Serious Question. Honest.

Religions > Atheism > Serious Question. Honest.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 36

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: "Chris"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	16 Oct 2003 05:06:02 PM

beyond
reasonable dispute.... There is the problem, you could never have or
find this anywhere. Where there is hope you always find faith.
Love of Christ
Therion Ware wrote:

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: "mlw"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	16 Oct 2003 05:34:29 PM

Chris wrote:

beyond
reasonable dispute.... There is the problem, you could never have or
find this anywhere. Where there is hope you always find faith.
Love of Christ

Again, why are the religious so stupid? I'm sorry, I just can't take it
anymore. You have to be full-out retarded to believe in the hodgepodge of
lies, myths, and contradictions that seem to be the basis of all religions.
(Not to mention the pedophilia)
In ancient times religion and superstition were used to explain the things
we can otherwise learn or understand through modern science. This is why
the catholic church has historically opposed science and knowledge of the
universe.
The emperor has no cloths. When you can prove in a deterministic way that
god, does, in fact, exist, let us know.
As for hope and dreams? I am getting married next year, and I have hopes and
dreams and am an atheist.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	17 Oct 2003 06:52:33 PM

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:06:02 GMT, Chris <carneyc1961@netscape.net>,
Message ID: <eDEjb.574429$cF.247297@rwcrnsc53> wrote in alt.atheism;

beyond
reasonable dispute....

I agree the idiocy of xtianity is beyond reasonable dispute.

There is the problem, you could never have or
find this anywhere. Where there is hope you always find faith.
Love of Christ

Hatred and abandonment of family is 'love.' How sad.

Therion Ware wrote:

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.

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: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 12:17:35 AM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:07:11 +0100 in alt.atheism, Therion Ware
(Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism

.... Bloody hell.
You ask a simple question and go away for the weekend and what
happens? *Everyone* answers.....
--
"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: "iconoclast"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 08:45:03 AM

A really stupid question is answered by statements having nothing to
do with the question.
.

User: "FBC"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 06:26:33 PM

"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.

--
"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.

I don't mind cross posting to alt.atheism, but the group I originate from is
alt.religion.christian.baptist, so I guess that you have been warned back.
The short answer is probably just plain no as others have said.
But I would have to say a little more to be fair. Whether you believe me or
not is irrelevant to me anyway, but I have too much history of experiencing
God to turn aside easily. I thoroughly believe that nothing could ever turn
me aside. Even though most of the history I speak of is personal
experience, and not what you atheists consider concrete evidence it is very
real to me.
I would like to use an example. The comparison is not meant to be
sacrilegious or insulting. I love milk. My parents both grew up on dairy
farms. I use to drink over a gallon a day. Several years back I started
getting sick. Almost daily I would have some problem. I tried all kinds of
things with my diet because I supposed from the symptoms that it was food
related. Since I had drank large quantities of milk all my life I didn't
believe that could be the problem. Even when I considered the possibility,
and noticed I would not be sick on days I didn't drink milk, I was still
mostly unconvinced. But after enough struggling I eventually surrendered to
what probably should have been obvious. It was milk making me sick. But
even after accepting the fact I wonder, because there is no evidence that
makes it absolutely certain. It could always be a coincidence or something
else that caused it. But even without concrete evidence I have to face the
truth.
By virtue of my personality I think through doubts, concerns and similar
situations that try to dissuade me from God. But as of yet, they do not
outweigh my experience.
PC
.

User: "John W"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 12:19:59 AM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:26:33 GMT, "FBC" <fbcnoreply@cta.com> wrote:

"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.

--
"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.

I don't mind cross posting to alt.atheism, but the group I originate from is
alt.religion.christian.baptist, so I guess that you have been warned back.

The short answer is probably just plain no as others have said.

But I would have to say a little more to be fair. Whether you believe me or
not is irrelevant to me anyway, but I have too much history of experiencing
God to turn aside easily. I thoroughly believe that nothing could ever turn
me aside. Even though most of the history I speak of is personal
experience, and not what you atheists consider concrete evidence it is very
real to me.

I would like to use an example. The comparison is not meant to be
sacrilegious or insulting. I love milk. My parents both grew up on dairy
farms. I use to drink over a gallon a day. Several years back I started
getting sick. Almost daily I would have some problem. I tried all kinds of
things with my diet because I supposed from the symptoms that it was food
related. Since I had drank large quantities of milk all my life I didn't
believe that could be the problem. Even when I considered the possibility,
and noticed I would not be sick on days I didn't drink milk, I was still
mostly unconvinced. But after enough struggling I eventually surrendered to
what probably should have been obvious. It was milk making me sick. But
even after accepting the fact I wonder, because there is no evidence that
makes it absolutely certain. It could always be a coincidence or something
else that caused it. But even without concrete evidence I have to face the
truth.

By virtue of my personality I think through doubts, concerns and similar
situations that try to dissuade me from God. But as of yet, they do not
outweigh my experience.

PC

Well put. I, too, could have typed several pages of my experiences,
and of my family's experiences with God and miracles. However, unlike
you, I consider it to be a total waste of typing.
John W
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

.

User: "Jos Flachs"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 11:56:28 PM

On 11 Oct 2003 05:19:59 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Well put. I, too, could have typed several pages of my experiences,
and of my family's experiences with God and miracles. However, unlike
you, I consider it to be a total waste of typing.

Yes, you posted that before. It wasn't remotely impressive, and plain
bloody stupid what you did to begin with.
.

User: "Alex"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 07:32:06 AM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:26:33 GMT, "FBC" <fbcnoreply@cta.com> wrote:

I would like to use an example. The comparison is not meant to be
sacrilegious or insulting. I love milk. My parents both grew up on dairy
farms. I use to drink over a gallon a day. Several years back I started
getting sick. Almost daily I would have some problem. I tried all kinds of
things with my diet because I supposed from the symptoms that it was food
related. Since I had drank large quantities of milk all my life I didn't
believe that could be the problem. Even when I considered the possibility,
and noticed I would not be sick on days I didn't drink milk, I was still
mostly unconvinced. But after enough struggling I eventually surrendered to
what probably should have been obvious. It was milk making me sick. But
even after accepting the fact I wonder, because there is no evidence that
makes it absolutely certain. It could always be a coincidence or something
else that caused it. But even without concrete evidence I have to face the
truth.

Are you saying that you believe in God because (of experiences like
the following): You were drinking milk, became lactose intolerant (or
mildly allergic) and then stopped drinking milk? I must be missing
something.
.

User: "FBC"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 09:27:05 AM

"Alex" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:sutfovo02354sqhht23pvuamjrtr2ctvhi@4ax.com...

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:26:33 GMT, "FBC" <fbcnoreply@cta.com> wrote:

I would like to use an example. The comparison is not meant to be
sacrilegious or insulting. I love milk. My parents both grew up on

dairy

farms. I use to drink over a gallon a day. Several years back I started
getting sick. Almost daily I would have some problem. I tried all kinds

things with my diet because I supposed from the symptoms that it was food
related. Since I had drank large quantities of milk all my life I didn't
believe that could be the problem. Even when I considered the

possibility,

and noticed I would not be sick on days I didn't drink milk, I was still
mostly unconvinced. But after enough struggling I eventually surrendered

what probably should have been obvious. It was milk making me sick. But
even after accepting the fact I wonder, because there is no evidence that
makes it absolutely certain. It could always be a coincidence or

something

else that caused it. But even without concrete evidence I have to face

the

truth.

Perhaps you miss my point. I will state it more clearly. The atheist says
that my experience with God does not count as proof of God's existence
because it could be coincidence or imagination or whatever. I say that
there are a multitude of things that we accept, in fact have to accept, on
considerably less evidence. And yet we face the reality of those things.
To be fair we should not make the existence of God any harder to prove than
these other facts we are willing to accept.
So my example was not one of an experience of God, but instead of a handling
of evidence.
PC
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 01:18:40 PM

FBC <fbcnoreply@cta.com> wrote:

Yes - but those things are trivial, and therefore need only trivial
evidence to support them. For instance, if someone tells you that
they took two aspirin and their headache went away, and they could
sell you a similar pill for a quarter, you will probably
believe them based just on their personal say-so, because that is
a trivial claim. Whether or not it is true is not particularly
important, so it is accepted easily.
More important claims, on the other hand, need more drastic evidence
to support them. For instance, if someone told you they took a
magic pill and are now immune to all harm, and that they could sell
you a similar pill for $2000, you probably would not believe them
based just on their personal say-so, because that is not a trivial
claim. You would probably insist on more drastic evidence before
shelling out your money for the supposed prevent-all medicine.
So I am quite willing to accept that you believe in a god just
on your personal say-so, as that is a trivial claim. I am
even willing to accept that you *believe* that you have experienced
your God just on your personal say-so, as that is also a trivial
claim. People have been claiming both (for various religions)
for many thousands of years. It's not a particularly important
claim. But if you claim a God actually exists, it will take
much more solid evidence to support it to me, as it is a much
more important claim.

To be fair we should not make the existence of God any harder to prove than
these other facts we are willing to accept.

Ah, but we are fair and consistent. If you say that you are age 33 and
your grandfather fought in WW2, we will accept it on your say-so unless
something to the contrary pops up, as it is a trivial claim. If
you claim that you are age 33 and that you fought in WW2, expect
demands for rather more solid evidence than just your say-so. And so
on with other claims: the trivial requires only trivial evidence,
the important requires more solid evidence. Quite fair, I think.
Unless you find someone who feels the existance of a god or gods is
trivial, you're going to need to do something more impressive
than just claim experience of a god or gods.
.

User: "Iconoclast"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 12:45:21 PM

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

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?
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 01:24:49 PM

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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?
--
"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: "Iconoclast"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 04:38:30 PM

"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...

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.
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 01:18:10 AM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -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: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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

Which is presumably why all physicists still believe in the ether.
--
"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: "iconoclast"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 08:42:20 AM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:18:10 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -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: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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

Which is presumably why all physicists still believe in the ether.

No physicist since "about" 1932 believes in ether.
FYI
Ether and entropy are words used to explain the unexplainable. They
are nothing.
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 11:01:22 AM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:42:20 -0700 in alt.atheism, iconoclast
(iconoclast <icono@home.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:18:10 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -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: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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

Which is presumably why all physicists still believe in the ether.

No physicist since "about" 1932 believes in ether.

Well done. Now figure out why.
--
"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: "iconoclast"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 08:53:21 PM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:01:22 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:42:20 -0700 in alt.atheism, iconoclast
(iconoclast <icono@home.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:18:10 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -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: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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

Which is presumably why all physicists still believe in the ether.

No physicist since "about" 1932 believes in ether.

Well done. Now figure out why.

It was and is a construct as is entropy. It's a WORD specifically
created to explain a VOID.
.

User: "Mekkala"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 12:48:21 PM

On 13 Oct 2003, iconoclast <icono@home.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:9mlmov47g94e2kr4s51h7tid514g4lrq1e@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:01:22 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:42:20 -0700 in alt.atheism, iconoclast
(iconoclast <icono@home.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:18:10 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -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: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...

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.

Which is presumably why all physicists still believe in the ether.

No physicist since "about" 1932 believes in ether.

Well done. Now figure out why.

It was and is a construct as is entropy. It's a WORD specifically
created to explain a VOID.

Do you know what "entropy" means?
--
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: "Mekkala"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 12:47:53 PM

On 13 Oct 2003, iconoclast <icono@home.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:tpalovcjhpnc1e1stdg2ka347kvnumlbcp@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:18:10 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -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: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...

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.

Which is presumably why all physicists still believe in the ether.

No physicist since "about" 1932 believes in ether.

Dictionary.com:
i�ro�ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i�ro�nies
1. The use of words to express something different from and often
opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between
apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical
effect.

FYI
Ether and entropy are words used to explain the unexplainable. They
are nothing.

You misspelled "God".
--
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: "xyzzy"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 09:30:30 PM

"Iconoclast" <icono@home.net> wrote:

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).

If God doesn't convince me then why would he punish me?

3. There is no argument for the non-existence of ANYTHING.

That wouldn't be an argument now, would it?
.

User: "Mekkala"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 12:34:42 PM

On 10 Oct 2003, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:KDFhb.55168$vj2.40944@fed1read06:

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.

Ok, I've thought *real hard* and I can't see how you're saying anything
besides, "No, nothing would convince me," or at most, "Only God could
convince me," which is beside the point, since God can't convince you if
he doesn't exist (meaning that whether or not he actually objectively
exists is immaterial in deciding your beliefs on that question).
--
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: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 10:31:09 PM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>
posted 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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

He just doesn't get it, Therion.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "Martin Thomas"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 09:11:06 PM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>
wrote:

"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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.

If you don't think that Therion understood you the first time,
then ignoring his latest question and just reposting what you
have already written, begs intelligence.
BTW, I am assuming that the expresion 'begs intelligence' means
the same as 'lacks intelligence'. I could be wrong, as I have no
memory of having come across this idiom before.

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.

* There are no square circles.
* There is no largest prime number.
OK, those 2 are trivial but:
* There is no 17 mile long centipede anywhere on the earth and
there never has been.
That cannot be absolutely proven, but it would be very easy to
present a good argument for the non existence of such a
centipede.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.

User: "iconoclast"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 11:04:26 PM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:11:06 +0100, Martin Thomas
<mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:30 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>
wrote:

"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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

Try again. Think REAL HARD
1. Your question begs intelligence.

If you don't think that Therion understood you the first time,
then ignoring his latest question and just reposting what you
have already written, begs intelligence.

BTW, I am assuming that the expresion 'begs intelligence' means
the same as 'lacks intelligence'. I could be wrong, as I have no
memory of having come across this idiom before.

The question is begging for a semblance of intellect.
"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.

* There are no square circles.
* There is no largest prime number.

OK, those 2 are trivial but:

* There is no 17 mile long centipede anywhere on the earth and
there never has been.

That cannot be absolutely proven, but it would be very easy to
present a good argument for the non existence of such a
centipede.
-
Martin Thomas

One can argue forever with no conclusive results except in the mind of
the presenter. The argument or the lack of evidence is insufficient
evidence for the non-existance of an entity or ethereal construct.
OR simply put ( even though it wrangles the know it alls) There is no
argument for the non-existaence of anything.
VERNON
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 09:19:54 PM

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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

*****.

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: "iconoclast"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 03:43:47 AM

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;

"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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

*****.

So that was the result of your thinking. Everyone knew that.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 02:17:23 PM

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:43:47 -0700, iconoclast <icono@home.net>, Message
ID: <c05iov0cul864hujond47b86pm5f8guoj9@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;

"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...

So I'll regard that as a "no," then?

*****.

So that was the result of your thinking. Everyone knew that.

Toddlers. (sigh)

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.	12 Oct 2003 04:05:31 AM

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

*****.

Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?
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.	12 Oct 2003 02:18:33 PM

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

*****.

Would it be more accurate to say that there is no emperical evidence
for the non-existence of anything?

No.

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}
.

Page 1 of 36