Re: No evidence of God yet...

Religions > Bible > Re: No evidence of God yet...

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 50 of 55

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"John Rohrer"
Date:	23 Jan 2004 12:03:53 AM
Object:	Re: No evidence of God yet...

Douglas wrote:

I am an agnostic. Now that that's out of the way, I do not believe that
the God portrayed in Christian mythology or any other religion is real or
even close. Prayer and worship is just a waste of time because no God is
listening.

Well, there's the power of expectations, hope, self-fulfilling prophecies,
mind-body medicine...what did I leave out...

I thought God was all powerful and perfect. Well this place
(Earth) is a disaster. I am not impressed with his work if that is the
case. I tried to talk to God, but he won't answer me back. He must not
like me.

Well, the bible says He gave us free will, right? As far as your "no reply", it
may be that you're not listening in the right way or in the right frame of mind.
Hey, it's plausible anyway.

All I have to say to a theist is prove it. They will freeze
up...naturally because even they know their beliefs are totally irrational.
They will often come back with "Prove he doesn't exist". The burden of
proof lies in the theist lap. They should convince me he is real, not scare
me into believing he is real with the "threat" of Hell after death. I
believe when you die, you die. No heaven or hell. Just nothing. It will
feel the way you felt before you were born.

I don't know how you can say to such a certain degree. It seems congruent with
common sense and observation, but common sense and observation may not be
equipped to give us any thorough understanding of mortality. Many perspectives
can be taken, and they all make sense to those who take them. For instance,
who's to say that there's nothing to the idea of reincarnation? Who's to say
we're not just the eyes of the universe winking open and shut as we watch
ourselves through the ages? Is the concept of personal identity inherently
misleading? If our identities are functions of our brief, local experience of
the universe, what are the implications? Alternately, if there is a more basic,
essential identity, would that not live in each locus of experience manifested
throughout the universe? ...food for thought anyway.

I can accept that. Theist
can't. So they decided to make up a nice place for good people and a bad
place for bad people. Sounds like this was made up a long time ago to keep
people in line and give them hope that "when I die, I will go to heaven."
Without religion, people would see no reason to live here. Anarchy would
happen.

Perhaps "civilized" culture (where the food is under lock and key) breeds
heirarchy and injustice and suppresses true tribal democracy. If you've toiled
under oppression your whole life while a privileged few commit atrocities with
impunity (as the system enables), divine justice is an understandably welcome
concept. "Keeping the masses in line" sounds to me like an attempt to save a
society whose social bonds were dissolved by and insidious atmosphere of control
and personal entitlement (the dangerous combination which seems to me to be at
the heart of the agricultural revolution which spawned the need for
"salvationist" religions. You see, indigenous cultures (still being extinguished
by civilization's zealous expansion) ascribe to "animistic" religions focused on
the interdependent harmony of life, rather than a way to cope with our current
disequilibruim. If you contest that the alternative is anarchy, I submit the
opinion that heirarchical governmental systems create the suffering which
"salvationist" religions medicate.

Heaven, sounds nice...lets go there and prove it once and for all...oh,
thats right. How convienient. We can't go there alive and there is no
scientific reason to believe in its existence anyway. Heaven is not real.
Period.

Well, who's to say unequivocally that it's not? Or maybe it's all a matter of
perspective. It seems real enough as a metaphor for creating a utopian society.
But then, utopianism seems inherently divisive, as it rejects compromise in
favor of the One Right Way which seems to cause so many conflicts.

God, sounds like an interesting person...I would like to meet him
now...oh, thats right. How convienient. He doesn't talk back and science
has yet to find his radio frequency. Either God doesn't care about us or he
doesn't exist.
Begging for opinions please.

Maybe we *are God in the sense that we're indistinguishably connected to every
perticle in the known universe. Maybe we're trying to playing God all over this
planet. Or maybe, just *maybe, there *is a real God out there who entrusted us
with this fine planet... which will cease to be when Christ returns to send the
non-Christian 2/3 of the planet straight to hell or purgatory along with all of
the Christian sects who happened to be wrong (oops) any any within the *right
faith who weren't quite able to follow all of the rules. Oh yeah, I forgot to
include any sentient beings inhabiting any of the other trillion planets
throughout the universe.Gee, hell sounds like the place to be to meet new
people.
Crossing my fingers,
John
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: No God ...	06 Mar 2004 02:13:28 AM

Navigatorator wrote:

Virgil wrote:

What septic really believes, but is too shy to admit publicly is that
there only _might_ not be any gods ...

No, I just checked, and there is definitely still no God in evidence,
knucklehead.

Real meaning: Postulation is beyond him, so he settles for pustulation.
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No God	07 Mar 2004 12:23:03 PM

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Navigatorator wrote:

Virgil wrote:

What septic really believes, but is too shy to admit publicly is that
there only _might_ not be any gods ...

No, I just checked, and there is definitely still no God in evidence,
knucklehead.

Real meaning: Postulation is beyond him, so he settles for pustulation.

Main Entry: 1pos�tu�late
Pronunciation: 'p�s-ch&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat�ed; -lat�ing
Etymology: L postulatus, past participle of postulare; akin to Latin
poscere to ask, Old High German forscOn to search, Sanskrit prcchati he
asks -- more at PRAY
1 : DEMAND, CLAIM
2 a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon
or start from the postulate of b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as
in logic or mathematics)
You can't get away with just taking it for granted that your "Invisible
God might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of such a
thing" is true. That's called begging the question, knucklehead.
It's a principle of valid argument (logic).
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to
this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the
objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which
logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts;
and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That
which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley in his
excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
.

User: "Sniper"
Title: Re: No God	07 Mar 2004 02:06:44 PM

Navigatorator (aka Skeptic) wrote:

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Navigatorator wrote:

Virgil wrote:

What septic really believes, but is too shy to admit publicly is that
there only _might_ not be any gods ...

No, I just checked, and there is definitely still no God in evidence,
knucklehead.

Real meaning: Postulation is beyond him, so he settles for pustulation.

Anybody can cut & paste, Septic, it doesn't mean that
you actually understand what you posted. For instance
your cut & pastes on logical fallacies, you obviously
do not comprehend. You wouldn't know a valid argument
if it jumped up & bit you on your dumb, ignorant *****.

You can't get away with just taking it for granted that your "Invisible
God might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of such a
thing" is true. That's called begging the question, knucklehead.

It's a principle of valid argument (logic).

LOL. Yeah, like you'd know.
"We know that 'dog' is a very meaningful proposition."
- Skeptic, aka Naviagorator
[snip cut & paste, ad nauseam, Huxley quote]
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: No God	07 Mar 2004 03:38:44 PM

Navigatorator wrote:

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

No, I just checked, and there is definitely still no God in
evidence, knucklehead.

Real meaning: Postulation is beyond him, so he settles for
pustulation.

Pustulate \Pus"tu*late\, v. t. [L. pustulatus, p. p. of
pustulare to blister, fr. pustula. See Pustule.]
To form into pustules, or blisters.
Covered with pustulelike prominences; pustular;
pustulous
Pustule \Pus"tule\ (?; 135), n. [L. pustula, and pusula: cf. F.
pustule.] (Med.)
A vesicle or an elevation of the cuticle with an inflamed
base, containing pus.
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: No God ...	07 Mar 2004 09:38:58 AM

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 08:06:14 GMT, Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

What septic really believes, but is too shy to admit publicly is that
there only _might_ not be any gods ...

No, I just checked, and there is definitely still no God in evidence,
knucklehead.

I see the evidence. What is your problem? Not looking?
duke-
*****
Thank God for the almost 99% of
priests that are good priests.
*****
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No God	07 Mar 2004 12:15:36 PM

duke wrote:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 08:06:14 GMT, Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

What septic really believes, but is too shy to admit publicly is that
there only _might_ not be any gods ...

No, I just checked, and there is definitely still no God in evidence,
knucklehead.

I see the evidence. What is your problem? Not looking?

duke-
*****
Thank God for the almost 99% of
priests that are good priests.
*****

Duke, you have yet to produce any meaningful, verifiable, logically
satisfactory explanation of exactly what you imagine your hypothetical
"God" thingy to be. What's your problem? Got no explanation?
.

User: "Antiseptic"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	03 Mar 2004 06:32:00 PM

Navigatorator wrote:

Sniper wrote:

Navigatorator (aka Navigtor, aka Skeptic, aka
Muddy Boggs, aka Rooser, aka Yoda, aka Roger
Bush, aka T. Jefferson, aka ***** Dragon, aka
Todd Fields, aka Tom Wetsuit, aka Dr. Sister,
aka The Theenker, aka Ho Hum, aka Hum) wrote:

Virgil wrote:

If it is not known to be false ...

Yo can't shift ...

You can't snip the contents of a post down
to less than a single sentence, and expect
anybody to take you seriously, Mr. Septic.

Isn't that what...

Huh?
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	03 Mar 2004 01:25:29 PM

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:17:58 GMT, Navigatorator
<navi@navi.com> spake thusly:

Virgil wrote:

If it is not known to be false ...

Yo can't shift the burden of proof to the athiests, knucklehead, that's
logical fallacy.

I.e., we get to claim whatever we want and call it
truth and you're an idiot if you demand some answers.
--
� Pastor Dave Raymond �
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the
rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
God. If Jesus was not the Redeemer... and this is what
evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
- Richard Bozarth, Atheist
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.

User: "JessHC"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	03 Mar 2004 05:02:09 PM

Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<g8cc4016mn7q4j57do5bpacg06ajoivccm@4ax.com>...

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:17:58 GMT, Navigatorator
<navi@navi.com> spake thusly:

Virgil wrote:

If it is not known to be false ...

Yo can't shift the burden of proof to the athiests, knucklehead, that's
logical fallacy.

I.e., we get to claim whatever we want and call it
truth and you're an idiot if you demand some answers.

I would strongly recommend not taking anything this name shifting
troll posts as representative of most atheists, even on those rare
occaisions it appears to almost state the atheist position correctly.
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	03 Mar 2004 05:42:44 PM

JessHC wrote:

... representative of most atheists ...

I can't speak for "most atheists," I can only speak for myself.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	04 Mar 2004 01:01:32 AM

In article <U3u1c.452447$I06.5076703@attbi_s01>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

JessHC wrote:

... representative of most atheists ...

I can't speak for "most atheists," I can only speak for myself.

Then why are you always claiming to speak for all atheists and all
agnostics, and all theists, and misrepresenting them snidely into the
bargain?
.

User: "JessHC"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	04 Mar 2004 12:40:01 AM

Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote in message news:<U3u1c.452447$I06.5076703@attbi_s01>...

JessHC wrote:

... representative of most atheists ...

I can't speak for "most atheists," I can only speak for myself.

As I said, I would strongly recommend not taking anything this name shifting
troll posts as representative of most atheists, even on those rare
occaisions it appears to almost state the atheist position correctly.
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	06 Mar 2004 01:59:54 AM

JessHC wrote:

Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote in message news:<U3u1c.452447$I06.5076703@attbi_s01>...

JessHC wrote:

... representative of most atheists ...

I can't speak for "most atheists," I can only speak for myself.

It's no big problem stating what characterizes atheism, troll. It's
easily found right up front on the first page of The Atheism Web,
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway, even though there is no such thing, not even
anything remotely resembling any such thing, in evidence (theists), the
absence of such religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further,
the outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter
of principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in
the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.

User: "Antiseptic"
Title: Re: No evidence of Septic's brain yet	06 Mar 2004 02:10:33 AM

Navigatorator wrote:
[snip]

This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway, even though there is no such thing, not even
anything remotely resembling any such thing, in evidence (theists), the
absence of such religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further,
the outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter
of principle (agnostics).

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in
the existence of gods:

Geez, you're an insufferable idiot. The very website
that you gave for a citation, completely contradicts
your definition of agnosticism, so read it and weep:
"The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley
at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined
an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism
and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a
higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way
of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that
we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics
believe that we can never know."
- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
.

User: "Torkel Franzen"
Title: Re: No evidence of Septic's brain yet	06 Mar 2004 06:27:26 AM

Antiseptic <septicisadick@youknowit.com> writes:

Geez, you're an insufferable idiot.

No, no! There are those who claim that Skeptic is an invisible pixie
who cannot exist. There are those who claim that he is an idiot. They
are all wrong. He is a great and awe-inspiring loon, a monument of
the Internet. He deserves being worshipped as a minor deity himself.
.

User: "Kadaitcha Man"
Title: Re: No evidence of Septic's brain yet	06 Mar 2004 06:35:14 AM

Torkel Franzen wrote:

Antiseptic <septicisadick@youknowit.com> writes:

Geez, you're an insufferable idiot.

Oh, great. Septic, the patron god of fuckwits.
.

User: "Antiseptic"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	03 Mar 2004 06:32:33 PM

Navigatorator wrote:

JessHC wrote:

... representative of most atheists ...

I can't speak for "most atheists," I can only speak for myself.

Therefore, you can speak for most idiots.
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	04 Mar 2004 10:25:48 AM

Antiseptic wrote:

Navigatorator wrote:

JessHC wrote:

... representative of most atheists ...

I can't speak for "most atheists," I can only speak for myself.

Therefore, you can speak for most idiots.

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	04 Mar 2004 03:02:27 PM

In article <gMI1c.38591$ko6.344467@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Antiseptic wrote:

Navigatorator wrote:

JessHC wrote:

... representative of most atheists ...

I can't speak for "most atheists," I can only speak for myself.

Therefore, you can speak for most idiots.

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple' innate infantilism is surfacing here.
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	03 Mar 2004 02:22:13 PM

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:17:58 GMT, Navigatorator
<navi@navi.com> spake thusly:

Virgil wrote:

If it is not known to be false ...

You can't shift the burden of proof to the athiests, knucklehead, that's
logical fallacy.

I.e., we get to claim whatever we want ...

It's you theists making the claim, knucklehead. Virgil is just arguing
_ad ignorantiam_ there is no proof it is false. Is this too complex for
you to follow?
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	04 Mar 2004 12:46:18 AM

In article <V7r1c.32283$ko6.306065@attbi_s02>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Pastor Dave wrote:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:17:58 GMT, Navigatorator
<navi@navi.com> spake thusly:

Virgil wrote:

If it is not known to be false ...

You can't shift the burden of proof to the athiests, knucklehead, that's
logical fallacy.

I.e., we get to claim whatever we want ...

It's you theists making the claim, knucklehead. Virgil is just arguing
_ad ignorantiam_ there is no proof it is false. Is this too complex for
you to follow?

If there is no proof that theist claims are false, why do you keep
trying to sell the lie that there is such proof?
Your extreme position seems to me to be much more a matter of ignorance,
or stupidity, or some combination of both, than our, the agnostics,
refusal to accept either extreme position without proof of its truth.
.

User: "Sniper"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	29 Feb 2004 12:46:23 PM

Navigator, aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Arn wrote:

Sniper wrote:

Navigator (aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Arno) wrote:

Virgil wrote:

Anything that you try and get someone else to believe is a claim ...

Except for the denial (negation) of a claim. For example, "False, what
you say is not known to be true, there are no gods."

A claim that isn't proven to be true isn't necessarily
false.

Therefore you argue _ad ignorantiam_ it is necessarily true that an
invisible God might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of
any such of a thing, because there is no proof the hypothesis is false?

Aside from the fact that I never made such an argument,
I'll repeat something that's been explained to you more
times than you've been called invincibly ignorant: It's
not an argument to ignorance to state something _might_
be true if it hasn't been proven false, it's logic. The
logical fallacy of AaI occurs when one argues something
_must_ be true because it hasn't been proven false. The
same can be said for claiming something _must_ be false
because it hasn't been proven true, as _you_ have done.
So you see my dear Septic, the only one who's committed
a logical fallacy here is you, my fine feathered fiend.
-------------------------------------------------------
:Niall McAuley: Therefore we can conclude that Skeptic
:is the stupidest person alive. Skeptic has a variety
:of the same illness which afflicts bleaters. He knows
:his conclusion is true, so any argument which seems to
:support his conclusion looks good to him, no matter
:how full of holes the argument is.
:D.J. Nozem: This was for fun, Skeptic. Unless you
:come up with some new arguments I'll take on a
:different tactic. Reasoning the beliefs of fools
:away can only be entertaining for so long...
:Paul King: Up to now I've pretty much left the Twit
:list alone but now I've found a candidate who is
:eminently worthy for his invincible ignorance I am
:forced to nominate "Skeptic" for retaining his bizarre
:ideas concerning logic despite citing sources that
:clearly contradict him and his demonstrated inability
:to construct a valid logical argument.
:Jesse Nowells: Jeff left off half of the proposition
:because he wants to turn claiming something is
:possible into a presumption that something is real.
:You assholes are burning up the bytes here spouting
:off weak arguments & wasting everybody's time. Why
:don't you take your troll asses & dangle, Skeptic?!
:Kronk: Skeptic is truly quite fascinating. A mode
:of thought governed by rules accepted on the basis
:of their authority sources, selectively exempted
:according to personal preference, and dogmatically
:defended against all sense and reason.
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	29 Feb 2004 07:09:07 PM

Sniper wrote:

Navigator, aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Arn wrote:

Sniper wrote:

Navigator (aka Skeptic, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Arno) wrote:

Virgil wrote:

Anything that you try and get someone else to believe is a claim ...

Except for the denial (negation) of a claim. For example, "False, what
you say is not known to be true, there are no gods."

A claim that isn't proven to be true isn't necessarily
false.

Aside from the fact that I never made such an argument ...

Oh, but that is what I am asking you right here, right now, sir. Didn't
you just argue, above, that a claim like the theists that isn't proven
true isn't necessarily false? Isn't that your argument up there?
Doesn't that indicate you are arguing that the theists are correct, the
proposed magic invisible thing they refer to as "God" might exist
anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing?
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	01 Mar 2004 12:04:10 AM

In article <T2w0c.426522$I06.4809409@attbi_s01>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Oh, but that is what I am asking you right here, right now, sir.
Didn't you just argue, above, that a claim [ Irrelevancy Deleted ]
that isn't proven true isn't necessarily false? Isn't that your
argument up there?

It is quite irrelevant whether he made that argument, but it is a valid
one. Mere lack of proof of any statement does not constitute proof of
its falsehood.

Doesn't that indicate you are arguing that the theists are correct, the
proposed magic invisible thing they refer to as "God" might exist
anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing?

This statement is a brilliant combination of truth, lies and innuendos.
There is no evidence here that the thing theists refer to as gods must
be either magic or invisible. Innuendo.
There is no evidence here, and there is plenty of contrary evidence,
that any theist would say merely that gos "might" exist. Theists would
say that god(s) MUST exist. Lie.
The absence of proof that something has not happened means that, for all
we know, it might have happened.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's conflation of the "might" of the
agnostics and honest atheists versus the "must" of true theists, has
been a long ongoing lie of his. One hopes he will grow out of these
childish behaviors, but don't count on it.
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of God yet...	04 Mar 2004 11:52:17 AM

Virgil wrote:

Mere lack of proof of any statement does not constitute proof of
its falsehood.

Where did you get the idea that proof of falsehood is ever required,
knucklehead, in sunday school?
Nobody has to prove false your idea that a magic invisible
God might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such
thing, knucklehead.
The only reasonable presumption is that it is false, since a default
presumption that your idea is true unless proven otherwise would be
begging the question and shifting the burden of proof to the atheists.
Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true
unless proven otherwise.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Will you just snip this principle of valid argument (logic) again,
rather than facing up to it?
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of no God yet...	05 Mar 2004 06:14:57 PM

Virgil wrote:

In article <l1K1c.42690$PR3.836854@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

Mere lack of proof of any statement does not constitute proof of
its falsehood.

Where did you get the idea that proof of falsehood is ever required,
knucklehead, in sunday school?

A statement not proved false is cannot be known to be false ...

Nobody has to prove "God might exist" is false, knucklehead, you theists
have to demonstrate how you know it is true (in accord with the actual
state of affairs). You cannot shift the burden of proof to the atheists.
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists who insist that
an invisible God might exist anyway, even though you cannot produce
evidence of any such thing, do.
.

User: "Leonard Caillouet"
Title: Re: No evidence of no God yet...	05 Mar 2004 07:07:09 PM

"Navigatorator" <navi@navi.com> wrote in message
news:5K82c.469865$I06.5283260@attbi_s01...

Virgil wrote:

In article <l1K1c.42690$PR3.836854@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

Mere lack of proof of any statement does not constitute proof of
its falsehood.

Where did you get the idea that proof of falsehood is ever required,
knucklehead, in sunday school?

A statement not proved false is cannot be known to be false ...

Nobody has to prove "God might exist" is false, knucklehead, you theists
have to demonstrate how you know it is true (in accord with the actual
state of affairs).

Why must they prove this? Belief in God is fundamentally a faith based
conviction. Of course no one can prove the existence of God. Why do you
even bother to engage in this kind of debate.

You cannot shift the burden of proof to the atheists.
Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists who insist that
an invisible God might exist anyway, even though you cannot produce
evidence of any such thing, do.

You appear to have something to prove. Why are you here?
Leonard
.

User: "Virgil"
Title: Re: No evidence of no God yet...	06 Mar 2004 01:10:24 AM

In article <5K82c.469865$I06.5283260@attbi_s01>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

In article <l1K1c.42690$PR3.836854@attbi_s03>,
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> wrote:

Virgil wrote:

Mere lack of proof of any statement does not constitute proof of
its falsehood.

Where did you get the idea that proof of falsehood is ever required,
knucklehead, in sunday school?

A statement not proved false is cannot be known to be false ...

Nobody has to prove "God might exist" is false, knucklehead, you theists
have to demonstrate how you know it is true (in accord with the actual
state of affairs).

No we don't. If you want it declared false, you must prove it so. And
all that garbage about shifting the burden applies to your claim that it
is a fact that there are no gods.
If we agnostics were to claim that a god actually exists, instead of
merely "might" exist, you would be right to ask us for proof, but as it
is, you are wrong.
What is it about "might exist" that requires proof? To say that
something might exist allows for the possibility that it might not. So
even if it should turn out that there aren't any gods, only proof of
their impossibility makes our position false.

There is no dictionary in which "might be" means "must be".
You cannot shift the burden of proof to the agnostics.
The entire burden naturally falls on anyone anti-theist enough to claim
that gods cannot exist, which is the logical negation of the agnostic
statement that "god(s) might exist".
Now the honest atheist position is that god(s) might not exist, which is
the logical negation of the actual theist position that at least one god
does exist.

Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you theists who insist that
an invisible God might exist anyway, even though you cannot produce
evidence of any such thing, do.

(1) There are no theists to insist on what no theist has ever insisted
on, that an inc=visible god only might exist. To say otherwise, as
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does, is to lie, as Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, does all the time.
(2) Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is not a simple atheist, but an
anti-theist, and a rabid anti-theist who has no respect for truth.
(3) Those whom Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, calls theist are often
agnostics whose fair and even handed approach to the issues seem to
irritate Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, beyond reason.
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of no God yet...	06 Mar 2004 01:26:15 AM

Virgil wrote:

... the agnostic
statement that "god(s) might exist".

That's theism, knucklehead. Anyone who argues as you do that an
invisible god might exist is theist. That is what characterizes theism.
Here, let me run through the actual state of affairs for you one more time:
This is all about that theist religious belief that an invisible god
might exist anyway, even though there is no such thing, not even
anything remotely resembling any such thing, in evidence (theists), the
absence of such religious belief (atheists), or, to go one step further,
the outright denial and repudiation of such religious belief as a matter
of principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics go one step further to deny and repudiate religious belief in
the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.

User: "Navigatorator"
Title: Re: No evidence of no God yet...	06 Mar 2004 01:18:20 AM

Virgil wrote:

What is it about "might exist" that requires proof?

Are you kidding?
.

Page 50 of 55