"Terry Cross" <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:c0cddae2-2616-455e-a3a7-da743e9598e0 at (no spam) z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 10:38 am, "Dan Listermann" <d... at (no spam) listermann.com> wrote:







"randy" <rkl... at (no spam) wavecable.com> wrote in message

news:McidnSodHsxb8wjXnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d at (no spam) wavecable.com...

"Dan Listermann"
randy
Access to God is a spiritual thing. But you must abide by the
conditions
He lays down for you to hear Him. He can speak anytime, but it is
always
*in His time.* If he should choose to speak to you, and you refuse
to
pay attention, the fault is with you. It doesn't prove there is no
God.

OK, you have to believe to believe, right?

No, I don't believe in hypnosis, propaganda, or in positive thinking.
I
believe in real evidence, and in honest assessment should that come.
In
the case of God, my conscience appears to be "quickened" by
information
from heaven. I feel in all honesty it's the right thing to be fair to
my
neighbor, to love my enemies, and to be exemplary in my Christian
faith.
This is all a conscience thing, but for me it is *real.*
randy

Real evidence, huh?

Do you need deities to be fair to your neighbor or love your enemies?

"Maybe you will provide examples of your assertions. How does it work
with gorillas, flatworms, and bacteria?"

Your question does not make much sense. I will repeat my question:
Do you need deities to be fair to your neighbor or love your enemies?

"Terry Cross" <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:7e12e695-1311-4a8e-8b74-4f1be88889d8 at (no spam) 2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 11:59 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:



randy wrote:

"Dan Listermann"
randy
Access to God is a spiritual thing. But you must abide by the
conditions He lays down for you to hear Him. He can speak anytime,
but it is always *in His time.* If he should choose to speak to you,
and you refuse to pay attention, the fault is with you. It doesn't
prove there is no God.

OK, you have to believe to believe, right?

No, I don't believe in hypnosis, propaganda, or in positive thinking.
I
believe in real evidence, and in honest assessment should that come.
In
the case of God, my conscience appears to be "quickened" by
information
from heaven. I feel in all honesty it's the right thing to be fair to
my
neighbor, to love my enemies, and to be exemplary in my Christian
faith.
This is all a conscience thing, but for me it is *real.*
randy

However - one not need believe in gods or religions to be honest - and
fair - and ethical. THat is simply humanity.

"Simply humanity" has, historically, included a wide variety of
religions, and very rarely atheism. Atheism has appeared only where a
wide-spread political program has wiped out all other religions.
"

Atheism only appeared after science displaced most of the functions
religious superstition had.

Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:59 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
randy wrote:

"Dan Listermann"
randy
Access to God is a spiritual thing. But you must abide by the
conditions He lays down for you to hear Him. He can speak anytime,
but it is always *in His time.* If he should choose to speak to you,
and you refuse to pay attention, the fault is with you. It doesn't
prove there is no God.
OK, you have to believe to believe, right?
No, I don't believe in hypnosis, propaganda, or in positive thinking. I
believe in real evidence, and in honest assessment should that come. In
the case of God, my conscience appears to be "quickened" by information
from heaven. I feel in all honesty it's the right thing to be fair to my
neighbor, to love my enemies, and to be exemplary in my Christian faith.
This is all a conscience thing, but for me it is *real.*
randy
However - one not need believe in gods or religions to be honest - and
fair - and ethical. THat is simply humanity.

"Simply humanity" has, historically, included a wide variety of
religions, and very rarely atheism.  Atheism has appeared only where a
wide-spread political program has wiped out all other religions.

So what "simply humanity" are you discussing?

Humanity is what we ALL are - it is NOT a separate belief.



In fact - there are no statistics that show that thieists are any more
of the above things than non-believers are - and there are actual
statistics that imply that non-believers are more honest - fair - and
ethical

Statistics do not "imply* anything.  You are attempting to draw
conclusions from statistics that do not support your conclusions.

And SO are you - you are trying to state that theists are moral and
ethical based on their beliefs - something YOU cannot support



(See the Barna Group  - and the Jesuit Journal of Religion and
Philosophy)

Since there is NO provable information from heaven - I will dismiss that
one as unprovable - and therefore unknowable.

Since you do not define your standard or criterion for "proof," your
statement is meaningless.

Proof is something that establishes the "statement": to be absolutely
true - and can be verified to be true BY everyone - regardless of their
beliefs

And that is the same with gods - there is no proof. IF you want to use
the word evidence -the same evidence YOU claim for your god exists for
all 28 million other gods so far named by humans as well. Yet - you
dismiss most of them - for no PROVABLE reason.

Quit screaming about "proof" and get to work defining your terms.  Do
you require preponderance of evidence or some other standard?  What is
your acceptable range of evidence?  Who is on the judicial panel?

No - as I said above - preponderance of evidence is NOT proof. THere is
no judicial panel.

If you knew a little of your subject, you would address these things.

Actually - it is YOU who has no knowledge of the subject - ALL YOU HAVE
is belief.

And that is where YOU go wrong.

YOu admit that your belief in a god is based on evidence - not proof.

However - then you go on to make claims that cannot be supported by your
first statement.

If you cannot prove a god exist -

On Aug 26, 12:49 pm, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:59 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
randy wrote:
"Dan Listermann"
randy
Access to God is a spiritual thing. But you must abide by the
conditions He lays down for you to hear Him. He can speak anytime,
but it is always *in His time.* If he should choose to speak to you,
and you refuse to pay attention, the fault is with you. It doesn't
prove there is no God.
OK, you have to believe to believe, right?
No, I don't believe in hypnosis, propaganda, or in positive thinking. I
believe in real evidence, and in honest assessment should that come. In
the case of God, my conscience appears to be "quickened" by information
from heaven. I feel in all honesty it's the right thing to be fair to my
neighbor, to love my enemies, and to be exemplary in my Christian faith.
This is all a conscience thing, but for me it is *real.*
randy
However - one not need believe in gods or religions to be honest - and
fair - and ethical. THat is simply humanity.
"Simply humanity" has, historically, included a wide variety of
religions, and very rarely atheism. Atheism has appeared only where a
wide-spread political program has wiped out all other religions.
So what "simply humanity" are you discussing?
Humanity is what we ALL are - it is NOT a separate belief.



In fact - there are no statistics that show that thieists are any more
of the above things than non-believers are - and there are actual
statistics that imply that non-believers are more honest - fair - and
ethical
Statistics do not "imply* anything. You are attempting to draw
conclusions from statistics that do not support your conclusions.
And SO are you - you are trying to state that theists are moral and
ethical based on their beliefs - something YOU cannot support



(See the Barna Group - and the Jesuit Journal of Religion and
Philosophy)
Since there is NO provable information from heaven - I will dismiss that
one as unprovable - and therefore unknowable.
Since you do not define your standard or criterion for "proof," your
statement is meaningless.
Proof is something that establishes the "statement": to be absolutely
true - and can be verified to be true BY everyone - regardless of their
beliefs

Ah! You are looking for a mathematical standard of proof, not based
on evidence, but on axiom. But all axiomatic proofs depend on either
common experience or common belief -- and we have neither. Therefore,
you require a "proof" that s outside the realm of the possible.


And that is the same with gods - there is no proof. IF you want to use
the word evidence -the same evidence YOU claim for your god exists for
all 28 million other gods so far named by humans as well. Yet - you
dismiss most of them - for no PROVABLE reason.
Quit screaming about "proof" and get to work defining your terms. Do
you require preponderance of evidence or some other standard? What is
your acceptable range of evidence? Who is on the judicial panel?
No - as I said above - preponderance of evidence is NOT proof. THere is
no judicial panel.

Then you can simply do as you have always done: regardless of what is
written, you claim it is not "proof." Your record is exceedingly
poor in recognizing anything outside your dogmas.

If you knew a little of your subject, you would address these things.
Actually - it is YOU who has no knowledge of the subject - ALL YOU HAVE
is belief.

And that is where YOU go wrong.

YOu admit that your belief in a god is based on evidence - not proof.


You should quote the "admission."

However - then you go on to make claims that cannot be supported by your
first statement.

If you cannot prove a god exist -


You cannot prove that YOU exist,

possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

"Terry Cross" <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9f099d4e-debc-4633-9f2a-9182b1a0eda1 at (no spam) x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm,

"You cannot prove that YOU exist, or anything else.  Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

I submit that the task is rigged, and I decline."

I don't ask for "proof."  All I ask for is to see theists' evidence.  They
always try to deflect the argument.

Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:59 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
randy wrote:
"Dan Listermann"
randy
Access to God is a spiritual thing. But you must abide by the
conditions He lays down for you to hear Him. He can speak anytime,
but it is always *in His time.* If he should choose to speak to you,
and you refuse to pay attention, the fault is with you. It doesn't
prove there is no God.
OK, you have to believe to believe, right?
No, I don't believe in hypnosis, propaganda, or in positive thinking. I
believe in real evidence, and in honest assessment should that come.. In
the case of God, my conscience appears to be "quickened" by information
from heaven. I feel in all honesty it's the right thing to be fair to my
neighbor, to love my enemies, and to be exemplary in my Christian faith.
This is all a conscience thing, but for me it is *real.*
randy
However - one not need believe in gods or religions to be honest - and
fair - and ethical. THat is simply humanity.
"Simply humanity" has, historically, included a wide variety of
religions, and very rarely atheism.  Atheism has appeared only where a
wide-spread political program has wiped out all other religions.
So what "simply humanity" are you discussing?
Humanity is what we ALL are - it is NOT a separate belief.

In fact - there are no statistics that show that thieists are any more
of the above things than non-believers are - and there are actual
statistics that imply that non-believers are more honest - fair - and
ethical
Statistics do not "imply* anything.  You are attempting to draw
conclusions from statistics that do not support your conclusions.
And SO are you - you are trying to state that theists are moral and
ethical based on their beliefs - something YOU cannot support

(See the Barna Group  - and the Jesuit Journal of Religion and
Philosophy)
Since there is NO provable information from heaven - I will dismiss that
one as unprovable - and therefore unknowable.
Since you do not define your standard or criterion for "proof," your
statement is meaningless.
Proof is something that establishes the "statement": to be absolutely
true - and can be verified to be true BY everyone - regardless of their
beliefs

Ah!  You are looking for a mathematical standard of proof, not based
on evidence, but on axiom.  But all axiomatic proofs depend on either
common experience or common belief -- and we have neither.  Therefore,
you require a "proof" that s outside the realm of the possible.

And that is the same with gods - there is no proof. IF you want to use
the word evidence -the same evidence YOU claim for your god exists for
all 28 million other gods so far named by humans as well. Yet - you
dismiss most of them - for no PROVABLE reason.
Quit screaming about "proof" and get to work defining your terms.  Do
you require preponderance of evidence or some other standard?  What is
your acceptable range of evidence?  Who is on the judicial panel?
No - as I said above - preponderance of evidence is NOT proof. THere is
no judicial panel.

Then you can simply do as you have always done: regardless of what is
written, you claim it is not "proof."   Your record is exceedingly
poor in recognizing anything outside your dogmas.

If you knew a little of your subject, you would address these things.
Actually - it is YOU who has no knowledge of the subject - ALL YOU HAVE
is belief.

And that is where YOU go wrong.

YOu admit that your belief in a god is based on evidence - not proof.

You should quote the "admission."

YOu said you do not have proof - just evidence



However - then you go on to make claims that cannot be supported by your
first statement.

If you cannot prove a god exist -

You cannot prove that YOU exist,

Uh - actually - based on the definition of the word - I can prove I exist..

or anything else

And yes - I can prove lots of things are true -as well

   Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

I am not hostile to the concept - I am an agnostic - I accept everything
that can be proven about gods and religions.

To date - that is very little - but I never said I would NOT accept
PROOF - it is just that YOU have never presented anything resembling
proof - or even evidence.

YOu say you have LOTS of it -

yet have yet to
provide a single piece.

Sorry - but if a god is almighty - it should have the power to prove its
own existence - absolutely to everyone

Apparently - no gods can do that one.

And there is no reason to believe humans who claim things that they
cannot prove - as YOU cannot

On Aug 27, 4:52 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:



Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:59 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
randy wrote:
"Dan Listermann"
randy
Access to God is a spiritual thing. But you must abide by the
conditions He lays down for you to hear Him. He can speak anytime,
but it is always *in His time.* If he should choose to speak to you,
and you refuse to pay attention, the fault is with you. It doesn't
prove there is no God.
OK, you have to believe to believe, right?
No, I don't believe in hypnosis, propaganda, or in positive thinking. I
believe in real evidence, and in honest assessment should that come. In
the case of God, my conscience appears to be "quickened" by information
from heaven. I feel in all honesty it's the right thing to be fair to my
neighbor, to love my enemies, and to be exemplary in my Christian faith.
This is all a conscience thing, but for me it is *real.*
randy
However - one not need believe in gods or religions to be honest - and
fair - and ethical. THat is simply humanity.
"Simply humanity" has, historically, included a wide variety of
religions, and very rarely atheism.  Atheism has appeared only where a
wide-spread political program has wiped out all other religions.
So what "simply humanity" are you discussing?
Humanity is what we ALL are - it is NOT a separate belief.

In fact - there are no statistics that show that thieists are any more
of the above things than non-believers are - and there are actual
statistics that imply that non-believers are more honest - fair - and
ethical
Statistics do not "imply* anything.  You are attempting to draw
conclusions from statistics that do not support your conclusions.
And SO are you - you are trying to state that theists are moral and
ethical based on their beliefs - something YOU cannot support

(See the Barna Group  - and the Jesuit Journal of Religion and
Philosophy)
Since there is NO provable information from heaven - I will dismiss that
one as unprovable - and therefore unknowable.
Since you do not define your standard or criterion for "proof," your
statement is meaningless.
Proof is something that establishes the "statement": to be absolutely
true - and can be verified to be true BY everyone - regardless of their
beliefs

Ah!  You are looking for a mathematical standard of proof, not based
on evidence, but on axiom.  But all axiomatic proofs depend on either
common experience or common belief -- and we have neither.  Therefore,
you require a "proof" that s outside the realm of the possible.

And that is the same with gods - there is no proof. IF you want to use
the word evidence -the same evidence YOU claim for your god exists for
all 28 million other gods so far named by humans as well. Yet - you
dismiss most of them - for no PROVABLE reason.
Quit screaming about "proof" and get to work defining your terms.  Do
you require preponderance of evidence or some other standard?  What is
your acceptable range of evidence?  Who is on the judicial panel?
No - as I said above - preponderance of evidence is NOT proof. THere is
no judicial panel.

Then you can simply do as you have always done: regardless of what is
written, you claim it is not "proof."   Your record is exceedingly
poor in recognizing anything outside your dogmas.

If you knew a little of your subject, you would address these things.
Actually - it is YOU who has no knowledge of the subject - ALL YOU HAVE
is belief.

And that is where YOU go wrong.

YOu admit that your belief in a god is based on evidence - not proof..

You should quote the "admission."

YOu said you do not have proof - just evidence

However - then you go on to make claims that cannot be supported by your
first statement.

If you cannot prove a god exist -

You cannot prove that YOU exist,

Uh - actually - based on the definition of the word - I can prove I exist.

or anything else

And yes - I can prove lots of things are true -as well

   Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

I am not hostile to the concept - I am an agnostic - I accept everything
that can be proven about gods and religions.

To date - that is very little - but I never said I would NOT accept
PROOF - it is just that YOU have never presented anything resembling
proof - or even evidence.

No?

YOu say you have LOTS of it -

Quote?

yet have yet to
provide a single piece.

That is your opinion and it is not objective.

Sorry - but if a god is almighty - it should have the power to prove its
own existence - absolutely to everyone

And he should bother doing this for you because ...?

Apparently - no gods can do that one.

Even the gods are powerless against a fools opinion of himself. --
James Branch Cabel

And there is no reason to believe humans who claim things that they
cannot prove - as YOU cannot

Just remember, you do me no favors by believing me, and no harm by
doubting me.  I am relatively indifferent to what you doubt or
believe.

On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Terry Cross <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:



On Aug 27, 4:52 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:59 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
randy wrote:
"Dan Listermann"
randy
Access to God is a spiritual thing. But you must abide by the
conditions He lays down for you to hear Him. He can speak anytime,
but it is always *in His time.* If he should choose to speak to you,
and you refuse to pay attention, the fault is with you. It doesn't
prove there is no God.
OK, you have to believe to believe, right?
No, I don't believe in hypnosis, propaganda, or in positive thinking. I
believe in real evidence, and in honest assessment should that come. In
the case of God, my conscience appears to be "quickened" by information
from heaven. I feel in all honesty it's the right thing to be fair to my
neighbor, to love my enemies, and to be exemplary in my Christian faith.
This is all a conscience thing, but for me it is *real.*
randy
However - one not need believe in gods or religions to be honest - and
fair - and ethical. THat is simply humanity.
"Simply humanity" has, historically, included a wide variety of
religions, and very rarely atheism.  Atheism has appeared only where a
wide-spread political program has wiped out all other religions.
So what "simply humanity" are you discussing?
Humanity is what we ALL are - it is NOT a separate belief.

In fact - there are no statistics that show that thieists are any more
of the above things than non-believers are - and there are actual
statistics that imply that non-believers are more honest - fair - and
ethical
Statistics do not "imply* anything.  You are attempting to draw
conclusions from statistics that do not support your conclusions.
And SO are you - you are trying to state that theists are moral and
ethical based on their beliefs - something YOU cannot support

(See the Barna Group  - and the Jesuit Journal of Religion and
Philosophy)
Since there is NO provable information from heaven - I will dismiss that
one as unprovable - and therefore unknowable.
Since you do not define your standard or criterion for "proof," your
statement is meaningless.
Proof is something that establishes the "statement": to be absolutely
true - and can be verified to be true BY everyone - regardless of their
beliefs

Ah!  You are looking for a mathematical standard of proof, not based
on evidence, but on axiom.  But all axiomatic proofs depend on either
common experience or common belief -- and we have neither.  Therefore,
you require a "proof" that s outside the realm of the possible.

And that is the same with gods - there is no proof. IF you want to use
the word evidence -the same evidence YOU claim for your god exists for
all 28 million other gods so far named by humans as well. Yet - you
dismiss most of them - for no PROVABLE reason.
Quit screaming about "proof" and get to work defining your terms.  Do
you require preponderance of evidence or some other standard?  What is
your acceptable range of evidence?  Who is on the judicial panel?
No - as I said above - preponderance of evidence is NOT proof. THere is
no judicial panel.

Then you can simply do as you have always done: regardless of what is
written, you claim it is not "proof."   Your record is exceedingly
poor in recognizing anything outside your dogmas.

If you knew a little of your subject, you would address these things.
Actually - it is YOU who has no knowledge of the subject - ALL YOU HAVE
is belief.

And that is where YOU go wrong.

YOu admit that your belief in a god is based on evidence - not proof.

You should quote the "admission."

YOu said you do not have proof - just evidence

However - then you go on to make claims that cannot be supported by your
first statement.

If you cannot prove a god exist -

You cannot prove that YOU exist,

Uh - actually - based on the definition of the word - I can prove I exist.

or anything else

And yes - I can prove lots of things are true -as well

   Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

Nonsense - if a god is almighty  - YOU claim it has the power to do
anything -
Apparently - you now agree that is NOT the case



I am not hostile to the concept - I am an agnostic - I accept everything
that can be proven about gods and religions.

To date - that is very little - but I never said I would NOT accept
PROOF - it is just that YOU have never presented anything resembling
proof - or even evidence.

No?

Indeed - you say you do - but never provide any



YOu say you have LOTS of it -

Quote?

So you are now admitting you have NONE?



yet have yet to
provide a single piece.

That is your opinion and it is not objective.

No - it is fact

If there was proof - that was verifiable by ALL - there would be only
ONE acceptance (it would not longer be belief)

Even christians cannot agree on that one.



Sorry - but if a god is almighty - it should have the power to prove its
own existence - absolutely to everyone

And he should bother doing this for you because ...?

Since no gods are proven to exist - the question is MOOT.



Apparently - no gods can do that one.

Even the gods are powerless against a fools opinion of himself. --
James Branch Cabel

Since no gods are proven to exist - they are powerless against
everything



And there is no reason to believe humans who claim things that they
cannot prove - as YOU cannot

Just remember, you do me no favors by believing me, and no harm by
doubting me.  I am relatively indifferent to what you doubt or
believe.

Of course - you cling to your delusion - no matter that you have no
proof any of it is real - because your were "brought up" that way.

I can understand that one - that is the reason most theists think they
believe.

And most theists do not believe everything their religion tells them
as well - they pick and choose. I would bet that most accept most of
evolution  - as well as ignore most of creation. The majority of
abortions performed today are done on christians. Today - catholics
rarely go to confession. One thing is for sure - they do not just
automatically obey the priests and ministers anymore.

And as long as it is the humans who decide what their belief is - and
what they ignore - they admit that their belief is created by
themselves - and is not based on any real god that they can prove.

That is why you hear the "god is love" chanters all the time - that is
what they WANT it to be. After all - they want a god that - first and
foremost - does what they want it to do.

And YOu are no different

"Terry Cross" <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:b00df3c6-b314-49f7-95cf-988e71389391 at (no spam) d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 27, 6:43 am, "Dan Listermann" <d... at (no spam) listermann.com> wrote:

"Terry Cross" <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9f099d4e-debc-4633-9f2a-9182b1a0eda1 at (no spam) x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm,

"You cannot prove that YOU exist, or anything else. Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

I submit that the task is rigged, and I decline."

I don't ask for "proof." All I ask for is to see theists' evidence. They
always try to deflect the argument.

"You did not ask at all.  The Thermador did the asking, and he asked
for "proof."

Can I ask you for evidence?

On Aug 27, 2:12 pm, ThomM <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:



On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Terry Cross <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 4:52 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:

Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:59 am, Thommadura <tommad... at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
randy wrote:
"Dan Listermann"
randy
Access to God is a spiritual thing. But you must abide by the
conditions He lays down for you to hear Him. He can speak anytime,
but it is always *in His time.* If he should choose to speak to you,
and you refuse to pay attention, the fault is with you. It doesn't
prove there is no God.
OK, you have to believe to believe, right?
No, I don't believe in hypnosis, propaganda, or in positive thinking. I
believe in real evidence, and in honest assessment should that come. In
the case of God, my conscience appears to be "quickened" by information
from heaven. I feel in all honesty it's the right thing to be fair to my
neighbor, to love my enemies, and to be exemplary in my Christian faith.
This is all a conscience thing, but for me it is *real.*
randy
However - one not need believe in gods or religions to be honest - and
fair - and ethical. THat is simply humanity.
"Simply humanity" has, historically, included a wide variety of
religions, and very rarely atheism.  Atheism has appeared only where a
wide-spread political program has wiped out all other religions..
So what "simply humanity" are you discussing?
Humanity is what we ALL are - it is NOT a separate belief.

In fact - there are no statistics that show that thieists are any more
of the above things than non-believers are - and there are actual
statistics that imply that non-believers are more honest - fair - and
ethical
Statistics do not "imply* anything.  You are attempting to draw
conclusions from statistics that do not support your conclusions.
And SO are you - you are trying to state that theists are moral and
ethical based on their beliefs - something YOU cannot support

(See the Barna Group  - and the Jesuit Journal of Religion and
Philosophy)
Since there is NO provable information from heaven - I will dismiss that
one as unprovable - and therefore unknowable.
Since you do not define your standard or criterion for "proof," your
statement is meaningless.
Proof is something that establishes the "statement": to be absolutely
true - and can be verified to be true BY everyone - regardless of their
beliefs

Ah!  You are looking for a mathematical standard of proof, not based
on evidence, but on axiom.  But all axiomatic proofs depend on either
common experience or common belief -- and we have neither.  Therefore,
you require a "proof" that s outside the realm of the possible.

And that is the same with gods - there is no proof. IF you want to use
the word evidence -the same evidence YOU claim for your god exists for
all 28 million other gods so far named by humans as well. Yet - you
dismiss most of them - for no PROVABLE reason.
Quit screaming about "proof" and get to work defining your terms.  Do
you require preponderance of evidence or some other standard?  What is
your acceptable range of evidence?  Who is on the judicial panel?
No - as I said above - preponderance of evidence is NOT proof. THere is
no judicial panel.

Then you can simply do as you have always done: regardless of what is
written, you claim it is not "proof."   Your record is exceedingly
poor in recognizing anything outside your dogmas.

If you knew a little of your subject, you would address these things.
Actually - it is YOU who has no knowledge of the subject - ALL YOU HAVE
is belief.

And that is where YOU go wrong.

YOu admit that your belief in a god is based on evidence - not proof.

You should quote the "admission."

YOu said you do not have proof - just evidence

However - then you go on to make claims that cannot be supported by your
first statement.

If you cannot prove a god exist -

You cannot prove that YOU exist,

Uh - actually - based on the definition of the word - I can prove I exist.

or anything else

And yes - I can prove lots of things are true -as well

   Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

Nonsense - if a god is almighty  - YOU claim it has the power to do
anything -
Apparently - you now agree that is NOT the case

I am not hostile to the concept - I am an agnostic - I accept everything
that can be proven about gods and religions.

To date - that is very little - but I never said I would NOT accept
PROOF - it is just that YOU have never presented anything resembling
proof - or even evidence.

No?

Indeed - you say you do - but never provide any

YOu say you have LOTS of it -

Quote?

So you are now admitting you have NONE?

yet have yet to
provide a single piece.

That is your opinion and it is not objective.

No - it is fact

If there was proof - that was verifiable by ALL - there would be only
ONE acceptance (it would not longer be belief)

Even christians cannot agree on that one.

Sorry - but if a god is almighty - it should have the power to prove its
own existence - absolutely to everyone

And he should bother doing this for you because ...?

Since no gods are proven to exist - the question is MOOT.

Apparently - no gods can do that one.

Even the gods are powerless against a fools opinion of himself. --
James Branch Cabel

Since no gods are proven to exist - they are powerless against
everything

And there is no reason to believe humans who claim things that they
cannot prove - as YOU cannot

Just remember, you do me no favors by believing me, and no harm by
doubting me.  I am relatively indifferent to what you doubt or
believe.

Of course - you cling to your delusion - no matter that you have no
proof any of it is real - because your were "brought up" that way.

I can understand that one - that is the reason most theists think they
believe.

And most theists do not believe everything their religion tells them
as well - they pick and choose. I would bet that most accept most of
evolution  - as well as ignore most of creation. The majority of
abortions performed today are done on christians. Today - catholics
rarely go to confession. One thing is for sure - they do not just
automatically obey the priests and ministers anymore.

And as long as it is the humans who decide what their belief is - and
what they ignore - they admit that their belief is created by
themselves - and is not based on any real god that they can prove.

Again with the "prove."  So sad.

And what have Atheists contributed to the world - like, lately?

American children spend an average 1500 hours a year watching TeeVee.
In that time, they see an average of 1300 murders.  They see 200,000
violent acts on TV by age 18.  http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html

"Terry Cross" <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9f099d4e-debc-4633-9f2a-9182b1a0eda1 at (no spam) x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm,

"You cannot prove that YOU exist, or anything else. Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

I submit that the task is rigged, and I decline."

I don't ask for "proof." All I ask for is to see theists' evidence. They
always try to deflect the argument.

"Terry Cross" <tcross77 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f099d4e-debc-4633-9f2a-9182b1a0eda1 at (no spam) x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm,

"You cannot prove that YOU exist, or anything else. Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

I submit that the task is rigged, and I decline."

I don't ask for "proof." All I ask for is to see theists' evidence. They
always try to deflect the argument.

"Terry Cross" <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:b00df3c6-b314-49f7-95cf-988e71389391 at (no spam) d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 27, 6:43 am, "Dan Listermann" <d... at (no spam) listermann.com> wrote:

"Terry Cross" <tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9f099d4e-debc-4633-9f2a-9182b1a0eda1 at (no spam) x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm,

"You cannot prove that YOU exist, or anything else. Proof is not
possible on the level of existence when the evaluating panel is
hostile to the concept.

I submit that the task is rigged, and I decline."

I don't ask for "proof." All I ask for is to see theists' evidence. They
always try to deflect the argument.

"You did not ask at all. The Thermador did the asking, and he asked
for "proof."

Can I ask you for evidence?