SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF NO GODS

[JessHC]

Sippuddin wrote:
> Jeckyl wrote:
>
> > ... nor do we
> > have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
>
> I am just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in
> any case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)
>
> You might try reading this again, very very slowly, for understanding:
>
> Richo wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 9:05 am, "Enlightened one" <ladyt...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> You can neither prove that there is a God nor can you prove that there
> >> isn't.
> >
> > Fine.
> >
> No it is not fine because we atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove
> in this case, only those who champion the notion that there might be a
> God do. Understand?
>
> That leaves as the only reasonable default presumption 'No God'.

Which has nothing to do with "might be." Admitting lack of ultimate
knowledge doesn't mean one presumes deities.

> When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
> ETs, the only reasonable default presumption [that which is reasonably
> taken for granted, by default] is the null, 'No safety', or 'No guilt',
> or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
>
> For example, see: SETI
> http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
>
>
> "Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
> hypothesis in what's called the null form: 'resolved that there are no
> civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
> emissions.' Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
> the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."

 

[Virgil]

In article <ZsGdnfDt571WT77bnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> Jeckyl wrote:
>
> > ... nor do we
> > have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
>
> I am just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in
> any case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)

Wrong on two counts. Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin assumes it rather than
presuming it, and Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin, and all his works, are
unreasonable in extremis.
>
> You might try reading this again, very very slowly, for understanding

And Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin should reke his own rede for a change.

 

[Virgil]

In article <meGdncltyNxVTr7bnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:

> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>
> > ... is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
>
> It's not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof).

So Ho Hum Sippuddin Sippuudin now claims that his own claims of having
evidence need never be backed up by production of any actual evidence.

The ultimate in question begging!

 

[Jeckyl]

"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:ZsGdnfDt571WT77bnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Jeckyl wrote:
>
>> ... nor do we have any proof of his existence or non-existense.
>
> I am just explaining what the only reasonable default PRESUMPTION is in
> any case like this. (Clue: There is a principle involved.)
>
> You might try reading this again, very very slowly, for understanding:

You might try reading this again, very very slowly, for understanding

What do you say

1 God exists
2 God does not exist

Which is it ?

 

[Jeckyl]

"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:meGdncltyNxVTr7bnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com...
> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>
>> ... is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
>
> It's not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof). The evidence
> speaks for itself, and there is no such thing as God in evidence is there?

What evidence?

Saying "there is evidence" is a claim .. an assertion .. (it is NOT a
denial) .. so the BoP is clearly to show this evidence.

You can't weasel out of it. Although as the liar you are, you will try.

 

[jientho@aol.com]

On Apr 16, 3:51 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
> H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > ... is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods.
>
> It's not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof).

That's a Fallacy of Petitio Principii from Septic.

> The evidence
> speaks for itself, and there is no such thing as God in evidence is there?

And that's a straight Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam from
Septic. Clue to Septic: 'no evidence' is not 'evidence that speaks'.

Jeff

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 16, 7:34�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> >> Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> >> at the speed of light would be zero.
>
> I a train could travel that fast, then yes, that is what you would observe
> (if you were able to).
>
> But that does not mean that the train has actually shrunk .. it is still its
> proper length.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 16, 8:39?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 10:39?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > I have asked a few third graders what the answer is, and they all seem to
> > > > agree with me, not with Einstein.
>
> > > Wow! Your crazy ideas about relativity pass the "third grader" test!
> > > What an endorsement!
>
> > It is wonderful to talk to people whose minds are not completely
> > corrupted by false teachings.
>
> So... you thought it was your job to introduce them to false teachings?
> (You probably told them Jesus was coming back, too.)
>
> Next time, why don't you ask those third graders if Santa Claus is real?
> If they say "Yes", then you'll have your proof for his existence,
> because as you say, those kids have not been "corrupted by false
> teachings"...
>
> Oh, and how many of those third graders were familiar with the Lorenz
> equations?

Why would third graders want to be familiar with the Lorenz equations?
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 16, 9:39?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 4:36?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 15, 5:52?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 15, 9:55?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>
> > > > > >>rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as
> > > > > >>>scripture would be true.
>
> > > > > >>Not sure which is funnier, the first part of that sentence or the
> > > > > >>second...
>
> > > > > >>>Do you think it is an intelligent position to deny the existence of God?
>
> > > > > >>It most certainly is. Don't you know that?
>
> > > > > > Well, why don't you explain your idea to Jesus Christ when he returns
> > > > > > to judge the earth?
>
> > > > > And when do you plan on that happening?
>
> > > > > --
> > > > What do you mean when do I plan on it happening? ?The scriptures say
> > > > the day and the hour no man knoweth, not the angels in heaven, not the
> > > > Son of God, but the Father only.
>
> > > And the ruby slippers will take us back to Kansas.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I think Kansas would be a good place for you.
>
> Well, why don't you explain your idea to Dorothy when she returns?- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, as I understand it, Judy Garland committed suicide.
Robert B. Winn

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 16, 9:45�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 4:35?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 15, 5:51?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 15, 9:30?am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>On 15 Apr 2007 09:26:55 -0700, in alt.atheism
> > > > > >>"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in
> > > > > >><1176654415.157086.69...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > > > >>>On Apr 15, 5:40?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>rbwinn wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> > > > > >>>>>><HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >>>>>>>news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>give them...
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>Jesus coming back!
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>who keep their word.
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>I saw this in alt religion.
> > > > > >>>>>>>Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> > > > > >>>>>>>I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> > > > > >>>>>>The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> > > > > >>>>>>logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> > > > > >>>>>>There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> > > > > >>>>>>works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> > > > > >>>>>> doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> > > > > >>>>>>critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> > > > > >>>>>>evidence that the thing in question does exist.
>
> > > > > >>>>>>So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> > > > > >>>>>>not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> > > > > >>>>>>whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> > > > > >>>>>>the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> > > > > >>>>>>isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
>
> > > > > >>>>>>Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> > > > > >>>>>>calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> > > > > >>>>>>theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> > > > > >>>>>>but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> > > > > >>>>>>interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> > > > > >>>>>>purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
>
> > > > > >>>>>>I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> > > > > >>>>>>don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> > > > > >>>>>>about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> > > > > >>>>>>that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> > > > > >>>>>>our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> > > > > >>>>>>and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
> > > > > >>>>>>evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
>
> > > > > >>>>>Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
> > > > > >>>>>that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers. ?ou seem
> > > > > >>>>>to have no power over his existence whatsoever. ?od is like the Bible
> > > > > >>>>>in one way. ?o matter what atheists say about the Bible, it continues
> > > > > >>>>>to exist and says what it was written to say. ?o matter what atheists
> > > > > >>>>>say about God, He continues to exist. ?ell, time for Bible study. ? ? ? ? f
> > > > > >>>>>you run into any atheists who want to talk about the theory of
> > > > > >>>>>relativity, let me know.
>
> > > > > >>>>So your assertion is that all "holy" writings that exist are true?
> > > > > >>>>You think that's an intelligent position?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >>>Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as
> > > > > >>>scripture would be true.
>
> > > > > >>How do you know that any of the writers were prophets of God? You have
> > > > > >>no evidence to support that contention.
>
> > > > > > Sorry, but all that proves is that you have not read the Bible. ?Jesus
> > > > > > Christ said that they were prophets.
>
> > > > > And why should we believe Jesus?
>
> > > > > > Explain your choice to God, not to me. ?I am not here to judge
> > > > > > choices.
>
> > > > > I feel no need to explain myself to God. ?If God is genuinely
> > > > > all-knowing, then he already knows why I made the "choice" I made.
>
> > > > Well, how is it that you claim I enter into this some way? ?As I said
> > > > before, discuss it with Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the
> > > > earth.
>
> > > What objective, verifiable evidence do you have that figments of your
> > > imagination can interact with reality?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, I have the train in Einstein's description which is not affected
> > by the attempts of college graduates to reduce its length by
> > witchcraft.
>
> That's nice, but isn't responsive.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 16, 9:49�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 4:29?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 15, 3:29?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > > > > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:1176640427.794998.147610@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > > > > > > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > give them...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus
> > > > > > Christ
> > > > > > > > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > Jesus coming back!
>
> > > > > > > > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > who keep their word.
>
> > > > > > > > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> > > > > > > > I saw this in alt religion.
>
> > > > > > > So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
>
> > > > > > > > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>
> > > > > > > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven?
>
> > > > > > I don't. I made no such claim. So. I have nothing to prove.
> > > > > > The burden of disproof rest not on me. Try as you might
> > > > > > you cannot disprove this claim. ?Therefore, since you
> > > > > > cannot and I have made no claims, then obviously no one
> > > > > > has any burden of proof. It isn't required.
>
> > > > > So when you asked " Where is the simple evidence of no God?," you were
> > > > > just blowing smoke? ?In fact, the burden of proof rests on the
> > > > > positive claimant; in this case, the one asserting deities exist.
> > > > > There are only two possibilities; either they do or they don't. ?If
> > > > > there is no objective, verifiable evidence pointing to them, then
> > > > > there is no reason to accept the assertion that they exist.
> > > > > Additionally, if it can be demonstrated that a specific deity is
> > > > > logically contradictory, that deity can be dismissed as nonexistent.
> > > > > There is a whole list of logical contradictions for the xian deity.
>
> > > > > > > The xian bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > > > > > > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > > > > > > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
> > > > > > > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > > > > > > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > > > > > > deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > > > > > > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > > > > > > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
> > > > > > > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > > > > > > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > > > > > > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > > > > > > accept the assertion.
>
> > > > > > > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> > > > > > > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > > > > > > dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
>
> > > > > > > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > > > > > > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours..- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, what I think you should do is explain your rules to Jesus Christ
> > > > when he returns to judge the earth.
>
> > > Run away, run away!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I could send you a copy of the Bible.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 16, 9:51�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> > > > > > > > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > > > > > > > give them...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > > > > > > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > > > > > > > Jesus coming back!
>
> > > > > > > > > > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > > > > > > > who keep their word.
>
> > > > > > > > > You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> > > > > > > > I saw this in alt religion.
>
> > > > > > > So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
>
> > > > > > > > Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>
> > > > > > > How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian
> > > > > > > bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > > > > > > e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > > > > > > Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
> > > > > > > course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > > > > > > but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > > > > > > deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > > > > > > nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > > > > > > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
> > > > > > > that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > > > > > > responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > > > > > > prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > > > > > > accept the assertion.
>
> > > > > > > > I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> > > > > > > I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > > > > > > dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
>
> > > > > > > What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > > > > > > objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours..- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
> > > > > > court.
>
> > > > > Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > It is done every day.
>
> > > Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable
> > > evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years.
>
> I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable
> evidence for your assertion.

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 16, 9:55�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 4:28?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > On Apr 15, 3:12?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 15, 5:40?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 14, 10:58?pm, John Baker <n...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:02:44 -0400, "H. Wm. Esque"
> > > > > > > > > <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > > >> rbwinn wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> > > > > > > > > >give them...
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> > > > > > > > > >Jesus coming back!
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> > > > > > > > > >who keep their word.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> > > > > > > > > >I saw this in alt religion.
> > > > > > > > > >Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> > > > > > > > > >I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> > > > > > > > > The "argument" that there's no evidence that God does not exist is a
> > > > > > > > > logical fallacy. Of course there's no evidence that God doesn't exist.
> > > > > > > > > There's no evidence that anything doesn't exist. That isn't how it
> > > > > > > > > works. Quite simply, there's no such thing as evidence that something
> > > > > > > > > doesn't exist. Be it gods, unicorns, elves, fairies or theists'
> > > > > > > > > critical thinking skills, nonexistence is inferred from a lack of
> > > > > > > > > evidence that the thing in question does exist.
>
> > > > > > > > > So you see, the question of God's existence doesn't rest on whether or
> > > > > > > > > not there's any evidence that he doesn't exist, but rather on
> > > > > > > > > whether or not there's any evidence that he does exist, and, despite
> > > > > > > > > the rather frequent claims by theists to the contrary, there simply
> > > > > > > > > isn't. There is , on the other hand, an abundant lack of evidence.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, I know you think Martin Rees' "brute facts", as you insist on
> > > > > > > > > calling them, prove the existence of some sort of creator, and other
> > > > > > > > > theists will point to other "evidence" they believe proves their case,
> > > > > > > > > but it's all smoke and mirrors. Just your (and their) subjective
> > > > > > > > > interpretation of data that can be explained as well or better in
> > > > > > > > > purely naturalistic terms. Wishful thinking, nothing more.
>
> > > > > > > > > I don't begrudge you or any other theist your beliefs, I honestly
> > > > > > > > > don't. If believing in a creator makes you feel better about life,
> > > > > > > > > about yourself, or about what you see as your "ultimate destiny",
> > > > > > > > > that's fine. I don't have a problem with it. But please, don't waste
> > > > > > > > > our time and yours with logical fallacies, subjective interpretations
> > > > > > > > > and unsupported assertions. Anything can be interpreted as
> > > > > > > > > evidence for a creator, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, I think that the best evidence that there is a God is the fact
> > > > > > > > that you cannot make Him disintegrate with your disclaimers.. ?You seem
> > > > > > > > to have no power over his existence whatsoever. ?God is like the Bible
> > > > > > > > in one way. ?No matter what atheists say about the Bible, it continues
> > > > > > > > to exist and says what it was written to say. ?No matter what atheists
> > > > > > > > say about God, He continues to exist. ?Well, time for Bible study. ?If
> > > > > > > > you run into any atheists who want to talk about the theory of
> > > > > > > > relativity, let me know.
>
> > > > > > > So your assertion is that all "holy" writings that exist are true?
> > > > > > > You think that's an intelligent position?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Well, since God cannot lie, anything written by one of his prophets as scripture would be true.
>
> > > > > Well, golly, you didn't bother to even read my question, did you? ?Or
> > > > > did your deity write ALL holy writings around the world?
>
> > > > > So how do you explain the fact that it has been thoroughly proven that
> > > > > asking for anything in Jesus' name does absolutely nothing? ?There are
> > > > > no qualifiers; there is no weasley "unless god doesn't want to, " or
> > > > > "this only works for the apostles."
>
> > > > > John 14:13 ?And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do,
> > > > > that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ?14 If ye shall ask any
> > > > > thing in my name, I will do it.
>
> > > > > How do you explain that there must be a 2000+ year old person walking
> > > > > around?
>
> > > > > Matthew 16:28
> > > > > Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
> > > > > taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
>
> > > > > How do you explain that bats must be birds, or cows must chew their
> > > > > cud?
>
> > > > > Gosh, the list goes on and on.
>
> > > > > > Do you think it is an intelligent position to deny the existence of God?
>
> > > > > Of course, since there has never been any objective, verifiable
> > > > > evidence supporting the assertion, and since the deity described is
> > > > > logically contradictory.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, I certainly think you should take the time to explain your ideas
> > > > to Jesus Christ when he returns to judge the earth.
>
> > > Nice dodge. ?You do that a lot; pretend the evidence against you
> > > doesn't exist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Your opinions about religion are of no interest to me.
>
> Of course they are; why else would you be hanging around in
> alt.atheism?

 

[DanielSan]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:51�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
>>rbwinn wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>rbwinn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>give them...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jesus coming back!
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>who keep their word.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're talking about fictional characters again?
>>
>>>>>>>>>I saw this in alt religion.
>>
>>>>>>>>So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
>>
>>>>>>>>>Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>>
>>>>>>>>How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian
>>>>>>>>bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
>>>>>>>>e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
>>>>>>>>Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
>>>>>>>>course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
>>>>>>>>but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
>>>>>>>>deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
>>>>>>>>nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
>>>>>>>>VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
>>>>>>>>that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
>>>>>>>>responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
>>>>>>>>prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
>>>>>>>>accept the assertion.
>>
>>>>>>>>>I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>>
>>>>>>>>I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
>>>>>>>>dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
>>
>>>>>>>>What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
>>>>>>>>objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
>>>>>>>court.
>>
>>>>>>Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>>It is done every day.
>>
>>>>Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable
>>>>evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years.
>>
>>I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable
>>evidence for your assertion. �There's a surprise.
>>
>>
>>>>>Presenting it to an atheist is no more
>>>>>productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
>>>>>lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
>>>>>middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
>>>>>on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
>>>>>apart.
>>
>>>>The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
>>>>different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
>>>at the speed of light would be zero.
>>
>>And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>
> Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> calculations. It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to
> exist.

Simple answer: The mathematical train in Einstein's calculations cannot
exist. Therefore, this discussion about lightning and trains is moot.

--

DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
----------------------------------------------------
"In every country and every age, the priest had
been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[rbwinn]

On Apr 16, 10:35�pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>rbwinn wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>rbwinn wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>H. Wm. Esque wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
>
> >>>>>>>>>give them...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
>
> >>>>>>>>>Jesus coming back!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
>
> >>>>>>>>>who keep their word.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>You're talking about fictional characters again?
>
> >>>>>>>>>I saw this in alt religion.
>
> >>>>>>>>So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
>
> >>>>>>>>>Where is the simple evidence of no God?
>
> >>>>>>>>How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian
> >>>>>>>>bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> >>>>>>>>e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> >>>>>>>>Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
> >>>>>>>>course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> >>>>>>>>but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> >>>>>>>>deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> >>>>>>>>nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> >>>>>>>>VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
> >>>>>>>>that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> >>>>>>>>responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> >>>>>>>>prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> >>>>>>>>accept the assertion.
>
> >>>>>>>>>I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
>
> >>>>>>>>I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> >>>>>>>>dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
>
> >>>>>>>>What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> >>>>>>>>objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
> >>>>>>>court.
>
> >>>>>>Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>It is done every day.
>
> >>>>Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable
> >>>>evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years.
>
> >>I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable
> >>evidence for your assertion. ?There's a surprise.
>
> >>>>>Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> >>>>>productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> >>>>>lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> >>>>>middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> >>>>>on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> >>>>>apart.
>
> >>>>The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> >>>>different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>>Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> >>>at the speed of light would be zero.
>
> >>And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> > calculations.

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:35?pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 9:51?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>rbwinn wrote:
> >
> > >>>On Apr 16, 4:32?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>rbwinn wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>On Apr 15, 3:30?pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>On Apr 15, 5:33?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>H. Wm. Esque wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>>>news:1176487439.008093.45310@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>rbwinn wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>On Apr 13, 8:54?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not too good. ?Jesus Christ has eternal life.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, fictional characters can have any attributes you choose to
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>give them...
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>We ll, what I think you should do, Scott, is wait until Jesus Christ
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>returns and then you can tell him your ideas in person.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>That's so adorable! You actually believe that Sunday school crap about
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>Jesus coming back!
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>Well, you may not be one of them, Scott, but there actually are people
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>who keep their word.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>You're talking about fictional characters again?
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>I saw this in alt religion.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>So? ?Does that make your fictional character real?
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>Where is the simple evidence of no God?
> >
> > >>>>>>>>How do you propose the nonexistence of deities be proven? ?The xian
> > >>>>>>>>bible makes claims about the xian deities that can be proven false;
> > >>>>>>>>e.g., Jesus says one can have anything one wants by asking for it in
> > >>>>>>>>Jesus' name, but that claim has been repeatedly proven false. ?Of
> > >>>>>>>>course, you're welcome to claim that Jesus lied or the bible is wrong,
> > >>>>>>>>but that doesn't really support your assertion of the existence of
> > >>>>>>>>deities, does it? ?How many deities should anyone be expected to prove
> > >>>>>>>>nonexistent before disbelieving in them? ?There is NO OBJECTIVE,
> > >>>>>>>>VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY DEITIES. ?ANYWHERE. ?EVER. ?In light of
> > >>>>>>>>that inconvenient fact, it isn't reasonable, nor is it my
> > >>>>>>>>responsibility, to prove your particular deity exists; it is yours to
> > >>>>>>>>prove it does, otherwise there's no legitimate reason for anyone to
> > >>>>>>>>accept the assertion.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>I have yet to see the proof of this claim.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>I have yet to see proof of the claim that you don't owe me a million
> > >>>>>>>>dollars, so I'm expecting a check.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>What's even more unfortunate is nobody anywhere has ever seen any
> > >>>>>>>>objective, verifiable evidence for ANY deity, let alone yours.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
> >
> > >>>>>>>Well, the religion I belong to has evidence that would stand up in
> > >>>>>>>court.
> >
> > >>>>>>Then why, in 2000+ years, has nobody presented it?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >>>>>>- Show quoted text -
> >
> > >>>>>It is done every day.
> >
> > >>>>Where, liar? ?In your fantasies? ?If you have objective, verifiable
> > >>>>evidence, please present it; you will be the first in over 2000 years.
> >
> > >>I take it you will continue not presenting any objective, verifiable
> > >>evidence for your assertion. ?There's a surprise.
> >
> > >>>>>Presenting it to an atheist is no more
> > >>>>>productive than attempting to explain to an atheist that if bolts of
> > >>>>>lightning strike both ends of a train at the time an observer at the
> > >>>>>middle of the train is opposite an observer on the ground, marks left
> > >>>>>on the railroad track by the lightning will be the length of the train
> > >>>>>apart.
> >
> > >>>>The length of the train moving at the speed of light, which will be
> > >>>>different that the length of the train at rest.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >>>>- Show quoted text -
> >
> > >>>Well, according to Einstein's equations, the length of a train moving
> > >>>at the speed of light would be zero.
> >
> > >>And what would its mass be?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Well, its mass would be infinite according to Einstein's
> > > calculations. ?It kind of makes people wonder how photons happen to
> > > exist.
> >
> > Simple answer: ?The mathematical train in Einstein's calculations cannot
> > exist. ?Therefore, this discussion about lightning and trains is moot.
> >
> Maybe Einstein was a witch, but everyone likes to talk about his train.

No, everyone likes to talk about your delusions. They amuse us.

 

[Scott Richter]

rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > > I have asked a few third graders what the answer is, and they all
> > > > > seem to agree with me, not with Einstein.
> >
> > > > Wow! Your crazy ideas about relativity pass the "third grader" test!
> > > > What an endorsement!
> >
> > > It is wonderful to talk to people whose minds are not completely
> > > corrupted by false teachings.
> >
> > So... you thought it was your job to introduce them to false teachings?
> > (You probably told them Jesus was coming back, too.)
> >
> > Next time, why don't you ask those third graders if Santa Claus is real?
> > If they say "Yes", then you'll have your proof for his existence,
> > because as you say, those kids have not been "corrupted by false
> > teachings"...
> >
> > Oh, and how many of those third graders were familiar with the Lorentz
> > equations?
>
> Why would third graders want to be familiar with the Lorentz equations?

So that they could validate your revolutionary theories about
relativity!

That's why you did it, isn't it? You're looking for someone--anyone--to
agree with your nutty ideas about relativity, and since you haven't
gotten your work published in any scientific journal, since you've been
laughed out of every newsgroup you've visited, the only thing left was
third graders. That's a bit, er, nontraditional in the world of science,
but then again, you're a free thinker, aren't you?

 

[Scott Richter]

rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > Well, why don't you explain your idea to Dorothy when she returns?
> >
> Well, as I understand it, Judy Garland committed suicide.

Well, as I understand it, Jesus was executed. Yet you cling to the nutty
idea that he is "coming back"...

 

[Sippuddin]

H. Wm. Esque wrote:

> ... Whoever is claiming to have _evidence_
>
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Atheism is not a claim
(assertion), "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Atheist agnostics go a little beyond a mere absence of belief that there
might be a god to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, any such
religious belief (belief without evidence):

"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

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics

 

[JessHC]

rbwinn wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:55?am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> > > Your opinions about religion are of no interest to me.
> >
> > Of course they are; why else would you be hanging around in
> > alt.atheism? ?It certainly isn't to support any of your assertions,
> > since you've studiously avoided even pretending to do that.
> >
> > > I think you should discuss them with Jesus Christ when the time comes.
> >
> > Yes, you think many logically contradictory things, don't you?
> >
> > > Your argument is really with him.
> >
> > No, in fact it's with you and your unsupported assertions. ?You have
> > yet to explain how anyone can communicate in any way with figments of
> > your imagination.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Now, I do not think it is fair to Jeckyl to call him a figment of my imagination.

Trouble following your own comments? Not my problem, but I'll
demonstrate some atheist compassion and point out that your "your
argument is really with him" statement refers to your immediately
previous statement "I think you should discuss them with Jesus Christ
when the time comes." You then fail to explain, again, how anyone can
communicate with the figment of your imagination you refer to as
"Jesus Christ," with whom you claim there is an argument that should
be discussed. Not that anyone is surprised; you routinely dodge
questions you don't like. It appears to be a requirement of your
religion.

> I admit it is difficult to communicate with anyone who
> has been indoctrinated with the false teachings being taught in colleges.

How dishonestly xian of you. Which "false teachings" would those be,
and how did you determine they were "false"?