"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151488459.505354.167770@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.

For the very good reason that the 'self' can be easily deceived. You often
hear the theist say they're belief in 'God' rests on an intense 'faith'.
What does that say to *you*? Faith? Faith is supposed to provide proof that
'God' exists when a simple little supernaturally-laden 'Howdy-do' from the
heavens would suffice? How silly to believe in a deity who is forever
playing 'hide-and-seek'. How utterly inane.

But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.

Well in the 'real' world, people need 'real proof', not abstract notions of
a 'God'. People believe a 1st-century Jew walked on water and raised people
from the dead. In his other 'guise', he is believed to have created the
universe. And where is 'proof' of all this? Why the 'cosmological argument'
and 'faith'? Oooooooooo! That's some kinda proof.

Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out.

Well I would think so. When you get right down to it, that's no proof at
all, is it? If I were to 'believe' that I was David Friedrich Strauss in
'another' life -- and fervently so -- does that mean that *I* wrote that
devastating 'critique' of the gospels of his? Hardly. But I've got such
'first person avowal' that I did! Doesn't *that* count as 'proof' that I
did?

So there are a lot of problems

with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.

Ask yourself this. Are you trying to seriously figure out the processes that
make our universe 'work'? Or are you trying to figure out a way -- through
'science' -- you can turn to your friends and neighbors and say, ''Aha'!
Jesus is *truly* Lord!' If so, I'd look for a new hobby. The current one has
reached a dead end. All you are *really* doing is supplying Christian
fundamentalists continued reason to wallow in their stupidity.

"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151488459.505354.167770@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.

But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.

Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.

Everything you are asking for, "Atheism must provide a good framework in
which evidence can be presented"
already exists. *Your* problem is that the framework by which everyone
including you tests all ideas except religious assertions does not support
your religious assertions. We all, including you, realize how tough that is
for you. What do you do about it? You now want a different framework for
your special pleading, tailored to support your assertions.
That's just idiotic. Using that strategy I can prove anything. How
pathetically transparent and weak your strategy is.
Rob Brown

"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151488459.505354.167770@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...

There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.

Well, since the "experiential" evidence is not consistent, it fits the
criteria for opinion.

But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio.

The word evidence does have a definition. That's not our fault.

Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment,

No, it sniffs of "show me."

and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff.

The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.

Show me or shut up.

Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented.

Show me this god you're talking about.

But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out.

Are you are willing to grant the existence of all the gods anyone has ever
believed in?

Unless you are, your objection will remain a hypocritical double standard.

They remain unconvinced until someone shows them a god.

"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in news:1151488459.505354.167770
@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com:

There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.

In the case of the scriptures of the Xer sects, these say that actual
material evidence was provided and actual observable things happenned.
These sorts of claims for material things happenning like walking on water,
food falling out of the sky, godmen resurrecting themselves etc. Go through
and remove all that sort of stuff and what do you have left. A bunch of
stories about tribes fighting each other and some funny rules and pithy
sayings. There would be no Xer religion. Claims for actual material stuff
happenning are the basis of the Xer religion.

Klazmon.

<SNIP>

In article <1151488459.505354.167770@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:

There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.

But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.

Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.

This word salad requires a good Pinot Grigio, preferably something from
Napa or Mendocino, and not more than three years old.

-chib

John Jones ha escrito:

There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.

But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.

Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.

Dear John:
What amazes me, John, is the relaxed insolence you show in taking us
for a bunch of stupid morons. The only real morons are those that
believe these lies, John.
I do not consider you a moron, for I know that you are a very callused
swindler or a Mississippi river's cardsharp. I admire you for that
hardness when I see you walking by.
You know quite well, that there is not any odor of any god whatever.
Not even there is any divine pestilence. The only odor we perceive is
that of mendacity. All the testimonies uttered in words or written
papyrus in the holy books are nothing but fake stories. This is the
only odor we perceive, John, that of a great mendacity.
Yours, faithfully,
Leopoldo

John Jones wrote:

There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.

But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.

Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.

Not up to me to provide anything, frame work or otherwise.

It's very simple, I don't believe you. Now, convince me if you think
you can.

John Jones wrote:

There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.

But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.

Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.

A simple 'no' would have sufficed.