Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2130520 > unrolled thread

Re: FAITH

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 23:44 -0700
    Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-23 11:24 -0600
      Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-23 22:54 -0700
        Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 09:07 -0600
          Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 11:14 -0700
            Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 12:51 -0600
              Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 13:38 -0700
                Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 16:45 -0600
                  Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 16:44 -0700
                    Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 18:03 -0600
                Re: FAITH hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-06-25 05:30 -0700
    Re: FAITH Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 18:34 -0700

#2130520 — Re: FAITH

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu środa, 22 czerwca 2016 00:08:30 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> >
> > >  The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
> > > proposition.
> >
> > Really? So, prove the above.
> 
> The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.
> To know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things.


For example, to know that God does not exist would require a perfect
knowledge of all things.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2130758

For example, to know that God does exist would require a perfect
knowledge of all things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131011

Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> 
> For example, to know that God does exist would require a perfect
> knowledge of all things.


isn't that what I wrote?


For example, to know that God does not exist would require a perfect
knowledge of all things.


Why did you remove the "not", when not means A??


For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that atheist to have a
perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be an omniscient being.


Has anyone ever proved that Leprecauns don't exist????

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131122

In article <576CCAFD.2975@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that atheist to 
> have a
> perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be an 
> omniscient being.

Then, equally, for a theist to claim God does exist, would require of 
that theist to have a perfect knowledge of ... all things. That theist 
would have to be an omniscient being, a god him-or-her-self.

So does "Starmaker" claim that he or she is a god him-or-her-self?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131198

Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> 
> In article <576CCAFD.2975@ix.netcom.com>,
>  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that atheist to
> > have a
> > perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be an
> > omniscient being.
> 
> Then, equally, for a theist to claim God does exist, would require of
> that theist to have a perfect knowledge of ... all things. That theist
> would have to be an omniscient being, a god him-or-her-self.
> 
> So does "Starmaker" claim that he or she is a god him-or-her-self?



What claim have I ever made???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131200

In article <576D788D.3F4C@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > 
> > In article <576CCAFD.2975@ix.netcom.com>,
> >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that atheist 
> > > to
> > > have a
> > > perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be an
> > > omniscient being.
> > 
> > Then, equally, for a theist to claim God does exist, would require of
> > that theist to have a perfect knowledge of ... all things. That theist
> > would have to be an omniscient being, a god him-or-her-self.
> > 
> > So does "Starmaker" claim that he or she is a god him-or-her-self?
> 
> 
> 
> What claim have I ever made???

You have falsely claimed that "For an atheist to claim God does not 
exist, would require of that atheist to have a perfect knowledge of 
...all things."

Since atheists have been claiming that for years, without any "perfect 
knowledge of ...all things", but merely using common sense, you are 
lying!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131216

Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> 
> In article <576D788D.3F4C@ix.netcom.com>,
>  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <576CCAFD.2975@ix.netcom.com>,
> > >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that atheist
> > > > to
> > > > have a
> > > > perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be an
> > > > omniscient being.
> > >
> > > Then, equally, for a theist to claim God does exist, would require of
> > > that theist to have a perfect knowledge of ... all things. That theist
> > > would have to be an omniscient being, a god him-or-her-self.
> > >
> > > So does "Starmaker" claim that he or she is a god him-or-her-self?
> >
> >
> >
> > What claim have I ever made???
> 
> You have falsely claimed that "For an atheist to claim God does not
> exist, would require of that atheist to have a perfect knowledge of
> ...all things."
> 
> Since atheists have been claiming that for years, without any "perfect
> knowledge of ...all things", but merely using common sense, you are
> lying!


'common sense'???? Common sense is just..an opinion.


Are you saying an atheist claiming that God does not exist' is just an 'opinion' of theirs???


I thought those guys were soooo sure!


Their opinions don't matter. It's garbage!


Either you know or you don't know...which one is it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131276

In article <576D9A56.4F03@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > 
> > In article <576D788D.3F4C@ix.netcom.com>,
> >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <576CCAFD.2975@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that 
> > > > > atheist
> > > > > to
> > > > > have a
> > > > > perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be an
> > > > > omniscient being.
> > > >
> > > > Then, equally, for a theist to claim God does exist, would require of
> > > > that theist to have a perfect knowledge of ... all things. That theist
> > > > would have to be an omniscient being, a god him-or-her-self.
> > > >
> > > > So does "Starmaker" claim that he or she is a god him-or-her-self?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What claim have I ever made???
> > 
> > You have falsely claimed that "For an atheist to claim God does not
> > exist, would require of that atheist to have a perfect knowledge of
> > ...all things."
> > 
> > Since atheists have been claiming that for years, without any "perfect
> > knowledge of ...all things", but merely using common sense, you are
> > lying!
> 
> 
> 'common sense'???? Common sense is just..an opinion. 

That may be your opinion, but your opinions are uncommonly nonsensical.

> Either you know or you don't know...which one is it?

"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you most, its what you know for 
sure that jest ain't so."   Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131328

Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> 
> In article <576D9A56.4F03@ix.netcom.com>,
>  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <576D788D.3F4C@ix.netcom.com>,
> > >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <576CCAFD.2975@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > > >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that
> > > > > > atheist
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > have a
> > > > > > perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be an
> > > > > > omniscient being.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, equally, for a theist to claim God does exist, would require of
> > > > > that theist to have a perfect knowledge of ... all things. That theist
> > > > > would have to be an omniscient being, a god him-or-her-self.
> > > > >
> > > > > So does "Starmaker" claim that he or she is a god him-or-her-self?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What claim have I ever made???
> > >
> > > You have falsely claimed that "For an atheist to claim God does not
> > > exist, would require of that atheist to have a perfect knowledge of
> > > ...all things."
> > >
> > > Since atheists have been claiming that for years, without any "perfect
> > > knowledge of ...all things", but merely using common sense, you are
> > > lying!
> >
> >
> > 'common sense'???? Common sense is just..an opinion.
> 
> That may be your opinion, 

It is not my opinion...it is the definition of the words "common sense"

https://www.google.com/#q=define+common+sense

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131375

In article <576DC5EE.6E28@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > 
> > In article <576D9A56.4F03@ix.netcom.com>,
> >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <576D788D.3F4C@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <576CCAFD.2975@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > > > >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that
> > > > > > > atheist
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be 
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > omniscient being.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then, equally, for a theist to claim God does exist, would require 
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > that theist to have a perfect knowledge of ... all things. That 
> > > > > > theist
> > > > > > would have to be an omniscient being, a god him-or-her-self.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So does "Starmaker" claim that he or she is a god him-or-her-self?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What claim have I ever made???
> > > >
> > > > You have falsely claimed that "For an atheist to claim God does not
> > > > exist, would require of that atheist to have a perfect knowledge of
> > > > ...all things."
> > > >
> > > > Since atheists have been claiming that for years, without any "perfect
> > > > knowledge of ...all things", but merely using common sense, you are
> > > > lying!
> > >
> > >
> > > 'common sense'???? Common sense is just..an opinion.
> > 
> > That may be your opinion, 
> 
> It is not my opinion.
 
Then why claim it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131723

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 4:38:45 AM UTC+8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > 
> > In article <576D788D.3F4C@ix.netcom.com>,
> >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <576CCAFD.2975@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For an atheist to claim God does not exist, would require of that atheist
> > > > > to
> > > > > have a
> > > > > perfect knowledge of ...all things. That atheist would have to be an
> > > > > omniscient being.
> > > >
> > > > Then, equally, for a theist to claim God does exist, would require of
> > > > that theist to have a perfect knowledge of ... all things. That theist
> > > > would have to be an omniscient being, a god him-or-her-self.
> > > >
> > > > So does "Starmaker" claim that he or she is a god him-or-her-self?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What claim have I ever made???
> > 
> > You have falsely claimed that "For an atheist to claim God does not
> > exist, would require of that atheist to have a perfect knowledge of
> > ...all things."
> > 
> > Since atheists have been claiming that for years, without any "perfect
> > knowledge of ...all things", but merely using common sense, you are
> > lying!
> 
> 
> 'common sense'???? Common sense is just..an opinion.

Common sense is just an opinion? 
So, you are basically devoid of common sense....not surprising.
> 
> Are you saying an atheist claiming that God does not exist' is just an 'opinion' of theirs???

No,....it is a fact! 
Or, you can find a proto=pixie? there are millions waiting for it...
> 
> I thought those guys were soooo sure!

Yes, very sure. Iron clad...
> 
> Their opinions don't matter. It's garbage!

It is not an opinion, moron.
> 
> Either you know or you don't know...which one is it?

We know there is no proto=pixie in existence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
History and facts can testify.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2131436

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 11:43:12 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu środa, 22 czerwca 2016 00:08:30 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > >
> > > >  The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
> > > > proposition.
> > >
> > > Really? So, prove the above.
> > 
When did you stop beating your wife?  Prove you have stopped beating your wife?
Same principle as prove no god exists.  

> > The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.
> > To know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things.
> 
> 
> For example, to know that God does not exist would require a perfect
> knowledge of all things.

NObody KNOWS for sure there is no God, not to a certainty.  However, for anything else that has no evidence we reject it as being non-existent until evidence is produced.

I don't think you need perfect knowledge of all things to say that god does not exist.  I'm not concerned with being that certain, not when there is absolutely no reason to assume a god exists.  There is far to much nonsense in the Bible plus the scientific discoveries that run counter to the Bible.  An omnipotent God would not allow there to be a bible that needs to be interpreted. He wold make sure that AT LEAST ONE COPY of his word was available for anybody to rad and this is crucial, not need interpretation.  Omnipotence means the ability to do anything, this seems to fit within that criteria.  There would have to be some way of knowing for certain that this God exists.  I don't think that's too much to ask from an omnipotent being.  This god of yours is supposed to know everything too, so isn't it reasonable to assume he knows how human minds work?  That having at least one irrefutable bit of evidence is necessary for us to believe in something so fantastic.  At least for most sane people.

Fortunately for me I don't have to worry about all this because there is no God that I  know for sure exists.  As long as that is a fact and as long as the God I am supposed to believe in is the murderous psycho from your Bible, then I know I want nothing to do with any of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web