Discussion:
More Quiz Questions for Atheists
(too old to reply)
mur
2015-04-07 21:05:10 UTC
Permalink
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since if there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe in, so the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to be lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand evidence and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be imagining some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be some and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are moronic about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
challenge to learn whether or not any of them have any idea at all:

WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think it should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they think he
should provide it or should have provided it?

As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable reply to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God should appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place and time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they re-grow on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they unable to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're not even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-04-08 13:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
--
JD

Je suis Charlie.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-04-08 15:07:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.

He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.

He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
As usual, Mad Joe lies about atheists rather than even trying to
provide any.
mur
2015-04-17 20:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
The League Of Tedious Wankers
2015-04-17 22:25:14 UTC
Permalink
On 17/04/2015 21:49, mur wrote:
<>

Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
--
***
*** Ken Ditwad
*** Human Resources Junior Administrative Executive
*** The League Of Tedious Wankers ***
*************************************
mur
2015-04-30 00:07:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
<***@lotw.null> wrote:
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
The League Of Tedious Wankers
2015-05-01 14:08:58 UTC
Permalink
On 30/04/2015 01:07, mur wrote:
You don't need to suck up to me just to apply for membership. Just be
patient and employ your usual "style".
--
***
*** Ken Ditwad
*** Human Resources Junior Administrative Executive
*** The League Of Tedious Wankers ***
*************************************
mur
2015-05-09 02:03:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:08:58 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
<***@lotw.null> wrote:
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure don't.
The League Of Tedious Wankers
2015-05-30 10:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure do
You naughty snippity person, I laugh at your ineptitude and snore at
your Tedious Wank, you empty-headed pig trough wiper and hideous groper
of other children's pets. Your mother etc.
--
***
*** Ken Ditwad
*** Human Resources Junior Administrative Executive
*** The League Of Tedious Wankers ***
*************************************
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:33:24 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
<***@lotw.null> wrote:
.
Post by mur
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:08:58 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure don't.
You
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you
think it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
Vincent Maycock
2015-06-05 21:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:33:24 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by mur
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:08:58 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure don't.
You
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Post by mur
and WHEN
Any time.
Post by mur
youthink it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
Why would God associate himself with this planet without leaving
evidence of his presence out there? What would be the point?
mur
2015-06-13 18:04:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 17:34:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock <***@aol.com> wrote:
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:33:24 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by mur
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:08:58 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure don't.
You
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and WHEN
Any time.
You have no idea.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
youthink it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
Why would God associate himself with this planet without leaving
evidence of his presence out there? What would be the point?
If he did associate himself and left evidence in all the ways or even some
of the ways people are told he did, then he did. The point in not leaving the
proof you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof. One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought, and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov. Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out. NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist, but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it. That being the way it IS it's pretty obvious that if there
is a God associated with Earth, he doesn't want everyone to qualify for a nice
afterlife. That would be ONE point.
talishi
2015-06-13 18:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
The point in not leaving the
proof you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof. One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought
That's exactly why the Invisible Pink Unicorn hides too!
Smiler
2015-06-13 22:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by talishi
The point in not leaving the proof you atheists keep begging for is
whatever reasons he has for not giving everyone proof. One reason for
not doing so would be so we have more freedom of thought
That's exactly why the Invisible Pink Unicorn hides too!
Isn't it amazingly hilarious how these morons come up with convoluted
excuses for their supposed god character's non-appearance.
Almost as if it doesn't exist.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
talishi
2015-06-13 23:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by talishi
The point in not leaving the proof you atheists keep begging for is
whatever reasons he has for not giving everyone proof. One reason for
not doing so would be so we have more freedom of thought
That's exactly why the Invisible Pink Unicorn hides too!
Isn't it amazingly hilarious how these morons come up with convoluted
excuses for their supposed god character's non-appearance.
Almost as if it doesn't exist.
For perpetual motion machines they can say "The oil companies paid the
government to seize my prototype". For flying saucers they can say,
"The government relocated the wreckage to Area 51." For God they say,
"He wants people to have the freedom to choose to believe in him." But
that's not what I read in Romans chapter 9:

"One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who
is able to resist his will?' But who are you, a human being, to talk
back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did
you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out
of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for
common use?"
mur
2015-06-19 20:20:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:10:03 -0700, talishi <***@example.net> wrote:
.
Post by talishi
Post by mur
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:33:24 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by mur
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:08:58 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure don't.
You
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and WHEN
Any time.
You have no idea.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
youthink it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
Why would God associate himself with this planet without leaving
evidence of his presence out there? What would be the point?
If he did associate himself and left evidence in all the ways or even some
of the ways people are told he did, then he did. The point in not leaving the
proof you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof. One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought, and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov. Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out. NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist, but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it. That being the way it IS it's pretty obvious that if there
is a God associated with Earth, he doesn't want everyone to qualify for a nice
afterlife. That would be ONE point.
That's exactly why the Invisible Pink Unicorn
You have the perspective of a very young and stupid child.
Post by talishi
hides too!
It's on a retard level that anyone would think God has to hide, when the
reality is that he'd have to make a deliberate point of presenting himself.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines atheists can't get as "far"
as. Since you can't get as "far" as the starting line, you're certainly not
mentally capable of considering why God would or would not present himself, much
less where, when, to whom, etc... Maybe you think if you go on like this he'll
eventually "recognise" your "superiority" and present himself to you? LOL...the
very idea is hilarious....at least that he might while you're still alive. After
you're dead it would be more likely, but by then it might be too late to do you
any good.
Vincent Maycock
2015-06-13 22:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:33:24 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by mur
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:08:58 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure don't.
You
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow? A video-tape of God on the evening
news?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand? On TV?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith; that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and WHEN
Any time.
You have no idea.
No time like the present.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
youthink it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
Why would God associate himself with this planet without leaving
evidence of his presence out there? What would be the point?
If he did associate himself and left evidence in all the ways or even some
of the ways people are told he did, then he did.
Unfortunately, all such reports are under a lot of suspicion for being
fabrications.
Post by mur
The point in not leaving the
proof
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
mur
2015-06-19 20:20:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 18:10:00 -0400, Vincent Maycock <***@aol.com> wrote:
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:33:24 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by mur
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:08:58 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure don't.
You
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing? Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
How you would verify? To start with, explain this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and WHEN
Any time.
You have no idea.
No time like the present.
How do you think you could possibly have found that out?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
youthink it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
Why would God associate himself with this planet without leaving
evidence of his presence out there? What would be the point?
If he did associate himself and left evidence in all the ways or even some
of the ways people are told he did, then he did.
Unfortunately, all such reports are under a lot of suspicion for being
fabrications.
Post by mur
The point in not leaving the
proof
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
LOL. They're certainly idiots in regards to the possibility of God's
existence, there's no doubt about that.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
Mitchell Holman
2015-06-20 02:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there
is a God associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or
"verifiable evidence" of his existence for his own reasons.
Just like the "FACT" that the invisible
aliens living among us don't provide us with
proof of their existence for their own reasons?
mur
2015-06-27 01:55:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:25:21 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.
Post by mur
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:33:24 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by mur
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:08:58 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:25:14 +0100, The League Of Tedious Wankers
.
Post by The League Of Tedious Wankers
Post by mur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence,
Liar.
Why are you so horribly ashamed of that? What evidence are you willing to
acknowledge in an attempt to create the impression that you might possibly not
be lying?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
He should refute the falsifiable conclusion by providing some, rather
than by lying about us.
He's too stupid to realise that all this does, is reinforce that
conclusion.
I challenged you to provide evidence that you might not have been lying. My
prediction is that the challenge will always defeat you and you'll never be able
to attempt to defeat it. At "best" you might make some pussy wuss attempt to
slink away from it, but that's the "best" any of you could ever do.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
There isn't. Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists. Ever.
That certainly supports what I pointed out, and certainly reveals another
lie from Wuss.
Congratulations on meeting our requirements.
Pointing out the lies of people like Wuss is rewarding enough in itself with
or without the congratulations of Tedious Wankers like you.
You don't need to suck up to me
I sure don't.
You
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing? Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
Just like the "FACT" that [if there are] invisible
aliens living among us [they] don't provide us with
proof of their existence for their own reasons?
If there are then it's probably pretty much the same thing from my pov, but
if you like to think it would be significantly different then explain how.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and WHEN
Any time.
You have no idea.
No time like the present.
How do you think you could possibly have found that out?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
youthink it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
Why would God associate himself with this planet without leaving
evidence of his presence out there? What would be the point?
If he did associate himself and left evidence in all the ways or even some
of the ways people are told he did, then he did.
Unfortunately, all such reports are under a lot of suspicion for being
fabrications.
Post by mur
The point in not leaving the
proof
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
LOL. They're certainly idiots in regards to the possibility of God's
existence, there's no doubt about that.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
Vincent Maycock
2015-06-20 19:57:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:20:49 -0400, mur wrote:

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."

I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
And you can think of no motivation for why he would behave this way.
I think it's more likely that SINCE there's no proof or "verifiable
evidence," for God's existence here on earth there is no such being
associated with our earth.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
That doesn't appear to apply to anyone else. Are you a slave to your
parents because you know they exist?
Post by mur
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
So why does he seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he's not
discovered? It's not that difficult to leave evidence that you're
there -- it just happens naturally.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
LOL. They're certainly idiots in regards to the possibility of God's
existence, there's no doubt about that.
No, the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate), while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
No, it's not faith, but rather an evidenced-based claim about the
world.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
There's nothing shameful about asking for proof; in fact I'll point
out right now that I'll accept proof as well as evidence. It just
happens to be true that I'm generous enough to also allow in just
*evidence* as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
mur
2015-06-27 01:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a
thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it
over and over and over again?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."
I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come perform
tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care
about anyway. If he does exist and cared whether or not you believe it I have no
doubt he could persuade you to. And if he exists and wanted everyone in general
to know about it, I have no doubt he could do that too. So if he does exist it
seems very obvious that he wants things to be as they are, and for that reason
doesn't provide the verifiable evidence you people keep naively whining for.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God even though
you have no idea how it could be done much less why anyone would do it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
And you can think of no motivation for why he would behave this way.
I can think of a couple of reasons why he would. One would be that people
are already bothering him with prayers for things every second of every day, and
it would be a whole lot worse if people knew for a fact that he exists. Another
would be that people would have less freedom as individuals and would be more
like his slaves if they knew for a fact he exists. Another would be to "trim the
herd" and sort out those who qualify to be "with him" in an afterlife and those
who don't.
Post by Vincent Maycock
I think it's more likely that SINCE there's no proof or "verifiable
evidence," for God's existence here on earth there is no such being
associated with our earth.
I consider that possibility as well but don't put faith in it being correct,
and therefore consider other possibilities that involve more thinking and taking
more things into consideration.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to
believe in and never would have been. That's one of the most basic starting
lines you people can't get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
That doesn't appear to apply to anyone else.
It applies to everyone except those who already act like slaves to him and
are convinced that he does exist.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Are you a slave to your parents because you know they exist?
That supposed comparison only applies in situations where children worship
and pray to their parents.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
So why does he seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he's not
discovered?
LOL! That idea is hilarious by itself, and the fact that you can't imagine
what sort of evidence there should be, where it should be, why it should be
wherever, and when it should have been or should be made available makes it even
more amusing.
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to leave evidence that you're
there -- it just happens naturally.
You only gave two not respectable naive suggestions both of which God would
obviously have to go out of his way to provide.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
LOL. They're certainly idiots in regards to the possibility of God's
existence, there's no doubt about that.
No,
Yes they certainly are, and you yourself are an excellent example of that
fact.
Post by Vincent Maycock
the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate),
Yet you're ashamed of your own faith.
Post by Vincent Maycock
while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
You can't even get to the starting line regarding a number of aspects of the
situation, including what evidence you think there should be. The two things you
suggested don't count because they're so idiotic and naive.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
No, it's not faith,
It sure is...LOL...but you can't even get to the starting line on that one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
but rather an evidenced-based claim about the world.
What verifiable evidence do you have that there's no God associated with
Earth?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
There's nothing shameful about asking for proof;
Then why did you keep trying to run away from yourself about it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
in fact I'll point
out right now that I'll accept proof as well as evidence. It just
happens to be true that I'm generous enough to also allow in just
*evidence*
No you're not. Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence.
Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All
prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people
have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't. Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth. The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
Mitchell Holman
2015-06-27 03:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not
giving everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to
believe in and never would have been. That's one of the most basic
starting lines you people can't get as "far" as.
Lots of people believe it so it must be true?

Really? That is your proof?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
in fact I'll point
out right now that I'll accept proof as well as evidence. It just
happens to be true that I'm generous enough to also allow in just
*evidence*
No you're not. Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are
evidence. Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles
are evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are
evidence. Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The success of AA and
NA programs is evidence.
Anything you name can be claimed as evidence
of anything. Evidence is not proof. What proof was
sufficient to justify your belief?
Jeanne Douglas
2015-06-27 03:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not
giving everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to
believe in and never would have been. That's one of the most basic
starting lines you people can't get as "far" as.
Lots of people believe it so it must be true?
Really? That is your proof?
Yep, that's what he's been saying all along.
--
JD

Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.
mur
2015-07-04 02:19:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:05:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a
thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it
over and over and over again?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."
I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come perform
tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care
about anyway. If he does exist and cared whether or not you believe it I have no
doubt he could persuade you to. And if he exists and wanted everyone in general
to know about it, I have no doubt he could do that too. So if he does exist it
seems very obvious that he wants things to be as they are, and for that reason
doesn't provide the verifiable evidence you people keep naively whining for.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God even though
you have no idea how it could be done much less why anyone would do it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
And you can think of no motivation for why he would behave this way.
I can think of a couple of reasons why he would. One would be that people
are already bothering him with prayers for things every second of every day, and
it would be a whole lot worse if people knew for a fact that he exists. Another
would be that people would have less freedom as individuals and would be more
like his slaves if they knew for a fact he exists. Another would be to "trim the
herd" and sort out those who qualify to be "with him" in an afterlife and those
who don't.
Post by Vincent Maycock
I think it's more likely that SINCE there's no proof or "verifiable
evidence," for God's existence here on earth there is no such being
associated with our earth.
I consider that possibility as well but don't put faith in it being correct,
and therefore consider other possibilities that involve more thinking and taking
more things into consideration.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to
believe in and never would have been. That's one of the most basic starting
lines you people can't get as "far" as.
Lots of people believe it so it must be true?
Not from my pov.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Really? That is your proof?
None of you can get to that starting line. At least I haven't encountered
one of you who could, so that's my "proof" that none of you can get to that
basic starting line.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
That doesn't appear to apply to anyone else.
It applies to everyone except those who already act like slaves to him and
are convinced that he does exist.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Are you a slave to your parents because you know they exist?
That supposed comparison only applies in situations where children worship
and pray to their parents.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
So why does he seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he's not
discovered?
LOL! That idea is hilarious by itself, and the fact that you can't imagine
what sort of evidence there should be, where it should be, why it should be
wherever, and when it should have been or should be made available makes it even
more amusing.
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to leave evidence that you're
there -- it just happens naturally.
You only gave two not respectable naive suggestions both of which God would
obviously have to go out of his way to provide.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
LOL. They're certainly idiots in regards to the possibility of God's
existence, there's no doubt about that.
No,
Yes they certainly are, and you yourself are an excellent example of that
fact.
Post by Vincent Maycock
the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate),
Yet you're ashamed of your own faith.
Post by Vincent Maycock
while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
You can't even get to the starting line regarding a number of aspects of the
situation, including what evidence you think there should be. The two things you
suggested don't count because they're so idiotic and naive.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
No, it's not faith,
It sure is...LOL...but you can't even get to the starting line on that one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
but rather an evidenced-based claim about the world.
What verifiable evidence do you have that there's no God associated with
Earth?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
There's nothing shameful about asking for proof;
Then why did you keep trying to run away from yourself about it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
in fact I'll point
out right now that I'll accept proof as well as evidence. It just
happens to be true that I'm generous enough to also allow in just
*evidence*
No you're not. Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence.
Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All
prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people
have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't. Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth. The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
Anything you name can be claimed as evidence
of anything.
Why don't any of you tell that to your brothers and sisters who lie that
there's none?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Evidence is not proof. What proof was
sufficient to justify your belief?
My belief in what?
David Johnston
2015-07-04 05:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
No you're not. Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence.
Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All
prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people
have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't. Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth. The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
Anything you name can be claimed as evidence
of anything.
Why don't any of you tell that to your brothers and sisters who lie that
there's none?
"Evidence" that doesn't point in a particular direction isn't.
M.I.Wakefield
2015-07-04 13:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by mur
Why don't any of you tell that to your brothers and sisters who lie that
there's none?
"Evidence" that doesn't point in a particular direction isn't.
And everything is a "miracle" if you don't understand it, and don't care to
try to.
mur
2015-07-17 16:31:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 23:28:09 -0600, David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote:
.
Post by David Johnston
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
No you're not. Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence.
Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All
prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people
have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't. Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth. The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
Anything you name can be claimed as evidence
of anything.
Why don't any of you tell that to your brothers and sisters who lie that
there's none?
"Evidence" that doesn't point in a particular direction
Like what?
Vincent Maycock
2015-06-27 20:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a
thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it
over and over and over again?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."
I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come perform
tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care
about anyway.
That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible ("not caring about
people"), nor should the presence of "tricks" in God's appearances be
considered the active ingredient in the viability of this
evidence/proof for God's existence, nor should a sane God consider it
"beneath him" to perform tricks in his appearances on TV.
Post by mur
If he does exist and cared whether or not you believe it I have no
doubt he could persuade you to.
Right.
Post by mur
And if he exists and wanted everyone in general
to know about it, I have no doubt he could do that too.
True.
Post by mur
So if he does exist it
seems very obvious that he wants things to be as they are, and for that reason
doesn't provide the verifiable evidence you people keep naively whining for.
There's nothing that great about the way things are right now; an
omnipotent being should be able to change it for the better.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God
If it was Bigfoot-grade, with allegations of "hoax" swirling about it,
I would probably say the same thing, yes.
Post by mur
even though
you have no idea how it could be done much less why anyone would do it.
Why do you leave footprints in the snow when you go out? Or do you
carefully destroy all evidence that you were there, the way this
supposed God does?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
And you can think of no motivation for why he would behave this way.
I can think of a couple of reasons why he would. One would be that people
are already bothering him with prayers for things every second of every day, and
it would be a whole lot worse if people knew for a fact that he exists.
That shouldn't be a problem for an omnipotent God; and one would think
if he were struggling with a problem like this, *pretending to not
exist* would not be the most obvious solution or remedy.
Post by mur
Another
would be that people would have less freedom as individuals and would be more
like his slaves if they knew for a fact he exists.
Only trivially more slave-like. There shouldn't be a whole of
difference in terms of "slavishness" carried on by people who have
faith that God exists compared with those that know for a fact that
God exists.
Post by mur
Another would be to "trim the
herd" and sort out those who qualify to be "with him" in an afterlife and those
who don't.
And how would "pretending to not exist" accomplish this goal?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
I think it's more likely that SINCE there's no proof or "verifiable
evidence," for God's existence here on earth there is no such being
associated with our earth.
I consider that possibility as well but don't put faith in it being correct,
There's nothing similar to religious faith associated with rejecting
ideas for which there's no evidence.
Post by mur
and therefore consider other possibilities that involve more thinking and taking
more things into consideration.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to
believe in
Well, they believe it because they want to believe it, not because
there's evidence for God's existence. They want someone who cares for
them and provides them a way out of their inevitable mortality, so
that's partly why so many people make up the idea of a God or gods.
Post by mur
and never would have been. That's one of the most basic starting
lines you people can't get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
That doesn't appear to apply to anyone else.
It applies to everyone except those who already act like slaves to him and
are convinced that he does exist.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Are you a slave to your parents because you know they exist?
That supposed comparison only applies in situations where children worship
and pray to their parents.
Maybe they wouldn't have such trouble if their parents weren't so
limited and human; God is not thought to be like that, so he would
encounter none of the ridiculousness ... about revealing himself to
people directly making them feel more like slaves.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
So why does he seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he's not
discovered?
LOL! That idea is hilarious by itself, and the fact that you can't imagine
what sort of evidence there should be, where it should be, why it should be
wherever, and when it should have been or should be made available makes it even
more amusing.
I gave two examples: footprints in the snow (which you attempted to
attack by bringing in Bigfoot-grade stories), and God on the evening
news; and then there's the old atheist standby-by that I didn't
mention, regrowing the limbs of amputees.

It's not that difficult to come up with the kinds of evidence that you
get so confused about regarding God's existence.

Maybe if people could hear God talking audibly, that would work; or
if God were to physically hit (or strike with lightning) people who
mock him the way some of us atheists do.

Maybe if he appeared in a ball of light to atheist non-believers
everywhere. Maybe if you could have a decent conversation with God,
without getting the feeling that you're talking to your own imaginary
friend.

Maybe if God could tell you your password when you forget it on the
Internet. Maybe if God would eat some of your food when he visits
your house. Maybe if God would cook dinner for you sometimes.
Maybe if God took up space physically when he was nearby. Maybe if he
solved some equations for the progress of science.

Any or all of those "maybes" add up to what I would consider
evidence/proof for God.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to leave evidence that you're
there -- it just happens naturally.
You only gave two not respectable naive suggestions both of which God would
obviously have to go out of his way to provide.
It constitutes going out of his way to get filmed for the evening
news? Why would this be so difficult for him to do?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
LOL. They're certainly idiots in regards to the possibility of God's
existence, there's no doubt about that.
No,
Yes they certainly are, and you yourself are an excellent example of that
fact.
Post by Vincent Maycock
the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate),
Yet you're ashamed of your own faith.
I don't have faith, but I'm not ashamed of my *conclusion* about
whether or not God exists (which is that he does not, of course).
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
You can't even get to the starting line regarding a number of aspects of the
situation, including what evidence you think there should be. The two things you
suggested don't count because they're so idiotic and naive.
What was idiotic and naive about them?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
No, it's not faith,
It sure is...LOL...but you can't even get to the starting line on that one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
but rather an evidenced-based claim about the world.
What verifiable evidence do you have that there's no God associated with
Earth?
The inadequacy of the evidences you presented below. "No evidence
for" = "does not exist."
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
There's nothing shameful about asking for proof;
Then why did you keep trying to run away from yourself about it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
in fact I'll point
out right now that I'll accept proof as well as evidence. It just
happens to be true that I'm generous enough to also allow in just
*evidence*
No you're not. Life itself is evidence.
No, evolution explains life quite well without invoking God.
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
There are no genuinely accepted miracles; the Catholic Church just
claims there are.
Post by mur
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
In a book full of myths, legends, and fiction, sure -- probably
whatever "evidences" you found there are of the same caliber.
Post by mur
All saints are evidence.
The existence of "very good people" is not an indication that God
exists.
Post by mur
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
What, specifically, are atheists lying about?
Post by mur
All medical miracles are evidence.
There are no bona fide medical miracles.
Post by mur
All
prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Which goes to randomness when you consider the many prayers that do
*not* seem to have been answered.
Post by mur
Death experiences people
have and recover from are evidence.
Near-death experiences can be explained by physiological trauma that
the brain undergoes in near-death circumstances.
Post by mur
The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence.
Why would that be evidence for God's existence? The theory of
evolution works fine without any ideas about God in it.
Post by mur
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Studies show that AA is not particularly successful a program, when
compared with other similar programs.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't.
If God were to leave footprints in the snow or sand without
allegations of "hoax" circulating around the idea, then that would
make me suspect that God existed, and the idea of God being seen
flying around on the evening noon would also make me suspect this
(remember an omnipotent being should not find it difficult to get onto
the news, despite how difficult it is for mere humans to do so).
Post by mur
Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth.
The best conclusion is that there isn't any such God.
Post by mur
The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
That's reasonable. There's no reason to expect God to *try* to leave
evidence of his presence, but the point is -- in the real world --
things and people leave evidence without even trying, and God should
be no different.

(And remember you've been given a list of the kinds of evidence that
you always claim is never given to you by atheists -- so that your
what *kind* of evidence, *where this evidence should be,* WHY this
evidence should be there, etc. challenge has been thoroughly met.)
mur
2015-07-04 02:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a
thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it
over and over and over again?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."
I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come perform
tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care
about anyway.
That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible ("not caring about
people"),
My impression is that he doesn't care about some people. What makes you
think he cares about every one of them?
Post by Vincent Maycock
nor should the presence of "tricks" in God's appearances be
considered the active ingredient in the viability of this
evidence/proof for God's existence, nor should a sane God consider it
"beneath him" to perform tricks in his appearances on TV.
Post by mur
If he does exist and cared whether or not you believe it I have no
doubt he could persuade you to.
Right.
Post by mur
And if he exists and wanted everyone in general
to know about it, I have no doubt he could do that too.
True.
Post by mur
So if he does exist it
seems very obvious that he wants things to be as they are, and for that reason
doesn't provide the verifiable evidence you people keep naively whining for.
There's nothing that great about the way things are right now;
So you have faith that this is the worst body in our star system because the
conditions are greater on all the others. I don't, but if you can defend your
faith then please try to.
Post by Vincent Maycock
an
omnipotent being should be able to change it for the better.
I believe omnipotence is not possible. Why do you believe it is?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God
If it was Bigfoot-grade, with allegations of "hoax" swirling about it,
I would probably say the same thing, yes.
From your superior position how would instruct God to make his particular
"footprints" verifiable to you, so you could verify them to the rest of
humanity?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
even though
you have no idea how it could be done much less why anyone would do it.
Why do you leave footprints in the snow when you go out? Or do you
carefully destroy all evidence that you were there, the way this
supposed God does?
How do you know he walked in snow and when, where and why he did it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
And you can think of no motivation for why he would behave this way.
I can think of a couple of reasons why he would. One would be that people
are already bothering him with prayers for things every second of every day, and
it would be a whole lot worse if people knew for a fact that he exists.
That shouldn't be a problem for an omnipotent God;
What gives you faith that omnipotence is even possible and not a gross
exaggeration?
Post by Vincent Maycock
and one would think
if he were struggling with a problem like this, *pretending to not
exist* would not be the most obvious solution or remedy.
What gives you faith he's *pretending to not exist*?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Another
would be that people would have less freedom as individuals and would be more
like his slaves if they knew for a fact he exists.
Only trivially more slave-like.
You wouldn't have the freedom you have.
Post by Vincent Maycock
There shouldn't be a whole of
difference in terms of "slavishness" carried on by people who have
faith that God exists compared with those that know for a fact that
God exists.
What about those who have faith that God doesn't exist? And those "that know
for a fact that God" doesn't exist?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Another would be to "trim the
herd" and sort out those who qualify to be "with him" in an afterlife and those
who don't.
And how would "pretending to not exist" accomplish this goal?
You have yet to prove that God pretends "to not exist", even if "he" doesn't
exist at all.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
I think it's more likely that SINCE there's no proof or "verifiable
evidence," for God's existence here on earth there is no such being
associated with our earth.
I consider that possibility as well but don't put faith in it being correct,
There's nothing similar to religious faith associated with rejecting
ideas for which there's no evidence.
Why are you ashamed to admit your faith that there's no God associated with
Earth?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and therefore consider other possibilities that involve more thinking and taking
more things into consideration.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to
believe in
Well, they believe it because they want to believe it,
You believe what you want to believe as well.
Post by Vincent Maycock
not because
there's evidence for God's existence.
As yet you've provided no reason to put faith in that. Please try to.
Post by Vincent Maycock
They want someone who cares for
them and provides them a way out of their inevitable mortality, so
that's partly why so many people make up the idea of a God or gods.
Post by mur
and never would have been. That's one of the most basic starting
lines you people can't get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
That doesn't appear to apply to anyone else.
It applies to everyone except those who already act like slaves to him and
are convinced that he does exist.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Are you a slave to your parents because you know they exist?
That supposed comparison only applies in situations where children worship
and pray to their parents.
Maybe they wouldn't have such trouble if their parents weren't so
limited and human; God is not thought to be like that, so he would
encounter none of the ridiculousness ... about revealing himself to
people directly making them feel more like slaves.
How do you feel he should have been doing it all these thousands of years,
and when do you think he should have begun doing so? Do you think it should have
been done with every human who has ever lived? How do you think it should have
been in God's best interest to have done it your way instead of how he did it,
if he exists?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
So why does he seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he's not
discovered?
LOL! That idea is hilarious by itself, and the fact that you can't imagine
what sort of evidence there should be, where it should be, why it should be
wherever, and when it should have been or should be made available makes it even
more amusing.
I gave two examples: footprints in the snow (which you attempted to
attack by bringing in Bigfoot-grade stories), and God on the evening
news;
Both of which are childlike and naive at "best" and certainly in no way at
all respectable.
Post by Vincent Maycock
and then there's the old atheist standby-by that I didn't
mention, regrowing the limbs of amputees.
Which again is childlike and naive at "best" and no more respectable than
insisting he should regrow hair on bald people, make people rich, give people
nice cars or home, or any other thing any person decides to ask for.
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to come up with the kinds of evidence that you
get so confused about regarding God's existence.
It's impossible for any of you to come up with anything respectable, which
none of you have been able to do. Keep trying though. That challenge STILL goes
out to every one of you both as individuals and as a group.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if people could hear God talking audibly, that would work;
Hilarious!
Post by Vincent Maycock
or
if God were to physically hit (or strike with lightning) people who
mock him the way some of us atheists do.
My impression is that some of God's "opponents" have been killed, but if you
believe none have then try supporting the idea.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if he appeared in a ball of light to atheist non-believers
everywhere.
The possibility that he doesn't care enough about you people to do such a
thing is another basic starting line you can't get as "far" as. Why can't you?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if you could have a decent conversation with God,
without getting the feeling that you're talking to your own imaginary
friend.
Maybe if God could tell you your password when you forget it on the
Internet. Maybe if God would eat some of your food when he visits
your house.
Have you made such an effort?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if God would cook dinner for you sometimes.
Maybe if God took up space physically when he was nearby. Maybe if he
solved some equations for the progress of science.
Any or all of those "maybes" add up to what I would consider
evidence/proof for God.
One of the most basic starting lines you'll never be able to get as "far" as
is that he doesn't provide verifiable evidence/proof.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to leave evidence that you're
there -- it just happens naturally.
You only gave two not respectable naive suggestions both of which God would
obviously have to go out of his way to provide.
It constitutes going out of his way to get filmed for the evening
news? Why would this be so difficult for him to do?
For one thing it wouldn't have to be "so" difficult in order for it be going
out of his way, and for another you can't get as "far" as the basic starting
line I mentioned above. You people can't get anywhere at all with this. How
could you?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
LOL. They're certainly idiots in regards to the possibility of God's
existence, there's no doubt about that.
No,
Yes they certainly are, and you yourself are an excellent example of that
fact.
Post by Vincent Maycock
the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate),
Yet you're ashamed of your own faith.
I don't have faith, but I'm not ashamed of my *conclusion* about
whether or not God exists (which is that he does not, of course).
Then why should anyone else put faith in your guess/*conclusion* being
correct?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
You can't even get to the starting line regarding a number of aspects of the
situation, including what evidence you think there should be. The two things you
suggested don't count because they're so idiotic and naive.
What was idiotic and naive about them?
Because no one including you in all your magnificent authoritative position
on the topic could verify it for one thing, or anyone else either. And for
another: "One of the most basic starting lines you'll never be able to get as
"far" as is that he doesn't provide verifiable evidence/proof."
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
No, it's not faith,
It sure is...LOL...but you can't even get to the starting line on that one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
but rather an evidenced-based claim about the world.
What verifiable evidence do you have that there's no God associated with
Earth?
The inadequacy of the evidences you presented below. "No evidence
for" = "does not exist."
As yet I still have no reason to put faith in your *conclusion* being the
correct one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
There's nothing shameful about asking for proof;
Then why did you keep trying to run away from yourself about it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
in fact I'll point
out right now that I'll accept proof as well as evidence. It just
happens to be true that I'm generous enough to also allow in just
*evidence*
No you're not. Life itself is evidence.
No, evolution explains life quite well without invoking God.
Provide your proof.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
There are no genuinely accepted miracles; the Catholic Church just
claims there are.
Provide your proof against all of them.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
In a book full of myths, legends, and fiction, sure -- probably
whatever "evidences" you found there are of the same caliber.
Provide reason to put faith in the idea that it's nothing but lies.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All saints are evidence.
The existence of "very good people" is not an indication that God
exists.
There's more to it than that, which is another basic starting line you can't
get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
What, specifically, are atheists lying about?
That there's no evidence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All medical miracles are evidence.
There are no bona fide medical miracles.
Provide your proof.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All
prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Which goes to randomness when you consider the many prayers that do
*not* seem to have been answered.
No it doesn't, which is another basic starting line you can't get as "far"
as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Death experiences people
have and recover from are evidence.
Near-death experiences can be explained by physiological trauma that
the brain undergoes in near-death circumstances.
So far I don't have faith that there's nothing more to it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence.
Why would that be evidence for God's existence? The theory of
evolution works fine without any ideas about God in it.
So far I don't have faith in that either.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Studies show that AA is not particularly successful a program, when
compared with other similar programs.
The success associated with it is still evidence to me.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't.
If God were to leave footprints in the snow or sand without
allegations of "hoax" circulating around the idea,
How?
Post by Vincent Maycock
then that would
make me suspect that God existed, and the idea of God being seen
flying around on the evening noon would also make me suspect this
(remember an omnipotent being should not find it difficult to get onto
the news, despite how difficult it is for mere humans to do so).
Post by mur
Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth.
The best conclusion is that there isn't any such God.
You have faith in things I don't yet have reason to.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
That's reasonable. There's no reason to expect God to *try* to leave
evidence of his presence, but the point is -- in the real world --
things and people leave evidence without even trying, and God should
be no different.
The very idea is HILARIOUS!!!
Post by Vincent Maycock
(And remember you've been given a list of the kinds of evidence that
you always claim is never given to you by atheists --
Nothing the least bit respectable has yet been provided.
Post by Vincent Maycock
so that your
what *kind* of evidence, *where this evidence should be,* WHY this
evidence should be there, etc. challenge has been thoroughly met.)
Not by anything that isn't childlike and naive and not the least bit
respectable. The challenge remains for any of you to try to meet it with
anything less pathetic though. TRY!
Vincent Maycock
2015-07-05 00:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a
thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it
over and over and over again?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."
I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come perform
tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care
about anyway.
That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible ("not caring about
people"),
My impression is that he doesn't care about some people. What makes you
think he cares about every one of them?
It's standard Christian theology.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
nor should the presence of "tricks" in God's appearances be
considered the active ingredient in the viability of this
evidence/proof for God's existence, nor should a sane God consider it
"beneath him" to perform tricks in his appearances on TV.
Post by mur
If he does exist and cared whether or not you believe it I have no
doubt he could persuade you to.
Right.
Post by mur
And if he exists and wanted everyone in general
to know about it, I have no doubt he could do that too.
True.
Post by mur
So if he does exist it
seems very obvious that he wants things to be as they are, and for that reason
doesn't provide the verifiable evidence you people keep naively whining for.
There's nothing that great about the way things are right now;
So you have faith that this is the worst body in our star system because the
conditions are greater on all the others. I don't, but if you can defend your
faith then please try to.
False dichotomy. That our earth isn't the "best there is" doesn't
mean it's the worst.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
an
omnipotent being should be able to change it for the better.
I believe omnipotence is not possible. Why do you believe it is?
I don't believe in it, but I do think the concept is logically
coherent, if you construct logical worlds where A is not equal to
itself.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God
If it was Bigfoot-grade, with allegations of "hoax" swirling about it,
I would probably say the same thing, yes.
From your superior position how would instruct God to make his particular
"footprints" verifiable to you, so you could verify them to the rest of
humanity?
Get a news team out there as soon as possible, or maybe even allow us
to watch the footprints appear as he "walks beside us in a
relationship with him."
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
even though
you have no idea how it could be done much less why anyone would do it.
Why do you leave footprints in the snow when you go out? Or do you
carefully destroy all evidence that you were there, the way this
supposed God does?
How do you know he walked in snow and when, where and why he did it?
I don't think he's done any walking, because I don't believe he
exists. But if he wanted to make it evident that he existed, that
might be a way to do it.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
And you can think of no motivation for why he would behave this way.
I can think of a couple of reasons why he would. One would be that people
are already bothering him with prayers for things every second of every day, and
it would be a whole lot worse if people knew for a fact that he exists.
That shouldn't be a problem for an omnipotent God;
What gives you faith that omnipotence is even possible and not a gross
exaggeration?
If you don't believe in omnipotence, just substitute "extreme power"
in its place in my statements; it doesn't make that much of a
difference.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
and one would think
if he were struggling with a problem like this, *pretending to not
exist* would not be the most obvious solution or remedy.
What gives you faith he's *pretending to not exist*?
Because the natural state of affairs in reality is to leave evidence;
you have to work like a criminal and his fingerprints to get them
removed.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Another
would be that people would have less freedom as individuals and would be more
like his slaves if they knew for a fact he exists.
Only trivially more slave-like.
You wouldn't have the freedom you have.
That would be fine. It's more important to "know" than to falsely
believe you're free.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
There shouldn't be a whole of
difference in terms of "slavishness" carried on by people who have
faith that God exists compared with those that know for a fact that
God exists.
What about those who have faith that God doesn't exist? And those "that know
for a fact that God" doesn't exist?
What about them?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Another would be to "trim the
herd" and sort out those who qualify to be "with him" in an afterlife and those
who don't.
And how would "pretending to not exist" accomplish this goal?
You have yet to prove that God pretends "to not exist", even if "he" doesn't
exist at all.
He doesn't leave any evidence that he's there, and leaving evidence is
the most natural state of affairs for everything and everyone.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
I think it's more likely that SINCE there's no proof or "verifiable
evidence," for God's existence here on earth there is no such being
associated with our earth.
I consider that possibility as well but don't put faith in it being correct,
There's nothing similar to religious faith associated with rejecting
ideas for which there's no evidence.
Why are you ashamed to admit your faith that there's no God associated with
Earth?
I consider it a conclusion, not a form of faith.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and therefore consider other possibilities that involve more thinking and taking
more things into consideration.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to
believe in
Well, they believe it because they want to believe it,
You believe what you want to believe as well.
No, I personally don't care, one way or the other.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
not because
there's evidence for God's existence.
As yet you've provided no reason to put faith in that. Please try to.
Post by Vincent Maycock
They want someone who cares for
them and provides them a way out of their inevitable mortality, so
that's partly why so many people make up the idea of a God or gods.
Post by mur
and never would have been. That's one of the most basic starting
lines you people can't get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
That doesn't appear to apply to anyone else.
It applies to everyone except those who already act like slaves to him and
are convinced that he does exist.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Are you a slave to your parents because you know they exist?
That supposed comparison only applies in situations where children worship
and pray to their parents.
Maybe they wouldn't have such trouble if their parents weren't so
limited and human; God is not thought to be like that, so he would
encounter none of the ridiculousness ... about revealing himself to
people directly making them feel more like slaves.
How do you feel he should have been doing it all these thousands of years,
Whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Post by mur
and when do you think he should have begun doing so?
From the beginning.
Post by mur
Do you think it should have
been done with every human who has ever lived?
Probably should be, but abundant eye-witnesses testimony of the sort
that that this would generate might remove this requirement.
Post by mur
How do you think it should have
been in God's best interest to have done it your way instead of how he did it,
if he exists?
There would be fewer atheists, since atheists constantly mention "lack
of evidence for God's existence" as an explanation for their
non-belief.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
So why does he seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he's not
discovered?
LOL! That idea is hilarious by itself, and the fact that you can't imagine
what sort of evidence there should be, where it should be, why it should be
wherever, and when it should have been or should be made available makes it even
more amusing.
I gave two examples: footprints in the snow (which you attempted to
attack by bringing in Bigfoot-grade stories), and God on the evening
news;
Both of which are childlike and naive at "best" and certainly in no way at
all respectable.
Post by Vincent Maycock
and then there's the old atheist standby-by that I didn't
mention, regrowing the limbs of amputees.
Which again is childlike and naive at "best" and no more respectable than
insisting he should regrow hair on bald people,
Yes, he should do that.
Post by mur
make people rich,
Yes, he should do that as well.
Post by mur
give people
nice cars or home,
Exactly!
Post by mur
or any other thing any person decides to ask for.
What would be the point of withholding these things from people?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to come up with the kinds of evidence that you
get so confused about regarding God's existence.
It's impossible for any of you to come up with anything respectable, which
none of you have been able to do. Keep trying though. That challenge STILL goes
out to every one of you both as individuals and as a group.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if people could hear God talking audibly, that would work;
Hilarious!
What's hilarious about that?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
or
if God were to physically hit (or strike with lightning) people who
mock him the way some of us atheists do.
My impression is that some of God's "opponents" have been killed, but if you
believe none have then try supporting the idea.
Some have, but others have gone unpunished.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if he appeared in a ball of light to atheist non-believers
everywhere.
The possibility that he doesn't care enough about you people to do such a
thing is another basic starting line you can't get as "far" as. Why can't you?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if you could have a decent conversation with God,
without getting the feeling that you're talking to your own imaginary
friend.
Maybe if God could tell you your password when you forget it on the
Internet. Maybe if God would eat some of your food when he visits
your house.
Have you made such an effort?
Effort for what?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if God would cook dinner for you sometimes.
Maybe if God took up space physically when he was nearby. Maybe if he
solved some equations for the progress of science.
Any or all of those "maybes" add up to what I would consider
evidence/proof for God.
One of the most basic starting lines you'll never be able to get as "far" as
is that he doesn't provide verifiable evidence/proof.
And why would he have this rule of behavior?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to leave evidence that you're
there -- it just happens naturally.
You only gave two not respectable naive suggestions both of which God would
obviously have to go out of his way to provide.
It constitutes going out of his way to get filmed for the evening
news? Why would this be so difficult for him to do?
For one thing it wouldn't have to be "so" difficult in order for it be going
out of his way,
Why else would he fail to be filmed for the news?
Post by mur
and for another you can't get as "far" as the basic starting
line I mentioned above. You people can't get anywhere at all with this. How
could you?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Some people might just be mentally
unfit and that's how he filters them out.
And yet psychological studies show that atheists are smarter on the
average than theists.
LOL. They're certainly idiots in regards to the possibility of God's
existence, there's no doubt about that.
No,
Yes they certainly are, and you yourself are an excellent example of that
fact.
Post by Vincent Maycock
the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate),
Yet you're ashamed of your own faith.
I don't have faith, but I'm not ashamed of my *conclusion* about
whether or not God exists (which is that he does not, of course).
Then why should anyone else put faith in your guess/*conclusion* being
correct?
They shouldn't. I believe in reasoning rather than exercising faith,
and that's how I expect people to approach my arguments.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
You can't even get to the starting line regarding a number of aspects of the
situation, including what evidence you think there should be. The two things you
suggested don't count because they're so idiotic and naive.
What was idiotic and naive about them?
Because no one including you in all your magnificent authoritative position
on the topic could verify it for one thing,
What would prevent us from doing so?
Post by mur
or anyone else either. And for
another: "One of the most basic starting lines you'll never be able to get as
"far" as is that he doesn't provide verifiable evidence/proof."
It's kind of silly do things for no reason the way you've constructed
God to be doing here.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
No, it's not faith,
It sure is...LOL...but you can't even get to the starting line on that one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
but rather an evidenced-based claim about the world.
What verifiable evidence do you have that there's no God associated with
Earth?
The inadequacy of the evidences you presented below. "No evidence
for" = "does not exist."
As yet I still have no reason to put faith in your *conclusion* being the
correct one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
There's nothing shameful about asking for proof;
Then why did you keep trying to run away from yourself about it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
in fact I'll point
out right now that I'll accept proof as well as evidence. It just
happens to be true that I'm generous enough to also allow in just
*evidence*
No you're not. Life itself is evidence.
No, evolution explains life quite well without invoking God.
Provide your proof.
The mainstream scientific literature is devoid of reference to God as
an explanatory mechanism.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
There are no genuinely accepted miracles; the Catholic Church just
claims there are.
Provide your proof against all of them.
Lack of independent corroboration for the Church's very biased
decisions in these cases..
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
In a book full of myths, legends, and fiction, sure -- probably
whatever "evidences" you found there are of the same caliber.
Provide reason to put faith
No faith, please. *Only reasoning* is what's expected of you.
Post by mur
in the idea that it's nothing but lies.
Some parts of it are true. But an example of a myth in the Bible would
be the creation story; an example of a legend would be the stories
about King David; and an example of fiction/legend would be the Gospel
narratives, and an example of fiction would be the story of Jonah or
the Exodus.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All saints are evidence.
The existence of "very good people" is not an indication that God
exists.
There's more to it than that, which is another basic starting line you can't
get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
What, specifically, are atheists lying about?
That there's no evidence.
You think that too. You even have it as some kind of "starting
point," that God does leave evidence or proof. You should get your
story straight.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All medical miracles are evidence.
There are no bona fide medical miracles.
Provide your proof.
I've never seen one. If they existed, I probably would have heard
about them by now.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All
prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Which goes to randomness when you consider the many prayers that do
*not* seem to have been answered.
No it doesn't, which is another basic starting line you can't get as "far"
as.
Why would "some people having their prayers apparently answered, while
others don't" some kind of starting point?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Death experiences people
have and recover from are evidence.
Near-death experiences can be explained by physiological trauma that
the brain undergoes in near-death circumstances.
So far I don't have faith that there's nothing more to it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence.
Why would that be evidence for God's existence? The theory of
evolution works fine without any ideas about God in it.
So far I don't have faith in that either.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Studies show that AA is not particularly successful a program, when
compared with other similar programs.
The success associated with it is still evidence to me.
How so?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't.
If God were to leave footprints in the snow or sand without
allegations of "hoax" circulating around the idea,
How?
Not behaving in a suspicious manner when the discoverer of the
footprints is interviewed.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
then that would
make me suspect that God existed, and the idea of God being seen
flying around on the evening noon would also make me suspect this
(remember an omnipotent being should not find it difficult to get onto
the news, despite how difficult it is for mere humans to do so).
Post by mur
Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth.
The best conclusion is that there isn't any such God.
You have faith in things I don't yet have reason to.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
That's reasonable. There's no reason to expect God to *try* to leave
evidence of his presence, but the point is -- in the real world --
things and people leave evidence without even trying, and God should
be no different.
The very idea is HILARIOUS!!!
What's hilarious about the idea that "leaving evidence is a natural
state of affairs?"
mur
2015-07-17 16:31:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:04:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock <***@aol.com> wrote:
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a
thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it
over and over and over again?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."
I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come perform
tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care
about anyway.
That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible ("not caring about
people"),
My impression is that he doesn't care about some people. What makes you
think he cares about every one of them?
It's standard Christian theology.
In contrast to that some Christians believe God will send other Christians
to Hell. I heard people in Methodist and Baptist churches say Catholics aren't
Christians and will be sent to Hell. In a Church of God I heard a preacher tell
the congregation Mormons aren't Christian. I don't believe God would send his
own people to Hell, and maybe not even those of you who work against him but I
sure can't think of any good reason why he should care about people like you,
and things I've read in the Bible indicate that he doesn't. If you think he
should give a shit about you though, I'm sure it would be good fun to see you
try to explain why so please make an attempt.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
nor should the presence of "tricks" in God's appearances be
considered the active ingredient in the viability of this
evidence/proof for God's existence, nor should a sane God consider it
"beneath him" to perform tricks in his appearances on TV.
Post by mur
If he does exist and cared whether or not you believe it I have no
doubt he could persuade you to.
Right.
Post by mur
And if he exists and wanted everyone in general
to know about it, I have no doubt he could do that too.
True.
Post by mur
So if he does exist it
seems very obvious that he wants things to be as they are, and for that reason
doesn't provide the verifiable evidence you people keep naively whining for.
There's nothing that great about the way things are right now;
So you have faith that this is the worst body in our star system because the
conditions are greater on all the others. I don't, but if you can defend your
faith then please try to.
False dichotomy. That our earth isn't the "best there is" doesn't
mean it's the worst.
Where in our star system do you like to think things are better?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
an
omnipotent being should be able to change it for the better.
I believe omnipotence is not possible. Why do you believe it is?
I don't believe in it, but I do think the concept is logically
coherent, if you construct logical worlds where A is not equal to
itself.
Try doing it. So far it just sounds like more bullshit.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God
If it was Bigfoot-grade, with allegations of "hoax" swirling about it,
I would probably say the same thing, yes.
From your superior position how would instruct God to make his particular
"footprints" verifiable to you, so you could verify them to the rest of
humanity?
Get a news team out there as soon as possible, or maybe even allow us
to watch the footprints appear as he "walks beside us in a
relationship with him."
Why shouldn't he have done something similar in the past and not need to do
it again? There's also the basic starting line none of you can get as far as,
which is that at this point in time he's not going to provide proof of his
existence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
even though
you have no idea how it could be done much less why anyone would do it.
Why do you leave footprints in the snow when you go out? Or do you
carefully destroy all evidence that you were there, the way this
supposed God does?
How do you know he walked in snow and when, where and why he did it?
I don't think he's done any walking, because I don't believe he
exists. But if he wanted to make it evident that he existed, that
might be a way to do it.
What if you could get to the starting line I mentioned above? You can't
though, none of you can, so I guess we'll never no "what if" any of you ever
could.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
On TV?
How you would verify?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
WHY you think it should be available to humans,
Because everything that's a part of the real world makes its evidence
available to us. It's just insane to think about the myriads of
things that *could exist* but leave no trace of themselves anywhere or
any time.
Yet you have no idea what type or where God should have left this evidence
you can't even imagine but you still have great faith that something SHOULD BE
somewhere for some reason.
That's not faith;
It certainly is. Why you're ashamed of it is what's in question, not the
faith itself.
Post by Vincent Maycock
that's just a generalization of the way the world
seems to work -- things which exist seem to provide evidence for
themselves. If no evidence turns up, we discard the existence of the
entity from serious consideration.
You're not mentally capable of giving it serious consideration. The most
easy and basic starting line of this aspect is the FACT that if there is a God
associated with Earth, he doesn't want to provide proof or "verifiable evidence"
of his existence for his own reasons.
And you can think of no motivation for why he would behave this way.
I can think of a couple of reasons why he would. One would be that people
are already bothering him with prayers for things every second of every day, and
it would be a whole lot worse if people knew for a fact that he exists.
That shouldn't be a problem for an omnipotent God;
What gives you faith that omnipotence is even possible and not a gross
exaggeration?
If you don't believe in omnipotence, just substitute "extreme power"
in its place in my statements; it doesn't make that much of a
difference.
It makes a huge difference, so we'll count that as another basic starting
line you can't get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
and one would think
if he were struggling with a problem like this, *pretending to not
exist* would not be the most obvious solution or remedy.
What gives you faith he's *pretending to not exist*?
Because the natural state of affairs in reality is to leave evidence;
you have to work like a criminal and his fingerprints to get them
removed.
Yet the "evidence" you suggested would be something he would not only have
to leave deliberately but also with a news crew to record him doing it, and of
course he would have to alert them that he was going to in advance as well.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Another
would be that people would have less freedom as individuals and would be more
like his slaves if they knew for a fact he exists.
Only trivially more slave-like.
You wouldn't have the freedom you have.
That would be fine. It's more important to "know" than to falsely
believe you're free.
Explain how you feel that you're not free.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
There shouldn't be a whole of
difference in terms of "slavishness" carried on by people who have
faith that God exists compared with those that know for a fact that
God exists.
What about those who have faith that God doesn't exist? And those "that know
for a fact that God" doesn't exist?
What about them?
I asked you.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Another would be to "trim the
herd" and sort out those who qualify to be "with him" in an afterlife and those
who don't.
And how would "pretending to not exist" accomplish this goal?
You have yet to prove that God pretends "to not exist", even if "he" doesn't
exist at all.
He doesn't leave any evidence that he's there,
So far I still have no reason at all to put faith in that. I might be able
to develop faith that you believe there's none, but that's as far as I could go
with it at this point.
Post by Vincent Maycock
and leaving evidence is
the most natural state of affairs for everything and everyone.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
I think it's more likely that SINCE there's no proof or "verifiable
evidence," for God's existence here on earth there is no such being
associated with our earth.
I consider that possibility as well but don't put faith in it being correct,
There's nothing similar to religious faith associated with rejecting
ideas for which there's no evidence.
Why are you ashamed to admit your faith that there's no God associated with
Earth?
I consider it a conclusion, not a form of faith.
So you have no faith that your conclusion is correct, right?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and therefore consider other possibilities that involve more thinking and taking
more things into consideration.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
You're drifting there; I asked for evidence, not proof.
Post by mur
you atheists keep begging for is whatever reasons he has for not giving
everyone proof.
You mean evidence.
Why are you ashamed to call it proof?
Proof, evidence, whatever you want to call it -- it's *all lacking.*
If there truly was no evidence at all there would be nothing for anyone to
believe in
Well, they believe it because they want to believe it,
You believe what you want to believe as well.
No, I personally don't care, one way or the other.
So you don't believe anything regarding the possibility?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
not because
there's evidence for God's existence.
As yet you've provided no reason to put faith in that. Please try to.
Post by Vincent Maycock
They want someone who cares for
them and provides them a way out of their inevitable mortality, so
that's partly why so many people make up the idea of a God or gods.
Post by mur
and never would have been. That's one of the most basic starting
lines you people can't get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One reason for not doing so would be so we have more freedom of
thought,
It would seem to be a waste of such freedom of thought to spend it
trying to figure out whether the most important figure in your beliefs
does not does not exist.
It would make us more like slaves if we knew for certain that he does exist.
That doesn't appear to apply to anyone else.
It applies to everyone except those who already act like slaves to him and
are convinced that he does exist.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Are you a slave to your parents because you know they exist?
That supposed comparison only applies in situations where children worship
and pray to their parents.
Maybe they wouldn't have such trouble if their parents weren't so
limited and human; God is not thought to be like that, so he would
encounter none of the ridiculousness ... about revealing himself to
people directly making them feel more like slaves.
How do you feel he should have been doing it all these thousands of years,
Whenever the opportunity presents itself.
That's hilarious.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and when do you think he should have begun doing so?
From the beginning.
Do you think he should devote he entire existence to it? Again I remind you
of one of the basic starting lines you can't get as "far" as...
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Do you think it should have
been done with every human who has ever lived?
Probably should be,
That would involve a lot of time. Do you think that's the only thing he
should do with his existence? If not, what more do you think he should do other
than be at the beck and call of every person who ever lives?
Post by Vincent Maycock
but abundant eye-witnesses testimony of the sort
that that this would generate might remove this requirement.
Again I remind you of one of the basic starting lines you can't get as "far"
as...
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
How do you think it should have
been in God's best interest to have done it your way instead of how he did it,
if he exists?
There would be fewer atheists, since atheists constantly mention "lack
of evidence for God's existence" as an explanation for their
non-belief.
Another basic starting line you can't get as "far" as is the obvious fact
that if God exists he doesn't care what atheists think. Not providing proof of
his existence seems like a good way of weeding some people out....people who are
more influenced by other things. One of the basic starting lines you can't get
as far as is to admit there is evidence, but you don't happen to find it
persuasive. Insted you lie that none exists which to me IS evidence of God's
existence by being evidence of Satan's existence by being evidence of influence
over human minds. Your inability to get as "far" as the starting lines I point
out for you IS evidence of God' and Satan's existence to me. Something does
prevent you. What is it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
It would also make a big difference HOW he let us know of his existence, but the
first point would be significant regardless of how he went about it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and if that results in some people not qualifying for a nice afterlife
that's probably even better from his pov.
No, in Christian theology at least, God *wants* us to believe he's
there.
It's very obvious that if God does exist, he doesn't care if everyone
believes he does.
So why does he seem to be bending over backwards to make sure he's not
discovered?
LOL! That idea is hilarious by itself, and the fact that you can't imagine
what sort of evidence there should be, where it should be, why it should be
wherever, and when it should have been or should be made available makes it even
more amusing.
I gave two examples: footprints in the snow (which you attempted to
attack by bringing in Bigfoot-grade stories), and God on the evening
news;
Both of which are childlike and naive at "best" and certainly in no way at
all respectable.
Post by Vincent Maycock
and then there's the old atheist standby-by that I didn't
mention, regrowing the limbs of amputees.
Which again is childlike and naive at "best" and no more respectable than
insisting he should regrow hair on bald people,
Yes, he should do that.
Post by mur
make people rich,
Yes, he should do that as well.
Post by mur
give people
nice cars or home,
Exactly!
Post by mur
or any other thing any person decides to ask for.
What would be the point of withholding these things from people?
LOL....so you feel he should spend his entire existence giving every person
everything they ask for. HILARIOUS. Of course in order to do that he would have
to draw on resources beyond this particular planet in order to satisfy everyone,
and that seems like the way he "should" do things in your mind. Right? It
doesn't seem childlike and naive to expect such a thing but instead seems like a
realistic idea to you, correct?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to come up with the kinds of evidence that you
get so confused about regarding God's existence.
It's impossible for any of you to come up with anything respectable, which
none of you have been able to do. Keep trying though. That challenge STILL goes
out to every one of you both as individuals and as a group.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if people could hear God talking audibly, that would work;
Hilarious!
What's hilarious about that?
How many of the people who claim they have or do, do you believe?
. . .
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate),
Yet you're ashamed of your own faith.
I don't have faith, but I'm not ashamed of my *conclusion* about
whether or not God exists (which is that he does not, of course).
Then why should anyone else put faith in your guess/*conclusion* being
correct?
They shouldn't. I believe in reasoning rather than exercising faith,
and that's how I expect people to approach my arguments.
I consider the possibility that there's no God associated with this planet.
I also consider more than that one possibility.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
You can't even get to the starting line regarding a number of aspects of the
situation, including what evidence you think there should be. The two things you
suggested don't count because they're so idiotic and naive.
What was idiotic and naive about them?
Because no one including you in all your magnificent authoritative position
on the topic could verify it for one thing,
What would prevent us from doing so?
How would you do it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
or anyone else either. And for
another: "One of the most basic starting lines you'll never be able to get as
"far" as is that he doesn't provide verifiable evidence/proof."
It's kind of silly do things for no reason the way you've constructed
God to be doing here.
Not if he does want to weed some people out. If he does then it makes
perfect sense to do things the way they're being done. For example if he doesn't
want people who will demand that he give them every thing they pray for when
they get to the next life if there is one, then it makes perfect sense for him
to weed them out so they never get there.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
NO ONE can know that God doesn't
exist,
I think it's safe to say God does not exist, philosophically speaking.
Yet you're no doubt ashamed of your faith that your guess is correct.
No, it's not faith,
It sure is...LOL...but you can't even get to the starting line on that one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
but rather an evidenced-based claim about the world.
What verifiable evidence do you have that there's no God associated with
Earth?
The inadequacy of the evidences you presented below. "No evidence
for" = "does not exist."
As yet I still have no reason to put faith in your *conclusion* being the
correct one.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
but if there is a God associated with this planet we ALL know he doesn't
provide proof of it.
You mean evidence. You keep drifting away into something I never
asked for.
Because you're ashamed of what you really are asking for. The only thing in
question about that is WHY you're so ashamed.
There's nothing shameful about asking for proof;
Then why did you keep trying to run away from yourself about it?
Post by Vincent Maycock
in fact I'll point
out right now that I'll accept proof as well as evidence. It just
happens to be true that I'm generous enough to also allow in just
*evidence*
No you're not. Life itself is evidence.
No, evolution explains life quite well without invoking God.
Provide your proof.
The mainstream scientific literature is devoid of reference to God as
an explanatory mechanism.
Humans haven't been able to produce it themselves showing that they don't
know how it came about, and even if they are eventually able to it might still
REMAIN evidence of God's existence, depending on what it takes for them to be
able to produce it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
There are no genuinely accepted miracles; the Catholic Church just
claims there are.
Provide your proof against all of them.
Lack of independent corroboration for the Church's very biased
decisions in these cases..
There's nothing convincing about that.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
In a book full of myths, legends, and fiction, sure -- probably
whatever "evidences" you found there are of the same caliber.
Provide reason to put faith
No faith, please. *Only reasoning* is what's expected of you.
Post by mur
in the idea that it's nothing but lies.
Some parts of it are true. But an example of a myth in the Bible would
be the creation story; an example of a legend would be the stories
about King David; and an example of fiction/legend would be the Gospel
narratives, and an example of fiction would be the story of Jonah or
the Exodus.
Unless it's our interpretation of such things that's incorrect or/and
exaggerated and there's an aspect of truth to all of them.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All saints are evidence.
The existence of "very good people" is not an indication that God
exists.
There's more to it than that, which is another basic starting line you can't
get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
What, specifically, are atheists lying about?
That there's no evidence.
You think that too. You even have it as some kind of "starting
point," that God does leave evidence or proof. You should get your
story straight.
I point out that he doesn't leave "verifiable" evidence of his existenc but
also that if there was no evidence at all there would be nothing to believe in,
both of which are basic starting lines. You should try to get that "far".
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All medical miracles are evidence.
There are no bona fide medical miracles.
Provide your proof.
I've never seen one. If they existed, I probably would have heard
about them by now.
YOUR proof would be that there are none, not that they do exist. A quick
Google search brings up plenty of them. Your task would be to show that none of
them are actual miracles, which of course you couldn't even begin to attempt.
All you have is your own faith that there never has been one, and there never
will be. It's amusing just describing the position you're in.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All
prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Which goes to randomness when you consider the many prayers that do
*not* seem to have been answered.
No it doesn't, which is another basic starting line you can't get as "far"
as.
Why would "some people having their prayers apparently answered, while
others don't" some kind of starting point?
Because people don't get everything they ask other humans to do, or animals
to do, so there's no reason to expect to get everything they ask God to do
either.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Death experiences people
have and recover from are evidence.
Near-death experiences can be explained by physiological trauma that
the brain undergoes in near-death circumstances.
So far I don't have faith that there's nothing more to it.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence.
Why would that be evidence for God's existence? The theory of
evolution works fine without any ideas about God in it.
So far I don't have faith in that either.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Studies show that AA is not particularly successful a program, when
compared with other similar programs.
The success associated with it is still evidence to me.
How so?
Because they stress the importance of help from a "higher power".
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't.
If God were to leave footprints in the snow or sand without
allegations of "hoax" circulating around the idea,
How?
Not behaving in a suspicious manner when the discoverer of the
footprints is interviewed.
The claim itself would automatically generate plenty of allegations of hoax
regardless of how the discoverer behaved.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
then that would
make me suspect that God existed, and the idea of God being seen
flying around on the evening noon would also make me suspect this
(remember an omnipotent being should not find it difficult to get onto
the news, despite how difficult it is for mere humans to do so).
Post by mur
Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth.
The best conclusion is that there isn't any such God.
You have faith in things I don't yet have reason to.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
That's reasonable. There's no reason to expect God to *try* to leave
evidence of his presence, but the point is -- in the real world --
things and people leave evidence without even trying, and God should
be no different.
The very idea is HILARIOUS!!!
What's hilarious about the idea that "leaving evidence is a natural
state of affairs?"
There's certainly no reason to believe he would have ever left footprints in
sand or snow, much less that if he ever did they would still be visible at this
point in time, not that there's any way anyone could ever have recognised them
as being God's footprints if he ever did leave any. And there's no reason to
believe he would "leave" video news footage of himself anywhere. Those are your
only suggestions and neither would be any type of "a natural state of affairs",
or even in the least bit realistic to expect. As you tried to disprove my
original point you instead provided more proof of it being correct. The only
things in question are whether or not you're aware of what you've done, and if
you're not how you could be unaware of it.
Mitchell Holman
2015-07-17 19:14:04 UTC
Permalink
wrote: .
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
There are no bona fide medical miracles.
Provide your proof.
I've never seen one. If they existed, I probably would have heard
about them by now.
YOUR proof would be that there are none, not that they do exist. A quick
Google search brings up plenty of them. Your task would be to show
that none of them are actual miracles, which of course you couldn't
even begin to attempt.
You believe divine miracles have happened,
that makes it YOUR burden to provide proof of
them.
mur
2015-07-22 04:41:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:14:04 -0500, Mitchell Holman wussed horribly:
.
Post by Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
There are no bona fide medical miracles.
Provide your proof.
I've never seen one. If they existed, I probably would have heard
about them by now.
YOUR proof would be that there are none, not that they do exist. A quick
Google search brings up plenty of them. Your task would be to show
that none of them are actual miracles, which of course you couldn't
even begin to attempt.
You believe divine miracles have happened,
that makes it YOUR burden to provide proof of
them.
Those who believe there's always a different reason have no less burden of
proof to provide THEIR explanation. They just are totally incapable of making
any attempt to support their belief.
Vincent Maycock
2015-07-17 21:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a
thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it
over and over and over again?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."
I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come perform
tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care
about anyway.
That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible ("not caring about
people"),
My impression is that he doesn't care about some people. What makes you
think he cares about every one of them?
It's standard Christian theology.
In contrast to that some Christians believe God will send other Christians
to Hell. I heard people in Methodist and Baptist churches say Catholics aren't
Christians and will be sent to Hell. In a Church of God I heard a preacher tell
the congregation Mormons aren't Christian. I don't believe God would send his
own people to Hell, and maybe not even those of you who work against him but I
sure can't think of any good reason why he should care about people like you,
and things I've read in the Bible indicate that he doesn't. If you think he
should give a shit about you though, I'm sure it would be good fun to see you
try to explain why so please make an attempt.
In standard Christian theology, God cares about the lost but has other
things to contend with that prevent him from helping them.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
an
omnipotent being should be able to change it for the better.
I believe omnipotence is not possible. Why do you believe it is?
I don't believe in it, but I do think the concept is logically
coherent, if you construct logical worlds where A is not equal to
itself.
Try doing it. So far it just sounds like more bullshit.
This comes from the "rock so big you can't use it" paradox, which
reduces to the question of can God cause A and (not A) to be true at
the same time.

So if we assume he can, then the resolution to the conundrum would be
that God simultaneously can and can't lift the rock; in this idea, he
exists in a superposition of states like those found in quantum
mechanics.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God
If it was Bigfoot-grade, with allegations of "hoax" swirling about it,
I would probably say the same thing, yes.
From your superior position how would instruct God to make his particular
"footprints" verifiable to you, so you could verify them to the rest of
humanity?
Get a news team out there as soon as possible, or maybe even allow us
to watch the footprints appear as he "walks beside us in a
relationship with him."
Why shouldn't he have done something similar in the past and not need to do
it again?
There's nothing in theology that restricts God to doing things only
once.
Post by mur
There's also the basic starting line none of you can get as far as,
which is that at this point in time he's not going to provide proof of his
existence.
Someone who refuses to provide evidence for his existence effectively
does not exist.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
That shouldn't be a problem for an omnipotent God;
What gives you faith that omnipotence is even possible and not a gross
exaggeration?
If you don't believe in omnipotence, just substitute "extreme power"
in its place in my statements; it doesn't make that much of a
difference.
It makes a huge difference, so we'll count that as another basic starting
line you can't get as "far" as.
We can put "constraints on God's power" by noting what he *hasn't
done.*

He's too weak to save children from being raped and abused, for
example.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
and one would think
if he were struggling with a problem like this, *pretending to not
exist* would not be the most obvious solution or remedy.
What gives you faith he's *pretending to not exist*?
Because the natural state of affairs in reality is to leave evidence;
you have to work like a criminal and his fingerprints to get them
removed.
Yet the "evidence" you suggested would be something he would not only have
to leave deliberately but also with a news crew to record him doing it, and of
course he would have to alert them that he was going to in advance as well.
Which doesn't seem to be a problem even for people who I assume you
think are a lot weaker than God, (even if God is not thought to be
omnipotent in your view).

It's just not that difficult to get into the news, so God should be
able to do it.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Why are you ashamed to admit your faith that there's no God associated with
Earth?
I consider it a conclusion, not a form of faith.
So you have no faith that your conclusion is correct, right?
No faith, just good reason.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe they wouldn't have such trouble if their parents weren't so
limited and human; God is not thought to be like that, so he would
encounter none of the ridiculousness ... about revealing himself to
people directly making them feel more like slaves.
How do you feel he should have been doing it all these thousands of years,
Whenever the opportunity presents itself.
That's hilarious.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and when do you think he should have begun doing so?
From the beginning.
Do you think he should devote he entire existence to it? Again I remind you
of one of the basic starting lines you can't get as "far" as...
False dichotomy; spending some time does not necessarily equate to
"all the time."
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Do you think it should have
been done with every human who has ever lived?
Probably should be,
That would involve a lot of time.
I may have been assuming you thought God was omnipotent, but since
you've made it clear that you don't think God is omnipotent, he could
use some of the powers that he does have (I mean, you must think he
has *some* powers that are greater than humans') to reveal himself to
as many people as possible (not necessarily everyone on earth, as in
the omnipotent-God case, but at least *a lot of people* would have
direct personal experience on their iPhones and whatnot of God's
existence).
Post by mur
Do you think that's the only thing he
should do with his existence? If not, what more do you think he should do other
than be at the beck and call of every person who ever lives?
It's not that difficult, mur.

Maybe he could charge for it, as "God's existence" is something of
interest to almost everyone on earth.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
but abundant eye-witnesses testimony of the sort
that that this would generate might remove this requirement.
Again I remind you of one of the basic starting lines you can't get as "far"
as...
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
How do you think it should have
been in God's best interest to have done it your way instead of how he did it,
if he exists?
There would be fewer atheists, since atheists constantly mention "lack
of evidence for God's existence" as an explanation for their
non-belief.
Another basic starting line you can't get as "far" as is the obvious fact
that if God exists he doesn't care what atheists think.
In standard Christian theology, he cares about everyone and their
salvation.
Post by mur
Not providing proof of
his existence seems like a good way of weeding some people out....people who are
more influenced by other things.
LOL! There's no such thing as what you're grasping at there.
Post by mur
One of the basic starting lines you can't get
as far as is to admit there is evidence, but you don't happen to find it
persuasive.
There is evidence, but *no rational person* should find it persuasive.

There are different grades or qualities of evidence, and I don't think
it should be necessary to repeat "no good evidence," since that seems
to almost insult peoples' intelligence.

*Of course it's no "good" evidence that I'm talking about.*

No one wants junk "evidence" to support their ideas about God, so the
former is the kind of evidence I refer to when I talk about these
things.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
and then there's the old atheist standby-by that I didn't
mention, regrowing the limbs of amputees.
Which again is childlike and naive at "best" and no more respectable than
insisting he should regrow hair on bald people,
Yes, he should do that.
Post by mur
make people rich,
Yes, he should do that as well.
Post by mur
give people
nice cars or home,
Exactly!
Post by mur
or any other thing any person decides to ask for.
What would be the point of withholding these things from people?
LOL....so you feel he should spend his entire existence giving every person
everything they ask for.
Just how weak is your God? You don't have to be omnipotent -- just
very powerful -- in order to do this for people: new car and some
spending cash shouldn't be that difficult for any God worth his salt.
Post by mur
HILARIOUS. Of course in order to do that he would have
to draw on resources beyond this particular planet in order to satisfy everyone,
and that seems like the way he "should" do things in your mind. Right? It
doesn't seem childlike and naive to expect such a thing but instead seems like a
realistic idea to you, correct?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to come up with the kinds of evidence that you
get so confused about regarding God's existence.
It's impossible for any of you to come up with anything respectable, which
none of you have been able to do. Keep trying though. That challenge STILL goes
out to every one of you both as individuals and as a group.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if people could hear God talking audibly, that would work;
Hilarious!
What's hilarious about that?
How many of the people who claim they have or do, do you believe?
None, because the sources are not reputable.

We want someone from a *reputable source*

(and like I said, this really should have gone without saying)

telling us about how God spoke to them audibly, preferably with
multiple witnesses or an iPhone video to back it up.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate),
Yet you're ashamed of your own faith.
I don't have faith, but I'm not ashamed of my *conclusion* about
whether or not God exists (which is that he does not, of course).
Then why should anyone else put faith in your guess/*conclusion* being
correct?
They shouldn't. I believe in reasoning rather than exercising faith,
and that's how I expect people to approach my arguments.
I consider the possibility that there's no God associated with this planet.
True; now you're making progress.

And really you should go one step further and concede that there's no
God associated with *any other planet* as well, since there's no
evidence for him there, either.
Post by mur
I also consider more than that one possibility.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
You can't even get to the starting line regarding a number of aspects of the
situation, including what evidence you think there should be. The two things you
suggested don't count because they're so idiotic and naive.
What was idiotic and naive about them?
Because no one including you in all your magnificent authoritative position
on the topic could verify it for one thing,
What would prevent us from doing so?
How would you do it?
The same way anything else in life is verified; just go out there and
see if what's claimed to happen really happened.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
or anyone else either. And for
another: "One of the most basic starting lines you'll never be able to get as
"far" as is that he doesn't provide verifiable evidence/proof."
It's kind of silly do things for no reason the way you've constructed
God to be doing here.
Not if he does want to weed some people out. If he does then it makes
perfect sense to do things the way they're being done.
No, it still makes no sense; your "perfect sense" idea seems to
represent more your own psychological wish that the idea made some
sense at all.
Post by mur
For example if he doesn't
want people who will demand that he give them every thing they pray for when
they get to the next life if there is one, then it makes perfect sense for him
to weed them out so they never get there.
No, people don't get spoiled that easily.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
No faith, please. *Only reasoning* is what's expected of you.
Post by mur
in the idea that it's nothing but lies.
Some parts of it are true. But an example of a myth in the Bible would
be the creation story; an example of a legend would be the stories
about King David; and an example of fiction/legend would be the Gospel
narratives, and an example of fiction would be the story of Jonah or
the Exodus.
Unless it's our interpretation of such things that's incorrect or/and
exaggerated and there's an aspect of truth to all of them.
No, they have the properties of myth, legend, and fiction. It's not
our interpretation of them that's the problem -- it's the "false"
nature, empirically, of the stories that's the problem.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
All medical miracles are evidence.
There are no bona fide medical miracles.
Provide your proof.
I've never seen one. If they existed, I probably would have heard
about them by now.
YOUR proof would be that there are none, not that they do exist. A quick
Google search brings up plenty of them. Yo
It should be understood by rational, honest readers that I mean
*reputable* evidence, not "what some guy on the Internet said."

But if you think you've got "something from the Internet" that
constitutes a real miracle, by all means trot it out and I'll debunk
it for you.

snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Studies show that AA is not particularly successful a program, when
compared with other similar programs.
The success associated with it is still evidence to me.
How so?
Because they stress the importance of help from a "higher power".
And how do you know that's the active ingredient in AA's success?
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
as something that would make me suspect that God existed.
The two things you mentioned wouldn't.
If God were to leave footprints in the snow or sand without
allegations of "hoax" circulating around the idea,
How?
Not behaving in a suspicious manner when the discoverer of the
footprints is interviewed.
The claim itself would automatically generate plenty of allegations of hoax
regardless of how the discoverer behaved.
It might, but when the dust settles, the cries of "hoax" would settle
down as well.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
then that would
make me suspect that God existed, and the idea of God being seen
flying around on the evening noon would also make me suspect this
(remember an omnipotent being should not find it difficult to get onto
the news, despite how difficult it is for mere humans to do so).
Post by mur
Two things I know for sure. One is
that there might be a God associated with Earth.
The best conclusion is that there isn't any such God.
You have faith in things I don't yet have reason to.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
The other is that he doesn't
care whether individual people believe there is or not in some if not most
cases.
That's reasonable. There's no reason to expect God to *try* to leave
evidence of his presence, but the point is -- in the real world --
things and people leave evidence without even trying, and God should
be no different.
The very idea is HILARIOUS!!!
What's hilarious about the idea that "leaving evidence is a natural
state of affairs?"
There's certainly no reason to believe he would have ever left footprints in
sand or snow,
And why wouldn't he?
Post by mur
much less that if he ever did they would still be visible at this
point in time, not that there's any way anyone could ever have recognised them
as being God's footprints if he ever did leave any. And there's no reason to
believe he would "leave" video news footage of himself anywhere.
Most people think it would be kind of cool to be on the news; it's
plausible that God would behave in similar manner.

Maybe he could appear on Facebook or something. God with an email
address, that sort of thing.

snip
talishi
2015-07-18 00:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe he could appear on Facebook or something. God with an email
address, that sort of thing.
But then somebody would send him spam promising God to make his dick bigger.
duke
2015-07-19 14:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by talishi
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe he could appear on Facebook or something. God with an email
address, that sort of thing.
But then somebody would send him spam promising God to make his dick bigger.
Oops, she/he/it just entered the slime box.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2015-07-19 14:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincent Maycock
In standard Christian theology, God cares about the lost but has other
things to contend with that prevent him from helping them.
Haahaahaa. Vince, that's the most stupid comment I've ever had the misfortune
to witness.
Post by Vincent Maycock
So if we assume he can, then the resolution to the conundrum would be
that God simultaneously can and can't lift the rock; in this idea, he
exists in a superposition of states like those found in quantum
mechanics.
Why should the creator of the universe be unable to lift the heaviest rock?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Vincent Maycock
2015-07-19 18:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
In standard Christian theology, God cares about the lost but has other
things to contend with that prevent him from helping them.
Haahaahaa. Vince, that's the most stupid comment I've ever had the misfortune
to witness.
No, Christians do it all the time; "God had to do this because ..." or
"the only we way could truly have free will is if God ..." etc., etc.
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
So if we assume he can, then the resolution to the conundrum would be
that God simultaneously can and can't lift the rock; in this idea, he
exists in a superposition of states like those found in quantum
mechanics.
Why should the creator of the universe be unable to lift the heaviest rock?
No, it's not "the heaviest rock."

The conundrum goes: "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?"
If he succeeds at making the rock, then "being able to lift it" is
something he can't do, which means he's not omnipotent.

But if you claim God isn't powerful enough to make such a giant rock,
with its accompanying omnipotence problems, that would *also* be a
limitation of his omnipotence (not being able to make very large
rocks).

So if God wanted to make this rock by violating the laws of logic, he
just needs to create a situation where he has both the properties of
someone who can't lift some heavy rock (lots of sweat and struggling,
to no avail) *and* someone who can lift the rock.

Going into a mixture of outcomes like this, in my view, gives the idea
of omnipotence some measure of logical consistency.
duke
2015-07-20 22:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
In standard Christian theology, God cares about the lost but has other
things to contend with that prevent him from helping them.
Haahaahaa. Vince, that's the most stupid comment I've ever had the misfortune
to witness.
No, Christians do it all the time; "God had to do this because ..." or
"the only we way could truly have free will is if God ..." etc., etc.
And your massive error suggests God is too busy. Haahaahaa.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
So if we assume he can, then the resolution to the conundrum would be
that God simultaneously can and can't lift the rock; in this idea, he
exists in a superposition of states like those found in quantum
mechanics.
Why should the creator of the universe be unable to lift the heaviest rock?
No, it's not "the heaviest rock."
The conundrum goes: "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?"
If he succeeds at making the rock, then "being able to lift it" is
something he can't do, which means he's not omnipotent.
The conundrum makes the wild assumption of error that "God can't lift it".
Post by Vincent Maycock
But if you claim God isn't powerful enough to make such a giant rock,
with its accompanying omnipotence problems, that would *also* be a
limitation of his omnipotence (not being able to make very large
rocks).
So if God wanted to make this rock by violating the laws of logic, he
just needs to create a situation where he has both the properties of
someone who can't lift some heavy rock (lots of sweat and struggling,
to no avail) *and* someone who can lift the rock.
Going into a mixture of outcomes like this, in my view, gives the idea
of omnipotence some measure of logical consistency.
You forget - God created the rock.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
M.I.Wakefield
2015-07-20 22:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
You forget - God created the rock.
There are no gods.

All you've got is a corrupt church that condoned child rape.


mur
2015-07-22 04:41:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:51:19 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <***@present.com> wrote:
.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by duke
You forget - God created the rock.
There are no gods.
Nowhere in the entire universe? How would you like people to think you could
possibly have found that out?
Vincent Maycock
2015-07-20 23:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
In standard Christian theology, God cares about the lost but has other
things to contend with that prevent him from helping them.
Haahaahaa. Vince, that's the most stupid comment I've ever had the misfortune
to witness.
No, Christians do it all the time; "God had to do this because ..." or
"the only we way could truly have free will is if God ..." etc., etc.
And your massive error suggests God is too busy. Haahaahaa.
The things that get in the way did not include "things that take up
his time," idiot.
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
So if we assume he can, then the resolution to the conundrum would be
that God simultaneously can and can't lift the rock; in this idea, he
exists in a superposition of states like those found in quantum
mechanics.
Why should the creator of the universe be unable to lift the heaviest rock?
No, it's not "the heaviest rock."
The conundrum goes: "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?"
If he succeeds at making the rock, then "being able to lift it" is
something he can't do, which means he's not omnipotent.
The conundrum makes the wild assumption of error that "God can't lift it".
No, it's not an assumption; it's part of a conundrum that goes "either
way, you lose."

So in other words, let's say that you claim God can't lift the rock.
Then is he too weak to create a rock he can't lift?

Think about it, and maybe after awhile you'll get it.
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
But if you claim God isn't powerful enough to make such a giant rock,
with its accompanying omnipotence problems, that would *also* be a
limitation of his omnipotence (not being able to make very large
rocks).
So if God wanted to make this rock by violating the laws of logic, he
just needs to create a situation where he has both the properties of
someone who can't lift some heavy rock (lots of sweat and struggling,
to no avail) *and* someone who can lift the rock.
Going into a mixture of outcomes like this, in my view, gives the idea
of omnipotence some measure of logical consistency.
You forget - God created the rock.
What an idiotic non sequitur of a comment.
mur
2015-07-22 04:41:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:01:33 -0400, Vincent Maycock <***@aol.com> wrote:
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
In standard Christian theology, God cares about the lost but has other
things to contend with that prevent him from helping them.
Haahaahaa. Vince, that's the most stupid comment I've ever had the misfortune
to witness.
No, Christians do it all the time; "God had to do this because ..." or
"the only we way could truly have free will is if God ..." etc., etc.
And your massive error suggests God is too busy. Haahaahaa.
The things that get in the way did not include "things that take up
his time,"
LOL! Hilarious!!!
Post by Vincent Maycock
idiot.
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
So if we assume he can, then the resolution to the conundrum would be
that God simultaneously can and can't lift the rock; in this idea, he
exists in a superposition of states like those found in quantum
mechanics.
Why should the creator of the universe be unable to lift the heaviest rock?
No, it's not "the heaviest rock."
The conundrum goes: "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?"
If he succeeds at making the rock, then "being able to lift it" is
something he can't do, which means he's not omnipotent.
The conundrum makes the wild assumption of error that "God can't lift it".
No, it's not an assumption; it's part of a conundrum that goes "either
way, you lose."
So in other words, let's say that you claim God can't lift the rock.
Then is he too weak to create a rock he can't lift?
Think about it, and maybe after awhile you'll get it.
Omnipotence is not possible, but you obviously still don't "get it."
talishi
2015-07-21 00:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
You forget - God created the rock.
It's so easy to forget Bronze Age myths.
mur
2015-07-22 04:41:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:52:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock <***@aol.com> wrote:
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
In standard Christian theology, God cares about the lost but has other
things to contend with that prevent him from helping them.
Haahaahaa. Vince, that's the most stupid comment I've ever had the misfortune
to witness.
No, Christians do it all the time; "God had to do this because ..." or
"the only we way could truly have free will is if God ..." etc., etc.
Post by duke
Post by Vincent Maycock
So if we assume he can, then the resolution to the conundrum would be
that God simultaneously can and can't lift the rock; in this idea, he
exists in a superposition of states like those found in quantum
mechanics.
Why should the creator of the universe be unable to lift the heaviest rock?
No, it's not "the heaviest rock."
The conundrum goes: "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?"
If he succeeds at making the rock, then "being able to lift it" is
something he can't do, which means he's not omnipotent.
But if you claim God isn't powerful enough to make such a giant rock,
with its accompanying omnipotence problems, that would *also* be a
limitation of his omnipotence (not being able to make very large
rocks).
So if God wanted to make this rock by violating the laws of logic, he
just needs to create a situation where he has both the properties of
someone who can't lift some heavy rock (lots of sweat and struggling,
to no avail) *and* someone who can lift the rock.
Going into a mixture of outcomes like this, in my view, gives the idea
of omnipotence some measure of logical consistency.
You live in your own universe of make believe then.

mur
2015-07-22 04:41:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:12:10 -0400, Vincent Maycock <***@aol.com> wrote:
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence
Any kind.
You have no idea.
Footprints in the sand or snow?
And you would of course be called on personally to verify that they were
made by God, since you're such an authority. Tell us all how you would know they
were the real thing?
I don't know; but remember, mur I'm not looking for "proof" here, just
evidence. If people were always saying, "Oh, hey, look there's some
footprints in the snow again; probably God just made those footprints,
since I was just talking to him in prayer, and he said he was nearby."
Post by mur
Tell us also how you know he didn't already leave
footprints a thousand years ago, or do other less pathetic things to show of his
existence.
He might have, but let's stay with what we can see and experience
rather than made-up ideas that go "how do we know ...??" and so on.
Why shouldn't he feel that the footprints and other evidence he left a
thousand years ago were good enough that he doesn't have to keep providing it
over and over and over again?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
A video-tape of God on the evening news?
Being an authority on this tell us how you would also verify the
authenticity of a video "tape", and what you imagine should be on it. What sort
of sound track? What sort of narration?
I'm thinking David Muir from ABC World News would say something like
"And in other news today, God was seen flying through the sky and
walking on water."
I would consider that to be good evidence, and possibly even proof,
depending on the circumstances, that God exists.
From my pov he would feel justified to think he doesn't need to come perform
tricks like that in an attempt to persuade people he apparently doesn't care
about anyway.
That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible ("not caring about
people"),
My impression is that he doesn't care about some people. What makes you
think he cares about every one of them?
It's standard Christian theology.
In contrast to that some Christians believe God will send other Christians
to Hell. I heard people in Methodist and Baptist churches say Catholics aren't
Christians and will be sent to Hell. In a Church of God I heard a preacher tell
the congregation Mormons aren't Christian. I don't believe God would send his
own people to Hell, and maybe not even those of you who work against him but I
sure can't think of any good reason why he should care about people like you,
and things I've read in the Bible indicate that he doesn't. If you think he
should give a shit about you though, I'm sure it would be good fun to see you
try to explain why so please make an attempt.
In standard Christian theology, God cares about the lost but has other
things to contend with that prevent him from helping them.
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
an
omnipotent being should be able to change it for the better.
I believe omnipotence is not possible. Why do you believe it is?
I don't believe in it, but I do think the concept is logically
coherent, if you construct logical worlds where A is not equal to
itself.
Try doing it. So far it just sounds like more bullshit.
This comes from the "rock so big you can't use it" paradox, which
reduces to the question of can God cause A and (not A) to be true at
the same time.
So if we assume he can,
I don't. You do.
Post by Vincent Maycock
then the resolution to the conundrum would be
that God simultaneously can and can't lift the rock;
You live in your own universe of make believe.
Post by Vincent Maycock
in this idea, he
exists in a superposition of states like those found in quantum
mechanics.
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
you think there should be, WHERE you
think it should be,
Anywhere.
You have no idea.
In the snow or sand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints
These animal tracks are scarcely different in quality from the
evidence for Bigfoot, what with all the questions indicating that it's
a hoax combined with the kind of tracks left by hopping wood mice.
You would no doubt say something similar about footprints of God
If it was Bigfoot-grade, with allegations of "hoax" swirling about it,
I would probably say the same thing, yes.
From your superior position how would instruct God to make his particular
"footprints" verifiable to you, so you could verify them to the rest of
humanity?
Get a news team out there as soon as possible, or maybe even allow us
to watch the footprints appear as he "walks beside us in a
relationship with him."
Why shouldn't he have done something similar in the past and not need to do
it again?
There's nothing in theology that restricts God to doing things only
once.
So if God does exist you feel that YOU should be able to arrange his
schedule. HILARIOUS!!!
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
There's also the basic starting line none of you can get as far as,
which is that at this point in time he's not going to provide proof of his
existence.
Someone who refuses to provide evidence for his existence effectively
does not exist.
If he does exist he's obviously good with the idea that people like you
believe he does not. That is one thing we can accept as fact.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
That shouldn't be a problem for an omnipotent God;
What gives you faith that omnipotence is even possible and not a gross
exaggeration?
If you don't believe in omnipotence, just substitute "extreme power"
in its place in my statements; it doesn't make that much of a
difference.
It makes a huge difference, so we'll count that as another basic starting
line you can't get as "far" as.
We can put "constraints on God's power" by noting what he *hasn't
done.*
You can in your make believe universe, but I don't have faith in it being
reality.
Post by Vincent Maycock
He's too weak to save children from being raped and abused, for
example.
I can't put faith in that as you do, so I consider other possibilities.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
and one would think
if he were struggling with a problem like this, *pretending to not
exist* would not be the most obvious solution or remedy.
What gives you faith he's *pretending to not exist*?
Because the natural state of affairs in reality is to leave evidence;
you have to work like a criminal and his fingerprints to get them
removed.
Yet the "evidence" you suggested would be something he would not only have
to leave deliberately but also with a news crew to record him doing it, and of
course he would have to alert them that he was going to in advance as well.
Which doesn't seem to be a problem even for people who I assume you
think are a lot weaker than God, (even if God is not thought to be
omnipotent in your view).
It's just not that difficult to get into the news, so God should be
able to do it.
If he exists I have no doubt that he could do it and probably has done it.
Even so I have long ago gotten to the starting line you can't get to, which is
that he's OBVIOUSLY not going to provide proof of his existence. You are so very
VERY much like the stupid little child who keeps asking "are we there yet" when
OBVIOUSLY we are not.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Why are you ashamed to admit your faith that there's no God associated with
Earth?
I consider it a conclusion, not a form of faith.
So you have no faith that your conclusion is correct, right?
No
You certainly act like you do.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe they wouldn't have such trouble if their parents weren't so
limited and human; God is not thought to be like that, so he would
encounter none of the ridiculousness ... about revealing himself to
people directly making them feel more like slaves.
How do you feel he should have been doing it all these thousands of years,
Whenever the opportunity presents itself.
That's hilarious.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
and when do you think he should have begun doing so?
From the beginning.
Do you think he should devote he entire existence to it? Again I remind you
of one of the basic starting lines you can't get as "far" as...
False dichotomy; spending some time does not necessarily equate to
"all the time."
In your universe of make believe, how much time do you think you should be
able to assign God to do the things you think he should be doing, and how much
free time to do as he wants to do? How do you decide for him?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Do you think it should have
been done with every human who has ever lived?
Probably should be,
That would involve a lot of time.
I may have been assuming you thought God was omnipotent, but since
you've made it clear that you don't think God is omnipotent, he could
use some of the powers that he does have (I mean, you must think he
has *some* powers that are greater than humans') to reveal himself to
as many people as possible (not necessarily everyone on earth, as in
the omnipotent-God case, but at least *a lot of people* would have
direct personal experience on their iPhones and whatnot of God's
existence).
Post by mur
Do you think that's the only thing he
should do with his existence? If not, what more do you think he should do other
than be at the beck and call of every person who ever lives?
It's not that difficult, mur.
Maybe he could charge for it, as "God's existence" is something of
interest to almost everyone on earth.
You are incapable of getting as "far" as the easy basic starting line that
he's OBVIOUSLY not going to provide proof of his existence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
but abundant eye-witnesses testimony of the sort
that that this would generate might remove this requirement.
Again I remind you of one of the basic starting lines you can't get as "far"
as...
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
How do you think it should have
been in God's best interest to have done it your way instead of how he did it,
if he exists?
There would be fewer atheists, since atheists constantly mention "lack
of evidence for God's existence" as an explanation for their
non-belief.
Another basic starting line you can't get as "far" as is the obvious fact
that if God exists he doesn't care what atheists think.
In standard Christian theology, he cares about everyone and their
salvation.
Post by mur
Not providing proof of
his existence seems like a good way of weeding some people out....people who are
more influenced by other things.
LOL! There's no such thing as what you're grasping at there.
If Satan does exist I have much confidence that's what he wants you to
believe, making you evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan's
existenc. That's another basic starting line you can't get as "far" as.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
One of the basic starting lines you can't get
as far as is to admit there is evidence, but you don't happen to find it
persuasive.
There is evidence, but *no rational person* should find it persuasive.
I certainly don't share your faith in that.
Post by Vincent Maycock
There are different grades or qualities of evidence, and I don't think
it should be necessary to repeat "no good evidence," since that seems
to almost insult peoples' intelligence.
*Of course it's no "good" evidence that I'm talking about.*
No one wants junk "evidence" to support their ideas about God, so the
former is the kind of evidence I refer to when I talk about these
things.
All you have are your own guesses as to what's "junk" and what isn't, and
your own faith--which you are ashamed of--that your guesses are correct.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
and then there's the old atheist standby-by that I didn't
mention, regrowing the limbs of amputees.
Which again is childlike and naive at "best" and no more respectable than
insisting he should regrow hair on bald people,
Yes, he should do that.
Post by mur
make people rich,
Yes, he should do that as well.
Post by mur
give people
nice cars or home,
Exactly!
Post by mur
or any other thing any person decides to ask for.
What would be the point of withholding these things from people?
LOL....so you feel he should spend his entire existence giving every person
everything they ask for.
Just how weak is your God? You don't have to be omnipotent -- just
very powerful -- in order to do this for people: new car and some
spending cash shouldn't be that difficult for any God worth his salt.
I have no faith in your guess being correct. I can certainly understand why
he would NOT want people like you in an afterlife he's involved with though,
constantly demanding that he give you every single thing you want every time you
ask for it...LOL...again just describing your position is hilarious!!! The right
person could make a fortune traveling around the country "preaching" about the
hilarious idiocies of you people, with congregations of people rolling in the
floors laughing their asses off...
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
HILARIOUS. Of course in order to do that he would have
to draw on resources beyond this particular planet in order to satisfy everyone,
and that seems like the way he "should" do things in your mind. Right? It
doesn't seem childlike and naive to expect such a thing but instead seems like a
realistic idea to you, correct?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
It's not that difficult to come up with the kinds of evidence that you
get so confused about regarding God's existence.
It's impossible for any of you to come up with anything respectable, which
none of you have been able to do. Keep trying though. That challenge STILL goes
out to every one of you both as individuals and as a group.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe if people could hear God talking audibly, that would work;
Hilarious!
What's hilarious about that?
How would he produce the sound waves, for one thing?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
How many of the people who claim they have or do, do you believe?
None, because the sources are not reputable.
We want someone from a *reputable source*
(and like I said, this really should have gone without saying)
telling us about how God spoke to them audibly, preferably with
multiple witnesses or an iPhone video to back it up.
You are incapable of getting as "far" as the easy basic starting line that
he's OBVIOUSLY not going to provide proof of his existence.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
the atheists seem to be thinking clearly, more or less (with
caveats to their usual weak atheism, rather than the strong atheism
that seems more appropriate),
Yet you're ashamed of your own faith.
I don't have faith, but I'm not ashamed of my *conclusion* about
whether or not God exists (which is that he does not, of course).
Then why should anyone else put faith in your guess/*conclusion* being
correct?
They shouldn't. I believe in reasoning rather than exercising faith,
and that's how I expect people to approach my arguments.
I consider the possibility that there's no God associated with this planet.
True; now you're making progress.
I've been beyond where you are for decades.
Post by Vincent Maycock
And really you should go one step further and concede that there's no
God associated with *any other planet* as well, since there's no
evidence for him there, either.
Hilarious!!! How do you like to think you could possibly have found out
there's no evidence?
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
I also consider more than that one possibility.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
while the theists are even dumber when
talking about religion than when talking about other subjects.
You can't even get to the starting line regarding a number of aspects of the
situation, including what evidence you think there should be. The two things you
suggested don't count because they're so idiotic and naive.
What was idiotic and naive about them?
Because no one including you in all your magnificent authoritative position
on the topic could verify it for one thing,
What would prevent us from doing so?
How would you do it?
The same way anything else in life is verified; just go out there and
see if what's claimed to happen really happened.
There's no way you could know if it was real or fake which is yet ANOTHER
basic starting line you can't get as "far" as. You can't get as "far" as the
starting line with your own ideas.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
or anyone else either. And for
another: "One of the most basic starting lines you'll never be able to get as
"far" as is that he doesn't provide verifiable evidence/proof."
It's kind of silly do things for no reason the way you've constructed
God to be doing here.
Not if he does want to weed some people out. If he does then it makes
perfect sense to do things the way they're being done.
No, it still makes no sense; your "perfect sense" idea seems to
represent more your own psychological wish that the idea made some
sense at all.
If he doesn't want people demanding he give them everything they ask for
whenever they ask for it, and demanding the he do what they want him to do
whenever they tell him to, then it make perfect sense that he weed out people
like you. That's another VERY EASY basic starting line you can't get as "far" as
regarding YOUR OWN ideas.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
For example if he doesn't
want people who will demand that he give them every thing they pray for when
they get to the next life if there is one, then it makes perfect sense for him
to weed them out so they never get there.
No, people don't get spoiled that easily.
LOL!!! You already ARE that spoiled in THIS life, and again just describing
your position is hilarious. The congregation would be pissing themselves with
laugher...even the little children.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
No faith, please. *Only reasoning* is what's expected of you.
Post by mur
in the idea that it's nothing but lies.
Some parts of it are true. But an example of a myth in the Bible would
be the creation story; an example of a legend would be the stories
about King David; and an example of fiction/legend would be the Gospel
narratives, and an example of fiction would be the story of Jonah or
the Exodus.
Unless it's our interpretation of such things that's incorrect or/and
exaggerated and there's an aspect of truth to all of them.
No, they have the properties of myth, legend, and fiction. It's not
our interpretation of them that's the problem -- it's the "false"
nature, empirically, of the stories that's the problem.
As yet I have no reason to put faith in your guess being correct so I'll
continue considering other possiblities.
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
much less that if he ever did they would still be visible at this
point in time, not that there's any way anyone could ever have recognised them
as being God's footprints if he ever did leave any. And there's no reason to
believe he would "leave" video news footage of himself anywhere.
Most people think it would be kind of cool to be on the news; it's
plausible that God would behave in similar manner.
You are incapable of getting as "far" as the easy basic starting line that
he's OBVIOUSLY not going to provide proof of his existence. I don't believe you
would have any "argument" at all if you were able to get as "far" as that one
basic starting line, and again just describing your position is hilarious.
Post by Vincent Maycock
Maybe he could appear on Facebook or something. God with an email
address, that sort of thing.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=email+god
Post by Vincent Maycock
snip
Post by mur
Post by Vincent Maycock
Post by mur
That's reasonable. There's no reason to expect God to *try* to leave
evidence of his presence, but the point is -- in the real world --
things and people leave evidence without even trying, and God should
be no different.
The very idea is HILARIOUS!!!
What's hilarious about the idea that "leaving evidence is a natural
state of affairs?"
There's certainly no reason to believe he would have ever left footprints in
sand or snow, much less that if he ever did they would still be visible at this
point in time, not that there's any way anyone could ever have recognised them
as being God's footprints if he ever did leave any. And there's no reason to
believe he would "leave" video news footage of himself anywhere. Those are your
only suggestions and neither would be any type of "a natural state of affairs",
or even in the least bit realistic to expect. As you tried to disprove my
original point you instead provided more proof of it being correct. The only
things in question are whether or not you're aware of what you've done, and if
you're not how you could be unaware of it.
mur
2015-04-17 20:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since if there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe in, so the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to be lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand evidence and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be imagining some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be some and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are moronic about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think it should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they think he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable reply to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God should appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place and time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they re-grow on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they unable to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're not even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof. Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever been able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it. That on top of the facts I pointed
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to believe in.
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence, but there is no proof. That's a basic starting line, none
of you have ever been able to get as "far" as.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-04-18 11:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since if there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe in, so the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to be lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand evidence and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be imagining some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be some and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are moronic about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think it should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they think he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable reply to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God should appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place and time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they re-grow on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they unable to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're not even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof.
Since I in no way meant proof, what do I have to be ashamed of.
Post by mur
Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever been able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it.
We have nothing to be ashamed of.
Post by mur
That on top of the facts I pointed
What "facts"?
Post by mur
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence? List each piece of evidence, along with citations to
support each, right here:

1.


2.


3
Post by mur
but there is no proof.
There's no such thing as a "proof" in science. Proof is a mathematics
concept.
Post by mur
That's a basic starting line,
none
of you have ever been able to get as "far" as.
What the fuck are you talking about?
--
JD

Je suis Charlie.
mur
2015-04-30 00:07:40 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since if there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe in, so the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to be lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand evidence and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be imagining some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be some and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are moronic about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think it should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they think he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable reply to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God should appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place and time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they re-grow on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they unable to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're not even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof.
Since I in no way meant proof, what do I have to be ashamed of.
What would you like people to believe is the difference between what you
demand and proof?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever been able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it.
We have nothing to be ashamed of.
You're ashamed of your own belief that there's no God associated with Earth.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
That on top of the facts I pointed
What "facts"?
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable reply to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists lying
about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and recover
from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-04-30 04:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New
World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since
if
there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe in,
so
the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to be lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand evidence and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be imagining some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be
some
and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are moronic about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think it should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they
think
he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable
reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God should appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place and time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they
re-grow
on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they
unable
to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're not even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof.
Since I in no way meant proof, what do I have to be ashamed of.
What would you like people to believe is the difference between what you
demand and proof?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever been able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it.
We have nothing to be ashamed of.
You're ashamed of your own belief that there's no God associated with Earth.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That on top of the facts I pointed
What "facts"?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable
reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to
believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists lying
about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and recover
from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Explain how each of those things you mention is evidence of the
existence of any god.
--
JD

Je suis Charlie.
Tim
2015-04-30 11:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New
World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since
if
there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe
in, so
the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to
be
lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand
evidence
and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be
imagining
some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be
some
and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are
moronic
about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think
it
should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they
think
he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable
reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what
they
think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God
should
appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place
and
time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they
re-grow
on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they
unable
to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're
not
even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof.
Since I in no way meant proof, what do I have to be ashamed of.
What would you like people to believe is the difference between what you
demand and proof?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever
been
able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it.
We have nothing to be ashamed of.
You're ashamed of your own belief that there's no God associated with Earth.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That on top of the facts I pointed
What "facts"?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable
reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what
they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to
believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former will
eagerly take advantage of that fact.
Post by mur
All saints are evidence.
that people just get more gullible.
Post by mur
Atheists lying
about it are evidence.
that theists hate when they are confronted by facts.
Post by mur
All medical miracles are evidence.
that theists are desperate.
Post by mur
All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence.
And what of those prayers that don't seem to have been answered?
Post by mur
Death experiences people have and recover
from are evidence.
that those people were not dead.
Post by mur
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
that the Bible is wrong.
Malte Runz
2015-04-30 12:58:53 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence.
And what of those prayers that don't seem to have been answered?
You said it yourself. They only "seem" to have been unanswered. It's up to
the atheists to prove that they were not answered, but they are too ashamed
to admit that they don't believe in prayers... or something like that.

(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Tim
2015-04-30 20:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence.
And what of those prayers that don't seem to have been answered?
You said it yourself. They only "seem" to have been unanswered. It's up to
the atheists to prove that they were not answered,
No it isn't, the onus is on the person making the positive claim. And you
have no evidence for that claim.
Post by Malte Runz
but they are too ashamed to admit that they don't believe in prayers... or
something like that.
No, they're too intelligent to be duped into believing in bull-shit.
Malte Runz
2015-04-30 23:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence.
And what of those prayers that don't seem to have been answered?
You said it yourself. They only "seem" to have been unanswered. It's up
to the atheists to prove that they were not answered,
No it isn't, the onus is on the person making the positive claim. And you
have no evidence for that claim.
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was being sarcastic. It's my
mur-impression. He's an idiot. One of a handful in my kill file.
Post by Tim
Post by Malte Runz
but they are too ashamed to admit that they don't believe in prayers...
or something like that.
No, they're too intelligent to be duped into believing in bull-shit.
Of course, but do you think mur knows this or not?
--
Malte Runz
mur
2015-05-09 02:03:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 May 2015 01:49:48 +0200, Chicken wrote:
.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tim
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence.
And what of those prayers that don't seem to have been answered?
You said it yourself. They only "seem" to have been unanswered. It's up
to the atheists to prove that they were not answered,
No it isn't, the onus is on the person making the positive claim. And you
have no evidence for that claim.
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was being sarcastic. It's my
mur-impression. He's an idiot. One of a handful in my kill file.
Another thing that caused you to cowardly run away was the challenge for you
to try to explain what you thought you were trying to talk about when you
claimed:

"I showed an example of evidence that proves god does not exist." - Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Tim
Post by Malte Runz
but they are too ashamed to admit that they don't believe in prayers...
or something like that.
No, they're too intelligent to be duped into believing in bull-shit.
Of course, but do you think mur knows this or not?
I know atheist faith that God does not exist is in no way superior to people
having faith that he does, and also that none of you can even pretend it is.
mur
2015-05-09 02:03:36 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:58:53 +0200, Chicken Runz wrote:
.
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence.
And what of those prayers that don't seem to have been answered?
You said it yourself. They only "seem" to have been unanswered. It's up to
the atheists to prove that they were not answered, but they are too ashamed
to admit that they don't believe in prayers...
Most are too ashamed to admit they believe God doesn't exist.
Post by Malte Runz
or something like that.
One reason you ran away from me is because you're ashamed to try to explain
how you disagree with yourself about the following like I kept challenging you
to try to do:

"Aaaaarrrrghhhhh! I have written, at least ten times, in various posts, that
I believe it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures in the
universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to us. The
idea is not new to me. Why the hell do you claim that I believe the exact
opposite?" - Malte Runz

"the utter lack of evidence is enough for me to believe that there are no gods.
Anywhere, anywhen." - Malte Runz
k***@baawa.com
2015-05-09 02:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
"Aaaaarrrrghhhhh! I have written, at least ten times, in various posts, that
I believe it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures in the
universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to us. The
idea is not new to me. Why the hell do you claim that I believe the exact
opposite?" - Malte Runz
The Fermi Paradox
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

Warlord Steve
BAAWA
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 08 May 2015 19:34:49 -0700, ***@baawa.com wrote:
.
Post by k***@baawa.com
Post by mur
"Aaaaarrrrghhhhh! I have written, at least ten times, in various posts, that
I believe it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures in the
universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to us. The
idea is not new to me. Why the hell do you claim that I believe the exact
opposite?" - Malte Runz
The Fermi Paradox
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
I didn't see anything there to encourage faith in the idea that there's no
God associated with this planet, or that there's no God associated with anything
anywhere as atheists spend time encouraging people to believe.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-05-09 07:38:00 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New
World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to
explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since
if
there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe
in, so
the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to
be
lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand
evidence
and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be
imagining
some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really
demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be
some
and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are
moronic
about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think
it
should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they
think
he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable
reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what
they
think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God
should
appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place
and
time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did
re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they
re-grow
on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they
unable
to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're
not
even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof.
Since I in no way meant proof, what do I have to be ashamed of.
What would you like people to believe is the difference between what you
demand and proof?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever
been
able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it.
We have nothing to be ashamed of.
You're ashamed of your own belief that there's no God associated with Earth.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That on top of the facts I pointed
What "facts"?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable
reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what
they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to
believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's not people
don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any faith in.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former will
eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain from what
they wrote down?
Power and money.
--
JD

Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:08:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New
World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there
are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to
explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a
respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since
if
there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe
in, so
the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to
be
lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their
cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand
evidence
and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be
imagining
some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really
demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be
some
and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they
thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are
moronic
about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think
it
should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they
think
he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable
reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what
they
think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God
should
appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place
and
time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did
re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they
re-grow
on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they
unable
to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're
not
even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof.
Since I in no way meant proof, what do I have to be ashamed of.
What would you like people to believe is the difference between what you
demand and proof?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever
been
able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it.
We have nothing to be ashamed of.
You're ashamed of your own belief that there's no God associated with Earth.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That on top of the facts I pointed
What "facts"?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable
reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what
they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to
believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's not people
don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any faith in.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former will
eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain from what
they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
Mitchell Holman
2015-05-23 12:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain from what
they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
You don't think the priest class in every
ancient society had power?
Christopher A. Lee
2015-05-23 13:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain from what
they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
You don't think the priest class in every
ancient society had power?
Even kings did what they said, because of the power their religion
gave them.
mur
2015-05-30 00:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain from what
they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
You don't think the priest class in every
ancient society had power?
I was referring to the New Testament authors but neglected to say so. You
truly believe they got rich and powerful by telling lies about a being who never
existed at all to people who could have checked on it and found out, and who
could have turned them in to be killed when they found out they were making it
all up?
Mitchell Holman
2015-05-30 02:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain from what
they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
You don't think the priest class in every
ancient society had power?
I was referring to the New Testament authors but neglected to say so. You
truly believe they got rich and powerful by telling lies about a being
who never existed at all to people who could have checked on it and
found out, and who could have turned them in to be killed when they
found out they were making it all up?
Are you kidding? OF COURSE priests got rich and
powerful by telling lies. Remember the wealth the
Church got by selling indulgences? Who do you think
invented tithing? Where do you think the money came
from to build all those Catherals and monastaries?
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:07:40 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain from what
they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
You don't think the priest class in every
ancient society had power?
I was referring to the New Testament authors but neglected to say so. You
truly believe they got rich and powerful by telling lies about a being
who never existed at all to people who could have checked on it and
found out, and who could have turned them in to be killed when they
found out they were making it all up?
Are you kidding?
I'm challenging you in order to find out if you have any clue at all what
you think you're trying to talk about. So far it appears not.
Post by Mitchell Holman
OF COURSE priests got rich and
powerful by telling lies. Remember the wealth the
Church got by selling indulgences? Who do you think
invented tithing? Where do you think the money came
from to build all those Catherals and monastaries?
And still it appears you have no idea why you think the original authors of
the New Testament wrote what they wrote. You can't even pretend you do. You're
trying to "teach" me something you have no idea at all about.
raven1
2015-05-30 11:17:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:44:30 -0400, mur wrote:

Speaking of questions, how did you get out of my killfile?

<re-plonk>

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
Jim Burns
2015-05-23 16:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:18:05 -0400,
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and
the former will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to
gain from what they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
If you'd ever actually read the Bible, you would have found that
King Josiah ordered a renovation of the Temple in early 7th
century BCE, and that they "found" another scroll of the law
(what was to be the core of Deuteronomy) which pretty much
supported Josiah in the reforms he was instituting, down the line.
Pretty interesting "coincidence".

Another interesting "coincidence" is that that "found" scroll
was "strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
vassal-treaties, in which are set out the rights and obligations
of a vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
(in this case, Yahweh)".[1]

[1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed#Josiah_and_the_birth_of_the_Bible>
"Finkelstein and Silberman note that most scholars regard
the core of Deuteronomy as being the "scroll of the law"
in question, and regard it as having been written not long
before it was 'found', rather than being an ancient missing
scroll as characterised in the Bible;"

Probably the best way to think of the Promises of Yahweh is as
a very early-style campaign speech. "But they shall sit every man
under his vine and under his fig tree". "A chicken in every pot
and a car in every garage."

As it happens, Josiah's promise (Oops. _Yahweh's_ promise,
of course) did not get redeemed. Josiah backed the wrong side
in the then-current civil unpleasantness, and, for "every man"
in Israel and Judah, the result was Very Bad. Lots of slaughter,
lots of burnt vines and fig trees, and the ruling class, those who
survived, got hauled off to Babylon to get taught some proper
loyalty to the Empire.


And another thing: the miracles in the Bible weren't miracles when
they were put in the Bible. For us today, a miracle is a suspension
of the laws of the universe, only considered possible because
God _is_ the Ruler of the universe. But, c'mon, this was SEVERAL
THOUSAND YEARS before the idea of "laws of the universe". A miracle
_back then_ could have _only_ meant something that showed off
the power of their own god vis-a-vis the neighbors' gods. Like
stopping the sun in the sky, sure, but equally a really big storm
or a victory in battle, things we would not be inclined to call
miracles today.

When Moses confronted the Pharaoh, Pharaoh's priests called on their
gods, _who turned their staffs into snakes_ . Today, we would be
amazed that the writer conceded the existence of other gods. But to
the pre-scientific writer, the point was that Yahweh turned
Moses's staff into a bigger, badder snake which ate the other
snakes. _That_ was the miracle, not the staffs-into-snakes.
I mean, _anyone's_ gods could do that. Sheesh!

The writers of the Bible put miracles in the Bible as brags on
the awesomeness of _their_ God. They could not have known that,
thousands of years later, their brags would be found out to be
only bullshit brags. After all, the brags were written to
have happened in some mythological age. How could a reader say
"No, actually, the Earth was never covered up with water by
forty days and forty nights of rain." They weren't there!

I would compare this to a fellow employee stealing from other
employees' lunches when he's alone in the break room. He'll
just throw the blame on others. I mean, no one's there! Who's
to know? Except, there was a surveillance camera in the break
room. Oops! And, except, there are these laws of physics, which
they could not have dreamed existed. Oops!

By the way, I don't think the writers of the Bible did
anything terribly wrong back then (apart from, you know,
a bit of rape and murder and genocide, when they could
manage it). They did the best they could, given what they
knew, which is inconceivably less than what we know today.
I would not want to be morally judged by our great grandchildren
on the basis of _what they will know then_ , so I'm not going
to morally judge the writers on the basis of what _we know now_ .

You, though, and other modern-day Biblical literalists are
simply assholes. You _could_ know better, so you _should_
know better. If you remain sunk in your ignorance, it
is because you work very hard to maintain that ignorance.
No sympathy for you. I fart in your general direction.
mur
2015-05-30 00:45:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2015 12:04:57 -0400, Jim Burns <***@osu.edu> wrote:
.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:18:05 -0400,
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and
the former will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to
gain from what they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
If you'd ever actually read the Bible, you would have found that
King Josiah ordered a renovation of the Temple in early 7th
century BCE, and that they "found" another scroll of the law
(what was to be the core of Deuteronomy) which pretty much
supported Josiah in the reforms he was instituting, down the line.
Pretty interesting "coincidence".
Another interesting "coincidence" is that that "found" scroll
was "strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
vassal-treaties, in which are set out the rights and obligations
of a vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
(in this case, Yahweh)".[1]
None of that matters unless you explain who wrote Deuteronomy and how he or
they got rich and powerful from it. Of course you'd also have to explain how
they got people to believe it. But I was asking about the authors of the New
Testament though I mistakenly failed to specify. Maybe you can explain how they
got rich and powerful and got people back then to believe lies about Jesus who
supposedly never even existed at all?
. . .
Post by Jim Burns
And another thing: the miracles in the Bible weren't miracles when
they were put in the Bible. For us today, a miracle is a suspension
of the laws of the universe, only considered possible because
God _is_ the Ruler of the universe. But, c'mon, this was SEVERAL
THOUSAND YEARS before the idea of "laws of the universe". A miracle
_back then_ could have _only_ meant something that showed off
the power of their own god vis-a-vis the neighbors' gods. Like
stopping the sun in the sky, sure, but equally a really big storm
or a victory in battle, things we would not be inclined to call
miracles today.
When Moses confronted the Pharaoh, Pharaoh's priests called on their
gods, _who turned their staffs into snakes_ . Today, we would be
amazed that the writer conceded the existence of other gods. But to
the pre-scientific writer, the point was that Yahweh turned
Moses's staff into a bigger, badder snake which ate the other
snakes. _That_ was the miracle, not the staffs-into-snakes.
I mean, _anyone's_ gods could do that. Sheesh!
The writers of the Bible put miracles in the Bible as brags on
the awesomeness of _their_ God. They could not have known that,
thousands of years later, their brags would be found out to be
only bullshit brags.
Present your verifiable evidence that they were all bullshit and how it was
"found out".
. . .
Post by Jim Burns
I would not want to be morally judged by our great grandchildren
on the basis of _what they will know then_ , so I'm not going
to morally judge the writers on the basis of what _we know now_ .
You, though, and other modern-day Biblical literalists are
simply assholes. You _could_ know better, so you _should_
know better. If you remain sunk in your ignorance, it
is because you work very hard to maintain that ignorance.
In contrast to that lie I challenge those of you who have faith that there's
no God associated with Earth, and that all events written of in the Bible are
false, etc, to provide your verifiable evidence. I also challenge those who deny
that there's any evidence of God to try to explain WHAT sort of evidence they
think there should be, WHERE they think it should be, WHY they think God should
provide it, and WHEN they think he should or should have provided it if he
actually does exist. That's because I'm open minded about it and a weak
agnostic. So far NO ONE has been able to give a respectable reply to any of
those challenges, meaning that none of you so far have been able to provide
anything to even take into consideration. So my "ignorance" about things like
that is no greater than that of the people I challenge who have proven to have
no idea at all what they think they're trying to talk about and can't pretend
they do even when challenged directly to try to support themselves.
Mitchell Holman
2015-05-30 02:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
In contrast to that lie I challenge those of you who have faith that there's
no God associated with Earth, and that all events written of in the
Bible are false, etc, to provide your verifiable evidence.
Sigh..........

Another Christian trots out the stale
"prove I am wrong" nonsense. Haven't we been
over this before?
Post by mur
I also
challenge those who deny that there's any evidence of God to try to
explain WHAT sort of evidence they think there should be, WHERE they
think it should be, WHY they think God should provide it, and WHEN
they think he should or should have provided it if he actually does
exist.
Tell us what evidence compels YOU to
believe these legends are true.

You believe them. Why?
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:16:27 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:18:05 -0400,
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and
the former will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to
gain from what they wrote down?
Power and money.
Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
If you'd ever actually read the Bible, you would have found that
King Josiah ordered a renovation of the Temple in early 7th
century BCE, and that they "found" another scroll of the law
(what was to be the core of Deuteronomy) which pretty much
supported Josiah in the reforms he was instituting, down the line.
Pretty interesting "coincidence".
Another interesting "coincidence" is that that "found" scroll
was "strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
vassal-treaties, in which are set out the rights and obligations
of a vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
(in this case, Yahweh)".[1]
None of that matters unless you explain who wrote Deuteronomy and how he or
they got rich and powerful from it. Of course you'd also have to explain how
they got people to believe it. But I was asking about the authors of the New
Testament though I mistakenly failed to specify. Maybe you can explain how they
got rich and powerful and got people back then to believe lies about Jesus who
supposedly never even existed at all?
. . .
Post by Jim Burns
And another thing: the miracles in the Bible weren't miracles when
they were put in the Bible. For us today, a miracle is a suspension
of the laws of the universe, only considered possible because
God _is_ the Ruler of the universe. But, c'mon, this was SEVERAL
THOUSAND YEARS before the idea of "laws of the universe". A miracle
_back then_ could have _only_ meant something that showed off
the power of their own god vis-a-vis the neighbors' gods. Like
stopping the sun in the sky, sure, but equally a really big storm
or a victory in battle, things we would not be inclined to call
miracles today.
When Moses confronted the Pharaoh, Pharaoh's priests called on their
gods, _who turned their staffs into snakes_ . Today, we would be
amazed that the writer conceded the existence of other gods. But to
the pre-scientific writer, the point was that Yahweh turned
Moses's staff into a bigger, badder snake which ate the other
snakes. _That_ was the miracle, not the staffs-into-snakes.
I mean, _anyone's_ gods could do that. Sheesh!
The writers of the Bible put miracles in the Bible as brags on
the awesomeness of _their_ God. They could not have known that,
thousands of years later, their brags would be found out to be
only bullshit brags.
Present your verifiable evidence that they were all bullshit and how it was
"found out".
. . .
Post by Jim Burns
I would not want to be morally judged by our great grandchildren
on the basis of _what they will know then_ , so I'm not going
to morally judge the writers on the basis of what _we know now_ .
You, though, and other modern-day Biblical literalists are
simply assholes. You _could_ know better, so you _should_
know better. If you remain sunk in your ignorance, it
is because you work very hard to maintain that ignorance.
In contrast to that lie I challenge those of you who have faith that there's
no God associated with Earth, and that all events written of in the Bible are
false, etc, to provide your verifiable evidence. I also challenge those who deny
that there's any evidence of God to try to explain WHAT sort of evidence they
think there should be, WHERE they think it should be, WHY they think God should
provide it, and WHEN they think he should or should have provided it if he
actually does exist. That's because I'm open minded about it and a weak
agnostic. So far NO ONE has been able to give a respectable reply to any of
those challenges, meaning that none of you so far have been able to provide
anything to even take into consideration. So my "ignorance" about things like
that is no greater than that of the people I challenge who have proven to have
no idea at all what they think they're trying to talk about and can't pretend
they do even when challenged directly to try to support themselves.
Tell us what evidence compels YOU to
believe these legends are true.
You believe them. Why?
I don't have a "belief" about whether they're true or not, as you do. I'm a
weak agnonstic which involves considering the possibility that they are true, or
at least that some of them are. I consider the possibility that it's all nothing
but bullshit as well, but that's a very small, easy, possibility to consider.
Even so when I challenge you people to try to explain the things I challenge you
to try to explain, it's to test what you have faith in and see if there's any
reason for it. So far there is NOTHING to support the strong atheist position,
and none of you have been able to pretend that there is even when challenged
directly to try to support the idea, as I continue to point out.
Mitchell Holman
2015-05-09 13:32:17 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea
what they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone
to believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's not
people don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any
faith in.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former
will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain
from what
they wrote down?
All Bronze age societies had a priest class
which perpetuated itself thru writings and demand
for alms and patronage.

Is that news to you?
talishi
2015-05-10 02:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
All Bronze age societies had a priest class
which perpetuated itself thru writings and demand
for alms and patronage.
The ridiculous thing is that some want to teach our schoolchildren these
same writings qua science.
mur
2015-05-22 16:04:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.
Post by Mitchell Holman
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea
what they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone
to believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's not
people don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any
faith in.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former
will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain
from what
they wrote down?
All Bronze age societies had a priest class
which perpetuated itself thru writings and demand
for alms and patronage.
So if they could keep from getting killed over it they could be sneaky and
get rich from it. How do you imagine it all came about to begin with? Do you
think maybe they had a club and decided to make up a bunch of bullshit and then
go out and try to get enough people to believe it, without getting themselves
killed in the process, that they would eventually become rich?
Mitchell Holman
2015-05-23 13:18:46 UTC
Permalink
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea
what they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's not
people don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any
faith in.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former
will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain
from what
they wrote down?
All Bronze age societies had a priest class
which perpetuated itself thru writings and demand
for alms and patronage.
So if they could keep from getting killed over it they could be sneaky and
get rich from it. How do you imagine it all came about to begin with?
Do you think maybe they had a club and decided to make up a bunch of
bullshit and then go out and try to get enough people to believe it,
without getting themselves killed in the process, that they would
eventually become rich?
Yep. Gulliple people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers
and miracle healers and, of course, priests. In our
own time it is televangelists and preachers and cults.
Immature people will give up much power and money in
exchange of hope.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-05-23 14:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply to what should be an easy challenge
for them IF they had any idea what they think they're
trying to talk about above. There is evidence or there
would be nothing for anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Of course he is.

If he bothered to use his allegedly god-given brain, he would have
realised this also applies to leprechauns, fairies, ghosts, UFO
abducxtions and pretty well every other ridiculous belief.

But like most theists, his mind switches off when it comeds to his
religion, and he doesn't even think about the implications of his ad
hoc nonsense.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
Are you?
Was that a rhetorical question?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded
A standard theist personal lie - but watch them turn into whiningly
nasty hypocrites when they're treated as liars for this sort of thing.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
you would consider why there is evidence,
The in-your-face, proven serial liar knows at some level that there is
none - otherwise he would have provided it instead of resorting to
personal nastiness.

I think the problem, is that they put themselves on the defensive with
their unsolicited nonsense, and this makes them lash out when told to
back it up. They can't, so they attack those who just want them to
keep it to themselves.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to.
Liar.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
When it's not people don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
The proven serial liar can't explain why life is the evidence for a
so-far imaginary magicalk superbeing.

And he's too stupid to understand that he's plucked one of an infinite
number of "possibilities" out of his arse and ignoring all the others.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Notice how he still hasn't provided the evidence he was told to
supply.

"Life is evidence for the Great Arkleseizure"

"How so?"

"Don't be so closed minded"
Post by Mitchell Holman
Just so.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What fucking "all accepted miracles"?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any
faith in.
Liar. It's an obvious conclusion.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
How so, liar?

The in-your-face moron hasn't demonstrated that it is an accurate
history.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former
will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
Just like any other primitives, they attributed things they didn't
understand to their god. Eg somebody notices a correlation between not
cleaning up after taking a crap. and people getting sick.

He can't explain why, so it's easier to get people to improve personal
hygiene by saying "God sez".

But that doesn't mean a god actually said it.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain
from what they wrote down?
All Bronze age societies had a priest class
which perpetuated itself thru writings and demand
for alms and patronage.
It's useful for societal survival, and just evolved that way -
societies which didn't have rules died out.

Up to a certain level it is beneficial to survival. Beyond another it
becomes detrimental.

But religion has adapted to survive in a form of non-biological
evolution.

In successful societies it has adapted to progress, becoming less
virulent and accommodating modern knowledge. In others it has become
vicious, attacking modernity to try and survive.
Post by Mitchell Holman
So if they could keep from getting killed over it they could be sneaky and
get rich from it. How do you imagine it all came about to begin with?
Do you think maybe they had a club and decided to make up a bunch of
bullshit and then go out and try to get enough people to believe it,
without getting themselves killed in the process, that they would
eventually become rich?
Yep. Gulliple people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers
and miracle healers and, of course, priests. In our
own time it is televangelists and preachers and cults.
Immature people will give up much power and money in
exchange of hope.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American people" - P.T.Barnum (although some source say this was a
mis-quote by H.L.Mencken).
mur
2015-05-30 00:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
wrote: .
.
"mur" wrote in message
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
How so, liar?
The in-your-face moron hasn't demonstrated that it is an accurate
history.
Equally true is the fact that none of you have demonstrated that none of it
is accurate.
Mitchell Holman
2015-05-30 02:12:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:24:54 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman
.
"mur" wrote in message
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
How so, liar?
The in-your-face moron hasn't demonstrated that it is an accurate
history.
Equally true is the fact that none of you have demonstrated that none of it
is accurate.
The demand to prove a negative: always the sign of a failed argument.
mur
2015-05-30 00:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea
what they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you
would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's not
people don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of how the belief
is come by or what it's in regards to.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any
faith in.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former
will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain
from what
they wrote down?
All Bronze age societies had a priest class
which perpetuated itself thru writings and demand
for alms and patronage.
So if they could keep from getting killed over it they could be sneaky and
get rich from it. How do you imagine it all came about to begin with?
Do you think maybe they had a club and decided to make up a bunch of
bullshit and then go out and try to get enough people to believe it,
without getting themselves killed in the process, that they would
eventually become rich?
Yep. Gulliple people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers
and miracle healers and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place. If they got in
touch with people in towns where things were supposed to have happened, and
those people said they never heard anything about it, then they'd have no reason
to believe. Quite the opposite.
Mitchell Holman
2015-05-30 02:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any
idea what they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded
you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's
not people don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of how the belief
is come by or what it's in regards to.
Just like astrology, just like UFO cults.
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any
faith in.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the
former will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to
gain from what
they wrote down?
All Bronze age societies had a priest class
which perpetuated itself thru writings and demand
for alms and patronage.
So if they could keep from getting killed over it they could be sneaky and
get rich from it. How do you imagine it all came about to begin
with? Do you think maybe they had a club and decided to make up a
bunch of bullshit and then go out and try to get enough people to
believe it, without getting themselves killed in the process, that
they would eventually become rich?
Yep. Gulliple people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers
and miracle healers and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place.
Since nothing was written about Jesus until decades
after he died that would make verification conveniently
difficult.
Post by mur
If they
got in touch with people in towns where things were supposed to have
happened, and those people said they never heard anything about it,
then they'd have no reason to believe.
Just wait until all those people were dead, write about
what happened to them in a language even their relatives
cannot read, problem solved.
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:11:35 -0500, Mitchell Holman <***@att.net> wrote:
.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply
to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea
what they
think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe
in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you
would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's not
people don't
put faith in that being the only possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of how the belief
is come by or what it's in regards to.
Just like astrology, just like UFO cults.
Just like strong atheism.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
that some people are gullible and nothing else.
That's another guess you made that I have no reason to put any
faith in.
Post by Tim
Post by mur
All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence.
that some people know that other people are gullible and the former
will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to gain
from what
they wrote down?
All Bronze age societies had a priest class
which perpetuated itself thru writings and demand
for alms and patronage.
So if they could keep from getting killed over it they could be sneaky and
get rich from it. How do you imagine it all came about to begin with?
Do you think maybe they had a club and decided to make up a bunch of
bullshit and then go out and try to get enough people to believe it,
without getting themselves killed in the process, that they would
eventually become rich?
Yep. Gulliple people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers
and miracle healers and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place.
Since nothing was written about Jesus until decades
after he died that would make verification conveniently
difficult.
You don't know what was written, when or where and you have no way of
finding out. If you honestly have faith that nothing was written of Jesus until
decades after he died I find it amusing, since some of you people don't believe
he ever lived at all. If you don't believe some of the things that were written
about him, or even if you don't believe the vast majority of things that were
written about him have been destroyed I find that amusing as well, but would
love to see you try to support the idea that they were not.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
If they got in
touch with people in towns where things were supposed to have happened, and
those people said they never heard anything about it, then they'd have no reason
to believe. Quite the opposite.
Just wait until all those people were dead, write about
what happened to them in a language even their relatives
cannot read, problem solved.
They would still have been killed for it so as yet you haven't provided a
good argument why they would have done it. One thing that's certain is that the
first people to promote the idea weren't building cathederals and getting rich
from it. If you want to argue that they were just laying the foundation at the
great risk of their own lives, for other people to get rich off a stupid lie
many years in the future then I'd love to see you try to support that position.
Smiler
2015-06-05 21:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply to what should be an easy challenge for
them IF they had any idea what they think they're trying to
talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded
you would consider why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's
not people don't put faith in that being the only possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of how
the belief is come by or what it's in regards to.
Just like astrology, just like UFO cults.
Just like strong atheism.
What belief would that be?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-13 18:04:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 21:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Smil couldn't figure out:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply to what should be an easy challenge for
them IF they had any idea what they think they're trying to
talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded
you would consider why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's
not people don't put faith in that being the only possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of how
the belief is come by or what it's in regards to.
Just like astrology, just like UFO cults.
Just like strong atheism.
What belief would that be?
http://is.gd/DE667u
Smiler
2015-06-13 21:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply to what should be an easy challenge for
them IF they had any idea what they think they're trying
to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded
you would consider why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's
not people don't put faith in that being the only
possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of how
the belief is come by or what it's in regards to.
Just like astrology, just like UFO cults.
Just like strong atheism.
What belief would that be?
http://is.gd/DE667u
Not a belief. It's a logical conclusion from the lack of evidence for the
existence of your supposed god character.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-27 01:55:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Smil wussed horribly:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply to what should be an easy challenge for
them IF they had any idea what they think they're trying
to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded
you would consider why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When it's
not people don't put faith in that being the only
possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of how
the belief is come by or what it's in regards to.
Just like astrology, just like UFO cults.
Just like strong atheism.
What belief would that be?
http://is.gd/DE667u
Not a belief. It's a logical conclusion
Why are you so horribly ashamed to believe the supposed "logical
conclusion"?
Smiler
2015-06-27 18:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:11:35 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:18:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply to what should be an easy challenge
for them IF they had any idea what they think they're
trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed
minded you would consider why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When
it's not people don't put faith in that being the only
possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of
how the belief is come by or what it's in regards to.
Just like astrology, just like UFO cults.
Just like strong atheism.
What belief would that be?
http://is.gd/DE667u
Not a belief. It's a logical conclusion
Why are you so horribly ashamed to believe the supposed "logical
conclusion"?
Because a conclusion is not a belief.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-07-04 02:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:11:35 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:18:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by mur
On Sat, 09 May 2015 08:32:17 -0500, Mitchell Holman
wrote: .
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Tim
Post by mur
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:29:36 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a
respectable reply to what should be an easy challenge
for them IF they had any idea what they think they're
trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for
anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed
minded you would consider why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence.
Of life and nothing else.
Only when that's what your mind is restricted to. When
it's not people don't put faith in that being the only
possibility.
If you had proof you would not need
faith. But you don't, so you do.
Just so.
Faith is confidence in a belief being correct, regardless of
how the belief is come by or what it's in regards to.
Just like astrology, just like UFO cults.
Just like strong atheism.
What belief would that be?
http://is.gd/DE667u
Not a belief. It's a logical conclusion
Why are you so horribly ashamed to believe the supposed "logical
conclusion"?
Because a conclusion is not a belief.
You're ashamed of your faith ("belief") that the conclusion might be
correct, that much is certain. Why you're ashamed is what's always most in
question. Why are you not only ashamed to admit it, but even more ashamed to try
to defend it?
Smiler
2015-05-30 20:47:43 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by mur
Yep. Gullible people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers and miracle healers
and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place. If they
got in touch with people in towns where things were supposed to have
happened, and those people said they never heard anything about it, then
they'd have no reason to believe. Quite the opposite.
How were they to get to those towns? Train, bus, car, plane?
Or do you believe they used email to question those people?
And, like you, why would they question what their priest or parents taught
them and why would they accept the word of non-believers?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-05 20:23:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:47:43 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by mur
Yep. Gullible people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers and miracle healers
and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place. If they
got in touch with people in towns where things were supposed to have
happened, and those people said they never heard anything about it, then
they'd have no reason to believe. Quite the opposite.
How were they to get to those towns? Train, bus, car, plane?
Or do you believe they used email to question those people?
So you like to believe there was no communication between towns and people
never went from one town to another in those days?
Post by Smiler
And, like you, why would they question what their priest or parents taught
them
The first people wouldn't have a priest or their parents TO teach them. They
would have criminals telling things that would seem like lies they could be
killed for telling to anyone who heard them IF the criminals were the only
source. Their priests and parents would be telling them the criminals were
lying.
Post by Smiler
and why would they accept the word of non-believers?
It would depend on what the "word"s were, what evidence they had for them,
and how they compared with evidence for what the criminals were telling them.
But since you can't imagine that there was any communication or travel at all
between towns back then, how can you imagine that there were any arguments for
or against the idea Jesus existed and did things back then?
Smiler
2015-06-05 21:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by mur
Yep. Gullible people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers and miracle
healers and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place. If they
got in touch with people in towns where things were supposed to have
happened, and those people said they never heard anything about it,
then they'd have no reason to believe. Quite the opposite.
How were they to get to those towns? Train, bus, car, plane?
Or do you believe they used email to question those people?
So you like to believe there was no communication between towns and
people never went from one town to another in those days?
Where did I say that, liar?
They went to town _very_ occasionally, as it was a major undertaking that
may have taken days, to do important things like selling their produce but
not to question people about their beliefs.
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
And, like you, why would they question what their priest or parents
taught them
The first people wouldn't have a priest or their parents TO teach
them.
Then who told them the tales?
Why would they question the people who did so?
Post by mur
They
would have criminals telling things that would seem like lies they could
be killed for telling to anyone who heard them IF the criminals were the
only source. Their priests and parents would be telling them the
criminals were lying.
What criminals would they be? Lying isn't a crime, otherwise you would be
in jail.
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
and why would they accept the word of non-believers?
It would depend on what the "word"s were, what evidence they had for them,
and how they compared with evidence for what the criminals were telling
them. But since you can't imagine that there was any communication or
travel at all between towns back then, how can you imagine that there
were any arguments for or against the idea Jesus existed and did things
back then?
People today believe _without_ a scrap of evidence. Why would the early
believers, who were far less educated, be any different?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-13 18:04:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 21:40:31 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by mur
Yep. Gullible people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers and miracle
healers and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place. If they
got in touch with people in towns where things were supposed to have
happened, and those people said they never heard anything about it,
then they'd have no reason to believe. Quite the opposite.
How were they to get to those towns? Train, bus, car, plane?
Or do you believe they used email to question those people?
So you like to believe there was no communication between towns and
people never went from one town to another in those days?
Where did I say that
The level of stupidity involved with your questions above certainly
indicated you feel that way.
Post by Smiler
, liar?
They went to town _very_ occasionally, as it was a major undertaking that
may have taken days, to do important things like selling their produce but
not to question people about their beliefs.
And how did you find out no one ever questioned people about their beliefs
while they were there? LOL...the very idea is hilarious.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
And, like you, why would they question what their priest or parents
taught them
The first people wouldn't have a priest or their parents TO teach
them.
Then who told them the tales?
Since it wasn't their parents or priests, who most likely were encouraging
them to believe they were being lied to in most cases, it was probably people on
a mission to spread word of the idea.
Post by Smiler
Why would they question the people who did so?
To try to learn if they were lying or not. It seems even an atheist should
be able to figure that one out.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
They
would have criminals telling things that would seem like lies they could
be killed for telling to anyone who heard them IF the criminals were the
only source. Their priests and parents would be telling them the
criminals were lying.
What criminals would they be? Lying isn't a crime,
So you have faith that the first people to spread the belief of Christianity
were not considered to be criminals. So far I have faith that they were.
Post by Smiler
otherwise you would be
in jail.
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
and why would they accept the word of non-believers?
It would depend on what the "word"s were, what evidence they had for them,
and how they compared with evidence for what the criminals were telling
them. But since you can't imagine that there was any communication or
travel at all between towns back then, how can you imagine that there
were any arguments for or against the idea Jesus existed and did things
back then?
People today believe _without_ a scrap of evidence. Why would the early
believers, who were far less educated, be any different?
Because they could contact people to find out if there was any truth to
what they were being told, or at least if there were stories about it being
true. If there were none, then the whole idea would never have gone anywhere
because there would never be a large enough group of people believing it.
Smiler
2015-06-13 21:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:18:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<snip>
Yep. Gullible people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers and miracle
healers and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place. If
they got in touch with people in towns where things were supposed to
have happened, and those people said they never heard anything about
it, then they'd have no reason to believe. Quite the opposite.
How were they to get to those towns? Train, bus, car, plane?
Or do you believe they used email to question those people?
So you like to believe there was no communication between towns
and people never went from one town to another in those days?
Where did I say that, liar?
The level of stupidity involved with your questions above certainly
indicated you feel that way.
Only in your stupidly demented mind.
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
They went to town _very_ occasionally, as it was a major undertaking
that may have taken days, to do important things like selling their
produce but not to question people about their beliefs.
And how did you find out no one ever questioned people about their beliefs
while they were there? LOL...the very idea is hilarious.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
And, like you, why would they question what their priest or parents
taught them
The first people wouldn't have a priest or their parents TO teach
them.
Then who told them the tales?
Since it wasn't their parents or priests, who most likely were encouraging
them to believe they were being lied to in most cases, it was probably
people on a mission to spread word of the idea.
Post by Smiler
Why would they question the people who did so?
To try to learn if they were lying or not. It seems even an atheist should
be able to figure that one out.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
They would have criminals telling things that would seem like lies
they could be killed for telling to anyone who heard them IF the
criminals were the only source. Their priests and parents would be
telling them the criminals were lying.
What criminals would they be? Lying isn't a crime,
So you have faith that the first people to spread the belief of Christianity
were not considered to be criminals. So far I have faith that they were.
Post by Smiler
otherwise you would be in jail.
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
and why would they accept the word of non-believers?
It would depend on what the "word"s were, what evidence they had for them,
and how they compared with evidence for what the criminals were
telling them. But since you can't imagine that there was any
communication or travel at all between towns back then, how can you
imagine that there were any arguments for or against the idea Jesus
existed and did things back then?
People today believe _without_ a scrap of evidence. Why would the early
believers, who were far less educated, be any different?
Because they could contact people to find out if there was any truth to
what they were being told, or at least if there were stories about it
being true. If there were none, then the whole idea would never have
gone anywhere because there would never be a large enough group of
people believing it.
You severely underestimate the gullibility, on a par with yours, of
ancient people.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-06-27 01:55:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:53:42 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Smiler
On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:18:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<snip>
Yep. Gullible people are always willing to
believe in the powers of shamans and fortune tellers and miracle
healers and, of course, priests.
Back when it got started people could have found out by asking around
whether or not the things written about Jesus ever took place. If
they got in touch with people in towns where things were supposed to
have happened, and those people said they never heard anything about
it, then they'd have no reason to believe. Quite the opposite.
How were they to get to those towns? Train, bus, car, plane?
Or do you believe they used email to question those people?
So you like to believe there was no communication between towns
and people never went from one town to another in those days?
Where did I say that, liar?
The level of stupidity involved with your questions above certainly
indicated you feel that way.
Only in your stupidly demented mind.
What did you think you could gain by asking such stupidly demented
questions?
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
They went to town _very_ occasionally, as it was a major undertaking
that may have taken days, to do important things like selling their
produce but not to question people about their beliefs.
And how did you find out no one ever questioned people about their beliefs
while they were there? LOL...the very idea is hilarious.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
And, like you, why would they question what their priest or parents
taught them
The first people wouldn't have a priest or their parents TO teach
them.
Then who told them the tales?
Since it wasn't their parents or priests, who most likely were encouraging
them to believe they were being lied to in most cases, it was probably
people on a mission to spread word of the idea.
Post by Smiler
Why would they question the people who did so?
To try to learn if they were lying or not. It seems even an atheist should
be able to figure that one out.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
They would have criminals telling things that would seem like lies
they could be killed for telling to anyone who heard them IF the
criminals were the only source. Their priests and parents would be
telling them the criminals were lying.
What criminals would they be? Lying isn't a crime,
So you have faith that the first people to spread the belief of Christianity
were not considered to be criminals. So far I have faith that they were.
Post by Smiler
otherwise you would be in jail.
Post by mur
Post by Smiler
and why would they accept the word of non-believers?
It would depend on what the "word"s were, what evidence they had for them,
and how they compared with evidence for what the criminals were
telling them. But since you can't imagine that there was any
communication or travel at all between towns back then, how can you
imagine that there were any arguments for or against the idea Jesus
existed and did things back then?
People today believe _without_ a scrap of evidence. Why would the early
believers, who were far less educated, be any different?
Because they could contact people to find out if there was any truth to
what they were being told, or at least if there were stories about it
being true. If there were none, then the whole idea would never have
gone anywhere because there would never be a large enough group of
people believing it.
You severely underestimate the gullibility, on a par with yours, of
ancient people.
More likely you are horribly gullible in your own personal beliefs about
those same people, believing they had as much religious freedom and tolerance as
people enjoy today.
Smiler
2015-04-30 20:22:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:07:40 -0400, mur wrote:

<snip>
Post by mur
Life itself is evidence.
Only of life, nothing more
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles recorded in the Bible
are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists lying about it are
evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem to
have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
All merely your stupid unevidenced beliefs.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence

The evidence I would accept is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your god exists.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Smiler
2015-05-01 22:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by mur
Life itself is evidence.
Only of life, nothing more
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles recorded in the Bible
are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists lying about it are
evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem to
have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
All merely your stupid unevidenced beliefs.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence
The evidence I would accept is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your god exists.
Well! Where's that evidence?
Have you run away, coward for your supposed god?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-05-01 22:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by mur
Life itself is evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Only of life, nothing more
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
All miracles recorded in the Bible
are evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
All saints are evidence. Atheists lying
What lies was the liar lying that atheists tell?
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
about it are
evidence.
Liar.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
All medical miracles are evidence.
Liar.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
All prayers that seem to
have been answered are evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
The evidence we have of evolution is
evidence.
Liar.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All merely your stupid unevidenced beliefs.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence
The evidence I would accept is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your god exists.
Well! Where's that evidence?
Have you run away, coward for your supposed god?
It's Mur. 'Nuff said.
Smiler
2015-05-02 22:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by mur
Life itself is evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Only of life, nothing more
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
All saints are evidence. Atheists lying
What lies was the liar lying that atheists tell?
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
about it are evidence.
Liar.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
All medical miracles are evidence.
Liar.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
Idiot.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Liar.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All merely your stupid unevidenced beliefs.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. The evidence I
would accept is the exact same objective evidence that persuaded _you_
that your god exists.
Well! Where's that evidence?
Have you run away, coward for your supposed god?
It's Mur. 'Nuff said.
That one always gets them to run away, as they believe without the tiniest
scrap of evidence, but cannot admit it, even to themselves.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Smiler
2015-05-02 21:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by mur
Life itself is evidence.
Only of life, nothing more
Post by mur
All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles recorded in the Bible
are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists lying about it are
evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem to
have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
All merely your stupid unevidenced beliefs.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence
The evidence I would accept is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your god exists.
Well! Where's that evidence?
Have you run away, coward for your supposed god?
<crickets>
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
mur
2015-05-09 02:03:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:22:11 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by mur
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New
World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White
Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are
better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since if there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe in, so the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to be lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand evidence and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be imagining some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be some and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are moronic about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think it should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they think he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable reply to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God should appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place and time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they re-grow on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they unable to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're not even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof.
Since I in no way meant proof, what do I have to be ashamed of.
What would you like people to believe is the difference between what you
demand and proof?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever been able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it.
We have nothing to be ashamed of.
You're ashamed of your own belief that there's no God associated with Earth.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
That on top of the facts I pointed
What "facts"?
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable reply to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to believe in.
Are you really truly this stupid?
Are you?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence,
What evidence?
Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists lying
about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and recover
from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
All merely your stupid unevidenced beliefs.
Your stupid unevidenced beliefs are certainly no better.
Post by Smiler
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence
The evidence I would accept is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your god exists.
I'm not persuaded that he exists. Even so I take it way further than you can
by considering the possibility that he does. I also challenge all of you to try
to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think it
should be, WHY you think he should provide it, and WHEN you think he should or
should have provided it if God does exist. So far not one of you have been able
to provide a respectable reply to that challenge, showing that not one of you
has any idea at all what you think you're trying to talk about.
felix_unger
2015-04-19 06:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by mur
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by mur
These cover various subjects.
1)Who was the first to discover microorganisms?
The first human.
2)How many letters in the Cyrillic alphabet?
8, as in Cyrillic.
3)Name two Semitic languages
Egyptian and Arabic
4)In what year was the nation of Pakistan created?
When it became independent.
5)What year was the Franco-Prussian War fought?
Before WWI
6)Who was Christopher Columbus patron when he sailed to the New World?
King of Scotland
7)Who defeated Russia in 1905?
Poland.
8)Who invented the artificial heart?
Artificial heart did not work
9)Name the 4 chambers of the human heart
North, South, East and West chamber.
10)What does the pancreas do?
To help Bruno in getting less sick.
ROTFL! Only people who have diabetes have pancreas trouble.
You've obviously never heard of pancreatic cancer.
Already you are messing up your new quizzes.
11)Why is jet fuel cheaper than avgas?
Because it must be lighter for the jet to carry.
12)Name the advantages of Diesel engines over gasoline engines
Diesel has better energy per unit?
I said the engine, not the fuel.
13)What is seawater used for in marine steam engines?
Because the engine needs salt?
14)How do vaccines protect against viruses?
Just the same as Putin judo Obama
15)Name 5 psychotropic medications
You mean one tranquilizer is not enough for Bruno?
The we can give you 10....
I don't take tranquilizers.
Congrats! You failed all of them.
I posted one of my quizzes on Stormfront and one of the White Nationalists got 7 right out of ten. That means the racists there are better educated than all the atheists here.HAHAHAHAHA!
I've been presenting a challenge that atheists should be able to explain
very easily, yet not a single on of them has been able to provide a respectable
answer. Atheists VERY frequently lie that there is no evidence of God's
existence, and very frequently demand that evidence be provided. Since if there
truly were NO evidence there would be nothing for anyone to believe in, so the
fact that there are billions of believers shows that atheists have to be lying
when they make their claim. Though that alone is bad enough their cluelesness
and ineptitude don't end there. Since they so frequently demand evidence and
don't like the evidence we already have, it seems they must be imagining some
sort of evidence they think should be available to humans if there is a God
associated with Earth. Since they often demand "verifiable evidence", even
though they're ashamed to admit it they make it clear they're really demanding
some sort of proof. It would be moronic for them to expect there to be some and
moronic for them to demand it if they didn't have any idea what they thought
they were trying to talk about. So to find out whether they are moronic about
this aspect of the situation or not I presented them with the following
WHAT sort of evidence do they think should exist, WHERE do they think it should
be, WHY do they think God should provide us with it, and WHEN do they think he
should provide it or should have provided it?
As yet not a single one of them has been able to make a respectable reply to
what should be an easy challenge for them IF they had any idea what they think
they're trying to talk about. A couple of them suggested that God should appear
to people in a particular form they dreamed up at a particular place and time
they dreamed up, but of course that's not only not respectable but is very
stupid and childlike. Several more of them said God should re-grow limbs on
amputees as proof, which again is stupid and childlike. If limbs did re-grow on
humans it would be no more evidence of his existence than that they re-grow on
any other creatures, or that broken bones mend. So not only are they unable to
answer questions like the ones you challenged them with, but they're not even
able to explain what's going on between their own ears.
There isn't.
So far that's what you people have shown to be the case.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Not one person has ever provided any objective and
verifiable evidence that any god exists.
Though you're ashamed to admit it you mean proof.
exactly. in a nutshell.. they deny any evidence exists and demand proof.
Post by mur
Of course why you're
ashamed of it remains somewhat in question, and none of you have ever been able
to explain why you're ashamed to admit it. That on top of the facts I pointed
out above. There is evidence or there would be nothing for anyone to believe in.
There is no proof and if you weren't horribly closed minded you would consider
why there is evidence, but there is no proof. That's a basic starting line, none
of you have ever been able to get as "far" as.
they just can't get to that starting line, lol!..
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide" -Col. Allen West
http://thereligionofpeace.com
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/
http://pamelageller.com/
Brigitte Gabriel's answer to 'peaceful' moslems.. http://tinyurl.com/brigitteGab
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA
Loading...