NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:sg2ju29v8q0tho940jn1a3e6d73dbcfpcg@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:46:07 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45e8f9fe$0$16381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>news:croeu25amqqusj8b7cv0qcff7tul8hho4e@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Apparently you are a bot of very little memory. If you had any memory at
>>> all, you would know that you had already tried this lie on me and that I
>>> pointed out that I own a number of Bibles and have read it through. You
>>> would also remember that the Bible does not qualify as evidence in
>>> support of the claim that gods exist. It is no more evidence than any of
>>> the other religious and religiously-inspired books. Many people, some
>>> just for kicks, have written religious texts. None are supported by any
>>> evidence.
>>>
>> There you go again specifying that a God to exists, he must be
>> evidenced
>>to your specifications and approval. There is no such requirement. It's a
>>free country and everyone can regard anything or anyone as their god, no
>>matter whether abstract or concrete.
>
> Go ahead, define any god and show the evidence for his existence. You
> will either end up with a trivially true god, e.g. god is the universe,
> or a god unsupported by the evidence, e.g. the god defined in the Nicene
> Creed.
> Feel free to avoid false equivocation however. You don't get to invent
> one definition for god to show that evidence exists for it and then
> redefine god to claim that an afterlife exists.
>
What's with the specifications? Did I not just say, that atheists want
us have our God approved by them before we believe in Him?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:2m2ju2d08idcl89rh4g3mtarc5a6g4dc55@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:37:03 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45e8f9ea$0$16381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
>>news:1172716888.888174.142960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>On Feb 28, 4:39�pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> I have no reason to believe that Satan exists. No evidence supports
>>> >> your
>>> >> claim that he did anything or even that he does exist.- Hide quoted
>>> >> text -
>>> >
>>> >Well, here is another atheist claiming that evil does not exist in the
>>> >world.
>>>
>>> Hoe many times will I have to remind you that I have not said that and
>>> that you are lying when you recharacterize my comments that way?
>>>
>> How is it, even now you don't know what the word Satan or devil means?
>>Satan means all that is evil, i.e. Satan is the principle of evil which
>>ALWAYS comes in human form, and that which you keep denying exists. You
>>even
>>deny that the devil can possess people, though history clearly shows us
>>Satan possessed people killing millions.
>
> Your teachings really are heterodox. Are you really teaching that Satan
> is merely the personification of evil and that God is merely the
> personification of good?
>
And your view is?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:un2ju256eskd972bacbeq4s16nsshq7m4m@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:50:19 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45e8fa01$0$16381$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>news:70qeu21934vf7sp50ejdu2g6eduqn4ljtb@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 22:44:09 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>> <45e7076a$0$16281$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>>news:2ho9u25n0bfth0pee9taf3gkua6vn3tev2@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 26 Feb 2007 22:20:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In any event, if you think I am mocking Jesus, why don't you take your
>>>>>>complaint to him when he returns to judge the earth?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because there is no evidence that Jesus will ever return and there is
>>>>> a
>>>>> great deal of evidence that people are harmed by the teachings of
>>>>> those
>>>>> who claim to be the followers of Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>> There you go again making broad accusations without presenting a
>>>> shred
>>>>of evidence.
>>>
>>> Are you trying to deny that there have been people who claim to be
>>> followers of Jesus but have caused serious harm in the world with their
>>> evil?
>>>
>> Are you simple minded, that you should believe Satan's minions who
>> claim
>>to be followers of Christ, yet do the opposite from what Christ commanded,
>>as well as justify doing so. That's why Jesus said: By their actions ye
>>shall know them. Yet you believe their words instead of their actions?
>
> I don't believe their words. I never claimed to. I'm perfectly willing
> to accept that Falwell, Robertson, Bush, Cheney, Franklin Graham, and
> the rest of these supposed Christians are not Christian in any way. Your
> problem is offering objective evidence about who is Christian and who is
> not.
>
Christ tells me not to judge people. All I am allowed is to judge
actions. So you need to list what actions you want me to judge, and I will
attempt to judge them by the standard of: What Would Jesus Do?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hue7f7.1snh7swcxfzxbN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
>> >> So now we are told thet there "is no such thing" as profanity, and
>> >> according to atheists dictionaries and Bibles are lying, for only
>> >> atheists know the truth, ...only privately so however, for they can't
>> >> seem to evidence this truth.
>> >
>> > Atheists are not 'all knowing', but they do use their common sense and
>> > logic - THAT is the big difference
>> >
>> There is no way values on the scale of good vs. evil, can be
>> determined
>> by "common sense and logic".
>
> Nor can be it determined by nonsense and superstition. But that hasn't
> stopped you from trying, now has it?
>
Neither you parents telling you to be a "good boy" without explaining
logically what they mean, nor Jesus Christ's commandments to love are
"nonsense" nor "superstition". You just never thought about this, for you
are here not to think, but to condemn, are you not?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hue903.11f3o7h1wjt4t8N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Are you simple minded, that you should believe Satan's minions who
>> claim
>> to be followers of Christ, yet do the opposite from what Christ
>> commanded,
>> as well as justify doing so. That's why Jesus said: By their actions ye
>> shall know them. Yet you believe their words instead of their actions?
>
> If someone claims to be a Christian, constantly prays to Jesus, and
> employs the words of Christ to justify their actions, then he is a
> Christian, period.
> The problem, however, is that you apparently can't reconcile the fact
> that those actions often are heinous acts of violence. But an evil
> Christian is still a Christian, because he still inhabits the fantasy
> world you all share...
>
Look up the word "Christian" in you dictionary. It means FOLLOWERS OF
CHRIST. Not someone who merely calls himself that, but does the opposite
from what Christ preached, as well as justify such action.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> >
> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, whose responsibility
> > is proof?
>
> Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
> Nobody can ever prove it correct.
>
> > I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
> >
>
> "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
> responsibility to prove it."
> That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
> a party as an obligation.
>
If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it;
trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't get him off the hook!

>
> Cheers, Mark.
>
 
"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:N7OdnXGAFvDSUXTYnZ2dnUVZ_rjinZ2d@ptd.net...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>> news:eumdnS9prupYvHrYnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@ptd.net...
>>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1172556961.386584.45770@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 26, 8:25�pm, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don't. I just think it's amusing how childish you are.
>>>>>
>>>> I have never thought you were amusing. And you are not childish. You
>>>> are evil.
>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>> ---------
>>>> These insults are just refuting ploys by Satan's minions to make
>>>> people STOP talking about Jesus. Will we let them? Hell NO!!!! We will
>>>> shout His most holy and perfect name from the roof tops if need be, and
>>>> no atheists are going to stop us!!!!!
>>> Just like suicide bombers in Iraq?
>>> ~Stumper
>>>
>> Notice the Golden Rule of Christ below. Are you telling us you would
>> never become a terrorist were your country bombed and invaded. Would you
>> be suitably shocked and awed and become immediately compliant and docile?
>> If not that, what would you do?
>>
>> Pastor Frank
>>
>> The most important, yet most ignored commandments of Christ, which
>> would
>> make war, if not ALL of man's inhumanity to man extinct, nay totally
>> unthinkable:
>> THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST
>> Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
>> heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
>> strength: this is the first commandment.
>> 31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour
>> as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
>> Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
>> commandments."
>> THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST, or Ethic of Reciprocity
>> Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that
>> men
>> should do to you, do ye even so to them...."
>
> First thing first. Would you stone adulterers?
> ~Stumper
>
That's a stupid question about Judaism. Jesus saved the adulteress from
getting stoned. But then some butt heads like getting stoned, ...and pay
good money for it too!!!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:FtKdneWQEuiDUnTYnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@ptd.net...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> Are you simple minded, that you should believe Satan's minions who
>> claim to be followers of Christ, yet do the opposite from what Christ
>> commanded, as well as justify doing so. That's why Jesus said: By their
>> actions ye shall know them. Yet you believe their words instead of their
>> actions?
>
> You are right.
> Would you be kind enough to let us know
> whether you would stone all adulterers or not?
> ~Stumper
>
Why would keep asking a Christian a question about keeping the laws of
Judaism? We don't keep the laws of Judaism, save perhaps the 10
commandments. Those who call themselves Christians are to follow Christ and
do what He would do. See below

Pastor Frank

Jesus in John 8:3: And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a
woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4: They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very
act.
5: Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what
sayest thou?
6: This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But
Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he
heard them not.
7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto
them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8: And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9: And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went
out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was
left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10: When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said
unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11: She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
thee: go, and sin no more.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fcrju21lmkm7pet0li48fj4h0sl59l023t@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:50:19 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu>
> wrote:
>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>news:70qeu21934vf7sp50ejdu2g6eduqn4ljtb@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 22:44:09 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>> <45e7076a$0$16281$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>>>news:2ho9u25n0bfth0pee9taf3gkua6vn3tev2@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 26 Feb 2007 22:20:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In any event, if you think I am mocking Jesus, why don't you take your
>>>>>>complaint to him when he returns to judge the earth?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because there is no evidence that Jesus will ever return and there is
>>>>> a
>>>>> great deal of evidence that people are harmed by the teachings of
>>>>> those
>>>>> who claim to be the followers of Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>> There you go again making broad accusations without presenting a
>>>> shred
>>>>of evidence.
>>>
>>> Are you trying to deny that there have been people who claim to be
>>> followers of Jesus but have caused serious harm in the world with their
>>> evil?
>>>
>> Are you simple minded, that you should believe Satan's minions who
>> claim
>>to be followers of Christ, yet do the opposite from what Christ commanded,
>>as well as justify doing so. That's why Jesus said: By their actions ye
>>shall know them. Yet you believe their words instead of their actions?
>
> Don't you think that a true follower of Christ should respect truth
> then, Pastor Frank? Should a follower of Christ engage in constant
> self-deception and try to deceive others? Why are all of you christers
> such deliberately illogical liars? Why is there no christer who really
> does respect Truth?
> Gospel Bretts
> a.a. Atheist #2262
> Fundy Xian Atheist
>
You need to show at least some evidence to be taken seriously. But then
we all get the impression you're just chanting atheist mantras again, and
that's all you aspire to.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > If so, whose responsibility
> > > is proof?
>
> > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
> > Nobody can ever prove it correct.
>
> > > I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
>
> > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
> > responsibility to prove it."
> > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
> > a party as an obligation.
>
> If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it;
> trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't get him off the hook!
>

Sure.
I have seen many people claim there is evidence for God and I know
that I have never seen any such evidence so I dont feel the need to
make any claims - I will just wait patiently for the positive side to
show me the goods.

Cheers, Mark.
 
On Mar 5, 1:29 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:15?pm, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > If so, whose responsibility
> > > is proof?
>
> > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
> > Nobody can ever prove it correct.
>
> > > I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
>
> > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
> > responsibility to prove it."
> > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
> > a party as an obligation.
>
> > Cheers, Mark.
>
> Would you like me to send you a copy of the Bible, Mark?

No thanks.

Cheers, Mark.
 
On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > If so, whose responsibility
> > > is proof?
>
> > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
> > Nobody can ever prove it correct.
>
> > > I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
>
> > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
> > responsibility to prove it."
> > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
> > a party as an obligation.
>
> If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it;
> trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't get him off the hook!
>

I would like to point out that calling every belief a person has a
"claim" would be misleading.
If someone says "I believe I saw a cat." - in some technical sense
this is a claim - but to insist that every thought, belief or
impression one has ever had about the truth of something needs "proof"
is unreasonable.

The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"
- but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.

So if someone genuinely believes "there is no evidence of Gods
existence" then it would seem to me that to call this a "claim" is to
exagerate.

Indeed if it was expressed as "I believe there is no evidence for God"
then instead of trying to get them on some technicality of rhetoric it
would be a lot more straightforward just to produce the evidence.
(Assuming the evidence existed of course.)


Cheers, Mark.
 
On Mar 5, 1:27�am, "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 3:36 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> >news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>
> > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > > > If so, whose responsibility
> > > > is
 
On 4 Mar., 18:27, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173019052.691420.283990@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
> > > is proof? I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
>
> > No, it's more a statement about the absolute dearth of actual,
> > legitimate, objective, verifiable evidence for any deities ever in the
> > universe.
>

> There is no proof. Absolute certainty is not available where the
> Deity is concerned.
> People of faith accept the Existence of God as a matter of faith,
> and not because of hard empirical evidence. If this is what is
> demanded by you, then you are demanding this of God because
> he has not provided it.

If someone claims that some god exists, I see nothing wrong with
asking for evidence. I certainly do not demand evidence; asking is
not demanding, nor is asking a believer for evidence the same as
asking god or demanding of god anything.


>
> If you have some, please feel free to present it; many of> us atheists have politely asked for such evidence literally for years
> > if not entire lifetimes, and so far have been perpetually sorely
> > disappointed.
>

> You want absolute certainty, a guarantee, but you have no
> certainty in anything: your job, your mate, your future or
> a long happy life. But you demand more from God. Why?
> I find this surprising.

I wish that I found it surprising that you said that absolute
certainty was asked for, but sadly that kind of distortion is very
common. Evidence of anything does not provide "absolute certainty".
The request was for evidence not certainty.

>
> Be aware, though, that the standards of evidence for> such supernatural claims is pretty high; statements like "I don't
> > understand something, therefore god must have done it" or "I get a
> > warm fuzzy feeling when I pray" won't cut it.
>

> I can understand you want a idyllic existence where there is
> only perfect knowledge, proof of everything even direct
> empirical the existence of God, but it does not exist
> so you will not find it.

Could you possibly respond without distorting what was said? Please
point out where certainty was requested.
 
On Mar 4, 11:36 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Richo" <m.richard...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1173060933.990849.262500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 6:05 pm, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1hue729.pr88setfk8njN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>
> > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > If so, whose responsibility
> > > is proof?
>
> > Anybody can prove it wrong at any time by presenting evidence.
> > Nobody can ever prove it correct.
>
> > > I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
>
> > "The claim cannot be proved - so therefore it is the claiments
> > responsibility to prove it."
> > That doesn't sound at all logical to me - forcing the impossible onto
> > a party as an obligation.
>
> If the claiment (sic) cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it;
> trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't get him off the hook!

See what I mean? This one is shifty. He (Wm. H. Esque), with sly
words multifplied for the purpose, has shifted the burden of proof
from the plaintiff to the defendant and, with so much shystering leger
de main, required the defendant to file and prove a counterclaim, when
it is incumbent upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff alone to prove
his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant may stand mute and
say nothing. He is not required to pursue an affirmative defense.

Hell, plaintiff can't even prove his case by the preponderance of the
evidence, since no evidence exists and the case was taken on faith and
faith alone.

The judge has stricken Esque's case, has issued a directed verdict.
It didn't even make it to the jury. Costs are taxed against the
plaintiff because he didn't even have a scintilla of evidence and
certainly nothing to get by a motion to dismiss. Just be glad you
didn't get sanctioned for filing a frivolous complaint.

Call your next case, counselor. This one is dead and incapable of
resurrection.

Meanwhile, Winnie is whining that he was denied a jury trial.
:)
 
H. Wm. Esque wrote:

> If the claiment cannot prove his claim, he is a fool to make it

I think it's spelled 'claimant'.

You mean like your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God
anyway, even though you cannot produce any evidence of any such thing,
because there is no proof your conjecture is false?
 
On 4 Mar., 18:27, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173019052.691420.283990@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>
> > > No Evidence of God?? Is this a claim? If so, whose responsibility
> > > is proof? I would contend there is no way to prove such a
> > > claim, therefore, the claimant would likely attempt to shift the
> > > responsibility to those whom he considers his opponents.
>
> > No, it's more a statement about the absolute dearth of actual,
> > legitimate, objective, verifiable evidence for any deities ever in the
> > universe.
>
> There is no proof. Absolute certainty is not available where the
> Deity is concerned.

Why mention proof? Nobody asked for proof?

> People of faith accept the Existence of God as a matter of faith,
> and not because of hard empirical evidence. If this is what is
> demanded by you, then you are demanding this of God because
> he has not provided it.

Evidence is asked for not proof, and it is not asked of god.


>
> If you have some, please feel free to present it; many of> us atheists have politely asked for such evidence literally for years
> > if not entire lifetimes, and so far have been perpetually sorely
> > disappointed.
>

> You want absolute certainty, a guarantee,

You must think you can read minds. Nobody asked for a guarantee.

but you have no
> certainty in anything: your job, your mate, your future or
> a long happy life. But you demand more from God. Why?
> I find this surprising.

You did not find it at all; you made it up. Proof or certainty was
not asked for, and nothing was demanded.

>
> Be aware, though, that the standards of evidence for> such supernatural claims is pretty high; statements like "I don't
> > understand something, therefore god must have done it" or "I get a
> > warm fuzzy feeling when I pray" won't cut it.
>
> I can understand you want a idyllic existence where there is
> only perfect knowledge, proof of everything even direct
> empirical the existence of God, but it does not exist
> so you will not find it.

Perhaps that is why it was not asked for. Why do you keep pretending
that it was?
 
On 4 Mar., 17:21, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173018520.978855.246000@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 12:05?am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > "Scott Richter" <scottrichter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
snip

> > Matthew 10:14
> > And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye
> > depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
>
> Christians who do not heed this verse are in violation of the very
> faith they profess. There is no Biblical authorization to "shove ones
> religion down the throat of another person". An atheist who wants
> a defense against over-bearing proselytizers should be able to
> point to this verse as a defense

We have, and, just like you and the inane champion of the world
(little Winn), they ignore it.
 
"H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in

snip
> There is no proof. Absolute certainty is not available where the
> Deity is concerned.

What diety?

> People of faith accept the Existence of God

Which god?

as a matter of faith,
> and not because of hard empirical evidence. If this is what is
> demanded by you, then you are demanding this of God because
> he has not provided it.

Which god?
snip

> You want absolute certainty, a guarantee, but you have no
> certainty in anything: your job, your mate, your future or
> a long happy life.

Yeah, so?

> But you demand more from God. Why?

Sorry, but I don't demand anything from supernatural beings.

> I find this surprising.

So do I as demanding anything from a being you don't believe exists is just
ridiculous.
>
> Be aware, though, that the standards of evidence for
>> such supernatural claims is pretty high; statements like "I don't
>> understand something, therefore god must have done it" or "I get a
>> warm fuzzy feeling when I pray" won't cut it.
>>
> I can understand you want a idyllic existence where there is
> only perfect knowledge, proof of everything even direct
> empirical the existence of God, but it does not exist
> so you will not find it.

And he didn't say that he was looking for it either. Learn to speak for
yourself and not for others.

--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
 

Similar threads

R
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY GODS
Replies
5
Views
18
Richo
R
B
A CHALLENGE FOR RELIGIONISTS
Replies
6
Views
18
Steve Hayes
S
B
FALSE GODS
2 3
Replies
55
Views
56
bob young
B
B
EVIDENCE OF NO REAL GOD
Replies
4
Views
21
Christopher A.Lee
C
B
GOD MYTHS AND FABLES
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
71
bob young
B
Back
Top