Re: CLEAR INFORMATION PROVING NO GODS.

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 22:29:15 -0000, "Malcolm McLean"
<regniztar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
>"TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:g6jyj.10113$5K1.2862@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  If you believe there is a point or are points I did not read that 
>> actually does provide "irrevocable evidence/facts that proves no real
Gods 
>> exist," please identify this point or these points.
>>
>That's unreasonable.
>A pat answer is that you can't prove a negative. So you cannot show that 
>there is no monster in Loch Ness. Except you can. You can show how much
food 
>flows into and out of the loch, and when you do the calculations you'll
see 
>that there's just not enough for it to eat.
>
>The truth is that a lot of atheist arguments boil down to what I call the

>"writing on the Moon" argument. 

You're lying again.

>                                If God exists, surely He'd make it 
>completely untenable to hold the position that He doesn't exist. 

No atheist uses that as an argument, liar. It's a caricature of a
particular response to a particular theist claim.

But then you know this already because this is pointed out. Which
makes you an in-our-face nasty, liar.

>                                                                 To an 
>extent that's a legitimate argument, but a riposte can be "if there was
no 
>God surely we'd have made belief in Him totally untenable by now". The
fact 
>is that all religions except liberal Christianity and (a special case) 
>Reform Judaism are untenable, by intellectuals. There's nothing about 
>religion that protects it from the razor of science or scholar****p. Young

>Earth Biblical literalism can be shot down quite easily, for example. But
St 
>Augustine did that back in the 5th century.

Good thing it's just your mindless stupidity.

>So what atheists have got to do is chip away at the credibility of 
>Christianity. Not, note, of "theism". Liberal Christianity, and the
special 
>case of Reform Judaism, are the only opponents still in the ring.
Christinas 
>have to chip away at atheist credibility. It's slow, unsatisyfing, but
it's 
>the only way of conducting the debate, until God does write those big 
>letters on the Moon or some atheist really does come up with something to

>discredit Christianity.

A thoroughly dishonest, pig-ignorant bigot wiping his lies about
atheists in the faces of the very people he lies about.