EXPOSING THE ATHEIST

Religions > Atheism > EXPOSING THE ATHEIST

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 12 of 14

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Soren K."
Date:	15 Aug 2004 11:15:19 PM
Object:	EXPOSING THE ATHEIST

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C4830C.F7F792A0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_000A_01C4830C.F7F792A0"
------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C4830C.F7F792A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Blank=20
EXPOSING THE ATHEIST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate that =
atheism is pure heathenism and error. They present some of the reasons =
why you should turned away from atheism and nonbelief - to a staunch =
belief in the Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very =
carefully.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its =
author. satan is its author.=20
It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his origin =
in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of =
God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been =
previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's =
meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the =
existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does =
indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that =
fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to =
God's existence."=20
Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, =
but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine =
authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is =
their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the =
TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other =
laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, =
but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in =
the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny =
that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit =
the existence of God.=20
Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he =
will deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own =
existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one =
hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other.=20
In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must =
understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are =
antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, =
its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is =
an antithetical principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its =
nature even in the most insane instances. Therefore it must hate God =
even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its =
hatred. It is this antithetical principle, called "the law of sin" which =
is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God. The law =
of sin is none other than the law that governs satan's kingdom.=20
Below are articles I've presented in effort to expose the true satanic =
nature of atheism, the great harm it is doing to the american society =
and the world community and to prove and demonstrate that atheists and =
all other nonbelievers in the true God are the actual criminals of the =
world community. I hope these articles will enable people to see that =
atheists are extremely dangerous people. Therefore laws should be made =
against them by all the governments of the world community.=20
--=20
Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists
www.atheistfools.com
------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C4830C.F7F792A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=3DridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"><BASE=20
href=3D"file://C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft =
Shared\Stationery\">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; =
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3DridBody bgColor=3D#ffffff=20
background=3Dcid:000401c48347$a454e400$0300a8c0@desktop>
<DIV><A name=3DTOP> 
<CENTER><FONT color=3D#008080 size=3D+2><B>EXPOSING THE =
ATHEIST</B></FONT></CENTER>
<P> </P>
<CENTER> </CENTER>
<HR>
<P>The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate =
that=20
atheism is pure heathenism and error. They present some of the reasons =
why you=20
should turned away from atheism and nonbelief - to a staunch belief in =
the=20
Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very carefully. </P>
<HR>
<P>The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its =
author.=20
satan is its author. </P>
<P>It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his =
origin in=20
heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of =
God,=20
heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been =
previously=20
deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's meaning of =
atheism,=20
<B>atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in =
the midst=20
of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist.</B> Atheism knows =
God=20
exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no =
circumstance=20
or situation will I admit to God's existence." </P>
<P>Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, =
but=20
refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine =
authorship of=20
the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. =
Atheism=20
perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but =
refuses=20
to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives =
the=20
divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If =
an=20
atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel =
them with=20
his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. Atheism is =
deliberate effort=20
to never admit the existence of God. </P>
<P>Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he =
will=20
deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own existence =
even while=20
in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its =
existence by=20
denying its truth with the other. </P>
<P>In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must =
understand=20
the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are =
antithetical to one=20
another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, its very =
antithetical=20
nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical =
principle to=20
righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most insane =
instances. Therefore it must hate God even though God is righteous and =
has given=20
it no just cause for its hatred. It is this antithetical principle, =
called "the=20
law of sin" which is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to =
reject=20
God. The law of sin is none other than the law that governs satan's =
kingdom.=20
</P>
<P>Below are articles I've presented in effort to expose the true =
satanic nature=20
of atheism, the great harm it is doing to the american society and the =
world=20
community and to prove and demonstrate that atheists and all other =
nonbelievers=20
in the true God are the actual criminals of the world community. I hope =
these=20
articles will enable people to see that atheists are extremely dangerous =
people.=20
Therefore laws should be made against them by all the governments of the =
world=20
community. </P></A></DIV>
<DIV><BR>-- <BR>Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.atheistfools.com">www.atheistfools.com</A></DIV>
<P> </P></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_000A_01C4830C.F7F792A0--
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C4830C.F7F792A0
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="Blank Bkgrd.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <000401c48347$a454e400$0300a8c0@desktop>
R0lGODlhLQAtAID/AP////f39ywAAAAALQAtAEACcAxup8vtvxKQsFon6d02898pGkgiYoCm6sq2
7iqWcmzOsmeXeA7uPJd5CYdD2g9oPF58ygqz+XhCG9JpJGmlYrPXGlfr/Yo/VW45e7amp2tou/lW
xo/zX513z+Vt+1n/tiX2pxP4NUhy2FM4xtjIUQAAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C4830C.F7F792A0--
.

User: "Mad Scientist"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	18 Aug 2004 08:22:22 PM

Rather Twisted Onerous Moron doesn't have the intelligence to understand
the second law other than what his queerboy lover John has to say about
it. You are both a joke, and an insult to the ancestors.
Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:k8TUc.1804578$Ar.221228@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Twisted Onerous Moron (Tom) now proves he has a right to insult others
when he can't answer the questions put before him regarding the second
law of thermodynamics.

You don't have enough intelligence to ask me a question on the 2LOT, "Mad".

Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:lVSUc.1804438$Ar.759453@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

You prove you know some grammer, now prove you are completely a dipshit.

I don't know about me but you are doing a hell of a job in establishing

that

you are an ***** :-).

One more thing, you need to use your spellchecker. If you had used it for
this post you would have immediately recognized your error using "grammer"
instead of "grammar".

<snip>

User: "Kermit"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	30 Aug 2004 03:44:35 PM

Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<bxPUc.1802322$Ar.568688@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:tHNUc.1800533$Ar.1428469@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Dixit wrote:

Randi's offer only proves him a fraud. His offer is bogus and he never
intends to pay it out to anyone whatsoever. Uri Gellar has already
proved mind over matter but Randi 'debunks' that proof which scientists
have already established as authentic. The 'skeptic' prove how much
they are a biased bunch when they quote that fake poseur Randi as
'proof' of anything they simple can't handle to know to be true.

Rest of your spittle snipped due its meaningless content.

Yeah boy, old Uri is a real scientist, hard at work.

You are nothing but a blasphemer and that's all you will ever be. A big
fat loser.

How much money has Uri Gellar gotten out of you already? I wouldn't
call *him a loser, altho he is a fraud, a liar, and a huckster.
You are what the carnies would call a mark.
Exactly what is wrong with Randi's offer and how it is set up?
Are you really trying to tell a bunch of skeptics that true psychic
powers are more likely than a con artist bilking the gullible,
especially when his "powers" can be duplicated by any decent stage
magician? And more especially when he won't let it be examined too
closely?
Which scientists have confirmed Gellar's claims? Scientists typically
are used to colleagues who are trying to discover how things work;
they are not trained to detect and expose fraud. Professional
illusionists like Randi or Penn and Teller are the perfect ones to
detect exactly the sort of lies Uri Gellar perpetuates among his
faithful.
Kermit
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	30 Aug 2004 03:48:00 PM

On 30 Aug 2004 13:44:35 -0700,

(Kermit)
wrote:

Also, he is a stage magician in Israel, and doesn't even pretend to be
psychic.

Which scientists have confirmed Gellar's claims? Scientists typically
are used to colleagues who are trying to discover how things work;
they are not trained to detect and expose fraud. Professional
illusionists like Randi or Penn and Teller are the perfect ones to
detect exactly the sort of lies Uri Gellar perpetuates among his
faithful.

Kermit

User: "christbomb"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	30 Aug 2004 08:22:07 PM

On 30 Aug 2004 13:44:35 -0700,

(Kermit)
wrote:

Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<bxPUc.1802322$Ar.568688@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:tHNUc.1800533$Ar.1428469@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Dixit wrote:

Do you still believe in Uri Geller? The most amazing thing is that
people still do. And years after Popoff is discredited, I still see
him on TV. These followers display incredible faith. Faith looks good
when heroes use it to hold "true" belief in the face of opposition.
But is ultimate faith continuing to believe, in spite of overwhelming
evidence, that Geller and Popoff are not crooks?

Rest of your spittle snipped due its meaningless content.

Yeah boy, old Uri is a real scientist, hard at work.

You are nothing but a blasphemer and that's all you will ever be. A big
fat loser.

How much money has Uri Gellar gotten out of you already? I wouldn't
call *him a loser, altho he is a fraud, a liar, and a huckster.

You are what the carnies would call a mark.

Exactly what is wrong with Randi's offer and how it is set up?
Are you really trying to tell a bunch of skeptics that true psychic
powers are more likely than a con artist bilking the gullible,
especially when his "powers" can be duplicated by any decent stage
magician? And more especially when he won't let it be examined too
closely?

Which scientists have confirmed Gellar's claims? Scientists typically
are used to colleagues who are trying to discover how things work;
they are not trained to detect and expose fraud. Professional
illusionists like Randi or Penn and Teller are the perfect ones to
detect exactly the sort of lies Uri Gellar perpetuates among his
faithful.

Kermit

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	18 Aug 2004 02:29:18 PM

In article <E7NUc.275345$a24.244901@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:

There is no such thing as God�, and cannot possibly be.

This is either a claim or a delusion. if it is a claim, it needs proof,
which Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) notoriously has
been unable to provide. If it is a delusion, it requires medication,
which Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is too stupid to
take.

There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God�...

This is also either a claim or a delusion. if it is a claim, it needs
proof, which Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies)
notoriously has been unable to provide. If it is a delusion, it requires
medication, which Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is so
far too stupid to take.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	17 Aug 2004 03:25:26 PM

In article <mnpUc.1345$Fg5.1259@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:

There is no such thing as God�, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God�, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything...

Such claims of absolute certainty must be supported by evidence of great
probity in order to be considered acceptable.
Septic Capon's, the Simple Pimple, claim above, like other of his
claims, is not so supported and is not acceptable.
.

User: "Dixit"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	18 Aug 2004 01:18:05 PM

Virgil wrote:

In article <mnpUc.1345$Fg5.1259@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:

There is no such thing as God�, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God�, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything...

Such claims ...

1. It's not a claim, it is a statement of denial (the negation) of your
claim that there might be a mgically invisible God�.
2. The statement is supported by the part you snipped, knucklehead.
[unsnip]
Pastor Dave wrote:

...God is not
physical and therefore, needs no physical cause.

That's just logical fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis, mon fr�re.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one�s theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
If you can demonstrate anything not physical you win $1,000,000.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
There is no such thing as God�, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God�, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to the
fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of God�,
which Russell points out.
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes as you do that
there might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an
argument for God�, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
that does not run into this fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in
the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	18 Aug 2004 02:24:16 PM

In article <x3NUc.32317$mD.6500@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:

Virgil wrote:

In article <mnpUc.1345$Fg5.1259@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:

There is no such thing as God�, and cannot possibly be. There is no
possibility that there might actually be such a thing as God�, the
theists' hypothetical first cause/creator of everything...

Denial of a claim is a claim that the original claim is false

Such claims ...

1. It's not a claim, it is a statement of denial (the negation) of your
claim that there might be a mgically invisible God�.

Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim that it
is false, which requires the claimant provide proof that there cannot
be any gods.
Note that if Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) does not
claim that "there might be a god" is false, then he admits that "there
might be a god " might be true.
In which case, I am content to say only that it might be that there
might be a god, and of course, it might be that it might be that there
is no god.
.

User: "Dixit"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	19 Aug 2004 12:20:17 AM

Virgil wrote:

Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...

The claim is the claim and the denial is the denial, two completely
different things, knucklehead.
How can it be that an adult does not know the difference between a claim
and the denial (the negation in logic) of one, and how can it be that an
adult does not know the principle that the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial because that is logical fallacy, a form of
argument _ad ignorantiam_? Tsk tsk. Study up.

The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting

denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]

denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]

User: "Jeff Young"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	19 Aug 2004 11:55:16 AM

Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>...

Virgil wrote:

Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...

How can it be that an adult

<snip diversionary argumentum ad hominem from Septic; again>
Argumentum ad hominem is a _fallacy_, Donny.
It is obviously possible to make a negative existential _claim_, e.g.
"There exists no instance of the word 'adult'."
Jeff
.

User: "Dixit"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	19 Aug 2004 04:24:42 PM

Jeff Young wrote:

Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>...

Virgil wrote:

Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...

How can it be that an adult

<snip diversionary argumentum ad hominem from Septic; again>

Argumentum ad hominem is a _fallacy_, Donny.

It is obviously possible to make a negative existential _claim_, e.g.
"There exists no instance of the word 'adult'."

Jeff

Why don't you give up always trying to change the subject, knucklehead?
"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial as you theologs are always trying to do:
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.

User: "Jeff Young"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	20 Aug 2004 01:20:07 PM

Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<uU8Vc.39735$mD.10300@attbi_s02>...

Jeff Young wrote:

Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>...

Virgil wrote:

Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...

How can it be that an adult

<snip diversionary argumentum ad hominem from Septic; again>

Argumentum ad hominem is a _fallacy_, Donny.

It is obviously possible to make a negative existential _claim_, e.g.
"There exists no instance of the word 'adult'."

Jeff

"There are no gods" is not a claim

"There is no lack of gods" is not a claim then either, on pain of
Special Pleading Fallacy by Septic yet again.
So I'll point out again that Septic Donny AllFried remains the
completely confused, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot
fool liar of alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.

User: "Dixit"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	24 Aug 2004 12:53:10 PM

Jeff Young wrote:

Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<uU8Vc.39735$mD.10300@attbi_s02>...

Jeff Young wrote:

Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<kMWUc.282954$%_6.248255@attbi_s01>...

Virgil wrote:

Denial of that statement (that there might be a god) is a claim ...

How can it be that an adult

<snip diversionary argumentum ad hominem from Septic; again>

Argumentum ad hominem is a _fallacy_, Donny.

It is obviously possible to make a negative existential _claim_, e.g.
"There exists no instance of the word 'adult'."

Jeff

"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial as you theologs are always trying to do:

The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]

"There is no lack of gods" ...

.... means the same as there might be a magically invisible space pixie
anyway, even though there is nothing you can point to and say, 'That's
what I'm talking about.'
That's what characterizes theism. Theism is characterized by an
irrational religious belief there might be a magically invisible space
pixie. See that thread.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	24 Aug 2004 07:54:28 PM

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	24 Aug 2004 08:03:23 PM

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with "a
universal negative is not a proposition".
The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.
All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).
.

User: "Kermit"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	03 Sep 2004 11:18:14 PM

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message news:<vzRWc.32811$9Y6.28303@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

Agreed.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

There are problems with "proofs" which are personal, and cannot be
shared. Like the scientist in "Contact", I can imagine experiences
which would convince me of something, but if I only have words to
offer, it cannot and should not convince anyone else (if it is
unlikely, anyway).
I think we can prove [god does not exist] if the god in question is
the sort of entity that should leave evidence, and is therefore
falsifiable, and has been falsified.
There are Christians who say that there is a God, he is absolutely the
God of Abraham, and he created a global flood. This god can be
disproved as much as any hypothesis has been - there has been no
global flood.
A more subtle god, like the Deist god, cannot be disproven.
I am a strong atheist, regarding certain falsifiable gods, like the
one Jerry Falwell worships. With the others I am a weak atheist, and
am merely disinterested for the most part.
Kermit
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	25 Aug 2004 06:19:56 AM

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:03:23 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with "a
universal negative is not a proposition".

The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

Name the people who have disproved it and the method they used to
do so.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	25 Aug 2004 12:58:24 PM

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:betoi0pu3ias3sp1qtshtvnc5mbcr6s576@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:03:23 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with "a
universal negative is not a proposition".

The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

Name the people who have disproved it and the method they used to
do so.

You have disproved it, and the method you used was to pray to God, which you
would never have done if you didn't know that God existed.
If you deny that you have ever prayed to God, I think even your atheist
cohorts will laugh you out of court, what to speak of those from whom you
pretend to demand "evidence".
.

User: "Kermit"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	03 Sep 2004 11:28:10 PM

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message news:<4r4Xc.12999$3O3.7152@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:betoi0pu3ias3sp1qtshtvnc5mbcr6s576@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:03:23 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with "a
universal negative is not a proposition".

The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

Name the people who have disproved it and the method they used to
do so.

You have disproved it, and the method you used was to pray to God, which you
would never have done if you didn't know that God existed.

BWAHAHAhahahahhaha!
Horsefeathers! Why do you ruin a perfectly good comment about Virgil's
remark with this kind of silliness?
Have you ever woken up with a start in the middle of the night,
because you heard a noise in the house? You reached slowly for the
club you keep by the bed... and realize that it was your cat.
So, did that "prove" there really was a burgler, because for a moment
you thought there might be?
Did you ever have your girl break up with you, then the phone rang and
you picked it up because you thought it might be her... Does that
prove she really didn't break up with you?

If you deny that you have ever prayed to God, I think even your atheist
cohorts will laugh you out of court, what to speak of those from whom you
pretend to demand "evidence".

I can tell you that my wife has never prayed to God. And if she had,
and there were no miraculous results, how is that distinguishable from
her merely hoping or wondering if something which is nonexistant, does
exist?
I prayed to God for years; I was raised Southern Baptist. By the time
I was thirteen I realized that it was all rather sad and silly at the
same time.
How does one thinking that X is true, or hoping that X is true,
establish the truth of X?
Kermit
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	25 Aug 2004 05:42:27 PM

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:58:24 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:betoi0pu3ias3sp1qtshtvnc5mbcr6s576@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:03:23 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with "a
universal negative is not a proposition".

The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

Name the people who have disproved it and the method they used to
do so.

You have disproved it,

Show how.

and the method you used was to pray to God, which you
would never have done if you didn't know that God existed.

False.
Try again.
I could pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. That doesn't mean it exists,
does it?
Unless you want to play Anselm, in which case you've lost.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	25 Aug 2004 06:45:01 PM

Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:u75qi051neh114nq1i4nn4j0oot3d9uj0f@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:58:24 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:betoi0pu3ias3sp1qtshtvnc5mbcr6s576@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:03:23 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with "a
universal negative is not a proposition".

The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not
exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

Name the people who have disproved it and the method they used to
do so.

You have disproved it,

Show how.

and the method you used was to pray to God, which you
would never have done if you didn't know that God existed.

False.

Try again.

I could pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. That doesn't mean it exists,
does it?

You didn't pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. You prayed to God. You knew He was
there. Maybe He didn't give you what you wanted, and now, rather than admit
that He was right and you were wrong, you pretend that He doesn't exist.
I can understand why you are so tormented. Good "luck" where you're going,
chap. Have a nice millenium.
.

User: "Tom"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	25 Aug 2004 10:02:55 PM

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:1w9Xc.13284$3O3.3409@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:u75qi051neh114nq1i4nn4j0oot3d9uj0f@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:58:24 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:betoi0pu3ias3sp1qtshtvnc5mbcr6s576@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:03:23 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message

news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.co

m...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with

universal negative is not a proposition".

The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not
exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

Name the people who have disproved it and the method they used to
do so.

You have disproved it,

Show how.

and the method you used was to pray to God, which you
would never have done if you didn't know that God existed.

False.

Try again.

I could pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. That doesn't mean it exists,
does it?

You didn't pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. You prayed to God. You knew He was
there. Maybe He didn't give you what you wanted, and now, rather than

admit

that He was right and you were wrong, you pretend that He doesn't exist.

I can understand why you are so tormented. Good "luck" where you're going,
chap. Have a nice millenium.

Ignorant fundie, still doesn't understand how the atheist thinks. That is a
problem for fundies, they think everyone's thinking is restricted as is
theirs.
.

User: "Kermit"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	03 Sep 2004 11:31:28 PM

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message news:<1w9Xc.13284$3O3.3409@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:u75qi051neh114nq1i4nn4j0oot3d9uj0f@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:58:24 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:betoi0pu3ias3sp1qtshtvnc5mbcr6s576@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:03:23 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with "a
universal negative is not a proposition".

The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not
exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

Name the people who have disproved it and the method they used to
do so.

You have disproved it,

Show how.

and the method you used was to pray to God, which you
would never have done if you didn't know that God existed.

False.

Try again.

I could pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. That doesn't mean it exists,
does it?

You didn't pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. You prayed to God. You knew He was
there. Maybe He didn't give you what you wanted, and now, rather than admit
that He was right and you were wrong, you pretend that He doesn't exist.

I can understand why you are so tormented. Good "luck" where you're going,
chap. Have a nice millenium.

You are the msot arrogant, intellectually cowardly, self-righteous,
pseudo-pious prig I have seen in a long time. And we have some
champions posting here.
Kermit
.

User: "Chris Devol"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	04 Sep 2004 12:36:03 AM

"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b38d8c5.0409032031.3c556e30@posting.google.com...

"Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:<1w9Xc.13284$3O3.3409@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:u75qi051neh114nq1i4nn4j0oot3d9uj0f@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:58:24 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:betoi0pu3ias3sp1qtshtvnc5mbcr6s576@4ax.com...

In alt.atheism on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:03:23 GMT, "Chris Devol"
<eat@joes.pub> let us all know that:

"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-83D53E.18542824082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <agLWc.82312$TI1.62409@attbi_s52>, Dixit
<dix@nospam.net>
wrote:

"There are no gods" is not a claim

Then it must be false, since only claims can be true.

I think he is confusing "a universal negative cannot be proved" with
"a
universal negative is not a proposition".

The claim that "X does not exist" may not be demonstrable, but it is
certainly a proposition, in that its contrary "X exists" is also a
proposition.

All the more ridiculuous, then, is the ad hoc claim "God does not
exist",
since no one can prove it (although many have disproved it).

Name the people who have disproved it and the method they used to
do so.

You have disproved it,

Show how.

and the method you used was to pray to God, which you
would never have done if you didn't know that God existed.

False.

Try again.

I could pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. That doesn't mean it exists,
does it?

You didn't pray to dlmhsgsdsxflkgh. You prayed to God. You knew He was
there. Maybe He didn't give you what you wanted, and now, rather than
admit
that He was right and you were wrong, you pretend that He doesn't exist.

I can understand why you are so tormented. Good "luck" where you're
going,
chap. Have a nice millenium.

You are the msot arrogant, intellectually cowardly, self-righteous,
pseudo-pious prig I have seen in a long time. And we have some
champions posting here.

Kermit

You ain't seen nothin' yet, mate. I'm gonna shout it from the mountaintops,
so loud it'll make yer eardrums explode out ya haid.
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: EXPOSING THE ATHEIST	04 Sep 2004 10:35:04 AM

In alt.talk.creationism, "Chris Devol" <eat@joes.pub> wrote in
<7vc_c.7002$w%6.6570@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>: