Re: Evidences of God

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:12:48 +0200, "Chain Smoker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Message ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in alt.atheism;

>"stoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:45:08 GMT, Steve Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Message ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> alt.atheism;
>>
>> >On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:39:48 GMT, Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >snip
>> >
>> >>I believe that God does exist.
>> >
>> >   Believe is the operative word. Then it's followed by 'the argument
>> >from insert evidence here__________'.
>> >
>> >   There has never been a compelling evidence for a god or gods. If
>> >there were, we would all be believers of the same religion and you
>> >wouldn't have to waste your time looking for converts.
>>
>> First there's a need to have a coherant definition for the g-o-d letter
>> string.  Then objective supporting evidence for the critter's existance
>> can be shown followed by objective supporting evidence for each
>> assertion made.
>>
>> Theists love to piss upwind.
>
>Whereas the insane love to reply to their own Usenet postings repeatedly.

Which leaves me out, what's your excuse?
         

   
             Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
               and
          SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}