Atheists - Stumped

[Andrew]

My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
answer, because they know that they would be faced
with positive evidence that they would rather not be
faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
speechless.


Lol!

[Ted&Alice]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Let's start with 1 Kings 18. It's the Biblical test for determining
who is the real God. You do believe the Bible, right?

[Tim]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:k4qdnY9sZ5dSN-DL...@earthlink.com...

Bark and dodge, bark and dodge. Keep repeating your lie honest Andrew and
maybe you'll start believing it.

[nature bats last]

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 1:45:06 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:

.> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
.> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
.> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
.> answer, because they know that they would be faced
.> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
.> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
.> speechless.


.> Lol!

An omnipotent and omniscient god would be capable
of devising an appearance or event that be utterly
impossible for me to deny or rationalize away. If it is
not capable of doing that, then it is neither omniscient nor
omnipotent. But if it is both of those, it could not only
create one such that would utterly overwhelm any conceivable
doubts on my part, it could devise an infinity of such,
any one of which would suffice.

So the ball's in its court.

Seth

[hypatiab7]

You loose. This has already been explained to you. You just refuse to
accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And, if you can't understand
the answer, that's your problem, too.

Happy Solstice!

[MarkA]

An interesting question. For an atheist, such as myself, to specify what
evidence of a Creator I would find convincing, you would have to define
some of the characteristics of said Creator. If one of the
characteristics were that it was "supernatural", it raises the problem of
defining what supernatural means, and how we can distinguish a natural
phenomenon that we don't understand versus a phenomenon that defies the
Laws of Nature.

--
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

[hhya...@gmail.com]

You remain a moron, incapable to tell us exactly the evidence for the existence of a proto-pixie.

One simple demonstration....with your proto-pixie (non-existent), get it to round up all the ISIS idiots and put them in the Nevada desert for US to deal with them.
>
>
> Lol!

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Provide the criteria!

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

No one gave any good criteria.


>
> Happy Solstice!

solstice happened a couple of weeks ago and there was nothing happy about it. The new years coming up and you still have the chance to kick out a resolution to get a good criteria out.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

The prediction of an event.

[JTEM]

Atheists? Here? What the hell have you
been smoking!






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/private/135949804518/tumblr_nzwmnr6m0c1qccpvo

[Olrik]

Le 2015-12-25 22:44, jackpi...@gmail.com a écrit :
> The prediction of an event.

Do you imply that xians or other theists can predict events?

There could be money in that!

But... but... why don't theists actually predict events?

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Olrik]

<piggybacking>

Actually, "Andrew", we do answer, but you always make an excuse for why
the answer is not acceptable to you.

I'd ask that to a "god" : no deaths for a year. Nobody dies, for any
reasons whatsoever.

[Andrew]

"hypatiab7" wrote in message news:4dbed562-7f8c-47c1...@googlegroups.com...

> Andrew wrote:
>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>> answer, because they know that they would be faced
>> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>> speechless.
>

> You loose. This has already been explained to you. You
> just refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And,
> if you can't understand the answer, that's your problem, too.

Still, no criteria you have for the evidence to be acceptable.

You like to ask for "evidence", but you have no clue as to
what evidence should be that would be acceptable to you.

> Happy Solstice!

"The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself.
The winter solstice is the shortest day/longest night of the
year, while the summer solstice (dedicated to Lucifer, "the
light bearer", "Son of the Morning") is the longest day/shortest
night of the year. Many victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse and
MK programming are tortured and forced to participate in
grotesque acts of abomination from December 21st -
December 23rd, when Satanists celebrate X-Mas."
http://alturl.com/hwwb2

Thus you reject the Creator who is worthy to be praised,
and give homage to a holiday "dedicated to Satan himself".

[Andrew]

"MarkA" wrote in message news:pan.2015.12...@somewhere.invalid...

> Andrew wrote:
>
>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
>> to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
>> evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
>> would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.
>

> An interesting question. For an atheist, such as myself, to specify what
> evidence of a Creator I would find convincing, you would have to define
> some of the characteristics of said Creator.

This is obfuscation because the basic characteristics are self evident.

> If one of the characteristics were that it was "supernatural",

A Creator to us would be supernatural, but not so to Himself.

If there were a Creator, it would be natural for Him to Create..

> it raises the problem of defining what supernatural means, and how
> we can distinguish a natural phenomenon that we don't understand
> versus a phenomenon that defies the Laws of Nature.

In my question, the phenomena are assumed to be existent in
the Creation. The question is how can we know if there was
a Creator. Evidence is what you need to answer the question,
but there needs to be criteria for evidence to be acceptable.

[Andrew]

"Tim" wrote in message news:n5kie2$rra$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>> answer, because they know that they would be faced
>> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>> speechless.
>>
>> Lol!
>
> Bark and dodge, bark and dodge. Keep repeating your
> lie honest Andrew and maybe you'll start believing it.

As I said -----> "they never answer"

[Andrew]

"nature bats last" wrote in message news:8c9228b1-8428-475b...@googlegroups.com...

> Andrew wrote:
> .> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> .> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> .> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> .> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> .> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> .> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> .> speechless.
>

> An omnipotent and omniscient god would be capable
> of devising an appearance or event that be utterly
> impossible for me to deny or rationalize away.

That's interesting, because my question was pertaining
to the criteria that you would require for evidence to be
accepted that would unequivocally point to a *Creator*.

You respond by ignoring the Creation that already is,
and ask for a ~sign~, a spectacular supernatural "event".

"A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after
a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the
sign of the prophet Jonah." And He left them and
departed." ~ Matthew 16:4

> If it is not capable of doing that, then it is neither omniscient nor
> omnipotent. But if it is both of those, it could not only
> create one such that would utterly overwhelm any conceivable
> doubts on my part, it could devise an infinity of such,
> any one of which would suffice.
>
> So the ball's in its court.
>
> Seth

Just answer the question. Tell us the criteria that you would
require for any evidence to be that would tell you that there
is a Creator. Criteria for evidence that would already exist.

[Andrew]

"Ted&Alice" wrote in message news:6tir7b1timn85b6ju...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is
>> for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they would

>> require" for the evidence to be, but they never answer, because

>> they know that they would be faced with positive evidence that
>> they would rather not be faced with, which is why they remain
>> stumped and speechless.
>

> Let's start with 1 Kings 18. It's the Biblical test for determining
> who is the real God.

If you believe that if you saw fire come down from
above in the sight of men that this would be evidence
for the true God, then you are set up for a deception.

> You do believe the Bible, right?

Here's what it says......

"He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire
come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of
men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth
by those signs which he was granted to do in the
sight of the beast." ~ Rev 13:13

[hypatiab7]

It was very nice. You're just a big grumpy pants.

Happy Solstice as the days get longer

[hypatiab7]

You're the believer. The criteria is up to you. Stop trying to pass the buck. It just tells everyone that you have no evidence. By the way, is 'criteria'
your new word of the month.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

you're the one who's disgrumpled.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 12:42:11 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:

The Solstice celebrates the sun (Sol), source of heat, light and food, not your non-existent devil. You are so ignorant.

[Ted&Alice]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 22:22:22 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"Ted&Alice" wrote in message news:6tir7b1timn85b6ju...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is
>>> for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they would
>>> require" for the evidence to be, but they never answer, because
>>> they know that they would be faced with positive evidence that
>>> they would rather not be faced with, which is why they remain
>>> stumped and speechless.
>>
>> Let's start with 1 Kings 18. It's the Biblical test for determining
>> who is the real God.
>
>If you believe that if you saw fire come down from
>above in the sight of men that this would be evidence
>for the true God, then you are set up for a deception.
>

Nope. Science can bring fire down from the sky, and science can
explain life's origins, both without even claiming to be God. Your
god, however, can do neither.

But maybe we should just give him some time. As Elijah said, “Cry
aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he
is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

Go ahead, Andrew. Cry aloud. We'd wait except we've been waiting for a
long time already and your fake god has never done a damn thing. So
there's your proof, Andrew. And it's straight from your own Bible.

[Mike]

Very simple Andrew. If God exists and wants all to know it he could rearrange a bunch of bright stars in the sky to write out a message such as "Jesus saves", or "Repent sinners", or "Shiva loves you" or whatever. Provided others around me saw it too and assured me I was not hallucinating, I would feel convinced that there exists either a Supreme Being or extraordinarily advanced aliens with a strange sense of humor.

[nature bats last]

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 10:42:11 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "hypatiab7" wrote in message news:4dbed562-7f8c-47c1...@googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> >> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> >> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> >> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> >> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> >> speechless.
> >
> > You loose. This has already been explained to you. You
> > just refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And,
> > if you can't understand the answer, that's your problem, too.
>
> Still, no criteria you have for the evidence to be acceptable.
>
> You like to ask for "evidence", but you have no clue as to
> what evidence should be that would be acceptable to you.
>
> > Happy Solstice!
>

.
.> "The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself.
.> The winter solstice is the shortest day/longest night of the
.> year, while the summer solstice (dedicated to Lucifer, "the
.> light bearer", "Son of the Morning") is the longest day/shortest
.> night of the year. Many victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse and
.> MK programming are tortured and forced to participate in
.> grotesque acts of abomination from December 21st -
.> December 23rd, when Satanists celebrate X-Mas."
.> http://alturl.com/hwwb2

Yep. There's nothing that says "trustworthy" like
throwing in the Illuminata, MK Ultra, and Satanic ritual
abuse. However, I feel their research is incomplete at best,
as I'm seeing no references to the Bildenbergers, the
Trilateral Commission, chemtrails, and the reptoids from
the Alpha Draconis system.

Seth

[nature bats last]

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "nature bats last" wrote in message news:8c9228b1-8428-475b...@googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> > .> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> > .> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> > .> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> > .> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> > .> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> > .> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> > .> speechless.
> >

.> > An omnipotent and omniscient god would be capable
.> > of devising an appearance or event that be utterly
.> > impossible for me to deny or rationalize away.

.> That's interesting, because my question was pertaining
.> to the criteria that you would require for evidence to be
.> accepted that would unequivocally point to a *Creator*.

And I told you that I have no idea what could accomplish that,
and then I point out the obvious -- that any god worthy of the name
could easily devise such a thing, nay, a varied infinity
of scenarios that would utterly sweep all my doubts away

.> You respond by ignoring the Creation that already is,

If by "the Creation that already is", you mean this universe,
then obviously that is insufficient for me, and hardly just for me.

You, on the other hand, start from the assumption that
the god you for whatever reason believe in exists, therefore
all this was created...and proceed to trot out all manner of
unconvincing arguments based on that assumption.

.> and ask for a ~sign~, a spectacular supernatural "event"

Do try to understand my answer. Because I did not
specify "spectacular" or "supernatural" at all.

An omniscient and omnipotent god could come up with
something small and quite unspectacular, yet still
adequate to utterly overwhelm any and all doubts.

I put no limits at all on your god's imagination and
creativity.

.> "A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after

.> a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the
.> sign of the prophet Jonah." And He left them and
.> departed." ~ Matthew 16:4s


Well, there you go: your god expects to buy a god in
a poke. "Just trust me" is a sure warning sign that
you absolutely should do no such thing. The world
is drenched in alleged gods which give no sign whatsoever.

And a god would could manifest itself in a way
that absolutely could not be denied, but just can't
be bothered -- and will allegedly toss billions of its
children into fire because it just couldn't be bothered
-- is a profoundly evil god.

But then I've brought that up before. Numerous times.
You seem quite uninterested in discussing it.

.> > If it is not capable of doing that, then it is neither omniscient nor
.> > omnipotent. But if it is both of those, it could not only
.> > create one such that would utterly overwhelm any conceivable
.> > doubts on my part, it could devise an infinity of such,
.> > any one of which would suffice.
.> >
.> > So the ball's in its court.

.> Just answer the question.

I provided an answer both necessary and sufficient.
That it doesn't fit neatly into your little game is
no indication of its inadequacy. I have no such
criteria, but any competent candidate for god could
easily devise ways to overwhelm my doubts.

Hasn't happened.

And this is not a purely academic exercise: in my
twenties, when I still thought there was some chance
that the god of the Bible existed, I prayed, and prayed
most sincerely, giving him my explicit and unlimited permission
to do anything, anything at all he chose, to convince me of his existence.

The ball's still in his court. But I must add that if his
response was to send me such profoundly intellectually dishonest
representatives to pitch his case for him, then he's either
incompetent at choosing his help or else as malicious
as Loki.

Seth

[Tim]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message

news:eLCdneXiipjIsOPL...@earthlink.com...

As I said: bark and dodge. When they answer that's honest Andrew's cue to
run.

[Andrew]

"hypatiab7" wrote in message news:4dbed562-7f8c-47c1...@googlegroups.com...

> Andrew wrote:
>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>> answer, because they know that they would be faced
>> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>> speechless.
>

> You loose. This has already been explained to you. You
> just refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And,
> if you can't understand the answer, that's your problem, too.

Still, no criteria you have for the evidence to be acceptable.

You like to ask for "evidence", but you have no clue as to
what evidence should be that would be acceptable to you.

> Happy Solstice!

"The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself.

The winter solstice is the shortest day/longest night of the

year, while the summer solstice (dedicated to Lucifer, "the

light bearer", "Son of the Morning") is the longest day/shortest

night of the year. Many victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse and

MK programming are tortured and forced to participate in

grotesque acts of abomination from December 21st -

December 23rd, when Satanists celebrate X-Mas."

http://alturl.com/hwwb2

[Tim]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message

news:a4mdnZbj4PM34uPL...@earthlink.com...

> "hypatiab7" wrote in message
> news:4dbed562-7f8c-47c1...@googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>>> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>>> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>>> answer, because they know that they would be faced
>>> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>>> speechless.
>>
>> You loose. This has already been explained to you. You
>> just refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And,
>> if you can't understand the answer, that's your problem, too.
>
> Still, no criteria you have for the evidence to be acceptable.
>
> You like to ask for "evidence", but you have no clue as to
> what evidence should be that would be acceptable to you.

You like asking this question over and over again, yet you always run away
when it gets answered.

>
> Thus you reject the Creator who is worthy to be praised,
> and give homage to a holiday "dedicated to Satan himself".

What evidence do you have for any of that mumbo-jumbo. I'll tell you: none,
as usual.

Keep repeating your lies and you may convince yourself that they are true,
but you won't convince any on else.

Happy evading, honest Andrew.
>
>

[Andrew]

"hypatiab7" wrote in message news:c644cd3d-fe84-4ccc...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

If you ask for evidence, you must have criteria for any evidence
presented to be acceptable to you, otherwise your asking is only
a ruse, and would be evidence of your mendacity and dishonesty.

[Andrew]

<jackpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c2b403ea-137b-4091...@googlegroups.com...

> The prediction of an event.

Here's eight, all that were fulfilled to the letter http://alturl.com/xx94r

[Andrew]

"Olrik" wrote in message news:n5l5fh$p78$1...@dont-email.me...

> Actually, "Andrew", we do answer, but you
> always make an excuse for why the answer
> is not acceptable to you.
>
> I'd ask that to a "god" : no deaths for a year.
> Nobody dies, for any reasons whatsoever.

How foolish, since the planet could not sustain
such a massive increase in population with the
birth rate remaining the same.

[Andrew]

"Mike" wrote in message news:943b6aaa-e720-4d9e...@googlegroups.com...

You fail to see that the very stars themselves are evidence.

[Andrew]

"nature bats last" wrote in message news:673880d3-3151-4b4b...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

~ ibid.

[Ted&Alice]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 22:01:14 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Answer the 1 Kings 18 challenge, you pussy.

Science can bring fire down from the sky, and science can explain
life's origins, both without even claiming to be God. Your god,

however, can do neither. Therefore, according to 1 Kings 18, he's a
fake.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in news:k4qdnY9sZ5dSN-DLnZ2dnUU7-
Imd...@earthlink.com:

> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Tooth Fairy,

> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> speechless.

Fixed it for you.

What IS your criteria for evidence
about the Tooth Fairy?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Stupid fundie mode: "but that's different".

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 00:05:15 -0800 (PST), nature bats last
<seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
>> "nature bats last" wrote in message news:8c9228b1-8428-475b...@googlegroups.com...
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> > .> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>> > .> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>> > .> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>> > .> answer, because they know that they would be faced
>> > .> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>> > .> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>> > .> speechless.

A deliberately nasty, unsolicited pack of lies by a deluded religious
fanatic, addressed to people who are neither brainwashed into his
religion nor as gullible and stupid as he is.

Why can't he cope with people living in the real world beyond his
religion?

Why does Christianity turn people into psychopaths and idiots?

>.> > An omnipotent and omniscient god would be capable
>.> > of devising an appearance or event that be utterly
>.> > impossible for me to deny or rationalize away.
>
>.> That's interesting, because my question was pertaining
>.> to the criteria that you would require for evidence to be
>.> accepted that would unequivocally point to a *Creator*.

And what would the in-your-face moron require for evidence to be
accepted that would unequivocally point to the King of the
Leprechauns?

When nobody has ever described the character in such a way that there
_could_ be?

>And I told you that I have no idea what could accomplish that,
>and then I point out the obvious -- that any god worthy of the name
>could easily devise such a thing, nay, a varied infinity
>of scenarios that would utterly sweep all my doubts away


>.> You respond by ignoring the Creation that already is,

The in-your-face, proven serial liar assumes it was created and lies
that we ignore this.

>If by "the Creation that already is", you mean this universe,
>then obviously that is insufficient for me, and hardly just for me.

Like most theists, he is incapable of thinking outside the box to
understand the remarkably obvious - that only his fellow believers
already grant its doctrines and tenets.

So he can't grasp the difference belief and objective reality.

To the extent that he and his fellow brainwashed morons imagine the
acceptance of reality is merely a belief - and an incorrect one at
that because it's not his.

>You, on the other hand, start from the assumption that
>the god you for whatever reason believe in exists, therefore
>all this was created...and proceed to trot out all manner of
>unconvincing arguments based on that assumption.
>
>.> and ask for a ~sign~, a spectacular supernatural "event"
>
>Do try to understand my answer. Because I did not
>specify "spectacular" or "supernatural" at all.

And we'd have to believe in it first, in order to ask it for anything.

Which too many theists can't understand, because to them its
"existence" is a given and they can't think in terms of how others
view it.

>An omniscient and omnipotent god could come up with
>something small and quite unspectacular, yet still
>adequate to utterly overwhelm any and all doubts.
>
>I put no limits at all on your god's imagination and
>creativity.

It's not something I even give a thought to, because I wasn't
brainwashed to believe it as a child.

>.> "A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after
>.> a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the
>.> sign of the prophet Jonah." And He left them and
>.> departed." ~ Matthew 16:4s

Why does the mentally impaired retard imagine Bible verses "prove"
anything to an audience that doesn't already believe?

And that's a fact, not just name-calling.

His religion has destroyed his mental capacity.

>Well, there you go: your god expects to buy a god in
>a poke. "Just trust me" is a sure warning sign that
>you absolutely should do no such thing. The world
>is drenched in alleged gods which give no sign whatsoever.
>
>And a god would could manifest itself in a way
>that absolutely could not be denied, but just can't
>be bothered -- and will allegedly toss billions of its
>children into fire because it just couldn't be bothered
> -- is a profoundly evil god.
>
>But then I've brought that up before. Numerous times.
>You seem quite uninterested in discussing it.

Here's just here to wipe his made-up nonsense in our faces, to try and
annoy.

I doubt he actually believes much of his own additions to standard
creationism, which are even more stupid.

But then nobody ever accused creationists of intelligence or honesty.

>.> > If it is not capable of doing that, then it is neither omniscient nor
>.> > omnipotent. But if it is both of those, it could not only
>.> > create one such that would utterly overwhelm any conceivable
>.> > doubts on my part, it could devise an infinity of such,
>.> > any one of which would suffice.
>.> >
>.> > So the ball's in its court.
>
>.> Just answer the question.

Answered over and over again.

Drooling Andy is the only one here who has any idea what he's talking
about - we're not mind readers.

>I provided an answer both necessary and sufficient.
>That it doesn't fit neatly into your little game is
>no indication of its inadequacy. I have no such
>criteria, but any competent candidate for god could
>easily devise ways to overwhelm my doubts.

And its mendacity.

>Hasn't happened.
>
>And this is not a purely academic exercise: in my
>twenties, when I still thought there was some chance
>that the god of the Bible existed, I prayed, and prayed
>most sincerely, giving him my explicit and unlimited permission
>to do anything, anything at all he chose, to convince me of his existence.
>
>The ball's still in his court. But I must add that if his
>response was to send me such profoundly intellectually dishonest
>representatives to pitch his case for him, then he's either
>incompetent at choosing his help or else as malicious
>as Loki.
>
>Seth
>
>> Tell us the criteria that you would
>> require for any evidence to be that would tell you that there
>> is a Creator. Criteria for evidence that would already exist.

We've explained to this retard over and over again, that it would have
to be something that would convince somebody who doesn't already
believe - and that he's the one who knows all about it and what it is
supposed to be able to do, we're not.

Besides which, it's a trick question - he wants us to come up with
something ridiculous so he can dismiss the answer.

Even though it would take something ridiculous.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:05:29 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 00:05:15 -0800 (PST), nature bats last
> <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 11:10:22 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> >> "nature bats last" wrote in message news:8c9228b1-8428-475b...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> > .> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> >> > .> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> >> > .> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> >> > .> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> >> > .> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> > .> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> >> > .> speechless.
>

> A deliberately nasty, unsolicited pack of emotionalism by a emotionalism religious
> emotionalism, addressed to people who are neither emotionalism into his
> religion nor as emotionalism and emotionalism as he is.

>
> Why can't he cope with people living in the real world beyond his
> religion?
>

> Why does Christianity turn people into emotionalism and emotionalism?

>
> >.> > An omnipotent and omniscient god would be capable
> >.> > of devising an appearance or event that be utterly
> >.> > impossible for me to deny or rationalize away.
> >
> >.> That's interesting, because my question was pertaining
> >.> to the criteria that you would require for evidence to be
> >.> accepted that would unequivocally point to a *Creator*.
>

> And what would the in-your-face emotionalism require for evidence to be

> accepted that would unequivocally point to the King of the

> emotionalism?

>
> When nobody has ever described the character in such a way that there
> _could_ be?
>
> >And I told you that I have no idea what could accomplish that,
> >and then I point out the obvious -- that any god worthy of the name
> >could easily devise such a thing, nay, a varied infinity
> >of scenarios that would utterly sweep all my doubts away
>
>
> >.> You respond by ignoring the Creation that already is,
>

> The in-your-face, proven serial emotionalism assumes it was created and emotionalism

> that we ignore this.
>
> >If by "the Creation that already is", you mean this universe,
> >then obviously that is insufficient for me, and hardly just for me.
>
> Like most theists, he is incapable of thinking outside the box to
> understand the remarkably obvious - that only his fellow believers
> already grant its doctrines and tenets.
>
> So he can't grasp the difference belief and objective reality.
>

> To the extent that he and his fellow emotionalism emotionalism imagine the

> acceptance of reality is merely a belief - and an incorrect one at
> that because it's not his.
>
> >You, on the other hand, start from the assumption that
> >the god you for whatever reason believe in exists, therefore
> >all this was created...and proceed to trot out all manner of
> >unconvincing arguments based on that assumption.
> >
> >.> and ask for a ~sign~, a spectacular supernatural "event"
> >
> >Do try to understand my answer. Because I did not
> >specify "spectacular" or "supernatural" at all.
>
> And we'd have to believe in it first, in order to ask it for anything.
>
> Which too many theists can't understand, because to them its
> "existence" is a given and they can't think in terms of how others
> view it.
>
> >An omniscient and omnipotent god could come up with
> >something small and quite unspectacular, yet still
> >adequate to utterly overwhelm any and all doubts.
> >
> >I put no limits at all on your god's imagination and
> >creativity.
>
> It's not something I even give a thought to, because I wasn't

> emotionalism to believe it as a child.

too much emotionalism. Unstable for scientific thought.

[raven1]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,

>is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they

>would require" for the evidence to be....but they never

>answer, because they know that they would be faced

>with positive evidence that they would rather not be

>faced with, which is why they remain stumped and

>speechless.

If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then it both knows what
sort of evidence it would take to convince atheists that it exists,
and is able to produce it. The fact that there are atheists at all
shows that this hasn't happened. Let's consider the possibilities as
to why:

1) It is not omniscient (ie: it doesn't know what evidence would
convince atheists).

2) It is not omnipotent (ie: it is unable to do so).

3) Both 1 and 2, making it not much of a deity, really.

4) It doesn't care whether or not atheists believe in it.

5) It doesn't want atheists to believe in it.

6) It doesn't exist.

Which is the simplest explanation?

[Tim]

"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ivit7b5rrej8ts2ug...@4ax.com...

For Andrew it isn't a matter of simple explanation, it's a matter of simply
running away.

[Robert Duncan]

Uhhh....I think I'll choose Door Number 5, Monty.

[raven1]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:35:50 -0500, Robert Duncan
<rob-du...@outlook.com> wrote:

<snip Robert Duncan's post unread>

Gee Cal, weren't you refusing to read my posts? What happened, did one
of your sock puppets point it out to you?

<smirk>

Don't bother responding, I won't read it.

<bitch slap>

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

for you it's simply for being disgruntled

[Robert Duncan]

On 12/26/2015 12:41 PM, raven1 wrote:

> Gee Cal, weren't you refusing to read my posts? What happened, did one
> of your sock puppets point it out to you?

Well if you can't figure it out for yourself, then you're not as
smart as you think you are.

Hint: I can still read the Subject line without opening the post.

Idiot.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 22:01:14 -0800, Andrew wrote:

> "MarkA" wrote in message
> news:pan.2015.12...@somewhere.invalid...

>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
>>> to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
>>> evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
>>> would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.
>>

>> An interesting question. For an atheist, such as myself, to specify
>> what evidence of a Creator I would find convincing, you would have to
>> define some of the characteristics of said Creator.
>
> This is obfuscation because the basic characteristics are self evident.

Nice evasion. The only self-evident characteristic of a creator is that
it creates. That if far too vague to be of any use in this discussion.
Solid objects create shadows. Ergo, any solid object is a creator.

>
>> If one of the characteristics were that it was "supernatural",
>
> A Creator to us would be supernatural, but not so to Himself.
>
> If there were a Creator, it would be natural for Him to Create..
>
>> it raises the problem of defining what supernatural means, and how we
>> can distinguish a natural phenomenon that we don't understand versus a
>> phenomenon that defies the Laws of Nature.
>
> In my question, the phenomena are assumed to be existent in the
> Creation. The question is how can we know if there was a Creator.
> Evidence is what you need to answer the question,
> but there needs to be criteria for evidence to be acceptable.

Again, I am not convinced that the idea of "supernatural" is logically
coherent. In a practical sense, we cannot determine if something is
supernatural until we know everything that is possible naturally. We
don't, and possibly never will.

It all boils down to this: any argument in favor of a supernatural,
creator god is an argument from ignorance.

--
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

[Robert Duncan]

On 12/26/2015 12:53 PM, MarkA wrote:

> It all boils down to this: any argument in favor of a supernatural,
> creator god is an argument from ignorance.

No. I've got a much simpler solution.

God, in his Book, Romans 9:18, very clearly states that he has
mercy on some humans, and he withholds his mercy from the rest.

By not giving you the "evidence" that he gives to some of us, he
is withholding his mercy from you.

See how simple that is?

You're welcome.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:29:56 -0500, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote:
>
>>My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>>is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>>would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>>answer, because they know that they would be faced
>>with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>>faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>>speechless.
>
>If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then it both knows what
>sort of evidence it would take to convince atheists that it exists,
>and is able to produce it. The fact that there are atheists at all
>shows that this hasn't happened. Let's consider the possibilities as
>to why:
>
>1) It is not omniscient (ie: it doesn't know what evidence would
>convince atheists).
>
>2) It is not omnipotent (ie: it is unable to do so).
>
>3) Both 1 and 2, making it not much of a deity, really.

Bronze-age primitives can be forgiven for not understanding the
problems introduced by giving it (and insisting on) attributed that
include infinities - because they don't leave room for anything else.

Either as part that particular infinite attribute or another.

>4) It doesn't care whether or not atheists believe in it.
>
>5) It doesn't want atheists to believe in it.
>
>6) It doesn't exist.
>
>Which is the simplest explanation?

Heck, none of the stupids can even give it a coherent description such
that it could - and this mindless retard expects us to do it for him.

[raven1]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:49:20 -0500, Robert Duncan

<rob-du...@outlook.com> wrote:

<snip Robert Duncan's post unread>

ROTFLMFAO! It's hysterical how you're compelled to respond to me, Cal.
Now seriously, crawl back under your rock and fuck off. I have no
further interest in discussing your religious delusions that you
mistake for arguments; they merit no more serious attention or
refutation than if you claimed to be Napoleon.

<bitch slap>

[Robert Duncan]

On 12/26/2015 1:44 PM, raven1 wrote:

> <snip Robert Duncan's post unread>

"Imitation is the highest form of flattery."

[nature bats last]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:44:27 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "nature bats last" wrote in message news:673880d3-3151-4b4b...@googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "hypatiab7" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> >> >> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> >> >> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> >> >> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> >> >> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> >> >> speechless.
> >> >
> >> > You loose. This has already been explained to you. You
> >> > just refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And,
> >> > if you can't understand the answer, that's your problem, too.
> >>
> >> Still, no criteria you have for the evidence to be acceptable.
> >>
> >> You like to ask for "evidence", but you have no clue as to
> >> what evidence should be that would be acceptable to you.
> >>
> >> > Happy Solstice!
> >>
.

.> > .> "The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself.
.> > .> The winter solstice is the shortest day/longest night of the
.> > .> year, while the summer solstice (dedicated to Lucifer, "the
.> > .> light bearer", "Son of the Morning") is the longest day/shortest
.> > .> night of the year. Many victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse and
.> > .> MK programming are tortured and forced to participate in
.> > .> grotesque acts of abomination from December 21st -
.> > .> December 23rd, when Satanists celebrate X-Mas."
.> > .> http://alturl.com/hwwb2
> >
.> > Yep. There's nothing that says "trustworthy" like
.> > throwing in the Illuminata, MK Ultra, and Satanic ritual
.> > abuse. However, I feel their research is incomplete at best,
.> > as I'm seeing no references to the Bildenbergers, the
.> > Trilateral Commission, chemtrails, and the reptoids from
.> > the Alpha Draconis system.

.> "The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself."

.> ~ ibid.

Actually, repeating a fallacious claim from a looney
conspiracy-riddled site doesn't make it any less
silly the second time around.

Rome had elaborate winter solstice celebrations
centuries before Christianity came along with its
revised version of Satan. Scandinavians who
had never heard of your God had their Jul.
Stonehenge and Newgrange were erected by
peoples who had no inkling of this demi-god
peculiar to Christianity.

And here's your chance to triple the absurdity by
repeating it yet again:




Seth

[The Chief Castrator Of The Jews]

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:45:06 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> speechless.
>
>

> Lol!


Atheists are clueless clowns... Don't waste your time and money with their loose women either.

[nature bats last]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:44:06 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Olrik" wrote in message news:n5l5fh$p78$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > Actually, "Andrew", we do answer, but you
> > always make an excuse for why the answer
> > is not acceptable to you.
> >

.> > I'd ask that to a "god" : no deaths for a year.
.> > Nobody dies, for any reasons whatsoever.

.> How foolish, since the planet could not sustain
.> such a massive increase in population with the
.> birth rate remaining the same.

You have that "foolish" stick pointed the wrong
way.

Births per year are around 131 million. There are
currently 7.3 billion people right now.

No deaths for a year would cause a population
increase of less than two percent.


Or to put it another way, given the current rates
of births and deaths, the world will reach the
."massive increase in population" that you claim
."the planet could not sustain" in less than
two years.






Seth

[duke]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 18:08:34 -0500, Ted&Alice <t...@nd.alice> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>

>wrote:
>
>>My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>>is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>>would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>>answer, because they know that they would be faced
>>with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>>faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>>speechless.
>>
>>
>>Lol!
>>
>

>Let's start with 1 Kings 18. It's the Biblical test for determining
>who is the real God. You do believe the Bible, right?

Only one is the living God.

the dukester, American-American

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

[duke]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:04:59 -0800 (PST), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 1:45:06 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
>
>.> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>.> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>.> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>.> answer, because they know that they would be faced
>.> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>.> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>.> speechless.
>
>
>.> Lol!

>
>An omnipotent and omniscient god would be capable

>of devising an appearance or event that be utterly

>impossible for me to deny or rationalize away.

But that's not the way he wants you to prove yourself. We Catholics don't have
a problem. Why do you?

> If it is
>not capable of doing that, then it is neither omniscient nor

>omnipotent.

You just don't get it that he has his ways. If he stood on a mountain top and
said "here I am", you would choose to turn to him as the RIGHT thing to do.

But if it is both of those, it could not only

>create one such that would utterly overwhelm any conceivable

>doubts on my part, it could devise an infinity of such,

>any one of which would suffice.
>

>So the ball's in its court.

You will lose.

>Seth

[duke]

On 26 Dec 2015 01:15:40 GMT, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, Andrew wrote:
>
>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
>> to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
>> evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
>> would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.
>>
>>
>> Lol!

>
>An interesting question. For an atheist, such as myself, to specify what
>evidence of a Creator I would find convincing, you would have to define
>some of the characteristics of said Creator.

Creator of all things starting with the universe.

[duke]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:16:32 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:45:06 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>> answer, because they know that they would be faced
>> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>> speechless.
>>
>>
>> Lol!
>

>You loose. This has already been explained to you.

YOU.........explained something "loose"?

You just refuse to
>accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And, if you can't understand
>the answer, that's your problem, too.
>

>Happy Solstice!

Ended 3 days before Dec 25.

[duke]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:29:56 -0500, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote:
>
>>My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>>is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>>would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>>answer, because they know that they would be faced
>>with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>>faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>>speechless.
>
>If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then it both knows what
>sort of evidence it would take to convince atheists that it exists,

He wants you to use love to determine the truth. So far, you have failed.

>and is able to produce it. The fact that there are atheists at all
>shows that this hasn't happened. Let's consider the possibilities as
>to why:
>
>1) It is not omniscient (ie: it doesn't know what evidence would
>convince atheists).
>
>2) It is not omnipotent (ie: it is unable to do so).
>
>3) Both 1 and 2, making it not much of a deity, really.
>
>4) It doesn't care whether or not atheists believe in it.
>
>5) It doesn't want atheists to believe in it.
>
>6) It doesn't exist.
>
>Which is the simplest explanation?

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 1:55:12 AM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 10:47:38 PM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:
> > On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 10:09:58 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 5:16:39 PM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:

> > > > On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:45:06 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> > > > > My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> > > > > is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> > > > > would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> > > > > answer, because they know that they would be faced
> > > > > with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> > > > > faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> > > > > speechless.
> > > > >
> > > > >

> > > > > Lol!
> > > >
> > > > You loose. This has already been explained to you. You just refuse to

> > > > accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And, if you can't understand
> > > > the answer, that's your problem, too.
> > >

> > > No one gave any good criteria.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Happy Solstice!
> > >
> > > solstice happened a couple of weeks ago and there was nothing happy about it. The new years coming up and you still have the chance to kick out a resolution to get a good criteria out.
> >
> > It was very nice. You're just a big grumpy pants.
>
> you're the one who's disgrumpled.

Considering the source, nope. And your emotional use of silly made up words
doesn't help you. It just makes you look silly and childish.
>
>
> >
> > Happy Solstice as the days get longer

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:42:19 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "hypatiab7" wrote in message news:c644cd3d-fe84-4ccc...@googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:

> >> "hypatiab7" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> >> >> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> >> >> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> >> >> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> >> >> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> >> >> speechless.
> >> >

> >> > You loose. This has already been explained to you. You
> >> > just refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And,
> >> > if you can't understand the answer, that's your problem, too.
> >>

> >> Still, no criteria you have for the evidence to be acceptable.
> >>
> >> You like to ask for "evidence", but you have no clue as to
> >> what evidence should be that would be acceptable to you.
> >>
> >> > Happy Solstice!
> >>

> >> "The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself.

> >> The winter solstice is the shortest day/longest night of the

> >> year, while the summer solstice (dedicated to Lucifer, "the

> >> light bearer", "Son of the Morning") is the longest day/shortest

> >> night of the year. Many victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse and

> >> MK programming are tortured and forced to participate in

> >> grotesque acts of abomination from December 21st -

> >> December 23rd, when Satanists celebrate X-Mas."

> >> http://alturl.com/hwwb2
> >>
> >> Thus you reject the Creator who is worthy to be praised,
> >> and give homage to a holiday "dedicated to Satan himself".
> >
> > You're the believer. The criteria is up to you.
>
> If you ask for evidence, you must have criteria for any evidence
> presented to be acceptable to you, otherwise your asking is only
> a ruse, and would be evidence of your mendacity and dishonesty.

All right, the criteria is, since you are the beleiver, you must present evidence of what you believe in. Then, we'll decide if what you present as evidence is worth more than a hill of beans. Happy, now?

If you can't do that, you don't even know what you believe in.

[Andrew]

"raven1" wrote in message news:ivit7b5rrej8ts2ug...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>>My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
>>is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
>>would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
>>answer, because they know that they would be faced
>>with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>>faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
>>speechless.
>
> If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then it both knows what
> sort of evidence it would take to convince atheists that it exists,

The evidence is there for the honest seeker for truth.

But if for personal philosophical reasons one does not
want the truth, then no evidence would avail to break
through to their stubborn and rebellious heart.

> and is able to produce it.

The question is what is the criteria you would use
to evaluate evidence that portends to point to there
being a Creator.

This is the question that always stumps atheists.

They respond with obfuscation, evasion and insult.

> The fact that there are atheists at all shows that
> this hasn't happened.

Not due to any lack of evidence.

> Let's consider the possibilities as to why:

This was explained to you above.

> 1) It is not omniscient (ie: it doesn't know what evidence would
> convince atheists).
>
> 2) It is not omnipotent (ie: it is unable to do so).
>
> 3) Both 1 and 2, making it not much of a deity, really.
>
> 4) It doesn't care whether or not atheists believe in it.
>
> 5) It doesn't want atheists to believe in it.
>
> 6) It doesn't exist.
>
> Which is the simplest explanation?

The simplest explanation seems to be that there are those
who for personal philosophical reasons do not want the
truth, therefore no evidence will avail to break through
to their stubborn and rebellious hearts. Thanks.

[Andrew]

"Ted&Alice" wrote in message news:uc3t7bpck11irssht...@4ax.com...

> Science can bring fire down from the sky,

The military does it often.

> and science can explain life's origins,

Not without taking you on a trip
deep into the realm of fantasy.

You call that "science"?

Lol!

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:44:27 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "nature bats last" wrote in message news:673880d3-3151-4b4b...@googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "hypatiab7" wrote:

> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> >> >> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> >> >> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> >> >> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> >> >> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> >> >> speechless.
> >> >

> >> > You loose. This has already been explained to you. You
> >> > just refuse to accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And,
> >> > if you can't understand the answer, that's your problem, too.
> >>
> >> Still, no criteria you have for the evidence to be acceptable.
> >>
> >> You like to ask for "evidence", but you have no clue as to
> >> what evidence should be that would be acceptable to you.
> >>
> >> > Happy Solstice!
> >>

> > .> "The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself.
> > .> The winter solstice is the shortest day/longest night of the
> > .> year, while the summer solstice (dedicated to Lucifer, "the
> > .> light bearer", "Son of the Morning") is the longest day/shortest
> > .> night of the year. Many victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse and
> > .> MK programming are tortured and forced to participate in
> > .> grotesque acts of abomination from December 21st -
> > .> December 23rd, when Satanists celebrate X-Mas."
> > .> http://alturl.com/hwwb2

> >
> > Yep. There's nothing that says "trustworthy" like

> > throwing in the Illuminata, MK Ultra, and Satanic ritual

> > abuse. However, I feel their research is incomplete at best,

> > as I'm seeing no references to the Bildenbergers, the

> > Trilateral Commission, chemtrails, and the reptoids from

> > the Alpha Draconis system.

>
> "The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself."

> ~ ibid.

We saw it the first time. It was a crock of excrement then, and it still is.
You can't even provide evidence that your devil and your hell exist. Your
'religion' has a lot of problems like this.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:16:32 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 3:45:06 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> >> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> >> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> >> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> >> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> >> speechless.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lol!
> >
> >You loose. This has already been explained to you.
>
> YOU.........explained something "loose"?

It's a typo, spell checker. You lose even more. And, it's been explained to Andrew yet again. You're extraneous. (Look it up.)

>
> You just refuse to
> >accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And, if you can't understand
> >the answer, that's your problem, too.
> >
> >Happy Solstice!
>
> Ended 3 days before Dec 25.

So? The days keep getting longer.

[Andrew]

"hypatiab7" wrote in message news:9f41198d-d10e-4ae0...@googlegroups.com...

Explain how you would decide if you had no criteria to do so?

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 1:01:16 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "MarkA" wrote in message news:pan.2015.12...@somewhere.invalid...

> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
> >> to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
> >> evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
> >> would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.
> >

> > An interesting question. For an atheist, such as myself, to specify what
> > evidence of a Creator I would find convincing, you would have to define
> > some of the characteristics of said Creator.
>

> This is obfuscation because the basic characteristics are self evident.
>

> > If one of the characteristics were that it was "supernatural",
>
> A Creator to us would be supernatural, but not so to Himself.
>
> If there were a Creator, it would be natural for Him to Create..
>
> > it raises the problem of defining what supernatural means, and how
> > we can distinguish a natural phenomenon that we don't understand
> > versus a phenomenon that defies the Laws of Nature.
>
> In my question, the phenomena are assumed to be existent in
> the Creation. The question is how can we know if there was
> a Creator. Evidence is what you need to answer the question,
> but there needs to be criteria for evidence to be acceptable.

I don't see any way of convincing me that your 'Creator' exists.
In fact, the only way would have to be that Creator (if it existed)
making me believe it against my will. Otherwise, I would always
think it is aliens who have evolved more than we have but haven't
reached full maturity. I know you religious nutters can't accept this.
Too bad.

[Ted&Alice]

Andrew wrote:

> "Ted&Alice" wrote in message
> news:uc3t7bpck11irssht...@4ax.com...
>
> > Science can bring fire down from the sky,
>
> The military does it often.
>

How do they do it? By praying to your god, or by relying on the
technology developed as a result of scientific progress ...

> > and science can explain life's origins,
>
> Not without taking you on a trip
> deep into the realm of fantasy.
>

... which you fucktards reject?

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 1:01:16 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "MarkA" wrote in message news:pan.2015.12...@somewhere.invalid...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
> >> to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
> >> evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
> >> would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.
> >
> > An interesting question. For an atheist, such as myself, to specify what
> > evidence of a Creator I would find convincing, you would have to define
> > some of the characteristics of said Creator.
>
> This is obfuscation because the basic characteristics are self evident.

It's not obfuscation. Some of you guys believe your god is a Santa-bearded
old guy who sits on a gold throne in a fantasyland called Heaven. Others believe he is invisible and has no form. Please make up your minds! There
is no such thing as 'supernatural'. If something exists, it is natural.
Good or bad have nothing to do with this.

>
> > If one of the characteristics were that it was "supernatural",
>
> A Creator to us would be supernatural, but not so to Himself.
>
> If there were a Creator, it would be natural for Him to Create..
>
> > it raises the problem of defining what supernatural means, and how
> > we can distinguish a natural phenomenon that we don't understand
> > versus a phenomenon that defies the Laws of Nature.
>
> In my question, the phenomena are assumed to be existent in
> the Creation. The question is how can we know if there was
> a Creator. Evidence is what you need to answer the question,
> but there needs to be criteria for evidence to be acceptable.

Which has to be posited by theists, since they are the believers.
And we atheists would determine whether or not it is acceptable.
For atheists to say what would be acceptable evidence would mean
that we already believe. That's what Andrew wants us to do.

Andrew has been told this several times. He simply doesn't understand
or doesn't want to.

[hypatiab7]

No good at all. It's from the Bible which we don't accept, as you
already know. Nothing to thank you for. As usual, you're wrong.
It's why you keep running away, Mr. Non-Elect. The voices in your
head never did help you. They're all just you.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-5, duke wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2015 01:15:40 GMT, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
> >> to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
> >> evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
> >> would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lol!
> >
> >An interesting question. For an atheist, such as myself, to specify what
> >evidence of a Creator I would find convincing, you would have to define
> >some of the characteristics of said Creator.
>
> Creator of all things starting with the universe.

What if this isn't the only Universe? Does that mean there's more than
one god? Or is it one god laying Universe eggs all over the place? You
never could answer this.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:42:37 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> <jackpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c2b403ea-137b-4091...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > The prediction of an event.
>
> Here's eight, all that were fulfilled to the letter http://alturl.com/xx94r

It's all Biblical nonsense which Andyroo knows we don't believe in. Mythology.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:44:12 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "Mike" wrote in message news:943b6aaa-e720-4d9e...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > Very simple Andrew. If God exists and wants all to know it he could rearrange
> > a bunch of bright stars in the sky to write out a message such as "Jesus saves",
> > or "Repent sinners", or "Shiva loves you" or whatever. Provided others around
> > me saw it too and assured me I was not hallucinating, I would feel convinced
> > that there exists either a Supreme Being or extraordinarily advanced aliens with
> > a strange sense of humor.
>
> You fail to see that the very stars themselves are evidence.

Only of themselves. No Creator needed. If you know anything about astronomy,
you'd realize this. Try learning something about the Big Bang and how stars
are naturally created.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 12:42:02 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 9:35:15 AM UTC-8, Tim wrote:
> > "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
> > news:ivit7b5rrej8ts2ug...@4ax.com...
> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>

> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> > >>is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> > >>would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> > >>answer, because they know that they would be faced
> > >>with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> > >>faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> > >>speechless.
> > >

> > > If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then it both knows what
> > > sort of evidence it would take to convince atheists that it exists,

> > > and is able to produce it. The fact that there are atheists at all
> > > shows that this hasn't happened. Let's consider the possibilities as
> > > to why:
> > >

> > > 1) It is not omniscient (ie: it doesn't know what evidence would
> > > convince atheists).
> > >
> > > 2) It is not omnipotent (ie: it is unable to do so).
> > >
> > > 3) Both 1 and 2, making it not much of a deity, really.
> > >
> > > 4) It doesn't care whether or not atheists believe in it.
> > >
> > > 5) It doesn't want atheists to believe in it.
> > >
> > > 6) It doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > Which is the simplest explanation?
> >

> > For Andrew it isn't a matter of simple explanation, it's a matter of simply
> > running away.
>
> for you it's simply for being disgruntled

IOW, you have no response, just stupidity.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 12:35:52 PM UTC-5, Robert Duncan wrote:

> On 12/26/2015 12:29 PM, raven1 wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator,
> >> is for them to please specify the exact "criteria that they
> >> would require" for the evidence to be....but they never
> >> answer, because they know that they would be faced
> >> with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> >> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and
> >> speechless.
> >
> > If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then it both knows what
> > sort of evidence it would take to convince atheists that it exists,
> > and is able to produce it. The fact that there are atheists at all
> > shows that this hasn't happened. Let's consider the possibilities as
> > to why:
> >
> > 1) It is not omniscient (ie: it doesn't know what evidence would
> > convince atheists).
> >
> > 2) It is not omnipotent (ie: it is unable to do so).
> >
> > 3) Both 1 and 2, making it not much of a deity, really.
> >
> > 4) It doesn't care whether or not atheists believe in it.
> >
> > 5) It doesn't want atheists to believe in it.
> >
> > 6) It doesn't exist.
> >
> > Which is the simplest explanation?
>

> Uhhh....I think I'll choose Door Number 5, Monty.

Another idiot with no response.

[Smiler]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:02:22 -0500, Robert Duncan wrote:

> On 12/26/2015 12:53 PM, MarkA wrote:
>
>> It all boils down to this: any argument in favor of a supernatural,
>> creator god is an argument from ignorance.
>
> No. I've got a much simpler solution.

From a much simpler mind.

> God,

That would be the god for which you have no evidence.

<snip gibberish>

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

[Smiler]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:45:02 -0800, Andrew wrote:

> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
> to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
> evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
> would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.

Simply show us the objective evidence that persuaded you that your
supposed god character exists.

By not doing so, you are admitting that you believe without any evidence
whatsoever and that you are a gullible moron.

Pst! Wanna buy a bridge?

[talishi]

Smiler wrote:
> That would be the god for which you have no evidence.

Is there any other kind of god?

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 4:39:49 PM UTC-8, Smiler wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:02:22 -0500, Robert Duncan wrote:
>
> > On 12/26/2015 12:53 PM, MarkA wrote:
> >
> >> It all boils down to this: any argument in favor of a supernatural,
> >> creator god is an argument from ignorance.
> >
> > No. I've got a much simpler solution.
>
> From a much simpler mind.
>
> > God,
>
> That would be the god for which you have no evidence.

what marks on the earth would you consider evidence?

[Smiler]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:42:07 -0800, Andrew wrote:

> "hypatiab7" wrote in message

> news:4dbed562-7f8c-47c1...@googlegroups.com...

>> Andrew wrote:
>>> My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
>>> to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
>>> evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
>>> would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>>> faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.
>>

>> You loose. This has already been explained to you. You just refuse to
>> accept it. That's your problem, not ours. And,
>> if you can't understand the answer, that's your problem, too.
>
> Still, no criteria you have for the evidence to be acceptable.
>
> You like to ask for "evidence", but you have no clue as to what evidence
> should be that would be acceptable to you.
>
>> Happy Solstice!
>
> "The winter solstice is a holiday dedicated to Satan himself.

Another supposed Christian outs himself as a Satanist.
You believe in Satan. We don't!

> The winter solstice is the shortest day/longest night of the year, while
> the summer solstice (dedicated to Lucifer, "the light bearer", "Son of
> the Morning") is the longest day/shortest night of the year. Many
> victims of Satanic Ritual Abuse and MK programming are tortured and
> forced to participate in grotesque acts of abomination from December
> 21st -
> December 23rd, when Satanists celebrate X-Mas."
> http://alturl.com/hwwb2

The pentacle in your basement awaits, Satanist.

[Robert Duncan]

On 12/26/2015 5:17 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:

> For atheists to say what would be acceptable evidence would mean
> that we already believe.

No. For atheists to claim that there is no evidence for a
supernatural being means they must already have some idea,
however vague, of what would be accepted by them as evidence.

Unless you are able to tell us what that acceptable evidence is,
then
you cannot make the claim that there is no evidence.

You would be contradicting yourself if you did.

[Smiler]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 04:44:10 -0800, Andrew wrote:

> "Mike" wrote in message
> news:943b6aaa-e720-4d9e...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> Very simple Andrew. If God exists and wants all to know it he could
>> rearrange a bunch of bright stars in the sky to write out a message
>> such as "Jesus saves",
>> or "Repent sinners", or "Shiva loves you" or whatever. Provided others
>> around me saw it too and assured me I was not hallucinating, I would
>> feel convinced that there exists either a Supreme Being or
>> extraordinarily advanced aliens with a strange sense of humor.
>
> You fail to see that the very stars themselves are evidence.

They are evidence for stars and nothing else.

[Robert Duncan]

On 12/26/2015 5:28 PM, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 1:02:25 PM UTC-5, Robert Duncan wrote:
>> On 12/26/2015 12:53 PM, MarkA wrote:
>>
>>> It all boils down to this: any argument in favor of a supernatural,
>>> creator god is an argument from ignorance.
>>
>> No. I've got a much simpler solution.
>>
>> God, in his Book, Romans 9:18, very clearly states that he has
>> mercy on some humans, and he withholds his mercy from the rest.
>>
>> By not giving you the "evidence" that he gives to some of us, he
>> is withholding his mercy from you.
>>
>> See how simple that is?
>>
>> You're welcome.
>

> No good at all. It's from the Bible which we don't accept.

Then you are contradicting yourself when you claim there is no
evidence.

You're not interested in discovering evidence, otherwise you
would at least investigate to see if the Bible might indeed be
the Word of God. But you don't do that. All you say is you don't
accept the Bible. So your claim that there is no evidence is
thereby nullified.

You're welcome.

[Smiler]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:10:00 -0800, Andrew wrote:

> "raven1" wrote in message
> news:ivit7b5rrej8ts2ug...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>My question to those who ask for *evidence* for a Creator, is for them
>>>to please specify the exact "criteria that they would require" for the
>>>evidence to be....but they never answer, because they know that they
>>>would be faced with positive evidence that they would rather not be
>>>faced with, which is why they remain stumped and speechless.
>>
>> If there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then it both knows what
>> sort of evidence it would take to convince atheists that it exists,
>
> The evidence is there for the honest seeker for truth.

Just as the evidence for leprechauns is there for the honest seeker for

truth.

> But if for personal philosophical reasons one does not want the truth,
> then no evidence would avail to break through to their stubborn and
> rebellious heart.

Yep. No amount of evidence for leprechauns would convince you.

>> and is able to produce it.
>
> The question is what is the criteria you would use to evaluate evidence
> that portends to point to there being a Creator.

The question is what is the criteria you would use to evaluate evidence

that portends to point to there being leprechauns?

> This is the question that always stumps atheists.

This is the question that always stumps non-leprechaunists.

> They respond with obfuscation, evasion and insult.

They respond by running away.

>> The fact that there are atheists at all shows that this hasn't
>> happened.
>
> Not due to any lack of evidence.

Which you are unable to show us. Did the dog eat it?

>> Let's consider the possibilities as to why:
>
> This was explained to you above.

This was lamely excused above.

>> 1) It is not omniscient (ie: it doesn't know what evidence would
>> convince atheists).
>>
>> 2) It is not omnipotent (ie: it is unable to do so).
>>
>> 3) Both 1 and 2, making it not much of a deity, really.
>>
>> 4) It doesn't care whether or not atheists believe in it.
>>
>> 5) It doesn't want atheists to believe in it.
>>
>> 6) It doesn't exist.
>>
>> Which is the simplest explanation?
>
> The simplest explanation seems to be that there are those who for
> personal philosophical reasons do not want the truth, therefore no
> evidence will avail to break through to their stubborn and rebellious
> hearts. Thanks.

The simplest explanation seems to be that there are those who for personal

philosophical reasons do not want the truth about leprechauns, therefore

no evidence will avail to break through to their stubborn and rebellious
hearts. Thanks.

[Robert Duncan]

On 12/26/2015 7:39 PM, Smiler wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:02:22 -0500, Robert Duncan wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2015 12:53 PM, MarkA wrote:
>>
>>> It all boils down to this: any argument in favor of a supernatural,
>>> creator god is an argument from ignorance.
>>
>> No. I've got a much simpler solution.
>
> From a much simpler mind.
>
>> God,
>
> That would be the god for which you have no evidence.
>

See? You're already wrong.

That's the God that *you* have no evidence for.

Got it?

Idiot.

[Robert Duncan]

No. You're the idiot who cannot understand what you read.

Number 5 above says God doesn't want you to believe he exists.

Did you understand that, you idiot?

Did you graduate High School?

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 8:44:12 PM UTC+8, Andrew wrote:
> "Mike" wrote in message news:943b6aaa-e720-4d9e...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > Very simple Andrew. If God exists and wants all to know it he could rearrange
> > a bunch of bright stars in the sky to write out a message such as "Jesus saves",
> > or "Repent sinners", or "Shiva loves you" or whatever. Provided others around
> > me saw it too and assured me I was not hallucinating, I would feel convinced
> > that there exists either a Supreme Being or extraordinarily advanced aliens with
> > a strange sense of humor.
>
> You fail to see that the very stars themselves are evidence.

Trying to avoid what constitutes an evident is apparent from your reply all the time. Theists are never honest people, even to themselves....

Go away.

[Andrew]

"Ted&Alice" wrote in message news:91jnqi....@news.alt.net...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Ted&Alice" wrote:
>> > Science can bring fire down from the sky,
>>
>> The military does it often.
>
> How do they do it? By praying to your god, or by relying on the
> technology developed as a result of scientific progress ...
>
>> > and science can explain life's origins,
>>
>> Not without taking you on a trip
>> deep into the realm of fantasy.
>
> ... which you fucktards reject?

Reject fantasy? Yes, because we are
not so gullible to accept foolishness.

Whereas the gullible masses believe
whatever they are told.

Why? because they are gullible.

[nature bats last]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:10:41 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Ted&Alice" wrote in message news:91jnqi....@news.alt.net...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Ted&Alice" wrote:
> >> > Science can bring fire down from the sky,
> >>
> >> The military does it often.
> >
> > How do they do it? By praying to your god, or by relying on the
> > technology developed as a result of scientific progress ...
> >
> >> > and science can explain life's origins,
> >>
> >> Not without taking you on a trip
> >> deep into the realm of fantasy.
> >
> > ... which you fucktards reject?
>
> Reject fantasy? Yes, because we are
> not so gullible to accept foolishness.
>

.> Whereas the gullible masses believe
.> whatever they are told.

.> Why? because they are gullible.

Do tell us more about the Illuminati and MK Ultra
you quoted at us before...




Seth

[talishi]

Robert Duncan wrote:
> No. For atheists to claim that there is no evidence for a
> supernatural being means they must already have some idea,
> however vague, of what would be accepted by them as evidence.

An interior conviction of the truth of stories in a book is not
admissible as evidence. And that is all you have.

[Robert Duncan]

Let's see you prove that assertion.

Without any proof, that's just your opinion.

And that's all you have, you idiot.

[Ted&Alice]

Whew, that's a relief. Thanks for letting me know I shouldn't waste any
time taking you seriously.

[Ted&Alice]

Andrew wrote:

> "Ted&Alice" wrote in message news:91jnqi....@news.alt.net...
> > Andrew wrote:
> > > "Ted&Alice" wrote:
> >>> Science can bring fire down from the sky,
> > >
> > > The military does it often.
> >
> > How do they do it? By praying to your god, or by relying on the
> > technology developed as a result of scientific progress ...
> >
> >>> and science can explain life's origins,
> > >
> > > Not without taking you on a trip
> > > deep into the realm of fantasy.
> >
> > ... which you fucktards reject?
>
> Reject fantasy? Yes,

Since your reasoning ability is obviously severely impaired, I'll try
to make it even more simple for you:

Scientific progress has been proven capable of raining fire down from
the sky, while your god is utterly INcapable of same.

IOW, the criterion in 1 Kings 18.
In YOUR Bible.
Which YOU say is God's word.

Get it now? Or are you still too fucking dense? (or too fucking
dishonest)

[Robert Duncan]

On 12/26/2015 10:59 PM, Ted&Alice wrote:
> Robert Duncan wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2015 9:59 PM, talishi wrote:
>>> Robert Duncan wrote:
>>>> No. For atheists to claim that there is no evidence for a
>>>> supernatural being means they must already have some idea,
>>>> however vague, of what would be accepted by them as evidence.
>>>>

>>>> Unless you are able to tell us what that acceptable evidence is,
>>>> then you cannot make the claim that there is no evidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You would be contradicting yourself if you did.
>>>>

>>> An interior conviction of the truth of stories in a book is not
>>> admissible as evidence. And that is all you have.
>>
>> Let's see you prove that assertion.
>>
>> Without any proof, that's just your opinion.
>>
>> And that's all you have, you idiot.
>
> Whew, that's a relief. Thanks for letting me know I shouldn't waste any
> time taking you seriously.

Sure. Any time, Ted.

Or, are you Alice?

Idiot.

<smirk>

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 8:18:23 PM UTC-8, Ted&Alice wrote:
>

when shall you reject fantasy? enough of these proto-cells and monkey men.

[hypatiab7]

Nothing to thank you for again. What you consider evidence atheists do not
consider evidence. Everything you've posted in alt.atheism is real only to
you. My claim is thereby NOT nullified. You've been told over and over that whatever you post as evidence has to be acceptable to us or it is worthless.
I also keep telling you that you have to come up with some kind of new
evidence. The old evidence has been repeatedly disproved.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

prove that you have a leg of lamb

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:50:33 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 4:39:49 PM UTC-8, Smiler wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:02:22 -0500, Robert Duncan wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/26/2015 12:53 PM, MarkA wrote:
> > >
> > >> It all boils down to this: any argument in favor of a supernatural,
> > >> creator god is an argument from ignorance.
> > >
> > > No. I've got a much simpler solution.
> >
> > From a much simpler mind.
> >
> > > God,
> >
> > That would be the god for which you have no evidence.
>
> what marks on the earth would you consider evidence?

This been explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over.
That was fun! You must have a very short memory. You're young but altzheimers
can hit at any age. I'm not going to explain it to you again. You don't want
to understand because it isn't the answer you want. Tough.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

they never give an answer, but rather talk about personal visitations, on demand.

[hypatiab7]

You do now that people who are deliberately annoying have very low self-esteem.
That and your fear of death make you one messed up Christer.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

low self-esteem may or may not be a deterrent in positive human interaction. Much high self-esteem can be very destructive.