🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 10, 2:16 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> > rbwinn wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 8:24�pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jul 7, 9:06 pm, rich...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
>
> >>>> In article <sba274h0m6sfce2dq2q7nqsrh2lca5p...@4ax.com>,
> >>>> lu...@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
> >>>>> *From:* Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >>>>> *Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500
> >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), rich...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard
> >>>>> Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism:
> >>>>>> In article <dv3v641nlblt9lrl26j45pnb5v085e8...@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>> lu...@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally
> >>>>>>> dogmatic
> >>>>>>>> that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of
> >>>>> the >> truth,
> >>>>>>>> despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a
> >>>>> decent >> set of
> >>>>>>>> repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position.
> >>>>>>> What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of
> >>>>>>> evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not
> >>>>>>> necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not
> >>>>> believe >> in
> >>>>>>> them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not
> >>>>>>> exist?
> >>>>>> I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to
> >>>>> insist
> >>>>>> on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims
> >>>>> to,
> >>>>>> that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the
> >>>>> marked
> >>>>>> similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the
> >>>>> beliefs
> >>>>>> of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they
> >>>>> want to,
> >>>>>> but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered
> >>>>>> arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real
> >>>>>> evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong.
> >>>>> Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the
> >>>>> theists
> >>>>> have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists,
> >>>>> it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A
> >>>>> does
> >>>>> not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims,
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> false.
> >>>> If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no
> >>>> such
> >>>> evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly.
> >>>> Your argument, therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are
> >>>> assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence
> >>>> that it is anything of the sort.
> >>>> There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and
> >>>> strong atheists are correct; in the lack of such evidence there is no
> >>>> justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in
> >>>> the status of a viewpoint supported by faith.
> >>> You are banking on a philosophical context, or approach.
> >>> When we talk about evidence, we are then sure of things or event or
> >>> happening. Anything solid in this world would have the possibility of
> >>> a definition.
> >>> But a god...can you provide a definition and his existence?
> >>> You very well know that a heaven and hell thing are the invention of
> >>> human imagination and yet you believe we should not doubt them?
> >>> And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that?
> >>> A decent human can have a brain that is full of sense, in search of
> >>> logic but a clouded mind will never be cleared of dogma.- Hide quoted
> >>> text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Well, yes.  We have Jesus Christ, notwithstanding all of the efforts
> >> of atheists to pretend he never existed.
>
> > You mean there isn't any evidence he existed and it upsets you that
> > atheists notice this fact...
>
> Oh, theres lots ofevidence he existed, just not a lot that he was that
> special..

There were a lot of past human, there is no denying.
But this jesus guy was a god......and he didn't do any good, or
benefited mankind, or worth worshiping.