Mark Earnest wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message

How is that logical at all when neither can show any proof?

Because every time I say anything about my reality, that there is a
God, atheists require proof, without giving any proof of their
position, that there is no God, at all.

LOL - again, how can anyone question your state of being? Just force
the opponent to show how he's going to validate any answer you
give him. He can't, therefore he's a nitwit. He can't know what's
inside your head or anyone else's. Heck, there's probably argument
he doesn't know what's inside his own head. Smarts and reasonableness.
That's all you need.

Read this: http://tinyurl.com/269op

So it is unfair,
when a theist asserts that God exists, for an atheist to require
proof of that, unless he can provide proof of his own position, too.

You have to deal with that using your smarts. You aren't going
to get anywhere by doing what they do.

It may get atheists to become agnostics,

If that's what you want to do then you should consider following my posts,
because that's precisely what I do best. The only logical position that

atheist can take is one that does not vary off the nombril of agnosticism

even a fraction. All atheist positions are logically invalid and I assert
that as a prima facie accusation against atheism. And in order to make

stick in the atheist craw, you do not have to make a single statement

what you believe. Not a single one.

The problem is, alt.atheism atheists who are capable of simple reasoning
are thin on the ground so I never get to have the argument too often

I deliberately identify then dismiss patently illogical nitwits out of

I've been doing this for more years than I care to remember so I leave the
idiots to remain in their mental torpor. You need to find people who can
think, and you need to be able to think, too.

Mark Richardson is as thick as they come. He has no brain to think with.
Pursuing any argument with him is a lost cause. But you were still

with what you think he said. It's what he actually said that counts.

To challenge what theism is, belief in God existing, is to say God
does not exist.

No it is not. It does not get to that stage unless the atheist asserts
that God does not exist. You're on a winner as soon as they say that or
ask for proof. Look:

This is what you get for solid logic: http://tinyurl.com/25rn9

Me: Well, yes, the confirmation is everywhere, but in the Christian is
where God dwells, so the "confirmation" appears to me to be an
inherent component of the experience, not an external one.

Someone: Understood.

Me: But not by the atheist. The athiest persists in his own crazy
conundrum of demanding external evidence.

Force the atheist there and make him stare his absurdity in the face.
How on earth can anyone reasonably ask for evidence of something that
can't be proved either way? They can't do it, their position is absurd.

The only correct position that holds any hope is that there's no
proof either way.

If that is someone's view, he should be an agnostic.

100% correct.

If you stick to that and don't get bogged down
in the other person's nitwittery, you can't lose. But creating
imaginary claims where there are none isn't going to get you
anywhere except into people's killfiles, and maybe identified
as an object of ridicule.

Atheists don't claim to killfile me very often. They seem to prefer a
battle of wits.

What do they fight with then?

I did not mean to upset you.

You did not upset me. I'm trying to help you here.

Mark Richardson is as thick as they come. He has no brain to think with.
Pursuing any argument with him is a lost cause.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 03:03:25 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:

Because every time I say anything about my reality, that there is a God,
atheists require proof, without giving any proof of their position, that
there is no God, at all.

Me: "There really is a giant whale swimming on Jupiter."
You: Can you proof that?
Me: Can you proof me wrong? Have you ever been to Jupiter, huh?

See the resemblance?

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 03:03:25 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
<mark45@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:

Because every time I say anything about my reality, that there is a God,
atheists require proof, without giving any proof of their position, that
there is no God, at all.

What "position that there is no God"?

When are you finally going to realise that "there's no God" is no
different whatsoever than "there's no Santa Claus"?

It's hardly rocket science, but your religious beliefs are irrelevant
to us. The world doesn't revolve around them.

So it is unfair,
when a theist asserts that God exists, for an atheist to require
proof of that, unless he can provide proof of his own position, too.

You imagine that because you still haven't grasped what our position
actually is, nor do you grasp that the only reason people demand proof
from you is to get you to either put up or shut up.

But like the bleater you are, you do neither.

You have to deal with that using your smarts. You aren't going
to get anywhere by doing what they do.

It may get atheists to become agnostics, realizing there is no solid

that there is no God. If one has no proof, one does not know. And the
illusion of truth is the greatest enemy to ignorance.

Why the ***** should we care about the irrelevant object of somebody
else's religious beliefs?

What "position that there is no God"?

When are you finally going to realise that "there's no God" is no
different whatsoever than "there's no Santa Claus"?

It's hardly rocket science, but your religious beliefs are irrelevant
to us. The world doesn't revolve around them.

You imagine that because you still haven't grasped what our position
actually is,

nor do you grasp that the only reason people demand proof
from you is to get you to either put up or shut up.

Why the ***** should we care about the irrelevant object of somebody
else's religious beliefs?