| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tom Moore" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2005 08:19:58 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
So the call is not for proof, but for evidence, or proof in the judicial
sense of the term, on the balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable
doubt or, in British Magistrates' Courts, because the Police say so.
Come on atheists, give us your proof.
I read the question the first time.
Where's your proof?
I can supply evidence against the Judeo-Christian god. The Bible talks
about the miracle of faith, and that faith comes from hearing the Word of
God, as if The Bible accepts the evidence is against Him.
If you want evidence, I am happy to supply some, but I am concerned that
no one should be under the misapprehension that proof is on offer. It is
not: you must decide for yourself.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 08:53:30 PM |
|
|
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
So the call is not for proof, but for evidence, or proof in the judicial
sense of the term, on the balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable
doubt or, in British Magistrates' Courts, because the Police say so.
Come on atheists, give us your proof.
I read the question the first time.
Where's your proof?
I can supply evidence against the Judeo-Christian god. The Bible talks
about the miracle of faith, and that faith comes from hearing the Word of
God, as if The Bible accepts the evidence is against Him.
If you want evidence, I am happy to supply some, but I am concerned that
no one should be under the misapprehension that proof is on offer. It is
not: you must decide for yourself.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
This stuff isn't rocket science. The Judeo-Christianists have been
asserting all this stuff about God likes this, or God doesn't like that
and that God feels a particular way about this or that. Notice, that the
Christian community is asserting their God, in whatever form, does indeed
exist. We Atheists just ask: Where's your proof?
Fact is, you have none. You have nothing. And I mean NOTHING in the way of
proof to support your claim. Whoever came up with this little gem,
"The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct"
proves my point. How in the f*** can you *possibly* declare that the,
"nature of the Judeo Christian god ... blah, blah, blah,
is true? Where is your proof of this piece of nonsense? God is "omnipotent"?
Well just turn Mr. Godness around to face us and have him demonstrate that
*any* thing you say about him is true. You can't, and you know it. What in
the hell is wrong with you? Don't you see how silly it is to posit crap like
the above to educated and "liberated" atheists (as well as free-thinking
Christians)? You're only making your kind look absolutely foolish. C'mon.
Get real. There's no harm in saying to yourself, "You know, I don't know how
the universe came into existence, or why I am here. But damn, I know damn
well that there is no God of the Bible because the overwhelming evidence
against such a being tells me so and take it from there.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 12:15:39 AM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in
news:11drbl4fbko2m55@corp.supernews.com:
Whoever came up with this little gem,
Professor Dun Cupitt, Cambridge University, UK.
"The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is
such that He cannot be proven or disproven."
That bit, anyway.
proves my point. How in the f*** can you
*possibly* declare that the, "nature of the
Judeo Christian god ... blah, blah, blah, is true?
You are saying that Yahweh, as invented by the Jews in prehistoric times,
is a clever idea. It's one that has dominated the world since the time
of Constantine, 1.7 millennia.
You might say the idea is so clever, it's Divine. Or you could say
inventing Him proved ancient man had no need for Him, they could invent
and destroy their own at will.
"You know, I don't know how the universe
came into existence, or why I am here."
Christians say, "you know, I don't know how God came into existence, or
why He is."
I don't get it when believers challenge Atheists with "well why was the
world created, and why are we here?" All Theism does is shift that
question from physics to metaphysics, it is not an answer of any kind.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 11:45:29 PM |
|
|
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
So the call is not for proof, but for evidence, or proof in the judicial
sense of the term, on the balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable
doubt or, in British Magistrates' Courts, because the Police say so.
Come on atheists, give us your proof.
I read the question the first time.
Where's your proof?
I can supply evidence against the Judeo-Christian god. The Bible talks
about the miracle of faith, and that faith comes from hearing the Word of
God, as if The Bible accepts the evidence is against Him.
If you want evidence, I am happy to supply some, but I am concerned that
no one should be under the misapprehension that proof is on offer. It is
not: you must decide for yourself.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
And do you know why that is? It's because atheists did not come out of the
woodwork suddenly proclaiming,
"There is NO God! There is
NO God!"
because we had an itch up their butt. But, rather, because the
Judeo-Christian crowd said there definitely "was" one. The atheists have
found this to be untrue. And how have we done this? By disproving any and
all definitive claims made about the existence of God with your own lack of
evidence to the contrary. Remember, it was your side that said God exists in
the first place. It's up to your side to prove that to be true, not our side
to disprove what you imagine. (Go see my post titled, "Manfred, the
Invisible Monkey - New and Improved" (alt.atheism) Substitute the word
"God" for "Manfred" and see what you come up with.
Greywolf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 12:51:26 AM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in
news:11drlnf4lcj7tbf@corp.supernews.com:
Remember, it was your side that
said God exists in the first place.
A group of believers of various faiths attend a joint retreat. In a
session, seated in a circle, each says what s/he believes, and the others
respond saying, "great, if that works for you, that's really good."
Then the Christian gets up and explains how Jesus died on the cross for all
of them, and if they don't accept the free gift of eternal life, Jesus
Christ is going to send them to Hell for eternity. The others say, "great,
if that works for you, that's really good."
"No,no," says the Christian, "that's not good enough. If you do not accept
the eternal life Jesus Christ is offering you, you will spend eternity in
Hell."
The others say, "great, if that works for you, that's really good."
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 01:33:43 AM |
|
|
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969945C146CB5Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in
news:11drlnf4lcj7tbf@corp.supernews.com:
Remember, it was your side that
said God exists in the first place.
A group of believers of various faiths attend a joint retreat. In a
session, seated in a circle, each says what s/he believes, and the others
respond saying, "great, if that works for you, that's really good."
Then the Christian gets up and explains how Jesus died on the cross for
all
of them, and if they don't accept the free gift of eternal life, Jesus
Christ is going to send them to Hell for eternity. The others say,
"great,
if that works for you, that's really good."
"No,no," says the Christian, "that's not good enough. If you do not
accept
the eternal life Jesus Christ is offering you, you will spend eternity in
Hell."
The others say, "great, if that works for you, that's really good."
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
A group of believers of various faiths and an atheist attend a joint
retreat. In a
session, seated in a circle, each says what s/he says is true. The
believers saying God exists
and that's the *real* truth, and the atheist responds, saying, "that's
hooey, there's no proof of a God. Where in
the hell did you get that from? The Christians say, well even though we have
no proof God exists, its true anyway.
You're just going to have to accept that it is true even though we can't
provide you with *any* proof that what we're
saying is true. You just have to accept that God exists because so many
people believe he does and that make *you* wrong."
The atheist responds saying, "Great, if that works for you, that's really
good." The problem is you can't go around saying something
is true if it isn't. What's more, you can't tell me what God likes or
doesn't like or anything else about God because I'm going to think
you're crazier than hell. That's sheer crazy talk. How could you possibly
say what God likes or doesn't like without any evidence to support it? The
Christians say, "Well, If you don't believe, you're going to spend eternity
in hell." To which the atheist replies that would be waaay more preferable
than spending eternity with the likes of air-heads like you. And the
Christians say, "Great, if that works for you, that's really good." C'mon,
get real.
(Did you read the message, "Manfred the Invisible Monkey - New and Improved"
elsewhere in this NG? I think you'll find it enlightening.)
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 01:56:34 AM |
|
|
Tom Moore wrote:
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in
news:11drlnf4lcj7tbf@corp.supernews.com:
Remember, it was your side that
said God exists in the first place.
A group of believers of various faiths attend a joint retreat. In a
session, seated in a circle, each says what s/he believes, and the
others respond saying, "great, if that works for you, that's really
good."
Then the Christian gets up and explains how Jesus died on the cross
for all of them, and if they don't accept the free gift of eternal
life, Jesus Christ is going to send them to Hell for eternity. The
others say, "great, if that works for you, that's really good."
"No,no," says the Christian, "that's not good enough. If you do not
accept the eternal life Jesus Christ is offering you, you will spend
eternity in Hell."
The others say, "great, if that works for you, that's really good."
Then the christian kills them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Frank Dick Foot" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 07:17:45 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:BAmDe.14538$NU2.11629@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
Then the christian kills them.
What a good idea, Brother Mike.
The dear Lord Jesus tells me He is reducing your tithing liability.
--
Rev Dr Pastor ***** F Foot MA, DD, FFD
The Guardian of English Christianity
Broomleigh Baptist Church AG (Zürich)
111 Lime Walk, Chelmsford CM2 9NJ, Great Britain
http://www.broomleigh.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 09:03:10 PM |
|
|
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
Yes, that's how the burden of proof works for ANYTHING.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
No, it's completely correct.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
I can disprove sufficently narrow definitions of god claims. For instance, I
can disprove the narrowly defined god that promises that its followers can
drink any poison without ill effect. The test is easy.
Of course, the test could go the way the followers claim, and then I would
have to seriously listen to the claims made by the followers.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 09:13:16 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:6IWdnRKriLZALUDfRVn-jw@io.com...
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
Yes, that's how the burden of proof works for ANYTHING.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
No, it's completely correct.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
I can disprove sufficently narrow definitions of god claims. For instance,
I can disprove the narrowly defined god that promises that its followers
can drink any poison without ill effect. The test is easy.
Of course, the test could go the way the followers claim, and then I would
have to seriously listen to the claims made by the followers.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Be careful, Denis.
Some of those poison-drinkers can build up a tolerance and immunity.
;-)
--
Steve O
Atheist freethinker
Atheist list #2240
"Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the
worst.
Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in, but this
attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us into eternity."
- Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 10:25:21 PM |
|
|
Steve O wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:6IWdnRKriLZALUDfRVn-jw@io.com...
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
Yes, that's how the burden of proof works for ANYTHING.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
No, it's completely correct.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
I can disprove sufficently narrow definitions of god claims. For instance,
I can disprove the narrowly defined god that promises that its followers
can drink any poison without ill effect. The test is easy.
Of course, the test could go the way the followers claim, and then I would
have to seriously listen to the claims made by the followers.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Be careful, Denis.
Some of those poison-drinkers can build up a tolerance and immunity.
"Iocaine Powder. I'd bet my life on it."
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 12:00:46 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:BujDe.7598$JJ.2173@trnddc09...
Steve O wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:6IWdnRKriLZALUDfRVn-jw@io.com...
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
Yes, that's how the burden of proof works for ANYTHING.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
No, it's completely correct.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
I can disprove sufficently narrow definitions of god claims. For
instance, I can disprove the narrowly defined god that promises that its
followers can drink any poison without ill effect. The test is easy.
Of course, the test could go the way the followers claim, and then I
would have to seriously listen to the claims made by the followers.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Be careful, Denis.
Some of those poison-drinkers can build up a tolerance and immunity.
"Iocaine Powder. I'd bet my life on it."
Lol!
Yeah, I'll need to confer with Randi and a scientist to make sure the
protocols are valid. ;-)
But hey, if the follower refuses to drink the draino, that'll tell us
something.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 10:02:58 PM |
|
|
Prove the need for all this quoting, will yer?
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:34ednWoBCeXgR0DfRVn-3g@io.com:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:BujDe.7598$JJ.2173@trnddc09...
Steve O wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:6IWdnRKriLZALUDfRVn-jw@io.com...
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
Yes, that's how the burden of proof works for ANYTHING.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of
proof falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there
is no God. That assumption is wrong.
No, it's completely correct.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be
proven or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against
Him, could be a facade of His own construct.
I can disprove sufficently narrow definitions of god claims. For
instance, I can disprove the narrowly defined god that promises that
its followers can drink any poison without ill effect. The test is
easy.
Of course, the test could go the way the followers claim, and then I
would have to seriously listen to the claims made by the followers.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Be careful, Denis.
Some of those poison-drinkers can build up a tolerance and immunity.
"Iocaine Powder. I'd bet my life on it."
Lol!
Yeah, I'll need to confer with Randi and a scientist to make sure the
protocols are valid. ;-)
But hey, if the follower refuses to drink the draino, that'll tell us
something.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 09:18:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:03:10 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
Yes, that's how the burden of proof works for ANYTHING.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
No, it's completely correct.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
I can disprove sufficently narrow definitions of god claims. For instance, I
can disprove the narrowly defined god that promises that its followers can
drink any poison without ill effect. The test is easy.
Do they honestly not understand that remarks like "he nature of the
Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven or disproven.
Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a facade of
His own construct" beg the very question they cop out of answering?
And do they really expect this to satisfy the person demanding they
put up or shut up?
Of course, the test could go the way the followers claim, and then I would
have to seriously listen to the claims made by the followers.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 12:05:11 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:uucrd1553j0b5f29ua0kgfsne4jg6sfrhr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:03:10 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969917BA89067Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
Yes, that's how the burden of proof works for ANYTHING.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
No, it's completely correct.
How about they provide us with some proof.
The nature of the Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven
or disproven. Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a
facade of His own construct.
I can disprove sufficently narrow definitions of god claims. For instance,
I
can disprove the narrowly defined god that promises that its followers can
drink any poison without ill effect. The test is easy.
Do they honestly not understand that remarks like "he nature of the
Judeo Christian god, is such that He cannot be proven or disproven.
Since He is omnipotent, any proof against Him, could be a facade of
His own construct" beg the very question they cop out of answering?
I can only imagine they don't. They live in an unquestioned world of Special
Pleading. Everything about their god is singular and unique, and doesn't
need an explanation beyond "It's His nature".
Gah!
And do they really expect this to satisfy the person demanding they
put up or shut up?
I think they do. They're that deluded.
Of course, the test could go the way the followers claim, and then I would
have to seriously listen to the claims made by the followers.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 08:27:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:19:58 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
No, moron, BECAUSE TOO MANY THEISTS ASSUME THEIR DEITY IS UNIVERSALLY
GRANTED.
It's all about PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
But then you knew that anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
19 Jul 2005 11:56:10 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:d1ard15ebosascrae862m3i2k7hp6g1hn9@4ax.com:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:19:58 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
No, moron, BECAUSE TOO MANY THEISTS ASSUME
THEIR DEITY IS UNIVERSALLY GRANTED.
You are the first person, ever, in 44 years, to call me "moron."
No one is as clever as you. No one has ever thought of adding the "n"
sound to my surname, Moore, to make moron. You are so clever.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 12:14:16 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 04:56:10 GMT, "Tom Moore" < email@spam.com > wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:d1ard15ebosascrae862m3i2k7hp6g1hn9@4ax.com:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:19:58 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
No, moron, BECAUSE TOO MANY THEISTS ASSUME
THEIR DEITY IS UNIVERSALLY GRANTED.
Couldn't answer his?
You are the first person, ever, in 44 years, to call me "moron."
No one is as clever as you. No one has ever thought of adding the "n"
sound to my surname, Moore, to make moron. You are so clever.
No, moron, if I were going to do that, I would hace made it closer to
your name.
But it gives you an excuse to use yet another of your lies as an ad
himinem excuse to ignore correction to a previous lie.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 01:35:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:19:58 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
That assumption is a strawman. No matter what positive claim is made,
the person who does not accept the claim has nothing to prove.
Everybody understands that. It is only when some theist claims that
his god is real that people insist otherwise. If I said that you owed
me money, you would reasonably ask for some kind of evidence. I would
be laughed at if I insisted that you had to prove that you didn't owe
me money, and any theist who asks an atheist for proof that there is
no god is being just as ludicrous.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 05:04:07 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:352td198e9101oef9f9h225n59ov8j7dme@4ax.com...
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:19:58 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
"Kim Redman" <kimred@westnet.com.au> wrote
in news:42dd382d@quokka.wn.com.au:
Atheists are forever demanding that people who believe
in spiritual maters MUST provide them with proof.
I do not think that is true. On Usenet, many insist the onus of proof
falls on Theists, upon an assumption that prima facie there is no God.
That assumption is wrong.
That assumption is a strawman. No matter what positive claim is made,
the person who does not accept the claim has nothing to prove.
Everybody understands that. It is only when some theist claims that
his god is real that people insist otherwise. If I said that you owed
me money, you would reasonably ask for some kind of evidence. I would
be laughed at if I insisted that you had to prove that you didn't owe
me money, and any theist who asks an atheist for proof that there is
no god is being just as ludicrous.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
Try explaining that to Virgil and friends. Trying to explain it to them
is like the old Jew said when asked how he feels after years and years
of praying at the western wall http://www.aish.com/wallcam/default.asp ,
"I feel like I might as well have been talking to a wall!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 05:45:25 PM |
|
|
"JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote in news:iMidnZx_T5fFV0PfRVn-pQ@comcast.com:
No matter what positive claim is made, the person
who does not accept the claim has nothing to prove.
Everybody understands that. It is only when some
theist claims that his god is real that people insist
otherwise. If I said that you owed me money, you
would reasonably ask for some kind of evidence.
This is wrong.
Most people understand that if a police officer gives them an order, they
are likely to need a very good reason for non compliance.
Some propositions are considered Axiomatic. In England, off the roads,
police officers have few of the rights they exercise in their daily vomit
of mendacity.
No matter how wrong they may be, these Axioms need to be disproven. If
at home, a police officer demands entry to my home, I will need to
demonstrate to anyone with me, that the officer does not enjoy the right
to which he lays claim.
Not that hard. Leave the door locked, and wait for them to go away.
Sometimes, you need to prove a positive statement is wrong.
Christianity is clever with this. They tell us the evidence for the
existence of Jesus Christ is virtually beyond challenge. In truth, the
evidence for Him is marginal, but the belief is so widespread, to make
any progress, you do need to demonstrate it.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
20 Jul 2005 11:12:22 PM |
|
|
"Tom Moore" <email@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9699F1AC65AD3Youremail@127.0.0.1...
"JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote in news:iMidnZx_T5fFV0PfRVn-pQ@comcast.com:
No matter what positive claim is made, the person
who does not accept the claim has nothing to prove.
Everybody understands that. It is only when some
theist claims that his god is real that people insist
otherwise. If I said that you owed me money, you
would reasonably ask for some kind of evidence.
This is wrong.
Most people understand that if a police officer gives them an order, they
are likely to need a very good reason for non compliance.
No *this* is wrong - a police officer has certain legal rights that you are
oblidged to accept and follow.These are written down and clearly defined (as
well as possible). If you fail to follow a clearly defined rule - then yes
you have an obligation to explain your non compliance. This is not the same
as proving something does not exist - it is the exact opposite.You have to
explain non compliance to something that *does* exist and you ahve accepted
as part of society.
Some propositions are considered Axiomatic. In England, off the roads,
police officers have few of the rights they exercise in their daily vomit
of mendacity.
Because this is clearly stated in the laws .. .right ?
No matter how wrong they may be, these Axioms need to be disproven. If
at home, a police officer demands entry to my home, I will need to
demonstrate to anyone with me, that the officer does not enjoy the right
to which he lays claim.
No - the police have to provide you with "legal" authority - a search
warrant. You do not have to prove they have no right - they have to prove
they do.
Not that hard. Leave the door locked, and wait for them to go away.
wont work against a search warrant
Sometimes, you need to prove a positive statement is wrong.
no you dont - at least not the example you have tried to provide.
Christianity is clever with this. They tell us the evidence for the
existence of Jesus Christ is virtually beyond challenge. In truth, the
evidence for Him is marginal, but the belief is so widespread, to make
any progress, you do need to demonstrate it.
Im not sure if you are asking to demonstrate god does or doesnt exist in the
sentence ....
Steve
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 02:44:30 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <dontbother@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42df2178$0$838$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.
com.au:
No *this* is wrong - a police officer has certain legal
rights that you are oblidged to accept and follow.
Yes, and they abuse them in most if not all nations. You do not seem to
understand that doing as the Police say is Axiomatic, and one needs
evidence not to comply with Police demands.
That is not a description of the law, but of society, of how people
respond. If I am with you in Australia, having never been there, and we
are given an order by the Police, and you decide not to comply, I will
need an explanation. Same other way around were you in England.
You have to explain non compliance to something that
*does* exist and you ahve accepted as part of society.
It is explanation to something that does exist. What do you mean?
In England, off the roads, police officers have few of the
rights they exercise in their daily vomit of mendacity.
Because this is clearly stated in the laws .. .right ?
Because there are no laws stating what the Police claim. This year a
Police Officer told me they arrest people for kerb crawling - buying
prostitute services. Eventually we got down to the strange response,
that this officer did not know the offence for which he arrests
prostitute customers, since kerb crawling - driving one's car slowly - is
not, of itself, a crime (yet).
No - the police have to provide you with
"legal" authority - a search warrant.
Usually in England, the Police simply walk in when the door is opened.
People do not question. If you are going to convince anyone at all, you
need to explain how it has come about that the Police do not have the
right they claim they do.
You do not have to prove they have no
right - they have to prove they do.
Not to you, you're too clever; but to most people you do. Can't help
thinking the sort of thought processes lead you and I to be open and
honest about our Atheism.
Sometimes, you need to prove a positive statement is wrong.
no you dont - at least not the example you have tried to provide.
Does "the sky is not blue" require an explanation? That statement is
true. How many people will accept that as true, on anyone's word?
Im not sure if you are asking to demonstrate
god does or doesnt exist in the sentence ....
I don't believe in any god. I do think we need to be fair about
Draconian statements about the onus of proof.
In any case, the evidence for God, it seems to me anyway, is so weak,
they can have the onus any way they like, it will not make their case
credible. Jesus Christ came to earth to pay the price of sin, because
His father decided someone had to pay that price, and then decided it
should be done by torturing His own Son to death.
And you're worried about giving that lot a head start?
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 02:04:37 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 22:45:25 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
"JHC" <jhc@nospam.net> wrote in news:iMidnZx_T5fFV0PfRVn-pQ@comcast.com:
No matter what positive claim is made, the person
who does not accept the claim has nothing to prove.
Everybody understands that. It is only when some
theist claims that his god is real that people insist
otherwise. If I said that you owed me money, you
would reasonably ask for some kind of evidence.
This is wrong.
Most people understand that if a police officer gives them an order, they
are likely to need a very good reason for non compliance.
Which has nothing to do with my example. Why would you even bring it
up?
Some propositions are considered Axiomatic. In England, off the roads,
police officers have few of the rights they exercise in their daily vomit
of mendacity.
No matter how wrong they may be, these Axioms need to be disproven. If
at home, a police officer demands entry to my home, I will need to
demonstrate to anyone with me, that the officer does not enjoy the right
to which he lays claim.
Not that hard. Leave the door locked, and wait for them to go away.
Sometimes, you need to prove a positive statement is wrong.
Christianity is clever with this. They tell us the evidence for the
existence of Jesus Christ is virtually beyond challenge. In truth, the
evidence for Him is marginal, but the belief is so widespread, to make
any progress, you do need to demonstrate it.
Yes, as I said Christians change the rules when it comes to their god.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 02:47:51 AM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:degud1d8b7hio5ihl4m4m3v8koc07lgohh@4ax.com:
Which has nothing to do with my example.
It is an example of when one needs to prove a negative,
that something is not true.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 12:59:32 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2005 07:47:51 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:degud1d8b7hio5ihl4m4m3v8koc07lgohh@4ax.com:
Which has nothing to do with my example.
It is an example of when one needs to prove a negative,
that something is not true.
No it is not. The question is what is logically required not what the
state, in practice, might or might not require and enforce. After all
it is conceivable that a state might back up my undocumented claim
that somebody owes me money, even though the other person insists that
he does not and insists that I need to provide evidence. As far as
logic is concerned the person forced by the power of the state to pay
me money would still be correct.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 10:53:06 PM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:gfovd15smlpp5rv7f3efudk29a63at420g@4ax.com:
As far as logic is concerned the person forced by the
power of the state to pay me money would still be correct.
Since when the did the Nation State need to prove its claims?
You have to prove the negative, that you do not owe the Nation State money,
pay, or you go to prison (proprietor, the Nation State).
Sometimes, you have to prove a negative.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
22 Jul 2005 07:33:16 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 22 Jul 2005 03:53:06 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com>
let us all know that:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:gfovd15smlpp5rv7f3efudk29a63at420g@4ax.com:
As far as logic is concerned the person forced by the
power of the state to pay me money would still be correct.
Since when the did the Nation State need to prove its claims?
Since always.
You have to prove the negative, that you do not owe the Nation State money,
pay, or you go to prison (proprietor, the Nation State).
No, the state merely rewrites reality to make it like that.
However, that doesn't mean that I really have to.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
22 Jul 2005 09:48:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:33:16 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On 22 Jul 2005 03:53:06 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com>
let us all know that:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:gfovd15smlpp5rv7f3efudk29a63at420g@4ax.com:
As far as logic is concerned the person forced by the
power of the state to pay me money would still be correct.
Since when the did the Nation State need to prove its claims?
Since always.
You have to prove the negative, that you do not owe the Nation State money,
pay, or you go to prison (proprietor, the Nation State).
No, the state merely rewrites reality to make it like that.
However, that doesn't mean that I really have to.
More importantly it doesn't mean that you can. The illogic of the
demand remains no matter if the state will punish someone for not
meeting it or not. I do not understand how anyone can seriously
think the example being used has any meaning for what is or what is
not logically possible.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
21 Jul 2005 11:56:27 PM |
|
|
On 22 Jul 2005 03:53:06 GMT, Tom Moore <email@spam.com> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:gfovd15smlpp5rv7f3efudk29a63at420g@4ax.com:
As far as logic is concerned the person forced by the
power of the state to pay me money would still be correct.
Since when the did the Nation State need to prove its claims?
You have to prove the negative, that you do not owe the Nation State money,
pay, or you go to prison (proprietor, the Nation State).
Sometimes, you have to prove a negative.
Sometimes an organization or person will demand that you do so, but,
as I pointed out, what people or states might demand is not the
question. The question is what is logically required, and there is
obviously no logical requirement to do the impossible.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists - Give us your proof |
22 Jul 2005 02:23:31 AM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:2ns0e1l1u0okt0l96vhjjrvh1q5usdmd66@4ax.com:
The question is what is logically required,
and there is obviously no logical requirement
to do the impossible.
I think the question is more to do with where a reasonable person would
place the onus. There are logical requirement to do the impossible, they
stop me obtaining maternity benefits.
In any event, it is not impossible to prove a negative. If you knew that,
you could prove it, and would have proven a negative. Therefore it cannot
be impossible to improve a negative.
A fact pointed out by someone else in this thread. I wish I were that
clever/sharp/fact/etc.
--
http://www.tommoore.co.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
