What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

[c***@llenging_the_clueless.]

Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
God some"where":

"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"

"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz

Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

[raven1]

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer. But that's
not really important: the point is that theists are making some rather
extraordinary claims, but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence, or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any. (This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

[m***@.not.]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:13:37 -0400, raven1 <***@nevermore.com> wrote:
.

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen, and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people. That much we also know for certain, even if you want
to try to deny it.

Post by raven1
(This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

Because there is evidence. Accepting that would be a starting line for you.
So far in your entire life you have never gotten to the starting line. Maybe you
never will. What if you did. Could you move on beyond it? Even though that would
be moving forward for you, if you ever got there you might not be able to get
beyond it. You might just acknowledge that yes there is evidence, but still not
the sort that would help you learn to consider the possibility that God does
exist as it does for millions or billions of other people.

[raven1]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen,

Who said it "should happen"? I said I'd accept it as evidence if it
did.

Post by m***@.not.
and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

I said no such thing. I said I'd accept it as evidence.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Poppycock. There's nothing extraordinary about dismissing unsupported
claims.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence

Not at all. I would accept it if offered, but if it isn't offered, I
won't even consider the claim in the first place, much less demand
anything.

Post by m***@.not.
while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Again, I have made no demand, since I don't consider the claim worth
considering.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people.

Then it should be trivial for you to provide some examples. Yet you
don't; you just whine, and make excuses as to why none is forthcoming.

[m***@.not.]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:23:07 -0400, raven1 <***@nevermore.com> wrote:
.

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen,

Who said it "should happen"?

The question you responded to is what you think "should be". If you don't
think what you mentioned "should be" you should have made that clear. What
evidence DO YOU think "should be" available to us if God does exist?

Post by raven1
I said I'd accept it as evidence if it did.

I doubt that. Why would you? Do you accept it as evidence when animals
regrow limbs they lose? If not, why not when other animals do just because
humans don't???

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.
and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

I said no such thing. I said I'd accept it as evidence.

Well apparently if he exists that's not something he cares enough about to
make such a huge change to what he has going on here.

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Poppycock. There's nothing extraordinary about dismissing unsupported
claims.

What evidence DO YOU think "should be" available to us if God does exist?
You need to tell us how it would be to God's benefit if he were to provide what
you people keep whining for.

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence

Not at all. I would accept it if offered, but if it isn't offered, I
won't even consider the claim in the first place, much less demand
anything.

Post by m***@.not.
while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Again, I have made no demand, since I don't consider the claim worth
considering.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people.

Then it should be trivial for you to provide some examples. Yet 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.

Post by raven1
you just whine, and make excuses as to why none is forthcoming.

What evidence DO YOU think "should be" available to us if God does exist?
You need to tell us how it would be to God's benefit if he were to provide what
you people keep whining for.

[felix_unger]

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

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen, and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people. That much we also know for certain, even if you want
to try to deny it.

so true. and it is billions

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1
(This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

Because there is evidence. Accepting that would be a starting line for you.
So far in your entire life you have never gotten to the starting line. Maybe you
never will. What if you did. Could you move on beyond it? Even though that would
be moving forward for you, if you ever got there you might not be able to get
beyond it. You might just acknowledge that yes there is evidence, but still not
the sort that would help you learn to consider the possibility that God does
exist as it does for millions or billions of other people.

[raven1]

Post by felix_unger

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

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen, and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people. That much we also know for certain, even if you want
to try to deny it.

so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then, instead of an argumentum ad numerum
fallacy?


---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Smiler]

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger

Post by m***@.not.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:13:37 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even
though it's obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing
proof of his existence is something he cares to do. Yet some
atheists have made it clear that in the universe as it exists in
their imagination there "should be" some evidence of God
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the
proposition were true, then means the proposition is not true. It
is simple and undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this
evidence they keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and
WHY it "should be" in God's best interest to provide it. Unless they
can explain those things their demands for evidence are useless and
childlike at "best", and quite possibly sign of a significant mental
handicap. I challenge these people who keep demanding evidence they
believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE, and WHY (from
God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen, and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now
you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for a compelling reason
why we should accept them, and the reason for that is that they know
they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic of asking us to
specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy
millions if not billions of people. That much we also know for
certain, even if you want to try to deny it.

so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

Life itself is evidence.

Only in your stupid opinion.

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

Only in your stupid opinion.

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

Only in your stupid opinion.

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

Only in your stupid opinion.

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

Only in your stupid opinion.

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

Only in your stupid opinion.

Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

[raven1]

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger

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

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen, and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people. That much we also know for certain, even if you want
to try to deny it.

so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by raven1
Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

That's quite ironic, coming from someone who
hasn't the faintest clue that there's a
difference between "Evidence" and "Proof," let
alone what that difference might be...


-- --

Join us!

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/80370341096

[b***@m.nu]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger
so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

raven I am suprised it has taken you so long to realize this. I have
been saying it for awhile now. She really is a total nutjob.

[%]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger
so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

raven I am suprised it has taken you so long to realize this. I have
been saying it for awhile now. She really is a total nutjob.

yea but who listens to youj

[Steve O]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger
so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

raven I am suprised it has taken you so long to realize this. I have
been saying it for awhile now. She really is a total nutjob.

These idiots want it both ways.
When their prayers are answered, it's evidence of a God.
When they go unanswered, as countless millions of prayers do, it's
evidence that they haven't prayed hard enough.
If only they stopped to think for a moment about how many well
intentioned, honest and sincere prayers are totally ignored by their
fictitious sky buddy, then they might actually realise what is going on.
The funniest thing is that when the well intentioned, most deserving
prayers are completely ignored, they fall back on the old chestnut- "It
just wasn't part of God's Great Plan"
It's a perfect example of skewed wish- fulfillment and apologetics.

[m***@.not.]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:46:54 +0100, Steve O <***@here.thanks> wrote:
.

Post by Steve O

Post by b***@m.nu
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger
so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

raven I am suprised it has taken you so long to realize this. I have
been saying it for awhile now. She really is a total nutjob.

These idiots want it both ways.
When their prayers are answered, it's evidence of a God.
When they go unanswered, as countless millions of prayers do, it's
evidence that they haven't prayed hard enough.
If only they stopped to think for a moment about how many well
intentioned, honest and sincere prayers are totally ignored by their
fictitious

One of the countless possibilities is that God does not exist. Do you have
enough faith in that being the correct one to admit you believe God does not
exist, or are you ashamed to say so as most atheists in these ngs are?

Post by Steve O
sky buddy,

LOL!!! People who use terms like that are amusingly ignorant about the
entire topic, as if God would reside on Earth if he exists. LOL....

Post by Steve O
then they might actually realise what is going on.

One of the countless possibilities is that God does not exist. Do you have
enough faith in that being the correct one to admit you believe God does not
exist, or are you ashamed to say so as most atheists in these ngs are?

Post by Steve O
The funniest thing is that when the well intentioned, most deserving
prayers are completely ignored, they fall back on the old chestnut- "It
just wasn't part of God's Great Plan"
It's a perfect example of skewed wish- fulfillment and apologetics.

One of the other countless possibilities is that there is a God associated
with this planet. Some atheists claim they can't even comprehend what that
concept means. Maybe you can't either. For those of us who can, we can consider
other possibilities like that God sometimes helps people when they ask him to
through prayer. Another one of the possibilities we can consider is that
sometimes he doesn't help us in the specific way we asked him to, or maybe at
all. Those things are apparently beyond your mental ability to comprehend, like
a very young child who can't comprehend why it's important to learn the alphabet
or multiplication tables. To many people, what you can't even comprehend are
basic concepts which are easy to understand. From our position you don't seem
like you're "above" and "beyond" considering the possibility of God's existence,
but instead you seem like the young child who can't understand why he needs to
learn how much 2 times 2 equal. You can't even get to the starting line.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Steve O

Post by b***@m.nu
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1

These idiots want it both ways.
When their prayers are answered, it's evidence of a God.
When they go unanswered, as countless millions of prayers do, it's
evidence that they haven't prayed hard enough.
If only they stopped to think for a moment about how many well
intentioned, honest and sincere prayers are totally ignored by their
fictitious

One of the countless possibilities is that God does not exist. Do you have
enough faith in that being the correct one to admit you believe God does not
exist, or are you ashamed to say so as most atheists in these ngs are?

if you only could realize that very very very few IF ANY people read
all that crap and bullshit that you write here you would realize that
you are wasting alot of time

[Smiler]

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Steve O

Post by b***@m.nu
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1

These idiots want it both ways.
When their prayers are answered, it's evidence of a God. When they go
unanswered, as countless millions of prayers do, it's evidence that they
haven't prayed hard enough. If only they stopped to think for a moment
about how many well intentioned, honest and sincere prayers are totally
ignored by their fictitious

One of the countless possibilities is that God does not exist. Do you have
enough faith in that being the correct one to admit you believe God does
not exist, or are you ashamed to say so as most atheists in these ngs
are?

if you only could realize that very very very few IF ANY people read all
that crap and bullshit that you write here you would realize that you are
wasting alot of time

Self-realisation is beyond his capabilities.

[duke]

Post by Steve O

Post by b***@m.nu
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger
so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

raven I am suprised it has taken you so long to realize this. I have
been saying it for awhile now. She really is a total nutjob.

These idiots want it both ways.
When their prayers are answered, it's evidence of a God.
When they go unanswered, as countless millions of prayers do, it's
evidence that they haven't prayed hard enough.
If only they stopped to think for a moment about how many well
intentioned, honest and sincere prayers are totally ignored by their
fictitious sky buddy, then they might actually realise what is going on.
The funniest thing is that when the well intentioned, most deserving
prayers are completely ignored, they fall back on the old chestnut- "It
just wasn't part of God's Great Plan"
It's a perfect example of skewed wish- fulfillment and apologetics.

And your answer is??


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Smiler]

Post by duke

Post by Steve O

Post by b***@m.nu
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger
so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

raven I am suprised it has taken you so long to realize this. I have
been saying it for awhile now. She really is a total nutjob.

These idiots want it both ways.
When their prayers are answered, it's evidence of a God. When they go
unanswered, as countless millions of prayers do, it's evidence that they
haven't prayed hard enough. If only they stopped to think for a moment
about how many well intentioned, honest and sincere prayers are totally
ignored by their fictitious sky buddy, then they might actually realise
what is going on.
The funniest thing is that when the well intentioned, most deserving
prayers are completely ignored, they fall back on the old chestnut- "It
just wasn't part of God's Great Plan" It's a perfect example of skewed
wish- fulfillment and apologetics.

And your answer is??

Education.

[m***@.not.]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:28:04 -0400, raven1 <***@nevermore.com> wrote:
.

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger

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

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen, and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people. That much we also know for certain, even if you want
to try to deny it.

so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

Maybe, but not as stupid as someone who's so fucking stupid they can't
recognise the evidence that persuades people to believe God does exist. Or
someone who feels that there "should be" evidence but doesn't have any clue at
all WHAT they think the evidence should be, WHERE they think it should be, and
HOW they think it would benefit God to provide it. Are you so stupid you can't
say what, where, and how? Everyone else in these ngs is so you probably are too,
but if you think you're not too stupid then try explain what I've challenged you
people to try explaining.

[raven1]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger

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

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen, and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people. That much we also know for certain, even if you want
to try to deny it.

so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

Maybe, but not as stupid as someone who's so fucking stupid they can't
recognise the evidence that persuades people to believe God does exist.

Way to miss the point. If you consider any of what you listed above to
be "evidence" for anything other than the gullibility of believers, I
have a bridge to sell you.

Post by m***@.not.
Or
someone who feels that there "should be" evidence but doesn't have any clue at
all WHAT they think the evidence should be, WHERE they think it should be, and
HOW they think it would benefit God to provide it. Are you so stupid you can't
say what, where, and how? Everyone else in these ngs is so you probably are too,

Ah, I see. Everyone here is stupid but you. That's one explanation,
but not a very likely one, statistically. Care to try again?

Post by m***@.not.
but if you think you're not too stupid then try explain what I've challenged you
people to try explaining.

"Explaining" what? Your list of supposed evidence? Let's run through
it, shall we?

1) Explain your implied argument "life exists, therefore, God". You're
leaving out at least one major premise in that argument, for a start.

2) "Accepted miracles". Can you list some examples, along with whom,
exactly, "accepts" them?

3) "Miracles recorded in the Bible" - extraordinary claims by unknown
authors, unsupported by any historical sources, or physical evidence,
don't qualify as evidence for anything by any standard.

4) "Saints" - the varying denominations of Christianity can't even
agree on a definition of the word, and it's unclear what you mean by
this as "evidence" regardless.

5) "Medical miracles" - can you list some verified examples that
cannot be explained by anything other than a supernatural intervention
by the specific deity for whom you're shilling? Documented in
peer-reviewed medical journals, of course (JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, et al):
"evidence" is not the plural of "anecdote". I'm interested, by the
way, in knowing why no one has ever reported a miracle involving the
regeneration of an amputated limb. It would seem to be child's play
for a God who can "miraculously" cure cancer, yet it has never
happened. Isn't "there's no God" a simpler explanation for this than
"God performs other miracles routinely, but chooses never to do this
for some mysterious reason, no matter how hard people pray for it"?

6) "All prayers that seem to have been answered" - this is known as
"cherry picking the data". What about the greater number of prayers
that go unanswered (see 5 above)? Do they count as "evidence" against
God? Why or why not?

[b***@m.nu]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by raven1

Post by m***@.not.

Post by raven1

Post by felix_unger

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

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer.

That's amusing. What makes you think that "should" happen, and how would it
benefit God if he were to make it happen?

Post by raven1
But that's
not really important: the point is

The point is that atheists say there "should be" evidence. Now you're saying
that amputated limbs "should" regenerate through prayer if God exists.

Post by raven1
that theists are making some rather extraordinary claims,

Your idea is as much so as theirs.

Post by raven1
but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence,

So you think you should demand evidence while never specifying what type of
evidence you're demanding. Doesn't that seem a bit lame to you?

Post by raven1
or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any.

If God does exist he doesn't provide enough to satisfy you. That much we
know for certain. If God does exist he does provide enough to satisfy millions
if not billions of people. That much we also know for certain, even if you want
to try to deny it.

so true. and it is billions

How about presenting it then

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.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

Maybe, but not as stupid as someone who's so fucking stupid they can't
recognise the evidence that persuades people to believe God does exist

actually it does not because there is no evidence for people to
believe in a god or gods. just like there was no evidence for thor or
zues or any of those

[James]

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer. But that's
not really important: the point is that theists are making some rather
extraordinary claims, but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence, or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any. (This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.

LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

To ignore that evidence is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Someday you will wonder how in the world you fell for such nonsense.
It WILL happen.


James
www.jw.org

[raven1]

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer. But that's
not really important: the point is that theists are making some rather
extraordinary claims, but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence, or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any. (This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

Post by James
To ignore that evidence

Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

Post by James
is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

Your argument from personal incredulity does not negate the
overwhelming DNA evidence that all life now on Earth did, in fact,
evolve from a common ancestor. That would be true whether a god exists
or not.

Post by James
To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Yes, I get the point that you don't understand that your personal
incredulity, based on an ignorance of science, is not an argument
against anything.

[Malte Runz]

(snip)

Post by raven1

Post by James
The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

'It fits the Creation Theory perfectly!'

Post by raven1

Post by James
To ignore that evidence

Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

'I just interpret the evidence differently.'

Yup, I speak Creatic.

Post by raven1

Post by James
is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

Your argument from personal incredulity does not negate the
overwhelming DNA evidence that all life now on Earth did, in fact,
evolve from a common ancestor. That would be true whether a god exists
or not.

Humans share 40% of their genes with cabbage. I rest my case.

Post by raven1

Post by James
To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Yes, I get the point that you don't understand that your personal
incredulity, based on an ignorance of science, is not an argument
against anything.

Not even against home schooling?

[b***@m.nu]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:08:19 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by raven1

Post by James
The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

'It fits the Creation Theory perfectly!'

damn you are back on this nick..... I thought you would have ran away
and cried under your bed like a little girl <or boy (political
corectness is a bitch)> for being embarassed and made to look like a
total gimp like I and others have done here for so so so long
<Snip crap not worth reading>

[Malte Runz]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:08:19 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by raven1

Post by James
The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

'It fits the Creation Theory perfectly!'

damn you are back on this nick..... I thought you would have ran away
and cried under your bed like a little girl <or boy (political
corectness is a bitch)> for being embarassed and made to look like a
total gimp like I and others have done here for so so so long

Eh... I thought you knew I was being sarcastic.

Post by b***@m.nu
<Snip crap not worth reading>

If you had you would have got it, I believe. But, hey, no hard feelings.

[b***@m.nu]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:18:14 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Post by Malte Runz

Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:08:19 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by raven1

Post by James
The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

'It fits the Creation Theory perfectly!'

damn you are back on this nick..... I thought you would have ran away
and cried under your bed like a little girl <or boy (political
corectness is a bitch)> for being embarassed and made to look like a
total gimp like I and others have done here for so so so long

Eh... I thought you knew I was being sarcastic.

Post by b***@m.nu
<Snip crap not worth reading>

If you had you would have got it, I believe. But, hey, no hard feelings.

yeah I thought the political corectness comment would have given away
my sarcasam :P

[m***@.not.]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:43:21 -0500, ***@m.nu wrote:
.

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:18:14 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Post by Malte Runz

Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:08:19 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by raven1

Post by James
The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

'It fits the Creation Theory perfectly!'

damn you are back on this nick..... I thought you would have ran away
and cried under your bed like a little girl <or boy (political
corectness is a bitch)> for being embarassed and made to look like a
total gimp like I and others have done here for so so so long

Eh... I thought you knew I was being sarcastic.

Post by b***@m.nu
<Snip crap not worth reading>

If you had you would have got it, I believe. But, hey, no hard feelings.

I thought

That must have been a horribly painful experience for you, as little
practice as you've had with it. That tiny mind of yours is likely to be sore for
days.

[m***@.not.]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:04:19 -0500, ***@m.nu wrote:
.

Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:08:19 +0200, "Malte Runz"

Post by Malte Runz
(snip)

Post by raven1

Post by James
The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

'It fits the Creation Theory perfectly!'

damn you are back on this nick..... I thought you would have ran away
and cried under your bed like a little girl <or boy (political
corectness is a bitch)> for being embarassed and made to look like a
total gimp

He did do that when I challenged him to try to apply his claim that he
believes:

"it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures in the
universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to us." - Malte
Runz

to the situation we all are in. He's still crying under his bed looking like a
total gimp because of it.

[James]

Post by raven1

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer. But that's
not really important: the point is that theists are making some rather
extraordinary claims, but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence, or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any. (This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

Yes, reasoning and logic is involved.

Post by raven1

Post by James
To ignore that evidence

Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it? You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.

Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about the
more complex human body?

Post by raven1

Post by James
is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

Your argument from personal incredulity does not negate the
overwhelming DNA evidence that all life now on Earth did, in fact,
evolve from a common ancestor. That would be true whether a god exists
or not.

Nonsense. The fossil record DOES NOT support that assertion.

Post by raven1

Post by James
To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Yes, I get the point that you don't understand that your personal
incredulity, based on an ignorance of science, is not an argument
against anything.

Your opinion is noted; your evidence is lacking.

James
www.jw.org

[Free Lunch]

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer. But that's
not really important: the point is that theists are making some rather
extraordinary claims, but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence, or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any. (This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

Yes, reasoning and logic is involved.

Where?

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
To ignore that evidence

Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it? You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.
Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about the
more complex human body?

Your argument is silly. We already can see from the evidence that life
on earth is evolved from a common ancestral population. Invoking a
creator is a meaningless and unnecessary activity.

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

Your argument from personal incredulity does not negate the
overwhelming DNA evidence that all life now on Earth did, in fact,
evolve from a common ancestor. That would be true whether a god exists
or not.

Nonsense. The fossil record DOES NOT support that assertion.

Even if your claim were true, it would not matter because the fossil
record is completely consistent with a common ancestral population for
all life on earth. What you forget is that the fossil record is only a
trivial, but fascinating part of the evidence. All of the evidence is
consistent with the common ancestor hypothesis and there is no other
scientific hypothesis that works as well.

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Yes, I get the point that you don't understand that your personal
incredulity, based on an ignorance of science, is not an argument
against anything.

Your opinion is noted; your evidence is lacking.

Life forms did not spring from non-life material. The first life would
not have had any identifiable form other than a form provided
externally.

Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

[James]

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer. But that's
not really important: the point is that theists are making some rather
extraordinary claims, but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence, or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any. (This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

Yes, reasoning and logic is involved.

Where?

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
To ignore that evidence

Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it? You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.
Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about the
more complex human body?

Your argument is silly. We already can see from the evidence that life
on earth is evolved from a common ancestral population. Invoking a
creator is a meaningless and unnecessary activity.

Then you chuck reasoning and logic? What came first, veins and
arteries or blood? A stomach or the intestines? Who programmed all of
those DNA codes out there? Random chance over time? Please. Natural
randomness is not that sophisticated. Reasoning people just can't
accept mindless forces producing all these things.

If evolution is a fertile as here on earth, there should be all kinds
of life forms existing on other celestial bodies out there. So far,
they have not found zilch. How do you explain that. And we even have
extremophiles here on earth. Some places on Mars is more habitable
than the environment extremophiles have here on earth. Yet, so far
zilch anywhere else.

As the old TV commercial said, "Sorry Charley", your logic is
illogical as well as contradicts the fossil record.

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

Your argument from personal incredulity does not negate the
overwhelming DNA evidence that all life now on Earth did, in fact,
evolve from a common ancestor. That would be true whether a god exists
or not.

Nonsense. The fossil record DOES NOT support that assertion.

Even if your claim were true, it would not matter because the fossil
record is completely consistent with a common ancestral population for
all life on earth. What you forget is that the fossil record is only a
trivial, but fascinating part of the evidence. All of the evidence is
consistent with the common ancestor hypothesis and there is no other
scientific hypothesis that works as well.

Except the true one, all those different "kinds" of life forms were
created full and intact. Dogs were dogs and platypuses were platypuses
etc.

Even their god Darwin had problems with life forms showing up in the
fossil record quickly and fully formed, with most of the transitional
fossils not to be found. BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER THERE TO START WITH.

“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)

Yet he still supported his own weak theory. (probably pride)

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Yes, I get the point that you don't understand that your personal
incredulity, based on an ignorance of science, is not an argument
against anything.

Your opinion is noted; your evidence is lacking.

Life forms did not spring from non-life material. The first life would
not have had any identifiable form other than a form provided
externally.
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

Well let's see again here. The creation account (which is NOT
creationism) fits right in with the fossil record. Life forms showing
up quickly and fully formed, with no transitional life forms to
account for all the thousands and thousands of life forms.

Evolution. Life forms developed slowly over long periods of time, with
many transitional fossils in between. But the fossil record doesn't
show that. So to summarize:

Creation account= in harmony with the fossil record.
Evolutionary account= not in harmony with the fossil record.

You must have more faith than I have to believe in something so
contrary to the evidence.

James
www.jw.org

[Free Lunch]

...

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1
Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it? You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.
Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about the
more complex human body?

Your argument is silly. We already can see from the evidence that life
on earth is evolved from a common ancestral population. Invoking a
creator is a meaningless and unnecessary activity.

Then you chuck reasoning and logic?

No, I ignore your invalid analogy because your analogy is inconsistent
with the actual physical evidence.

Post by James
What came first, veins and arteries or blood?

Proto-blood.

Post by James
A stomach or the intestines?

An internal digestive track that did not have specialized organs as a
part of it.

Post by James
Who programmed all of those DNA codes out there?

No one.

Post by James
Random chance over time?

In a manner of speaking. Variation and natural selection is far more
sophisticated than you seem to understand, but it clearly happens.

Post by James
Please. Natural randomness is not that sophisticated.

You need to learn what natural selection does.

Post by James
Reasoning people just can't accept mindless forces producing all these things.

You have started with the assumption that evolution does not happen and
then argue that your badly made arguments qualify as justification for
rejecting evolution. You are not reasoning, you are going around in
circles.

Post by James
If evolution is a fertile as here on earth, there should be all kinds
of life forms existing on other celestial bodies out there. So far,
they have not found zilch. How do you explain that. And we even have
extremophiles here on earth. Some places on Mars is more habitable
than the environment extremophiles have here on earth. Yet, so far
zilch anywhere else.

Another argument that shows your lack of knowledge about life on earth.

Post by James
As the old TV commercial said, "Sorry Charley", your logic is
illogical as well as contradicts the fossil record.

You spew nonsense to defend your false religious doctrines.

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

Your argument from personal incredulity does not negate the
overwhelming DNA evidence that all life now on Earth did, in fact,
evolve from a common ancestor. That would be true whether a god exists
or not.

Nonsense. The fossil record DOES NOT support that assertion.

Even if your claim were true, it would not matter because the fossil
record is completely consistent with a common ancestral population for
all life on earth. What you forget is that the fossil record is only a
trivial, but fascinating part of the evidence. All of the evidence is
consistent with the common ancestor hypothesis and there is no other
scientific hypothesis that works as well.

Except the true one, all those different "kinds" of life forms were
created full and intact. Dogs were dogs and platypuses were platypuses
etc.

We have clear evidence that you are wrong.

Post by James
Even their god Darwin had problems with life forms showing up in the
fossil record quickly and fully formed, with most of the transitional
fossils not to be found. BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER THERE TO START WITH.

So you allege, but you have to deal with the evidence that shows that
you are making a false claim.

Post by James
“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)
Yet he still supported his own weak theory. (probably pride)

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Yes, I get the point that you don't understand that your personal
incredulity, based on an ignorance of science, is not an argument
against anything.

Your opinion is noted; your evidence is lacking.

Life forms did not spring from non-life material. The first life would
not have had any identifiable form other than a form provided
externally.
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

Well let's see again here. The creation account (which is NOT
creationism) fits right in with the fossil record. Life forms showing
up quickly and fully formed, with no transitional life forms to
account for all the thousands and thousands of life forms.
Evolution. Life forms developed slowly over long periods of time, with
many transitional fossils in between. But the fossil record doesn't
Creation account= in harmony with the fossil record.
Evolutionary account= not in harmony with the fossil record.
You must have more faith than I have to believe in something so
contrary to the evidence.

You preach religious falsehoods and allege that it has something to do
with science, but it is clear to everyone here that you refuse to deal
with science and are quite happy telling lies about what has been
discovered.

[James]

...

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1
Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it? You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.
Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about the
more complex human body?

Your argument is silly. We already can see from the evidence that life
on earth is evolved from a common ancestral population. Invoking a
creator is a meaningless and unnecessary activity.

Then you chuck reasoning and logic?

No, I ignore your invalid analogy because your analogy is inconsistent
with the actual physical evidence.

On the contrary, it is based ON THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the fossil
record. Darwin also had problems with the fossil record.

“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)

...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)

Yes, macroevolution is a farce, a sham, bogus. And even Collage grats
have fell for it, let alone their professors. Someday they will wonder
how in the world they succumbed to such an erroneous teaching. USE
THAT BRAIN GOD GAVE YOU. What are the odds in Vegas that some gambling
game would randomly spell out the DNA of a person? Not in this
universe would such a thing ever happen. The odds would be so high as
to be considered impossible.

Post by James
What came first, veins and arteries or blood?

Proto-blood.

Then how did it branch into veins and arteries and blood? You can't
have one without the other at the same time.

An internal digestive track that did not have specialized organs as a
part of it.

Then how did it branch into stomach and intestines in many life forms?
You can't have one without the other at the same time.

And where does the heart fit into all of this. The pump that pumps the
blood through the veins and arteries. How did a pump develop in order
to pump the blood? And of course the circulatory system is quite
complex. Doctors learn about it for many years, and still they don't
know everything about it.

Post by James
Who programmed all of those DNA codes out there?

No one.

Post by James
Random chance over time?

In a manner of speaking. Variation and natural selection is far more
sophisticated than you seem to understand, but it clearly happens.

Yes, as clearly as mud. Have you (or anyone) ever seen macroevolution
occur? Has it ever been duplicated in the lab? The theory falls dead
if you try to get the real evidence. It is based on a bunch of
innuendoes allegedly tying in some fossil to within a group of fossils
and calling it descent with modification. Yet ALL the transitional
fossils needed to turn "a" into "b" are missing.

And if they find some bone structures that have similarities, then one
had to come from the other. (dinosaurs to birds ridiculous thing)
Of course by failing to even consider that a great intelligence
programmed all that DNA out there, and since it came from dthe same
person, there might be many similarities, never enters their mind.

Then of course, although it is not technically part of macroevolution,
abiogenesis had to have occurred to get everything started. So lets
see how much science they have put into that; life from nonlife. No
human has ever witnessed it happen. No lab has ever performed it.
None, zilch, zero. Yet they admit that it had to have happened, but
are puzzled on how it occurred. Well, the answer has been in the Bible
all along.

Post by James
Please. Natural randomness is not that sophisticated.

You need to learn what natural selection does.

Natural selection is only small changes occurring in a life form, such
as Darwin's finches. We have no problem with that. Such things are
built into the genetics of the life form to react to its environment,
etc. BUT THEY DON'T TURN INTO COMPLETELY NEW LIFE FORMS. They are
always the same life form, even when mutations happen. They may end
up with 2 heads or something, but they are still recognizable as the
original life form. And you have no proof of either a person
witnessing it, or a lab duplicating it. Thus you have a theory only.
By throwing a few fossils together, they think it proves
macroevolution. Just believing something is not good science.

Post by James
Reasoning people just can't accept mindless forces producing all these things.

You have started with the assumption that evolution does not happen
and
then argue that your badly made arguments qualify as justification for
rejecting evolution. You are not reasoning, you are going around in
circles.

Not at all. See the info above concerning the science involved.

Post by James
If evolution is a fertile as here on earth, there should be all kinds
of life forms existing on other celestial bodies out there. So far,
they have not found zilch. How do you explain that. And we even have
extremophiles here on earth. Some places on Mars is more habitable
than the environment extremophiles have here on earth. Yet, so far
zilch anywhere else.

Another argument that shows your lack of knowledge about life on
earth.

That's all? Just deny it? Anyone can do that, but it doesn't satisfy
reasoning people.

Post by James
As the old TV commercial said, "Sorry Charley", your logic is
illogical as well as contradicts the fossil record.

You spew nonsense to defend your false religious doctrines.

Prove its nonsense.

No intelligent design? Then explain this if you can.

One of those alleged random chance designs from evolution out there,
is a type of ophrys orchid (family Orchidaceae) that has pictures of
female wasps on its petals. The picture even shows eyes, antennae and
wings. But that's not all. It produces an odor of a female wasp ready
to mate. This draws the male wasp, which in turn pollinates the
flowers, etc.

So tell me please if you can, if the plant came first, how did it know
that female wasps were going to be evolved later on, so as to draw
pictures of them on its petals? And how could it know what the female
mating odor would be like so as to duplicate its chemistry?

If you can't, then there is another explanation that is more logical
than the illogical mindless random chance producing all these
sophisticated things. Just read Genesis 1:1.

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

Your argument from personal incredulity does not negate the
overwhelming DNA evidence that all life now on Earth did, in fact,
evolve from a common ancestor. That would be true whether a god exists
or not.

Nonsense. The fossil record DOES NOT support that assertion.

Even if your claim were true, it would not matter because the fossil
record is completely consistent with a common ancestral population for
all life on earth. What you forget is that the fossil record is only a
trivial, but fascinating part of the evidence. All of the evidence is
consistent with the common ancestor hypothesis and there is no other
scientific hypothesis that works as well.

Except the true one, all those different "kinds" of life forms were
created full and intact. Dogs were dogs and platypuses were platypuses
etc.

We have clear evidence that you are wrong.

What 'clear' evidence?

Post by James
Even their god Darwin had problems with life forms showing up in the
fossil record quickly and fully formed, with most of the transitional
fossils not to be found. BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER THERE TO START WITH.

So you allege, but you have to deal with the evidence that shows that
you are making a false claim.

What is allegedly false about it?

Post by James
“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)
Yet he still supported his own weak theory. (probably pride)

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Yes, I get the point that you don't understand that your personal
incredulity, based on an ignorance of science, is not an argument
against anything.

Your opinion is noted; your evidence is lacking.

Life forms did not spring from non-life material. The first life would
not have had any identifiable form other than a form provided
externally.
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

Creationism says the earth and universe is only around 6000 years old.
That of course is ludicrous, since science shows us otherwise. But the
creation account in the Bible, fits the fossil record quite well. Each
"kind" of life form was created intact and fully functional. And they
show up in the fossil record quite suddenly and fully formed. The
strata would have to contain billions of transitional life forms to
account for all the life forms that ever lived. The ground should be
exploding with fossils of the transitional types. It is not. It never
has, and never will. Because that it not how life forms came to be.

Post by James
Well let's see again here. The creation account (which is NOT
creationism) fits right in with the fossil record. Life forms showing
up quickly and fully formed, with no transitional life forms to
account for all the thousands and thousands of life forms.
Evolution. Life forms developed slowly over long periods of time, with
many transitional fossils in between. But the fossil record doesn't
Creation account= in harmony with the fossil record.
Evolutionary account= not in harmony with the fossil record.

Correction. Macroevolutionary account= not in harmony with the fossil
record.

Post by James
You must have more faith than I have to believe in something so
contrary to the evidence.

Post by Free Lunch
You preach religious falsehoods and allege that it has something to do

with science,

What falsehoods?

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch
but it is clear to everyone here that you refuse to deal

with science and are quite happy telling lies about what has been
discovered.

Rather, it should be obvious to others that I like to stick to the
evidence of science, rather than just believe a theory with little or
no scientific evidence.

James
www.jw.org

[m***@.not.]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:18:53 -0400, James <***@windstream.net> wrote:
.

Post by Free Lunch
...

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1
Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it? You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.
Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about the
more complex human body?

Your argument is silly. We already can see from the evidence that life
on earth is evolved from a common ancestral population. Invoking a
creator is a meaningless and unnecessary activity.

Then you chuck reasoning and logic?

No, I ignore your invalid analogy because your analogy is inconsistent
with the actual physical evidence.
On the contrary, it is based ON THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the fossil
record. Darwin also had problems with the fossil record.
“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)
...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.

Also the fact that we don't see species transforming from reptiles to birds
today, mammals transforming into flying mammals etc. We also don't have lots of
fossil evidence for it happening in the past. If it just happened by random
chance often enough to produce the huge number of different species today, there
should be lots of examples of it in fossils from long ago as well as lots of
examples of such things still going on today. Instead there are a few fossils of
the same one thing, archaeopteryx, and afaik that's about it. Sort of like a
joke from God...or maybe a clear sign of his influence in both development and
archeology, so blatantly clear that it seems to be sort of a joke.

Post by Free Lunch
...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)
Yes, macroevolution is a farce, a sham, bogus. And even Collage grats
have fell for it, let alone their professors. Someday they will wonder
how in the world they succumbed to such an erroneous teaching. USE
THAT BRAIN GOD GAVE YOU. What are the odds in Vegas that some gambling
game would randomly spell out the DNA of a person? Not in this
universe would such a thing ever happen. The odds would be so high as
to be considered impossible.

The fossils people have found, and as or more importantly those they have
not found, all seem to suggest that God does exist and made use of the
evolutionary method of creation.

[b***@m.nu]

.

Post by Free Lunch
...

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1
Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it? You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.
Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about the
more complex human body?

Your argument is silly. We already can see from the evidence that life
on earth is evolved from a common ancestral population. Invoking a
creator is a meaningless and unnecessary activity.

Then you chuck reasoning and logic?

No, I ignore your invalid analogy because your analogy is inconsistent
with the actual physical evidence.
On the contrary, it is based ON THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the fossil
record. Darwin also had problems with the fossil record.
“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)
...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.

<SNIP>

damn did he say something I must have missed it

[Smiler]

Post by b***@m.nu

.

Post by Free Lunch
...

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch

Post by James

Post by raven1
Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it? You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.
Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about
the more complex human body?

Your argument is silly. We already can see from the evidence that life
on earth is evolved from a common ancestral population. Invoking a
creator is a meaningless and unnecessary activity.

Then you chuck reasoning and logic?

No, I ignore your invalid analogy because your analogy is inconsistent
with the actual physical evidence.
On the contrary, it is based ON THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the fossil
record. Darwin also had problems with the fossil record.
"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)
...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.

<SNIP>
damn did he say something I must have missed it

You didn't miss anything.

[m***@.not.]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:21:50 -0500, Free Lunch <***@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

[Free Lunch]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:50:51 -0500, the following appeared

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

He thinks Ockham's Razor is something barbers use.

[James]

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

Clear as mud.

James
www.jw.org

[Free Lunch]

Post by James

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

Clear as mud.

Whatever. You have chosen to believe the lies of your religious leaders.

[m***@.not.]

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

Provide your evidence that there is not.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

Provide your evidence that there is not.

provide evidence that there is.....
what you ask is an impossible task. because evidence for nothing would
in fact be....... Nothing.........

[duke]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

Provide your evidence that there is not.

provide evidence that there is.....
what you ask is an impossible task. because evidence for nothing would
in fact be....... Nothing.........

You're the one that says "there is NO God". Ok, let's see your reasoning.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

Provide your evidence that there is not.

That's the funny part. Clowns like free can easily make the stupid comment that
"God is not needed for that". Then why is it?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

Name some things that can happen that you are assured can happen without an
intelligent being.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[John]

Post by duke

Post by Free Lunch

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Free Lunch
Just because there isn't enough evidence about earth prior to the
existence of life for scientists to know how life began, that does not
make your claims valid. Creationism of all sorts had lost the battle
before Darwin began to describe how evolution worked. The only reason
that it hadn't been thrown out completely before Darwin is that
scientists had not discovered enough to identify what actually had
happened, even though creationism was clearly not it.

There's nothing clear about that. What's clear is that if God does exist it
appears he made use of the evolutionary method of creating life on Earth, not
that no intelligent being had anything to do with it.

It is clear that there is no need for an intelligent being.

Name some things that can happen that you are assured can happen without an
intelligent being.
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

Any posting by you

[raven1]

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

I'd accept regenerating an amputated limb through prayer. But that's
not really important: the point is that theists are making some rather
extraordinary claims, but get rather miffed when atheists ask them for
a compelling reason why we should accept them, and the reason for that
is that they know they can't provide any. Thus the disingenuous tactic
of asking us to specify a particular type of evidence, or claiming
that God chooses not to provide any. (This last tactic leaves us
scratching our heads as to why, then, they believe in such a critter
in the first place.)

The EVIDENCE is all around you, thus is beneath you and above you, and
inside of you, and to your right and to your left, and in front and
behind you.
LIFE FORMS are God's fingerprints.

I see. "Living things exist, therefore, God". Somehow, it seems to me
that you're making a bit of a logical leap there.

Yes, reasoning and logic is involved.

We shall see...

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
To ignore that evidence

Explain the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion.

All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it?

Horrible analogy. We infer that someone built the house because we
already know that humans build houses, and because we don't expect to
find one in nature.

Post by James
You should, if you believe things like
the human brain a result of random events over time.
Or, look in a full length mirror. If you were a robot made of wires
and computer chips, you wouldn't hesitate to say someone created you.
But you consist of much better stuff and are more sophisticated than
any robot. If the robot demands an intelligent creator, what about the
more complex human body?

Same problem with your analogy as above.

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
is like 'straining out the gnat but gulping
down the camel.' There are thousands and thousands of completely
DIFFERENT life forms, from viruses to whales. To say they ALL evolved
from a common ancestor is ludicrous, ridiculous, absurd,
preposterous, asinine, nonsensical, unscientific based on the fossil
record, farcical, risible, insidious, deceitful, etc

Your argument from personal incredulity does not negate the
overwhelming DNA evidence that all life now on Earth did, in fact,
evolve from a common ancestor. That would be true whether a god exists
or not.

Nonsense. The fossil record DOES NOT support that assertion.

Sure it does, but that's not what was being discussed. Try addressing
the DNA evidence instead of moving the goalposts.

Post by James

Post by raven1

Post by James
To say that a life form sprang from non life material, is ludicrous,
ridiculous, absurd...You get the point.

Yes, I get the point that you don't understand that your personal
incredulity, based on an ignorance of science, is not an argument
against anything.

Your opinion is noted; your evidence is lacking.

It's not my job to correct the deficiencies in your education.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by raven1

Post by James
All right. When you are out in the deep woods, and you run across a
furnished house out there, do you automatically assume that random
chance over time created it?

Horrible analogy. We infer that someone built the house because we
already know that humans build houses, and because we don't expect to
find one in nature.

The analogy is actually quite fabulous, though perhaps
unintentionally so. Your thinking is circular. You
dismiss creation because you concluded that there was
no creation, that life spontaneously formed. You are
as certain of this unseen, unproven (unsupported) answer
as you are of houses being built by humans. You treat
your BELIEF -- abiogenesis -- precisely the same way
you do an observable fact.

You are the equal opposite of any YEC. You are a
believer. The only difference between you and the
worst of the bible thumpers is that they seem to be
aware that they're operating in FAITH, while you have
no clue.


-- --

Join us!

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/80370341096

[Wisely Non-Theist]

You dismiss creation because you concluded that there was no
creation, that life spontaneously formed.

We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/80370341096

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

We feel that, unless there is some god and that god choose to create
life in some other way, neither of which is currently certain, there was
abiogenesis.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We feel

Exactly. Just like the admitted theists, you feel.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/80370341096

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We feel

Exactly. Just like the admitted theists, you feel.

Do you snip the actual content and quotemine solely in order
to toss off supposedly clever one-liners, or do you have
some sort of point?

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We feel

Exactly. Just like the admitted theists, you feel.

Do you snip the actual content and quotemine solely in order
to toss off supposedly clever one-liners, or do you have
some sort of point?

Jtem has no point other than to his head.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:26:01 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:06:07 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We feel

Exactly. Just like the admitted theists, you feel.

Do you snip the actual content and quotemine solely in order
to toss off supposedly clever one-liners, or do you have
some sort of point?

Jtem has no point other than to his head.

I hadn't seen his posts for quite a while, but it seems he
hasn't changed much; still an excellent command of English
in service of an opaque and caustic agenda.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Bob Casanova
Do you snip

I love revealing your castration complex.

You're supposed to quote no more than you're
responding to. Sure times have changed, storage
doesn't cost anywhere near as much as it did
when the original Netiquette guidelines were
written... bandwidth isn't the issue... but so
what? Trim your freaking replies!

Your inability to discern a "main idea" or
"topical sentence" is not nearly as impressive
as you have lead yourself to believe. I may
overcompensate a little -- or simply choose to
mock you by doing the inverse -- but it's not
an issue. Everything you ever posted is still
there.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/80370341096

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:48:34 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Bob Casanova
Do you snip

I love

Not that I've noticed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:11:09 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

We feel that, unless there is some god and that god choose to create
life in some other way, neither of which is currently certain, there was
abiogenesis.

Small nit: Even if Creation was real abiogenesis occurred
since it simply means "life from non-life" (unless one
restricts it to a spontaneous and/or unguided process,
admittedly the usual way it's applied).

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:11:09 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

We feel that, unless there is some god and that god choose to create
life in some other way, neither of which is currently certain, there was
abiogenesis.

Small nit: Even if Creation was real abiogenesis occurred
since it simply means "life from non-life" (unless one
restricts it to a spontaneous and/or unguided process,
admittedly the usual way it's applied).

True.
Thus, in its most general meaning, abiogenesis is a certainty, and it is
only the unassisted by a god version which is at all questionable.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:30:10 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:11:09 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

We feel that, unless there is some god and that god choose to create
life in some other way, neither of which is currently certain, there was
abiogenesis.

Small nit: Even if Creation was real abiogenesis occurred
since it simply means "life from non-life" (unless one
restricts it to a spontaneous and/or unguided process,
admittedly the usual way it's applied).

True.
Thus, in its most general meaning, abiogenesis is a certainty, and it is
only the unassisted by a god version which is at all questionable.

I think you stated that backwards; it's the *assisted*
version which I consider questionable. At best. ;-)

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:30:10 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:11:09 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

We feel that, unless there is some god and that god choose to create
life in some other way, neither of which is currently certain, there was
abiogenesis.

Small nit: Even if Creation was real abiogenesis occurred
since it simply means "life from non-life" (unless one
restricts it to a spontaneous and/or unguided process,
admittedly the usual way it's applied).

True.
Thus, in its most general meaning, abiogenesis is a certainty, and it is
only the unassisted by a god version which is at all questionable.

I think you stated that backwards; it's the *assisted*
version which I consider questionable. At best. ;-)

What I meant, and should have made more clear, was that it is only the
?necessity? of any god assisted version which is at all questionable.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:18:49 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:30:10 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:11:09 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

We feel that, unless there is some god and that god choose to create
life in some other way, neither of which is currently certain, there was
abiogenesis.

Small nit: Even if Creation was real abiogenesis occurred
since it simply means "life from non-life" (unless one
restricts it to a spontaneous and/or unguided process,
admittedly the usual way it's applied).

True.
Thus, in its most general meaning, abiogenesis is a certainty, and it is
only the unassisted by a god version which is at all questionable.

I think you stated that backwards; it's the *assisted*
version which I consider questionable. At best. ;-)

What I meant, and should have made more clear, was that it is only the
?necessity? of any god assisted version which is at all questionable.

Aha! OK.

[j***@gmail.com]

[---nothing---]

[---even less---]

"When two people (or personalities in the same
person) always agree, one of them is unnecessary."

The proof is in the pudding... or psychopath, as in
this case.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/80370341096

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:51:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by ***@gmail.com:

[Nothing rational or interesting]

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

Wrong:

Life exists, and therefore started at some time.
There are processes observed which conform to known science
which could have effected that start.
There is no evidence whatsoever for any Creation event, or
for a Creator.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

Life exists, and therefore started at some time.

Actually, we also have to assume that there was some point in time that
life did not exist.
But if there really was a big bang anything like the usual descriptions
of it, there could not have been any life, at least as we now know it,
at the time of that big bang and for a considerable period thereafter.

Post by Bob Casanova
There are processes observed which conform to known science
which could have effected that start.
There is no evidence whatsoever for any Creation event, or
for a Creator.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:36:19 -0600, the following appeared

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

Life exists, and therefore started at some time.

Actually, we also have to assume that there was some point in time that
life did not exist.

Well, yeah. But the objective evidence all points that way.

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
But if there really was a big bang anything like the usual descriptions
of it, there could not have been any life, at least as we now know it,
at the time of that big bang and for a considerable period thereafter.

Yep.

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by Bob Casanova
There are processes observed which conform to known science
which could have effected that start.
There is no evidence whatsoever for any Creation event, or
for a Creator.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Bob Casanova

Post by j***@gmail.com
Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

Life exists, and therefore started at some time.

So saith creationists, so saith you.

Word for word. Not one iota of difference.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/80370341096

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:52:52 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Bob Casanova
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:39:43 -0700 (PDT), the following

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Wisely Non-Theist
We dismiss the certainty of creationism
because we see no necessity for,
or even any evidence for,
most of its assumptions.

Substitute "Abiogenesis" for "Creationism"
and nothing changes. You have no evidence
what so ever.

Life exists, and therefore started at some time.
There are processes observed which conform to known science
which could have effected that start.
There is no evidence whatsoever for any Creation event, or
for a Creator.

So saith creationists, so saith you.
Word for word. Not one iota of difference.

The Creationists say there's no evidence for a Creator, and
accept that science can explain the start of life? What an
...interesting...assertion.

[walksalone]

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even
though it's obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing
proof of his existence is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists
have made it clear that in the universe as it exists in their

Indeed, & depending on the thinking individual, the evidence will vary.
But here is an easy one.
Amputees around the world regrow & regain use of their amputated limbs.
Either through spontaneous regeneration, the best, to possibly slow natural
regrowth. Without the regrowth genes being switched back on.

<insert blustering here, along with possible demand that its questions be
addressed. Which being they are nonsensical, won't by me.>

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the
proposition were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is
simple and undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this
evidence they keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and
WHY it "should be" in God's best interest to provide it. Unless they

Unless you Are denser than you are trying to appear, why should they. It's
that old positive claim thing, you claim Nessie exists, you have the great
honor, & responsibility, of providing the evidence. That it has never been
done is a pretty good indicter that theists that pretend to have evidence
for their particular pantheon are lying. Sad how that works.

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
can explain those things their demands for evidence are useless and
childlike at "best", and quite possibly sign of a significant mental
handicap. I challenge these people who keep demanding evidence they
believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE, and WHY (from
God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

A phoney challange as well as an outburst of childish chest thumping.

No different than I demand you [which I won't] provide evidence that Ganesh
exists. Oh hell, let's be generous.
provide the evidence that none of the following deity's, which you are
atheistic to from your misuse of English grammar, do not exist. If you
can.

OK OK, it will be a short list.

Angel of death Bile Da Derga Daena Dagda
Dahaka Dahut Dames Vertes Parooa
Dakini Dama Huli Daramulun Deert
Deidre of Sorrows Demeter Dervonnae
Devi Dewi Shri Dhonn Dis Pater
Djehuti Djhowtey Don Donn
Druantia

An incomplete list, but I did say I would keep it short.

Does anyone recognise this imitation defender of one of the revealed gods
of the desert. Seems he is dumping from
NNTP-Posting-Host: f47829b7.ngroups.net.


walksalone who does understand, many people still are suffering from their
childhood abuse by acting like the OP in public. What he has yet to
understand is why they accept a guilt trip that is not theirs, like
original sin which is not in the Hebrew Bible.


Ok, you win. You proved that your god is the best there ever was at hid n'
seek.
Now, trot him out here so that we can give him his reward.
--Dan Ceppa

[m***@.not.]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:35:39 +0000 (UTC), walksalone <***@nerdshack.com>
wrote:
.

Post by walksalone

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even
though it's obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing
proof of his existence is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists
have made it clear that in the universe as it exists in their

Indeed, & depending on the thinking individual, the evidence will vary.
But here is an easy one.
Amputees around the world regrow & regain use of their amputated limbs.
Either through spontaneous regeneration, the best, to possibly slow natural
regrowth. Without the regrowth genes being switched back on.

So you atheists feel that if God does exist, he literally "should" regrow
amputated limbs on people. LOL...the very idea is hilarious. You need to explain
how that would benefit God before it could be considered that he "should" do
that. Good luck trying to explain it. How is it you both feel that if God exists
he "should" regrow limbs for people? Should he do it for all animals, or only
humans? Why? He does do it for some animals, so why isn't it enough that he does
it for some but not for all?

Post by walksalone
<insert blustering here, along with possible demand that its questions be
addressed. Which being they are nonsensical, won't by me.>

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the
proposition were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is
simple and undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this
evidence they keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and
WHY it "should be" in God's best interest to provide it. Unless they

Unless you Are denser than you are trying to appear, why should they.

Because unless they can explain those things their demands for evidence are
useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly sign of a significant mental
handicap. The same is true for your claim that God "should" regrow limbs on
people unless you can say how it would benefit him to do so.

Post by walksalone
It's
that old positive claim thing, you claim Nessie exists, you have the great
honor, & responsibility, of providing the evidence. That it has never been
done is a pretty good indicter that theists that pretend to have evidence
for their particular pantheon are lying. Sad how that works.

It's the same for your claim that God "should" regrow limbs. Unless you can
say how it would benefit him, it's clear proof that you have no idea what you're
trying to talk about.

Post by walksalone

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
can explain those things their demands for evidence are useless and
childlike at "best", and quite possibly sign of a significant mental
handicap. I challenge these people who keep demanding evidence they
believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE, and WHY (from
God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

A phoney challange

It's a very real challenge that will defeat all of you.

Post by walksalone
as well as an outburst of childish chest thumping.

It has defeated all of you so far, and always will.

Post by walksalone
No different than I demand you [which I won't] provide evidence that Ganesh
exists. Oh hell, let's be generous.
provide the evidence that none of the following deity's, which you are
atheistic to from your misuse of English grammar, do not exist. If you
can.
OK OK, it will be a short list.
Angel of death Bile Da Derga Daena Dagda
Dahaka Dahut Dames Vertes Parooa
Dakini Dama Huli Daramulun Deert
Deidre of Sorrows Demeter Dervonnae
Devi Dewi Shri Dhonn Dis Pater
Djehuti Djhowtey Don Donn
Druantia
An incomplete list, but I did say I would keep it short.

If God exists people have different beliefs about him and different ways of
referring to him. That's a basic starting line that you have never been able to
get as "far" as and quite possibly never will during your entire life.

[felix_unger]

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

Post by walksalone

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even
though it's obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing
proof of his existence is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists
have made it clear that in the universe as it exists in their

Indeed, & depending on the thinking individual, the evidence will vary.
But here is an easy one.
Amputees around the world regrow & regain use of their amputated limbs.
Either through spontaneous regeneration, the best, to possibly slow natural
regrowth. Without the regrowth genes being switched back on.

So you atheists feel that if God does exist, he literally "should" regrow
amputated limbs on people. LOL...the very idea is hilarious. You need to explain
how that would benefit God before it could be considered that he "should" do
that. Good luck trying to explain it. How is it you both feel that if God exists
he "should" regrow limbs for people? Should he do it for all animals, or only
humans? Why? He does do it for some animals, so why isn't it enough that he does
it for some but not for all?

Post by walksalone
<insert blustering here, along with possible demand that its questions be
addressed. Which being they are nonsensical, won't by me.>

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the
proposition were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is
simple and undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this
evidence they keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and
WHY it "should be" in God's best interest to provide it. Unless they

Unless you Are denser than you are trying to appear, why should they.

Because unless they can explain those things their demands for evidence are
useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly sign of a significant mental
handicap. The same is true for your claim that God "should" regrow limbs on
people unless you can say how it would benefit him to do so.

Post by walksalone
It's
that old positive claim thing, you claim Nessie exists, you have the great
honor, & responsibility, of providing the evidence. That it has never been
done is a pretty good indicter that theists that pretend to have evidence
for their particular pantheon are lying. Sad how that works.

It's the same for your claim that God "should" regrow limbs. Unless you can
say how it would benefit him, it's clear proof that you have no idea what you're
trying to talk about.

where's the evidence for the claim that God should regrow limbs if he
exists? :)

Post by m***@.not.

Post by walksalone

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
can explain those things their demands for evidence are useless and
childlike at "best", and quite possibly sign of a significant mental
handicap. I challenge these people who keep demanding evidence they
believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE, and WHY (from
God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

A phoney challange

It's a very real challenge that will defeat all of you.

Post by walksalone
as well as an outburst of childish chest thumping.

It has defeated all of you so far, and always will.

Post by walksalone
No different than I demand you [which I won't] provide evidence that Ganesh
exists. Oh hell, let's be generous.
provide the evidence that none of the following deity's, which you are
atheistic to from your misuse of English grammar, do not exist. If you
can.
OK OK, it will be a short list.
Angel of death Bile Da Derga Daena Dagda
Dahaka Dahut Dames Vertes Parooa
Dakini Dama Huli Daramulun Deert
Deidre of Sorrows Demeter Dervonnae
Devi Dewi Shri Dhonn Dis Pater
Djehuti Djhowtey Don Donn
Druantia
An incomplete list, but I did say I would keep it short.

If God exists people have different beliefs about him and different ways of
referring to him. That's a basic starting line that you have never been able to
get as "far" as and quite possibly never will during your entire life.

[Martin]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:03:51 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz>
wrote:

< snip>

Post by felix_unger

Post by m***@.not.

Post by walksalone
It's
that old positive claim thing, you claim Nessie exists, you have the great
honor, & responsibility, of providing the evidence. That it has never been
done is a pretty good indicter that theists that pretend to have evidence
for their particular pantheon are lying. Sad how that works.

It's the same for your claim that God "should" regrow limbs. Unless you can
say how it would benefit him, it's clear proof that you have no idea what you're
trying to talk about.

where's the evidence for the claim that God should regrow limbs if he
exists? :)

Exactly!! There isn't even any evidence of what god is and does or
does not do! There isn't even a working (and workable) definition of
god! So, until you believers come up with one you can be dismissed out
of hand.

[Martin]

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

The reason why I can't cite any specific evidence is because the
concept "God" is not specific. What properties god has is completely
unclear. Every time a believer makes a specific claim about god and is
then explained that that means we should see certain things in the
world around us that we do not see, the claim suddenly magically goes
away and god again is this nebulous, vapourous being about which you
can not know anything. Except of course what god wants from us, the
believers are all very clear that they know exactly what it is that
god wants from us, even if it does not agree with all the other
believers, even those from the same christian splintersect. They all
have different ideas of what and who god is and what he wants and
those things change all the time when you push them for specifics.
It's very hard to come up with a list of evidences I'd like to see for
that. It's also what causes my not only to not believe god exist but
to believe god does not exist. According to what I hear from
believers, the properties of god are indistinguisable from the
properties of nothing, therefor, even according to the believers,
there is no god.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's

Only because sociopathic, stupid theists rudely talk AT us as if it
were a given.

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of

Here the liar pretends his ridiculous claims that he makes in the real
world beyond his religion are exempt from the burden of proof.

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"

And?

This hypothetical god is supposed to have interacted with the world,
which means some kind of footprint - yet there are none.

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be",

IF you had any you would not need to lie about us like that.

Because we're not mind-readers to know what you imagine you've got.

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's

WHAT FUCKING GOD, moron? The one you haven't yet proven, and that it
is clear you never will otherwise you wouldn't need these dishonest
copouts?

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly

No, pathetic, in-your-face liar.

The flip side of demands for proof, is that if you have none you
should keep your nonsense to yourself.

But then we've been explaining this to you for a long time now.

So why do you need to keep lying about us, to us?

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

NOT OUR PROBLEM, imbecile.

It's your claim - if you can't back it up then SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT
IT.

[m***@.not.]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:28:55 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <***@optonline.net>
wrote:
.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's

Only because sociopathic, stupid theists rudely talk AT us as if it
were a given.

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of

Here the liar pretends his ridiculous claims that he makes in the real
world beyond his religion are exempt from the burden of proof.

The proof is in the quotes I provided, idiot.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"

And?
This hypothetical god is supposed to have interacted with the world,
which means some kind of footprint - yet there are none.

Tell us what sort of evidence there "should be", where it "should be" and
how it would benefit God to provide it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be",

IF you had any you would not need to lie about us like that.

What would you like to pretend is a lie, and how do you want to pretend it's
a lie. Unless you can explain those things it will be clear that it's YOU who is
lying. Also unless you explain what I challenged you to explain you will not
only be revealed as a liar but you will have been defeated by the challenge.

[felix_unger]

(reposted as I didn't notice the ng distribution had been edited to
alt.atheism only. any replies to this please as I don't read alt.atheism)

Post by walksalone
walksalone who does understand, many people still are suffering from

their childhood abuse by acting like the OP in public. What he has yet
to understand is why they accept a guilt trip that is not theirs, like
original sin which is not in the Hebrew Bible.

Is that simply because it doesn't contain anything from the New Testament?

[Smiler]

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

[felix_unger]

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

[Peter Zeller]

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

Yes. There are none. If it interests you there are heaps of information
on this topic in human neurophysiology. As a technique it is quite easy
to to create ''real'' religious experiences.

Peter

Could you confine your writings to one ng and stop these full quotes.
This ng is definitely NOT for discussing religious crab.

[Smiler]

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

Until you can show me the difference between a 'real religious experience'
and an halucination there's no need to answer that question.

[m***@.not.]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:13:14 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

They have faith with no evidence. That's all they ever can have.

[Smiler]

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

Well! What objective evidence persuaded you?
No theist has yet been able to answer this question. You could be the
first.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

They have faith with no evidence. That's all they ever can have.

Then explain the difference between 'real religious experiences' and
halucinations. No theist has yet been able to answer this question. You
could be the first.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Smiler

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

Atheists dont ask for evidence, dont need evidence, dont want
evidence, and dont think there should be an evidence. You see you are
the one that has a belief. A accurate discription can not be given for
why an atheist doesnt believe in fairy tales, I mean besides the fact
that they are fucking fairy tales

when an atheist says prove it or show me some evdience it is not for a
self serving reason it is actually for your benifit. So you can
perhaps learn that that which you devote you time money and life to is
a scam.

Post by Smiler

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler
The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

Well! What objective evidence persuaded you?
No theist has yet been able to answer this question. You could be the
first.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

They have faith with no evidence. That's all they ever can have.

Then explain the difference between 'real religious experiences' and
halucinations. No theist has yet been able to answer this question. You
could be the first.

[m***@.not.]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 01:26:56 +0100, Smil wrote:
.

Post by Smiler

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

Well! What objective evidence persuaded you?
No theist has yet been able to answer this question. You could be the
first.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

They have faith with no evidence. That's all they ever can have.

Then explain the difference between 'real religious experiences' and
halucinations. No theist has yet been able to answer this question. You
could be the first.

If God exists and has provided people with real religious experiences then
that's what they are. There have no doubt been halucinations even if God does
exist and has provided real experiences. If God does not exist then they have
all been halucinations. An atheist can't figure things like that out for himself
because he can't consider the possibility that God does exist. He also can't
comprehend things like that even after they have been explained for him because
of the same reason.

[Smiler]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 01:26:56 +0100, Smil wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

Well! What objective evidence persuaded you? No theist has yet been able
to answer this question. You could be the first.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

They have faith with no evidence. That's all they ever can have.

Then explain the difference between 'real religious experiences' and
halucinations. No theist has yet been able to answer this question. You
could be the first.

If God exists and has provided people with real religious experiences then
that's what they are. There have no doubt been halucinations even if God
does exist and has provided real experiences. If God does not exist then
they have all been halucinations. An atheist can't figure things like that
out for himself because he can't consider the possibility that God does
exist. He also can't comprehend things like that even after they have been
explained for him because of the same reason.

You've still not told me _how_ you can tell the difference between these
supposed 'real experiences' and halucinations.

Is "God told me I'm Napoleon Bonaparte." a 'real experience' or an
halucination?

Is "God told me to fly a plane into a tower block." a 'real experience' or
an halucination?

Is "God told me I'm 'special'." a 'real experience' or an halucination?

Is "God told me to preach his word." a 'real experience' or an
halucination?

AFAICT there is no, zero, zilch, bugger-all difference, so they can all be
classed as halucinations.

[m***@.not.]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:55:41 +0100, Smil wrote:
.

Post by Smiler

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 01:26:56 +0100, Smil wrote: .

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

Well! What objective evidence persuaded you? No theist has yet been able
to answer this question. You could be the first.

Post by m***@.not.

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

They have faith with no evidence. That's all they ever can have.

Then explain the difference between 'real religious experiences' and
halucinations. No theist has yet been able to answer this question. You
could be the first.

If God exists and has provided people with real religious experiences then
that's what they are. There have no doubt been halucinations even if God
does exist and has provided real experiences. If God does not exist then
they have all been halucinations. An atheist can't figure things like that
out for himself because he can't consider the possibility that God does
exist. He also can't comprehend things like that even after they have been
explained for him because of the same reason.

You've still not told me _how_ you can tell the difference between these
supposed 'real experiences' and halucinations.

You didn't ask how. You asked me to explain the difference and I told you
because you couldn't figure it out for yourself. And as I pointed out you still
can't comprehend even after it has been explained for you.

As far as "how" to tell the difference there's no way for anyone who didn't
have the experience to tell if someone else did, and there isn't *necessarily* a
way for someone who did have the experience to know if it was real or not. Maybe
some people do know and there is a way for them to know when they've had a real
experience, even if some other people think they did but it was only a
halucination instead. Remember I pointed out that some of them are halucinations
even if God does exist and provides some real experiences. That's a starting
line you've never been able to get to, and you'll never be able to comprehend
what you act like you're trying to figure out if you never get to that starting
line. I told you what it is but it's up to you to try to get to it, though you
might not be mentally capable of reaching the starting line even if you do make
an attempt to.

Post by Smiler
Is "God told me I'm Napoleon Bonaparte." a 'real experience' or an
halucination?
Is "God told me to fly a plane into a tower block." a 'real experience' or
an halucination?
Is "God told me I'm 'special'." a 'real experience' or an halucination?
Is "God told me to preach his word." a 'real experience' or an
halucination?
AFAICT there is no, zero, zilch, bugger-all difference, so they can all be
classed as halucinations.

Not if God did tell people any of those things. Then they're real
experiences and not halucinations. See, I told you you couldn't comprehend even
after it was explained for you, because of the reason I pointed out for you.
You're just not mentally capable now, and might not ever be mentally capable
even IF!!! you were to make an attempt to be.

[felix_unger]

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

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

They have faith with no evidence. That's all they ever can have.

or in spite of what evidence exists

[m***@.not.]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:49:53 +1000, felix_unger <***@nothere.biz> wrote:
.

Post by felix_unger

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

Post by felix_unger

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others. We are not so gullible.

so there are no 'real' religious experiences? and you know this for a
fact, how exactly?

They have faith with no evidence. That's all they ever can have.

or in spite of what evidence exists

All they can do is desperately deny that. That's all any of them in these
ngs can do. We keep reading these rumors about atheists who have no belief,
though there don't appear to be any of them posting around here. If there really
are any such atheists I wonder if some of them can acknowledge that evidence
does exist, but it's not persuasive enough for them to believe God exists. At
least that would be significantly more honest than the lie we keep getting
presented with, and a lot more realistic as well.

[m***@.not.]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:54:29 +0100, Smil wrote:
.

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

So far none of you have been able to meet the challenge of explaining what
it is YOU are demanding. None of you have even come close.

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others.

I'm not convinced that God does exist. Maybe he doesn't. That's as far as
you can go with that. Maybe he does. You can go on forever with that. Well, you
can't get that far but other people can go on with it. That's a starting line
you've never been able to get as "far" as, and quite possibly never will be able
to.

Post by Smiler
We are not so gullible.

If God does exist you are the most gullible people on the planet.

[Smiler]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:54:29 +0100, Smil wrote: .

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god existed
would do.

So far none of you have been able to meet the challenge of
explaining what it is YOU are demanding. None of you have even come
close.

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
exists. No theist has yet answered this question. You could be the first.

But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others.

I'm not convinced that God does exist.

Neither am I. That's something we can agree on.
I'm also not convinced that most of the 20,000+ other known gods exist
either. There are also some claimed gods that I know exist(ed) as I have
evidence for them. I don't believe in any of them.

<snip handwaving nonsense>

[m***@.not.]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 01:48:05 +0100, Smil wrote:
.

Post by Smiler

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

So far none of you have been able to meet the challenge of explaining what
it is YOU are demanding. None of you have even come close.

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
exists. No theist has yet answered this question. You could be the first.

If you could do it you would be the first atheist who could explain what you
people think you're trying to demand. But since none of you can do that try to
explain this instead: If God exists how do you think it would be to his benefit
to provide people with what you keep demanding?

Post by Smiler

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others.

I'm not convinced that God does exist. Maybe he doesn't. That's as far as
you can go with that. Maybe he does. You can go on forever with that. Well, you
can't get that far but other people can go on with it. That's a starting line
you've never been able to get as "far" as, and quite possibly never will be able
to.

Neither am I. That's something we can agree on.

We should certainly agree that you have never gotten to the starting line
regarding the possibility that God does exist.

Post by Smiler
I'm also not convinced that most of the 20,000+ other known gods exist
either.

You can't comprehend the idea that God exists and there are a lot of
different beliefs about him and different ways of referring to him. I can. You
probably can't comprehend that same thing in regards to the sun, moon, Earth,
wind, etc either. I can do that too. That's another starting line you've never
been able to get as "far" as, and probably never will.

Post by Smiler
There are also some claimed gods that I know exist(ed) as I have
evidence for them. I don't believe in any of them.

There are beings I'm convinced were not gods, like humans. That doesn't mean
there is no God associated with this planet. You don't seem able to comprehend
that either. I can. It's another starting line you can't get as "far" as.

Post by Smiler

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Smiler
We are not so gullible.

If God does exist you are the most gullible people on the planet.

[Smiler]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 01:48:05 +0100, Smil wrote: .

Post by Smiler

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:54:29 +0100, Smil wrote: .

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

So far none of you have been able to meet the challenge of explaining what
it is YOU are demanding. None of you have even come close.

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
exists. No theist has yet answered this question. You could be the first.

If you could do it you would be the first atheist who could explain what
you people think you're trying to demand.

In your stupid opinion.
I'm not your slave.

If God exists how do you think it would be to his benefit to provide
people with what you keep demanding?

What god would that be? The one there's no evidence for?

Post by Smiler

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others.

I'm not convinced that God does exist. Maybe he doesn't. That's as far as
you can go with that. Maybe he does. You can go on forever with that.
Well, you can't get that far but other people can go on with it. That's
a starting line you've never been able to get as "far" as, and quite
possibly never will be able to.

Neither am I. That's something we can agree on.

We should certainly agree that you have never gotten to the starting line
regarding the possibility that God does exist.

Post by Smiler
I'm also not convinced that most of the 20,000+ other known gods exist
either.

You can't comprehend the idea that God exists

Only in your stupid opinion.

and there are a lot of different beliefs about him and different ways of
referring to him.

All those 20,000+ gods cannot be the same one.

I can.

We already know that you're an idiot, but thanks for confirming it.

You probably can't comprehend that same thing in regards to the
sun, moon, Earth, wind, etc either.

The sun and moon have been worshipped as gods. I know they exist, but
don't believe in them.

I can do that too.

We already know that you're an idiot, but thanks for confirming it.

That's another starting line you've never been able to get as "far" as,
and probably never will.

Only in your stupid opinion.

Post by Smiler
There are also some claimed gods that I know exist(ed) as I have
evidence for them. I don't believe in any of them.

There are beings I'm convinced were not gods, like humans.

But some were/are worshipped as gods. What is your stupid opinion compared
to the thousands who worship them?

That doesn't mean there is no God associated with this planet.

Neither does it mean there is.

You don't seem able to comprehend that either.

Only in your stupid opinion.

I can. It's another starting line you can't get as "far" as.

Post by Smiler

Post by Smiler
We are not so gullible.

If God does exist you are the most gullible people on the planet.

Then show some evidence for the existence of this supposed god character
or STFU.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

[m***@.not.]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:09:58 +0100, Smil wrote:
.

Post by Smiler

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 01:48:05 +0100, Smil wrote: .

Post by Smiler

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:54:29 +0100, Smil wrote: .

Post by Smiler

What evidence do atheists think "should be"???

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
existed would do.

So far none of you have been able to meet the challenge of explaining what
it is YOU are demanding. None of you have even come close.

The exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_ that some god
exists. No theist has yet answered this question. You could be the first.

If you could do it you would be the first atheist who could explain what
you people think you're trying to demand.

In your stupid opinion.

As far as WE know it's a fact. I challenge you to try presenting evidence
that I'm wrong.

Post by Smiler
I'm not your slave.

You're already wussing horribly.

Post by Smiler

If God exists how do you think it would be to his benefit to provide
people with what you keep demanding?

What god would that be? The one there's no evidence for?

The challenge I presented you with defeated you entirely. The challenge
still stands and I encourage you to try again, though I predict you'll never be
able to overcome and it will always defeat you. Try proving me wrong.

Post by Smiler

Post by Smiler

Post by Smiler
But atheists know you have no such evidence and believe merely on the
say-so of others.

I'm not convinced that God does exist. Maybe he doesn't. That's as far as
you can go with that. Maybe he does. You can go on forever with that.
Well, you can't get that far but other people can go on with it. That's
a starting line you've never been able to get as "far" as, and quite
possibly never will be able to.

Neither am I. That's something we can agree on.

We should certainly agree that you have never gotten to the starting line
regarding the possibility that God does exist.

Post by Smiler
I'm also not convinced that most of the 20,000+ other known gods exist
either.

You can't comprehend the idea that God exists

Only in your stupid opinion.

Try providing evidence that I'm wrong or we'll know that I'm correct.

Post by Smiler

and there are a lot of different beliefs about him and different ways of
referring to him.

All those 20,000+ gods cannot be the same one.

How many can and how do you think you found out?

Post by Smiler

I can.

We already know that you're an idiot, but thanks for confirming it.

You probably can't comprehend that same thing in regards to the
sun, moon, Earth, wind, etc either.

The sun and moon have been worshipped as gods. I know they exist, but
don't believe in them.

LOL!!!

Post by Smiler

I can do that too.

We already know that you're an idiot, but thanks for confirming it.

That's another starting line you've never been able to get as "far" as,
and probably never will.

Only in your stupid opinion.

Try providing evidence that I'm wrong or we'll know that I'm correct.

Post by Smiler

Post by Smiler
There are also some claimed gods that I know exist(ed) as I have
evidence for them. I don't believe in any of them.

There are beings I'm convinced were not gods, like humans.

But some were/are worshipped as gods. What is your stupid opinion compared
to the thousands who worship them?

Try providing evidence that they actually were gods or we'll know you're
clueless.

Post by Smiler

That doesn't mean there is no God associated with this planet.

Neither does it mean there is.

You don't seem able to comprehend that either.

Only in your stupid opinion.

Try providing evidence that I'm wrong or we'll know that I'm correct.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by m***@.not.
.

Post by Smiler

Post by m***@.not.
If you could do it you would be the first atheist who could explain what
you people think you're trying to demand.

In your stupid opinion.

As far as WE know it's a fact. I challenge you to try presenting evidence
that I'm wrong.

well there is the fact that you believe in a god and that clearly
proves that you are gulliable, an iidiot, and a moron

and although that doesnt prove anything it does lead one to consider
the fact that you are going to be wrong or lying about
99.99999999999999999% of the time


<snip unneeded bits>

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

Evidence must be objective and VERIFIABLE.

Can't be much simplier than that.

[m***@.not.]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:32:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

Evidence must be objective and VERIFIABLE.
Can't be much simplier than that.

So you have no idea what it should be. You have no idea where it should be.
You have no idea how it could benefit God to provide it. You just know something
should be provided somewhere for some reason...LOL...just describing your
position is hilarious.

[felix_unger]

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

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by c***@llenging_the_clueless.
Atheists are constantly demanding evidence of God's existence even though it's
obvious if God does exist that he doesn't feel providing proof of his existence
is something he cares to do. Yet some atheists have made it clear that in the
universe as it exists in their imagination there "should be" some evidence of
"As I said .. if the evidence is NOT where it should be if the proposition
were true, then means the proposition is not true. It is simple and
undeniable logic." - "Wizard-Of-Oz"
"If a god could interact with the physical world, there should be
physical evidence thereof. If the god can't then it is virtually
non-existing." - Malte Runz
Yet they haven't even been able to attempt explaining WHAT this evidence they
keep demanding "should be", WHERE it "should be", and WHY it "should be" in
God's best interest to provide it. Unless they can explain those things their
demands for evidence are useless and childlike at "best", and quite possibly
sign of a significant mental handicap. I challenge these people who keep
demanding evidence they believe "should be" somewhere, to explain WHAT, WHERE,
and WHY (from God's pov) it SHOULD BE....wherever.

Evidence must be objective and VERIFIABLE.

http://ausnet.info/evidence

Post by m***@.not.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Can't be much simplier than that.

So you have no idea what it should be. You have no idea where it should be.
You have no idea how it could benefit God to provide it. You just know something
should be provided somewhere for some reason...LOL...just describing your
position is hilarious.