NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On Mar 8, 8:29?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 6:42?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Mar 6, 3:48?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 4, 7:02?pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 4, 7:18 pm, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 3:59?pm, "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > ?[...]
> > > > > > > > Well, if Darrell Stec read his 30 Bibles, why didn't he know anything
> > > > > > > > about them? ?The same question applies to you. ?I'll tell you what, I
> > > > > > > > will quote a verse from Isaiah, and then you can say you have read a
> > > > > > > > verse from the Old Testament.
> > > > > > > > Isaiah 3:23 ?The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the
> > > > > > > > vails.
> > > > > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > > > > Poor Winnie. ?No need for the Tower of Babel to tie his tongue. ?The
> > > > > > > thing is in a knot.
>
> > > > > > > Huh? ?What's this, Winnie, about the glasses and the fine linen? ?Some
> > > > > > > kind of masonic ritual or are you a Mormon Klanster, a wizard under
> > > > > > > the sheets?
>
> > > > > > > Time to go now, Winnie. ?James Cameron is putting on his show about
> > > > > > > all those bones he found in the coffins of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Mary
> > > > > > > Magdalen, and Judah, son of Jesus. ?Tune in: ?Discovery Channel at 9.
> > > > > > > EST.
>
> > > > > > Why are all atheists buying into this hoax? ? I thought atheists did
> > > > > > not believe in Jesus Christ.
> > > > > > Isaiah 3:24 ?And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell
> > > > > > there shall be stink, instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well
> > > > > > set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth;
> > > > > > and burning instead of beauty.
>
> > > > > Not believing in deities doesn't mean people named Jesus don't exist.
> > > > > If you lived in the real world, you'd know that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > So why are you pretending that you have found the tomb of the Jesus
> > > > Christ who was crucifed and resurrected?
>
> > > You should read the part of the bible where it tells you lying is a
> > > sin.
>
> > > Exodus 20:16
> > > Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
>
> > > Exodus 23:1
> > > Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the
> > > wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
>
> > > Proverbs 19:9
> > > A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies
> > > shall perish.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > See how much better things go when we follow the scriptures?
>
> But you aren't following the scriptures, as proven by your lying.- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, Jess.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Mar 8, 8:45�am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173304704.711023.6770@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > rbwinn wrote:
> >> On Mar 6, 8:40?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> >> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > Latin is a dead language used by people who have nothing to say.
>
> >> > > > Much like quoting from the Bible...
>
> >> > > Well, Jesus Christ said, Search the scriptures, for in them ye think
> >> > > ye have eternal life.
>
> >> > You've long since proven you have nothing to say. No need to provide
> >> > any
> >> > more evidence, little fella...
>
> >> Well, I don't need to have anything to say.
>
> > Lucky break for you.
>
> >> I am talking to atheists.
>
> > No, you're babbling at atheists, in an atheist newsgroup.
 
On Mar 8, 1:51�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:45:02 -0500, "Robibnikoff"<witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>
 
On Mar 8, 1:53�pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2007 18:52:30 -0800, "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
 
GOD is the SON of GOD? What an invention!

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1173412155.210261.253480@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 8, 8:07?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 4:25?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Theists are also inventive. ?Can you deny that theist invented god!
> >
> > > God is eternal.
> >
> > Unsupported assertion.
>
> Wrong. God sent his Only Begotten Son.
> Robert B. Winn
>
 
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1173108769.343577.109240@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
On 4 Mar., 22:53, "Semper Lib
 
Not in yours?

"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1173366398.574586.111490@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 4:21?am, "Mettas Mother" <Mettas_Moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So did the storm come?
> > >
> > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:1173267775.211415.259560@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 7, 12:32?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Have you considered this verse from Isaiah?
> > > > Isaiah 4:6 ?And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the
> > > > daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge , and for a covert
> > > > from storm , and from rain.
> > > > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > The storm did come.
>
> Only in your brain.
>
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2:39�am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:23:22 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
>> wrote:
>> � - Refer: <erCdnYJ9sbKWS3LYnZ2dnUVZ_trin...@comcast.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>> On 7 Mar 2007 14:43:40 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> � - Refer: <1173307420.007287.59...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2007 09:49:42 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> � - Refer: <1173289782.480046.72...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:21?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Robert, why would you believe that you are somehow exempt from a simple
>>>>>>>>> instruction in your manual: to beat a speedy retreat from any place like
>>>>>>>>> alt dot atheism where your proselytizing is not welcome, and 'shake the
>>>>>>>>> dust of that place off your feet' [don't have anything further to do
>>>>>>>>> with it]?
>>>>>>>>> Your hypothesis that things in your manual only apply to the original
>>>>>>>>> twelve apostles is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis. If they were
>>>>>>>>> to apply only to the original twelve apostles then there would be no
>>>>>>>>> proselytizing today, would there?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> Who told you I was proselytizing?
>>>>>>> What do YOU think you're doing?
>>>>>> Bzzzt!
>>>>>> Meaningless question.
>>>>>> Bobby is quite incapable of thought.
>>>>> Point taken; I withdraw the question.
>>>> Objection sustained.
>>>> Now, what about this defence of...
>>>> <shuffles papers>
>>>> Erm "Not guilty by way of insanity"?
>>>> What does the defendent have to say?
>>>> You will stand when you address the court Mr. Winn.
>>>> Remove that canvas jacket from him will you, usher?
>>> Take off his straight jacket? I object!
>> The learned counsel's objection is sustained.
>> Mr. Winn is a clear and present danger to rationality.
>>
>> The Jury will now consider it's verdict.
>>
> Well, here is some more atheistic mythology. So who do you claim has
> ever had a trial by jury at a sanity hearing?
>
It's not a real trial, moron, it is just make believe on Usenet. We are
just making fun of you. Can't you tell the difference? Errrm ... never
mind. You aren't known for your ability to tell real from make believe,
are you?
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:08�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 6:10?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 7, 12:10?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> ? - Refer: <1173221520.689544.138...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>> Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself?
>>>>>> That appears to be an avowed goal of his.
>>>>> Now why would an atheist be concerned about what my goals are?
>>>> Because you keep defecating in alt.atheism.
>>>>> Do atheists concern themselves with the goals of all people?
>>>> No, just the goals of people trying to impose their religious beliefs
>>>> on everyone.
>>> As I understand it, you are saying that you are opposed to freedom of
>>> speech.
>> Golly, did I say anything even remotely like that? �Nope.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Well, I think you did.
>
There you go again, trying to think without the proper tool.
 
On Mar 9, 1:08�am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 2:39?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:23:22 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> ? - Refer: <erCdnYJ9sbKWS3LYnZ2dnUVZ_trin...@comcast.com>
>
> >>> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>>> On 7 Mar 2007 14:43:40 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> ? - Refer: <1173307420.007287.59...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7 Mar 2007 09:49:42 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> ? - Refer: <1173289782.480046.72...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:21?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Robert, why would you believe that you are somehow exempt from a simple
> >>>>>>>>> instruction in your manual: to beat a speedy retreat from any place like
> >>>>>>>>> alt dot atheism where your proselytizing is not welcome, and 'shake the
> >>>>>>>>> dust of that place off your feet' [don't have anything further to do
> >>>>>>>>> with it]?
> >>>>>>>>> Your hypothesis that things in your manual only apply to the original
> >>>>>>>>> twelve apostles is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis. If they were
> >>>>>>>>> to apply only to the original twelve apostles then there would be no
> >>>>>>>>> proselytizing today, would there?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> Who told you I was proselytizing?
> >>>>>>> What do YOU think you're doing?
> >>>>>> Bzzzt!
> >>>>>> Meaningless question.
> >>>>>> Bobby is quite incapable of thought.
> >>>>> Point taken; I withdraw the question.
> >>>> Objection sustained.
> >>>> Now, what about this defence of...
> >>>> <shuffles papers>
> >>>> Erm "Not guilty by way of insanity"?
> >>>> What does the defendent have to say?
> >>>> You will stand when you address the court Mr. Winn.
> >>>> Remove that canvas jacket from him will you, usher?
> >>> Take off his straight jacket? I object!
> >> The learned counsel's objection is sustained.
> >> Mr. Winn is a clear and present danger to rationality.
>
> >> The Jury will now consider it's verdict.
>
> > Well, here is some more atheistic mythology.
 
On Mar 9, 1:10?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 8:08?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Mar 7, 6:10?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 7, 12:10?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> ? - Refer: <1173221520.689544.138...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>>> Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself?
> >>>>>> That appears to be an avowed goal of his.
> >>>>> Now why would an atheist be concerned about what my goals are?
> >>>> Because you keep defecating in alt.atheism.
> >>>>> Do atheists concern themselves with the goals of all people?
> >>>> No, just the goals of people trying to impose their religious beliefs
> >>>> on everyone.
> >>> As I understand it, you are saying that you are opposed to freedom of
> >>> speech.
> >> Golly, did I say anything even remotely like that? ?Nope.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well, I think you did.
>
> There you go again, trying to think without the proper tool.- Hide quoted text -
>
Actually, I had the book of Isaiah.
Isaiah 5:17 Then shall the lambs feed after their manner, and the
waste places of the fat ones shall strangers eat.
Robert B. Winn
 
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1huim8h.1w157cg1q8yd9lN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
>> > Because our world is under assault by religious groups who invoke their
>> > superstitions to control what others think and do. Did you miss 9/11?
>> > Have you not listened to Pat Robertson and other power mad
>> > evangelicals?
>> > Have you not watched the creationists trying to take America back to
>> > the
>> > Dark Ages? Have you not heard the suicide bombers screaming "God is
>> > great"?
>> > It is increasingly clear that religion is a plague on civilization, so
>> > why would we "stay away" from such an important issue?
>>
>> So what are you advocating? Should we all just do what comes natural?
>> Or
>> should we all become atheists each inventing his own brand of morality,
>> ethics, common sense, logic and reason, and most of all not listen to
>> anyone
>> who advocates a consensus on the meaning of good behaviour, such as Jesus
>> Christ?
>
> How typical. You ask a question and then immediately attack without
> waiting for an answer. Saves me the time of writing a response that your
> rage would blind you to anyways...
>
We all can see the sorry spectacle of your shifting, dodging, evading
and feigning to avoid answering a simple question.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1173078562.784079.63380@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.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.
>
In this case, I personally made no counter claim. The claim I challenged
is "NO EVIDENCE OF GOD". This is the _only_ claim. Therefore,
I assume nothing. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the ones
making the claim. I would like to see how you would attempt to prove
such an impossible claim. It's like trying to prove that there is NO
intelligent life anywhere ELSE in the universe, nowhere other than the
planet earth. It may not be but it's impossible to prove.

A few years ago I subscribed to newsgroups, but quickly became
disenchanted and left the groups. I was hoping this "Christian"
newsgroup would be different.



> Cheers, Mark.
>
 
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > > God is eternal.
> >
> > Unsupported assertion.
>
> Wrong. God sent his Only Begotten Son.

Let me get this straight. You claim one unsupported assertion is "wrong"
by repeating ANOTHER unsupported assertion--which is completely
unrelated to the first?

Do you not hear how foolish you sound? Do you not see why no one
respects your opinion? All you are doing is parroting little phrases you
learned as a child.

Sheesh...
 
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1huin2w.1efe1cw110yhwaN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
> Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>
>> > There is no evidence that Jesus exists.
>>
>> There is plenty of evidence "that Jesus exists"
>
> Should be past tense--existed--but anyway...
> Assuming Jesus did in fact exist long ago, how does this differ from the
> billions of other people who existed before and after him?
>
Yes, isn't typical atheist to presume all people are just cloned copies
of each other, and are undifferenciated.
You sure are both perceptually and philosophically challenged, ..which
is no shame, but being proud of it, that's a shame alright.

>> and lives in your heart and mind
>
> No, that's just your religious addiction talking. You've been
> brainwashed to worship this one guy who may or may not have actually
> existed. I guess you have a hard time understanding people who haven't
> been similarly brainwashed, can you?
>
>> yet you are intent on ignoring Him. Why is that?
>
> For the same reason I can ignore the billions of other people.
> Is simple logic really this difficult for you?
>
Where you would ignore everyone, but yourself of course, we would rather
relate with each other in a meaningful way.
You are going off the deep end here and you should take a rest behind
locked doors.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1173083264.449764.216420@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.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!
> >
>
> 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.
>
I agree. Why then demand proof of the positive when it is belief
that is being espoused? The expressed statement and thread title
is "NO EVIDENCE OF GODS", was admittedly a claim. This is
not the same saying, "I believe ...... ".
>
> The vast majority of things humans believe they do so without "proof"
> - but that doesnt make the beliefs foolish or unreasonable.
>
I agree.
>
> 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.
>
But this is not the issue. If it were I would agree.
>
> 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.)
>
I personally do not believe there is any testable, objective, scientific
evidence, that is subject to our five senses. Thus it can only be a matter
of belief in any case.


>
> Cheers, Mark.
>
 
H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1173078562.784079.63380@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.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.
> >
> In this case, I personally made no counter claim. The claim I challenged
> is "NO EVIDENCE OF GOD". This is the _only_ claim.

A claim supported by the lack of evidence. Until objective,
verifiable evidence is presented, there is none. Therefore, there is
no evidence of god.

> Therefore,
> I assume nothing. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the ones
> making the claim.

Perhaps you're confusing the claim "no evidence" with the claim "no
deities."

> I would like to see how you would attempt to prove
> such an impossible claim. It's like trying to prove that there is NO
> intelligent life anywhere ELSE in the universe, nowhere other than the
> planet earth. It may not be but it's impossible to prove.

There is no evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. There is
no evidence of deities. That doesn't mean either exists or doesn't;
it means there's no evidence.

> A few years ago I subscribed to newsgroups, but quickly became
> disenchanted and left the groups. I was hoping this "Christian"
> newsgroup would be different.

Which "christian" newsgroup would that be? Alt.atheism?
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 9, 1:10?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 8, 8:08?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > >> rbwinn wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 7, 6:10?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> rbwinn wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mar 7, 12:10?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 6 Mar 2007 14:52:00 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> ? - Refer: <1173221520.689544.138...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > >>>>>>> Have you considered you're just making an ass of yourself?
> > >>>>>> That appears to be an avowed goal of his.
> > >>>>> Now why would an atheist be concerned about what my goals are?
> > >>>> Because you keep defecating in alt.atheism.
> > >>>>> Do atheists concern themselves with the goals of all people?
> > >>>> No, just the goals of people trying to impose their religious beliefs
> > >>>> on everyone.
> > >>> As I understand it, you are saying that you are opposed to freedom of
> > >>> speech.
> > >> Golly, did I say anything even remotely like that? ?Nope.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Well, I think you did.
> >
> > There you go again, trying to think without the proper tool.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Actually, I had the book of Isaiah.

As he said.
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 9, 1:08?am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Mar 8, 2:39?am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:23:22 -0800, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> ? - Refer: <erCdnYJ9sbKWS3LYnZ2dnUVZ_trin...@comcast.com>
> >
> > >>> Michael Gray wrote:
> > >>>> On 7 Mar 2007 14:43:40 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> ? - Refer: <1173307420.007287.59...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > >>>>> Michael Gray wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 7 Mar 2007 09:49:42 -0800, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> ? - Refer: <1173289782.480046.72...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
> > >>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:21?pm, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Robert, why would you believe that you are somehow exempt from a simple
> > >>>>>>>>> instruction in your manual: to beat a speedy retreat from any place like
> > >>>>>>>>> alt dot atheism where your proselytizing is not welcome, and 'shake the
> > >>>>>>>>> dust of that place off your feet' [don't have anything further to do
> > >>>>>>>>> with it]?
> > >>>>>>>>> Your hypothesis that things in your manual only apply to the original
> > >>>>>>>>> twelve apostles is just the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis. If they were
> > >>>>>>>>> to apply only to the original twelve apostles then there would be no
> > >>>>>>>>> proselytizing today, would there?- Hide quoted text -
> > >>>>>>>> Who told you I was proselytizing?
> > >>>>>>> What do YOU think you're doing?
> > >>>>>> Bzzzt!
> > >>>>>> Meaningless question.
> > >>>>>> Bobby is quite incapable of thought.
> > >>>>> Point taken; I withdraw the question.
> > >>>> Objection sustained.
> > >>>> Now, what about this defence of...
> > >>>> <shuffles papers>
> > >>>> Erm "Not guilty by way of insanity"?
> > >>>> What does the defendent have to say?
> > >>>> You will stand when you address the court Mr. Winn.
> > >>>> Remove that canvas jacket from him will you, usher?
> > >>> Take off his straight jacket? I object!
> > >> The learned counsel's objection is sustained.
> > >> Mr. Winn is a clear and present danger to rationality.
> >
> > >> The Jury will now consider it's verdict.
> >
> > > Well, here is some more atheistic mythology. ?So who do you claim has
> > > ever had a trial by jury at a sanity hearing? ?
> >
> > ?>
> > It's not a real trial, moron, it is just make believe on Usenet. We are
> > just making fun of you. Can't you tell the difference? Errrm ... never
> > mind. You aren't known for your ability to tell real from make believe,
> > are you?-
>
> Well, why would I call it atheistic mythology if it was not make believe?

Because you're an idiot.
 

Similar threads

R
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY GODS
Replies
5
Views
25
Richo
R
B
A CHALLENGE FOR RELIGIONISTS
Replies
6
Views
19
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
73
bob young
B
Back
Top