>Dubh Ghall wrote:

>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:01:41 -0400, insaner wrote:
>>

>>> you mean sort of like the premise behind "the matrix"?
>>>

>>
>> Which matrix?

>
>the first one, the other two were crap..

>
>"there is no spoon"
>

>Dubh Ghall wrote:

>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:27:00 +0930, Fun Tyme wallabycock.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>

>>>> where exactly in the bible does it say Jesus died on a *FRIDAY*?
>>>>
>>>> yeah, He died...

>Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:27:00 +0930, Fun Tyme wallabycock.net>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> A line above reads - "wallowing in your pride, your arrogance, and
>>> your disregard...

>>>>>

>>>> A line above reads - "wallowing in your pride, your arrogance, and
>>>> your disregard for truth.." - is EXACTLY how SOME atheists view the
>>>> demeanour of SOME christians. Any debate requires a difference of
>>>> opinion, but this particular debate is pointless simply because it
>>>> involves hard beliefs, the injury to which is personal and painful.
>>>>

>>>
>>> I don't think it is anywhere near that honest.
>>>
>>> The xtian fanatic, posting in atheist NGs, seems only interested in
>>> showing atheists that they are wrong, and they will go to any extreme,
>>> in order to do that.

>> well no, i dont necessarily want to show atheists are wrong,

>
> That makes you, currently, a minority of one.

> When there is exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence *against*
> the existence of a thing, as there is *for* it, that is to say,
> "none": Which is the more reasonable conclusion to reach?

>>> At which point "prove it" is the obvious response.

>>ditto right back at ya

> Another logical fallacy. One does not need to prove a negative.

>> You would be amazed at how many xtians simply cannot accept that
>> superstition, is not an essential part of living.

> actually, as christians, we are not allowed to believe in superstition.

>> Main stream xtian belief: Jesus died on Friday: Good Friday, Black
>> Friday, all that.

>
> no sir, thats a mainstream CATHOLIC belief, the bible (MSS) clearly states
> otherwise,

>>>> A line above reads - "wallowing in your pride, your arrogance, and
>>>> your disregard for truth.." - is EXACTLY how SOME atheists view the
>>>> demeanour of SOME christians. Any debate requires a difference of
>>>> opinion, but this particular debate is pointless simply because it
>>>> involves hard beliefs, the injury to which is personal and painful.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore this is an impossible debate because there is no substance to
>>>> debate, but only concepts which exist in the mind.

>>> It's all about "put up or shut up". Christianity is an evangelising,
>>> crusading conversion religion which commands its followers to tell
>>> everybody all about it.

>> yeah! well, if you had good news, wouldnt you want to tell everyone you
>> cared for? and what if you actually cared for everyone? wouldnt you then
>> want to tell everyone?
>>

>
> And if they said, "No thank you", I would walk away.
>
> I would NOT, lie about them, and insult them, the way usenet xtians
> do. ...

> "Dubh Ghall" wrote in message
> news:rpv7a39mun6b6onvh3lrbn8pbtpja7td35@4ax.com...

>> When there is exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence *against*
>> the existence of a thing, as there is *for* it, that is to say,
>> "none": Which is the more reasonable conclusion to reach?

>
> The only logical conclusion is we do not know
>

>>>> At which point "prove it" is the obvious response.

>>> ditto right back at ya

>> Another logical fallacy. One does not need to prove a negative.

>
> But unless you can, you cannot logically say the negative is true
>
> Of course, there is much evidence that the christian God, with the
> properties / attributes /behaviours such a god is supposed to have, does not
> exist. Eg the christian god said that anything...

> Jeckyl wrote:

>> "Dubh Ghall" wrote in message
>> news:rpv7a39mun6b6onvh3lrbn8pbtpja7td35@4ax.com...

>>> When there is exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence *against*
>>> the existence of a thing, as there is *for* it, that is to say,
>>> "none": Which is the more reasonable conclusion to reach?

>>
>> The only logical conclusion is we do not know
>>

>>>>> At which point "prove it" is the obvious response.

>>>> ditto right back at ya

>>> Another logical fallacy. One does not need to prove a negative.

>>
>> But unless you can, you cannot logically say the negative is true
>>
>> Of course, there is much evidence that the christian God, with the
>> properties / attributes /behaviours such a god is supposed to have, does not
>> exist. Eg the christian god said that anything asked in the name of Jesus
>> would be granted. ...