Q: How can a person verify an atheist exists?

How can a person verify an atheist exists?
The only "Evidence" for atheists would be
the self reports of the so-called
atheists... their personal testimony. If
personal testimony is now acceptable
evidence, the theists win.

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed, because it is simply a matter of
common sense that rational, reasonable, sane non-believers must exist.

JTEM

2018-11-07 21:00:22 UTC

Post by John Locke
...religion is so fucking nonsensical

The religious way you impose a standard of evidence
on others that you could never hope to meet yourself,
for example.

...you make that "Leap of Faith."

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179864202238

Yap Honghor

2018-11-08 03:16:55 UTC

Post by John Locke
...religion is so fucking nonsensical

The religious way you impose a standard of evidence
on others that you could never hope to meet yourself,
for example.
...you make that "Leap of Faith."

With your religious faith, you are suppose to leap so that you can demonstrate your true confidence in your pixie.....but, this type of suppose evidence sees all theists running for cover, such apparent cowardice!!!!!!!!!

JTEM

2018-11-08 05:05:14 UTC

The easiest thing in the world would have
been to admit that I'm right. That's how
a normal person would have done it. Someone
without your disorder would simply admit
what they were doing, after it was pointed
it, it being so abundantly clear.

It is that simple. The fact that your so
called "Atheism" can't survive the simple
truth goes a long way towards condemning
you.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179864202238

Yap Honghor

2018-11-08 09:11:38 UTC

Post by JTEM
The easiest thing in the world would have
been to admit that I'm right. That's how
a normal person would have done it. Someone
without your disorder would simply admit
what they were doing, after it was pointed
it, it being so abundantly clear.
It is that simple. The fact that your so
called "Atheism" can't survive the simple
truth goes a long way towards condemning
you.

Is this how a trolling theist respond?
Your denial of atheism is simply having nano chance of success....

JTEM

2018-11-08 18:14:46 UTC

You're typing to just hear the clicking of the
keyboard.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179896020930

Yap Honghor

2018-11-09 01:49:16 UTC

You're typing to just hear the clicking of the
keyboard.

Which will click away the trolling theists....

Kevrob

2018-11-09 15:13:26 UTC

You're typing to just hear the clicking of the
keyboard.

Wow. Talk about projection.

McGuinness posts this crap over and over and over.

It's a PRaTT, so I'll repeat one of my previous answers:

[shamelessly quoting myself]

Personal testimony is a valid form of discussing belief,
if not the factual basis (or lack thereof) for such beliefs.

Atheists are not asserting a belief, so asking someone
"Do you believe in a ghod" and getting the answer "no"
is all you need for "proof of an atheist's existence."
If you want to rebut that statement, by providing evidence
that he is lying, go right ahead. I've heard "nobody
relly disbelieves in a ghod. In their heart of hearts
they know ghod is real" all my life. Since mind-reading isn't
as yet replicable nor falsifiable, I won't accept it as evidence.

"I don't believe" is not an extraordinary claim. "Ghod(z) exist(s)"
is. The extraordinary claim has a higher standard of evidence.
Every once in a while this is pointed out to McGuinness, but he
always ignores it, runs away, and starts another thread with his initial
claim that there are no real atheists.

[/quote]

Message-ID: <f744dcd0-f011-4714-86df-***@googlegroups.com>

OR

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.atheism/iIKPBkKUZps/GmX7IG-BCAAJ

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

JTEM

2018-11-09 15:22:06 UTC

Post by Kevrob
Wow. Talk about projection.

I wasn't talking about that, actually, but given how
profoundly stupid you are I can't say that I'm
surprised that you would feel otherwise...

You're a moron trying to justify hypocrisy.

They theists kick your ass. Where all you've
got is personal testimony the theists have
science, especially medical science, as well
as personal testimony to draw on for evidence.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179900170758

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179900170758

Kevrob

2018-11-09 15:26:41 UTC

Post by Kevrob
Wow. Talk about projection.

I wasn't talking about that, actually, but given how
profoundly stupid you are I can't say that I'm
surprised that you would feel otherwise...
You're a moron trying to justify hypocrisy.
They theists kick your ass. Where all you've
got is personal testimony the theists have
science, especially medical science, as well
as personal testimony to draw on for evidence.
-- --

There's theodicy, ass in:

"If there were a omnibenevolent, omnipowerful ghod,
why would McGuinness exist?"

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

Christopher A. Lee

2018-11-09 15:33:25 UTC

You're typing to just hear the clicking of the
keyboard.

Wow. Talk about projection.
McGuinness posts this crap over and over and over.
[shamelessly quoting myself]
Personal testimony is a valid form of discussing belief,
if not the factual basis (or lack thereof) for such beliefs.
Atheists are not asserting a belief, so asking someone
"Do you believe in a ghod" and getting the answer "no"
is all you need for "proof of an atheist's existence."
If you want to rebut that statement, by providing evidence
that he is lying, go right ahead. I've heard "nobody
relly disbelieves in a ghod. In their heart of hearts
they know ghod is real" all my life. Since mind-reading isn't
as yet replicable nor falsifiable, I won't accept it as evidence.

Especially when they say it about _you_,

At which point, the gloves are off and they shouldn't whine when
they're treated as the liars they show they are.

Post by Kevrob
"I don't believe" is not an extraordinary claim. "Ghod(z) exist(s)"
is. The extraordinary claim has a higher standard of evidence.
Every once in a while this is pointed out to McGuinness, but he
always ignores it, runs away, and starts another thread with his initial
claim that there are no real atheists.

I don't believe in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, Odin, Quetzalcotl, the
Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or UFO abductions, either.

Although McShitforbrains McGuinness must believe in UFO abductions
complete with anal probes - after all, he's such a pain in the ass.

Post by Kevrob
[/quote]
OR
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.atheism/iIKPBkKUZps/GmX7IG-BCAAJ
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

Cloud Hobbit

2018-11-09 01:17:46 UTC

It's the same as asking a person if they are a Republican or a Democrat and asking them to prove that they are whatever they say.

How do you prove you're a Republican or a Democrat? You can't provide any physical evidence.

There must be some atheists or you wouldn't be doing so much complaining about them.

JTEM

2018-11-09 15:25:36 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
It's the same as asking a person if they are a Republican or a Democrat and asking them to prove that they are whatever they say.

No. People misidentify OR MISREPRESENT themselves all
the time. The collective calls itself an atheist then
describes an agnostic, as one very common example.

It's offensive with wannabes jump on somebody elses
bandwagon. By associating your mental illness and
knuckle dragging ignorance with actual atheists you
are soiling them and their views.

You're not an atheist. You never were.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179900170758

Davej

2018-11-09 15:51:10 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
It's the same as asking a person if they are a Republican
or a Democrat and asking them to prove that they are whatever
they say.

No. People misidentify OR MISREPRESENT themselves all
the time. The collective calls itself an atheist then
describes an agnostic, as one very common example.

It isn't such a clear line between atheists and agnostics.

If Jesus appears in the sky tomorrow you will be on your knees
or dancing in celebration.

If Jesus appears in the sky tomorrow I will assume it is most
likely a hoax. A holographic projection. A scheme of airborne
animatronics. A hallucination or induced dream-state. It could
even be a ruse conducted by an alien civilization. There is
almost no chance that it is actually Jesus, the junior lord
creator. How exactly would we tell the difference between
advanced aliens projecting a hologram and an actual appearance
by a god? I would remain a skeptic.

Kevrob

2018-11-09 21:24:07 UTC

Post by Davej
How exactly would we tell the difference between
advanced aliens projecting a hologram and an actual appearance
by a god? I would remain a skeptic.

Clarke's 3rd Law, a good example.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

duke

2018-11-08 22:31:38 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

John Locke

2018-11-09 00:44:45 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

..no Earl, we're here and growing in numbers by the day. If you could
add up all the atheists that keep their atheism in the closet for a
multitude of reasons such political, peer, family or financial
reasons, I'm sure you'd be shocked at the numbers...hell, you
might even be the last real theist on earth ! Jesus will probably
cancel the 2nd coming.

Don Martin

2018-11-09 22:40:32 UTC

On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 16:44:45 -0800, John Locke

Contrary to all the evidence.

Well, he has certainly been good at THAT so far . . .

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

Kevrob

2018-11-09 22:51:17 UTC

Post by Don Martin
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 16:44:45 -0800, John Locke

Jesus will probably cancel the 2nd coming.

Well, he has certainly been good at THAT so far . . .

If Josh died a virgin, wouldn't it be the 1ST coming? :)

---
Keivn R
a.a #2310

Don Martin

2018-11-10 15:35:08 UTC

Post by Don Martin
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 16:44:45 -0800, John Locke

Jesus will probably cancel the 2nd coming.

Well, he has certainly been good at THAT so far . . .

If Josh died a virgin, wouldn't it be the 1ST coming? :)

Adolescent nocturnal emissions don't count?

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

Yap Honghor

2018-11-12 22:53:39 UTC

Post by Don Martin
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 16:44:45 -0800, John Locke

Jesus will probably cancel the 2nd coming.

Well, he has certainly been good at THAT so far . . .

If Josh died a virgin, wouldn't it be the 1ST coming? :)

What 1st coming, 2nd coming, 3rd coming.....these religious bullshits are really for the stupidest fools of this world!!!!

Post by Kevrob
---
Keivn R
a.a #2310

duke

2018-11-11 15:53:58 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

With your wacked up ideas as an atheist, a closet is a good place to hide it.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Cloud Hobbit

2018-11-09 01:19:12 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

What evidence? The evidence you keep claiming you have but never reveal to anyone? That evidence?

Post by duke
the dukester, American-Dumbass

Yap Honghor

2018-11-09 01:51:05 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

What evidence? The evidence you keep claiming you have but never reveal to anyone? That evidence?

If the theists have evidence, needless to say they would have already united with their pixies.......

duke

2018-11-11 15:55:24 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

What evidence? The evidence you keep claiming you have but never reveal to anyone? That evidence?

If the theists have evidence, needless to say they would have already united with their pixies.......

Yap and his "pixie in the head".

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Yap Honghor

2018-11-12 22:56:16 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

What evidence? The evidence you keep claiming you have but never reveal to anyone? That evidence?

If the theists have evidence, needless to say they would have already united with their pixies.......

Yap and his "pixie in the head".

You fat moron and your ilks are real cowards.
On the one hand you all want to die for your pixie, on the other you donkeys refuse to depart to seek union with it!!!!!!

What sort of donkey are you theists?????????????????

duke

2018-11-13 15:28:12 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

What evidence? The evidence you keep claiming you have but never reveal to anyone? That evidence?

If the theists have evidence, needless to say they would have already united with their pixies.......

Yap and his "pixie in the head".

You fat moron and your ilks are real cowards.
On the one hand you all want to die for your pixie, on the other you donkeys refuse to depart to seek union with it!!!!!!
What sort of donkey are you theists?????????????????

Just as long as I'm not you.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

duke

2018-11-11 15:54:50 UTC

Contrary to all the evidence.

What evidence? The evidence you keep claiming you have but never reveal to anyone? That evidence?

THE EVIDENCE that ensures that Christianity will grow until it occupies the
entire world.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

duke

2018-11-09 07:12:09 UTC

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Greywolf

2018-11-09 08:27:42 UTC

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Glad you're so "open-minded" and refuse to deny they exist due to your inability to disprove they're there.

What a refreshing change of pace for you. And how is your attempt to disprove the Son of the Leprechaun created the universe coming along?

Agnostic about that too? You can't disprove it, you know.

Post by duke
the dukester, American Idiot AND Imbecile of the Year - 2018

duke

2018-11-11 15:56:35 UTC

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Greywolf

2018-11-11 18:16:21 UTC

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Post by duke
the dukester, Alt.Atheism Village Idiot

duke

2018-11-11 20:08:54 UTC

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:16:21 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

No way to know.

Post by Greywolf
I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Melzzzzz

2018-11-11 20:22:07 UTC

Post by duke
Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

No, God is not an answer.

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

Don Martin

2018-11-12 15:54:43 UTC

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by duke
Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

No, God is not an answer.

It is far too questionable for that role.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

duke

2018-11-12 22:46:44 UTC

Post by Melzzzzz

Post by duke
Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

No, God is not an answer.

Well, you're a pagan anyway, so you don't like it.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Greywolf

2018-11-12 06:32:23 UTC

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:16:21 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

No way to know.

Sure is! But I won't tell you how.

Post by Greywolf
I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

Practically speaking, that sentence is meaningless without proof. It's a lie.

Post by duke
the dukester, American Cockroach Eating Champion - NYC - 2018

duke

2018-11-12 22:47:55 UTC

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 22:32:23 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:16:21 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

No way to know.

Sure is! But I won't tell you how.

You can't.

Post by Greywolf
I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

Practically speaking, that sentence is meaningless without proof. It's a lie.

Practically speaking, you can't help yourself without proof, and that's out of
the question.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Greywolf

2018-11-13 02:57:04 UTC

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 22:32:23 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:16:21 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

No way to know.

Sure is! But I won't tell you how.

You can't.

Yes I can.

Post by Greywolf
I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

Practically speaking, that sentence is meaningless without proof. It's a lie.

Practically speaking, you can't help yourself without proof, and that's out of
the question.

You can't prove God exists. No one can. But YOU are the one insisting God exists, so now go and prove it.

You've told us that you "talk WITH God." Prove it. Ask Him why He not only hasn't destroyed Satan, but continues to supply him with his Satanic Powers to lead man further into sin with. What? Is His His Godly "love" reserved only for Satan?

Post by duke
the dukester, American Co-Imbecile of the Year - 2006-2018

duke

2018-11-13 15:31:42 UTC

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:57:04 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 22:32:23 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:16:21 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

No way to know.

Sure is! But I won't tell you how.

You can't.

Yes I can.

I win.

Post by Greywolf
I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

Practically speaking, that sentence is meaningless without proof. It's a lie.

Practically speaking, you can't help yourself without proof, and that's out of
the question.

You can't prove God exists. No one can. But YOU are the one insisting God exists, so now go and prove it.
You've told us that you "talk WITH God." Prove it. Ask Him why He not only hasn't destroyed Satan, but continues to supply him with his Satanic Powers to lead man further into sin with. What? Is His His Godly "love" reserved only for Satan?

Yes, but not with my lips. I speak English and he understands all language. We
have fine discussions, and tons of leadership from God.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Cloud Hobbit

2018-11-21 03:04:04 UTC

Post by duke
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:57:04 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 22:32:23 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:16:21 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

No way to know.

Sure is! But I won't tell you how.

You can't.

Yes I can.

I win.

Post by Greywolf
I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

Practically speaking, that sentence is meaningless without proof. It's a lie.

Practically speaking, you can't help yourself without proof, and that's out of
the question.

You can't prove God exists. No one can. But YOU are the one insisting God exists, so now go and prove it.
You've told us that you "talk WITH God." Prove it. Ask Him why He not only hasn't destroyed Satan, but continues to supply him with his Satanic Powers to lead man further into sin with. What? Is His His Godly "love" reserved only for Satan?

Yes, but not with my lips. I speak English and he understands all language. We
have fine discussions, and tons of leadership from God.
the dukester, American-Satanist

Is it God that tells you to be a liar and a misogynist? Does he tell you to violate the Golden Rule or not to piss off if nobody wants to hear what you have to say?

Whatever influence your god has had over you is reason enough to reject your beliefs and your god. He's obviously an ass.

:2 Berger:

2018-11-21 03:19:07 UTC

Post by duke
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:57:04 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 22:32:23 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:16:21 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

No way to know.

Sure is! But I won't tell you how.

You can't.

Yes I can.

I win.

Post by Greywolf
I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

Practically speaking, that sentence is meaningless without proof. It's a lie.

Practically speaking, you can't help yourself without proof, and that's out of
the question.

You can't prove God exists. No one can. But YOU are the one insisting God exists, so now go and prove it.
You've told us that you "talk WITH God." Prove it. Ask Him why He not only hasn't destroyed Satan, but continues to supply him with his Satanic Powers to lead man further into sin with. What? Is His His Godly "love" reserved only for Satan?

Yes, but not with my lips. I speak English and he understands all language. We
have fine discussions, and tons of leadership from God.
the dukester, American-Satanist

Is it God that tells you to be a liar and a misogynist? Does he tell you to violate the Golden Rule or not to piss off if nobody wants to hear what you have to say?

This is what atheism is. They lie with impunity until the day they
meet me. Then I break my foot off in their ass. Hear hear! Up
until eifhteen they push everybody around and stand at the top of
the hill. When they turn nineteen, they die.

duke

2018-11-21 20:29:22 UTC

Post by :2 Berger:

Post by duke
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:57:04 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 22:32:23 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:16:21 -0800 (PST), Greywolf

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

That means you are an agnostic regarding whether there are invisible cows grazing on undetectable invisible grass on the moon.

Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

Glad to see you think it might be true.

No way to know.

Sure is! But I won't tell you how.

You can't.

Yes I can.

I win.

Post by Greywolf
I take it then, that you are also agnostic when it comes to believing the Son of the Leprechaun created the Universe since you can't disprove He didn't. Right?

Practically speaking, God is the only answer.

Practically speaking, that sentence is meaningless without proof. It's a lie.

Practically speaking, you can't help yourself without proof, and that's out of
the question.

You can't prove God exists. No one can. But YOU are the one insisting God exists, so now go and prove it.
You've told us that you "talk WITH God." Prove it. Ask Him why He not only hasn't destroyed Satan, but continues to supply him with his Satanic Powers to lead man further into sin with. What? Is His His Godly "love" reserved only for Satan?

Yes, but not with my lips. I speak English and he understands all language. We
have fine discussions, and tons of leadership from God.
the dukester, American-Satanist

Is it God that tells you to be a liar and a misogynist? Does he tell you to violate the Golden Rule or not to piss off if nobody wants to hear what you have to say?

Hmmmm, interesting response.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

duke

2018-11-21 20:26:56 UTC

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:04:04 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit

Post by duke
Yes, but not with my lips. I speak English and he understands all language. We
have fine discussions, and tons of leadership from God.

Is it God that tells you to be a liar and a misogynist? Does he tell you to violate the Golden Rule or not to piss off if nobody wants to hear what you have to say?

No, and so I don't.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Whatever influence your god has had over you is reason enough to reject your beliefs and your god. He's obviously an ass.

It's your funeral. Don't say I didn't warn you.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Kevrob

2018-11-11 18:22:49 UTC

Post by duke
Yep, I am totally unsure of the existence of invisible cows grazing on invisible
grass on the moon.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

John Locke

2018-11-09 12:00:06 UTC

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

....the probability that your god exists is one in a thousand
trillion. That means we're non-believers. We don't believe, based on
the low probability, that your silly ass god exists. It doesn't matter
which label you use...you can't get around the fact that you've
failed to provide any tangible evidence for the existence of your
alleged god.

Yap Honghor

2018-11-09 13:13:08 UTC

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

You talk to an illiterate on the topic of "probability"?
He doesn't understand what it is...

He has been recruited as a fool and one who since then only cling onto a pixie which has no chance of existing!

John Locke

2018-11-09 21:21:01 UTC

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 05:13:08 -0800 (PST), Yap Honghor

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

You talk to an illiterate on the topic of "probability"?
He doesn't understand what it is...

...I've brought it up many times..but it appears that the term has
been totaly erased from the theist vernacular.

Post by Yap Honghor
He has been recruited as a fool and one who since then only cling onto a pixie which has no chance of existing!

...well, it has a one in one thousand trillion chance of existing.
Being practical, however, we can safely conclude that no god exists.

duke

2018-11-11 15:59:12 UTC

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

You talk to an illiterate on the topic of "probability"?
He doesn't understand what it is...
He has been recruited as a fool and one who since then only cling onto a pixie which has no chance of existing!

Give it up, yap. You are out classed in this ng.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

duke

2018-11-11 15:57:49 UTC

...religion is so fucking nonsensical, that no verification for the
existence of atheists is needed,

Technically there are no atheists. The most any of them can claim is agnostic
due to inability to support their position.

The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

linuxgal

2018-11-11 16:14:13 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

duke

2018-11-11 20:15:43 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

Even Ms. Lot got burned.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Kevrob

2018-11-11 20:23:28 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.
Even Ms. Lot got burned.

An omniscient being wouldn't need any reports, now, would it?

The "omni-" qualities are, compared to the Hebrew original,
a retcon borrowing Greek concepts.

As I always say, the only one of them that seems real
is omni-absence.

---
Kevin R
a.a 32310

Melzzzzz

2018-11-11 20:40:27 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.
Even Ms. Lot got burned.

An omniscient being wouldn't need any reports, now, would it?
The "omni-" qualities are, compared to the Hebrew original,
a retcon borrowing Greek concepts.
As I always say, the only one of them that seems real
is omni-absence.

Nowhere in Bible is mentioned that God is omnipresent and omniscient,
that was invention of theologists much later...

Post by Kevrob
---
Kevin R
a.a 32310

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

duke

2018-11-12 22:49:03 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.
Even Ms. Lot got burned.

An omniscient being wouldn't need any reports, now, would it?

Come on. Keep the story together. It in line with scripture.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Rev. Ken Jones

2018-11-16 22:00:54 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.
Even Ms. Lot got burned.

An omniscient being wouldn't need any reports, now, would it?

Come on. Keep the story together. It in line with scripture.
the dukester, American-American

I think you are missing a very valuable evidence which suggest
deliberate, purposeful, and intentional design in nature by
ignoring homeboy genes.
Homeboy genes appear to have been programed over 500 million
years ago, they are universal, {the same master control genes
called (homologue) in all animals in the animal kingdom, and
they are virtually unchanged from their beginning. Over 300
so far have been identified.
They control the genes that express for eyes, heart, stomach
and other organs, heads and limbs.
For example: the eye gene of a mouse was transplanted into
the genome of a fruit fly and the mouse eye gene controlled
the development in complex fruit-fly eyes in fruit flies.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/walter-jakob-gehring-1939-2014
The eye gene called Pax6 controls the development of eyes

in humans, squid, fish etc.
Of course this is said to prove that the mouse, fruit-fly
humans etc all had a common ancestor.

Post by duke
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Rev. Ken Jones

2018-11-16 22:08:16 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.
Even Ms. Lot got burned.

An omniscient being wouldn't need any reports, now, would it?

Come on. Keep the story together. It in line with scripture.
the dukester, American-American

www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
www.cccbiotechnology.com/WN/SUA01/master_eye_gene.php

Post by Rev. Ken Jones
The eye gene called Pax6 controls the development of eyes
in humans, squid, fish etc.
Of course this is said to prove that the mouse, fruit-fly
humans etc all had a common ancestor.

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

duke

2018-11-17 14:15:49 UTC

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:00:54 -0500, "Rev. Ken Jones" <"Rev. Ken

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.
Even Ms. Lot got burned.

An omniscient being wouldn't need any reports, now, would it?

Come on. Keep the story together. It in line with scripture.
the dukester, American-American

I think you are missing a very valuable evidence which suggest
deliberate, purposeful, and intentional design in nature by
ignoring homeboy genes.

How are you defining home boy?

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Rev. Ken Jones

2018-11-17 14:19:39 UTC

Post by duke
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:00:54 -0500, "Rev. Ken Jones" <"Rev. Ken

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.
Even Ms. Lot got burned.

An omniscient being wouldn't need any reports, now, would it?

Come on. Keep the story together. It in line with scripture.
the dukester, American-American

I think you are missing a very valuable evidence which suggest
deliberate, purposeful, and intentional design in nature by
ignoring homeboy genes.

How are you defining home boy?

No, I failed to catch my spell checker failure of the word
homebox!

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

duke

2018-11-18 14:47:59 UTC

On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:19:39 -0500, "Rev. Ken Jones" <"Rev. Ken

Post by duke
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:00:54 -0500, "Rev. Ken Jones" <"Rev. Ken

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.
Even Ms. Lot got burned.

An omniscient being wouldn't need any reports, now, would it?

Come on. Keep the story together. It in line with scripture.
the dukester, American-American

I think you are missing a very valuable evidence which suggest
deliberate, purposeful, and intentional design in nature by
ignoring homeboy genes.

How are you defining home boy?

No, I failed to catch my spell checker failure of the word
homebox!

What is a "homebox"?

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Kevrob

2018-11-21 02:08:53 UTC

Post by duke
What is a "homebox"?

Refrigerators are delivered in them. :)

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

duke

2018-11-21 20:30:13 UTC

Post by duke
What is a "homebox"?

Refrigerators are delivered in them. :)

Are you a stock boy?

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Kevrob

2018-11-23 23:02:52 UTC

Post by duke
What is a "homebox"?

Refrigerators are delivered in them. :)

Are you a stock boy?

No, but I am a former receiving clerk.

I've been known to make my own chicken stock.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

duke

2018-11-24 18:26:00 UTC

Post by duke
What is a "homebox"?

Refrigerators are delivered in them. :)

Are you a stock boy?

No, but I am a former receiving clerk.
I've been known to make my own chicken stock.

Now there's a toughie.
-

Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
a.a #2310

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Rev. Ken Jones

2018-11-21 01:43:52 UTC

Post by duke
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:00:54 -0500, "Rev. Ken Jones" <"Rev. Ken

[delete]

Post by Rev. Ken Jones
I think you are missing a very valuable evidence which suggest
deliberate, purposeful, and intentional design in nature by
ignoring homeboy genes.

How are you defining home boy?

No, Spell=checker error, I am in reference to _homeobox_ genes.
These genes, as scientific evidence, come very close to proving
the existence of God, if taken at face value and without strong
allegiance to the Darwinian theory.

These genes have been referred to as "master control genes",
and "genetic took-kit", because of their role in the development
of body forms in different organisms. They have been called the
3/rd most important discovery in biology-after Darwin's theory
and the modern synthetic theory.
This has been labeled Evolutionary Development, shortened to
Evo Devo, by scientist:
These genes were discovered in 1983 by the late
Dr. Walter Gehring, professor of biology at the University of
Basel, in Switzerland while researching the eye gene in fruit
flies.
One of his associates informed Dr Gehring that he had
seen the same gene in mice. Surprised, Dr Gehring took mice
eye genes and place them on a fruit-fly. To his shock the
mouse gene controlled the development of normal complex fruit
fly eyes in the fly,
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
This same gene the eye gene called Pax6, a homologue is found in
organisms from fruit flies, zebra fish, octopus, mice, birds and
humans. but this is one homeobox gene. Over 300 so far have been
described. Other homeobox genes control the development of hearts,
and limbs on every animal of the animal kingdom. These genes are
short, generally consist of 180 base pairs. The commonality
of these genes it is claimed proves common origin, proof of
evolution. But this is difficult to see, considering the
following characteristics of these genes:
.
1) They are virtually unchanged from their beginning called
highly conserved, by biologist. But evolution is about change.
2) Homeobox genes, with minor variations, are universal, ubiquitous
throughout the animal kingdom: they are presented, by Darwinians as
proof of evolution. But without verifiable examples of a step by
step development. But everything, regarding the evolution of
these genes, like abiogenesis has to be assumed and cannot be
explained.
3) they are ancient having originated before the radiation of
animals during the Cambrian, which means these genes appeared
far in advance of their need - that is by animals of the 'Cambrian
explosion.

According to Sean B Carroll, these genes were in existence long
before large complex forms emerged.

Ref: The New Science of Evo Devo, by Dr. Sean Carroll, 2005, Pg 139

Considering these characteristics it is not unreasonable to interpret
these genes as deliberate, purposeful, and intentional design,
inferring a designer.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Rev. Ken Jones

2018-11-21 15:59:51 UTC

Post by duke
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:00:54 -0500, "Rev. Ken Jones" <"Rev. Ken

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 12:23:28 -0800 (PST), Kevrob

[delete]

Post by Rev. Ken Jones
I think you are missing a very valuable evidence which suggest
deliberate, purposeful, and intentional design in nature by
ignoring homeboy genes.

How are you defining home boy?

No, Spell=checker error, I am in reference to _homeobox_ genes.
These genes, as scientific evidence, come very close to proving
the existence of God, if taken at face value and without strong
allegiance to the Darwinian theory.
These genes have been referred to as "master control genes",
and "genetic took-kit", because of their role in the development
of body forms in different organisms. They have been called the
3/rd most important discovery in biology-after Darwin's theory
and the modern synthetic theory.
This has been labeled Evolutionary Development, shortened to
These genes were discovered in 1983 by the late
Dr. Walter Gehring, professor of biology at the University of
Basel, in Switzerland while researching the eye gene in fruit
flies.
One of his associates informed Dr Gehring that he had
seen the same gene in mice. Surprised, Dr Gehring took mice
eye genes and place them on a fruit-fly. To his shock the
mouse gene controlled the development of normal complex fruit
fly eyes in the fly,
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
www.youris.com/Health/Genetics/One_Gene_One_Vision.kl
This same gene the eye gene called Pax6, a homologue is found in
organisms from fruit flies, zebra fish, octopus, mice, birds and
humans. but this is one homeobox gene. Over 300 so far have been
described. Other homeobox genes control the development of hearts,
and limbs on every animal of the animal kingdom. These genes are
short, generally consist of 180 base pairs. The commonality
of these genes it is claimed proves common origin, proof of
evolution. But this is difficult to see, considering the
.
1) They are virtually unchanged from their beginning called
highly conserved, by biologist. But evolution is about change.
2) Homeobox genes, with minor variations, are universal, ubiquitous
throughout the animal kingdom: they are presented, by Darwinians as
proof of evolution. But without verifiable examples of a step by
step development. But everything, regarding the evolution of
these genes, like abiogenesis has to be assumed and cannot be
explained.
3) they are ancient having originated before the radiation of
animals during the Cambrian, which means these genes appeared
far in advance of their need - that is by animals of the 'Cambrian
explosion and animals since the Cambrian.
According to Sean B Carroll, these genes were in existence long
before large complex forms emerged.
Ref: The New Science of Evo Devo, by Dr. Sean Carroll, 2005, Pg 139
Considering these characteristics it is not unreasonable to interpret
these genes as deliberate, purposeful, and intentional design,
inferring a designer.

Another mystery solved by the homeobox genes, is considering that
humans and Chimps share about 99% of the same genes, and mice
and humans shares almost 84% of their genes, and fruit flies and
homo sapiens share some 61%, Humans and cats share 90%.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-human-DNA-is-shared-with-other-things

So what accounts for the huge differences we observe?

No one could explain before the homeobox discovery. The Pax6 gene,
for example contains the information for the formation of eyes.
This is done by timing and turning Pax6 switches on and off, not
very different from a computer program.
.
legacy.jyi.org/volumes/volume1/issue1/articles/friedman.html
dev.biologists.org/content/131/16/3823

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Melzzzzz

2018-11-11 20:25:30 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

God has to tempt Job in order to find out if he is faithfull or not...

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

linuxgal

2018-11-11 20:53:59 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

God has to tempt Job in order to find out if he is faithfull or not...

Not to mention ordering Abraham to kill his own boy.

--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

Melzzzzz

2018-11-11 21:00:30 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

God has to tempt Job in order to find out if he is faithfull or not...

Not to mention ordering Abraham to kill his own boy.

Yeah, that is my favorite ;)
God that is against murder, but practice human sacrifice ;)

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

Don Martin

2018-11-12 15:54:43 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

God has to tempt Job in order to find out if he is faithfull or not...

Not to mention ordering Abraham to kill his own boy.

Yeah, that is my favorite ;)
God that is against murder, but practice human sacrifice ;)

Wull, murder in the service of gawd is a different thing than just
bumping somebody off because they piss you off.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

duke

2018-11-12 22:49:39 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

God has to tempt Job in order to find out if he is faithfull or not...

According to all your pagan brothers, God already knew without help.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

linuxgal

2018-11-11 21:16:55 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according
to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." -
God, Genesis 18:21

--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

duke

2018-11-12 22:50:35 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according
to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." -
God, Genesis 18:21

You people, and I use the term lightly, can't agree on whether God needs angels
to help or not. Haahaahaa.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Cloud Hobbit

2018-11-21 02:59:38 UTC

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according
to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." -
God, Genesis 18:21

You people, and I use the term lightly, can't agree on whether God needs angels
to help or not. Haahaahaa.

It doesn't matter since it's all fiction anyway.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-Heretic

duke

2018-11-21 20:31:51 UTC

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 18:59:38 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit

Post by duke
The probability of God's existence is 100% as creator of all things in the
universe.

The omniscient god who nevertheless had to physically go to Sodom to
find out of the rumors about it were true has a probability of existing
of 0.0, since such a god is a contradiction in terms.

Actually, the angels reported back.

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according
to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." -
God, Genesis 18:21

You people, and I use the term lightly, can't agree on whether God needs angels
to help or not. Haahaahaa.

It doesn't matter since it's all fiction anyway.

Thus you can pretend that the white hot tips of the flames nipping at the cheeks
of your behind are faction too.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

Yap Honghor

2018-11-08 03:11:25 UTC

Post by JTEM
The only "Evidence" for atheists would be
the self reports of the so-called
atheists... their personal testimony. If
personal testimony is now acceptable
evidence, the theists win.
Theists aren't limited to personal testimony.
They also have science on their side -- like
how the "Simulated Universe" theory is really
just God under a different name -- and they
have things like miracles. Medical miracles
are the best, of course, because they are
documented by medical science...
So theists have personal testimony PLUS other
evidence, people pretending oops I meant
"Claiming" that atheists exists have only
personal testimony to go by.
Quick! Deny the obvious! Show how well
adjusted you are by insisting that the
undeniable isn't true!

You theist collective has no business to troll in our AA....

Greywolf

2018-11-09 08:21:52 UTC

Go to this website and tell us if it's an atheist website or a theist one:

https://theatheistobserver.com/

Now remember to tell us whether it's an Atheist Website or a Theist One. You only have two choices.

Now, go ahead and act stupid, because we all know you're going to post something incredibly stupid. That would just be you being you.
//jtem.tumblr.com/post/179864202238

Davej

2018-11-09 15:34:06 UTC

Post by JTEM
The only "Evidence" for atheists would be
the self reports of the so-called
atheists... their personal testimony. If
personal testimony is now acceptable
evidence, the theists win.

Are they dead, anonymous atheists, who lived thousands of years ago?

Do they make any outrageous claims regarding observations which
would violate the known laws of science?

Can they provide corroborating evidence of their non-participation in
religious rituals?

Christopher A. Lee

2018-11-11 18:26:34 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by JTEM
The only "Evidence" for atheists would be
the self reports of the so-called
atheists... their personal testimony. If
personal testimony is now acceptable
evidence, the theists win.

Are they dead, anonymous atheists, who lived thousands of years ago?
Do they make any outrageous claims regarding observations which
would violate the known laws of science?
Can they provide corroborating evidence of their non-participation in
religious rituals?

Nobody is asking for evidence which would convince a solipsist - yet
these Liars For God always use this kind of dishonesty that equates
the undisputed, everyday and evidenced with the disputed and
unevidenced.

Psycho Dave

2018-11-12 16:32:35 UTC

Post by JTEM
The only "Evidence" for atheists would be
the self reports of the so-called
atheists... their personal testimony. If
personal testimony is now acceptable
evidence, the theists win.

What is Atheism?
Atheism is "a Belief that there is no God/are no gods".
Thus, if you want to find out if a person is an atheist, it seems reasonable that you simply ask them if they are or not.

What is Christianity?
What are Protestants and Catholics?
Is Christianity NOT a belief?
Is there a difference between Catholicism and Protestantism?

Is Christianity NOT a belief in God, and in Jesus Christ and his teachings?
How do you tell if a self-identified Christian is Catholic, Protestant, or "other"?
Does it not make sense to ask them?
Does a good way of determining if a person is a Catholic or a Protestant NOT start with simply asking them?

Post by JTEM
Theists aren't limited to personal testimony.

OK. So how does one tell is a person is a theist or not -- WITHOUT ASKING THEM? Suppose I just walk down the street, and point to a random person. How are you going to tell if they're a theist without talking to them, emailing them, or otherwise asking them to explain what they believe?

Post by JTEM
They also have science on their side -- like
how the "Simulated Universe" theory is really
just God under a different name -- and they
have things like miracles. Medical miracles
are the best, of course, because they are
documented by medical science...

What is a miracle?
Is a miracle simply favorable results when faced with a poor prognosis, or is it when someone is misdiagnosed, and told they are going to die, but don't? Or is it when all the scientific evidence of a diagnosis suddenly and inexplicably reverses itself?

I've been told of many medical miracles, but in most cases, people received treatments in the form of drugs, therapy, or surgery, and simply beat the odds. Nobody ever calls it a miracle when someone who is scientifically tested to be completely healthy suddenly dies.

Post by JTEM
So theists have personal testimony PLUS other
evidence, people pretending oops I meant
"Claiming" that atheists exists have only
personal testimony to go by.

How do you tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican without asking them to describe what their political beliefs are?

Post by JTEM
Quick! Deny the obvious! Show how well
adjusted you are by insisting that the
undeniable isn't true!

Far from denying, I am asking you to clarify what you're asking, and asking you to think about what you wrote, to see if you realize the logical mistakes you've made.

Don Martin

2018-11-12 21:16:58 UTC

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 08:32:35 -0800 (PST), Psycho Dave

Post by JTEM
The only "Evidence" for atheists would be
the self reports of the so-called
atheists... their personal testimony. If
personal testimony is now acceptable
evidence, the theists win.

What is Atheism?
Atheism is "a Belief that there is no God/are no gods".

Not really. Atheism is a _lack_ of belief in supernatural beings.
There is a distinct difference. A belief must be supported if
challenged. A lack of one insists that the believers do that heavy
lifting. Without that effort, we do not believe _them_ when they
prate about their imaginary superfirends.

Why do people who are apparently not atheists insist on defining
atheists incorrectly? Is it ignorance, or is it a deliberate trolling
ploy?

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

m***@gmail.com

2018-11-23 10:10:10 UTC

Post by Don Martin
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 08:32:35 -0800 (PST), Psycho Dave

Post by JTEM
The only "Evidence" for atheists would be
the self reports of the so-called
atheists... their personal testimony. If
personal testimony is now acceptable
evidence, the theists win.

What is Atheism?
Atheism is "a Belief that there is no God/are no gods".

Not really. Atheism is a _lack_ of belief in supernatural beings.
There is a distinct difference. A belief must be supported if
challenged. A lack of one insists that the believers do that heavy
lifting. Without that effort, we do not believe _them_ when they
prate about their imaginary superfirends.
Why do people who are apparently not atheists insist on defining
atheists incorrectly? Is it ignorance, or is it a deliberate trolling
ploy?

Is someone using an old nym from way back or is Psycho Dave really back?

Don Martin

2018-11-23 22:47:15 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Don Martin
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 08:32:35 -0800 (PST), Psycho Dave

Post by JTEM
The only "Evidence" for atheists would be
the self reports of the so-called
atheists... their personal testimony. If
personal testimony is now acceptable
evidence, the theists win.

What is Atheism?
Atheism is "a Belief that there is no God/are no gods".

Not really. Atheism is a _lack_ of belief in supernatural beings.
There is a distinct difference. A belief must be supported if
challenged. A lack of one insists that the believers do that heavy
lifting. Without that effort, we do not believe _them_ when they
prate about their imaginary superfirends.
Why do people who are apparently not atheists insist on defining
atheists incorrectly? Is it ignorance, or is it a deliberate trolling
ploy?

Is someone using an old nym from way back or is Psycho Dave really back?

With so many nyms and so little time, who can tell (or care)?

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

Cloud Hobbit

2018-11-21 02:57:47 UTC