Why there is no god

[John Locke]

Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
valid arguments against the existence of any god:

https://whynogod.wordpress.com/

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists
to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is
non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
works of literature.

[Joe Bruno]

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

[John Locke]

...you need to first read the document I posted before you reply with
another link. Considering the brevity of your post, I assume you
failed to do so.

[Christopher A. Lee]

I suspect that in all the years atheists here have been surrounded by
theists, we have heard pretty well every argument they have to offer
for their god.

But what they all have in common, is that they try to generate
information where there is none, so they become intellectual
exercises to see where they do that.

In any case, it should be obvious that these arguments are a
substitution for the evidence they haven't got, which would go
directly there rather than having to argue it.

I just wish theists would think, because everything they offer
achieves the opposite to what they intend - it just reinforces the
conclusion that they have nothing.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:

sounds like you're good at making stuff up.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

but, you've never done a good job at defending atheism.

[John Locke]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:34:06 -0800 (PST), Astero...@yahoo.com

...atheism needs no defense. Religion, on the other hand, with
it's audacious, pretentious claims needs all the defense it can
muster...and then some.

[bil...@m.nu]

That is not the why. Your topic mentions the word why, if you want to
ask why is there is no god then the most simple way to put it is there
is no need for a god.

[John Locke]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:33:05 -0800 (PST), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

..no, that was the job of the ancient morons that cobbled the
Bible together.

[John Locke]

..I thought the article would prove useful for those engaged in debate
with theists over the existence of a god. However, you are correct,
given our scientific studies over the last hundred years and the fact
the god has never been factored into any scientific theory,
I would concur the there is no need for any god whatsoever.

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:67bkdbp7rs41jhe85...@4ax.com...
> bil...@m.nu wrote:

I found the real reason that atheists foolishly say,
"There is no God". Atheist Dr. Paul Kurtz tells
us in his book, 'The Humanist Alternative'.

"If man is a product of evolution, one species
among others, in a universe without purpose,
then man's option is to live for himself"
~ Atheist Dr. Paul Kurtz, in the book
The Humanist Alternative

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy
heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk
in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine
eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God
will bring thee into judgment." ~ Eccl 11:9

[Joe Bruno]

I did.

[Mitchell Holman]

John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote in
news:v59kdb9squfqvc744...@4ax.com:

There was a time when Bruno/Tandy posts were
at least engaging if a little off base. Now he
just post links and runs away, thinking he has
somehow made his point. Very boring.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Thank you for that link to he kinds of arguments that theists use and how to spot them.

You're not to bright.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:27:59 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

Not only that, but using most of these arguments makes the theist look dishonest. Indeed those who use those arguments here are.

[Cloud Hobbit]

What stuff would that be? Perhaps if you understood simple logic it wouldn't seem made up. Then you could recognize it for the truth that it is, unlike the made up stories in the Bible.

[Cloud Hobbit]

What's to defend? We don't believe the way you do. We have given our reasons as there is no credible evidence of any deity. If and when some should turn up, we will reconsider. The problem is that at this point in history, there is absolutely nothing that would lead one to believe in any gods. I don't understand why you keep dragging out the same old tired attempts at trying to prove God. Why would you think the answers would be different a few weeks later?

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:54:21 AM UTC+8, John Locke wrote:
> Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>
> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/

Excellent article, thanks.

>
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
>
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> works of literature.

If there is a proto=pixie in this world, our planet can have 20C temperature all over every corner which makes it a true paradise.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

He did not make up the article....just read it or you will continue to be the sucker the evil religion wants you to be.

[Cloud Hobbit]

And that notion just drives you fuckers crazy. That man should live for himself anathema to Christianity and socialism. Yet, when you think about it, who else should man live for and why? Shouldn't a persons first obligation be to himself, to make sure one has food and shelter before offering it up to someone else? It does not mean that people will run wild, it doesn't destroy the logic of being a productive human being, it just means that one needs to take of one's self before one should consider helping or taking on helping another.

That nobody has a claim on your life other than you and those you CHOOSE to share your life with seems elementary. Every other species lives according to that principle. You might call it selfish, and you'd be right, but it's not in the sense of the word most people think of. It's RATIONAL SELF INTEREST. It does not mean that one can not decide to be an altruist if one so chooses, it just means that it is your decision and your decision alone. Why should anyone think they have some claim on you unless by mutual consent?

Go placidly amid the noise and waste,
And remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep.
Rotate your tires.
Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself,
And heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss, and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment,
and despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.

Remember The Pueblo.
Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate.
Know yourself. If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you -
That lemon on your left, for instance.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love therefore. It will stick to your face.
Gracefully surrender the things of youth: birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan.
And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
Hire people with hooks.
For a good time, call 606-4311. Ask for Ken.
Take heart in the bedeepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever fortune may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.

You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.

Therefore, make peace with your god,
Whatever you perceive him to be - hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up!

[Cloud Hobbit]

Well, you'd say that now.

[Christopher A. Lee]

3.15 pm on the 17th January, 2007.

>just post links and runs away, thinking he has
>somehow made his point. Very boring.

As I said in another thread, would we _really_ need to read a web site
purporting to "prove" that the earth was flat or that Santa Claus
really _did_ deliver presents to a few billion children all on the
same night using a magical flying sleigh, in order to know it was
nonsense?

If we had a few minutes to spare, we might do it for amusement - but
that's all.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

No proto=pixie is a natural finding of all sane people or people without their brains damaged.

>
> "If man is a product of evolution, one species
> among others, in a universe without purpose,
> then man's option is to live for himself"
> ~ Atheist Dr. Paul Kurtz, in the book
> The Humanist Alternative

Human should be living for himself, his family and his society.
Living for his proto=pixie is a highly stupid proposition....which means he is useless sub-human for life.

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy
> heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk
> in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine
> eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God
> will bring thee into judgment." ~ Eccl 11:9

Many human are responsible beings and are in no need for a proto=pixie which practically does nothing because it is just an imaginary smokey figure.

[Joe Bruno]

I'm not here to entertain you.

[Joe Bruno]

Only one theist uses those and you made no response.

[hypatiab7]

Over the 20 years I've been posting in alt.atheism, I have asked many
times for new proof or evidence that any kind of god exists. In 20
years, no one has posted any new ideas - just the same old disproven
crap from their unacceptable religious books. And they repeatedly post
the same old disproven nonsense over and over and over. In this way,
trolls like Art Tandy (Joe Bruno), Robert Duncan (Calvin Ramsey),
John McCoy (Asteroid7), Earl Weber (Duke), Cody (BlackNazi and
We Hang Fagz), Jesper Wernberg (Jahnu) and Michael Yost (Prince Michael)
show that they are not here to try to help or even convert anyone but
purely to be trolls and waste everyones' time.

[hypatiab7]

Atheism doesn't need to be defended. But, your behavior as a troll
does. I doubt that your minister, if you even have one, would approve
of your behavior in alt. atheism. All you do is have everything you
say disproved, wasting your own time. And you've been doing this off
and on for 13 years. That's sick!

[hypatiab7]

Sure, you are. You make us laugh all the time.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

If you care about it. You still have to convince us that you know for a fact that God doesn't exist, especially when you don't have a powerful enough telescope.


snip

> and on for 13 years. That's sick!

I'm not sick. I'm not the one who blows up in emotionalism.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

you're the only one making that claim and you're not really laughing.

[Joe Bruno]

I am here to expose you.

[Joe Bruno]

Does she actually think we take her claims seriously???

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <336e1b9e-8090-407a...@googlegroups.com>,

Yep, if he wasn't entertaining someone here, he'd have been completely
killfiled and ignored.

--

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[hhya...@gmail.com]

So, you are here to be a psychopath???

[hhya...@gmail.com]

What?
You actually think a proto=pixie is out there in space, how many light years from earth?

[Ted&Alice Street]

I already proved it, Asteroid, using the test laid out in 1 Kings 18.
You do approve of that test, don't you? It's in your own Bible so it
must be a valid test, right?

And when I applied the test to your god, he scored the same as when
Elijah applied it to Baal.

But go ahead, Asteroid, "Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is
talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he
sleepeth, and must be awaked."

>
> snip
>
> > and on for 13 years. That's sick!
>
>
> I'm not sick. I'm not the one who blows up in emotionalism.

Then why do you falsely assume that we do?

[hypatiab7]

No, child. You are the one who accuses people of being emotional whenever
anyone disagrees with you. The entire newsgroup figured it out as soon as
you started doing this. It's rather an emotional coverup for not being able
to answer questions or not being able to understand responses you receive to
your own questions.

[hypatiab7]

His own emotions are under such tight control that he may explode one day.

[hypatiab7]

This is an atheist newsgroup. You reveal yourelf, ArtieJoe.

[Ted&Alice Street]

They must be, or why else would he assume that we're all emotional when
we're not.

I learned a long time ago never to allow usenet into my emotions. This
is just a game. Nobody is forcing any of us to be here.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <df8702a4-d973-4107...@googlegroups.com>,

<piggybacking>

Nobody's interested in seeing your penis, ArtieJoe.

[hypatiab7]

You respond this way because you know that what I wrote is true. All I have to do is mention Pharaoh's famous Battle Hogs, chariot wheels in the Red Sea and
the "You Are There" episode where JC's mother's neighbors gave interviews about who was really JC's father and people start laughing. A bunch of us got you about Ron Wyatt and Noah. Wyatt's discovery of the 2,000 year old hole in the ground where the cross was supposed to have been was a real pip. Hell, Johnboi,
you've been entertaining us for 17 years. How about astrology and card reading.
You haven't tried those topics. I guess you felt that dowsing was better. Hah!

[Joe Bruno]

You're too ugly to see it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Even though they know it is (at best) highly contentious.

>trolls like Art Tandy (Joe Bruno), Robert Duncan (Calvin Ramsey),
>John McCoy (Asteroid7), Earl Weber (Duke), Cody (BlackNazi and
>We Hang Fagz), Jesper Wernberg (Jahnu) and Michael Yost (Prince Michael)
>show that they are not here to try to help or even convert anyone but
>purely to be trolls and waste everyones' time.

It's not just the trolls, I've seen plenty of it off the net, too.

Christianity seems to bring this out in its more serious followers.

I've been lurking on talk.origins recently, and many of the older
loonies who are no longer here, are there - like Bill Conner, Ray
Martinez and many others plus a few I don't recognise but are equally
insane.

They actually believe their nonsense - and they troll.

What is particularly dishonest, is that often they take no notice of
the fact that they have been soundly refuted, but come here afterwards
and repeat the same nonsense. For example Dale.

[Christopher A. Lee]

The proven serial liar knows this, because we've been explaining
ourselves since at least before 1998.

> But, your behavior as a troll
>does. I doubt that your minister, if you even have one, would approve
>of your behavior in alt. atheism. All you do is have everything you
>say disproved, wasting your own time. And you've been doing this off
>and on for 13 years. That's sick!

Closer to 20 years, if not more.

His alt.atheist kooks list entry from the 1990s is at

www.telemark.net/randallg/aakooks.htm#nameless

J<censored>y

AKA: hathaway, Nameless, JM, J-M, J-, X-JFactor, Sputtering Imbecile,
The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Again Be Uttered, McDumbass

Religion: Fundamentalist Christian, sect unknown

Synopsis: Probably the most persistent of our kooks, he is very
earnest about proving the Old Testament is factually correct. Goes on
and on about the remains of Noah's ark and Egyptian chariot parts in
the Red Sea. Claims to possess bits of brimstone from Sodom and
Gomorrah. Quotes hearsay from discredited archeologists but never
provides any evidence or even references, often refering to
"soon-to-be-released" videos and books. Thinks there are big
conspiracies suppressing this stuff.

Nameless dedicates huge amounts of time and effort into posting to
alt.atheism, to the point where he has apparently become dependent on
it. This is a strange form of masochism indeed.

Update July 1998:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is no longer talking much about his hero
Wyatt and his fictitious archeological finds of Biblical artifacts. Is
now concentrating mostly on discussing sexual matters, where nameless
takes the old testament patriarchal viewpoint. He is extremely
mysoginistic, which is unusual for one so young. To him, women who are
not virgins are "used up" and should be avoided like food containers
in the store that have already been opened. The loss of a woman's
virginity, to him, means the loss of some indefinable "innocence"
which results in the woman not wanting to smile or hold hands anymore,
but just paint herself up like Jezebel in order to flaunt her
sexuality, which needless to say nameless considers abhorrent. In
fact, virginity is so incredibly important to nameless, he has stated
that his dream woman is one whose family he knows well, and who has
been homeschooled and remained within eyeshot of her mother for her
whole life. Of course one wonders what nameless will think about his
own wife, should he ever obtain one, after the marriage is consumated.

Note: it is now clear that nameless is in his mid teens, he never
interacts with women (except probably his mother), and unless arranged
marriages become popular again, will remain alone for the rest of his
life.

Unusual Features: It was decided some time ago to never mention his
name again. Usually refered to as J<censored>y or "Nameless".
Has taken to adopting a wide variety of names, probably to avoid
killfiles.

Favourite Fallacy: Ad nauseam

Positive Points: Rarely condemns anyone to Hell, usually remains
cheerfully upbeat despite constant refutations and ridicule. Appears
harmless.

Website: He's created his own website under the name "Dialectic Man"
and its sole purpose is to "Expose the fraud on alt.atheism". He
refers to one of Garrison Netzel's trolls as "standard" fraudulent
activity. He seems to have weird love-hate feelings for some of those
who defeat and ridicule him, refering to Stix as "either the
friendliest atheist or your worst enemy." Accuses militant atheists of
issuing death threats. The page is a bit of a hoot and worth a quick
look. We look forward to its continuing development, and suggest that
nameless put a doubleclick.com ad there or something to support
himself. If he does I will personally write a perl script to generate
him untold wealth.

URL: http://people.goplay.com/dialectic-man/ [no longer there]

Possibility of Rationality: Slight (update: still hanging in there!)
It was a perfect example of why so many theists get treated as the
nasty, stupid liars they show themselves to be.

[MarkA]

It is pretty amazing how many ways you can package the Argument from
Ignorance, isn't it?

--
MarkA

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one
half so bad as a lot of ignorance. -- Terry Pratchett

[MarkA]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 16:34:06 -0800, AsteroidSeven wrote:

> but, you've never done a good job at defending atheism.

I think he just did exactly that.

[MarkA]

It's the same telescope we use to determine that there is no Flying
Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Allah, Ra, Vishnu,
Apollo, Thor,.....

[Christopher A. Lee]

The proven serial liar knows there is nothing about atheism to expose.

He's just being deliberately nasty, out of nothing more than bigoted
hatred.

[Joe Bruno]

Time will tell.

[nature bats last]

,> It is pretty amazing how many ways you can package the Argument from
,> Ignorance, isn't it?

Oooh, I *like* that! May I steal it?


Seth

[Christopher A. Lee]

Thanks.

These morons can't accept that they misrepresent atheists and atheism
because they can't think outside the box and "define" us as if we were
inside it.

When we explain ourselves, what atheism is and what it means to the
atheist (who is the only one with any say in the matter because he's
describing what is in his own mind), they think we're avoiding it
because we're not defending their straw man.

[Christopher A. Lee]

McShitforbrains McCoy knows this, and was just being a deliberate
jerk.

[MarkA]

Knowledge is for everyone

[hypatiab7]

Then stop revealing yourself inside and out whenever you invade alt.atheism.
No one here wants to know you in any way, shape or form.

[hypatiab7]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:33:07 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> > Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> > valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> >
> > https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> >
> > There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> > concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> > to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> > non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> >
> > The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> > religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> > evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> > content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> > works of literature.
>

> sounds like you're good at making stuff up.

Examples, please. What John said was true. You just have no argument against it.
You know, Johnboi, using the word argument in the sense of a discussion is not being emotional. It's obvious that you don't understand that. Such a discussion
is not a yelling match. It's a trade of knowledge to help people to understand
things more completely on both sides. I have a feeling that you've never really
understood this.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

no, when I say emotional i mean the times that names get used and stuff like that. In general, that's how most atheists are like. They get upset when facts confront their beliefs.

[%]

when aren't they upset just read the posts here , bitch , bitch , bitch

[Joe Bruno]

FOAD.

[duke]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 15:54:21 -0800, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
wrote:

>

>Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
>valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>
>https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>
>There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
>concerning the existence of a god.

We have the same evidence FOR the existence of God as we have for electricity
and gravity.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 16:15:54 -0800, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:10:54 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
><ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
>>> Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
>>> valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>>>
>>> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible

>>> concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
>>> to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
>>> non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
>>>
>>> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
>>> religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
>>> evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
>>> content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
>>> works of literature.
>>
>>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
>>
>...you need to first read the document I posted before you reply with
>another link. Considering the brevity of your post, I assume you
>failed to do so.

How do you know that gravity exits?

[duke]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 20:38:36 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote:

>John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote in
>news:v59kdb9squfqvc744...@4ax.com:
>

>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:10:54 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>> <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
>>>> Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
>>>> valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>>>>
>>>> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>>>>
>>>> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
>>>> concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
>>>> to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
>>>> non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
>>>>
>>>> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
>>>> religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
>>>> evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
>>>> content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
>>>> works of literature.
>>>
>>>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
>>>
>> ...you need to first read the document I posted before you reply with
>> another link. Considering the brevity of your post, I assume you
>> failed to do so.
>>
>
>

> There was a time when Bruno/Tandy posts were
>at least engaging if a little off base. Now he
>just post links and runs away, thinking he has
>somehow made his point. Very boring.

You're the last that should mock boring posts. You're not exactly the brightest
light on the block.

[duke]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:44:59 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 15:54:21 -0800, John Locke

><johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
>>valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>>
>>https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>>
>>There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
>>concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists
>>to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is
>>non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
>>
>>The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
>>religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
>>evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
>>content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
>>works of literature.
>
>

>That is not the why. Your topic mentions the word why, if you want to
>ask why is there is no god then the most simple way to put it is there
>is no need for a god.

Does this mean there is no use for you?

[duke]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:39:28 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit <youngbl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:10:56 PM UTC-8, Joe Bruno wrote:

>> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
>> > Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
>> > valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>> >
>> > https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>> >
>> > There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
>> > concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
>> > to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
>> > non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
>> >
>> > The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
>> > religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
>> > evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
>> > content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
>> > works of literature.
>>

>> http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
>
>Thank you for that link to he kinds of arguments that theists use and how to spot them.
>
>You're not to bright.

I don't use them. Give me a support point, or ANYTHING, regarding existence
without creation and then we can have a real discussion where I kick your butt.

[duke]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 19:52:31 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 6:39:42 PM UTC-8, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:10:56 PM UTC-8, Joe Bruno wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
>> > > Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
>> > > valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>> > >
>> > > https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>> > >
>> > > There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
>> > > concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
>> > > to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
>> > > non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
>> > >
>> > > The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
>> > > religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
>> > > evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
>> > > content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
>> > > works of literature.
>> >
>> > http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
>>
>> Thank you for that link to he kinds of arguments that theists use and how to spot them.
>>
>> You're not to bright.
>

>Only one theist uses those and you made no response.

These a-theist boys and girls are starting to get REAL desperate. People of God
are the people of truth in THEIR ng. And they're beginning to sense it.

[John Locke]

...nah...but the alarm on my snake oil detector has been going off
like crazy lately !

[Smiler]

What facts would those be?
What beliefs would those be?

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[hypatiab7]

Typical theist troll response when they have no answer. Johnboi would
call you very emotional.

[hypatiab7]

In other words, you were lying through your teeth and have nothing to reveal,
except that you are a liar.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 12:45:48 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7

What is there to expose about the exact equivalent of not believing in
Santa Claus, not collecting stamps, not watching baseball, etc - when
they're all things people don't do, not things they do?

>In other words, you were lying through your teeth and have nothing to reveal,
>except that you are a liar.

Which we realised very early on.

[hypatiab7]

People here have been giving you that information for 18 years. You ignore it.
You are simply a religious fanatic waste of time. Plus, you still haven't
given any information supporting your belief in any kind of creative god.
Your personal belief and your Bible aren't acceptable. And you have nothing
else that hasn't been disproven. Stop repeating your rejected nonsense, wipe
the dust from your clodhoppers and leave.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

that was emotional of you.

[John Locke]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 08:36:38 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 15:54:21 -0800, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
>>valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>>
>>https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>>
>>There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
>>concerning the existence of a god.
>
>We have the same evidence FOR the existence of God as we have for electricity
>and gravity.
>

...wrong again. We can detect and measure electricity and gravity.
We have tons of evidence that these phenomena exist.
Your god, on the other hand, is totally undetectable. If there were
a real god, that wouldn't be the case and the world would be a
much different place. I suggest, once again, if you need something to
worship, try Bigfoot or maybe aliens....there's at least a remote
chance they exist.

[Joe Bruno]

Those are your words, which I consider meaningless.

[Joe Bruno]

If atheism does not exist, why does it have a name and why do you say you follow
it and define it?

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:51:02 PM UTC-8, Joe Bruno wrote:

> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 6:38:39 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote in
> > news:v59kdb9squfqvc744...@4ax.com:
> >

> > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:10:54 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> > > <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> > >>> Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> > >>> valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> > >>> concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> > >>> to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> > >>> non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> > >>> religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> > >>> evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> > >>> content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> > >>> works of literature.
> > >>
> > >>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
> > >>
> > > ...you need to first read the document I posted before you reply with
> > > another link. Considering the brevity of your post, I assume you
> > > failed to do so.
> > >
> >
> >

> > There was a time when Bruno/Tandy posts were
> > at least engaging if a little off base. Now he
> > just post links and runs away, thinking he has
> > somehow made his point. Very boring.
>

> I'm not here to entertain you.

That's for damn sure. I can guarantee that nobody thinks that.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:18:19 PM UTC-8, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:15:00 PM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:

> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:34:10 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:27:59 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 16:15:54 -0800, John Locke
> > > > <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
> > > >

> > > > >On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:10:54 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> > > > ><ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> > > > >>> Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> > > > >>> valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> > > > >>> concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> > > > >>> to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> > > > >>> non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> > > > >>> religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> > > > >>> evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> > > > >>> content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> > > > >>> works of literature.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
> > > > >>
> > > > >...you need to first read the document I posted before you reply with
> > > > >another link. Considering the brevity of your post, I assume you
> > > > >failed to do so.
> > > >

> > > > I suspect that in all the years atheists here have been surrounded by
> > > > theists, we have heard pretty well every argument they have to offer
> > > > for their god.
> > > >
> > > > But what they all have in common, is that they try to generate
> > > > information where there is none, so they become intellectual
> > > > exercises to see where they do that.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, it should be obvious that these arguments are a
> > > > substitution for the evidence they haven't got, which would go
> > > > directly there rather than having to argue it.
> > > >
> > > > I just wish theists would think, because everything they offer
> > > > achieves the opposite to what they intend - it just reinforces the
> > > > conclusion that they have nothing.
> > >

> > > but, you've never done a good job at defending atheism.
> >
> > Atheism doesn't need to be defended.
>
> If you care about it. You still have to convince us that you know for a fact that God doesn't exist, especially when you don't have a powerful enough telescope.
>
>

No we don't. All we have to do is say we don't believe. The reasons why we don't believe are voluminous, essentially the entire concept is stupid and without any evidence at all. The more we learn about the world and the universe around us the plainer it becomes that the Bible is false.

All we have to say is that because of the lack of evidence, we find no reason to believe.

Present your best evidence.

Sound of crickets in the distance................
> snip
>
> > and on for 13 years. That's sick!
>
>
> I'm not sick. I'm not the one who blows up in emotionalism.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:43:25 -0800, Andrew wrote:

> "John Locke" wrote in message
> news:67bkdbp7rs41jhe85...@4ax.com...

>> bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>> John Locke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents valid
>>>>arguments against the existence of any god:
>>>>
>>>> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>>>>
>>>>There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
>>>>concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
>>>>to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
>>>>non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
>>>>
>>>>The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
>>>>religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
>>>>evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
>>>>content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
>>>>works of literature.
>>>
>>>

>>>That is not the why. Your topic mentions the word why, if you want to
>>>ask why is there is no god then the most simple way to put it is there
>>>is no need for a god.
>>>

>> ..I thought the article would prove useful for those engaged in debate
>> with theists over the existence of a god. However, you are correct,
>> given our scientific studies over the last hundred years and the fact
>> the god has never been factored into any scientific theory,
>> I would concur the there is no need for any god whatsoever.
>
> I found the real reason that atheists foolishly say,
> "There is no God". Atheist Dr. Paul Kurtz tells us in his book, 'The
> Humanist Alternative'.
>
> "If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a
> universe without purpose,
> then man's option is to live for himself"
> ~ Atheist Dr. Paul Kurtz, in the book
> The Humanist Alternative
>

You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott


I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do,
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B.
Anthony

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

someone who is building a robot with hands knows that it takes plenty of study and coordination in order to make the computer sync up with the hands. to get elaborate hand movements you have to account for each possible move in the software. so when you typed that message in response to me, you gave yourself evidence that the software programmer to your brain knew what he was doing. I don't think chance mumbo jumbo can arrange for those hand movements. That's magic and Mary Poppins.

[Cloud Hobbit]

That's the problem, you don't think. Your belief is not evidence of anything more than your belief. You have not established that there was a programmer, or that he knew what hew was doing. I feel sure there are engineers who would design a better more efficient use of the space.

For example: In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

Scientists recognize that the so-called ID "theory" is not a scientific theory at all, and that its claims of supportive evidence from nature are contrived and easily shown to be invalid. But scientists now also realize they must not ignore this threat to scientific integrity, for it is part of an organized campaign with social and political goals and widespread grass roots support.

When will you idiots try something new? It's always the same thing or a variation of the same things. You always lose, what's the point?

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:15:43 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno

What?

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:12:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno

What?

You are in fact a liar, a jew christian liar at that

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:15:00 AM UTC-5, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:34:10 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > but, you've never done a good job at defending atheism.
>

> Atheism doesn't need to be defended. But, your behavior as a troll
> does. I doubt that your minister, if you even have one, would approve
> of your behavior in alt. atheism. All you do is have everything you
> say disproved, wasting your own time. And you've been doing this off

> and on for 13 years. That's sick!

That should have said 16 years. Duke showed up 18 years ago and Johnboi 16.

[hypatiab7]

And you thereby show how meaningless your use of the emotion schtick is.

[Joe Bruno]

Show us the lies.

[hypatiab7]

Follow what? Atheism is simply a lack of god belief or outright disbelief
in the existence of a god or gods. There's nothing to follow. I know that
you can't understand this, since all you know is following the rules and regulations of an ancient set of myths. You simply can't imagine anything
without religious rules. Atheism is a total lack of your religious myths.

[hypatiab7]

Everything you type going back over 12 years.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:17:41 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:29:38 PM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:

> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:33:07 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> > > > Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> > > > valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> > > >
> > > > https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> > > > concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> > > > to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> > > > non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> > > >
> > > > The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> > > > religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> > > > evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> > > > content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> > > > works of literature.
> > >

> > > sounds like you're good at making stuff up.
> >
> > Examples, please. What John said was true. You just have no argument against it.
> > You know, Johnboi, using the word argument in the sense of a discussion is not being emotional. It's obvious that you don't understand that. Such a discussion
> > is not a yelling match. It's a trade of knowledge to help people to understand
> > things more completely on both sides. I have a feeling that you've never really
> > understood this.
>
> no, when I say emotional i mean the times that names get used and stuff like that. In general, that's how most atheists are like. They get upset when facts confront their beliefs.

No, child, you do. You don't like it when people prove you wrong about anything
or simply disagree with you. For you, anyone who disagreesith you is being emotional. You do this allthe time to cover up your own emotions. You don't
like it when anyone disagrees with you. You've been told this before. You just
don't want to admit it. I hope I'm nowhere near you when you finally blow your top. Maybe you'll start writing under 20 nyms at one time like the last time
you flipped your lid. You know, you still sound like a 16 year old.

[Joe Bruno]

Everything???

Like this?

me (Joe Bruno change)

Feb 21


Isaac Newton > Quotes > Quotable Quote
Isaac Newton
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."


-- Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

Show us where I lied.

[Joe Bruno]

How about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

The idea that religion and science are always in conflict is no longer
accepted by most scientists.

[Christopher A. Lee]

The alt.atheism looks list entry for McShitforbrains McCoy was last
updated in 1998, so he had already here since before then...

http://www.telemark.net/randallg/aakooks.htm

J<censored>y

AKA: hathaway, Nameless, JM, J-M, J-, X-JFactor, Sputtering Imbecile,
The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Again Be Uttered, McDumbass

Religion: Fundamentalist Christian, sect unknown

Synopsis: Probably the most persistent of our kooks, he is very
earnest about proving the Old Testament is factually correct. Goes on
and on about the remains of Noah's ark and Egyptian chariot parts in
the Red Sea. Claims to possess bits of brimstone from Sodom and
Gomorrah. Quotes hearsay from discredited archeologists but never
provides any evidence or even references, often refering to
"soon-to-be-released" videos and books. Thinks there are big
conspiracies suppressing this stuff.

Nameless dedicates huge amounts of time and effort into posting to
alt.atheism, to the point where he has apparently become dependent on
it. This is a strange form of masochism indeed.

Update July 1998: Is no longer talking much about his hero Wyatt and
his fictitious archeological finds of Biblical artifacts. Is now
concentrating mostly on discussing sexual matters, where nameless
takes the old testament patriarchal viewpoint. He is extremely
mysoginistic, which is unusual for one so young. To him, women who are
not virgins are "used up" and should be avoided like food containers
in the store that have already been opened. The loss of a woman's
virginity, to him, means the loss of some indefinable "innocence"
which results in the woman not wanting to smile or hold hands anymore,
but just paint herself up like Jezebel in order to flaunt her
sexuality, which needless to say nameless considers abhorrent. In
fact, virginity is so incredibly important to nameless, he has stated
that his dream woman is one whose family he knows well, and who has
been homeschooled and remained within eyeshot of her mother for her
whole life. Of course one wonders what nameless will think about his
own wife, should he ever obtain one, after the marriage is consumated.

Note: it is now clear that nameless is in his mid teens, he never
interacts with women (except probably his mother), and unless arranged
marriages become popular again, will remain alone for the rest of his
life.

Unusual Features: It was decided some time ago to never mention his
name again. Usually refered to as J<censored>y or "Nameless".
Has taken to adopting a wide variety of names, probably to avoid
killfiles.

Favourite Fallacy: Ad nauseam

Positive Points: Rarely condemns anyone to Hell, usually remains
cheerfully upbeat despite constant refutations and ridicule. Appears
harmless.

Website: He's created his own website under the name "Dialectic Man"
and its sole purpose is to "Expose the fraud on alt.atheism". He
refers to one of Garrison Netzel's trolls as "standard" fraudulent
activity. He seems to have weird love-hate feelings for some of those
who defeat and ridicule him, refering to Stix as "either the
friendliest atheist or your worst enemy." Accuses militant atheists of
issuing death threats. The page is a bit of a hoot and worth a quick
look. We look forward to its continuing development, and suggest that
nameless put a doubleclick.com ad there or something to support
himself. If he does I will personally write a perl script to generate
him untold wealth.
URL: http://people.goplay.com/dialectic-man/

Possibility of Rationality: Slight (update: still hanging in there!)

[Christopher A. Lee]

Typo.... "kooks list".

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 12:57:40 AM UTC+8, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 8:55:26 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 05:42:12 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
> > <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 3:17:22 AM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:

> > >> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 9:46:07 PM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:

> > >> > Over the 20 years I've been posting in alt.atheism, I have asked many
> > >> > times for new proof or evidence that any kind of god exists. In 20
> > >> > years, no one has posted any new ideas - just the same old disproven
> > >> > crap from their unacceptable religious books. And they repeatedly post
> > >> > the same old disproven nonsense over and over and over. In this way,
> > >> > trolls like Art Tandy (Joe Bruno), Robert Duncan (Calvin Ramsey),
> > >> > John McCoy (Asteroid7), Earl Weber (Duke), Cody (BlackNazi and
> > >> > We Hang Fagz), Jesper Wernberg (Jahnu) and Michael Yost (Prince Michael)
> > >> > show that they are not here to try to help or even convert anyone but
> > >> > purely to be trolls and waste everyones' time.
> > >>
> > >> I am here to expose you.
> > >
> > >This is an atheist newsgroup. You reveal yourelf, ArtieJoe.
> >
> > The proven serial liar knows there is nothing about atheism to expose.
> >
> Time will tell.

What possible thing can be exposed from atheism?
The longer the time is, the more atheists will be in this world..........

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 7:17:41 AM UTC+8, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:29:38 PM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:

> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:33:07 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> > > > Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> > > > valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> > > >
> > > > https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> > > > concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> > > > to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> > > > non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> > > >
> > > > The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> > > > religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> > > > evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> > > > content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> > > > works of literature.
> > >

> > > sounds like you're good at making stuff up.
> >
> > Examples, please. What John said was true. You just have no argument against it.
> > You know, Johnboi, using the word argument in the sense of a discussion is not being emotional. It's obvious that you don't understand that. Such a discussion
> > is not a yelling match. It's a trade of knowledge to help people to understand
> > things more completely on both sides. I have a feeling that you've never really
> > understood this.
>
> no, when I say emotional i mean the times that names get used and stuff like that. In general, that's how most atheists are like. They get upset when facts confront their beliefs.

Theists have facts?
That is the joke of the century....

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f645dd7a-26c7-42ca...@googlegroups.com:

"Chief Justice Earl Warren never went to law school."
Joe Bruno, Aug 25 2015. http://tinyurl.com/pms5oav



"4 Southern states have it (Confederate emblem)
included in their state flags."
Joe Bruno, June 19 2015 (http://tinyurl.com/o55td5d)



"China and Japan were not even known to Europeans
until the 16th century."
Joe Bruno (Art Tandy), Apr 1, 2014. Even the
Roman Empire had trade relations with China,
not to mention the publications of Marco Polo
in 1299.
http://tinyurl.com/ldphvgj

[Tim]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:51:02 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 6:38:39 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote in
> > news:v59kdb9squfqvc744...@4ax.com:
> >

> > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:10:54 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> > > <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> > >>> Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> > >>> valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> > >>> concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> > >>> to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> > >>> non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> > >>>
> > >>> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> > >>> religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> > >>> evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> > >>> content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> > >>> works of literature.
> > >>

> > >>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
> > >>
> > > ...you need to first read the document I posted before you reply with
> > > another link. Considering the brevity of your post, I assume you
> > > failed to do so.
> > >
> >
> >

> > There was a time when Bruno/Tandy posts were
> > at least engaging if a little off base. Now he
> > just post links and runs away, thinking he has
> > somehow made his point. Very boring.
>
> I'm not here to entertain you.

Then why are you such a joke, captain isosceles quadratic?

[Tim]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 2:18:19 AM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 11:15:00 PM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:
> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:34:10 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:27:59 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 16:15:54 -0800, John Locke
> > > > <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
> > > >

> > > > >On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:10:54 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> > > > ><ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> > > > >>> Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> > > > >>> valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> > > > >>> concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> > > > >>> to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> > > > >>> non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> > > > >>> religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> > > > >>> evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> > > > >>> content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> > > > >>> works of literature.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
> > > > >>
> > > > >...you need to first read the document I posted before you reply with
> > > > >another link. Considering the brevity of your post, I assume you
> > > > >failed to do so.
> > > >

> > > > I suspect that in all the years atheists here have been surrounded by
> > > > theists, we have heard pretty well every argument they have to offer
> > > > for their god.
> > > >
> > > > But what they all have in common, is that they try to generate
> > > > information where there is none, so they become intellectual
> > > > exercises to see where they do that.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, it should be obvious that these arguments are a
> > > > substitution for the evidence they haven't got, which would go
> > > > directly there rather than having to argue it.
> > > >
> > > > I just wish theists would think, because everything they offer
> > > > achieves the opposite to what they intend - it just reinforces the
> > > > conclusion that they have nothing.
> > >

> > > but, you've never done a good job at defending atheism.
> >
> > Atheism doesn't need to be defended.
>

> If you care about it. You still have to convince us that you know for a fact that God doesn't exist, especially when you don't have a powerful enough telescope.
>
>

> snip

>
> > and on for 13 years. That's sick!
>
>

> I'm not sick. I'm not the one who blows up in emotionalism.

Oh yes you do, you cried about a chocolate and engage in petty name calling. You are emotional and always disgruntled. Like i said, you're a broken record playing the same dull tune over and over.

[Tim]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-5, duke wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 15:54:21 -0800, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> >valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> >
> >https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> >
> >There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
> >concerning the existence of a god.
>

> We have the same evidence FOR the existence of God as we have for electricity
> and gravity.
>

You have no such thing. All you have are vacuous statements, but no evidence to support them, fel.

[Tim]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 9:39:11 AM UTC-5, duke wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 20:38:36 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote in
> >news:v59kdb9squfqvc744...@4ax.com:
> >

> >> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:10:54 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> >> <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>

> >>>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> >>>> Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
> >>>> valid arguments against the existence of any god:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible

> >>>> concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
> >>>> to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
> >>>> non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
> >>>> religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
> >>>> evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
> >>>> content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
> >>>> works of literature.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
> >>>
> >> ...you need to first read the document I posted before you reply with
> >> another link. Considering the brevity of your post, I assume you
> >> failed to do so.
> >>
> >
> >

> > There was a time when Bruno/Tandy posts were
> >at least engaging if a little off base. Now he
> >just post links and runs away, thinking he has
> >somehow made his point. Very boring.
>

> You're the last that should mock boring posts. You're not exactly the brightest
> light on the block.

He far outshines your dumb ass, fat ass fel.

[duke]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 08:48:36 -0800, John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 08:53:57 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 19:52:31 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 6:39:42 PM UTC-8, Cloud Hobbit wrote:

>>>> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 4:10:56 PM UTC-8, Joe Bruno wrote:
>>>> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:54:21 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
>>>> > > Here's a damned good summary that effectively presents
>>>> > > valid arguments against the existence of any god:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > https://whynogod.wordpress.com/
>>>> > >
>>>> > > There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible
>>>> > > concerning the existence of a god. Any 'evidence' proposed by theists
>>>> > > to support the Bible's various historical and supernatural claims is
>>>> > > non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many
>>>> > > religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no
>>>> > > evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful
>>>> > > content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient
>>>> > > works of literature.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
>>>>

>>>> Thank you for that link to he kinds of arguments that theists use and how to spot them.
>>>>
>>>> You're not to bright.
>>>
>>>Only one theist uses those and you made no response.
>>
>>These a-theist boys and girls are starting to get REAL desperate. People of God
>>are the people of truth in THEIR ng. And they're beginning to sense it.
>>
>...nah...but the alarm on my snake oil detector has been going off
>like crazy lately !

Atheists love snake oil.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****