Re: Evidences of God

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:21:27 +0200, "Chain Smoker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Message ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in alt.atheism;

>"stoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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?
>
>It took you a day and a half to come up with this lame retort? 

Oh silly one.  Messages hit servers at different times and I don't sit
connected to the newsgroup all day.  I have other things to do.

> In case you
>missed my point, you replied repleatedly to your own posts in this thread.

Not at all.  As I said, messages hit servers at different times.

Here's the message ID of the post I made from which you state I
repeatedly replied to my own posts.

Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

/quote

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.

/end quote

>You may not be insane, but this behavior does seem to fall in line with
>insanity.  Your sad attempt to turn the tables on me fails because I do not
>exhibit this strange behavior.

(laughing at you)  Grovelling before a bronze age
'monster-under-the-bed' has zero to do with rationality.
         

   
             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}