And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
right about my assertion.]
So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be > right about my assertion.]
> So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
Niiiiice :-).
I'm looking forward to this one!
-- Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard." ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
"Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition, and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert Ingersoll.
On Oct 27, 7:07 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > right about my assertion.]
> > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard." ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert
> Ingersoll.
On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> right about my assertion.]
> So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
chx
my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist"
i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is
worth ;)
but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead
and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you
anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can
prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist.
however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.
> On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > right about my assertion.]
> > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> chx
> my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist"
> i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is
> worth ;)
> but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead
> and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you
> anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can
> prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist.
> however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.
On Oct 27, 6:52 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ok, so who didnt see this coming?
chx
i don't bother with what he wrote in the body of his funny post. i am
going for the post title! that in itself is a stand alone claim and
the target of my reply.
> On 27 Oct, 16:36, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > > right about my assertion.]
> > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > chx
> > my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> > YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist"
> > i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is
> > worth ;)
> > but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead
> > and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you
> > anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can
> > prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist.
> > however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.- Hide quoted text -
> On Oct 27, 6:52 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ok, so who didnt see this coming?
> chx
> i don't bother with what he wrote in the body of his funny post. i am
> going for the post title! that in itself is a stand alone claim and
> the target of my reply.
> > On 27 Oct, 16:36, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > > > right about my assertion.]
> > > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > > chx
> > > my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> > > YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist"
> > > i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is
> > > worth ;)
> > > but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead
> > > and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you
> > > anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can
> > > prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist.
> > > however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.- Hide quoted text -
> On 27 Oct, 16:36, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists > > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof > > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly > > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be > > > right about my assertion.]
> > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll > > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > chx > > my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> > YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist" > > i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is > > worth ;)
> > but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead > > and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you > > anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can > > prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist. > > however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.
-- Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard." ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
"Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition, and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert Ingersoll.
> On Oct 27, 4:56 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > On Oct 27, 6:52 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > ok, so who didnt see this coming?
> > chx > > i don't bother with what he wrote in the body of his funny post. i am > > going for the post title! that in itself is a stand alone claim and > > the target of my reply.
> > > On 27 Oct, 16:36, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you > theists > > > > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of > proof > > > > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And > frankly > > > > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to > be > > > > > right about my assertion.]
> > > > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and > I'll > > > > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > > > chx > > > > my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> > > > YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't > exist" > > > > i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is > > > > worth ;)
> > > > but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead > > > > and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you > > > > anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can > > > > prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist. > > > > however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.- Hide > quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
-- Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard." ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
"Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition, and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert Ingersoll.
On Oct 27, 7:01 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM, dead kennedy
> <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > ok, so who didnt see this coming?
> Chx seems to have "forgotten" that he has to provide his definition of god
> so that Dag can refute him.
chx
nope, i need say absolutely nothing. he saddled the horse, now he must
prove he can ride the horse. all that is expected of me is to stand at
the gate and watch him fall...fall and fall, fall, fall (fading away)
yuk yuk yuk.
as he said in his post, will he ever be right? haha
> > On 27 Oct, 16:36, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > > > right about my assertion.]
> > > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > > chx
> > > my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> > > YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist"
> > > i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is
> > > worth ;)
> > > but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead
> > > and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you
> > > anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can
> > > prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist.
> > > however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.
> --
> Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> peril, risk and hazard." ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
> "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert
> Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -
> On Oct 27, 4:56 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 6:52 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > ok, so who didnt see this coming?
> > chx
> > i don't bother with what he wrote in the body of his funny post. i am
> > going for the post title! that in itself is a stand alone claim and
> > the target of my reply.
> > > On 27 Oct, 16:36, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > > > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > > > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > > > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > > > > right about my assertion.]
> > > > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > > > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > > > chx
> > > > my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> > > > YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist"
> > > > i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is
> > > > worth ;)
> > > > but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead
> > > > and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you
> > > > anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can
> > > > prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist.
> > > > however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.- Hide quoted text -
On Oct 27, 7:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> right about my assertion.]
> So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
"Who" would be a better characterization than "what". :)
> On Oct 27, 7:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > right about my assertion.]
> > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> "Who" would be a better characterization than "what". :)
On Oct 27, 7:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> right about my assertion.]
> So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
Ok?
1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which
Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he
came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have,
and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,
ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Luke 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part
under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also
the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this
generation.
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days
of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood
came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they
drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and
brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:39 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmmm... this one claims the earth was covered in a global flood. This > is false.
I think you could be more careful with such an analysis. :)
No checkers they've got it right. Different people have told me that
god is different and mutually exclusive things from other people's
gods. Until I know what your God is I can't even begin to tell you
how I know your God doesn't exist.
On Oct 27, 9:07 am, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 7:01 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM, dead kennedy
> > <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > ok, so who didnt see this coming?
> > Chx seems to have "forgotten" that he has to provide his definition of god
> > so that Dag can refute him.
> chx
> nope, i need say absolutely nothing. he saddled the horse, now he must
> prove he can ride the horse. all that is expected of me is to stand at
> the gate and watch him fall...fall and fall, fall, fall (fading away)
> yuk yuk yuk.
> as he said in his post, will he ever be right? haha
> i brought my popcorn and juice, ringside.
> :-)
> > Convenient.
> > > On 27 Oct, 16:36, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > > > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > > > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > > > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > > > > right about my assertion.]
> > > > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > > > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > > > chx
> > > > my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> > > > YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist"
> > > > i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is
> > > > worth ;)
> > > > but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead
> > > > and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you
> > > > anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can
> > > > prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist.
> > > > however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.
> > --
> > Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> > peril, risk and hazard." ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
> > "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> > ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> > and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert
> > Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -
> On Oct 27, 7:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > right about my assertion.]
> > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> Ok?
> 1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which
> Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he
> came up from Egypt.
> 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have,
> and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,
> ox and sheep, camel and ass.
> Luke 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part
> under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also
> the Son of man be in his day.
> 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this
> generation.
> 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days
> of the Son of man.
> 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
> marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood
> came, and destroyed them all.
> 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they
> drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
> 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and
> brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
> 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
> On Oct 27, 4:35 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 7:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > > right about my assertion.]
> > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > "Who" would be a better characterization than "what". :)
On Oct 27, 8:00 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:39 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm... this one claims the earth was covered in a global flood. This
> > is false.
> I think you could be more careful with such an analysis. :)
I think you should develop a brain and start thinking on you own
instead of repeatedly spouting the same inanities over and over again.
____________________________________
If revealed religions have revealed anything it is that they are
usually wrong.
-- Francis Crick
On Oct 27, 8:35 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 7:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > right about my assertion.]
> > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> "Who" would be a better characterization than "what". :)
Now we are getting somewhere!!
This would imply that "god" is a person.
So who the hell is this entity known as "god"?
On Oct 28, 12:00 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:39 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm... this one claims the earth was covered in a global flood. This
> > is false.
> I think you could be more careful with such an analysis. :)
There never was a global flood during the human existence.
> On Oct 27, 7:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > right about my assertion.]
> > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> Ok?
> 1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which
> Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he
> came up from Egypt.
> 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have,
> and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,
> ox and sheep, camel and ass.
This is not the statement of a benevolent God. Are we moving away from
that? Typically we take "God" to include benevolence. However we can
discuss malevolent Gods as well. Furthermore this doesn't describe
this "God" as being the creator of anything, nor omniscient, nor even
omnipotent. No matter. We can continue along these lines. But to quote
Epicurus, why call such a thing "God" to begin with?
That being said, in this case, I actually can't come up with a
disproof to a malevolent, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, non-creator
God, given that the above statement is the only thing we have to go by
to define this "God" of yours. Congratulations! You have successfully
constructed a God that doesn't violate reason!
But of course, if this God of yours is malevolent, non-omnipotent, non-
omniscient, and didn't create anything, there isn't any reason to
follow it, is there?
> Luke 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part
> under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also
> the Son of man be in his day.
> 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this
> generation.
> 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days
> of the Son of man.
> 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
> marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood
> came, and destroyed them all.
Falsified. There was no global flood that "destroyed them all". This
is shown by a plethora of observations we can make about the world
around us. Would you like to say there was a flood that destroyed
"some of them"? In that case, this description doesn't describe a
"God" that is not already falsified.
> 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they
> drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
> 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and
> brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
> 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
> Smoley
Good job! You're 1 for 2! You managed to construct a God that wasn't
falsified. Well done! Of course, I would have serious doubts about
your humanity if you actually followed this thing, but no matter, this
is at least logically consistent.
On Oct 27, 8:00 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:39 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm... this one claims the earth was covered in a global flood. This
> > is false.
> I think you could be more careful with such an analysis. :)
> Regards,
> Brock
It doesn't matter what you think, it's true. There was no global
flood, therefore a book that claims there was a global flood is
false.
> On Oct 27, 12:39 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 4:35 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 27, 7:00 am, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > > > right about my assertion.]
> > > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > > "Who" would be a better characterization than "what". :)
> On Oct 27, 7:01 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM, dead kennedy
> > <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > ok, so who didnt see this coming?
> > Chx seems to have "forgotten" that he has to provide his definition of god
> > so that Dag can refute him.
> chx
> nope, i need say absolutely nothing. he saddled the horse, now he must
> prove he can ride the horse. all that is expected of me is to stand at
> the gate and watch him fall...fall and fall, fall, fall (fading away)
> yuk yuk yuk.
> as he said in his post, will he ever be right? haha
> i brought my popcorn and juice, ringside.
> :-)
Observer
So where is your definition Chicken Brain ?
> > > On 27 Oct, 16:36, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > And no this isn't a wind-up. This thread goes out to all you theists
> > > > > who have ever whined about how unfair it is that the burden of proof
> > > > > is on you. So this time the burden of proof is on me. [And frankly
> > > > > assuming anyone replies, I wonder how much of the time i'm going to be
> > > > > right about my assertion.]
> > > > > So have at you theist dogs, tell me exactly what your God is and I'll
> > > > > tell you exactly how I know that it doesn't exist.
> > > > chx
> > > > my, my! you actually believe yourself thinking we are stupid.
> > > > YOU made the assertion that you "exactly know that _it_ doesn't exist"
> > > > i checked a few dictionaries and find _it_ exists for what _it_ is
> > > > worth ;)
> > > > but now to the real issue about your header statement. go right ahead
> > > > and PROVE to me that God does not exist. i need not give/tell you
> > > > anything. the onus is all on you to provide the proof. if you can
> > > > prove that there is no God, i have no choice but to be an atheist.
> > > > however, if you fail you have a serious problem with yourself.
> > --
> > Trance Gemini, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our
> > peril, risk and hazard." ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764
> > "Is it a small thing to make men truly free -- to destroy the dogmas of
> > ignorance, prejudice and power -- the poisoned fables of superstition,
> > and drive from the beautiful face of the earth the fiend of Fear?" --Robert
> > Ingersoll.- Hide quoted text -
|
