🚀 go-pugleaf

On 3/30/2012 1:12 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>
>> Sorry - but I am smart enough to Go to snopes when I see a
>> quesionable article
>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp
>
>> And according to their interpretation of the actual events - they
>> say the report is essnetially accurate
>
> It isn't and it doesn't say that.
>
> Theo
>
>

This posting was a separate issue - if you read my posting about it - it 
was a deliberate action of mine based on the actions of Felix Unger

He asked - What would an atheist consider proof of the existence of a 
god - why do they NEVER answer that question

I did answer it - he snipped my answer three times - and then also 
mentioned MY name specifically as having not answered


AND each time - it is in the thread - I answered the same

THE god - in person - proving itself and its powers  (Probably not word 
for word)

ANd in fact - that is the ONLY way to prove the existence of a god.

THERE were those who said - regrow the limbs on a person - but that is 
NOT proof of a god - because it only shows ONE power - and fails to 
support the rest of the tales of religions - like heaven - hell - etc.

SO - he decided to take the theists position -  when he decided to quote 
the bible - SEEK and ye shall find - as PROOF of the existence of that 
god - (???????) I called him on that - but then he decided to deny he 
believed in a god -


He is all over the map with his claims

SO I decided to do the same to him

Sorry you got in in the last stages

"ThomMadura"  wrote
> On 3/30/2012 2:24 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>"ThomMadura"  wrote
>
>>> THE world is split among people who take your side and mine - And 
>>> I
>>> have had enough training (I have three medical degrees) - to make 
>>> MY
>>> own decision - AND I say that science does PROVE things
>
>> And yet you are reluctant to provide evidence of your alleged
>> qualifications.

> I see none of YOUR qualifications announced - and certainly I am not 
> going to get them from Felix Unger as well.

Have you asked me? Have I claimed to be something in particular? Has 
Pete? Have you asked him?

> YET _ they have announced their education and job as well.

Who is _they?

I finished high school in 1960 and worked for NCR, first as a cash 
register mechanic and subsequently as a senior computer engineer. Do 
you wish me to prove that?  I have my high school certificate and my 
London and US computer training certificates still.

I'm involved in a number of volunteer organisations. Do you wish me to 
prove that? I have a life membership certificate  from WAALC, the West 
Australian Adult Literacy Council. They have a website with my name on 
it. I have had several photos in the local paper in my fireman's 
outfit and get a few mentions on the Chittering Fire Brigades website. 
I can show you my certificate for 250 blood donations, and my lapel 
badge for 500.

But you appear to be ashamed of your doctorate from Trepanation U.

You claim that you came to Australia with your team, Queensland I 
think, and performed an operation that had never been performed here 
before. It was not in the news and you refuse to provide any details. 
If anyone said this, would you believe them? You might as well expect 
me to believe in gods.

I think you're a fake.

Theo

On 3/30/2012 1:39 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "felix_unger"  wrote in message
> news:9tkc0mFvc1U3@mid.individual.net...
>> On 30-March-2012 7:33 AM, ThomMad wrote:
>
>>> While I agree with your statement - I also know who I was posting
>>> to (DUKE)
>
>> here's a heads up for doctors who have difficulty with facts..
>> you're posting to unmoderated newsgroups.
>
> There's no proof that Thommo is a doctor either. He has been asked to
> verify his doctor claim on many occasions and has failed to provide
> any evidence, or proof.


And there is NO proof that sbalneav is a Computer Administrator
THERE is no proof that felix unger is from ausralia

And there is NO proof you were ever gainfully employed as well

IF you want that - you are in the wrong arena

On 3/30/2012 8:44 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>> On 3/30/2012 2:24 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>>
>>>> THE world is split among people who take your side and mine - And
>>>> I
>>>> have had enough training (I have three medical degrees) - to make
>>>> MY
>>>> own decision - AND I say that science does PROVE things
>>
>>> And yet you are reluctant to provide evidence of your alleged
>>> qualifications.
>
>> I see none of YOUR qualifications announced - and certainly I am not
>> going to get them from Felix Unger as well.
>
> Have you asked me? Have I claimed to be something in particular? Has
> Pete? Have you asked him?
>
>> YET _ they have announced their education and job as well.
>
> Who is _they?
>
> I finished high school in 1960 and worked for NCR, first as a cash
> register mechanic and subsequently as a senior computer engineer. Do
> you wish me to prove that?  I have my high school certificate and my
> London and US computer training certificates still.
>
> I'm involved in a number of volunteer organisations. Do you wish me to
> prove that? I have a life membership certificate  from WAALC, the West
> Australian Adult Literacy Council. They have a website with my name on
> it. I have had several photos in the local paper in my fireman's
> outfit and get a few mentions on the Chittering Fire Brigades website.
> I can show you my certificate for 250 blood donations, and my lapel
> badge for 500.


IF you intend to expose your entire life to the world - by all means do 
so - do not let me stop you -why not include a list of all your female 
conquests as well.

WHy not include enough information so that people can steal your 
identity as well.

On 3/30/2012 8:44 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>> On 3/30/2012 2:24 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>>
>>>> THE world is split among people who take your side and mine - And
>>>> I
>>>> have had enough training (I have three medical degrees) - to make
>>>> MY
>>>> own decision - AND I say that science does PROVE things
>>
>>> And yet you are reluctant to provide evidence of your alleged
>>> qualifications.
>
>> I see none of YOUR qualifications announced - and certainly I am not
>> going to get them from Felix Unger as well.
>
> Have you asked me?


Actually _ I did - once -

AND you put me off -



  Have I claimed to be something in particular? Has
> Pete? Have you asked him?


Who is PETE?

Does he use that name posting?


>
>> YET _ they have announced their education and job as well.
>
> Who is _they?
>
> I finished high school in 1960 and worked for NCR, first as a cash
> register mechanic and subsequently as a senior computer engineer. Do
> you wish me to prove that?  I have my high school certificate and my
> London and US computer training certificates still.
>
> I'm involved in a number of volunteer organisations. Do you wish me to
> prove that? I have a life membership certificate  from WAALC, the West
> Australian Adult Literacy Council. They have a website with my name on
> it. I have had several photos in the local paper in my fireman's
> outfit and get a few mentions on the Chittering Fire Brigades website.
> I can show you my certificate for 250 blood donations, and my lapel
> badge for 500.

I have no reason to see your certificates or badges

A savvy computer person can make up fakes in a jiffy - and YOU claim to 
be that. THAT sites have a name similar to yours - also does not mean it 
is YOU as well.


I am simply one of the majority of usenet users whose personal 
information is not public - and that is the way It will stay

If YOU think I am a fake - you have NO proof of that.

On 30-March-2012 11:04 PM, ThomMadura wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 4:59 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 30-March-2012 6:39 PM, ThomMad wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/29/2012 8:00 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> On 30-March-2012 3:55 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In alt.atheism ThomMadura<Tommadura@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2012 11:13 PM, sbalneav wrote:>> - And I have
>>>>>>>> had enough training (I have three medical degrees)
>>>>>>> Argument from authority. And if you haven't got this shit right, 
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> dude, tell me where you practice, and I'll make sure I never
>>>>>>> freaking go
>>>>>>> there on the off chance I may end up sick and you treat me. 'Cuz
>>>>>>> brother, if you can't get THIS right, I wouldn't trust you with a
>>>>>>> dull
>>>>>>> tongue depressor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT's fine with me - YOU could NOT afford me to be YOUR doctor -
>>>>>> and I
>>>>>> hope you never have the maladies I perform surgery on.
>>>>> You've got no basis to judge what I can afford and what I can't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact - as a DOCTOR -
>>>>> This is only something you've asserted, you've provided no bona
>>>>> fides or
>>>>> any evidence at all. I haven't granted your assertion.
>>>>
>>>> and neither have I. It's *extremely* difficult to believe that any
>>>> doctor, let alone a surgeon, after having been told THREE times that I
>>>> did not say something, but was quoting from a web page HE provided,
>>>> would be silly enough to dispute and argue about it, when the evidence
>>>> is plainly infront of him on the very same website he provided, unless
>>>> of course he's being dishonest and utilising some agenda or purpose 
>>>> not
>>>> obvious. I also would be very concerned about such a person 
>>>> operating on
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am doing to Felix Unger EXACTLY what he did to me - when He asked
>>> the questions (Not exactly) =- WHat would you require to PROVE that
>>> god exists. HE tried to imply that Non-believers would not answer the
>>> question
>>>
>>> I answered the question three times in the thread -
>>> EACH TIME he SNIPPED my answer - and continued to ask the question -
>>> without response to MY answer
>>>
>>> My answer - the god - front and center PROVING ITS OWN existence
>>
>> I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>
> SNIP CRAP
>
> OF course not - YOU are just basically dishonest
>
> WHich is WHY  I treated YOU that way
>
>

LOL! I asked you to put up, and you shut up. what a fake you are! lying 
cunt!

On 30-March-2012 11:23 PM, ThomMadura wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 2:24 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>>
>>> THE world is split among people who take your side and mine - And I
>>> have had enough training (I have three medical degrees) - to make MY
>>> own decision - AND I say that science does PROVE things
>>
>> And yet you are reluctant to provide evidence of your alleged
>> qualifications.
>
>
> I see none of YOUR qualifications announced - and certainly I am not 
> going to get them from Felix Unger as well.
>
> YET _ they have announced their education and job as well.
>
>

They? whose they? Theo and I? didn't you just say Theo HASN'T announced 
any? and I haven't. do you ever make sense?? do you EVER tell the truth??

On 3/30/2012 9:24 AM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 30-March-2012 11:04 PM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> On 3/30/2012 4:59 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 30-March-2012 6:39 PM, ThomMad wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/29/2012 8:00 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>> On 30-March-2012 3:55 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In alt.atheism ThomMadura<Tommadura@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2012 11:13 PM, sbalneav wrote:>> - And I have
>>>>>>>>> had enough training (I have three medical degrees)
>>>>>>>> Argument from authority. And if you haven't got this shit right,
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> dude, tell me where you practice, and I'll make sure I never
>>>>>>>> freaking go
>>>>>>>> there on the off chance I may end up sick and you treat me. 'Cuz
>>>>>>>> brother, if you can't get THIS right, I wouldn't trust you with a
>>>>>>>> dull
>>>>>>>> tongue depressor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT's fine with me - YOU could NOT afford me to be YOUR doctor -
>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>> hope you never have the maladies I perform surgery on.
>>>>>> You've got no basis to judge what I can afford and what I can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact - as a DOCTOR -
>>>>>> This is only something you've asserted, you've provided no bona
>>>>>> fides or
>>>>>> any evidence at all. I haven't granted your assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> and neither have I. It's *extremely* difficult to believe that any
>>>>> doctor, let alone a surgeon, after having been told THREE times that I
>>>>> did not say something, but was quoting from a web page HE provided,
>>>>> would be silly enough to dispute and argue about it, when the evidence
>>>>> is plainly infront of him on the very same website he provided, unless
>>>>> of course he's being dishonest and utilising some agenda or purpose
>>>>> not
>>>>> obvious. I also would be very concerned about such a person
>>>>> operating on
>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am doing to Felix Unger EXACTLY what he did to me - when He asked
>>>> the questions (Not exactly) =- WHat would you require to PROVE that
>>>> god exists. HE tried to imply that Non-believers would not answer the
>>>> question
>>>>
>>>> I answered the question three times in the thread -
>>>> EACH TIME he SNIPPED my answer - and continued to ask the question -
>>>> without response to MY answer
>>>>
>>>> My answer - the god - front and center PROVING ITS OWN existence
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
>>
>> SNIP CRAP
>>
>> OF course not - YOU are just basically dishonest
>>
>> WHich is WHY I treated YOU that way
>>
>>
>
> LOL! I asked you to put up, and you shut up.


WHY would I have to LISTEN TO YOU

YOU are again basically dishonest in your posts

On 3/30/2012 9:31 AM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 30-March-2012 11:23 PM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> On 3/30/2012 2:24 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "ThomMadura" wrote
>>>
>>>> THE world is split among people who take your side and mine - And I
>>>> have had enough training (I have three medical degrees) - to make MY
>>>> own decision - AND I say that science does PROVE things
>>>
>>> And yet you are reluctant to provide evidence of your alleged
>>> qualifications.
>>
>>
>> I see none of YOUR qualifications announced - and certainly I am not
>> going to get them from Felix Unger as well.
>>
>> YET _ they have announced their education and job as well.
>>
>>
>
> They? whose they? Theo and I?


Didn't need to ask YOU

WHY would an intelligent person - ask an obvious anonymous name for any 
information


Do you ever think?

On 30-March-2012 11:33 PM, ThomMad- as a hatter wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 1:12 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>>
>>> Sorry - but I am smart enough to Go to snopes when I see a
>>> quesionable article
>>
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp
>>
>>> And according to their interpretation of the actual events - they
>>> say the report is essnetially accurate
>>
>> It isn't and it doesn't say that.
>>
>> Theo
>>
>>
>
> This posting was a separate issue - if you read my posting about it - 
> it was a deliberate action of mine based on the actions of Felix Unger
>
> He asked - What would an atheist consider proof of the existence of a 
> god - why do they NEVER answer that question
>
> I did answer it - he snipped my answer three times - and then also 
> mentioned MY name specifically as having not answered
>
>
> AND each time - it is in the thread - I answered the same
>
> THE god - in person - proving itself and its powers  (Probably not 
> word for word)
>
> ANd in fact - that is the ONLY way to prove the existence of a god.
>
> THERE were those who said - regrow the limbs on a person - but that is 
> NOT proof of a god - because it only shows ONE power - and fails to 
> support the rest of the tales of religions - like heaven - hell - etc.
>
> SO - he decided to take the theists position -  when he decided to 
> quote the bible - SEEK and ye shall find - as PROOF of the existence 
> of that god - (???????) I called him on that - but then he decided to 
> deny he believed in a god -
>
>
> He is all over the map with his claims
>
> SO I decided to do the same to him
>
> Sorry you got in in the last stages
>
>

yet you wont supply the posts to support your claims. just as you won't 
state your medical qualifications. strange that, isn't it.

On 30-March-2012 11:45 PM, ThomMadura wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 1:39 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> "felix_unger"  wrote in message
>> news:9tkc0mFvc1U3@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 30-March-2012 7:33 AM, ThomMad wrote:
>>
>>>> While I agree with your statement - I also know who I was posting
>>>> to (DUKE)
>>
>>> here's a heads up for doctors who have difficulty with facts..
>>> you're posting to unmoderated newsgroups.
>>
>> There's no proof that Thommo is a doctor either. He has been asked to
>> verify his doctor claim on many occasions and has failed to provide
>> any evidence, or proof.
>
>
> And there is NO proof that sbalneav is a Computer Administrator
> THERE is no proof that felix unger is from ausralia
>
> And there is NO proof you were ever gainfully employed as well
>
> IF you want that - you are in the wrong arena

there's lots of evidence you're a crackpot

On 31-March-2012 12:19 AM, ThomMadura wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 8:44 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>>> On 3/30/2012 2:24 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>>>
>>>>> THE world is split among people who take your side and mine - And
>>>>> I
>>>>> have had enough training (I have three medical degrees) - to make
>>>>> MY
>>>>> own decision - AND I say that science does PROVE things
>>>
>>>> And yet you are reluctant to provide evidence of your alleged
>>>> qualifications.
>>
>>> I see none of YOUR qualifications announced - and certainly I am not
>>> going to get them from Felix Unger as well.
>>
>> Have you asked me?
>
>
> Actually _ I did - once -
>
> AND you put me off -
>
>
>  Have I claimed to be something in particular? Has
>> Pete? Have you asked him?
>
>
> Who is PETE?
>
> Does he use that name posting?
>

what an idiot!

>
>>
>>> YET _ they have announced their education and job as well.
>>
>> Who is _they?
>>
>> I finished high school in 1960 and worked for NCR, first as a cash
>> register mechanic and subsequently as a senior computer engineer. Do
>> you wish me to prove that?  I have my high school certificate and my
>> London and US computer training certificates still.
>>
>> I'm involved in a number of volunteer organisations. Do you wish me to
>> prove that? I have a life membership certificate  from WAALC, the West
>> Australian Adult Literacy Council. They have a website with my name on
>> it. I have had several photos in the local paper in my fireman's
>> outfit and get a few mentions on the Chittering Fire Brigades website.
>> I can show you my certificate for 250 blood donations, and my lapel
>> badge for 500.
>
> I have no reason to see your certificates or badges
>
> A savvy computer person can make up fakes in a jiffy - and YOU claim 
> to be that. THAT sites have a name similar to yours - also does not 
> mean it is YOU as well.

I can vouch for Theo. he is a great guy - for an atheist. (sorry Theo, 
couldn't help myself)

>
>
> I am simply one of the majority of usenet users whose personal 
> information is not public - and that is the way It will stay
>
> If YOU think I am a fake - you have NO proof of that.

but the evidence is mounting by the minute..

On 3/30/2012 9:37 AM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 30-March-2012 11:33 PM, ThomMad- as a hatter wrote:
>
>> On 3/30/2012 1:12 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "ThomMadura" wrote
>>>
>>>> Sorry - but I am smart enough to Go to snopes when I see a
>>>> quesionable article
>>>
>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp
>>>
>>>> And according to their interpretation of the actual events - they
>>>> say the report is essnetially accurate
>>>
>>> It isn't and it doesn't say that.
>>>
>>> Theo
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This posting was a separate issue - if you read my posting about it -
>> it was a deliberate action of mine based on the actions of Felix Unger
>>
>> He asked - What would an atheist consider proof of the existence of a
>> god - why do they NEVER answer that question
>>
>> I did answer it - he snipped my answer three times - and then also
>> mentioned MY name specifically as having not answered
>>
>>
>> AND each time - it is in the thread - I answered the same
>>
>> THE god - in person - proving itself and its powers (Probably not word
>> for word)
>>
>> ANd in fact - that is the ONLY way to prove the existence of a god.
>>
>> THERE were those who said - regrow the limbs on a person - but that is
>> NOT proof of a god - because it only shows ONE power - and fails to
>> support the rest of the tales of religions - like heaven - hell - etc.
>>
>> SO - he decided to take the theists position - when he decided to
>> quote the bible - SEEK and ye shall find - as PROOF of the existence
>> of that god - (???????) I called him on that - but then he decided to
>> deny he believed in a god -
>>
>>
>> He is all over the map with his claims
>>
>> SO I decided to do the same to him
>>
>> Sorry you got in in the last stages
>>
>>
>
> yet you wont supply the posts to support your claims. just as you won't
> state your medical qualifications. strange that, isn't it.
>


Why is that strange?

Most people on the internet do not supply that information

YOU don't use your real name

THIS is a USENET Group for the discussion of the christian Mythology
it YOU want to discuss the number of people on the internet who do not 
provide their personal information - make a group - and start with YOU

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:06:08 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:09:45 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In alt.atheism felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28-March-2012 4:16 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In alt.atheism felix_unger<me@nothere.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>>>>>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>>>>>>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>>>>>>>> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the
>>>>>>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
>>>>>>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall.
>>>>>>> Alright.  I'll bite.  Here's some things that I would consider evidence
>>>>>>> for a deity:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, amputated limbs will re-grow under
>>>>>>> laboratory/test conditions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, the deity can be made to appear in
>>>>>>> a way that can be captured by some measurement device, under laboratory
>>>>>>> conditions. i.e. on film, via voice recording, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, the deity can perform some "miracle"
>>>>>>> currently considered to be impossible by science, under laboratory
>>>>>>> conditions.  i.e. stop the world from turning in such a way that this
>>>>>>> can be measured by satellites, or the like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, a new species of animal can be specially
>>>>>>> created, under laboratory conditions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, a person who had quite definitely been
>>>>>>> judged to be dead, under laboratory conditions, were suddenly brought
>>>>>>> back to life again.  Please note; people drowned in low-temperature
>>>>>>> water and resuscitated don't count here; we know the process by which
>>>>>>> they're brought back, and it's a scientific one.  No, I'm talking about
>>>>>>> someone who's been dead for a nice, appreciable amount of time, and is
>>>>>>> beginning to suffer from tissue decomposition.  The bible documents AT
>>>>>>> LEAST 2 separate instances of this BESIDES the resurrection of Jesus,
>>>>>>> so this should be possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words; some kind of change to objective reality that can be
>>>>>>> measured, recorded, and analyzed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> okay. so we're talking physical proof.
>>>>>
>>>>>Proof's for mathematics.  You don't provide "proof" for anything in reality.
>>>>>You provide *evidence* in reality.  And yes, I want objective evidence.
>>>> 
>>>> And we have evidence galore for that.
>> 
>>>I've asked you several times to provide it.
>> 
>> Evidence is evidence.  It's not proof.  When you can agree with me on what
>> evidence vs proof is, we can go further.  Until you're prepared to agree that
>> "my evidence" is what I see to believe, there is no place for revelation.  

>Evidence is something you can show to someone else.

I CAN show it to you.  But you choose not to accept it because you try to define
what evidence must be - a solid, or a particular color, etc.

>  Your personal revelation
>is fine and dandy for you.  You can't show it to me.  I'd just have to take
>your word for it.  Sorry, I don't.  When I believed, I never got any
>revelation.

Of course you don't have to believe me.   That's your choice, and defines your
future in accordance with our own beliefs.  Just don't expect me to foolishly
follow you.  

>> You've either provided things
>>>that are subjective (your "feelings" about things), or you've pointed to
>>>things in the world and tried to pawn them off as evidence. 
 
>> I don't care.  It's MY evidence.  If you don't find it compelling, that's your
>> problem.  I believe.

>And that's fine.  I'm not telling you not to believe. 

But you have been ridiculing me for belief.  You said previously you'd be glad
to entertain my beliefs.  However, I'm not going for the "that's not evidence"
that's coming from you.   

> You go right ahead and
>believe whatever you want.  But if you're believing things without any
>objective evidence, you've got no way of knowing they're true other than "in
>your heart".  If you don't care what you believe in is actually true, that's
>not MY problem, either.

But I have evidence for my beliefs, and you have zero evidence for there being
no God.  That's the key.  I win, you lose.

>>> Specifically,
>>>ones that are explained by purely natualistic means.  You most certainly
>>>have NOT provided any of the things, or anything like the things, that I
>>>outlined WOULD be evidence.
 
>> See what I mean.  You want to define evidence your way, not my way.  It's MY
>> evidence, not yours.

>The God of the bible doesn't just manifest himself in "feelings" in your heart.

It doesn't???  Since when.  I'm using the evidence,  You have nothing.

>The bible documents him doing things that would leave evidence here in reality
>that we should be able to look at.  When we look for that evidence, we don't
>find it.  The bible also makes promises that God can do things here in reality
>that would leave evidence that we could examine.  He doesn't appear to do those
>things, because we don't see the evidence.

Yet the bible is the historical record of the people that experienced the
biblical event.   That's true for all history.   No man alive today was around
for most of it.  But relies on records prepared form long ago. 

>If all your God ever promised to do was "make people happy" or "give them
>strength" or "give them a reason for living", then fine, feelings is all he
>promises.  He doesn't.  He promises real things.

Really, I didn't know that in your terms and descriptions.  So what are they?

>  He doesn't deliver.  That
>means he's either stopped doing real things like he used to, or, perhaps, just
>plain isn't there.

I say he's provided 100%.  Let's see what you got.

>>>>>Any claim by a person that they have found God simply by seeking and finding
>>>>>is not testable in an objective way.
 
>>>> We who have are greatly joyed.
>>>You who have are indistinguishable from madmen to me.  I have no reason to
>>>believe you're anything else but mistaken, deluded or mentally unbalanced.
>> But infinitely more intelligent than you.
>Even if you were, it wouldn't make you right.  Smart people can be wrong too.

Yet I have my evidence.  You have nothing.  Your only chance is to declare my
evidence not evidence, which is really mine alone to define.

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. 
*****

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:09:25 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:07:58 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>To prove something exists, you need EVIDENCE.
>> 
>> And evidence is evidence, and not necessarily proof.  We can't prove God's
>> existence.

>Besides your personal revelation, which we've established you can't demonstrate
>to me, what evidence do you have that I can examine that God exists?

It's my evidence.  Until you allow me to define evidence by me as I see it, you
have no negotiation to offer.

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. 
*****

On 2012-Mar-30 05:10, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:13:28 -0600, Uirgil<uirgil@uirgil.ur>  wrote:
>
>> In article<hu49n71q99le3udfpsv7jlt29s036vbol3@4ax.com>,
>> duke<duckgumbo32@cox.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:25:41 -0400, ThomMadura<Tommadura@optonline.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However - there is NO reason to believe that the UNIVERSE had do begin 0
>>>> it is just as possible that it always existed
>>>
>>> Of course there is.  You are pushing existence without creation.
>>>
>>> duke, American - American
>>
>> And you are pushing creation without proof.
>
> but with evidence galore.
>
>> There is nor known objective physical evidence supporting the existence
>> of a "Creator" or of any "creation".
>
> Evidence causes one to draw a conclusion.
>
>> Thus any such claims are, at best, speculative!
>
> That's why it's evidence.  Good old court of law.

Until you can actually present some credible verifiable evidence, I 
shall regard your vague claims regarding evidence to be nothing more 
than rhetoric -- after all, it is your burden to prove your claims.

-- 
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Don't pity the dead, pity the living."
    -- Albus Dumbledore

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:20:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:52:32 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:16:07 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In alt.atheism felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and 
>>>>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that 
>>>>>> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the 
>>>>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice, 
>>>>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall.
>>>>>
>>>>>Alright.  I'll bite.  Here's some things that I would consider evidence
>>>>>for a deity:
>>>> 
>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, amputated limbs will re-grow under
>>>>>laboratory/test conditions.
>>>> 
>>>> God doesn't work like that.
>>>
>>>How do you know this?  On what basis do you make this claim?  Why, when the
>>>Catholic faith very specifically talks of an unknowable God who's ways are
>>>mysterious, how can you *definitively* state that God doesn't work like that?
 
>> Because in viewing the history and evidence, God has shown that his selection of
>> human beings as his creation is also selection of a being that has a major fault
>> - to put one's self first before God or others.  The ultimate goal for us is to
>> thus overcome that fault.  We are not God, we just want to play that way.

>That didn't answer the question.  You asserted that God doesn't work a
>particular way.

Well, I said his way is his way, so if you don't like him doing it your way, you
have a problem to overcome.

>  I'm asking how you know that.  Past experiences with a person
>don't dictate their future behaviour.  They CERTAINLY wouldn't in an omnipotent
>deity.

Overcoming our sinfulness is the primary theme written down throughout Holy
Script and Holy Tradition..
 
>>>How do you know?
>>>He used to work like that; the bible supposedly
>>>documents things like this happening.  The sick being healed, blind
>>>men seeing, etc.
 
>> Jesus said that with faith, we could move mountains.  We haven't yet, and hence
>> our faith is not really that strong.

>Was our faith stronger in the past?  Because as I pointed out, things did
>happen in the past, according to the bible.

Do you know anyone that moved mountains?  And I don't mean with dynamite.

>>>> If he did, nobody would die.  But we all do.  He
>>>> didn't make us bulletproof.
 
>>>God, on at least 2 occations separate from the resurrection, caused the
>>>dead to get up and wander around.  God certainly has made people bulletproof
>>>in the past, if you consider the Bible as evidence.
 
>> No bullet proof.  Mat 27:51-53 says that the dead before the cross rose to new
>> life.  Well, maybe that's a spiritual rising rather than a physical rising.

>Now you're just making shit up.  How do you know this interpretation is
>correct?

Because eternal resurrection to the Father in heaven is the documented example
we got from Jesus and the cross.

>> And
>> then again, maybe it's the physical rising in the heavenly kingdom of God.  Who
>> knows?  I don't deal in black magic.

>You're arm waving.  The bible says something and now you're trying to tell me
>it doesn't really say that thing.

WE ..... see the big picture.

>> Jesus said "follow me for eternal life",
>> and so I elect to do so.  I believe.

>But you have no evidence other than your feelings.

And based on all the evidence.

>Have you considered you could be wrong?

At one time when I was 25, I faltered badly.  After about 20 years of that, I
came to realize that I had made a massive mistake before.  And now I couldn't be
happier than I am now with my spiritual life.

>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, the deity can be made to appear in
>>>>>a way that can be captured by some measurement device, under laboratory
>>>>>conditions. i.e. on film, via voice recording, etc.
 
>>>> Yet he only asks for our good judgment to follow his example.   And that example
>>>> is to love one another as he loves us.
>>>>That's a feeling.  We all have feelings.  Not evidence.
 
>> There you go.  Trying to tell me I must use your definitions.
>Please tell me how your feelings are evidence that you can show me.

My feelings are not evidence.  The evidence drives my feelings.

>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, the deity can perform some "miracle"
>>>>>currently considered to be impossible by science, under laboratory
>>>>>conditions.  i.e. stop the world from turning in such a way that this
>>>>>can be measured by satellites, or the like.
>>>> Why are you scared to simply accept God's love?
>>>No evidence he exists.  I'm not scared of the boogey-man either.
 
>> **I** have evidence galore.  I believe.

>Your feelings can't be demonstrated to me.  

That's your problem.  Faith comes to us individually.

>And your feelings could be
>wrong.  If a madman feels he IS Zeus, does that make him Zeus?

Zeus is a picture in a book.

>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, a new species of animal can be specially
>>>>>created, under laboratory conditions.
>>>> 
>>>> What's wrong with his way - over extensive time periods?  You're mandating that
>>>> God think like you.
>>>
>>>According to the bible, he made a whole bunch of stuff in one day.  He's
>>>certainly capable, according to the bible.
 
>> What stuff?
>Plants, for example?

>Gen 1:11
>11 Then God said, ???Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and
>trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various
>kinds.??? And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed
>according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to
>their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there
>was morning???the third day.

No man was around 13.7 or 4.5 billion years ago to witness that.  Genesis 1-11
is not scientific.

>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, a person who had quite definitely been
>>>>>judged to be dead, under laboratory conditions, were suddenly brought
>>>>>back to life again. 
>> 
>>>> End of physical life during our trial period is his way.
>>>Except for Lazarus, and all those dead that issued forth from the tomb during
>>>the passion.  Oh, and Jesus himself, supposedly.
 
>> Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day also.  I believe.

>So it wasn't an end to his physical life then.  Or Lazarus.  Or all those
>zombies who were wandering around.

Well, we Christians accept the resurrection of the flesh in Jesus as example.
Some people think it was his glorified body.  Some people accept it as a
spiritual occurrence.   
> 
>> To simplify this, God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to die on the
>> cross to demonstrate to other flesh love and obedience to God, and hence, on the
>> 3rd day, God raised the flesh to new life as example to man of his future for
>> overcoming selfishness over all other things as our own reward for following
>> Jesus.
 
>> I/we believe.
 
>>>>>> The bible says 'seek and ye 
>>>>>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of 
>>>>>> God's existence?
>>>> 
>>>> We don't have a problem.  You're just a skeptic.
>>>
>>>Yup.  And you're credulous.
>> 
>> And I love it.
>
>Good for you.

Yes, good for me.

>>>>>Because the fact that you claim to have found God simply by seeking and
>>>>>finding is not testable in an objective way.  The claim that you have
>>>>>found God by "seeking and finding" is indistingushable from:
 
>>>> My personal joy of life went up exponentially with God in my life.
>>>Thats fine, my personal joy of life went up exponentially when I realized that
>>>this was the only life I get.

>>>So who wins?
>> Christians that follow Jesus.  That's what the example reflects.. 
>But my feeling of personal joy is far, FAR greater than yours.

But yours is fresh with personal drama, illness, family death, sickness, etc and
said personal joy ends with physical death.   I experience the same physical
shortcomings as you, but I also live my life loving others.  So your's can't by
definition be greater than mine.

>Prove it's not.

Don't have to.  I wouldn't change with you for any reason.

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. 
*****

In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On 2012-Mar-29 20:18, sbalneav wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess<goddess@fidemturbare.com>  wrote:
>>> On 2012-Mar-29 16:51, sbalneav wrote:
>>>> In alt.atheism ThomMadura<Tommadura@optonline.net>   wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2012 6:31 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>> In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess<goddess@fidemturbare.com>    wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2012-Mar-29 12:19, linuxgal wrote:
>>>>>>>> sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tautology. "In the book about our thing, we selected the things that were
>>>>>>>>> about our thing". Well, yeah. That's obvious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Redundant book title: Windows For Dummies
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Unix made easy" could also be a funny title.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a Unix/Linux admin, I take umbrage with that :)
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT - how long did you have to study to learn all the ins and outs of Unix
>>>>
>>>> Crap, I been doing it for over 25 years, and I STILL don't know everything.
>>>
>>> That attitude is usually an indication of high-level expertise.
>>>
>>>>> Would a short pocket book be enough for a NON-computer literate person
>>>>> to learn them?
>>>>
>>>> You did notice the smiley after what I said, right?
>>>
>>> There's an application called "sl" that's fun to install because people
>>> sometimes type it by mistake when they mean "ls" -- here's a picture of
>>> it in action for those who don't have Unix or Linux:
>>>
>>> http://debaday.livejournal.com/22802.html
>>
>> sbalneav@phobos:~$ sudo apt-get install sl
>> [sudo] password for sbalneav:
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> Building dependency tree
>> Reading state information... Done
>> The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required:
>>    libtelepathy-farstream1
>> Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
>> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>>    sl
>> 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>> Need to get 26.9 kB of archives.
>> After this operation, 201 kB of additional disk space will be used.
>> Get:1 http://ca.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/universe sl amd64 3.03-16 [26.9 kB]
>> Fetched 26.9 kB in 0s (28.5 kB/s)
>> Selecting previously unselected package sl.
>> (Reading database ... 410246 files and directories currently installed.)
>> Unpacking sl (from .../archives/sl_3.03-16_amd64.deb) ...
>> Processing triggers for man-db ...
>> Setting up sl (3.03-16) ...
>> sbalneav@phobos:~$ sl
>>
>> Done and done.  Choo Choo!
> 
> That's the one -- it seems you enjoyed it too.
> 
> Now if you really want to have some fun, set it up as an hourly cron job 
> (that changes the minute for the next run randomly) and make sure output 
> goes to the console, particularly in a server farm where the screen is 
> visible to many people who will report it to the admins.

BWAHAHA.

<heads off to server room>

On 3/30/2012 11:46 AM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:09:25 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav<sbalneav@alburg.net>  wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism duke<duckgumbo32@cox.net>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:07:58 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav<sbalneav@alburg.net>  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>> To prove something exists, you need EVIDENCE.
>>>
>>> And evidence is evidence, and not necessarily proof.  We can't prove God's
>>> existence.
>
>> Besides your personal revelation, which we've established you can't demonstrate
>> to me, what evidence do you have that I can examine that God exists?
>
> It's my evidence.  Until you allow me to define evidence by me as I see it, you
> have no negotiation to offer.
>


WE have no reason to accept YOUR definition of evidence.

THE only possible proof of the existence of a god is the god - front and 
center  - proving itself.

TO claim that anything else would be evidence is comical.

AS we already know - no being can fulfill all of the claims  - because 
they contradict or are physically impossible

However - even if a being could fulfill most of the claims - we would 
have no idea if it were ONE being - or a number of beings doing it - 
until we see it as a direct observation

In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:56:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
> 
>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:16:11 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:02:53 -0500, sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> and it's also strange that if God sent his son to earth with such an
>>>>>>> important message to give to all mankind, he didn't do it in these times
>>>>>>> when worldwide (virtually instantaneous) communication is possible. and
>>>>>>> Jesus could have had a facebook and twitter page to answer any questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>Well, really, for an omnipotent being, reliance upon the internet would
>>>>>>show a certain... lack of omnipotence.  Better to ask: if this message
>>>>>>was so important, why wasn't it delivered to ALL people on earth
>>>>>>simultaneously, at the time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That would mandate he wait for billions of years to yet pass.
>>>>
>>>>Why?  
>>> 
>>> For all those people yet to come.
> 
>>What did he do for the people who lived and died before he chose
>>to announce himself?
> 
> He didn't wait.

Well, he did, since they lived and died before he announced himself.
Wait, are you a YEC?

>>>>Couldn't he simply have filled the sky with his visage, and
>>>>spoken to all the cultures of the earth at the time in their own
>>>>native language?
> 
>>> I gather that's not the way he wanted to do things.
> 
>>And you base that on what?
> 
> He didn't do it.

Could he have been restrained in some way?

>>>>>>  Instead of locally delivered to a few,
>>>>>>and then relying on a single book thereafter, written in languages
>>>>>>an omniscient deity would know wouldn't be around in the long run.
>>> 
>>>>> It's not the book.  It's the men behind the book that is the certifying act.
>>> 
>>>>It certainly is the book.  That's where the story is written
>>>>down.
>>> 
>>> Nope, not hardly.   We have all the eye witnesses that existed from the time
>>> period.  We can make a case for some 15,000 minimum eye witnesses who saw and
>>> heard a lot things in different ways.
> 
>>Uh huh.  Where are these witnesses?  Where's their testimony?
> 
> In the history books.

Which ones?  Can you give me a name of one so I can look it up?  I'd be
interested.

>>> Hence we have the bible as the
>>> **partial** record of the words, actions and religious practices of the people
>>> taking place over the ensuing 30-60 years after the cross.
> 
>>Odd that there's no Roman records of this Jesus fellow.  Odd that the only
>>eyewitness testimonies are in the bible.  So my point stands; the story
>>only exists in the book.  There's no other contemporary accounts.
> 
> 1.  Jesus, a carpenter, was hanging around a remote Roman garrison in the middle
> of the desert.

Jerusalem was a remote Roman Garrison?  It was the capital of Judea.

> 2.  The bible is not the sole source.  People were.

Again, I ask, where are the testemonies of these people, outside of the bible.
What history book is this documented in?

>>> Many of these
>>> stories were down, some rejected for canonization due to errors, fabrications,
>>> or information already provided.  Further, we have the writing of the early
>>> Church fathers that wrote their own documents of experiences and knowledge.
> 
>>Why not include it all?  You know, "Teach the controversy"?  How did the church
>>know, 200+ years after the events happened, what was "accurate" and what
>>wasn't?  All the eyewitnesses were gone by that point.
> 
> Errors, fabrications, no new information.

You said that already.  I ask again; how did they know they were fabrications,
when all the eyewitnesses were dead?

>>> Then
>>> we have continuing research and biblical scholarship for the last 2000 years all
>>> certifying the _belief_ that it's all true.
> 
>>2000 years of navel-gazing over the same book still hasn't provided one scrap
>>of objective evidence of God's existence.  Sorry.
> 
> Don't sorry me.  I believe.

And I don't.

>>> As you may note, there is a certain amount of conflict.  Joe heard this in 35AD,
>>> Harry heard that is 41AD, Sally heard a different detail in 42AD.  And so we are
>>> faced with the big picture rather than the details.
> 
>>Yeah, and when you couple the exceedingly hazy big picture with the complete
>>lack of any evidence, you get...?
> 
> My belief in a supreme creator who eventually taught us to love one another as
> he loves us.  Not money, not power, not fame, but love.

That's fine, I look at the same evidence and get that it's a huge load of
hooey.

>>> The basis for the
>>> canonized bible is then the known truths of Jesus and hence provided to us even
>>> this day.
> 
>>> You'll notice that I said _belief_ that it's all true.  We believe.  We don't
>>> say we have proof.
> 
>>And I say: I don't believe you.  You have no proof, and more importantly, you
>>have no *evidence*.
> 
> I know.  That's why there's no such thing as an atheist.

Please define atheist.

> There can only be
> people who don't accept the evidence as in your case.  And that means that
> complete lack of evidence for your position that there is NO God leaves you as
> only an atheist wannabe, and nothing else..

I don't believe in God.  I'm an atheist.  I can't sanely assert there is NO
God, since I'd have to be able to prove a negative to do that.  What I *CAN* do
is point out that the complete and utter lack of any evidence for a God, an
afterlife, a soul, or anything else supernatural, COUPLED WITH positive
evidence that things that the bible asserts happened, didn't, points towards
the conclusion that there is no God, no Afterlife, no nothing.

>>>>Who are the men behind the book?  Most of them are anonymous.
> 
>>> The selected books that go into the Book of Books satisfies the criteria of
>>> being in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.  And hence their
>>> selection.
> 
>>Tautology.  "In the book about our thing, we selected the things that were
>>about our thing".  Well, yeah.  That's obvious.
> 
> Nope.  Jesus is accepted BY US as the promised messiah. And those books that
> fully reflect what he said and taught are the books included in the bible.

Yeah, like I said, in the book about Jesus being the messiah, you included the
stuff that said Jesus was the messiah, and ditched the rest.

This is like me writing a book about how cars on the freeway only travel at
exactly 100 Km/h, and sitting there with a radar gun going: 100, keep, 100,
keep, 120, throw that away, 100 keep...

In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:06:08 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
> 
>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:09:45 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>In alt.atheism felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28-March-2012 4:16 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In alt.atheism felix_unger<me@nothere.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>>>>>>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>>>>>>>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>>>>>>>>> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the
>>>>>>>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
>>>>>>>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall.
>>>>>>>> Alright.  I'll bite.  Here's some things that I would consider evidence
>>>>>>>> for a deity:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, amputated limbs will re-grow under
>>>>>>>> laboratory/test conditions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, the deity can be made to appear in
>>>>>>>> a way that can be captured by some measurement device, under laboratory
>>>>>>>> conditions. i.e. on film, via voice recording, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, the deity can perform some "miracle"
>>>>>>>> currently considered to be impossible by science, under laboratory
>>>>>>>> conditions.  i.e. stop the world from turning in such a way that this
>>>>>>>> can be measured by satellites, or the like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, a new species of animal can be specially
>>>>>>>> created, under laboratory conditions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If, by prayer to a specific deity, a person who had quite definitely been
>>>>>>>> judged to be dead, under laboratory conditions, were suddenly brought
>>>>>>>> back to life again.  Please note; people drowned in low-temperature
>>>>>>>> water and resuscitated don't count here; we know the process by which
>>>>>>>> they're brought back, and it's a scientific one.  No, I'm talking about
>>>>>>>> someone who's been dead for a nice, appreciable amount of time, and is
>>>>>>>> beginning to suffer from tissue decomposition.  The bible documents AT
>>>>>>>> LEAST 2 separate instances of this BESIDES the resurrection of Jesus,
>>>>>>>> so this should be possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words; some kind of change to objective reality that can be
>>>>>>>> measured, recorded, and analyzed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> okay. so we're talking physical proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Proof's for mathematics.  You don't provide "proof" for anything in reality.
>>>>>>You provide *evidence* in reality.  And yes, I want objective evidence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And we have evidence galore for that.
>>> 
>>>>I've asked you several times to provide it.
>>> 
>>> Evidence is evidence.  It's not proof.  When you can agree with me on what
>>> evidence vs proof is, we can go further.  Until you're prepared to agree that
>>> "my evidence" is what I see to believe, there is no place for revelation.  
> 
>>Evidence is something you can show to someone else.
> 
> I CAN show it to you.  But you choose not to accept it because you try to define
> what evidence must be - a solid, or a particular color, etc.

Yeah?  Tell me how you can show me what your feelings are?  What, did you
perfect the Vulcan mind meld while I wasn't looking?

>>  Your personal revelation
>>is fine and dandy for you.  You can't show it to me.  I'd just have to take
>>your word for it.  Sorry, I don't.  When I believed, I never got any
>>revelation.
> 
> Of course you don't have to believe me.   That's your choice, and defines your
> future in accordance with our own beliefs.  Just don't expect me to foolishly
> follow you.

Duke, I don't want ANYONE to follow me.  I want you to THINK FOR YOURSELF.

>>> You've either provided things
>>>>that are subjective (your "feelings" about things), or you've pointed to
>>>>things in the world and tried to pawn them off as evidence. 
> 
>>> I don't care.  It's MY evidence.  If you don't find it compelling, that's your
>>> problem.  I believe.
> 
>>And that's fine.  I'm not telling you not to believe. 
> 
> But you have been ridiculing me for belief.

NO.  I have been pointing out the logical problems with your belief.  Have I
EVER, on this newsgroup, said "You're an idiot BECAUSE YOU'RE A THEIST?".  I've
ridiculed people for not using their head; I've ridiculed people for special
pleading, or logical inconsistency, or goalpost moving, or a host of other
sloppy intellectual folderol.  But NEVER because they "just believed".  I have
no problem with theists; I don't go on their boards and mess up their shit.

Might I remind you that you're in ALT.ATHEISM?!  You don't want to have your
sloppy reasoning skills challenged, then toddle off to the theist NG's and I'll
happily leave you alone.  But if you want to wander in to the newsgroup that
was set up for atheists like myself to talk with other atheists, and shit all
over the carpet, buddy, I'm gonna point out the maloderousness of your turds.

> You said previously you'd be glad
> to entertain my beliefs.

And I have; you'll notice whenever you retreat to "I just believe", I leave you
alone.  It's when you say "I beleive BECAUSE...." and then provide an
intellectually bereft reason for your belief, that I point out what the problem
is.

The ONLY thing that I will point out to someone who shouts "I JUST BELIEVE",
is, "Then how do you really know you're right?  If you "just believe" in
something that you can't justify, it means that you're not actually interested
in believing in things you can demonstrate to be real".

> However, I'm not going for the "that's not evidence"
> that's coming from you.   

Evidence is the only thing you CAN use to prove something real.  As I've
pointed out;  If someone "just believes" aliens are anally probing him every
night, or "Just Believes" that they are the reincarnation of Long John Silver,
or "Just Believes" that God loves them, there's NO WAY for me to distinguish
between this person simply deluding themselves, telling a lie, or being
completely bonkers.  I have to conclude they aren't telling the truth, because
there's NO EVIDENCE of either anal probing, terminal piratism, or God.

I can't believe in things that aren't real.  And unless you can DEMONSTRATE to
me in some way that I can EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE, then we're at an impasse.

>> You go right ahead and
>>believe whatever you want.  But if you're believing things without any
>>objective evidence, you've got no way of knowing they're true other than "in
>>your heart".  If you don't care what you believe in is actually true, that's
>>not MY problem, either.
> 
> But I have evidence for my beliefs, and you have zero evidence for there being
> no God.  That's the key.  I win, you lose.

No.  I win.  Because your evidence boils down to a feeling you have, and we
know human emotions can be misplaced, or wrong.  On the other hand, the
complete lack of evidence I have is explained quite nicely by assuming that God
ISN'T there.

> 
>>>> Specifically,
>>>>ones that are explained by purely natualistic means.  You most certainly
>>>>have NOT provided any of the things, or anything like the things, that I
>>>>outlined WOULD be evidence.
> 
>>> See what I mean.  You want to define evidence your way, not my way.  It's MY
>>> evidence, not yours.
> 
>>The God of the bible doesn't just manifest himself in "feelings" in your heart.
> 
> It doesn't???  Since when.  I'm using the evidence,  You have nothing.

Did, or did not, the God of the bible cause a Global flood that wiped out all
life on earth?

Did, or did not, the God of the bible cause the "sun to stop in the sky"?

That's two things that would leave physical evidence behind for us to examine.
We don't see what we would expect.

You're only using the feeling you have.

>>The bible documents him doing things that would leave evidence here in reality
>>that we should be able to look at.  When we look for that evidence, we don't
>>find it.  The bible also makes promises that God can do things here in reality
>>that would leave evidence that we could examine.  He doesn't appear to do those
>>things, because we don't see the evidence.
> 
> Yet the bible is the historical record of the people that experienced the
> biblical event.   That's true for all history.   No man alive today was around
> for most of it.  But relies on records prepared form long ago. 

That didn't, in any way, address the point I was making.  Go back and re-read
it.

>>If all your God ever promised to do was "make people happy" or "give them
>>strength" or "give them a reason for living", then fine, feelings is all he
>>promises.  He doesn't.  He promises real things.
> 
> Really, I didn't know that in your terms and descriptions.  So what are they?

John 14:12-14

>>  He doesn't deliver.  That
>>means he's either stopped doing real things like he used to, or, perhaps, just
>>plain isn't there.
> 
> I say he's provided 100%.  Let's see what you got.

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

Let's start with that.

>>>>>>Any claim by a person that they have found God simply by seeking and finding
>>>>>>is not testable in an objective way.
> 
>>>>> We who have are greatly joyed.
>>>>You who have are indistinguishable from madmen to me.  I have no reason to
>>>>believe you're anything else but mistaken, deluded or mentally unbalanced.
>>> But infinitely more intelligent than you.
>>Even if you were, it wouldn't make you right.  Smart people can be wrong too.
> 
> Yet I have my evidence.  You have nothing.  Your only chance is to declare my
> evidence not evidence, which is really mine alone to define.

What if I were to say I had absolute, concrete, 100% evidence that God
absolutely didn't exist.  Because I do.

What would you say to that?  If I could demonstrate to you, absolutely, 100%,
no doubt, that God, NO God, existed, would you change your mind?

In alt.atheism ThomMadura <Tommadura@optonline.net> wrote:
> On 3/29/2012 10:34 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> On 12-03-29 09:16 PM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2012 6:39 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>> In alt.atheism ThomMadura<Tommadura@optonline.net> wrote:>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT's fine with me - YOU could NOT afford me to be YOUR doctor -
>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>> hope you never have the maladies I perform surgery on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've got no basis to judge what I can afford and what I can't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually - I do
>>>>
>>>> And that is...?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually - I am in the process of retiring
>>>
>>> When My father died last August - I lost an irreplaceable member of my
>>> team. For more than 20 years - I only operated on terminally ill
>>> patients - with a team of 7.
>>>
>>> My specialty is very precise and exacting - and takes a lot out of you
>>> and I simply lost that drive. I do not need the money - and I am in my
>>> sixties. While that is an early age for retirement in my family - it is
>>> not so unusual for other professions.
>>>
>>> I am selling MY practice to the rest of the group along with two
>>> newcomers.
>>
>> While I'm sorry for the loss of your father and congratulate you on
>> your retirement ...
>>
>> ... Your unsolicited explanation of your current life still doesn't
>> explain how you've determined I couldn't afford your services.
>>
> 
> It should be obvious to you
> 
> I am not taking any new patients
> 
> So - it makes no difference how much you can afford

Phht.

In alt.atheism felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 30-March-2012 5:29 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> 
>> "felix_unger"  wrote in message
>> news:9tkbngFvc1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> On 30-March-2012 6:10 AM, ThomMad wrote:
>>>> THE type of surgery I do is not done on Animals - they are just
>>>> put out of their misery
>>> I was an F18 pilot. after my military career, I was recruited by
>>> NASA as a consultant on the space program. however, I am now
>>> retired, and enjoying my sunset years, in the delightful company of
>>> my wife, 26 children, 365 grandchildren, and four mistresses.
>> You're too modest Pete. Didn't your granddaddy invent the Atom Bomb?
>> In conjunction with Thommo's great-uncle, of course.
> 
> yes. but as you say, I am too modest, and don't like to mention all our 
> family achievements.. even tho Uncle Oscar funded the raising off the 
> Titanic, cousin Cecil won at Talladega three times (or was it four?), 
> and brother Herman led the commando raid that terminated Bin Laden. I 
> think granpappy also discovered King Tuts tomb (despite what he history 
> books say) and.. oh, I just can't go on.. my modesty forbids..

I must congratulate your distant relative in the Egyptian line of your family
for inventing beer.

As well, it is my understanding that it was your great-great-great-great (x
some number) uncle Guiegliemo who actually invented the telescope, but that
rotter Gallileo stole it from him.  My condolences; but some of us still
remember the true inventor of astronomy.

> 
>>
>> Theo
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:09:25 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
> 
>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:07:58 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>>To prove something exists, you need EVIDENCE.
>>> 
>>> And evidence is evidence, and not necessarily proof.  We can't prove God's
>>> existence.
> 
>>Besides your personal revelation, which we've established you can't demonstrate
>>to me, what evidence do you have that I can examine that God exists?
> 
> It's my evidence.  Until you allow me to define evidence by me as I see it, you
> have no negotiation to offer.

OK, I'll bite.  Show me the evidence you have.  I'll accept it as evidence as
soon as you show it to me.

In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:20:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:

<snip uninteresting crap we've hashed to death before>

>>And your feelings could be
>>wrong.  If a madman feels he IS Zeus, does that make him Zeus?
> 
> Zeus is a picture in a book.

No.  2500 years ago, Zeus was a God.  People believed in him just as strongly
as you beleive in YHWH.

>>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, a new species of animal can be specially
>>>>>>created, under laboratory conditions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What's wrong with his way - over extensive time periods?  You're mandating that
>>>>> God think like you.
>>>>
>>>>According to the bible, he made a whole bunch of stuff in one day.  He's
>>>>certainly capable, according to the bible.
> 
>>> What stuff?
>>Plants, for example?
> 
>>Gen 1:11
>>11 Then God said, ???Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and
>>trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various
>>kinds.??? And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed
>>according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to
>>their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there
>>was morning???the third day.
> 
> No man was around 13.7 or 4.5 billion years ago to witness that.  Genesis 1-11
> is not scientific.

How do you know this?  If you've determined (somehow) that Gen 1-11 isn't
"factual", then how do you know any of the rest of it is?  I'm assuming you're
dismissing large parts of Genesis as allegorical.  How can you determine what
parts of the bible are allegorical, and what parts are actual?

>>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, a person who had quite definitely been
>>>>>>judged to be dead, under laboratory conditions, were suddenly brought
>>>>>>back to life again. 
>>> 
>>>>> End of physical life during our trial period is his way.
>>>>Except for Lazarus, and all those dead that issued forth from the tomb during
>>>>the passion.  Oh, and Jesus himself, supposedly.
> 
>>> Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day also.  I believe.
> 
>>So it wasn't an end to his physical life then.  Or Lazarus.  Or all those
>>zombies who were wandering around.
> 
> Well, we Christians accept the resurrection of the flesh in Jesus as example.
> Some people think it was his glorified body.  Some people accept it as a
> spiritual occurrence.   

That's Jesus.  What about Lazarus?

>>> To simplify this, God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to die on the
>>> cross to demonstrate to other flesh love and obedience to God, and hence, on the
>>> 3rd day, God raised the flesh to new life as example to man of his future for
>>> overcoming selfishness over all other things as our own reward for following
>>> Jesus.
> 
>>> I/we believe.
> 
>>>>>>> The bible says 'seek and ye 
>>>>>>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of 
>>>>>>> God's existence?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We don't have a problem.  You're just a skeptic.
>>>>
>>>>Yup.  And you're credulous.
>>> 
>>> And I love it.
>>
>>Good for you.
> 
> Yes, good for me.
> 
>>>>>>Because the fact that you claim to have found God simply by seeking and
>>>>>>finding is not testable in an objective way.  The claim that you have
>>>>>>found God by "seeking and finding" is indistingushable from:
> 
>>>>> My personal joy of life went up exponentially with God in my life.
>>>>Thats fine, my personal joy of life went up exponentially when I realized that
>>>>this was the only life I get.
> 
>>>>So who wins?
>>> Christians that follow Jesus.  That's what the example reflects.. 
>>But my feeling of personal joy is far, FAR greater than yours.
> 
> But yours is fresh with personal drama, illness, family death, sickness, etc and
> said personal joy ends with physical death.

You don't have personal drama?  Members of your family don't die?  You don't
get sick?

> I experience the same physical
> shortcomings as you, but I also live my life loving others.

I love others as well.  I love lots of people.  I love all of mankind,
actually.  I actively work on several projects that make people's lives better,
and donate to several charities.  I also love animals.

> So your's can't by
> definition be greater than mine.

No, I've already stated I know mine's far greater than yours.  I have proof.

>>Prove it's not.
> 
> Don't have to.  I wouldn't change with you for any reason.

All evidence points to the fact that you and I will share exactly the same
fate.

On 30-March-2012 11:22 AM, sbalneav wrote:

> In alt.atheism felix_unger<me@nothere.com>  wrote:
>> On 30-March-2012 6:10 AM, ThomMad wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/29/2012 12:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>>> In alt.atheism ThomMadura<Tommadura@optonline.net>   wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2012 11:13 PM, sbalneav wrote:>>   - And I have
>>>>>>> had enough training (I have three medical degrees)
>>>>>> Argument from authority. And if you haven't got this shit right, then
>>>>>> dude, tell me where you practice, and I'll make sure I never
>>>>>> freaking go
>>>>>> there on the off chance I may end up sick and you treat me. 'Cuz
>>>>>> brother, if you can't get THIS right, I wouldn't trust you with a dull
>>>>>> tongue depressor.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT's fine with me - YOU could NOT afford me to be YOUR doctor -
>>>>> and  I
>>>>> hope you never have the maladies I perform surgery on.
>>>> You've got no basis to judge what I can afford and what I can't.
>>> Actually - I do
>>>
>>>>> In fact - as a DOCTOR -
>>>> This is only something you've asserted, you've provided no bona fides or
>>>> any evidence at all.  I haven't granted your assertion.
>>> Unlike my father - who might have done otherwise - I really DO NOT
>>> care what you think
>>>
>>>>> I can determine if the Subject I am performing
>>>>> surgery on is a human - NOT if there is overwhelming evidence but I
>>>>> still could be wrong  - but because I can PROVE it.
>>>>>
>>>>> IF you prefer to believe that you might still be a Orangutan - and no
>>>>> doctor in your area could TELL THAT with complete assurance_ I would
>>>>> suggest you should pray a lot - if doctors in your area cannot tell
>>>>> that
>>>>> difference. (Yes I know you are an atheist)
>>>>>
>>>>> And knowing without doubt that my patient is a human - there are
>>>>> lots of
>>>>> things that I also know WITHOUT DOUBT about my patient - simply by
>>>>> knowing my patient is a human. And if that were NOT the case - NO
>>>>> doctor
>>>>> would be of use to any human.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again - if a doctor does not know those things as well - he may as well
>>>>> be using a voodoo doll.  AND while there are some who use voodoo dolls
>>>>> and claim to be doctors - I would HOPE that YOU can tell that they are
>>>>> NOT doctors as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you prefer a doctor who does not KNOW what the heart does in the
>>>>> body
>>>>> -  ONLY has overwhelming evidence of what it MIGHT do - BUT it sill
>>>>> might be the center of emotions that was believed over many centuries -
>>>>> those doctors are more likely to be in your price range
>>>> When you're wrong, you're wrong.  You're wrong.  Deal.
>>>
>>> So - go to your Veterinarian then - and let us real doctors treat REAL
>>> humans
>>>
>>> NO skin off MY back
>>>
>>> THE type of surgery I do is not done on Animals - they are just put
>>> out of their misery
>>>
>> I was an F18 pilot. after my military career, I was recruited by NASA as
>> a consultant on the space program. however, I am now retired, and
>> enjoying my sunset years, in the delightful company of my wife, 26
>> children, 365 grandchildren, and four mistresses.
> Well, now we KNOW you're lying.  EVERYONE knows that Ex F-18 pilots who
> work for NASA have at least 6 mistresses.

damn! you found me out..


-- 
rgds,

Pete
-------
�Some atheists are silly enough to argue that non-atheists have no right to an opinion about atheism or to critique it�

"I've yet to meet an atheist who isn't anti-theism"

The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

�It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history�

"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"

�If there were no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God. How could they?�

�We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we're just not allowed to exercise it�

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rub�iy�t of Omar Khayy�m

On 31/03/12 3:18 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

>
> The subject is UNIX, not eunuchs.
>

Why do Americans always find that funny?

Are you Mormon?

On 2012-Mar-30 15:41, felix_unger wrote:
> On 31-March-2012 3:14 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess wrote:
>
>> On 2012-Mar-30 00:34, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" wrote
>>>> On 30-March-2012 4:39 PM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's no proof that Thommo is a doctor either. He has been asked
>>>>> to
>>>>> verify his doctor claim on many occasions and has failed to provide
>>>>> any evidence, or proof.
>>>
>>>> I know. we'll just wait and see what develops.
>>>
>>>> Google doesn't seem to have ever heard of a Dr. Thomas Madura
>>>> (assuming it's his real name)
>>>
>>> He did post some link to another doctor who does trepanation and said
>>> he does something like that. I think his real name is Walter. Walter
>>> Mitty.
>>
>> At the very least I think it's important to appreciate doctors for
>> surviving the stresses and horrors of medical school (especially if
>> their marriages also survived).
>>
>>>> It does know of a Tom Madura who likes to run naked tho .. :)
>>>
>>>> http://www.goerieblogs.com/sports/runnersnotes/2011/04/learn-to-run-naked/
>>>>
>>>
>>> At least that Tom has a clinic. A naked clinic.
>>
>> Nudist colonies save a lot of money on clothing, so we may be more
>> rational than most people realize.
>
> we? so you're a non-existent nudist atheist goddess

You should keep your eyes wide shut, for you weren't invited to the party.

-- 
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Everything said in the context of a god being real is mere nonsense."
    -- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason

On 2012-Mar-30 20:29, dolf wrote:
> On 31/03/12 3:18 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>
>> The subject is UNIX, not eunuchs.
>
> Why do Americans always find that funny?

I'm not convinced that Americans always find that funny, and I suspect 
that many Americans probably wouldn't even understand the joke given the 
significant amount of illiteracy in the USA.

> Are you Mormon?

No.  Did you get that impression about me (and if so, how?)?

-- 
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The phantom of the opera is there, inside your mind..."
    -- Andrew Lloyd Weber

On 2012-Mar-30 16:33, sbalneav wrote:
> In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess<goddess@fidemturbare.com>  wrote:
>> On 2012-Mar-29 20:18, sbalneav wrote:
>>> In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess<goddess@fidemturbare.com>   wrote:
[snip]
>>>> There's an application called "sl" that's fun to install because people
>>>> sometimes type it by mistake when they mean "ls" -- here's a picture of
>>>> it in action for those who don't have Unix or Linux:
>>>>
>>>> http://debaday.livejournal.com/22802.html
>>>
>>> sbalneav@phobos:~$ sudo apt-get install sl
[snip]
>>> sbalneav@phobos:~$ sl
>>>
>>> Done and done.  Choo Choo!
>>
>> That's the one -- it seems you enjoyed it too.
>>
>> Now if you really want to have some fun, set it up as an hourly cron job
>> (that changes the minute for the next run randomly) and make sure output
>> goes to the console, particularly in a server farm where the screen is
>> visible to many people who will report it to the admins.
>
> BWAHAHA.
>
> <heads off to server room>

Ha ha!  I look forward to an update -- please let us know how this works 
out.

-- 
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Human behaviour flows from three main sources:  Desire, Emotion, and 
Knowledge."
    -- Plato of Athens

On 2012-Mar-30 16:02, felix_unger wrote:
> On 31-March-2012 4:08 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess wrote:
>
>> On 2012-Mar-30 05:04, ThomMadura wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2012 4:59 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> On 30-March-2012 6:39 PM, ThomMad wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> I am doing to Felix Unger EXACTLY what he did to me - when He asked
>>>>> the questions (Not exactly) =- WHat would you require to PROVE that
>>>>> god exists. HE tried to imply that Non-believers would not answer the
>>>>> question
>>>>>
>>>>> I answered the question three times in the thread -
>>>>> EACH TIME he SNIPPED my answer - and continued to ask the question -
>>>>> without response to MY answer
>>>>>
>>>>> My answer - the god - front and center PROVING ITS OWN existence
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> SNIP CRAP
>>
>> Ha ha! I stopped reading at exactly the same point you "snipped" it
>> (and your medical credentials make you more qualified to "snip").
>
> well that tells me a lot about you then. he made the claims, he has to
> back them up.. you know.. like you are constantly demanding of believers

If you have a problem with his claim, don't expect me to challenge him 
on it -- that's up to you.

The problem I have with the claims of believers in deities and 
supernatural agents is that they present incredible claims here in the 
alt.atheism newsgroup (which clearly means that they're inviting 
challenge or at least some sort of discourse) and so I challenge their 
claims.  They're always welcome to prove their claims, but so far I 
haven't encountered any logical or verifiable evidence (and I'm not 
"holding my breath" either).

On the other hand, I don't find ThomMadura's claim about what his 
profession is to be suspicious (many people choose to become doctors, 
and of those the majority seem to find some way to survive medical 
school despite the occasional resulting wrecked marriage), nor do I find 
relevancy in challenging him on this matter.

>>> OF course not - YOU are just basically dishonest
>>>
>>> WHich is WHY I treated YOU that way
>>
>> Essentially, you're asking for L.O.V.E. -- Logical, Objective,
>> Verifiable Evidence:
>>
>> http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/love.pl

-- 
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Teaching children to question things is the best defense teachers can 
give them against the dark arts that is religion.  Just as they should 
question evolution so they should question religion."
    -- Les Hellawell

On 31-March-2012 6:46 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist 
goddess wrote:

> On 2012-Mar-30 16:02, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 31-March-2012 4:08 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>> goddess wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-Mar-30 05:04, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/2012 4:59 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>>> On 30-March-2012 6:39 PM, ThomMad wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>>> I am doing to Felix Unger EXACTLY what he did to me - when He asked
>>>>>> the questions (Not exactly) =- WHat would you require to PROVE that
>>>>>> god exists. HE tried to imply that Non-believers would not answer 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> question
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I answered the question three times in the thread -
>>>>>> EACH TIME he SNIPPED my answer - and continued to ask the question -
>>>>>> without response to MY answer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My answer - the god - front and center PROVING ITS OWN existence
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> SNIP CRAP
>>>
>>> Ha ha! I stopped reading at exactly the same point you "snipped" it
>>> (and your medical credentials make you more qualified to "snip").
>>
>> well that tells me a lot about you then. he made the claims, he has to
>> back them up.. you know.. like you are constantly demanding of believers
>
> If you have a problem with his claim, don't expect me to challenge him 
> on it -- that's up to you.

I did. it's all been snipped by the dishonest doc..

-----------------------------------------------------

"I have no idea what you're talking about. firstly I don't read 
everything that's posted here, and since deciding some time ago that 
it's a pointless waste of time replying to you, because you invariably 
misinterpret what it write, or go off on some tangent, or prattle on 
about stuff that is irrelevant, pursuing your anti-christian agenda, and 
because a lot of what you write doesn't make much sense anyway, I 
certainly don't read everything that you post. thats the first point. 
secondly, even if I have read your babble, I am NOT obliged to answer or 
address it- every or any point that you raise. and thirdly, but 
certainly not of least importance, if I have snipped something of yours, 
it doesn't mean that I am ignoring or refusing to answer what's said, it 
may simply mean that I am in agreement, and have nothing to say about 
it! oh.. and one more thing.. I choose who I talk to when and why. you 
don't get to say what I must do.

but let's consider this matter..

you have claimed..

(a) that I have asked YOU what evidence would YOU require to prove God 
exists? and

(b) that I have implied that YOU would not answer the question, and

(c) that you replied three times and I snipped the answer without replying

this is what you claim to be factual, by my understanding of what you 
write above, so it should be a very easy matter for you to PROVE what 
you say by posting the relevant posts in a reply to this, so we can 
verify the veracity of your claims."

-----------------------------------------------------

and your laughing at my simple request for evidence just shows me what a 
biased hypocrite you really are. atheists are the most insufferable 
people on the planet! go to hell!

Still Time To Vote: Usenet Kook Hall Of Fame!

- http://www.grapple369.com/memeBrain.html

On 31/03/12 6:46 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "Teaching children to question things is the best defense teachers can
> give them against the dark arts that is religion.  Just as they should
> question evolution so they should question religion."
>     -- Les Hellawell

I’ve heard recently that Sydney radio shock jock, Karl Sandilands is 
suffering from shrinking testicles. You ain't seen nothing until you've 
had some fat queen sado-masochistic faggot actor as a gym junkie from 
Sydney going troppo at being called a plump frump.

Does your dictionary make haughty a lawful alternative to skanking 
whore, or self conceit a synonym for your shit?

Brad (bradvk2qq@gmail.com): “W[hat] T[he] F[uck] are you talking about?”

atec77 (atec77@hotmail.com): “No one know[s] or cares. It is after all 
just dork talk!”

dolf: “Karl you’re a chook.”

Ish (m@g.net): “I thought so. What’s the matter? Afraid of women?”

Denis / Ish (denis.mattg@yahoo.de / ish.mattg@yahoo.de): “Is exactly 
what I am”

Ish (xm@c.net): “You can’t consider a faggot like you a ‘woman’.

Is it really beyond you to believe a woman can like baseball and not 
necessarily want to read about your obsessions in a baseball group? 
Chauvinist!”.

denis (mrwilson6982@yahoo.de): “You can't consider a faggot tranny like 
you a ‘woman’.”

dolf: “There’s only one queen and that’s Madonna bitch.”

Ishtar (ishtarnec@gmail.com): “Fucking frog. Awful funny you show up 
when the trolls do.”

dolf: “Qu'est-ce? Aren’t you just the trolley dolly from the women's 
hospital.” [B-Day Song (feature M.I.A) Madonna MDNA ℗ 2012 Boy Toy Inc.]

What is a Nation? (Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?) is a 1882 essay by French 
historian Ernst Renan (1823–1892), known for the statements that a 
nation is "a daily referendum", and that nations are based as much on 
what the people jointly forget, as what they remember. It is frequently 
quoted or anthologized in works of history or political science 
pertaining to nationalism. [Wikipedia 2012: Qu’est-ce?]

M (storm@c.net): “What is this doing in a baseball group? Nobody here 
gives a damn for your opinions, even that Rosecomm idiot plonked you. 
Too bad...he might have said ‘Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame 
playing with homosexual-sex-obsessed dee-nis's pecker.’ Now THAT would 
be an appropriate job for him.”

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. (greghall@home.fåke): “Dick-sucking: Thank you, I 
Bought Databasix!”

Fred Hall (fkhall@databasix.com): “[snicker] Thank y[o]u, Gary […] for 
letting me suck your dick in public: "Not true. Gay is PERFORMING a gay 
act like fellatio. Being on the receiving end of fellatio is not 
performing. It's sort of like being in an audience and enjoying a 
performance. Does it make somebody in an audience an actor when he 
watches an actor? No." - Nellie Greg Hall Warren attempts to rationalize 
his homosexual desires.

“Gay is gay, gweg, whether yer pitching or catching." Neon explains the 
hows and whys of sexuality to clueless Nellie Gweg Hall.”

M (storm@c.net): “Blibber moofle whine……”

Blibber moofle whine

.jackNote@zen: 1, row: 1, col: 5, nous: 81 [Date: 2012.3.31, Super: #473 
/ #81 - Propounding the Essential; I-Ching: H11 - Peace; Tetra: 15 - 
Reach, Ego: #446 / #81 - Propounding the Essential; I-Ching: H11 - 
Peace; Tetra: 15 - Reach]

Nous:    #81
Time:    00:40 hrs
Date:    2012.3.31
Torah:    #1 #10 #70 %81 = #0
Dao:    Propounding the Essential
Tetra:    #15 - Reach
I-Ching:    H11 - Peace

Latin: Matutinus {God, delight of the children of men} Alt: Vaolyah 
{Attached to Nothingness in God} {
1. HELPS & CONSOLES IN ADVERSITY & TO OBTAIN WISDOM
2. CHANGE, PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS & LONGEVITY
3.THE OCCULT SCIENCES, REVEALS TRUTH
4. Abiou
}
#671 CE

- http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:1,row:1,col:5

@memeBrain [Telos: #913, Super: #13 - Status, Loathing Shame; I-Ching: 
H5 - Delay; Tetra: 17 - Holding Back, Ego: #22 - Point to Reversal?, 
Humility's Increase; I-Ching: H8 - Seeking Unity; Tetra: 34 - Kinship]

Male Idea: #13 has 10 Categories: #1, #5, #6, #1 = 'Ahava' (H163): 1) 
town or area in Babylonia; #1, #7, #4, #1 = 'azad (Aramaic) (H230): 1) 
(P'al) to be gone; #2, #3, #6, #2 = Gob (H1359): 1) a place which was 
the scene of two encounters between David's warriors and the Philistines 
(also 'Gezer'); #3, #2, #8 = gibbeach (H1371): 1) to be high, bald (in 
the forehead), having a bald forehead; #3, #4, #6 = gedad (Aramaic) 
(H1414): 1) to cut down, hew down; #3, #5, #5 = gehah (H1456): 1) a 
cure, a healing; #6, #5, #2 = Vaheb (H2052): 1) a place in Moab, site 
unknown; #7, #2, #4 = zebed (H2065): 1) endowment, gift; #7, #6 = zuw 
(H2098): 1) this, such rel pron; 2) (of) which, (of) whom; #5, #3, #5 = 
yagah (H3014): 1) (Hiphil) to repel, thrust away, push away;

Female Idea: #22 has 6 Categories: #5, #1, #3, #3, #10 = 'Agagiy (H91): 
1) said of Haman, Haman the Agagite; #6, #1, #5, #6, #4 = 'Ehuwd (H164): 
1) Benjamite judge of Israel, deliverer of Israel from Moab; 2) another 
Benjamite, son of Bilhan [1Ch. 8:6]; #1, #6, #10, #5 = 'owyah (H190): 1) 
woe!; #6, #1, #7, #6, #2 = 'ezowb (H231): 1) hyssop, a plant used for 
medicinal and religious purposes; #6, #4, #5, #2, #5 = dehab (Aramaic) 
(H1722): 1) gold; #2, #8, #2, #10 = chob (H2243): 1) bosom;

Barry OGrady (atheist@hotmail.com.au): “You don't understand yourself at 
all. You think it clever not to punctuate. What are trying to prove?

You probably think its cool to wear a baseball cap on backwards. You 
conform to what you think is non conforming.”

dolf: “That Catholic bitch apologist Kristina Keneally is dismissing the 
fact that religious unbelief and disbelief which are your matters of 
conscience as indulgence and belief is also someone else's human rights 
claim which you are diminishing--Keep silent you skanking whore because 
I am speaking in judgement against your soul.

Your fucked up Catholic Religious belief gives you, as an American 
refugee, the right to Australian Citizenship and political party 
privilege--But not Me!”

Ish (m@g.net): “What part of "I'm a straight female baseball fan" didn't 
you understand? Can you read or is your life all cut and paste?”

dolf: “I accuse you of indifference. Stop buying your meat pies from 
Tony Abbott, you are no longer welcome.”

This pastry became a staple dish in medieval times, and was eventually 
called "pyes" or "pies". The origin of this name comes from the type of 
meat commonly used as filling. Beef, lamb, and duck were employed, but a 
majority of the time it was the magpie pigeon that was the main 
ingredient. Magpies in medieval England were originally named pie. Some 
historians think that the popular usage of 'pie' birds led to the pastry 
dish being named pie as well, while etymologists suggest that pies were 
named after these birds "from a supposed resemblance between the 
miscellaneous contents of pies and the assortment of objects collected 
by thieving magpies." The first use of the word "pie" as food is 
referenced in 1303 by the Oxford English Dictionary; also stating that 
the term became popular and widely utilized by 1362. [Wikipedia 2012: 
Meat Pies]

Thom Madura (Tommadura@optonline.net): “WE do not need religion to be 
kind and generous with others - Dolf”

dolf: “How is your pedophile porno collection going--still doing it for 
you?”

Thom Madura (Tommadura@optonline.net): “YOU are mixing me up with YOU - Dolf

IF you are mentioning it - it can only be to compare it to yours.

REST assured that I have no time for that nonsense - so YOU are still 
the leader in that area?”

dolf: “You haven't answered the question about your pedophile porno 
collection...”

Thom Madura (Tommadura@optonline.net): “Yes - I did - as I noted YOUR 
record collection in that area - is unmatched by me - I am not a 
participant in that.”

dolf: “Porn isn't my thing.

So what are you now saying about "YOUR record collection in that area?"

That you don't star in any of them.”

% (persent@gmail.com): “Stupid replies get stupid replies.”

Barry OGrady (atheist@hotmail.com.au): “Dolt is a poof of God!”

dolf: “Forget the punctuation, learn to spell.”

% (persent@gmail.com): “Gin what?”

dolf: “Fuck wit!”

M (storm@c.net): “Cool. But it ain't baseball [in newsgroup: 
comp.sys.mac.apps]”

Fidem Turbare (the non-existent atheist goddess): “The subject is UNIX, 
not eunuchs.”

dolf: “Why do Americans always find that funny--Are you Mormon?”

Fidem Turbare (the non-existent atheist goddess): “No. Did you get that 
impression about me (and if so, how?)?”

dolf: “I had a mormon friend once, who was into Unix and typically drove 
a BMW: a Big Mormon Wagon.

I once called Eric Anderson from a phone box in Oxford Street, 
Darlinghurst Sydney outside the court house and near where the Mardi 
Gras Parade goes by.

Joked with him about his vasectomy--apparently that’s a slip of the 
Mormon rules who to this today believe Jesus has stood on their soil.”

Fred Hall (fkhall@databasix.com): “Izzit you, Qolon?”

dolf: “In tights? No! But in my RM Williams Brookstead Jean: Yes!”

Fred Hall (fkhall@databasix.com): “Kook Hall of Fame vote recorded, Qolon”

dolf: “It's a true story.

Hence factual.

Sorry kooks...”

Solon (Greek: Σόλων, c. 638 BCE – 558 BCE) was an Athenian statesman, 
lawmaker, and poet. He is remembered particularly for his efforts to 
legislate against political, economic and moral decline in archaic 
Athens. His reforms failed in the short term, yet he is often credited 
with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy. [Wikipedia 
2012: Solon]

- http://www.grapple369.com/memeBrain_files/nedkellygame.gif

Fred Hall (fkhall@databasix.com): “Sure, but what about Ned Kelly?”

dolf: “At least with my story you can listen to Madonna's newly released 
MDNA album...”

Fred Hall (fkhall@databasix.com): “No thank you. DataBasix - Continuing 
to kick USENet ass.

Science flew man to the moon. Religion flew man into buildings…”

Sbalneav (sbalneav@alburg.net): “BWAHAHA. [heads off to server room]”

Fidem Turbare (the non-existent atheist goddess): “Ha ha! I look forward 
to an update -- please let us know how this works out.”

"Human behaviour flows from three main sources: Desire, Emotion, and 
Knowledge." -- Plato of Athens

dolf: “Still Time To Vote: Usenet Kook Hall Of Fame!”

Old Jinglebollocks (old.jinglebollocks@gmail.com): “Doesn't matter any more.

Can't be bothered even to read what you bums are writing on Usenet.

Fuck ye, the whole damned lot o' ye.”

I thought Jamie Rowe was discriminatory in the manner by which he 
undertook his seeking of housemates in Liverpool Street with Gay 
Share-space was indulgently disrespectful of the person's dignity as 
autonomic right. That collectively these radio personalities are by 
their fascist dog commentary, not mindful of duty to State. I also 
called the Chief Commissioner office with that same calmness of mind--it 
is therefore dishonest to convey it as otherwise.

Flag NOT Fag Wa[i]ver (leopold@aohell.org): “Many targets, one bomb.

B O O M !”

dolf: “...and I want to call in an airstrike...is that wrong?”

Defence Minister Stephen Swan in addressing the media on 7 March 2012, 
over ADF shenanigans does raise some matters of parallelism and I do 
note as advice in which I agree.

On 13 March 2012 I followed my community health nurse and confidant’s 
recent example of determined conduct as a statement of dissatisfaction 
made in resignation and contempt over the unlawful character and the 
frenzied, brutalising, hate filled manner by which the New South Wales 
Police Service and Saint Vincent’s Acute Care Team have conducted 
themselves in my affairs.

Following their advice that these persons were seeking to make a 
submission to a Magistrate’s Court in order to forcibly gain entry into 
my apartment and access me as to the nature, condition and circumstances 
of my psychological health--they again resorted to unlawful, threatening 
and unbridled aggression in their conduct outside my premises and a week 
later they murdered a Brazilian youth (certainly not a Brazil Holland 
hero) by tasering him in a circumstance of mistaken identity over an 
alleged theft of biscuits (a wafer perhaps?).

- http://www.manhunt.net/profile/BRAZIL_HOLLAND

Manhunt (Brazil_Holland): Age: 34, Position: Top, Height: 6’0”, Build: 
Twink, Ethnicity: Mixed, Hair: Buzzed, Eyes: Brown, Cock: 9" (Uncut)

This was now the 3rd occasion where this intrusion against me had 
occurred and which I viewed as an unwanted, unreasoned and aggressive 
conduct against my autonomy and rights under the State as a person of 
intellect, integrity and dignity who is generally of a calm and happy 
disposition. This conduct by them has unnecessarily tainted, prejudiced 
and rendered toxic my living environment--goodness knows what 
monstrosity the neighbours think of me.

These grievous incursions by State Authorities who have no desire to 
give any accountability for their actions and neither do they wish to 
grant me a modicum of credence with respects to my religious belief as 
being a substantial reality. Accordingly, I have left both Sydney and 
the State of New South Wales with no intention of ever returning to 
their culture of disrespect, which lacks civility in its inhumanity. I 
have therefore terminated my lease and left 3rd parties to pack and 
convey my goods and chattels interstate at a cost of over $4,000. Given 
this my book has now reached a level of completeness. I believe that 
such actions by me as public defiance of the State’s conduct which I 
have taken with due consideration as a calculated exercise of voluntary 
will accompanying determined action against them, will invariably 
manifest a disturbing effect and consequence upon their enjoyment as 
participation in any further ANZAC celebrations.

As I crossed the State border into Victoria as a safer haven from their 
persecutions and traumatising conduct, I advised those parties of my 
intention to leave the State.

This departure gave me an opportunity to meet a female friend of Private 
Jake Kovco who had some life experiences which augmented mine. There was 
no disagreement about the plausibility of any aspect about my belief 
that Kovco’s conduct was deliberate and being passed off as accidental. 
His making of a video record of his service was in itself an unusual 
act. I formed the view from the sloppy and casual manner by which he 
portrayed himself that it seemed different to how other soldiers are 
normally portrayed in the media.

The casualness as his routine conduct was at odds with his disruption of 
determined policy events. That the uncharacteristic behaviour about his 
making of the video record seems to support the notion as a view he 
held, that the Australian soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were 
forgotten by the general populace, who went about their lives as though 
they weren’t there and what they were doing wasn’t important. He was in 
fact undertaking a course of action which required complex processes 
that were not normal for him. That his intention to have his body return 
on ANZAC day was a dishonourable and opportunistic conduct as an attempt 
to impose himself upon the State in a most undignified manner.

That I was right to protest as I had done and what a waste of time and 
money the Military Tribunals into his death were.

Also conveyed to me was an equivalent experience to my own, about 
private sexual acts being recorded by others and unbeknownst to 
ourselves, were then publicised amongst a group in an attempt to 
dishonour a person’s dignity and privacy--That this was technically a 
rape because the sexual act accompanied a video recording which was made 
against a person’s will.

Have you met my kangaroo Jingoist bitch prostitute: Shane Dowling?

"We know what you mean by Faceless Men, Krudd, you anti-termite, errrrhm 
semite.....Coz Mark Arsebib, is just an ass-licker.” [7 March 2012, 
Shane Dowling alias Kangaroo Court Australia @ illusionz.admin@gmail.com]

The dolt defamation on the Internet is going to come to an end!

“[With opposition] 101 [asks “Does the Zionist Lobby have blood on its 
hands in Australia?”] [7 March 2012, Shane Dowling alias Kangaroo Court 
Australia @ illusionz.admin@gmail.com]

Semantics!

- dolf

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:54:59 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:56:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:16:11 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:02:53 -0500, sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> and it's also strange that if God sent his son to earth with such an
>>>>>>>> important message to give to all mankind, he didn't do it in these times
>>>>>>>> when worldwide (virtually instantaneous) communication is possible. and
>>>>>>>> Jesus could have had a facebook and twitter page to answer any questions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>Well, really, for an omnipotent being, reliance upon the internet would
>>>>>>>show a certain... lack of omnipotence.  Better to ask: if this message
>>>>>>>was so important, why wasn't it delivered to ALL people on earth
>>>>>>>simultaneously, at the time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That would mandate he wait for billions of years to yet pass.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?  
>>>> 
>>>> For all those people yet to come.
>> 
>>>What did he do for the people who lived and died before he chose
>>>to announce himself?
>> 
>> He didn't wait.

>Well, he did, since they lived and died before he announced himself.
>Wait, are you a YEC?

No, he didn't wait.  He gave each man an opportunity to declare himself basis a
criteria that each man had going all the way back to the formation of the earth
4.5 billion years ago.  

>>>>>Couldn't he simply have filled the sky with his visage, and
>>>>>spoken to all the cultures of the earth at the time in their own
>>>>>native language?
>>>> I gather that's not the way he wanted to do things.
>>>And you base that on what?
>> He didn't do it.

>Could he have been restrained in some way?

No.  He is almighty.  He willed our universe into existence some 13.7 billion
years ago.

>>>>>>>  Instead of locally delivered to a few,
>>>>>>>and then relying on a single book thereafter, written in languages
>>>>>>>an omniscient deity would know wouldn't be around in the long run.
>>>> 
>>>>>> It's not the book.  It's the men behind the book that is the certifying act.
>>>> 
>>>>>It certainly is the book.  That's where the story is written
>>>>>down.
>>>> 
>>>> Nope, not hardly.   We have all the eye witnesses that existed from the time
>>>> period.  We can make a case for some 15,000 minimum eye witnesses who saw and
>>>> heard a lot things in different ways.
>>>Uh huh.  Where are these witnesses?  Where's their testimony?
>> In the history books.
>Which ones?  Can you give me a name of one so I can look it up?  I'd be
>interested.

There are people out there that knew Abe Lincoln and George Washington, Genghis
Kahn, Nero, Caesar, etc.  But we don't know who said what about them.    The
bible are the written records of the actions, words, religious practices of the
peoples from the1st century in the biblical lands, and is a good historical
record.

>>>> Hence we have the bible as the
>>>> **partial** record of the words, actions and religious practices of the people
>>>> taking place over the ensuing 30-60 years after the cross.
>> 
>>>Odd that there's no Roman records of this Jesus fellow.  Odd that the only
>>>eyewitness testimonies are in the bible.  So my point stands; the story
>>>only exists in the book.  There's no other contemporary accounts.

>> 1.  Jesus, a carpenter, was hanging around a remote Roman garrison in the middle
>> of the desert.
>Jerusalem was a remote Roman Garrison?  It was the capital of Judea.

He was an unknown carpenter.

>> 2.  The bible is not the sole source.  People were.

>Again, I ask, where are the testemonies of these people, outside of the bible.
>What history book is this documented in?

I'm not sure anyone but a few close friends had any idea who he was until he
stirred up the Jewish people just before his cross.  They were the ones craving
his head.

>>>> Many of these
>>>> stories were down, some rejected for canonization due to errors, fabrications,
>>>> or information already provided.  Further, we have the writing of the early
>>>> Church fathers that wrote their own documents of experiences and knowledge.
 
>>>Why not include it all?  You know, "Teach the controversy"?  How did the church
>>>know, 200+ years after the events happened, what was "accurate" and what
>>>wasn't?  All the eyewitnesses were gone by that point.
 
>> Errors, fabrications, no new information.

>You said that already.  I ask again; how did they know they were fabrications,
>when all the eyewitnesses were dead?

They were not dead.  With the cross, the Chrisitans population was rapidly
growing. What Jesus said and did was quickly followed by actions and writings of
all the new converts.  And so this is the basis of the bible.

>>>> Then
>>>> we have continuing research and biblical scholarship for the last 2000 years all
>>>> certifying the _belief_ that it's all true.
>> 
>>>2000 years of navel-gazing over the same book still hasn't provided one scrap
>>>of objective evidence of God's existence.  Sorry.
>> Don't sorry me.  I believe.
>And I don't.

And it's your funeral, not mine.

>>>> As you may note, there is a certain amount of conflict.  Joe heard this in 35AD,
>>>> Harry heard that is 41AD, Sally heard a different detail in 42AD.  And so we are
>>>> faced with the big picture rather than the details.
>> 
>>>Yeah, and when you couple the exceedingly hazy big picture with the complete
>>>lack of any evidence, you get...?
>> My belief in a supreme creator who eventually taught us to love one another as
>> he loves us.  Not money, not power, not fame, but love.
>That's fine, I look at the same evidence and get that it's a huge load of
>hooey.

So be it.  You don't care.  But you will be sorry one day when the end comes.

>>>> The basis for the
>>>> canonized bible is then the known truths of Jesus and hence provided to us even
>>>> this day.
>>>> You'll notice that I said _belief_ that it's all true.  We believe.  We don't
>>>> say we have proof.

>>>And I say: I don't believe you.  You have no proof, and more importantly, you
>>>have no *evidence*.
>> I know.  That's why there's no such thing as an atheist.
>Please define atheist.

Actually, there is no such thing.  There can only be an atheist wannabe, or one
that believes there is no God but has exactly zero evidence to support such a
notion.  An atheist wannabe and an agnostic are essentially the same thing.

>> There can only be
>> people who don't accept the evidence as in your case.  And that means that
>> complete lack of evidence for your position that there is NO God leaves you as
>> only an atheist wannabe, and nothing else..

>I don't believe in God.  I'm an atheist.  

No, you're an atheist wannabe because you can't support your beliefs other than
a flat-out unsupported statement of no belief.  But that's not an atheist, but a
wannabe.

>I can't sanely assert there is NO
>God, since I'd have to be able to prove a negative to do that.

Exactly.  A true atheist rejects/denies the existence of God.  But you can't
support the rejection/denial.

>  What I *CAN* do
>is point out that the complete and utter lack of any evidence for a God, an
>afterlife, a soul, or anything else supernatural, COUPLED WITH positive
>evidence that things that the bible asserts happened, didn't, points towards
>the conclusion that there is no God, no Afterlife, no nothing.

And yet you CAN'T do that.  You can only say you don't believe it because you
don't accept the evidence that I have.

>>>>>Who are the men behind the book?  Most of them are anonymous.
>>>> The selected books that go into the Book of Books satisfies the criteria of
>>>> being in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.  And hence their
>>>> selection.
>>>Tautology.  "In the book about our thing, we selected the things that were
>>>about our thing".  Well, yeah.  That's obvious.
>> Nope.  Jesus is accepted BY US as the promised messiah. And those books that
>> fully reflect what he said and taught are the books included in the bible.

>Yeah, like I said, in the book about Jesus being the messiah, you included the
>stuff that said Jesus was the messiah, and ditched the rest.

No, I didn't.  In truth, "messiah" was a name reserved for the expectant warrior
king that would deliver the Jews back to the prosperity of the Davidic kingdom
before the Babylonion exile.  And so the goes the prophesies of the OT.  But lo
and behold, the expected king arrived instead as a man of love promising the
heavenly kingdom with God. 

>This is like me writing a book about how cars on the freeway only travel at
>exactly 100 Km/h, and sitting there with a radar gun going: 100, keep, 100,
>keep, 120, throw that away, 100 keep...

Nope. 

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. 
*****

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:41:44 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:20:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>
><snip uninteresting crap we've hashed to death before>
>
>>>And your feelings could be
>>>wrong.  If a madman feels he IS Zeus, does that make him Zeus?
>> 
>> Zeus is a picture in a book.
>No.  2500 years ago, Zeus was a God.  People believed in him just as strongly
>as you beleive in YHWH.

Zeus lived, and still does, in the index of the mythology book.

>>>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, a new species of animal can be specially
>>>>>>>created, under laboratory conditions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What's wrong with his way - over extensive time periods?  You're mandating that
>>>>>> God think like you.
>>>>>
>>>>>According to the bible, he made a whole bunch of stuff in one day.  He's
>>>>>certainly capable, according to the bible.

>>>> What stuff?
>>>Plants, for example?

>>>Gen 1:11
>>>11 Then God said, ???Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and
>>>trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various
>>>kinds.??? And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed
>>>according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to
>>>their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there
>>>was morning???the third day.
 
>> No man was around 13.7 or 4.5 billion years ago to witness that.  Genesis 1-11
>> is not scientific.

>How do you know this?  If you've determined (somehow) that Gen 1-11 isn't
>"factual", then how do you know any of the rest of it is?  I'm assuming you're
>dismissing large parts of Genesis as allegorical.  How can you determine what
>parts of the bible are allegorical, and what parts are actual?

Because we know that Gen 1-11 was written after 2 Kings as a statement of faith
by man that states all comes from God, the source of sin, and of salvation, etc.
>>>>>>>If, by prayer to a specific deity, a person who had quite definitely been
>>>>>>>judged to be dead, under laboratory conditions, were suddenly brought
>>>>>>>back to life again. 
 
>>>>>> End of physical life during our trial period is his way.
>>>>>Except for Lazarus, and all those dead that issued forth from the tomb during
>>>>>the passion.  Oh, and Jesus himself, supposedly.
 
>>>> Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day also.  I believe.
>>>So it wasn't an end to his physical life then.  Or Lazarus.  Or all those
>>>zombies who were wandering around.
 
>> Well, we Christians accept the resurrection of the flesh in Jesus as example.
>> Some people think it was his glorified body.  Some people accept it as a
>> spiritual occurrence.   

>That's Jesus.  What about Lazarus?

Good question.  Hard to say.  But Jesus was flesh at the moment.  He couldn't
raise Laz himself, but maybe the Father in heaven did.  Maybe Laz wasn't really
dead.  I don't know and I don't think anyone can say either way.  God alone
knows.  For all we know, maybe that's not a real event.  Now I don't mean to
play down the incident.  But not everything written in Holy Script is literal.
The lesson presented in Laz could have ultimately be revealed as an example of
the power of God, or that Jesus had access to the Father, etc.  

The key is that it matters not re my belief in God.  

>>>> To simplify this, God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to die on the
>>>> cross to demonstrate to other flesh love and obedience to God, and hence, on the
>>>> 3rd day, God raised the flesh to new life as example to man of his future for
>>>> overcoming selfishness over all other things as our own reward for following
>>>> Jesus.
>> 
>>>> I/we believe.
>> 
>>>>>>>> The bible says 'seek and ye 
>>>>>>>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of 
>>>>>>>> God's existence?
 
>>>>>> We don't have a problem.  You're just a skeptic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup.  And you're credulous.
>>>> 
>>>> And I love it.
>>>
>>>Good for you.
>> 
>> Yes, good for me.
 
>>>>>>>Because the fact that you claim to have found God simply by seeking and
>>>>>>>finding is not testable in an objective way.  The claim that you have
>>>>>>>found God by "seeking and finding" is indistingushable from:
>> 
>>>>>> My personal joy of life went up exponentially with God in my life.
>>>>>Thats fine, my personal joy of life went up exponentially when I realized that
>>>>>this was the only life I get.
>> 
>>>>>So who wins?
>>>> Christians that follow Jesus.  That's what the example reflects.. 
>>>But my feeling of personal joy is far, FAR greater than yours.
 
>> But yours is fresh with personal drama, illness, family death, sickness, etc and
>> said personal joy ends with physical death.

>You don't have personal drama?  Members of your family don't die?  You don't
>get sick?

We all do.  But there are some things we don't control.  I will die, you will
die, maybe your child will die by a horrible incident.  We hope not, but we will
all die.

>> I experience the same physical
>> shortcomings as you, but I also live my life loving others.

>I love others as well.  I love lots of people.  I love all of mankind,
>actually.  I actively work on several projects that make people's lives better,
>and donate to several charities.  I also love animals.

And the beauty is that you are fully saying yes to God when he told us "to love
one another as he loves us".  John 13:34.  Even when you say you don't believe
in him.

>> So your's can't by
>> definition be greater than mine.
>No, I've already stated I know mine's far greater than yours.  I have proof.

Go for it.

>>>Prove it's not.
>> Don't have to.  I wouldn't change with you for any reason.
>All evidence points to the fact that you and I will share exactly the same
>fate.

If you love one another as you indicated you do, yep.


duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. 
*****

In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:54:59 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
> 
>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:56:50 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:16:11 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:02:53 -0500, sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> and it's also strange that if God sent his son to earth with such an
>>>>>>>>> important message to give to all mankind, he didn't do it in these times
>>>>>>>>> when worldwide (virtually instantaneous) communication is possible. and
>>>>>>>>> Jesus could have had a facebook and twitter page to answer any questions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>Well, really, for an omnipotent being, reliance upon the internet would
>>>>>>>>show a certain... lack of omnipotence.  Better to ask: if this message
>>>>>>>>was so important, why wasn't it delivered to ALL people on earth
>>>>>>>>simultaneously, at the time.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That would mandate he wait for billions of years to yet pass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why?  
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all those people yet to come.
>>> 
>>>>What did he do for the people who lived and died before he chose
>>>>to announce himself?
>>> 
>>> He didn't wait.
> 
>>Well, he did, since they lived and died before he announced himself.
>>Wait, are you a YEC?
> 
> No, he didn't wait.  He gave each man an opportunity to declare himself basis a
> criteria that each man had going all the way back to the formation of the earth
> 4.5 billion years ago.  

There's no evidence of worship of YHWH back past about 1400 BC, IIRC.  If
Yahweh doesn't even appear to be worshipped before then, what were the people
of Egypt at about 2500 BC supposed to do?  They lived and died before Yahweh
was even "around".

> 
>>>>>>Couldn't he simply have filled the sky with his visage, and
>>>>>>spoken to all the cultures of the earth at the time in their own
>>>>>>native language?
>>>>> I gather that's not the way he wanted to do things.
>>>>And you base that on what?
>>> He didn't do it.
> 
>>Could he have been restrained in some way?
> 
> No.  He is almighty.  He willed our universe into existence some 13.7 billion
> years ago.

Bald assertion, no evidence.

> 
>>>>>>>>  Instead of locally delivered to a few,
>>>>>>>>and then relying on a single book thereafter, written in languages
>>>>>>>>an omniscient deity would know wouldn't be around in the long run.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It's not the book.  It's the men behind the book that is the certifying act.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>It certainly is the book.  That's where the story is written
>>>>>>down.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nope, not hardly.   We have all the eye witnesses that existed from the time
>>>>> period.  We can make a case for some 15,000 minimum eye witnesses who saw and
>>>>> heard a lot things in different ways.
>>>>Uh huh.  Where are these witnesses?  Where's their testimony?
>>> In the history books.
>>Which ones?  Can you give me a name of one so I can look it up?  I'd be
>>interested.
> 
> There are people out there that knew Abe Lincoln and George Washington, Genghis
> Kahn, Nero, Caesar, etc.  But we don't know who said what about them.

Sure.  But those people whom you've pointed out were just men.  They did no
supernatural thing.  And we DO have records of their words and deeds, and from
more than one source.  For example; We have diplomatic correspondence from
France that deals with President Lincoln's government.  We don't have to rely
exclusively on US documents to verify that there was an historical figure by
the name of Abe Lincoln.

> The
> bible are the written records of the actions, words, religious practices of the
> peoples from the1st century in the biblical lands, and is a good historical
> record.

I specifically stated that the only reference we have of these eyewitness
accounts was in the Bible.  You stated that the men behind the book were the
certifying act.  I said it *was* in the book (the Bible), and you said "Nope,
not hardly.  We have these 15000 eyewitness accounts".  I ask for them, and you
point to... the Bible, which is where I knew they were all along.  So you've
completely failed on this point.

>>>>> Hence we have the bible as the
>>>>> **partial** record of the words, actions and religious practices of the people
>>>>> taking place over the ensuing 30-60 years after the cross.
>>> 
>>>>Odd that there's no Roman records of this Jesus fellow.  Odd that the only
>>>>eyewitness testimonies are in the bible.  So my point stands; the story
>>>>only exists in the book.  There's no other contemporary accounts.
> 
>>> 1.  Jesus, a carpenter, was hanging around a remote Roman garrison in the middle
>>> of the desert.
>>Jerusalem was a remote Roman Garrison?  It was the capital of Judea.
> 
> He was an unknown carpenter.

Failure on this point as well.  You stated that he wandered around a "remote
Roman garrison".  The "remote" garrison in question, as I pointed out, was the
very frigging captial of the province of Judea.  Your response?  "He was a
carpenter".

How, in any way shape or form, does that address what we were talking about?
i.e. that it wasn't a remote garrison, but the capital of a province?

>>> 2.  The bible is not the sole source.  People were.
> 
>>Again, I ask, where are the testemonies of these people, outside of the bible.
>>What history book is this documented in?
> 
> I'm not sure anyone but a few close friends had any idea who he was until he
> stirred up the Jewish people just before his cross.  They were the ones craving
> his head.

You said the Bible is not the sole source.  The people who knew him have been
dead for close to 2000 years.  They are NO LONGER a source.  So, do you have
any written records, or artifacts, or ANYTHING that could be used as a source
outside of the Bible?

>>>>> Many of these
>>>>> stories were down, some rejected for canonization due to errors, fabrications,
>>>>> or information already provided.  Further, we have the writing of the early
>>>>> Church fathers that wrote their own documents of experiences and knowledge.
> 
>>>>Why not include it all?  You know, "Teach the controversy"?  How did the church
>>>>know, 200+ years after the events happened, what was "accurate" and what
>>>>wasn't?  All the eyewitnesses were gone by that point.
> 
>>> Errors, fabrications, no new information.
> 
>>You said that already.  I ask again; how did they know they were fabrications,
>>when all the eyewitnesses were dead?
> 
> They were not dead.

There were 1500 year old people giving testimony at the Council of Trent?!
They were still deciding what was biblical canon back in 1546, you know.

> With the cross, the Chrisitans population was rapidly
> growing. What Jesus said and did was quickly followed by actions and writings of
> all the new converts.  And so this is the basis of the bible.

They spent 1500 years arguing over the bible.  It didn't get "fixed" in it's
current incantation until the mid 1500's.  Heck, even if you want to fix your
dates as early as possible, the latin Vulgate didn't get out until the 400's.

And why do the earliest versions of the Gospels not appear immediately after
the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus?  Why wait 30 to 40 years?

>>>>> Then
>>>>> we have continuing research and biblical scholarship for the last 2000 years all
>>>>> certifying the _belief_ that it's all true.
>>> 
>>>>2000 years of navel-gazing over the same book still hasn't provided one scrap
>>>>of objective evidence of God's existence.  Sorry.
>>> Don't sorry me.  I believe.
>>And I don't.
> 
> And it's your funeral, not mine.

You'll go to a funeral too.  And you have absolutely zero evidence, other than
some feelings you have, that your death will be any different from mine.

>>>>> As you may note, there is a certain amount of conflict.  Joe heard this in 35AD,
>>>>> Harry heard that is 41AD, Sally heard a different detail in 42AD.  And so we are
>>>>> faced with the big picture rather than the details.
>>> 
>>>>Yeah, and when you couple the exceedingly hazy big picture with the complete
>>>>lack of any evidence, you get...?
>>> My belief in a supreme creator who eventually taught us to love one another as
>>> he loves us.  Not money, not power, not fame, but love.
>>That's fine, I look at the same evidence and get that it's a huge load of
>>hooey.
> 
> So be it.  You don't care.  But you will be sorry one day when the end comes.

No, I won't.  What the evidence (or lack thereof) tells us is this: I spent
about 13.7 billion years not existing.  I will get my 85 or so years of
existence, and then I will go back to not existing.

>>>>> The basis for the
>>>>> canonized bible is then the known truths of Jesus and hence provided to us even
>>>>> this day.
>>>>> You'll notice that I said _belief_ that it's all true.  We believe.  We don't
>>>>> say we have proof.
> 
>>>>And I say: I don't believe you.  You have no proof, and more importantly, you
>>>>have no *evidence*.
>>> I know.  That's why there's no such thing as an atheist.
>>Please define atheist.
> 
> Actually, there is no such thing.  There can only be an atheist wannabe, or one
> that believes there is no God but has exactly zero evidence to support such a
> notion.  An atheist wannabe and an agnostic are essentially the same thing.

That's not a definition.  Please provide your definition of an atheist.

>>> There can only be
>>> people who don't accept the evidence as in your case.  And that means that
>>> complete lack of evidence for your position that there is NO God leaves you as
>>> only an atheist wannabe, and nothing else..
> 
>>I don't believe in God.  I'm an atheist.  
> 
> No, you're an atheist wannabe because you can't support your beliefs other than
> a flat-out unsupported statement of no belief.  But that's not an atheist, but a
> wannabe.

No, that's an atheist.

I am an agnostic atheist.

Theist: Believes in a God or Gods.
Atheist: Does not believe in a God or Gods
Gnostic: Claims knowledge.
Agnostic: Does not claim knowledge.

Therefore you have the following:

Gnostic Theist: Believes in God because s/he claims to know God exists.
Agnostic Theist: Doesn't know God exists (hasn't had any "revealed knowledge"),
but believes anyway.
Agnostitc Atheist: Does not believe in God, but does not claim to have absolute
knowledge that there is no God.
Gnostic Atheist:  Claims absolute knowledge that there is no God.

Thesists like to paint atheists as gnostic atheists, since, obviously, it's a
flawed intellectual position.  There are very, VERY few gnostic atheists.  The
vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists; They recognize that they can't
prove a negative, but are quite convinced that there isn't a God.

I'm 99.9999% convinced there isn't a God.  But, to be intellectually honest, I
have to account for the very slight possibility that I could be wrong.
Therefore, I won't claim absolute knowledge.

But here's the thing; just because I can't prove a negative, doesn't prove the
positive.  Theists have the positive claim; they claim a God exists.  At the
end of the day, if the best evidence you can come up with for your God is:
"Well, you can't prove he DOESN'T exist!", that's a pretty weak case.

>>I can't sanely assert there is NO
>>God, since I'd have to be able to prove a negative to do that.
> 
> Exactly.  A true atheist rejects/denies the existence of God.  But you can't
> support the rejection/denial.

Yeah, that's called intellectual honesty.  If you can't prove a negative, you
say so.

So where's your proof for the positive?  Oh, yeah; your feelings.

>>  What I *CAN* do
>>is point out that the complete and utter lack of any evidence for a God, an
>>afterlife, a soul, or anything else supernatural, COUPLED WITH positive
>>evidence that things that the bible asserts happened, didn't, points towards
>>the conclusion that there is no God, no Afterlife, no nothing.
> 
> And yet you CAN'T do that.  You can only say you don't believe it because you
> don't accept the evidence that I have.

I do do that.  I AM doing that.  I have done that multiple times:

There is NO objective evidence for God, or any of the miracles he supposedly
performed.

There is NO objective evidence for a soul, or that somehow your personality
survives your death.

There is NO objective evidence for a Heaven, a Hell, or any other supernatural
plane of existence.

There is NO objective evidence that Judaism and Yahweh even existed before
about 1400 BC.

There IS objective evidence that if you suffer a head injury, that your
memories, or entire personality can be changed.

There IS objective evidence that there was no global flood event.

There IS objective evidence that no stoppage of the earth occurred at any time
in recorded history.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  The complete lack of any evidence for
your assertions, coupled with the objective evidence we DO have, leads me to
the conclusion that there is no God.

>>>>>>Who are the men behind the book?  Most of them are anonymous.
>>>>> The selected books that go into the Book of Books satisfies the criteria of
>>>>> being in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.  And hence their
>>>>> selection.
>>>>Tautology.  "In the book about our thing, we selected the things that were
>>>>about our thing".  Well, yeah.  That's obvious.
>>> Nope.  Jesus is accepted BY US as the promised messiah. And those books that
>>> fully reflect what he said and taught are the books included in the bible.
> 
>>Yeah, like I said, in the book about Jesus being the messiah, you included the
>>stuff that said Jesus was the messiah, and ditched the rest.
> 
> No, I didn't.

I know *you* didn't.  But the council of Nicea, the council of Trent, etc.
did.

> In truth, "messiah" was a name reserved for the expectant warrior
> king that would deliver the Jews back to the prosperity of the Davidic kingdom
> before the Babylonion exile.  And so the goes the prophesies of the OT.  But lo
> and behold, the expected king arrived instead as a man of love promising the
> heavenly kingdom with God. 
> 
>>This is like me writing a book about how cars on the freeway only travel at
>>exactly 100 Km/h, and sitting there with a radar gun going: 100, keep, 100,
>>keep, 120, throw that away, 100 keep...
> 
> Nope. 
> 
> duke, American - American
> 
> *****
> 1 John 3:4-6
> 4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
> sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
> appeared so that he might take away our sins.
> And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
> him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
> sin has either seen him or known him. 
> *****

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:31:36 +0200, sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:

> In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess  
> <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-Mar-29 12:19, linuxgal wrote:
>>> sbalneav wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tautology. "In the book about our thing, we selected the things that  
>>>> were
>>>> about our thing". Well, yeah. That's obvious.
>>>
>>> Redundant book title: Windows For Dummies
>>
>> "Unix made easy" could also be a funny title.
>
> As a Unix/Linux admin, I take umbrage with that :)

You take umbrage with that title because Unix can't be made easy? ;)


-- 
Hannele, A.A #2211

There are at least as many gods as there are believers.

felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote in news:9ssfvlFde3U1@mid.individual.net:

> What evidence is there,
> apart from the bible,
> that Jesus actually existed?

Book of Moron.

-- 

Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/jahbulon.html

In alt.atheism Hannele <hannele@lycos.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:31:36 +0200, sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
> 
>> In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess  
>> <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-Mar-29 12:19, linuxgal wrote:
>>>> sbalneav wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tautology. "In the book about our thing, we selected the things that  
>>>>> were
>>>>> about our thing". Well, yeah. That's obvious.
>>>>
>>>> Redundant book title: Windows For Dummies
>>>
>>> "Unix made easy" could also be a funny title.
>>
>> As a Unix/Linux admin, I take umbrage with that :)
> 
> You take umbrage with that title because Unix can't be made easy? ;)

"Unix is very user friendly.  It's just picky about who its friends with."

On 2012-Mar-31 17:41, Jahbulon wrote:
> felix_unger<me@nothere.com>  wrote in news:9ssfvlFde3U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> What evidence is there,
>> apart from the bible,
>> that Jesus actually existed?
>
> Book of Moron.

Many people have told me that's Zaboor-ing one.

-- 
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Atheism:  It's the logical choice."
    -- Johnny Zondo (March 2010)

On 2012-Mar-31 23:14, linuxgal wrote:
> sbalneav wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Hannele <hannele@lycos.nl> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:31:36 +0200, sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
>>>> <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-Mar-29 12:19, linuxgal wrote:
>>>>>> sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tautology. "In the book about our thing, we selected the things
>>>>>>> that were
>>>>>>> about our thing". Well, yeah. That's obvious.
>>>>>> Redundant book title: Windows For Dummies
>>>>> "Unix made easy" could also be a funny title.
>>>> As a Unix/Linux admin, I take umbrage with that :)
>>> You take umbrage with that title because Unix can't be made easy? ;)
>>
>> "Unix is very user friendly. It's just picky about who its friends with."
>
> Most people just can't come to greps with it.

Many find it difficult to getty to the top at first.

-- 
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"As a teacher once said, prayer is like a long distance telephone call, 
with nobody at the other end."
    -- Mike Painter

sbalneav wrote:
> In alt.atheism Hannele <hannele@lycos.nl> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:31:36 +0200, sbalneav <sbalneav@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.atheism Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess  
>>> <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-Mar-29 12:19, linuxgal wrote:
>>>>> sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tautology. "In the book about our thing, we selected the things that  
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> about our thing". Well, yeah. That's obvious.
>>>>> Redundant book title: Windows For Dummies
>>>> "Unix made easy" could also be a funny title.
>>> As a Unix/Linux admin, I take umbrage with that :)
>> You take umbrage with that title because Unix can't be made easy? ;)
> 
> "Unix is very user friendly.  It's just picky about who its friends with."

Most people just can't come to greps with it.

"ThomMadura"  wrote
> On 3/30/2012 9:31 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 30-March-2012 11:23 PM, ThomMadura wrote:

>>> YET _ they have announced their education and job as well.
>> They? whose they? Theo and I?

>Didn't need to ask YOU

>WHY would an intelligent person - ask an obvious anonymous name for 
>any information

>Do you ever think?

I have never posted under a pseudonym in 18 years and don't intend to 
start now. I changed my email address when I retired from paid work.
Pete has posted under a range of pseudonyms but always signs as Pete. 
I know his full name but it is not my information to give out.

Theo 

On 4/1/2012 7:28 AM, Theo Bekkers wrote:
> "ThomMadura"  wrote
>> On 3/30/2012 9:31 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>> On 30-March-2012 11:23 PM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
>>>> YET _ they have announced their education and job as well.
>>> They? whose they? Theo and I?
>
>> Didn't need to ask YOU
>
>> WHY would an intelligent person - ask an obvious anonymous name for
>> any information
>
>> Do you ever think?
>
> I have never posted under a pseudonym in 18 years and don't intend to
> start now. I changed my email address when I retired from paid work.
> Pete has posted under a range of pseudonyms but always signs as Pete.
> I know his full name but it is not my information to give out.
>


Obviously - my post was meant for Felix

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote in
news:JNRdr.14251$FA4.10419@newsfe03.iad: 

>>> What evidence is there,
>>> apart from the bible,
>>> that Jesus actually existed?
>>
>> Book of Moron.
> 
> Many people have told me that's Zaboor-ing one.

Book of Mormon is not a witness to Jesus Christ apart from The Bible 
because it says the same as The Bible.  A second witness would see things 
from a different perspective, as Book of Mormon certainly does not.

-- 

Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/jahbulon.html

On 4/1/2012 12:07 PM, Jahbulon wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <goddess@fidemturbare.com>  wrote in
> news:JNRdr.14251$FA4.10419@newsfe03.iad:
>
>>>> What evidence is there,
>>>> apart from the bible,
>>>> that Jesus actually existed?
>>>
>>> Book of Moron.
>>
>> Many people have told me that's Zaboor-ing one.
>
> Book of Mormon is not a witness to Jesus Christ apart from The Bible
> because it says the same as The Bible.  A second witness would see things
> from a different perspective, as Book of Mormon certainly does not.
>


The bible itself is not witness to the christ either

IT was not made canon by the religion until late in the 4th century. WE 
do not even know if the bible was based on any ORIGINAL documents of the 
stories they chose - or if they actually knew who wrote them.
IN fact - the original bibles were written without chapter and verse 
headings - and without punctuation as well.

Of course - today - we have no material - that can be dated to the 
supposed time of the christ - that mentions his name  - none at all.

And we do not have any original source material for any of the gospels - 
in fact - we only have a few writings of PAUL.

Jahbulon wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <goddess@fidemturbare.com> wrote in
> news:JNRdr.14251$FA4.10419@newsfe03.iad: 
> 
>>>> What evidence is there,
>>>> apart from the bible,
>>>> that Jesus actually existed?
>>> Book of Moron.
>> Many people have told me that's Zaboor-ing one.
> 
> Book of Mormon is not a witness to Jesus Christ apart from The Bible 
> because it says the same as The Bible. 

Naw, it says different things than the Bible.  Jesus is an ass-kicker 
rather than the Prince of Peace in the BOM.

The city of Zarahemla caught on fire.

The city of Moroni sank into the sea.

A volcano erupted inside the city of Moronihah until the city was 
covered by a great mountain.

Earthquakes leveled many other cities. Tornadoes carried many people 
away to parts unknown. Boulders were cracked in two. Roads were broken 
up, buildings toppled, and many people were killed.

All of these things happened in the space of three hours.

Then it was dark for three days, and no candle nor torch could be 
kindled to shed light. There was no sun nor moon nor stars.

Then a great voice was heard in the darkness taking credit for burning 
Zarahemla and drowning Moroni and covering Moronihah with earth to hide 
their iniquities from his face. He also mentioned causing the city of 
Gilgal to be swallowed up by the earth and a number of other cities to 
be covered by water. Other towns he destroyed with fire from heaven like 
Sodom and Gomorrah.

Everyone who was still alive, he said, was spared because they were more 
righteous than those cities. He asks if they will come to him and be 
blessed.

This is kind of like the Terminator killing everone in the police 
station, but leaving one or two cops alive and then saying, "Won't you 
be my friend?"

On 2012-Mar-29 22:01, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:05 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>  wrote:
[snip]
>> I was an F18 pilot. after my military career, I was recruited by NASA as
>> a consultant on the space program. however, I am now retired, and
>> enjoying my sunset years, in the delightful company of my wife, 26
>> children, 365 grandchildren, and four mistresses.
>
> And I'm really Marilyn Monroe.  I've been brought back by the space
> aliens, un-aged.

You and I should really sit down for tea sometime.

-- 
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"From the deepest desires often come the deadliest hate."
    -- Socrates of Athens

On Apr 2, 10:37 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On 2012-Mar-29 22:01, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:05 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>  wrote:
> [snip]
> >> I was an F18 pilot. after my military career, I was recruited by NASA as
> >> a consultant on the space program. however, I am now retired, and
> >> enjoying my sunset years, in the delightful company of my wife, 26
> >> children, 365 grandchildren, and four mistresses.
>
> > And I'm really Marilyn Monroe.  I've been brought back by the space
> > aliens, un-aged.
>
> You and I should really sit down for tea sometime.

I'd much rather it be Cosmopolitans than mere tea, but yeah, we
should.  What hemisphere do you live in?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

On Mar 20, 5:51 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>
> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> "No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
>
> The atheists moral dilemma ..http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
>
> “It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
>
> "It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
>
> “if there was no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God at all. How could they?”
>
> "Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

Try taking the time and energy to seriously look at the evidence and
dont let your biased Mind try to pull the sheet over your eyes.   If
you think your human anatomy with a brain capable of 1 million
gigabytes of info storage 'just happened' from an accidental pond scum
protozoa  for no good reason  whereby the most notable of Scientists
cant begin to duplicate the human brain ....then you Sir are playing a
convenient charade that i once played for a good 10 adult years as an
atheist-wannabe.   It takes too much faith to be a real atheist .