| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2003 12:07:11 PM |
| Object: |
Serious Question. Honest. |
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 02:39:08 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 04:46:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Figinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 05:29:30 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:c47movg6sg87g0mco2nlj3jtbc9gqom7b5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God)
Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
Assuming that that leprechaun doesn't have a cloaking device ... :)
Figinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 05:48:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:29:30 -0400, "Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net>,
Message ID: <bmgj68$mc7p0$1@ID-202989.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote in
alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:c47movg6sg87g0mco2nlj3jtbc9gqom7b5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God)
Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
Assuming that that leprechaun doesn't have a cloaking device ... :)
Hehehe...it lacks such a device....
Figinn
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Figinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 05:31:19 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:a9voovoqa346ssv1jcpm44ls3e4ofqlq01@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:29:30 -0400, "Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net>,
Message ID: <bmgj68$mc7p0$1@ID-202989.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote in
alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:c47movg6sg87g0mco2nlj3jtbc9gqom7b5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in
alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in
God)
Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
Assuming that that leprechaun doesn't have a cloaking device ... :)
Hehehe...it lacks such a device....
<smartass mode>
Please provide evidence for that assertion.
</smartass mode>
Hehe ... sorry, couldn't resist.
Figinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 10:47:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:31:19 GMT, "Figinn"
<ihatespam-Figinn@verizon.net>, Message ID:
<Xl9jb.28021$Hl2.13984@nwrddc01.gnilink.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:a9voovoqa346ssv1jcpm44ls3e4ofqlq01@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:29:30 -0400, "Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net>,
Message ID: <bmgj68$mc7p0$1@ID-202989.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote in
alt.atheism;
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:c47movg6sg87g0mco2nlj3jtbc9gqom7b5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in
alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in
God)
Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
Assuming that that leprechaun doesn't have a cloaking device ... :)
Hehehe...it lacks such a device....
<smartass mode>
Please provide evidence for that assertion.
</smartass mode>
The audio capture of the statement ..... :))
Hehe ... sorry, couldn't resist.
Heheh....no worries. Smartass mode, pun cascades, amusing items
generated by typo(s) and general wise-cracks are common in aa.
For a bit of amusement you might search google over the last couple of
years using "IPU" and "holy round meal"... Fair warning: keep all food
and liquids away from the computer when you open the next post.... :)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 07:58:13 PM |
|
|
In article <c47movg6sg87g0mco2nlj3jtbc9gqom7b5@4ax.com>, stoney says...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
Is THAT where he went? I've been looking high and low for him all day, the
little ***** ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:34:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:58:13 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <c47movg6sg87g0mco2nlj3jtbc9gqom7b5@4ax.com>, stoney says...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
Is THAT where he went? I've been looking high and low for him all day, the
little ***** ;)
Your mistake was in not looking inbetween.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 05:42:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:58:13 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>,
Message ID: <FSHib.24004$cJ5.3714@www.newsranger.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <c47movg6sg87g0mco2nlj3jtbc9gqom7b5@4ax.com>, stoney says...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
Is THAT where he went? I've been looking high and low for him all day, the
little ***** ;)
Oops......
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 01:34:20 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:46:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
And what empirical evidence can you display? I understand that
certain effects will be lacking indicating that you are correct, but
can the lack of something be observed; and doesn't empirical evidence
have to be observed?
It reminds me of the "Alice" joke about being able to see that no one
is coming.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
14 Oct 2003 05:47:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:34:20 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fs5novgq52cs7l58vptumqqtgrcrr06cst@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:46:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
And what empirical evidence can you display?
Direct observation open to anyone.
Photographic evidence either taken at request or via a web cam which
updates on remote demand.
I understand that
certain effects will be lacking indicating that you are correct, but
can the lack of something be observed; and doesn't empirical evidence
have to be observed?
It is observed.
It reminds me of the "Alice" joke about being able to see that no one
is coming.
Hehehehehe.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 02:31:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:34:20 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fs5novgq52cs7l58vptumqqtgrcrr06cst@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:46:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
And what empirical evidence can you display?
Direct observation open to anyone.
Photographic evidence either taken at request or via a web cam which
updates on remote demand.
I understand that
certain effects will be lacking indicating that you are correct, but
can the lack of something be observed; and doesn't empirical evidence
have to be observed?
It is observed.
It reminds me of the "Alice" joke about being able to see that no one
is coming.
Hehehehehe.
That was just my point. One can quite logically conclude that the
leprechaun is not there or that a person is not coming, but there is
nothing to be observed. The lack of evidence is what is used to reach
the conclusion. There is no empirical evidence.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 10:43:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:31:29 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fmtpovku5hs9f8eptlee6ml7vtnmmo5p9q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:34:20 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fs5novgq52cs7l58vptumqqtgrcrr06cst@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:46:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
And what empirical evidence can you display?
Direct observation open to anyone.
Photographic evidence either taken at request or via a web cam which
updates on remote demand.
I understand that
certain effects will be lacking indicating that you are correct, but
can the lack of something be observed; and doesn't empirical evidence
have to be observed?
It is observed.
It reminds me of the "Alice" joke about being able to see that no one
is coming.
Hehehehehe.
That was just my point. One can quite logically conclude that the
leprechaun is not there or that a person is not coming, but there is
nothing to be observed. The lack of evidence is what is used to reach
the conclusion. There is no empirical evidence.
Sure there is. As I indicated the empirical evidence is the photograph
or the web cam.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 02:08:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:43:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:31:29 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fmtpovku5hs9f8eptlee6ml7vtnmmo5p9q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:34:20 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fs5novgq52cs7l58vptumqqtgrcrr06cst@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:46:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
And what empirical evidence can you display?
Direct observation open to anyone.
Photographic evidence either taken at request or via a web cam which
updates on remote demand.
I understand that
certain effects will be lacking indicating that you are correct, but
can the lack of something be observed; and doesn't empirical evidence
have to be observed?
It is observed.
It reminds me of the "Alice" joke about being able to see that no one
is coming.
Hehehehehe.
That was just my point. One can quite logically conclude that the
leprechaun is not there or that a person is not coming, but there is
nothing to be observed. The lack of evidence is what is used to reach
the conclusion. There is no empirical evidence.
Sure there is. As I indicated the empirical evidence is the photograph
or the web cam.
Which will show no leprechaun. I agree that the only rational
conclusion is that there is no leprechaun, but only because there is
no evidence of any leprechaun; not because there is any evidence of no
leprechaun. Sometimes lack of evidence is all that one has to reach a
conclusion - of innocence for example when a person is charged with a
crime, or of the lack of leprechauns, or that a piece of bread is
actually human flesh.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
16 Oct 2003 12:44:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:08:49 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<ke6rovss94s0lt2nci5g4n8e4ls21901at@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:43:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:31:29 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fmtpovku5hs9f8eptlee6ml7vtnmmo5p9q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:34:20 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fs5novgq52cs7l58vptumqqtgrcrr06cst@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:46:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
And what empirical evidence can you display?
Direct observation open to anyone.
Photographic evidence either taken at request or via a web cam which
updates on remote demand.
I understand that
certain effects will be lacking indicating that you are correct, but
can the lack of something be observed; and doesn't empirical evidence
have to be observed?
It is observed.
It reminds me of the "Alice" joke about being able to see that no one
is coming.
Hehehehehe.
That was just my point. One can quite logically conclude that the
leprechaun is not there or that a person is not coming, but there is
nothing to be observed. The lack of evidence is what is used to reach
the conclusion. There is no empirical evidence.
Sure there is. As I indicated the empirical evidence is the photograph
or the web cam.
Which will show no leprechaun.
Correct.
I agree that the only rational
conclusion is that there is no leprechaun, but only because there is
no evidence of any leprechaun; not because there is any evidence of no
leprechaun.
No. The criteria was established by the claimant. The empirical
evidence of the photograph or web cam demonstrates the nonexistance of
the leprechaun.
Now, if later on there's an 'informational update' concerning
leprechauns, that can be investigated.
Sometimes lack of evidence is all that one has to reach a
conclusion - of innocence for example when a person is charged with a
crime, or of the lack of leprechauns, or that a piece of bread is
actually human flesh.
See above.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
16 Oct 2003 02:10:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:44:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:08:49 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<ke6rovss94s0lt2nci5g4n8e4ls21901at@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:43:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:31:29 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fmtpovku5hs9f8eptlee6ml7vtnmmo5p9q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:34:20 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fs5novgq52cs7l58vptumqqtgrcrr06cst@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:46:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
And what empirical evidence can you display?
Direct observation open to anyone.
Photographic evidence either taken at request or via a web cam which
updates on remote demand.
I understand that
certain effects will be lacking indicating that you are correct, but
can the lack of something be observed; and doesn't empirical evidence
have to be observed?
It is observed.
It reminds me of the "Alice" joke about being able to see that no one
is coming.
Hehehehehe.
That was just my point. One can quite logically conclude that the
leprechaun is not there or that a person is not coming, but there is
nothing to be observed. The lack of evidence is what is used to reach
the conclusion. There is no empirical evidence.
Sure there is. As I indicated the empirical evidence is the photograph
or the web cam.
Which will show no leprechaun.
Correct.
I agree that the only rational
conclusion is that there is no leprechaun, but only because there is
no evidence of any leprechaun; not because there is any evidence of no
leprechaun.
No. The criteria was established by the claimant. The empirical
evidence of the photograph or web cam demonstrates the nonexistance of
the leprechaun.
Now, if later on there's an 'informational update' concerning
leprechauns, that can be investigated.
Sometimes lack of evidence is all that one has to reach a
conclusion - of innocence for example when a person is charged with a
crime, or of the lack of leprechauns, or that a piece of bread is
actually human flesh.
See above.
Okay, who knows; maybe I am wrong. After all it has happened before.
Of course I don't believe it for a second.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
17 Oct 2003 03:11:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:10:47 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<evqtov8hisihf3tupj8v1mvb6jhqpfik93@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:44:14 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:08:49 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<ke6rovss94s0lt2nci5g4n8e4ls21901at@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:43:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:31:29 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fmtpovku5hs9f8eptlee6ml7vtnmmo5p9q@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:34:20 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<fs5novgq52cs7l58vptumqqtgrcrr06cst@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:46:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:39:08 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<celkovg05elr994aag9hcoa7vbj94jpth1@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:18:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:05:31 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,>, Message ID:
<2u5iovg90smavbpsfgoiictmgee7tlrjp3@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:19:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
snip
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****.
Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
No.
Example?
Sure. There is no 'omnipresent' strobe-light equipped six inch tall
green leprechaun emulating a show girl act on top of my monitor.
And what empirical evidence can you display?
Direct observation open to anyone.
Photographic evidence either taken at request or via a web cam which
updates on remote demand.
I understand that
certain effects will be lacking indicating that you are correct, but
can the lack of something be observed; and doesn't empirical evidence
have to be observed?
It is observed.
It reminds me of the "Alice" joke about being able to see that no one
is coming.
Hehehehehe.
That was just my point. One can quite logically conclude that the
leprechaun is not there or that a person is not coming, but there is
nothing to be observed. The lack of evidence is what is used to reach
the conclusion. There is no empirical evidence.
Sure there is. As I indicated the empirical evidence is the photograph
or the web cam.
Which will show no leprechaun.
Correct.
I agree that the only rational
conclusion is that there is no leprechaun, but only because there is
no evidence of any leprechaun; not because there is any evidence of no
leprechaun.
No. The criteria was established by the claimant. The empirical
evidence of the photograph or web cam demonstrates the nonexistance of
the leprechaun.
Now, if later on there's an 'informational update' concerning
leprechauns, that can be investigated.
Sometimes lack of evidence is all that one has to reach a
conclusion - of innocence for example when a person is charged with a
crime, or of the lack of leprechauns, or that a piece of bread is
actually human flesh.
See above.
Okay, who knows; maybe I am wrong. After all it has happened before.
Of course I don't believe it for a second.
I know.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
12 Oct 2003 08:08:14 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>,
Message ID: <KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:q9udovgo6hcab57nvg4r36mfpi8l4ku8fd@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:45:21 -0700 in alt.atheism, Iconoclast
("Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
Would you care to go for logic 102?
So I'll regard that as a "no," then?
Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
*****....
no it exists, i have seen it
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bowmore" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
10 Oct 2003 11:57:37 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@home.net> wrote in message
news:9dChb.55021$vj2.38439@fed1read06...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
So there is no argument for the non-existence of square circles then?
Would you care to go for logic 102?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ninure Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 07:59:17 AM |
|
|
In article <bm82bp$bsv$1@reader10.wxs.nl>, "Bowmore"
<midleton@hotmail.com> wrote:
-"Iconoclast" <icono@home.net> wrote in message
-news:9dChb.55021$vj2.38439@fed1read06...
->
-> "Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
-> news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
-> >
-> > Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
-> >
-> > We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
-> > stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
-> >
-> > By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
-> > that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
-> > reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
-> > God.
-> >
->
-> 1. Your question begs intelligence.
-> 2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
-> believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
-> 3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
-
-So there is no argument for the non-existence of square circles then?
Okay....
Imagine a person blind from birth, how woud you exlain what a circle is?
How would you explain a square?
How would you prove colors exst to that person?
-
->
-> Would you care to go for logic 102?
->
->
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 09:01:37 PM |
|
|
"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChristiannohate@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannohate-1110030811330001@h-68-164-9-205.chcgilgm.dynamic
..covad.net...
In article <bm82bp$bsv$1@reader10.wxs.nl>, "Bowmore"
<midleton@hotmail.com> wrote:
-"Iconoclast" <icono@home.net> wrote in message
-news:9dChb.55021$vj2.38439@fed1read06...
->
-> "Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
-> news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
-> >
-> > Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
-> >
-> > We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
-> > stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
-> >
-> > By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
-> > that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
-> > reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is
no
-> > God.
-> >
->
-> 1. Your question begs intelligence.
-> 2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God)
Silly
-> believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
-> 3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
-
-So there is no argument for the non-existence of square circles then?
Okay....
Imagine a person blind from birth, how woud you exlain what a circle is?
Hand him a hula hoop.
How would you explain a square?
Hand him a box.
How would you prove colors exst to that person?
Trickier, but certainly possible. Hand him identically shaped objects of
different colors, and then send him out to ask people what color the objects
are. Once he determines that the answers are completely consistent, he will
have to agree that there is a property of the objects that others can
detect, and that he cannot, and that it's called color.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 08:20:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:59:17 GMT,
(Ninure Saunders) wrote:
In article <bm82bp$bsv$1@reader10.wxs.nl>, "Bowmore"
<midleton@hotmail.com> wrote:
-"Iconoclast" <icono@home.net> wrote in message
-news:9dChb.55021$vj2.38439@fed1read06...
->
-> "Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
-> news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
-> >
-> > Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
-> >
-> > We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
-> > stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
-> >
-> > By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
-> > that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
-> > reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
-> > God.
-> >
->
-> 1. Your question begs intelligence.
-> 2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
-> believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
-> 3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
-
-So there is no argument for the non-existence of square circles then?
Okay....
Imagine a person blind from birth, how woud you exlain what a circle is?
How would you explain a square?
How would you prove colors exst to that person?
Duuh
Did we lose what the subject was?
-
->
-> Would you care to go for logic 102?
->
->
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
11 Oct 2003 06:21:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 06:57:37 +0200, "Bowmore" <midleton@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Iconoclast" <icono@home.net> wrote in message
news:9dChb.55021$vj2.38439@fed1read06...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
So there is no argument for the non-existence of square circles then?
Correct.
1. A circle is not a thing. It is a concept.
2. A cylinder whose height is the same as diameter is in the "SHAPE"
of a square circle.
3. Shall we go beyond fourth grade geometry in discussions?
Would you care to go for logic 102?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
10 Oct 2003 05:19:51 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <icono@home.net> wrote in message news:<9dChb.55021$vj2.38439@fed1read06>...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
Would you care to go for logic 102?
If "X" is the sort of thing to leave evidence, then absence of
evidence *is evidence of absence.
"Was he shot to death, doctor?"
"No, I examined the body carefully and there are no bullet holes."
I live in a smallish suburban house. There is no elephant in my house.
Assuming I am not insane or lying, am I correct? Yes - because an
elephant is the sort of thing to leave unavoidable evidence.
This is why I am a strong atheist. If we are talking about the God of
Abraham, I would expect to see footprints of *some sort. There are
subtle Christians, but the likes of Jerry Falwell do not believe in a
god that is possible. Either he would leave evidence (such as from a
global flood), or he hides all of his evidence, making him dishonest
and very much like an abusive parent trying to "catch" his kids
breaking rules.
"You didn't pick the right religion, despite having no evidence
whatsoever? Back to the eternal woodshed with you! Bwahahaha!"
--- Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 09:29:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:45:21 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>
ejaculated:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...
Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
I'd like to take issue with #3. There are arguments for the
non-existence of things. At least there are if you're willing to
enter empirical evidence into the debate.
Given some entity X, which has as part of its definition that if X
exists, then at location Y, event Z will occur. You can argue for the
non-existence of X if you goto Y and fail to discover Z.
.
|
|
|
| User: "iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
13 Oct 2003 08:55:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:29:17 -0400, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:45:21 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>
ejaculated:
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
I'd like to take issue with #3. There are arguments for the
non-existence of things. At least there are if you're willing to
enter empirical evidence into the debate.
O.K. sweetheart, for those who cannot extrapolate, no legitimate and
conclusive arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
15 Oct 2003 12:51:11 PM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2003, iconoclast <icono@home.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:bplmov45iggsp1r4fv45e2f0hap5o5u956@4ax.com:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:29:17 -0400, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:45:21 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>
ejaculated:
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God)
Silly believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
I'd like to take issue with #3. There are arguments for the
non-existence of things. At least there are if you're willing to
enter empirical evidence into the debate.
O.K. sweetheart, for those who cannot extrapolate, no legitimate and
conclusive arguments.
Empirical evidence is illegitimate?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Serious Question. Honest. |
16 Oct 2003 11:42:51 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:55:01 -0700, iconoclast <icono@home.net>
ejaculated:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:29:17 -0400, Beowulf
<beowulf_is_not_here@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:45:21 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>
ejaculated:
1. Your question begs intelligence.
2. Only God can convince. (This of course assumes a belief in God) Silly
believers assume they are capable of being God(s).
3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.
I'd like to take issue with #3. There are arguments for the
non-existence of things. At least there are if you're willing to
enter empirical evidence into the debate.
O.K. sweetheart,
Am I your crush? How sweet.
for those who cannot extrapolate, no legitimate and
conclusive arguments. | | | |
