In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
<chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote
on Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:11:20 -0600
<2g6u129t98po8qmt84utpo207bgr980dn2@4ax.com>:
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:04:36 GMT, Paul <paul@vRiEsMcOeVrEallogic.com>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
In article <200603200831557987%jcrnospam@nospammaccom>,
John C. Randolph <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
On 2006-03-19 16:04:53 -0800, "Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> said:
You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot
lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect
examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to
disprove God. \
You're confused about the burden of proof, dickie. You postulate the
existence of god, so it's up to you to prove it.
-jcr
So if someone postulates the non-existence of God, wouldn't that put the
burden of proof on them to prove his non-existence?
Since less than 3 percent of the population identify themselves as
atheist it has been proven to all but the 'stick their fingers in
their ears and scream 'I can't hear you! repeatedly' crowd.
Your meaning is unclear. It reads like the atheist 3 percent are the
"stick their fingers in their ears" crowd.
[alt.christnet.christianlife removed]
[alt.atheism added]
According to some of the dumber theists in such locales
as alt.atheism, we are; God (somehow) has proven Himself
and furthermore sacrificed His Son in order to gain us
Everlasting Life -- but not life as we currently know it,
it's some other form of life in Heaven (the location of
which is about as clear as mud, if not black obsidian)
which has to be taken on faith or something, especially
since the process of evolution has seen fit (if one can be
so anthropomorphic) to select for the ability to die off,
presumably on the grounds that it shuffles the genes better
that way.
I get lost at about that point. :-)
And then there's the demostrable contradictions,
fallacies, etc. in the Bible; I'll refer you to
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for the details.
It's a perfectly good King James version, wrapped up in
lots of commentary. :-)
Followups.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because everyone wants a really slick-looking 8-sided wheel.
.
