| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ultra" |
| Date: |
04 Jan 2008 09:50:43 PM |
| Object: |
Evil - outweighed by free will |
Subject line says it all.
People claim God does not exist because he/she/it would not allow evil in
the world. The fact of the matter is that if there is any evil, it is
outweighed by the fact the we have free will.
That there is evil in the world does not mean there is no God.
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
05 Jan 2008 09:22:53 PM |
|
|
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in news:13nu1u8is9lut35
@news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000hsf.googlegrou
ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean there is no
God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does not preclude
the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an omnipotent,
omnipresent, and omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by free-will because the
overall goodness exceeds what would be case if there was no
free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that this life is
only temporary. The next one is eternal. What happens in this
life is relevant only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because they *can't*
grasp the idea that their assumption there is no afterlife
can't be used to prove itself. In that, they are
indistinguishable from the theists who can't grasp that their
assumption that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws regarding religion
down my throat. I am forced to spend money with fictional beings
being referenced on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life that is so
terrible? That isn't the result of you being a dipshit, that is.
Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the Flying
Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why would you? Boo
fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing against the
*laws*, not the religion. But it's not about the laws, its about
you telling them how to live, and what to believe. *Just* like they
want to do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling? What else do you imagine me doing?
Do you?
Yes. I'm not the one claiming that you're not debating.
You're the one claiming you are.
And I am.
Here's how to look at it:
Prove that there are no invisible sentient dishwashers orbiting
Saturn.
Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Not going to attempt this, are you?
Why'd you snip out my answer? Afraid to dealing with it? Typical
cowardly response. *Just* like the theists.
I didn't snip it. Look just below:
You certainly didn't address it. And you won't. Ever.
Provide some evidence that anyone has claimed there are.
I have claimed that there are invisible sentient dishwashers are
orbiting Saturn. Prove that there are no invisible sentient
dishwashers orbiting Saturn. Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Your claim, your responsibility to prove. Or do you think different
rules should apply to you than to theists?
That's my point. I don't need to prove there's no god.
You claim there are invisible sentient dishwashers orbiting Saturn, and
demanding I prove otherwise. The exact same thing you ***** about theists
doing. Hypocrite. That simple.
Now that you know the definition of debate, can you look up the
definition of "analogy"?
[and take a gander at this: an omnipresent God precludes the
possibility of free will]
There is no basis for this statement.
Actually, there is. God is inherently a contradiction. From any
sane, human perspective, an all-knowing, all-powerful being
cannot exist, because the two qualities are mutually exclusive.
That's why God is a diety. He gets to do things we can't
understand.
That still doesn't mean that "God" exists beyond the imaginings
of superstitious people.
Very true. But it is internally consistent in ways that you
aren't smart enough to debunk.
Jabba the Hutt is internally consistent. Doesn't mean he exists.
Who claims he does?
George Lucas. Prove Lucas wrong. Prove there are no Hutts.
Cite your source that George Lucas has claimed that Star Wars are not
ficiton. Or admit that you're a masutrbating retard, same as all
atheists.
You're intentionally being obtuse.
You're being stupid, but it's not intentional at all. You're just
*stupid*. The dishonesty, of course, is deliberate.
Your opinion of my personal education is irrelevant to this conversation.
You're talking about "God" as if
it's nonfiction.
And you're talking about it as if it's fiction. The exact same mistake
theists make.
It's the same fiction as the sentient dishwasher analogy I alluded to
above. Unless you're trying to say that it's not fiction....
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
05 Jan 2008 11:12:06 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in news:13nu1u8is9lut35
@news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000hsf.googlegr
ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean there is no
God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does not
preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an omnipotent,
omnipresent, and omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by free-will because
the overall goodness exceeds what would be case if there was
no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that this life
is only temporary. The next one is eternal. What happens in
this life is relevant only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because they *can't*
grasp the idea that their assumption there is no afterlife
can't be used to prove itself. In that, they are
indistinguishable from the theists who can't grasp that their
assumption that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws regarding
religion down my throat. I am forced to spend money with
fictional beings being referenced on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life that is so
terrible? That isn't the result of you being a dipshit, that is.
Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the Flying
Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why would you? Boo
fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing against the
*laws*, not the religion. But it's not about the laws, its about
you telling them how to live, and what to believe. *Just* like
they want to do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was doing
neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
What else do you imagine me doing?
I don't need to imagine anything.
Do you?
Yes. I'm not the one claiming that you're not debating.
You're the one claiming you are.
And I am.
No.
Here's how to look at it:
Prove that there are no invisible sentient dishwashers
orbiting Saturn.
Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Not going to attempt this, are you?
Why'd you snip out my answer? Afraid to dealing with it? Typical
cowardly response. *Just* like the theists.
I didn't snip it. Look just below:
You certainly didn't address it. And you won't. Ever.
Provide some evidence that anyone has claimed there are.
I have claimed that there are invisible sentient dishwashers are
orbiting Saturn. Prove that there are no invisible sentient
dishwashers orbiting Saturn. Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Your claim, your responsibility to prove. Or do you think different
rules should apply to you than to theists?
That's my point. I don't need to prove there's no god.
You claim there are invisible sentient dishwashers orbiting Saturn,
and demanding I prove otherwise. The exact same thing you ***** about
theists doing. Hypocrite. That simple.
Now that you know the definition of debate, can you look up the
definition of "analogy"?
Can you look up the definition of "stupid"?
[and take a gander at this: an omnipresent God precludes
the possibility of free will]
There is no basis for this statement.
Actually, there is. God is inherently a contradiction. From
any sane, human perspective, an all-knowing, all-powerful
being cannot exist, because the two qualities are mutually
exclusive. That's why God is a diety. He gets to do things we
can't understand.
That still doesn't mean that "God" exists beyond the
imaginings of superstitious people.
Very true. But it is internally consistent in ways that you
aren't smart enough to debunk.
Jabba the Hutt is internally consistent. Doesn't mean he
exists.
Who claims he does?
George Lucas. Prove Lucas wrong. Prove there are no Hutts.
Cite your source that George Lucas has claimed that Star Wars are
not ficiton. Or admit that you're a masutrbating retard, same as
all atheists.
You're intentionally being obtuse.
You're being stupid, but it's not intentional at all. You're just
*stupid*. The dishonesty, of course, is deliberate.
Your opinion of my personal education is irrelevant to this
conversation.
Your opinion of my intent is equally irrelevant.
You're talking about "God" as if
it's nonfiction.
And you're talking about it as if it's fiction. The exact same
mistake theists make.
It's the same fiction as the sentient dishwasher analogy I alluded to
above. Unless you're trying to say that it's not fiction....
I haven't professed any belief either way. In point of fact, I've
observed that agnosticism is the only rational belief.
Now, prove that your dishwashers exist, or admit to lying.
--
Terry Austin
"Dude, we're all your *****, but only Ken's wearing the juice."
- tussock
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
05 Jan 2008 11:38:28 PM |
|
|
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in news:13nu1u8is9lut35
@news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000hsf.googlegr
ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean there is no
God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does not
preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an omnipotent,
omnipresent, and omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by free-will because
the overall goodness exceeds what would be case if there was
no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that this life
is only temporary. The next one is eternal. What happens in
this life is relevant only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because they *can't*
grasp the idea that their assumption there is no afterlife
can't be used to prove itself. In that, they are
indistinguishable from the theists who can't grasp that their
assumption that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws regarding
religion down my throat. I am forced to spend money with
fictional beings being referenced on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life that is so
terrible? That isn't the result of you being a dipshit, that is.
Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the Flying
Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why would you? Boo
fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing against the
*laws*, not the religion. But it's not about the laws, its about
you telling them how to live, and what to believe. *Just* like
they want to do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was doing
neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't bristling.
What else do you imagine me doing?
I don't need to imagine anything.
Except for your idea of reality.
Do you?
Yes. I'm not the one claiming that you're not debating.
You're the one claiming you are.
And I am.
No.
Ah, I do thank you for that detailed and thorough rebuttal, filled with
facts and citations. I bow to your debating skills.
Here's how to look at it:
Prove that there are no invisible sentient dishwashers
orbiting Saturn.
Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Not going to attempt this, are you?
Why'd you snip out my answer? Afraid to dealing with it? Typical
cowardly response. *Just* like the theists.
I didn't snip it. Look just below:
You certainly didn't address it. And you won't. Ever.
Provide some evidence that anyone has claimed there are.
I have claimed that there are invisible sentient dishwashers are
orbiting Saturn. Prove that there are no invisible sentient
dishwashers orbiting Saturn. Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Your claim, your responsibility to prove. Or do you think different
rules should apply to you than to theists?
That's my point. I don't need to prove there's no god.
You claim there are invisible sentient dishwashers orbiting Saturn,
and demanding I prove otherwise. The exact same thing you ***** about
theists doing. Hypocrite. That simple.
Now that you know the definition of debate, can you look up the
definition of "analogy"?
Can you look up the definition of "stupid"?
Yes. The "sentient dishwasher" idea was stupid. So is the idea of God.
[and take a gander at this: an omnipresent God precludes
the possibility of free will]
There is no basis for this statement.
Actually, there is. God is inherently a contradiction. From
any sane, human perspective, an all-knowing, all-powerful
being cannot exist, because the two qualities are mutually
exclusive. That's why God is a diety. He gets to do things we
can't understand.
That still doesn't mean that "God" exists beyond the
imaginings of superstitious people.
Very true. But it is internally consistent in ways that you
aren't smart enough to debunk.
Jabba the Hutt is internally consistent. Doesn't mean he
exists.
Who claims he does?
George Lucas. Prove Lucas wrong. Prove there are no Hutts.
Cite your source that George Lucas has claimed that Star Wars are
not ficiton. Or admit that you're a masutrbating retard, same as
all atheists.
You're intentionally being obtuse.
You're being stupid, but it's not intentional at all. You're just
*stupid*. The dishonesty, of course, is deliberate.
Your opinion of my personal education is irrelevant to this
conversation.
Your opinion of my intent is equally irrelevant.
Good.
You're talking about "God" as if
it's nonfiction.
And you're talking about it as if it's fiction. The exact same
mistake theists make.
It's the same fiction as the sentient dishwasher analogy I alluded to
above. Unless you're trying to say that it's not fiction....
I haven't professed any belief either way. In point of fact, I've
observed that agnosticism is the only rational belief.
Agnosticism is not a belief structure.
Now, prove that your dishwashers exist, or admit to lying.
I have not claimed that those dishwashers actually existed. I was
analogizing the belief in God with the belief in sentient dishwashers.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 12:36:32 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in news:13nu1u8is9lut35
@news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000hsf.google
gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean there is
no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does not
preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by free-will because
the overall goodness exceeds what would be case if there
was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that this life
is only temporary. The next one is eternal. What happens in
this life is relevant only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because they *can't*
grasp the idea that their assumption there is no afterlife
can't be used to prove itself. In that, they are
indistinguishable from the theists who can't grasp that
their assumption that God exists cannot prove that God
exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws regarding
religion down my throat. I am forced to spend money with
fictional beings being referenced on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life that is so
terrible? That isn't the result of you being a dipshit, that
is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the Flying
Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why would you?
Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing against
the *laws*, not the religion. But it's not about the laws, its
about you telling them how to live, and what to believe. *Just*
like they want to do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was doing
neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't bristling.
You still are.
What else do you imagine me doing?
I don't need to imagine anything.
Except for your idea of reality.
Do you?
Yes. I'm not the one claiming that you're not debating.
You're the one claiming you are.
And I am.
No.
Ah, I do thank you for that detailed and thorough rebuttal, filled
with facts and citations.
I've offered as many details, facts and citations as you have, pookie.
Once again, the dishonest, stupid atheist demands that different rules
apply to himself than he wished to impose on others. *Just* like the
theists.
I bow to your debating skills.
As well you should.
Here's how to look at it:
Prove that there are no invisible sentient dishwashers
orbiting Saturn.
Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Not going to attempt this, are you?
Why'd you snip out my answer? Afraid to dealing with it?
Typical cowardly response. *Just* like the theists.
I didn't snip it. Look just below:
You certainly didn't address it. And you won't. Ever.
Provide some evidence that anyone has claimed there are.
I have claimed that there are invisible sentient dishwashers are
orbiting Saturn. Prove that there are no invisible sentient
dishwashers orbiting Saturn. Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Your claim, your responsibility to prove. Or do you think
different rules should apply to you than to theists?
That's my point. I don't need to prove there's no god.
You claim there are invisible sentient dishwashers orbiting Saturn,
and demanding I prove otherwise. The exact same thing you *****
about theists doing. Hypocrite. That simple.
Now that you know the definition of debate, can you look up the
definition of "analogy"?
Can you look up the definition of "stupid"?
Yes. The "sentient dishwasher" idea was stupid. So is the idea of
God.
And so are you.
[and take a gander at this: an omnipresent God precludes
the possibility of free will]
There is no basis for this statement.
Actually, there is. God is inherently a contradiction. From
any sane, human perspective, an all-knowing, all-powerful
being cannot exist, because the two qualities are mutually
exclusive. That's why God is a diety. He gets to do things
we can't understand.
That still doesn't mean that "God" exists beyond the
imaginings of superstitious people.
Very true. But it is internally consistent in ways that you
aren't smart enough to debunk.
Jabba the Hutt is internally consistent. Doesn't mean he
exists.
Who claims he does?
George Lucas. Prove Lucas wrong. Prove there are no Hutts.
Cite your source that George Lucas has claimed that Star Wars are
not ficiton. Or admit that you're a masutrbating retard, same as
all atheists.
You're intentionally being obtuse.
You're being stupid, but it's not intentional at all. You're just
*stupid*. The dishonesty, of course, is deliberate.
Your opinion of my personal education is irrelevant to this
conversation.
Your opinion of my intent is equally irrelevant.
Good.
Heh.
You're talking about "God" as if
it's nonfiction.
And you're talking about it as if it's fiction. The exact same
mistake theists make.
It's the same fiction as the sentient dishwasher analogy I alluded
to above. Unless you're trying to say that it's not fiction....
I haven't professed any belief either way. In point of fact, I've
observed that agnosticism is the only rational belief.
Agnosticism is not a belief structure.
Heh.
Now, prove that your dishwashers exist, or admit to lying.
I have not claimed that those dishwashers actually existed.
Liar.
--
Terry Austin
"Dude, we're all your *****, but only Ken's wearing the juice."
- tussock
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 02:49:25 PM |
|
|
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in news:13nu1u8is9lut35
@news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000hsf.google
gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean there is
no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does not
preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by free-will because
the overall goodness exceeds what would be case if there
was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that this life
is only temporary. The next one is eternal. What happens in
this life is relevant only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because they *can't*
grasp the idea that their assumption there is no afterlife
can't be used to prove itself. In that, they are
indistinguishable from the theists who can't grasp that
their assumption that God exists cannot prove that God
exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws regarding
religion down my throat. I am forced to spend money with
fictional beings being referenced on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life that is so
terrible? That isn't the result of you being a dipshit, that
is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the Flying
Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why would you?
Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing against
the *laws*, not the religion. But it's not about the laws, its
about you telling them how to live, and what to believe. *Just*
like they want to do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was doing
neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no. I'm actually chuckling in amusement.
What else do you imagine me doing?
I don't need to imagine anything.
Except for your idea of reality.
Do you?
Yes. I'm not the one claiming that you're not debating.
You're the one claiming you are.
And I am.
No.
Ah, I do thank you for that detailed and thorough rebuttal, filled
with facts and citations.
I've offered as many details, facts and citations as you have, pookie.
I don't need any. I'm not making a positive claim.
Once again, the dishonest, stupid atheist demands that different rules
apply to himself than he wished to impose on others. *Just* like the
theists.
Not at all. In all debates whereupon the existence of something is in
debate, the person making the claim that something exists is the one
that must present the evidence. There is no burden of proof on the
person denying the claim.
I bow to your debating skills.
As well you should.
This should help:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm
Here's how to look at it:
Prove that there are no invisible sentient dishwashers
orbiting Saturn.
Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Not going to attempt this, are you?
Why'd you snip out my answer? Afraid to dealing with it?
Typical cowardly response. *Just* like the theists.
I didn't snip it. Look just below:
You certainly didn't address it. And you won't. Ever.
Provide some evidence that anyone has claimed there are.
I have claimed that there are invisible sentient dishwashers are
orbiting Saturn. Prove that there are no invisible sentient
dishwashers orbiting Saturn. Go on. Prove there aren't any.
Your claim, your responsibility to prove. Or do you think
different rules should apply to you than to theists?
That's my point. I don't need to prove there's no god.
You claim there are invisible sentient dishwashers orbiting Saturn,
and demanding I prove otherwise. The exact same thing you *****
about theists doing. Hypocrite. That simple.
Now that you know the definition of debate, can you look up the
definition of "analogy"?
Can you look up the definition of "stupid"?
Yes. The "sentient dishwasher" idea was stupid. So is the idea of
God.
And so are you.
This should help, too:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
[and take a gander at this: an omnipresent God precludes
the possibility of free will]
There is no basis for this statement.
Actually, there is. God is inherently a contradiction. From
any sane, human perspective, an all-knowing, all-powerful
being cannot exist, because the two qualities are mutually
exclusive. That's why God is a diety. He gets to do things
we can't understand.
That still doesn't mean that "God" exists beyond the
imaginings of superstitious people.
Very true. But it is internally consistent in ways that you
aren't smart enough to debunk.
Jabba the Hutt is internally consistent. Doesn't mean he
exists.
Who claims he does?
George Lucas. Prove Lucas wrong. Prove there are no Hutts.
Cite your source that George Lucas has claimed that Star Wars are
not ficiton. Or admit that you're a masutrbating retard, same as
all atheists.
You're intentionally being obtuse.
You're being stupid, but it's not intentional at all. You're just
*stupid*. The dishonesty, of course, is deliberate.
Your opinion of my personal education is irrelevant to this
conversation.
Your opinion of my intent is equally irrelevant.
Good.
Heh.
You're talking about "God" as if
it's nonfiction.
And you're talking about it as if it's fiction. The exact same
mistake theists make.
It's the same fiction as the sentient dishwasher analogy I alluded
to above. Unless you're trying to say that it's not fiction....
I haven't professed any belief either way. In point of fact, I've
observed that agnosticism is the only rational belief.
Agnosticism is not a belief structure.
Heh.
Now, prove that your dishwashers exist, or admit to lying.
I have not claimed that those dishwashers actually existed.
Liar.
Final bit of help:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 03:38:16 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in
news:13nu1u8is9lut35 @news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000hs
f.google gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean
there is no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does
not preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by free-will
because the overall goodness exceeds what would be
case if there was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that
this life is only temporary. The next one is
eternal. What happens in this life is relevant only
in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because they
*can't* grasp the idea that their assumption there
is no afterlife can't be used to prove itself. In
that, they are indistinguishable from the theists
who can't grasp that their assumption that God
exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't
exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws
regarding religion down my throat. I am forced to
spend money with fictional beings being referenced on
it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life
that is so terrible? That isn't the result of you being
a dipshit, that is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the
Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why would
you? Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing
against the *laws*, not the religion. But it's not
about the laws, its about you telling them how to live,
and what to believe. *Just* like they want to do to
you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was
doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not bristle
so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no.
Yes.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 03:45:17 PM |
|
|
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in
news:13nu1u8is9lut35 @news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000hs
f.google gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean
there is no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does
not preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by free-will
because the overall goodness exceeds what would be
case if there was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that
this life is only temporary. The next one is
eternal. What happens in this life is relevant only
in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because they
*can't* grasp the idea that their assumption there
is no afterlife can't be used to prove itself. In
that, they are indistinguishable from the theists
who can't grasp that their assumption that God
exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't
exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws
regarding religion down my throat. I am forced to
spend money with fictional beings being referenced on
it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life
that is so terrible? That isn't the result of you being
a dipshit, that is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the
Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why would
you? Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing
against the *laws*, not the religion. But it's not
about the laws, its about you telling them how to live,
and what to believe. *Just* like they want to do to
you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was
doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not bristle
so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no.
Yes.
So, "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" is your new nick, Terry?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 03:50:55 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:E6idnS-0Aav91hzanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in
news:13nu1u8is9lut35 @news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000
hs f.google gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean
there is no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does
not preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent
God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by
free-will because the overall goodness exceeds
what would be case if there was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that
this life is only temporary. The next one is
eternal. What happens in this life is relevant
only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because
they *can't* grasp the idea that their assumption
there is no afterlife can't be used to prove
itself. In that, they are indistinguishable from
the theists who can't grasp that their assumption
that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't
exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws
regarding religion down my throat. I am forced to
spend money with fictional beings being referenced
on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life
that is so terrible? That isn't the result of you
being a dipshit, that is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the
Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why
would you? Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing
against the *laws*, not the religion. But it's not
about the laws, its about you telling them how to
live, and what to believe. *Just* like they want to
do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was
doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not
bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no.
Yes.
So, "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" is your new nick, Terry?
Has been for, what, a week now? Try to pay attention.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 04:01:55 PM |
|
|
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:E6idnS-0Aav91hzanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in
news:13nu1u8is9lut35 @news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000
hs f.google gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean
there is no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does
not preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent
God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by
free-will because the overall goodness exceeds
what would be case if there was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that
this life is only temporary. The next one is
eternal. What happens in this life is relevant
only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because
they *can't* grasp the idea that their assumption
there is no afterlife can't be used to prove
itself. In that, they are indistinguishable from
the theists who can't grasp that their assumption
that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't
exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws
regarding religion down my throat. I am forced to
spend money with fictional beings being referenced
on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life
that is so terrible? That isn't the result of you
being a dipshit, that is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the
Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why
would you? Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing
against the *laws*, not the religion. But it's not
about the laws, its about you telling them how to
live, and what to believe. *Just* like they want to
do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was
doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not
bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no.
Yes.
So, "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" is your new nick, Terry?
Has been for, what, a week now? Try to pay attention.
So, you're going by both names? At 11:50 AM today, I received a
newsgroup posting from you with the name "Terry Austin" in the Sender field.
Either way, you dishonestly snipped my post to take what I said out of
context. I am not bristling. I'm amused. Two vastly different things,
so either you're incompetent, or you're lying.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 04:32:30 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:OZOdneKzTaza0hzanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:E6idnS-0Aav91hzanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in
news:13nu1u8is9lut35 @news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g20
00 hs f.google gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not
mean there is no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world
does not preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of
an omnipotent, omnipresent, and
omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by
free-will because the overall goodness exceeds
what would be case if there was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact
that this life is only temporary. The next one
is eternal. What happens in this life is
relevant only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because
they *can't* grasp the idea that their
assumption there is no afterlife can't be used
to prove itself. In that, they are
indistinguishable from the theists who can't
grasp that their assumption
that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't
exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws
regarding religion down my throat. I am forced to
spend money with fictional beings being referenced
on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life
that is so terrible? That isn't the result of you
being a dipshit, that is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the
Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why
would you? Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be
arguing against the *laws*, not the religion. But
it's not about the laws, its about you telling them
how to live, and what to believe. *Just* like they
want to do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was
doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not
bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't
bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no.
Yes.
So, "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" is your new nick, Terry?
Has been for, what, a week now? Try to pay attention.
So, you're going by both names?
I post from different machines, and use different names (but the
same email address).
At 11:50 AM today, I received a
newsgroup posting from you with the name "Terry Austin" in the
Sender field.
Either way, you dishonestly snipped my post to take what I said
out of context. I am not bristling. I'm amused. Two vastly
different things, so either you're incompetent, or you're lying.
Or you're incompetent, or you're lying. I know which way I'll bet.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 04:38:08 PM |
|
|
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:OZOdneKzTaza0hzanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:E6idnS-0Aav91hzanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in
news:13nu1u8is9lut35 @news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g20
00 hs f.google gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not
mean there is no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world
does not preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of
an omnipotent, omnipresent, and
omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by
free-will because the overall goodness exceeds
what would be case if there was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact
that this life is only temporary. The next one
is eternal. What happens in this life is
relevant only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because
they *can't* grasp the idea that their
assumption there is no afterlife can't be used
to prove itself. In that, they are
indistinguishable from the theists who can't
grasp that their assumption
that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't
exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws
regarding religion down my throat. I am forced to
spend money with fictional beings being referenced
on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life
that is so terrible? That isn't the result of you
being a dipshit, that is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the
Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why
would you? Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be
arguing against the *laws*, not the religion. But
it's not about the laws, its about you telling them
how to live, and what to believe. *Just* like they
want to do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was
doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not
bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't
bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no.
Yes.
So, "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" is your new nick, Terry?
Has been for, what, a week now? Try to pay attention.
So, you're going by both names?
I post from different machines, and use different names (but the
same email address).
Okay, no problem.
At 11:50 AM today, I received a
newsgroup posting from you with the name "Terry Austin" in the
Sender field.
Either way, you dishonestly snipped my post to take what I said
out of context. I am not bristling. I'm amused. Two vastly
different things, so either you're incompetent, or you're lying.
Or you're incompetent, or you're lying. I know which way I'll bet.
I'm sorry, but....what?!
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 05:04:14 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:tPidnb34h_1fyhzanZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:OZOdneKzTaza0hzanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:E6idnS-0Aav91hzanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.co
m:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in
news:13nu1u8is9lut35 @news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g
20 00 hs f.google gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not
mean there is no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world
does not preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of
an omnipotent, omnipresent, and
omni-benevolent God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by
free-will because the overall goodness
exceeds what would be case if there was no
free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact
that this life is only temporary. The next
one is eternal. What happens in this life is
relevant only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because
they *can't* grasp the idea that their
assumption there is no afterlife can't be
used to prove itself. In that, they are
indistinguishable from the theists who can't
grasp that their assumption
that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't
exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws
regarding religion down my throat. I am forced
to spend money with fictional beings being
referenced on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your
life that is so terrible? That isn't the result
of you being a dipshit, that is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In
the Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why
would you? Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be
arguing against the *laws*, not the religion. But
it's not about the laws, its about you telling
them how to live, and what to believe. *Just*
like they want to do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I
was doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not
bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't
bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no.
Yes.
So, "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" is your new nick,
Terry?
Has been for, what, a week now? Try to pay attention.
So, you're going by both names?
I post from different machines, and use different names (but
the same email address).
Okay, no problem.
I'm so glad I have your permission.
At 11:50 AM today, I received a
newsgroup posting from you with the name "Terry Austin" in the
Sender field.
Either way, you dishonestly snipped my post to take what I
said out of context. I am not bristling. I'm amused. Two
vastly different things, so either you're incompetent, or
you're lying.
Or you're incompetent, or you're lying. I know which way I'll
bet.
I'm sorry, but....what?!
QED.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
10 Jan 2008 11:29:35 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:38:08 -0800, DanielSan wrote:
At 11:50 AM today, I received a
newsgroup posting from you with the name "Terry Austin" in the
Sender field.
Either way, you dishonestly snipped my post to take what I said
out of context. I am not bristling. I'm amused. Two vastly
different things, so either you're incompetent, or you're lying.
Or you're incompetent, or you're lying. I know which way I'll bet.
I'm sorry, but....what?!
I do believe Mr. Austin has finally imploded; whatever it is he's been
trying to get across has degenerated into complete incoherency.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
10 Jan 2008 11:55:34 AM |
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in
news:v81i55-n7g.ln1@spanky.localhost.net:
[snips]
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:38:08 -0800, DanielSan wrote:
At 11:50 AM today, I received a
newsgroup posting from you with the name "Terry Austin" in
the Sender field.
Either way, you dishonestly snipped my post to take what I
said out of context. I am not bristling. I'm amused. Two
vastly different things, so either you're incompetent, or
you're lying.
Or you're incompetent, or you're lying. I know which way I'll
bet.
I'm sorry, but....what?!
I do believe Mr. Austin has finally imploded; whatever it is
he's been trying to get across has degenerated into complete
incoherency.
I'm only imitating y'all.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
06 Jan 2008 05:40:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:01:55 -0800, DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:E6idnS-0Aav91hzanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JOOdnUp7mpENveLanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
"Ultra" <ultra@ultra.ultra> wrote in
news:13nu1u8is9lut35 @news.supernews.com:
"Dag Yo" <sir_roko2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6cfaf925-5a5e-4dd7-99a5-558acadb25d3@v4g2000
hs f.google gr ou ps .c om ...
That there is evil in the world does not mean
there is no God.
Agreed. The presence of evil in the world does
not preclude the possibility of a God.
It does however preclude the possibility of an
omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent
God.
Not true. God allows the evil caused by
free-will because the overall goodness exceeds
what would be case if there was no free-will.
I believe the real argument lies in the fact that
this life is only temporary. The next one is
eternal. What happens in this life is relevant
only in how it affects the next.
The atheists *can't* answer that one, because
they *can't* grasp the idea that their assumption
there is no afterlife can't be used to prove
itself. In that, they are indistinguishable from
the theists who can't grasp that their assumption
that God exists cannot prove that God exists.
The onus is not on us to prove that it doesn't
exist.
Then why do you care?
Because there are folks that try to shove laws
regarding religion down my throat. I am forced to
spend money with fictional beings being referenced
on it, for example.
And exactly what effect does this have on your life
that is so terrible? That isn't the result of you
being a dipshit, that is. Boo fucking hoo.
Let me know how you feel when your money has "In the
Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" on it.
If it spends the same, why would I give a *****? Why
would you? Boo fucking hoo.
And if that's the case, retard, you should be arguing
against the *laws*, not the religion. But it's not
about the laws, its about you telling them how to
live, and what to believe. *Just* like they want to
do to you.
Why bother to even read this newsgroup, if you
don't believe there is no God.
Because I enjoy debate and socializing.
You are doing neither here.
Do you know the definition of the word "debate"?
Yes.
Obviously, you don't, else you wouldn't say that I was
doing neither.
Obviously, I do, and you know it, or you would not
bristle so.
Do you imagine that I'm bristling?
No. I observe that you are.
Then you need to get your eyes checked. I wasn't bristling.
You still are.
Sorry, but no.
Yes.
So, "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" is your new nick, Terry?
Has been for, what, a week now? Try to pay attention.
So, you're going by both names? At 11:50 AM today, I received a
newsgroup posting from you with the name "Terry Austin" in the Sender field.
Either way, you dishonestly snipped my post to take what I said out of
context. I am not bristling. I'm amused. Two vastly different things,
so either you're incompetent, or you're lying.
Iinm, he's argued with himself under several distinct nicks, just to show off how ***** Terry
takes no ***** from 'rational' Terry.
--
Apostate a.a. #1931
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil - outweighed by free will |
07 Jan 2008 11:14:06 AM |
|
|
Apostate <godless.*****@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote in
news:2kp2o3h326f7lp9dvseuc438u73tieh4cn@4ax.com:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:01:55 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:E6idnS-0Aav91hzanZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:AP-dnZGbCsLUoxzanZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:rPKdnegPivdR9R3anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:r9ydnVb_IOyZ1B3anZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:8fqdnao-FaZ6mR3anZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:xOqdnbcsnqsbUOLanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2Yednew4fZ38u-LanZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com:
Terry Austin wrote:
DanielSan <petersonj07@comcast.n | | | | | | | | | | | |
