or
worse that only *that* god, could cause life), or "existence itself
implies a Creator", are dead ends with no validity as evidence except to
those who already assume the existence of their god. If someone
provides me with actual evidence for their god, and that evidence turns
out to be valid, I could very well become a theist. I'm not holding my
breath.
I've stopped breathing plenty of times, so that certainly doesn't count.
In fact, if I'd continued breathing in some of those circumstances, I
would have experienced death, and wouldn't be here to discuss it. As
for temporary heart failures or similar, that's hardly more of an
experience of death. If a person truly has no vital signs other than a
heartbeat (IOW, no brain activity), it seems to me that he's dead, but
not able to be revived. If a person *is* revived, that implies that he
had enough vital activity to maintain his self, and if the instruments
indicated no activity, it implies a failure in the equipment.

Post by b***@m.nu
or does it mean when a person experiences some magical experience and
see themselves floating above thier bed?

I've had out-of-body experiences, and recognize them for the
hallucinations they are. I didn't even need to die to have those
experiences.

Post by b***@m.nu
well if you want my opinion <according to the bible and christian
beliefs> god is actually satan..... they are actually the same being,
maybe with MPD or something to that effect. but as far as I know satan
never murdered any humans and god murderd countless millions.

That differs from my understanding, which is that the Judeo-Christian
belief system has myriad magical persons who could qualify as gods, and
only the three-for-one special are considered a single person. Satan
appears to be distinct from the outset, and in opposition to Jehova.
Sure, Satan comes across as a nicer, saner, and less megalomaniac god
than Jehova (with that notable advantage in kill count), but he's still
his own guy.
I haven't seen Felix claim to believe in "magin", "tinkerbell", or

sorry that was magic not magin

Ah, I thought that was just another pretend character that I wasn't
familiar with. Point stands with the correction, though.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
pretty much anything specific. I strongly suspect what a few of his
magical beliefs are, but he seems careful to not specify them. But all
that aside, I believe there are probably many things on which he and I
agree. I could picture sitting over a few pints, arguing all the things
we disagree about and carefully avoiding those areas of common opinion.

but you said yourself you dont believe in the fantasy that is magic or
tinkerbell however the reason that I say that the theists do is
because they must. They dont really have a choice. If there is a being
that can do magic like creating t hings out of t hin air or raising
the dead or whatever than that person can not dismiss ANY other being
or creature that was created though fantasy. so if a person believes
in god then they muast believe in Gandalf if they think jesus is real
then they must believe in harry potter if they thing angels and
deamons are real then they must also0 believe in faires and ogers.
and every other creature entity or tree that walks and talks

If someone can provide evidence in support of one or another kind of
magic, I'll at least consider it. In this (a.skeptic) forum I've helped
a claimed psychic "test" his magic. As you may guess, I was not
convinced, and I wasn't at all surprised, but I was open-minded and
remain so. As for believers in one faith being required to accept all
others, I don't buy that. Some faiths require, as part of the faith, a
rejection of all other faiths. Some people may readily believe in some
kinds of magical creatures but reject others. For example, some may
believe in the faerie people as some sort of natural creatures with
powers we don't understand, but reject the "Superman" kind of god that's
all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-creating. And if someone were to
convince me that telekinesis is real, that would in no way mean that I'd
also have to accept homeopathy, or astrology.

[m***@.not.]

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
well if you want my opinion <according to the bible and christian
beliefs> god is actually satan..... they are actually the same being,
maybe with MPD or something to that effect. but as far as I know satan
never murdered any humans and god murderd countless millions.

That differs from my understanding, which is that the Judeo-Christian
belief system has myriad magical persons who could qualify as gods, and
only the three-for-one special are considered a single person. Satan
appears to be distinct from the outset, and in opposition to Jehova.
Sure, Satan comes across as a nicer, saner, and less megalomaniac god
than Jehova (with that notable advantage in kill count), but he's still
his own guy.

You atheists, monkey in particular, seem to be evidence of God's existence
by being evidence that Satan is having influence on your minds from my pov, and
again this is VERY true of monkey in particular. Can you honestly say that if
God and Satan do exist, you would rather be influenced by Satan and have him be
your Lord in the afterlife than God? Remember that if there's truth to what
we're told about that you have NO CHOICE to have no Lord in the afterlife, only
in this one. So don't try to wuss out by pretending you will. If you do we can
take that to mean you would rather have Satan be your Lord but are too afraid to
admit it openly.

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
But that is only if you "believe" in a god and the stories of the
bible, of which I have no belief in so to me anyone that does believe
any of that is actually just freakin mental

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu
if I thought there was a heaven or hell.. I think I would choose
hell. What about you?
<all acording to christian beliefs>
So you go right on ahead and agree with felix because he is another
one of those theists that are here just for the attention, however, he
really has no idea what the hell he is even talking about

No, I agree with Felix because he denies a somewhat ludicrous
generalization you've made. If you look around, you'll see that I
disagree with him more.

Thing is FELIX "believes" in magin and tinkerbell and santa claus and
devils and demons and ogers and goblins and ghosts and superman and
green lantern and humpty dumpty..... Can you really say you agree
wiith felix about anything at all?

I haven't seen Felix claim to believe in "magin", "tinkerbell", or
pretty much anything specific.

In case you still somehow hadn't noticed, monkey is not only incredibly
stupid in general, but he is also a horribly blatant liar. What you refer to
here is just one example of how blatant a liar he is.

[m***@.not.]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:47:04 -0600, BruceS <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
.

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus

just because a person is not a practicing theist does not make them
atheist or agnostic even. If a person can not say with 100% clarity
that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and
there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist.

You seem to be arguing for theists' definition of "atheist". Under that
definition, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not sure what you'd call me. I
define myself as an atheist because I have no belief in any gods.

We know you can consider the possibility that there is no God associated
with Earth. Try to provide evidence youe can consider the possibility that there
IS a God associated with Earth. If/When you can't do that it will be clear the
only possibility your mind is capable of is no God. That being all you're
mentally capable means that's all you're capable of believing. Why are you
ashamed of it? That's the only thing in question. Well, that and since you are
ashamed of it why don't you try to change it? That goes for ALL of your atheist
brethren who like to pretend they have no belief even though they can only
consider the one possibility. Since you/they are so ashamed of it, why don't you
try to become what you so pitifully try to pretend you are, which is a person
with no belief?

Here's a clue for you: Since the possibility that God does not exist is a
dead end and only one possibility, it involves very VERY little consideration.
Since the possibilities that God does exist are vast and endless, considering
those possibilities involves a lot of consideration. That's a starting line for
you. See if ANY OF YOU can get as "far" as that starting line.

[m***@.not.]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:54:23 -0600, BruceS <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
.

Post by BruceS

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

I guess you know because you are an atheist?
YOU HAVE NO IDEA you little fucking gimp. You dont know what it is
like to know the truth. You dont know what it is like to realize that
you have been lied to by most people for your entire life. You dont
know what it is like then the people come to your door trying to sell
god and you cant help but feel so sorry for them for being such
idiots.
No you will never know what it is like because your mind wiill never
be opend to what the world is really like. You will never know because
your brain just is not able to understand the truth

I have to agree with Felix on this one. I've known atheists who became
religious, nearly always Christian. I had a HS friend who was no more
interested in invisible sky monkeys than I was

Using a stupid term like that displays how completely incapable of thinking
realistically about the possibility of God's existence you are. One of the most
basic and simple aspects of the situation is that God would not reside on this
planet. You can't even get that far with realistic thinking, but by using the
term you make it clear that you can't comprehend why he would reside somewhere
else. It's no wonder you don't "believe" in God since you're not menatally
capable of considering the possibility in a realistic way. Your overly
challenged mind is either physically incapable, or if it might be capable you
won't allow it. My guess is that it's not capable at all.

Post by BruceS
; more focused on scoring
some weed and getting high. After we graduated and went our separate
ways, he seemed to keep "the faith" for a while, but then one vacation
he had become "saved" and talked about little but Jesus. At first I
thought he was pulling my leg, but he was serious.

Here's another basic aspect for you, though again you're probably not
mentally capable of learning to appreciate it. Here it is anyway: It's possible
that some people can learn that God exists if he does and he allows them to.
It's not possible that anyone could ever learn that God does not exist if he
doesn't. If you'd like to pretend it is possible, they try to explain how you
like to think anyone could possibly find out.

[m***@.not.]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:19:28 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

He has no clue what he thinks he's trying to talk about the vast majority of
the time, if ever. I don't recall him ever having a clue.

I tried being a strong atheist for a short while years ago when I first
realised that things might have been able to develop as they did without the aid
of deliberate influence, but it didn't take very long before I figured out that
was the most stupid of possible positions so I gave up trying to cling to it.
From there I started trying to think realistically about how God could exist,
and about why things would be as they are if he does. Those are a couple of the
starting lines these people will never get as "far" as.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

He has no clue what he thinks he's trying to talk about the vast majority of
the time, if ever. I don't recall him ever having a clue.
I tried being a strong atheist for a short while years ago when I first
realised that things might have been able to develop as they did without the aid
of deliberate influence, but it didn't take very long before I figured out that
was the most stupid of possible positions so I gave up trying to cling to it.
From there I started trying to think realistically about how God could exist,
and about why things would be as they are if he does. Those are a couple of the
starting lines these people will never get as "far" as.

says the fool to the idiot

[felix_unger]

Post by m***@.not.
..

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

He has no clue what he thinks he's trying to talk about the vast majority of
the time, if ever. I don't recall him ever having a clue.
I tried being a strong atheist for a short while years ago when I first
realised that things might have been able to develop as they did without the aid
of deliberate influence, but it didn't take very long before I figured out that
was the most stupid of possible positions so I gave up trying to cling to it.
From there I started trying to think realistically about how God could exist,
and about why things would be as they are if he does. Those are a couple of the
starting lines these people will never get as "far" as.

there's no need to believe anything about what is not known to be
true/fact. just keep an open mind. but I agree, they don't want to
consider other possibilities.

[m***@.not.]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:11:45 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by felix_unger

Post by m***@.not.
..

Post by felix_unger

once a person is an atheist that person will always be an atheist.

untrue

He has no clue what he thinks he's trying to talk about the vast majority of
the time, if ever. I don't recall him ever having a clue.
I tried being a strong atheist for a short while years ago when I first
realised that things might have been able to develop as they did without the aid
of deliberate influence, but it didn't take very long before I figured out that
was the most stupid of possible positions so I gave up trying to cling to it.
From there I started trying to think realistically about how God could exist,
and about why things would be as they are if he does. Those are a couple of the
starting lines these people will never get as "far" as.

there's no need to believe anything about what is not known to be
true/fact.

We all form some degree of belief about things that are not known.

Post by felix_unger
just keep an open mind.

Atheists are the most closed minded that it's possible to be, yet they
hilariously like to consider themselves as open minded. What could be a better
example of being closed minded than to put faith in the one possibility that God
does not exist?

Post by felix_unger
but I agree, they don't want to consider other possibilities.

No they don't, and they can't. Yet they dishonestly try to pretend they can
by claiming to have no belief. They can consider the possibility that God
doesn't exist but can't consider the possibility that he does. That means only
the one possibility enters their tiny little minds leaving them with only the
one possible belief. Do you think any of them are honestly stupid enough to
really believe they have no belief even considering the facts I just pointed
out? Or do you think they're really not that stupid but are being deliberately
dishonest about it?

[m***@.not.]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:02:23 -0500, monkey wrote:
.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

No atheists dont demand evidence

That's a blatant lie. What did you think you could gain by telling such a
blatant lie as that, do you have any idea?

Post by b***@m.nu
oof your faries. Atheists dont want
or even need any evidence that there is or is not a god. Atheists know
that there is no god except the one that has formed out of delusion
that only lives inside your head.

The only way you've said you could have found out if that's true or not is
by a decoder ring you got in the mail:

"I "found out" I got my decoder ring in the mail one day and used
it when I looked at the bible and it said god was not real" - ***@m.nu

Are you still insisting that's the only way you could "know" God doesn't exist?
Or would you now like to try pretending there are other ways you could have
found out also?

[b***@m.nu]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

No atheists dont demand evidence

That's a blatant lie. What did you think you could gain by telling such a
blatant lie as that, do you have any idea?

no it is not a lie. What you dont understand is atheists like to fuck
with theists and say the words "prove it" for 2 reasons. 1 we just
like fucking with you idiot people and 2 we already know there is no
evidence but we do like a good laugh when a theists runs around in
circles trying so desperately to find it (usually finding something
they dont understand and creating lies about to support thier
positions, yet the truth is revealed eventually and the lies all
cleared up and shown for what they are as evidenced by the supossed
finding of noahs ark)

so if you have any more theist lies about god existing then please
tell us so that we can all have a big laugh at just how fucking stupid
you really are

Post by m***@.not.

Post by b***@m.nu
oof your faries. Atheists dont want
or even need any evidence that there is or is not a god. Atheists know
that there is no god except the one that has formed out of delusion
that only lives inside your head.

The only way you've said you could have found out if that's true or not is

yeah that was funny huh...

Post by m***@.not.
"I "found out" I got my decoder ring in the mail one day and used

That was an awsome quote, thanks for that bit of history. You know you
keep putting these little quotes of mine up but all they actually do
is make you look more like an idiot and make me look better and better

Post by m***@.not.
Are you still insisting that's the only way you could "know" God doesn't exist?
Or would you now like to try pretending there are other ways you could have
found out also?

LOL that is so damn funny. I am just using your "magic"

YOU IDIOT you are so fucking stupid you cant seem to understand very
much at all

[felix_unger]

Post by m***@.not.
..

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

No atheists dont demand evidence

That's a blatant lie.

lol! how stupid is this guy? every post here is some atheist saying
where's/show us the evidence!

Post by m***@.not.
What did you think you could gain by telling such a
blatant lie as that, do you have any idea?

I don't think he can even figure out what day it is :)

Post by m***@.not.

Post by b***@m.nu
oof your faries. Atheists dont want
or even need any evidence that there is or is not a god. Atheists know
that there is no god except the one that has formed out of delusion
that only lives inside your head.

The only way you've said you could have found out if that's true or not is
"I "found out" I got my decoder ring in the mail one day and used
Are you still insisting that's the only way you could "know" God doesn't exist?
Or would you now like to try pretending there are other ways you could have
found out also?

[m***@.not.]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:15:51 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by felix_unger

Post by m***@.not.
..

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

No atheists dont demand evidence

That's a blatant lie.

lol! how stupid is this guy? every post here is some atheist saying
where's/show us the evidence!

Post by m***@.not.
What did you think you could gain by telling such a
blatant lie as that, do you have any idea?

I don't think he can even figure out what day it is :)

Do you think he has any idea why he tells stupid lies? Do you think it's
just reflex, or do you think he does it deliberately, or a combination of both?

Post by felix_unger

Post by m***@.not.

Post by b***@m.nu
oof your faries. Atheists dont want
or even need any evidence that there is or is not a god. Atheists know
that there is no god except the one that has formed out of delusion
that only lives inside your head.

The only way you've said you could have found out if that's true or not is
"I "found out" I got my decoder ring in the mail one day and used
Are you still insisting that's the only way you could "know" God doesn't exist?
Or would you now like to try pretending there are other ways you could have
found out also?

[MarkA]

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged
to explain WHY it "should be" to God'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. It is certainly a
sad sad thing that within this entire group of atheists none of their
small minds can answer these questions, 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.

Theists have an elaborate fantasy about their sky-Daddy, honed over
centuries of debate, and they expect the atheists to enunciate what
evidence would show his existence?? Try again.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God's existence?

Only because rude, stupid theists talk about it outside teh confines
of their religion as if it were real.

Which the dishonest little shit knows.

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
For quite a while, we know that. Yet when challenged to
try to explain WHAT sort of evidence they think "should be" where, they

Not our problem. We're not mind readers to know what theists imagine
they've got,

But whatever it is, it has to lead to their god as an inescapable
conclusion.

This liar knows this, because it has been explained over and over
again.

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
can't even address the challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the
supposed evidence "should be" they again are helpless. When challenged
to explain WHY it "should be" to God's benefit to provide us with it

Once again a rude, stupid theist presumes the very thing he is
supposed to be proving.

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
AGAIN they have no clue at all what they think they think, or even what

An outright lie.

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
they want other people to think they think they think. It is certainly a

Another outright lie we just want these rude, stupid sociopaths to
keep their nonsense where it belongs.

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
sad sad thing that within this entire group of atheists none of their
small minds can answer these questions,

Lie.

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
nor can they as a group figure
out what they think they're trying to talk about. Why is it sad? Because

Lie.

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
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.

Lie.

The moron refuses to accept the answers.

Post by MarkA
Theists have an elaborate fantasy about their sky-Daddy, honed over
centuries of debate, and they expect the atheists to enunciate what
evidence would show his existence?? Try again.

They're dishonest, stupid, and rude.

[Don Kresch]

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God's existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when challenged to try to
explain WHAT sort of evidence

That's not our job, bubba. We don't have to do your homework
for you.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[m***@.not.]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:30:45 -0500, Don Kresch <***@spam.org> wrote:
.

Post by Don Kresch

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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.

That's not our job

LOL! It's not your job to try explaining what you want people to think you
think. Hilarious!!!

Post by Don Kresch
, bubba. We don't have to do your homework for you.

I TOLD YOU that you don't have any clue what you think you think....that you
have no idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I figured it out and
TOLD YOU. Now you have confirmed that I'm correct. It IS your job but you can
NOT do it. BUT! If you would like to try to pretend that I'm not correct and you
really can do your job then again I challenge you to try explaining:

WHAT sort of evidence do you think "should be", WHERE you think it "should be"
and WHY you think it "should be" to God's benefit to provide it if he does
exist.

[David Dalton]

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

If God exists, perhaps It likes diversity and hence is
not providing evidence for any one viewpoint.

[m***@.not.]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:15:33 -0230, David Dalton <***@nfld.com> wrote:
.

Post by David Dalton

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

If God exists, perhaps It likes diversity and hence is
not providing evidence for any one viewpoint.

My interpretation is somewhat different....that he does provide evidence for
a number of different viewpoints which is why there are believers in a number of
different religious faiths. Notice that the atheists don't like any evidence
there is and continue to insist there is none in spite of the fact there's
obviously enough to persuade billions of people that God does exist, yet they
have no clue at all what sort of evidence they believe there should be if God
does exist. Notice that not only do they have no clue at all, but they can't
even attempt to pretend to have any clue at all. The challenge to try to explain
what they think they think defeats them absolutely and entirely as they
demonstrate consistently.

[k***@baawa.com]

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

Great post. One of the most perfect Strawman creations I have ever
seen. If I could I would upvote you so your stupidity would last more
than a few days online.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[m***@.not.]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:12:13 -0700, ***@baawa.com wrote:
.

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

Great post. One of the most perfect Strawman creations I have ever
seen.

Instead of simply maundering unsupportable claims, try to support your
claim. Or better yet, try to address the challenge and explain: WHAT sort of
evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY
you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he
exists.

Post by k***@baawa.com
If I could I would upvote you so your stupidity

I challenge you to try providing evidence that what I pointed out is
incorrect.

[k***@baawa.com]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

Great post. One of the most perfect Strawman creations I have ever
seen.

Instead of simply maundering unsupportable claims, try to support your
claim. Or better yet, try to address the challenge and explain: WHAT sort of
evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY
you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he
exists.

Strawman =

"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating
someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as
being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine
honest rational debate."

We have painfully pointed out what sort of evidence we need to
prove there is a god. Pray and five seconds later an arm grows back.
That's easy stuff for a universe creator.

The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by k***@baawa.com
If I could I would upvote you so your stupidity

I challenge you to try providing evidence that what I pointed out is
incorrect.

I already did.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[felix_unger]

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

Great post. One of the most perfect Strawman creations I have ever
seen.

Instead of simply maundering unsupportable claims, try to support your
claim. Or better yet, try to address the challenge and explain: WHAT sort of
evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY
you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he
exists.

Strawman =
"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating
someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as
being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine
honest rational debate."
We have painfully pointed out what sort of evidence we need to
prove there is a god. Pray and five seconds later an arm grows back.
That's easy stuff for a universe creator.
The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
ppl who believe in and worship God? you're claiming in essence that
that's meaningless, purposeless, and inefficacious. you have to deny the
plethora of testimony to assert that, or else claim that ALL the
testimonial evidence is false.

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by m***@.not.

Post by k***@baawa.com
If I could I would upvote you so your stupidity

I challenge you to try providing evidence that what I pointed out is
incorrect.

I already did.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Malte Runz]

(snip)

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
ppl who believe in and worship God? ...

Nobody denies the fact that there are billions of people, for whom gods are
very real. But that is not evidence... ah, forget it. Geocentrism. Flat
Earth!

(snip)

[felix_unger]

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
ppl who believe in and worship God? ...

Nobody denies the fact that there are billions of people, for whom gods are
very real. But that is not evidence.

why is it not evidence when it falls within the definition of evidence?

http://ausnet.info/evidence

where are the billions of ppl believing in and worshiping
75989(*478%3203676 ? why would you wish to deny there's evidence simply
because you don't wish to believe? one can believe or not in Sasquatch,
the Loch Ness Monster, or alien abductions, but no sensible person wants
to claim there's no evidence for them/that. only ppl who are opposed to
others believing in them would do so; and so it is that only ppl who
hate the idea of God, and ppl believing in God, want to deny there's any
evidence for God. the reality is that there is evidence for God, and not
as Mr. Knight claims.

Post by Malte Runz
.. ah, forget it. Geocentrism. Flat
Earth!
(snip)

[k***@baawa.com]

snip

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
ppl who believe in and worship God? you're claiming in essence that
that's meaningless, purposeless, and inefficacious. you have to deny the
plethora of testimony to assert that, or else claim that ALL the
testimonial evidence is false.

Argument from numbers. A billion flies think shit is good to eat so
by that example, shit is good to eat.

Superstition is institutional. It's brainwashing from cradle to
grave. I can't prove there isn't a god and you can't prove there is.
Given that is the bottom line, the entire notion is absurd.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[felix_unger]

Post by k***@baawa.com
snip

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
ppl who believe in and worship God? you're claiming in essence that
that's meaningless, purposeless, and inefficacious. you have to deny the
plethora of testimony to assert that, or else claim that ALL the
testimonial evidence is false.

Argument from numbers. A billion flies think shit is good to eat so
by that example, shit is good to eat.

people are different to insects, in case you haven't noticed

Post by k***@baawa.com
Superstition is institutional. It's brainwashing from cradle to
grave. I can't prove there isn't a god and you can't prove there is.
Given that is the bottom line, the entire notion is absurd.

irrelevant to the fact that there is evidence, but noted that you can't
/ won't admit that there is. one can only speculate as to the reason

Post by k***@baawa.com
Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[k***@baawa.com]

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
snip

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
ppl who believe in and worship God? you're claiming in essence that
that's meaningless, purposeless, and inefficacious. you have to deny the
plethora of testimony to assert that, or else claim that ALL the
testimonial evidence is false.

Argument from numbers. A billion flies think shit is good to eat so
by that example, shit is good to eat.

people are different to insects, in case you haven't noticed

It's an analogy, Sparky.

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
Superstition is institutional. It's brainwashing from cradle to
grave. I can't prove there isn't a god and you can't prove there is.
Given that is the bottom line, the entire notion is absurd.

irrelevant to the fact that there is evidence, but noted that you can't
/ won't admit that there is. one can only speculate as to the reason

Dishonest statement.

You live in a superstitious box and when you peek out and get a
glimpse of reality it confuses you and you become cognitively
dysfunctional and make up explanations to bolster your fantasy.

That's why you can't understand why your evidence is imaginary to
non-belivers.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[felix_unger]

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
snip

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
ppl who believe in and worship God? you're claiming in essence that
that's meaningless, purposeless, and inefficacious. you have to deny the
plethora of testimony to assert that, or else claim that ALL the
testimonial evidence is false.

Argument from numbers. A billion flies think shit is good to eat so
by that example, shit is good to eat.

people are different to insects, in case you haven't noticed

It's an analogy, Sparky.

yes, a poor and invalid one.

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
Superstition is institutional. It's brainwashing from cradle to
grave. I can't prove there isn't a god and you can't prove there is.
Given that is the bottom line, the entire notion is absurd.

irrelevant to the fact that there is evidence, but noted that you can't
/ won't admit that there is. one can only speculate as to the reason

Dishonest statement.
You live in a superstitious box and when you peek out and get a
glimpse of reality it confuses you and you become cognitively
dysfunctional and make up explanations to bolster your fantasy.
That's why you can't understand why your evidence is imaginary to
non-belivers.

wrong. I'm being objective, you're not.

Post by k***@baawa.com
Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[k***@baawa.com]

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
Superstition is institutional. It's brainwashing from cradle to
grave. I can't prove there isn't a god and you can't prove there is.
Given that is the bottom line, the entire notion is absurd.

irrelevant to the fact that there is evidence, but noted that you can't
/ won't admit that there is. one can only speculate as to the reason

Dishonest statement.
You live in a superstitious box and when you peek out and get a
glimpse of reality it confuses you and you become cognitively
dysfunctional and make up explanations to bolster your fantasy.
That's why you can't understand why your evidence is imaginary to
non-belivers.

wrong. I'm being objective, you're not.

The debating equivalent of 'I know you are but what am I?'

Idiot.

Why do I bother? Plonk.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[felix_unger]

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com
Superstition is institutional. It's brainwashing from cradle to
grave. I can't prove there isn't a god and you can't prove there is.
Given that is the bottom line, the entire notion is absurd.

irrelevant to the fact that there is evidence, but noted that you can't
/ won't admit that there is. one can only speculate as to the reason

Dishonest statement.
You live in a superstitious box and when you peek out and get a
glimpse of reality it confuses you and you become cognitively
dysfunctional and make up explanations to bolster your fantasy.
That's why you can't understand why your evidence is imaginary to
non-belivers.

wrong. I'm being objective, you're not.

The debating equivalent of 'I know you are but what am I?'
Idiot.
Why do I bother?

you don't bother. you run away.

Post by k***@baawa.com
Plonk.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[m***@.not.]

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

Great post. One of the most perfect Strawman creations I have ever
seen.

Instead of simply maundering unsupportable claims, try to support your
claim. Or better yet, try to address the challenge and explain: WHAT sort of
evidence you think there "should be", WHERE you think it "should be", and WHY
you think it "should be" to God's benefit for him to provide us with it if he
exists.

Strawman =
"You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating
someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as
being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine
honest rational debate."
We have painfully pointed out what sort of evidence we need to
prove there is a god. Pray and five seconds later an arm grows back.
That's easy stuff for a universe creator.
The thing is, what you can't understand, is that if a god existed
we would not need proof it existed. It would obviously exist and
interact with us. But the reality is exactly as if a god does not
exist.

but it's not. how can you say that when there are literally billions of
ppl who believe in and worship God? you're claiming in essence that
that's meaningless, purposeless, and inefficacious. you have to deny the
plethora of testimony to assert that, or else claim that ALL the
testimonial evidence is false.

Here we have yet another example where we're forced to wonder if the person
is really stupid enough to believe his claim, or dishonestly pretending to be
more stupid than he actually is. It seems to come down to that a very high
percentage of the time.

Post by felix_unger

Post by k***@baawa.com

Post by m***@.not.

Post by k***@baawa.com
If I could I would upvote you so your stupidity

I challenge you to try providing evidence that what I pointed out is
incorrect.

I already did.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Olrik]

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

It looks like you're asking us to provide you with an excuse *not* to
believe in «god».

[m***@.not.]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:30:27 -0400, Olrik <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
.

Post by Olrik

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

It looks like you're asking us to provide you with an excuse *not* to
believe in «god».

It's not unreasonable to want to know what sort of evidence people think
there should be, or where they think it should be, or why they think it should
be to God's benefit to provide it. They just don't have any idea. The failure
isn't in asking them what they think there should be...the failure is in them
having no idea what they think there should be. Especially since it's obvious
that if God does exist he doesn't feel that it's best to provide proof that he
does. Yet! Maybe at some other points in time. Maybe he felt is was good to
provide proof enough for people to write cannonical texts centuries ago, and
possibly more proof at some point in the future, but not at the present time. In
fact if he does exist it seems fairly obvious that that's how it is. So it's not
unreasonable to ask people how they think it should be different instead. They
just don't have any idea how they think it should be different instead, and
they're all consistently proving it.

[Olrik]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Olrik

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

It looks like you're asking us to provide you with an excuse *not* to
believe in «god».

It's not unreasonable to want to know what sort of evidence people think
there should be, or where they think it should be, or why they think it should
be to God's benefit to provide it. They just don't have any idea. The failure
isn't in asking them what they think there should be...the failure is in them
having no idea what they think there should be. Especially since it's obvious
that if God does exist he doesn't feel that it's best to provide proof that he
does. Yet! Maybe at some other points in time. Maybe he felt is was good to
provide proof enough for people to write cannonical texts centuries ago, and
possibly more proof at some point in the future, but not at the present time. In
fact if he does exist it seems fairly obvious that that's how it is. So it's not
unreasonable to ask people how they think it should be different instead. They
just don't have any idea how they think it should be different instead, and
they're all consistently proving it.

The way I see it, that «god» thingy can do whatever it wants. Including
whatever anyone would want it to do.

There are billions of believers in some «gods». 100% will die. 100% will
think they'll go to paradise, whilst other believers will say they went
to hell. And vice versa.

Chose you «god» wisely!

But remember : the pasta exists to complement the sauce! Think about it!

[MarkA]

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged
to explain WHY it "should be" to God'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. It is certainly a
sad sad thing that within this entire group of atheists none of their
small minds can answer these questions, 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.

Fair enough. You tell me exactly what testable attributes you think your
god has, and I will tell you what tests would be needed to demonstrate
his existence.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by MarkA

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged
to explain WHY it "should be" to God'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. It is certainly a
sad sad thing that within this entire group of atheists none of their
small minds can answer these questions, 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.

Fair enough. You tell me exactly what testable attributes you think your
god has, and I will tell you what tests would be needed to demonstrate
his existence.

The moron can't even describe it is such a way that there is something
that could or could not exist.

Like most theists, he is too stupid to understand that in the rest of
the world beyond his religion, it's merely a belief just like ghosts,
fairies and all the other gods.

Or just how much work he has to do to get us to see it as any more
than that.

Attacking us and lying about us for seeing it from outside his
religion and not from inside it, certainly doesn't give us any reason
to see it in his light.

[James]

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs. But atheists are apparently a different breed.

They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs. Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

James
www.jw.org

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...

Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?

And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

[felix_unger]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

[BruceS]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars? There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.
Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

[felix_unger]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding
"evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at
evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:19:20 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at
evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

Not a thing. What's so difficult to understand about the
fact that many people don't believe in something for which
no objective evidence exists?

Post by felix_unger

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

So you agree that there's no good reason to accept the
unevidenced claims of the various religions? That *is* what
you just said, you know.

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

There is no *objective* evidence for the existence of any
deity, which is irrelevant if one has faith.

[felix_unger]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:19:20 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain
WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

Not a thing. What's so difficult to understand about the
fact that many people don't believe in something for which
no objective evidence exists?

Post by felix_unger

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

So you agree that there's no good reason to accept the
unevidenced claims of the various religions? That *is* what
you just said, you know.

the tenets of the various religions are taken on faith

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

There is no *objective* evidence for the existence of any
deity, which is irrelevant if one has faith.

all you can really say with 100% certainty is that there is no objective
evidence you are aware of

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:52:27 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:19:20 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain
WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this
entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

Not a thing. What's so difficult to understand about the
fact that many people don't believe in something for which
no objective evidence exists?

Post by felix_unger

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

So you agree that there's no good reason to accept the
unevidenced claims of the various religions? That *is* what
you just said, you know.

the tenets of the various religions are taken on faith

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

There is no *objective* evidence for the existence of any
deity, which is irrelevant if one has faith.

all you can really say with 100% certainty is that there is no objective
evidence you are aware of

It's 100% correct that I'm not aware of any such evidence,
but it's also 100% correct that no one seems able to present
such evidence.

[felix_unger]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:52:27 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:19:20 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain
WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this
entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

Not a thing. What's so difficult to understand about the
fact that many people don't believe in something for which
no objective evidence exists?

Post by felix_unger

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

So you agree that there's no good reason to accept the
unevidenced claims of the various religions? That *is* what
you just said, you know.

the tenets of the various religions are taken on faith

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

There is no *objective* evidence for the existence of any
deity, which is irrelevant if one has faith.

all you can really say with 100% certainty is that there is no objective
evidence you are aware of

It's 100% correct that I'm not aware of any such evidence,
but it's also 100% correct that no one seems able to present
such evidence.

I believe mur has made the point that a lack of objective evidence does
not translate to non-existence, on the basis that there's no reason to
assume that God would interfere with the physical realm.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:55:12 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:52:27 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:19:20 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain
WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this
entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

Not a thing. What's so difficult to understand about the
fact that many people don't believe in something for which
no objective evidence exists?

Post by felix_unger

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

So you agree that there's no good reason to accept the
unevidenced claims of the various religions? That *is* what
you just said, you know.

the tenets of the various religions are taken on faith

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

There is no *objective* evidence for the existence of any
deity, which is irrelevant if one has faith.

all you can really say with 100% certainty is that there is no objective
evidence you are aware of

It's 100% correct that I'm not aware of any such evidence,
but it's also 100% correct that no one seems able to present
such evidence.

I believe mur has made the point that a lack of objective evidence does
not translate to non-existence, on the basis that there's no reason to
assume that God would interfere with the physical realm.

Yes, he has. But he refuses to accept that non-evidence does
not imply hidden existence, and that belief without evidence
is just that - belief. And as *I've* said several times,
religion is about faith, not evidence.

[felix_unger]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:55:12 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:52:27 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:19:20 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding
"evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain
WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this
entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

Not a thing. What's so difficult to understand about the
fact that many people don't believe in something for which
no objective evidence exists?

Post by felix_unger

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

So you agree that there's no good reason to accept the
unevidenced claims of the various religions? That *is* what
you just said, you know.

the tenets of the various religions are taken on faith

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

There is no *objective* evidence for the existence of any
deity, which is irrelevant if one has faith.

all you can really say with 100% certainty is that there is no objective
evidence you are aware of

It's 100% correct that I'm not aware of any such evidence,
but it's also 100% correct that no one seems able to present
such evidence.

I believe mur has made the point that a lack of objective evidence does
not translate to non-existence, on the basis that there's no reason to
assume that God would interfere with the physical realm.

Yes, he has. But he refuses to accept that non-evidence does
not imply hidden existence, and that belief without evidence
is just that - belief. And as *I've* said several times,
religion is about faith, not evidence.

but it's not faith without evidence. how can there be any faith without
evidence? what would there be to put ones faith in? Christianity is
based on the life and teachings of Jesus as recounted in the bible.
that's the evidence for christian belief. Islamic beleif is based on the
life and teachings of the prophet Mohammed. and so on with other
religions. there's always some basis for religious faith.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:23:40 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:55:12 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:52:27 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:19:20 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding
"evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain
WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this
entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at
evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

Not a thing. What's so difficult to understand about the
fact that many people don't believe in something for which
no objective evidence exists?

Post by felix_unger

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

So you agree that there's no good reason to accept the
unevidenced claims of the various religions? That *is* what
you just said, you know.

the tenets of the various religions are taken on faith

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

There is no *objective* evidence for the existence of any
deity, which is irrelevant if one has faith.

all you can really say with 100% certainty is that there is no objective
evidence you are aware of

It's 100% correct that I'm not aware of any such evidence,
but it's also 100% correct that no one seems able to present
such evidence.

I believe mur has made the point that a lack of objective evidence does
not translate to non-existence, on the basis that there's no reason to
assume that God would interfere with the physical realm.

Yes, he has. But he refuses to accept that non-evidence does
not imply hidden existence, and that belief without evidence
is just that - belief. And as *I've* said several times,
religion is about faith, not evidence.

but it's not faith without evidence. how can there be any faith without
evidence?

As I've noted several times, that is incorrect based on
current usage. From the OED (reformatted a bit for
readability):

"faith
Line breaks: faith
Pronunciation: /fe??

noun
[mass noun]

1Complete trust or confidence in someone or something

2Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on
spiritual conviction rather than proof

Definition 2 is the relevant one here; see the part about
"based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"? In this
context one can read "proof" as "objective evidence".

Post by felix_unger
what would there be to put ones faith in? Christianity is
based on the life and teachings of Jesus as recounted in the bible.

Exactly, it's based on what 4 individuals are claimed to
have said about it, by writers who recorded their claims
decades or centuries after the fact. That is *not* evidence.

Post by felix_unger
that's the evidence for christian belief. Islamic beleif is based on the
life and teachings of the prophet Mohammed. and so on with other
religions. there's always some basis for religious faith.

Sure, there's a "basis". It's just that the basis, as noted
above, qualifies as neither objective evidence nor "proof".
At least part of the basis for belief in Zeus and Thor was
the observed existence of lightning; does that qualify as
evidence?

[BruceS]

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at
evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

And yet religious people do precisely that; they believe as fact or
truth what is not known to be true/factual. They believe all sorts of
nonsense in the absence of any evidence to support that nonsense. That
is, in essence, what religion is.

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

You like to say things like this, but always fail utterly to present any
such evidence. The most you do is present evidence that people
*believe* in gods, which we accept. You say there is evidence for gods;
present it! Stop just hiding the evidence and *show* it. I say
"apparently complete lack of evidence", which is factually correct.
Sure, there could be some evidence hidden away somewhere, but neither
you nor anyone else seems capable of presenting it. Until someone,
anyone, presents some evidence for one or another god, there is an
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

[felix_unger]

Post by BruceS

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain
WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

And yet religious people do precisely that; they believe as fact or
truth what is not known to be true/factual. They believe all sorts of
nonsense in the absence of any evidence to support that nonsense.
That is, in essence, what religion is.

yes indeed. religion is faith based. but it's NOT without evidence! I
wish ppl would stop saying that. all religions have reasons why ppl
believe. eg., scriptures, prophets, testimony, holy relics, priests, etc.,

Post by BruceS

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

You like to say things like this, but always fail utterly to present
any such evidence. The most you do is present evidence that people
*believe* in gods, which we accept. You say there is evidence for
gods; present it!

it's the evidence you won't accept as evidence.. holy books, prophets,
personal testimony, etc., if you want to deny there's any evidence,
you're effectively saying everything is made up..everything that is said
about Jesus for example. I'd much rather simply admit that there is
evidence for God, than suggest that ALL the 'evidence' is false or
non-existent.

Post by BruceS
Stop just hiding the evidence and *show* it. I say "apparently
complete lack of evidence", which is factually correct. Sure, there
could be some evidence hidden away somewhere, but neither you nor
anyone else seems capable of presenting it. Until someone, anyone,
presents some evidence for one or another god, there is an apparently
complete lack of evidence to support it.

atheists seem to have a HUGE problem wanting to admit there's any
evidence for God. my theory is it's because they're afraid some of it
might be true.

[BruceS]

Post by felix_unger

Post by BruceS

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain
WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this
entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,
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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars?

ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular
faith. what is difficult to understand about that?

There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.

there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to
be true/factual

And yet religious people do precisely that; they believe as fact or
truth what is not known to be true/factual. They believe all sorts of
nonsense in the absence of any evidence to support that nonsense. That
is, in essence, what religion is.

yes indeed. religion is faith based. but it's NOT without evidence! I
wish ppl would stop saying that. all religions have reasons why ppl
believe. eg., scriptures, prophets, testimony, holy relics, priests, etc.,

A book making wild claims is not evidence that those claims are true.
We're back to John Carter of Mars. Plenty of written evidence for that.
Plenty for Hogwarts, Oz, Narnia, and Shangri La for that matter.
Those books etc. are simply claims, not evidence.

Post by felix_unger

Post by BruceS

Post by felix_unger

Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that
you are free to accept or reject.

You like to say things like this, but always fail utterly to present
any such evidence. The most you do is present evidence that people
*believe* in gods, which we accept. You say there is evidence for
gods; present it!

it's the evidence you won't accept as evidence.. holy books, prophets,
personal testimony, etc., if you want to deny there's any evidence,
you're effectively saying everything is made up..everything that is said
about Jesus for example. I'd much rather simply admit that there is
evidence for God, than suggest that ALL the 'evidence' is false or
non-existent.

I won't accept as evidence things that are not evidence. I accept the
various versions of the Christian Bible as evidence that these books
exist, and that someone went to considerable effort to document their
claims. They are even evidence (in some sense) that there have been
people who believed those claims. They are not, in any sense, evidence
that those claims are true. Perhaps Aslan could explain this more
clearly, but AIUI he's busy hanging out with some Emperor.

Post by felix_unger

Post by BruceS
Stop just hiding the evidence and *show* it. I say "apparently
complete lack of evidence", which is factually correct. Sure, there
could be some evidence hidden away somewhere, but neither you nor
anyone else seems capable of presenting it. Until someone, anyone,
presents some evidence for one or another god, there is an apparently
complete lack of evidence to support it.

atheists seem to have a HUGE problem wanting to admit there's any
evidence for God. my theory is it's because they're afraid some of it
might be true.

I have no problem admitting that there may be such evidence, but have
never seen any of it, so I won't just "admit" that it exists without
seeing it. Once again, evidence that someone *believes* a story is not
evidence that the story is true. The fact that someone wrote down a
story isn't really even evidence that anyone believes it, but I think we
can all agree that some people do believe the stories in question. I'd
go as far as to say that pretty much anything written down has *someone*
believing it. I'd be thrilled if some of the claims about gods were
true. Not the parts where the gods are psychotic mass murderers, or
that sort of thing though; that would be a bit frightening. Magically
healing the sick, turning water into wine, defending humanity from the
ice giants, levitating oneself my mere thought, creating complex items
from nothing, the list of things that would be pretty cool is quite long.

[Alex W]

Post by BruceS

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger
despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars? There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.
Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

It is debatable which is the default position of the
rational individual: agnosticism or atheism. If one is
scientifically- as well as rational-minded, then agnosticism
is possibly a better fit: if anything is absolutely known
about Life, the Universe and Everything it is that perceived
facts and truths have a habit of turning out to be wrong.
Thus, the agnosticism of reserving judgment would arguably
be more appropriate for this as for any other avenuie of
scientific enquiry.

As for belief, we would need to clarify what we are talking
about. If we are discussing the existence of Thor, Zeus,
Spiderman or Harry Potter in terms of distinct physically
and historically existing entities, we do of course have to
insist on hard evidence of their existence; absent such
evidence, it is quite the sensible thing to disbelieve.

There is another possible way of defining such supernatural
personages, though: in terms of personification and
anthropomorphism. Basically, we are Dr McKoy rather than
Commander Spock. Our wetware is primed to go "oook" rather
than "cogito ergo sum". Therefore it makes sense and is
culturally and philosophically legitimate to personify and
anthropomorphise: as a means of transmitting a society's
survival guidelines, creating and maintaining a cultural
identity, or establishing and enforcing moral and ethical
notions and codes, a personified embodiment is highly
effective and efficient. Cast in those terms, the question
of the existence let alone the historicity of a Jesus or
Hermes Trismegistos become irrelevant: they are Man-shaped
myths, conveniently shaped tools where the message is all.
Viewed under these terms, we can sidestep the entire debate
to concentrate on productively and profitably examining the
messages that are being transmitted.

Of course, being creatures who go "oook", such a notion is
resisted fiercely be actual believers who derive a serious
and unbreakable emotional satisfaction from their attachment
to flesh-and-blood entities and all too frequently forget to
consider (let alone live by) the teachings they carry.

[BruceS]

Post by Alex W

Post by BruceS

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger
despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars? There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.
Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

It is debatable which is the default position of the
rational individual: agnosticism or atheism. If one is
scientifically- as well as rational-minded, then agnosticism
is possibly a better fit: if anything is absolutely known
about Life, the Universe and Everything it is that perceived
facts and truths have a habit of turning out to be wrong.
Thus, the agnosticism of reserving judgment would arguably
be more appropriate for this as for any other avenuie of
scientific enquiry.

This is another area of unclear definitions. Some time ago I stopped
describing myself as "agnostic" and accepted "atheist" based on pedantic
definitions of the words. I do reserve judgment, and am willing to
admit to the possibility of gods, but in absence of evidence for them
accept the unlikelihood of their existence. To be truly agnostic
(AIUI), I'd have to take the position that evidence for them is not
possible. While any evidence can, as you say, turn out to be wrong, I
accept that evidence is possible. Essentially, if I were presented with
evidence for a particular god, I could then believe in that god. If
that evidence were later shown to be false, then (absent other evidence
that remained trustworthy) I would stop believing in that god.

Post by Alex W
As for belief, we would need to clarify what we are talking
about. If we are discussing the existence of Thor, Zeus,
Spiderman or Harry Potter in terms of distinct physically
and historically existing entities, we do of course have to
insist on hard evidence of their existence; absent such
evidence, it is quite the sensible thing to disbelieve.
There is another possible way of defining such supernatural
personages, though: in terms of personification and
anthropomorphism. Basically, we are Dr McKoy rather than
Commander Spock. Our wetware is primed to go "oook" rather

Are you trying to imply that we're a race of Librarians?

Post by Alex W
than "cogito ergo sum". Therefore it makes sense and is
culturally and philosophically legitimate to personify and
anthropomorphise: as a means of transmitting a society's
survival guidelines, creating and maintaining a cultural
identity, or establishing and enforcing moral and ethical
notions and codes, a personified embodiment is highly
effective and efficient. Cast in those terms, the question
of the existence let alone the historicity of a Jesus or
Hermes Trismegistos become irrelevant: they are Man-shaped
myths, conveniently shaped tools where the message is all.
Viewed under these terms, we can sidestep the entire debate
to concentrate on productively and profitably examining the
messages that are being transmitted.

I think that's another thing entirely. There's no need to believe in
gods simply to consider useful one or more of the messages from the
religion supporting that god. I reject many of the messages that are
attributed to Jesus, but accept others.

Post by Alex W
Of course, being creatures who go "oook", such a notion is
resisted fiercely be actual believers who derive a serious
and unbreakable emotional satisfaction from their attachment
to flesh-and-blood entities and all too frequently forget to
consider (let alone live by) the teachings they carry.

In some cases, that's quite unfortunate. Anyone who truly believed in,
and followed, the supposed teachings of Jesus would be a great neighbor,
as well as an easy victim. In other cases, it's a good thing the
"believers" neither believe nor follow. We don't really want all the
slavery, rape, murder, and other atrocities recommended by the Bible, do we?

[b***@m.nu]

Post by BruceS

Post by Alex W

Post by BruceS

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger
despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that
atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's
existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good
reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am
entitled to reject that opinion.

I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's
just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the
complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the
multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,
Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I
believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John
Carter of Mars? There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.
Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another
religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from
joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the
nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject
the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for
that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

It is debatable which is the default position of the
rational individual: agnosticism or atheism. If one is
scientifically- as well as rational-minded, then agnosticism
is possibly a better fit: if anything is absolutely known
about Life, the Universe and Everything it is that perceived
facts and truths have a habit of turning out to be wrong.
Thus, the agnosticism of reserving judgment would arguably
be more appropriate for this as for any other avenuie of
scientific enquiry.

This is another area of unclear definitions. Some time ago I stopped
describing myself as "agnostic" and accepted "atheist" based on pedantic
definitions of the words. I do reserve judgment, and am willing to
admit to the possibility of gods, but in absence of evidence for them

an atheist would never ever say there is a possibility of god<s>
saying there is a possibility is the very same as saying I believe
there coulbe be a god. In other words it would be the same as saying
I believe in a god <s>

Post by BruceS
accept the unlikelihood of their existence. To be truly agnostic
(AIUI), I'd have to take the position that evidence for them is not
possible. While any evidence can, as you say, turn out to be wrong, I
accept that evidence is possible. Essentially, if I were presented with
evidence for a particular god, I could then believe in that god. If
that evidence were later shown to be false, then (absent other evidence
that remained trustworthy) I would stop believing in that god.

Post by Alex W
As for belief, we would need to clarify what we are talking
about. If we are discussing the existence of Thor, Zeus,
Spiderman or Harry Potter in terms of distinct physically
and historically existing entities, we do of course have to
insist on hard evidence of their existence; absent such
evidence, it is quite the sensible thing to disbelieve.
There is another possible way of defining such supernatural
personages, though: in terms of personification and
anthropomorphism. Basically, we are Dr McKoy rather than
Commander Spock. Our wetware is primed to go "oook" rather

Are you trying to imply that we're a race of Librarians?

Post by Alex W
than "cogito ergo sum". Therefore it makes sense and is
culturally and philosophically legitimate to personify and
anthropomorphise: as a means of transmitting a society's
survival guidelines, creating and maintaining a cultural
identity, or establishing and enforcing moral and ethical
notions and codes, a personified embodiment is highly
effective and efficient. Cast in those terms, the question
of the existence let alone the historicity of a Jesus or
Hermes Trismegistos become irrelevant: they are Man-shaped
myths, conveniently shaped tools where the message is all.
Viewed under these terms, we can sidestep the entire debate
to concentrate on productively and profitably examining the
messages that are being transmitted.

I think that's another thing entirely. There's no need to believe in
gods simply to consider useful one or more of the messages from the
religion supporting that god. I reject many of the messages that are
attributed to Jesus, but accept others.

Post by Alex W
Of course, being creatures who go "oook", such a notion is
resisted fiercely be actual believers who derive a serious
and unbreakable emotional satisfaction from their attachment
to flesh-and-blood entities and all too frequently forget to
consider (let alone live by) the teachings they carry.

In some cases, that's quite unfortunate. Anyone who truly believed in,
and followed, the supposed teachings of Jesus would be a great neighbor,
as well as an easy victim. In other cases, it's a good thing the
"believers" neither believe nor follow. We don't really want all the
slavery, rape, murder, and other atrocities recommended by the Bible, do we?

[BruceS]

<snip>

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by BruceS
This is another area of unclear definitions. Some time ago I stopped
describing myself as "agnostic" and accepted "atheist" based on pedantic
definitions of the words. I do reserve judgment, and am willing to
admit to the possibility of gods, but in absence of evidence for them

an atheist would never ever say there is a possibility of god<s>
saying there is a possibility is the very same as saying I believe
there coulbe be a god. In other words it would be the same as saying
I believe in a god <s>

No, just no. You really don't understand at all.

<snip>

[James]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.

Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than that
pathetic theory of macroevolution.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?

god with us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)

I purposely used the small "g" here because that then makes it a true
statement. Their god was Satan. 2 Co 4:4a,

"in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelieving,..."

Post by Bob Casanova
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

It has been told to you many times. But all right, lets have a look at
it again.

God has left His footprints everywhere. Look at all these machines all
over the place. If you found an android in the woods, you would not
assume that mindless chance made it, would you. You just KNOW that
someone (or some many) created it. Now look at the human body and
compare it to the android. We are made much better stuff than the
android. If it REQUIRES a creator, how much more so would a human.
Also, who or what programmed all this DNA? If you can't see
intelligence behind the DNA, then you are probably forcing your
beliefs to override that logical conclusion.

Or take the common house fly. The aerodynamic maneuvers it makes is
hard to believe. What are the aerodynamic laws like when you get down
to the size of a fly? Who programmed such tricky maneuvers into that
tiny fly brain? Macroevolution has no mind, so it couldn't have done
such sophisticated programming.

Yes, there are millions of different kinds of machines all over this
planet. To believe that they all came from mindless energies, well, I
have a statue of a lady in the New York harbor that I can let go for a
good price:)

James
www.jw.org

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.

Missed the part about "objective evidence", huh? No problem;
most believers do.

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than that
pathetic theory of macroevolution.

That's ridiculous. The fossil record, among other things,
shows that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that
plant and animal populations have only existed for
approximately half a billion years, *and* that they have
changed multiple times over that period, with no species
lasting more than a few million years. And in contradiction
to the Bible, the existence of the sun preceded that of the
Earth by many millions of years, as did the stars ("And He
made the stars also").

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?

god with us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)
I purposely used the small "g" here because that then makes it a true
statement. Their god was Satan. 2 Co 4:4a,

Wrong again; they were Christians, as their founder makes
quite clear in "Mein Kampf".

Post by James
"in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelieving,..."

Post by Bob Casanova
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

It has been told to you many times. But all right, lets have a look at
it again.
God has left His footprints everywhere. Look at all these machines all
over the place. If you found an android in the woods, you would not
assume that mindless chance made it, would you. You just KNOW that
someone (or some many) created it. Now look at the human body and
compare it to the android. We are made much better stuff than the
android. If it REQUIRES a creator, how much more so would a human.
Also, who or what programmed all this DNA? If you can't see
intelligence behind the DNA, then you are probably forcing your
beliefs to override that logical conclusion.

This bears repeating: Whether or not we know how something
came to exist, it is *always* wrong to make assumptions
without evidence. And there is zero actual evidence
regarding any sort of "special creation"; in fact, unless
the Creator was an incompetent idiot, the evidence points
the other way.

Post by James
Or take the common house fly. The aerodynamic maneuvers it makes is
hard to believe. What are the aerodynamic laws like when you get down
to the size of a fly? Who programmed such tricky maneuvers into that
tiny fly brain? Macroevolution has no mind, so it couldn't have done
such sophisticated programming.

Nice assertion, especially from someone who apparently
hasn't the faintest idea how natural selection works. Here's
a hint, though: A process which *automatically* allows
"improved models" to enjoy greater reproductive success will
lead, almost every time, to the domination of those
"improved models" in the population; no "sophisticated
programming" is either involved or required. And when the
process continues over millions or billions of generations
there's nothing within the constraints of physical law it
can't generate, assuming that the genetic structure of the
species can get to it.

Post by James
Yes, there are millions of different kinds of machines all over this
planet. To believe that they all came from mindless energies, well, I
have a statue of a lady in the New York harbor that I can let go for a
good price:)

Good luck with that. I advise you to offer it first to the
nearest believer, since they are already programmed to
accept assertions without evidence.

And BTW, no machine can reproduce itself, or take advantage
thereby of random variation using the process of selection
and differential reproductive success. That's reserved for
living organisms.

[felix_unger]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

shouldn't one of the those 'whiches' be a 'that'? just asking. I'm
always confused about the correct usage between the two terms.

[felix_unger]

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

shouldn't one of the those 'whiches' be a 'that'? just asking. I'm
always confused about the correct usage between the two terms.

I suppose I should have googled first..

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/when-to-use-which-or-that.html

[felix_unger]

Post by felix_unger

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

shouldn't one of the those 'whiches' be a 'that'?

or maybe both!

Post by felix_unger

Post by felix_unger
just asking. I'm always confused about the correct usage between the
two terms.

I suppose I should have googled first..
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/when-to-use-which-or-that.html

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:47:31 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

shouldn't one of the those 'whiches' be a 'that'? just asking. I'm
always confused about the correct usage between the two terms.

Probably the second one, but I certainly don't remember the
details; my last formal grammar lesson was well over 50
years ago. I suspect either is acceptable.

[grabber]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:47:31 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

shouldn't one of the those 'whiches' be a 'that'? just asking. I'm
always confused about the correct usage between the two terms.

Probably the second one, but I certainly don't remember the
details; my last formal grammar lesson was well over 50
years ago. I suspect either is acceptable.

Some people like to say that "that" must be used when a restriction is
being introduced, and "which" in other cases:

"The dog that bit me" - of possibly several dogs, we are talking
specifically about the one that bit me.

"The dog, which bit me" - we already know which dog we're talking about,
but we're adding the information that it bit me.

Of course, as with most prescriptive rules, things are not really that
simple. Non-restrictive "that" is quite rare these days, so is possibly
best avoided. Restrictive "which" is alive and well and you need have no
qualms about what you wrote.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:41:08 +0100, the following appeared

Post by grabber

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:47:31 +1000, the following appeared

Post by felix_unger

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

shouldn't one of the those 'whiches' be a 'that'? just asking. I'm
always confused about the correct usage between the two terms.

Probably the second one, but I certainly don't remember the
details; my last formal grammar lesson was well over 50
years ago. I suspect either is acceptable.

Some people like to say that "that" must be used when a restriction is
"The dog that bit me" - of possibly several dogs, we are talking
specifically about the one that bit me.
"The dog, which bit me" - we already know which dog we're talking about,
but we're adding the information that it bit me.
Of course, as with most prescriptive rules, things are not really that
simple. Non-restrictive "that" is quite rare these days, so is possibly
best avoided. Restrictive "which" is alive and well and you need have no
qualms about what you wrote.

Thanks. That language changes constantly is a fact, but
usually the changes involve new or revised definitions or
usage of existing words (gay, for example, and "party" as a
verb), or the creation of new ones (google and googleplex
[math], Google [noun and later verb]); such changes in usage
such as "which" vs. "that" are usually slower.

[James]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.

Missed the part about "objective evidence", huh? No problem;
most believers do.

They don't go that way when they have a reputation to maintain.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

Most of what you say are the miracles. I can't prove them, and you
can't disprove them. They are sitting in the history books.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than that
pathetic theory of macroevolution.

That's ridiculous. The fossil record, among other things,
shows that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that
plant and animal populations have only existed for
approximately half a billion years, *and* that they have
changed multiple times over that period, with no species
lasting more than a few million years. And in contradiction
to the Bible, the existence of the sun preceded that of the
Earth by many millions of years, as did the stars ("And He
made the stars also").

Nonsense. Genesis 1 :1 shows when the sun was made. Ge 1:1,

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)

Thus in verse 1 the sun is shining brightly in the heavens. Since the
order here is "heavens" and then the earth, the earth was created
after the heavens. If you have any more questions about the early
chapters of Genesis, just ask.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?

god with us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)
I purposely used the small "g" here because that then makes it a true
statement. Their god was Satan. 2 Co 4:4a,

Wrong again; they were Christians, as their founder makes
quite clear in "Mein Kampf".

Not exactly, because they did not obey Jesus' commands. They were
professed Christians. Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make
it so.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
"in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelieving,..."

Post by Bob Casanova
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

It has been told to you many times. But all right, lets have a look at
it again.
God has left His footprints everywhere. Look at all these machines all
over the place. If you found an android in the woods, you would not
assume that mindless chance made it, would you. You just KNOW that
someone (or some many) created it. Now look at the human body and
compare it to the android. We are made much better stuff than the
android. If it REQUIRES a creator, how much more so would a human.
Also, who or what programmed all this DNA? If you can't see
intelligence behind the DNA, then you are probably forcing your
beliefs to override that logical conclusion.

This bears repeating: Whether or not we know how something
came to exist, it is *always* wrong to make assumptions
without evidence. And there is zero actual evidence
regarding any sort of "special creation"; in fact, unless
the Creator was an incompetent idiot, the evidence points
the other way.

I know, unbelievers blind their eyes so as not to see the truth. The
moons of Mars exist. Unless you have direct evidence (Not just a bunch
of theories) then they shouldn't be assumed to exist?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Or take the common house fly. The aerodynamic maneuvers it makes is
hard to believe. What are the aerodynamic laws like when you get down
to the size of a fly? Who programmed such tricky maneuvers into that
tiny fly brain? Macroevolution has no mind, so it couldn't have done
such sophisticated programming.

Nice assertion, especially from someone who apparently
hasn't the faintest idea how natural selection works. Here's
a hint, though: A process which *automatically* allows
"improved models" to enjoy greater reproductive success will
lead, almost every time, to the domination of those
"improved models" in the population;

How does a NO MIND energy know that reproduction has been inproved or
not? It shouldn't care because it has absolutely no idea what is going
on with reproduction or any other bodily system. Your logic assumes a
mind of some kind is directing the organism to improve in its
enviroment, and thus strives in that diredtion instead of the reverse.
And that is why all things seem to be working from low to high. Please
explain that macroevolution trait to me.

Post by Bob Casanova
no "sophisticated
programming" is either involved or required. And when the
process continues over millions or billions of generations
there's nothing within the constraints of physical law it
can't generate, assuming that the genetic structure of the
species can get to it.

No mind producing complex sophisticated machines like the human body
with all of its intertwining system and a super brain that can try to
inderstand it all. The Bible call where the brain resides the GOLDEN
BOWL.

Tell me, if macroevolution is the way of things, why give humans a
spiritual nature? None of the animals have it, and they seem to get
along just fine. And what about our artistic nature? None of those
have anything to do with survival of the fittest. Why?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Yes, there are millions of different kinds of machines all over this
planet. To believe that they all came from mindless energies, well, I
have a statue of a lady in the New York harbor that I can let go for a
good price:)

Good luck with that. I advise you to offer it first to the
nearest believer, since they are already programmed to
accept assertions without evidence.

You mean like evolutionists who have NEVER witnesses one life form
turn into a different life form. (dinosaur to eventual bird thing)
That is all based on fossil bones being rearranged to make it appear
it was transitioning into something else.

Or what about evolutionists not being able in the lab to turn one life
form into a completely different life form. If life came from one
source, why a PLANT kingdom and an ANIMAL kingdom. Two separate
occurrences?

As you see you have very little first hand experiences on that spotty
THEORY

Post by Bob Casanova
And BTW, no machine can reproduce itself, or take advantage
thereby of random variation using the process of selection
and differential reproductive success. That's reserved for
living organisms.

You ought to hear yourself. All these things happening with no mind
involved. You have got to be more intellegent than that.

To briefly discuss it, the Bible says God created the different life
forms ALL AT ONCE AND COMPLETE. Darwin did not find that.
As Darwin said:

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

...The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear
in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . .
as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.

...There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious.
I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the
main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest
known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain
inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the
[evolutionary] views here entertained.” (The Origin of Species, by
Charles Darwin)

Since God created each life form full and complete on the spot, there
would not be the millions of transitional life forms needed to satisfy
that theory, there would be none. Darwin also had problems with that
one:

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The
Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)

James
www.jw.org

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:51 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.

Missed the part about "objective evidence", huh? No problem;
most believers do.

They don't go that way when they have a reputation to maintain.

Interesting assertion. Any evidence? That would be
*objective* evidence, your personal opinions don't count.

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

Most of what you say are the miracles. I can't prove them, and you
can't disprove them. They are sitting in the history books.

Cite to a non-religious text, please.

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than that
pathetic theory of macroevolution.

That's ridiculous. The fossil record, among other things,
shows that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that
plant and animal populations have only existed for
approximately half a billion years, *and* that they have
changed multiple times over that period, with no species
lasting more than a few million years. And in contradiction
to the Bible, the existence of the sun preceded that of the
Earth by many millions of years, as did the stars ("And He
made the stars also").

Nonsense. Genesis 1 :1 shows when the sun was made. Ge 1:1,
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
Thus in verse 1 the sun is shining brightly in the heavens. Since the
order here is "heavens" and then the earth, the earth was created
after the heavens. If you have any more questions about the early
chapters of Genesis, just ask.

Nope; sorry. The sun was created *after* the Earth; when the
heavens were created is irrelevant. Nice wiggle, though..

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?

god with us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)
I purposely used the small "g" here because that then makes it a true
statement. Their god was Satan. 2 Co 4:4a,

Wrong again; they were Christians, as their founder makes
quite clear in "Mein Kampf".

Not exactly, because they did not obey Jesus' commands. They were
professed Christians. Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make
it so.

No True Scotsman, huh?

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
"in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelieving,..."

Post by Bob Casanova
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

It has been told to you many times. But all right, lets have a look at
it again.
God has left His footprints everywhere. Look at all these machines all
over the place. If you found an android in the woods, you would not
assume that mindless chance made it, would you. You just KNOW that
someone (or some many) created it. Now look at the human body and
compare it to the android. We are made much better stuff than the
android. If it REQUIRES a creator, how much more so would a human.
Also, who or what programmed all this DNA? If you can't see
intelligence behind the DNA, then you are probably forcing your
beliefs to override that logical conclusion.

This bears repeating: Whether or not we know how something
came to exist, it is *always* wrong to make assumptions
without evidence. And there is zero actual evidence
regarding any sort of "special creation"; in fact, unless
the Creator was an incompetent idiot, the evidence points
the other way.

I know, unbelievers blind their eyes so as not to see the truth. The
moons of Mars exist. Unless you have direct evidence (Not just a bunch
of theories) then they shouldn't be assumed to exist?

You are confused, to be charitable. We see Diemos and
Phobos; that's what's known as "objective evidence".

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Or take the common house fly. The aerodynamic maneuvers it makes is
hard to believe. What are the aerodynamic laws like when you get down
to the size of a fly? Who programmed such tricky maneuvers into that
tiny fly brain? Macroevolution has no mind, so it couldn't have done
such sophisticated programming.

Nice assertion, especially from someone who apparently
hasn't the faintest idea how natural selection works. Here's
a hint, though: A process which *automatically* allows
"improved models" to enjoy greater reproductive success will
lead, almost every time, to the domination of those
"improved models" in the population;

How does a NO MIND energy know that reproduction has been inproved or
not? It shouldn't care because it has absolutely no idea what is going
on with reproduction or any other bodily system. Your logic assumes a
mind of some kind is directing the organism to improve in its
enviroment, and thus strives in that diredtion instead of the reverse.
And that is why all things seem to be working from low to high. Please
explain that macroevolution trait to me.

Given the confusion expressed above ("NO MIND energy",
forsooth) I wouldn't even attempt it, especially since you
didn't even understand what I wrote. If you *actually* want
to know, this is a good place to start, and there are lots
of references in the footnotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

But I suspect you won't bother. I won't bother with any of
the following until you gain at least a minimum
understanding of natural selection, though.

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
no "sophisticated
programming" is either involved or required. And when the
process continues over millions or billions of generations
there's nothing within the constraints of physical law it
can't generate, assuming that the genetic structure of the
species can get to it.

No mind producing complex sophisticated machines like the human body
with all of its intertwining system and a super brain that can try to
inderstand it all. The Bible call where the brain resides the GOLDEN
BOWL.
Tell me, if macroevolution is the way of things, why give humans a
spiritual nature? None of the animals have it, and they seem to get
along just fine. And what about our artistic nature? None of those
have anything to do with survival of the fittest. Why?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Yes, there are millions of different kinds of machines all over this
planet. To believe that they all came from mindless energies, well, I
have a statue of a lady in the New York harbor that I can let go for a
good price:)

Good luck with that. I advise you to offer it first to the
nearest believer, since they are already programmed to
accept assertions without evidence.

You mean like evolutionists who have NEVER witnesses one life form
turn into a different life form. (dinosaur to eventual bird thing)
That is all based on fossil bones being rearranged to make it appear
it was transitioning into something else.
Or what about evolutionists not being able in the lab to turn one life
form into a completely different life form. If life came from one
source, why a PLANT kingdom and an ANIMAL kingdom. Two separate
occurrences?
As you see you have very little first hand experiences on that spotty
THEORY

Post by Bob Casanova
And BTW, no machine can reproduce itself, or take advantage
thereby of random variation using the process of selection
and differential reproductive success. That's reserved for
living organisms.

You ought to hear yourself. All these things happening with no mind
involved. You have got to be more intellegent than that.
To briefly discuss it, the Bible says God created the different life
forms ALL AT ONCE AND COMPLETE. Darwin did not find that.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
...The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear
in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . .
as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.
...There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious.
I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the
main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest
known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain
inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the
[evolutionary] views here entertained.” (The Origin of Species, by
Charles Darwin)
Since God created each life form full and complete on the spot, there
would not be the millions of transitional life forms needed to satisfy
that theory, there would be none. Darwin also had problems with that
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The
Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)
James
www.jw.org

[Virgil]

Post by Bob Casanova
Nope; sorry. The sun was created *after* the Earth

Astrophysics all says otherwise.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:12:07 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Virgil

Post by Bob Casanova
Nope; sorry. The sun was created *after* the Earth

Astrophysics all says otherwise.

Of course it does, and AFAIK it's correct. You might want to
read what I wrote; my comment is taken out of context
(usually referred to as "quote mining", and was actually
about what the Bible says in Genesis, and the fact that my
correspondent (a believer) was incorrect about what it says.
Unfortunately, many believers don't know what their own
religious texts actually say, only what they're *told* they
say by some drooling yahoo.

[James]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:51 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.

Missed the part about "objective evidence", huh? No problem;
most believers do.

They don't go that way when they have a reputation to maintain.

Interesting assertion. Any evidence? That would be
*objective* evidence, your personal opinions don't count.

There has been in the news recently scienctists who 'fudged' their
data to make more in harmony with their theory. Of course the famous
one was Piltdown man. This an observation, not an opinion. Threre
seems to be competition among there scientists to be the first to
discover something. And the less honest ones cleverly adjust the
evidence to show to fit in to their theory. For example:

" the journal Science retracted two high-profile papers from the lab
of noted Korean stem cell biologist Woo Suk Hwang. Less than two years
before, Hwang claimed to have made stem cells from cloned human
embryos, a difficult feat that had previously only been achieved with
livestock. He faked his data, lied about his methods, and managed to
get the results published in one of the world’s hottest journals,
twice. Yet Hwang was actually a small-timer, as far as cheating
scientists go. In 2002 and 2003, the world’s most popular journals,
Nature and Science, retracted a combined total of 16 fraudulent papers
co-authored by the award-winning German physicist Jan Hendrick Schön.
Neither Schön’s co-authors, nor the peer reviewers caught the
problems. In 2011, 69 papers by the German clinician Joachim Boldt and
28 papers by the Japanese virologist Naoki Mori were retracted for
fraud. Fabricating your data and lying about your methods don’t
require sophisticated skills, and until you are actually accused of
fraud, nobody is going to come into your lab and test your equipment
or inspect your lab notebooks."
(http://www.psmag.com/science/scientists-cheat-nature-fraud-science-68795/)

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

Most of what you say are the miracles. I can't prove them, and you
can't disprove them. They are sitting in the history books.

Cite to a non-religious text, please.

What are you going after?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than that
pathetic theory of macroevolution.

That's ridiculous. The fossil record, among other things,
shows that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that
plant and animal populations have only existed for
approximately half a billion years, *and* that they have
changed multiple times over that period, with no species
lasting more than a few million years. And in contradiction
to the Bible, the existence of the sun preceded that of the
Earth by many millions of years, as did the stars ("And He
made the stars also").

Nonsense. Genesis 1 :1 shows when the sun was made. Ge 1:1,
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
Thus in verse 1 the sun is shining brightly in the heavens. Since the
order here is "heavens" and then the earth, the earth was created
after the heavens. If you have any more questions about the early
chapters of Genesis, just ask.

Nope; sorry. The sun was created *after* the Earth; when the
heavens were created is irrelevant. Nice wiggle, though..

Show your proof, then stand by to get the real truth.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?

god with us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)
I purposely used the small "g" here because that then makes it a true
statement. Their god was Satan. 2 Co 4:4a,

Wrong again; they were Christians, as their founder makes
quite clear in "Mein Kampf".

Not exactly, because they did not obey Jesus' commands. They were
professed Christians. Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make
it so.

No True Scotsman, huh?

Let's hope they wear underpants under those kilts.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
"in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelieving,..."

Post by Bob Casanova
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

It has been told to you many times. But all right, lets have a look at
it again.
God has left His footprints everywhere. Look at all these machines all
over the place. If you found an android in the woods, you would not
assume that mindless chance made it, would you. You just KNOW that
someone (or some many) created it. Now look at the human body and
compare it to the android. We are made much better stuff than the
android. If it REQUIRES a creator, how much more so would a human.
Also, who or what programmed all this DNA? If you can't see
intelligence behind the DNA, then you are probably forcing your
beliefs to override that logical conclusion.

This bears repeating: Whether or not we know how something
came to exist, it is *always* wrong to make assumptions
without evidence. And there is zero actual evidence
regarding any sort of "special creation"; in fact, unless
the Creator was an incompetent idiot, the evidence points
the other way.

I know, unbelievers blind their eyes so as not to see the truth. The
moons of Mars exist. Unless you have direct evidence (Not just a bunch
of theories) then they shouldn't be assumed to exist?

You are confused, to be charitable. We see Diemos and
Phobos; that's what's known as "objective evidence".

Actually, when looking at a telescope it is direct evidence. You are
seeing the moon as it is. It it as just 500 miles away it would still
be direct evidence. Distance doesn't change anything but the details
if the thing is in the direct line of sight.

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Or take the common house fly. The aerodynamic maneuvers it makes is
hard to believe. What are the aerodynamic laws like when you get down
to the size of a fly? Who programmed such tricky maneuvers into that
tiny fly brain? Macroevolution has no mind, so it couldn't have done
such sophisticated programming.

Nice assertion, especially from someone who apparently
hasn't the faintest idea how natural selection works. Here's
a hint, though: A process which *automatically* allows
"improved models" to enjoy greater reproductive success will
lead, almost every time, to the domination of those
"improved models" in the population;

How does a NO MIND energy know that reproduction has been inproved or
not? It shouldn't care because it has absolutely no idea what is going
on with reproduction or any other bodily system. Your logic assumes a
mind of some kind is directing the organism to improve in its
enviroment, and thus strives in that diredtion instead of the reverse.
And that is why all things seem to be working from low to high. Please
explain that macroevolution trait to me.

Given the confusion expressed above ("NO MIND energy",
forsooth) I wouldn't even attempt it, especially since you
didn't even understand what I wrote. If you *actually* want
to know, this is a good place to start, and there are lots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
But I suspect you won't bother. I won't bother with any of
the following until you gain at least a minimum
understanding of natural selection, though.

Nice cop out, but it still leaves those questions unanswered. Such as
why would mindless macroevolution forces give spirituality to humans?
Animals don't have it. It has nothing to do with survival of the
fittest. Can you give me a reasonable answer? If you cop out on this
one to, I will just have to assume you don't know a reasonable answer.


James
www.jw.org

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
no "sophisticated
programming" is either involved or required. And when the
process continues over millions or billions of generations
there's nothing within the constraints of physical law it
can't generate, assuming that the genetic structure of the
species can get to it.

No mind producing complex sophisticated machines like the human body
with all of its intertwining system and a super brain that can try to
inderstand it all. The Bible call where the brain resides the GOLDEN
BOWL.
Tell me, if macroevolution is the way of things, why give humans a
spiritual nature? None of the animals have it, and they seem to get
along just fine. And what about our artistic nature? None of those
have anything to do with survival of the fittest. Why?

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Yes, there are millions of different kinds of machines all over this
planet. To believe that they all came from mindless energies, well, I
have a statue of a lady in the New York harbor that I can let go for a
good price:)

Good luck with that. I advise you to offer it first to the
nearest believer, since they are already programmed to
accept assertions without evidence.

You mean like evolutionists who have NEVER witnesses one life form
turn into a different life form. (dinosaur to eventual bird thing)
That is all based on fossil bones being rearranged to make it appear
it was transitioning into something else.
Or what about evolutionists not being able in the lab to turn one life
form into a completely different life form. If life came from one
source, why a PLANT kingdom and an ANIMAL kingdom. Two separate
occurrences?
As you see you have very little first hand experiences on that spotty
THEORY

Post by Bob Casanova
And BTW, no machine can reproduce itself, or take advantage
thereby of random variation using the process of selection
and differential reproductive success. That's reserved for
living organisms.

You ought to hear yourself. All these things happening with no mind
involved. You have got to be more intellegent than that.
To briefly discuss it, the Bible says God created the different life
forms ALL AT ONCE AND COMPLETE. Darwin did not find that.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
...The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear
in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . .
as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.
...There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious.
I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the
main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest
known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain
inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the
[evolutionary] views here entertained.” (The Origin of Species, by
Charles Darwin)
Since God created each life form full and complete on the spot, there
would not be the millions of transitional life forms needed to satisfy
that theory, there would be none. Darwin also had problems with that
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The
Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)
James
www.jw.org

[b***@m.nu]

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:51 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

<sewage treatment in progress>

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
They don't go that way when they have a reputation to maintain.

Interesting assertion. Any evidence? That would be
*objective* evidence, your personal opinions don't count.

There has been in the news recently scienctists who 'fudged' their
data to make more in harmony with their theory. Of course the famous
one was Piltdown man. This an observation, not an opinion. Threre
seems to be competition among there scientists to be the first to
discover something. And the less honest ones cleverly adjust the

Theists always bring this crap up with piltdown. When they dont even
realize they are making themselves look incredibly stupid. Very very
few people even knew about that when it happed and alot of those knew
the guy to be a quack anyway. So it is indeed a desperate attempt at
making science look bad, however that is just one example.. shall I
count off all the occurences of then theists have FUCKING MURDERED
PEOPLE?

YOU FUCKING IDIOT THE GUY WAS A QUACK AND WANTED ATTENTION. what are
you being so daft?

Post by James
" the journal Science retracted two high-profile papers from the lab
of noted Korean stem cell biologist Woo Suk Hwang. Less than two years
before, Hwang claimed to have made stem cells from cloned human
embryos, a difficult feat that had previously only been achieved with

yeah whatever big deal jim jones murdered hundreds cause god told him
to

Post by James
livestock. He faked his data, lied about his methods, and managed to
get the results published in one of the world’s hottest journals,

yeah ? osama bin ladden murdered thousands cause god told him to

Post by James
twice. Yet Hwang was actually a small-timer, as far as cheating
scientists go. In 2002 and 2003, the world’s most popular journals,
Nature and Science, retracted a combined total of 16 fraudulent papers

really? Adolf hitler murdered and tortured MILLIONS because he was a
christian and they were jewish and his god did not like jewish people

Post by James
co-authored by the award-winning German physicist Jan Hendrick Schön.
Neither Schön’s co-authors, nor the peer reviewers caught the

yeah? The Christians started 2 different inquisitions and killed
millions

Post by James
problems. In 2011, 69 papers by the German clinician Joachim Boldt and
28 papers by the Japanese virologist Naoki Mori were retracted for
fraud. Fabricating your data and lying about your methods don’t

seriously? the catholics did not like the protostants so they fought
about it and killed hundereds of thousands

Post by James
require sophisticated skills, and until you are actually accused of
fraud, nobody is going to come into your lab and test your equipment
or inspect your lab notebooks."

no I have no idea what the hell you even wrote because I only read a
few words, but telll me what is worse a few scientists doing whatever
it is tghey did or the murder and genocide of millions?
YOU FUCKING MORON. You need to do much better than that

Post by James
(http://www.psmag.com/science/scientists-cheat-nature-fraud-science-68795/)

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

Most of what you say are the miracles. I can't prove them, and you
can't disprove them. They are sitting in the history books.

Cite to a non-religious text, please.

What are you going after?

are youu really that stupid?
seriously are you?


<alot of sewage was snipped>

Post by James
Actually, when looking at a telescope it is direct evidence. You are
seeing the moon as it is. It it as just 500 miles away it would still
be direct evidence. Distance doesn't change anything but the details
if the thing is in the direct line of sight.

no you are seeing the moon as it was... not as it is... and yes
distance changes ALOT. go outside and look at the sun. THat image you
see is already 8 minutes old and you have no idea what the sun is
doing or looks like at that instant
The moon is the same way although not 8 minutes old


<alot more sweage>

[m***@.not.]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:16:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <***@buzz.off> wrote:
.

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs.

Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.

Missed the part about "objective evidence", huh? No problem;
most believers do.

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any
book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories
about actual places have been confirmed (or were already
known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities
which haven't been.

WHAT sort of confirmation do you think there should be, WHERE else do you
think it should be, and WHY do you think it should be to God's benefit for him
to provide it in the supposed other place(s)?

[Malte Runz]

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared

(snip)

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova
... A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,
*especially* evidence which will help to refute current
theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word
"objective", which eliminates personal testimony and
untestable claims in religious texts.

Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being
truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.

Indeed it is. Care to give us an example? I'm not denying that it happens,
what I'm interested in is the aftermath of the incidents.

Post by James
Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,
archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.

Only the mundane stuff, like who was ruling where and when (and even that
the Bible doesn't always gets right). But none of the important claims have
been supported. The Flood, Exodus and, not to forget, the six days of
creation. Things like that. It's all just pulled straight from the arse
fantasies.

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
But atheists are apparently a different breed.

Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective
evidence.

Post by James
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

My IronyMeter has started to smoke...
Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by
many believers?

Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, ...

Hahahahaaahhahhaaaaaaa. Hahahahaahaaaahaa. Stop it... my blood pressure.

Post by James
... than that
pathetic theory of macroevolution.

Yes. "Macroevolution" is truely a pathetic concept, introduced by
creationists, who couldn't keep denying, that change (=evolution) actually
happens and is observed and explained.

Post by James

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State
that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.

...which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what
that means?

god with us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)
I purposely used the small "g" here because that then makes it a true
statement. Their god was Satan. 2 Co 4:4a,

Come again. The Nazies worshipped Satan? Are you trolling?

Post by James
"in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelieving,..."

Post by Bob Casanova
And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence
which is claimed to exist.

It has been told to you many times. But all right, lets have a look at
it again.
God has left His footprints everywhere. ...

He has certainly trampled all over your imagination.

Post by James
... Look at all these machines all
over the place. ...

They are all man-made.

Post by James
... If you found an android in the woods, you would not
assume that mindless chance made it, would you. You just KNOW that
someone (or some many) created it. ...

No, we don't know that. You think you KNOW because the Lord is sitting on
your face. And the dark ring you see above isn't Heaven's Gate.

Post by James
... Now look at the human body and
compare it to the android. We are made much better stuff than the
android. If it REQUIRES a creator, how much more so would a human.
Also, who or what programmed all this DNA? ...

Nobody programmed anything. You biblethumpers are big time into allegories
('you have to interpret the holy texts to understand what the goatherders
really meant when they wrote about killing and plundering and slavery and
fucking little girls'). DNA is not a 'programmed code'.

Post by James
... If you can't see
intelligence behind the DNA, then you are probably forcing your
beliefs to override that logical conclusion.

Allegories, my man. Allegories.

Post by James
Or take the common house fly. The aerodynamic maneuvers it makes is
hard to believe. What are the aerodynamic laws like when you get down
to the size of a fly? Who programmed such tricky maneuvers into that
tiny fly brain? ...

Nobody programmed anything. The Theory of Evolution explains how it can
happen without a concious being programming things. The basic principles are
very, very staight foreward, which is always a good thing in science.
E=mc^2. It's beautiful, because it's simple.

Post by James
... Macroevolution has no mind, so it couldn't have done
such sophisticated programming.

Natural selection among random mutations does the trick. Prove that it can't
and you have a case.

Post by James
Yes, there are millions of different kinds of machines all over this
planet. ...

Machines are man-made. Living beings aren't.

Post by James
... To believe that they all came from mindless energies, well, I
have a statue of a lady in the New York harbor that I can let go for a
good price:)
James
www.jw.org

jw... 'Jealous Wankers'? Science holds all the aces and you're trying to
bluff with a seven deuce offsuit facing outwards. Good luck with that.

[m***@.not.]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:35:25 +0200, "Malte Runz" <***@forgitit.dk> wrote:
-----------

Post by Malte Runz

Post by James
Or take the common house fly. The aerodynamic maneuvers it makes is
hard to believe. What are the aerodynamic laws like when you get down
to the size of a fly? Who programmed such tricky maneuvers into that
tiny fly brain? ...

Nobody programmed anything. The Theory of Evolution explains how it can
happen without a concious being programming things. The basic principles are
very, very staight foreward, which is always a good thing in science.
E=mc^2. It's beautiful, because it's simple.

First try to explain what you think it means in your interpretation. Next
try to explain what you want people to think it has to do with evolution. My
prediction is that both challenges will defeat you so completely that you can't
even attempt to address either of them.

Post by Malte Runz

Post by James
... Macroevolution has no mind, so it couldn't have done
such sophisticated programming.

Natural selection among random mutations does the trick. Prove that it can't
and you have a case.

Prove that all the millions of species developed from different species. Or
that any of them did. When you can't do that, prove how they developed from
nothing, or whatever else you want people to think they developed from.

[m***@.not.]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, James <***@windstream.net> wrote:
.

Post by James

Post by m***@.not.
For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding "evidence" of
God'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. When challenged to explain WHY it "should
be" to God'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. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this entire group of
atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions, 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.

They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at evidence, he
will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with
his personal beliefs. But atheists are apparently a different breed.
They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their
personal beliefs.

That would explain why they deny the existence of the evidence that has
persuaded billions of people to believe God does exist.

Post by James
Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in
their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are
actually the losers, blocking out real truths.

They certainly try to hide from anything that threatens the security of
their tiny little mental safety zone. It's cognitive dissonance for sure, and
whether or not Satan does exist their behavior is evidence of Satan's influence
on their feeble minds.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by m***@.not.
That would explain why they deny the existence of the evidence that has
persuaded billions of people to believe God does exist.

The vast majority of those who believe in God were never invited to
examine the evidence and form a view. Instead, they were indoctrinated
into their faith from long before they had any ability to resist,
leaving them with a mental pattern that is hard from them to remove.

Essentially, they were subject to a form of child abuse.

Sylvia.