Hello on this Friday afternoon. Each weekend, we take a closer look at
a P.A.M .  These P.A.M.'s  are intended for the honest Seeker/Skeptic
who hasnt closed thier mind due to an apriori-philosophical bias , and
who is on a sincere quest for the truth on the most important issue in
life :  Whether a personal Creator exists, and, what does he expect
from us.    This weekend, we shall take a look at the cornerstone of
the atheism Faith , which is that the proven scientific evidence for
the immense fine tuning of this Universe, our Solar system, Earth...
in addition to first life arising by chance...can be all explained by
Natural Causes comprising of accidental compilations upon compilations
for no good reason or purpose.

What the atheist Faith needs to show using sound rationale and
compelling evidence, is how accidents upon accidents without purpose
can :

1. Give us our scientifically confirmed 250 +  tweaked Anthropics
(physics Constants) , all required simultaneously and all working
collaboratively,  allowing this planet to exist so we can live out our
lives on it .

2. Show us why US living on earth ISNT a purpose ., since we are here
living on it.

3. Give us our 60 major systems making up our Human Anatomy with
hundreds more subsystems all working in unison, so we can live.

4. Show us why our Human Body ISNT a purpose., since all who read this
is alive.

5. Tell us why 'atheists'  believe there is NO purpose to our lives,
yet live daily as if there IS/WAS purpose to thier lives.

6.  Tell us why 'atheists' believe there is no such thing as Moral
Absolutes, yet EXPECT/and even DEMAND others treat them with absolute
honesty, fairness, and integrity .

7.  Explain how first life came about 'naturally'  , when even world
reknown atheist CoDiscoverer Dr. Francis Crick said the probability of
life arising by chance ,naturally,  is 10^40,000  (which is NO chance
at all).

Since its people of the Atheist Faith (faith in Naturalism and
accidents) that try to convince themselves and those around them,
that,  thier Faith is rational and plausible... perhaps an 'atheist'
in this NG who considers him/herself a devouted follower of the
Faith , could give succinct answers to the above questions
incorporating actual evidence instead of resorting to the same ol'
copout of telling Inquirers (such as myself) to :  'F. off'  .,
because they have no rational explanation and simply cant afford for a
personal Creator to be real .

Join us next weekend as we continue to challenge the Atheist Faith to
see just how rational and sensible it is.

Until then,  enjoy your weekend , and remember....dont take the
Universe or your Life for granted , for,  neither show signs of being
accidental whatsoever.

Regards, Dave.

Pleaser ignore this fuckwadd

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello on this Friday afternoon. Each weekend, we take a closer look at
> a P.A.M .
 > ... snip...
> Until then,  enjoy your weekend , and remember....dont take the
> Universe or your Life for granted , for,  neither show signs of being
> accidental whatsoever.

This is yet another example of the "argument from ignorance" or 
"argument from incredulity", which is an invalid form of reasoning, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

In this way, Dave's unsupported and ridiculous assertions stem from 
a need to try to undermine rational thinking in a misguided attempt 
to add credibility to his own superstitious beliefs. There is no 
need to deal with any of the detail in Dave's argument as his case 
falls simply by the fact that the underlying logical reasoning is false.

To quote from Wikipedia:

"Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from 
Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, 
implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use 
this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view 
of his or her choice."

regards, Ian

On May 23, 5:22 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello on this Friday afternoon. Each weekend, we take a closer look at
> > a P.A.M .
>  > ... snip...
> > Until then,  enjoy your weekend , and remember....dont take the
> > Universe or your Life for granted , for,  neither show signs of being
> > accidental whatsoever.
>
> This is yet another example of the "argument from ignorance" or
> "argument from incredulity", which is an invalid form of reasoning, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>
> In this way, Dave's unsupported and ridiculous assertions stem from
> a need to try to undermine rational thinking in a misguided attempt
> to add credibility to his own superstitious beliefs. There is no
> need to deal with any of the detail in Dave's argument as his case
> falls simply by the fact that the underlying logical reasoning is false.
>
> To quote from Wikipedia:
>
> "Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from
> Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false,
> implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use
> this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view
> of his or her choice."
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questions
posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend
thier Faith) ??  Thanks.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
> atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questions
> posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend
> thier Faith) ??  Thanks.

Oh come on Dave - we've been asking you for so long now...

You've been asked before, so please don't duck it yet again. Please 
provide real positive convincing evidence for the existence of your god.

regards, Ian

On May 23, 6:41 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
> > atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questions
> > posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend
> > thier Faith) ??  Thanks.
>
> Oh come on Dave - we've been asking you for so long now...
>
> You've been asked before, so please don't duck it yet again. Please
> provide real positive convincing evidence for the existence of your god.
>
> regards, Ian

   Dave is absolute proof AGAINST intelligent design...any designer
withan agenda would be embarrassed to know what nonsense religion is
and Dave in particular....

On May 23, 5:41 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
> > atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questions
> > posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend
> > thier Faith) ??  Thanks.
>
> Oh come on Dave - we've been asking you for so long now...
>
> You've been asked before, so please don't duck it yet again. Please
> provide real positive convincing evidence for the existence of your god.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  If you dont like the evidence ive presented based on modern
scientific discovery, then please tell me what kind of evidence would
be enough for you to FOLLOW  the Universes Creator ?  What would it
take for you to FOLLOW , that is,  to give him the glory, honor, and
submission of your life in love and service to him ?

On May 23, 6:15 pm, "t...@noburn.net"  wrote:
> On May 23, 6:41 pm, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>
> > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
> > > atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questions
> > > posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend
> > > thier Faith) ??  Thanks.
>
> > Oh come on Dave - we've been asking you for so long now...
>
> avoi> You've been asked before, so please don't duck it yet again. Please
> > provide real positive convincing evidence for the existence of your god.> > regards, Ian
>
>    Dave is absolute proof AGAINST intelligent design...any designer
> withan agenda would be embarrassed to know what nonsense religion is
> and Dave in particular....

REPLY:  How come you use this defamation smokescreen to avoid
answering the questions in the OP ??   Cant you answer those questions
being a part of the atheism Faith ?

On May 23, 4:24 pm, "Trolling Webtv Idiot IlBeBa...@gmail.com"
 wrote: the usual crap


No one wants your LYING fat fundy ass here, so get the fuck out

On May 23, 4:22 pm, "Trolling Webtv Idiot lBeBa...@gmail.com"
 wrote: the usual crap

No one wants your LYING fat fundy ass in here, so get the fuck out

X-No-Archive: yes

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:lvudnXDeqr-91arVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
>> atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questions
>> posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend
>> thier Faith) ??  Thanks.
>
> Oh come on Dave - we've been asking you for so long now...
>
> You've been asked before, so please don't duck it yet again. Please 
> provide real positive convincing evidence for the existence of your god.


Ian,   he cannot.
You know it, I know it and all of the members here know it.
He cannot because there is none firstly... but secondly because he cannot 
present an argument cohesively, does not understand the meaning and fidelity 
of 'evidence', regurgitates fundamentalist dogma and agenda rather than 
inspirational thought, is psychologically affected by religious 
indoctrination, has meaningless criteria for establishing evidence and 
'facts' and is unable to intellectually grasp the notion of a wider 
possibility for existence.
His narrowmindness resultant from fundamentalist religious exposure prevents 
consideration of other points of view as to stay faithful to his belief 
system requires dogmatically rejecting any ideas outside of the very narrow 
band of extreme, literalist, biblical interpretation.
It truly is pointless engaging (...as if one could..!!) with him.  Really, 
really, truly, pointless......


Mark

On May 23, 7:26 pm, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Ian Smith"  wrote in message
>
> news:lvudnXDeqr-91arVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
> >> atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questionsd
> >> posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend
> >> thier Faith) ??  Thanks.
>
> > Oh come on Dave - we've been asking you for so long now...
>
> > You've been asked before, so please don't duck it yet again. Please
> > provide real positive convincing evidence for the existence of your god.> Ian,   he cannot.
> You know it, I know it and all of the members here know it.
> He cannot because there is none firstly... but secondly because he cannot
> present an argument cohesively, does not understand the meaning and fidelity
> of 'evidence', regurgitates fundamentalist dogma and agenda rather than
> inspirational thought, is psychologically affected by religious
> indoctrination, has meaningless criteria for establishing evidence and
> 'facts' and is unable to intellectually grasp the notion of a wider
> possibility for existence.
>k. His narrowmindness resultant from fundamentalist religious exposure prevents
> consideration of other points of view as to stay faithful to his belief
> system requires dogmatically rejecting any ideas outside of the very narrow
> band of extreme, literalist, biblical interpretation.
> It truly is pointless engaging (...as if one could..!!) with him.  Really,
> really, truly, pointless......
>
> Mark

REPLY: Hi Mark.  Youve been in this NG for some time now Mark, so
youve read and considered the evidence ive listed for a Designer/
Creator ;  but, as an 'atheist' , its mandatory that you never
seriously consider any evidence for a WorldView / Faith, other than
the one which fits in well with your lifestyle of personal maximum
freedom .  Requiring evidence 'so you can believe' is just a phony
smokescreen excuse  ;  there isnt an adult on earth who cant determine
that a personal Designer is always needed for personal Design , and
even without reading a simple book on the enormous complexity around
us , each person can see the evidence of special creation.  Mark, you
can keep on trying to convince yourself  that there is no intelligent
Designer/Creator behind it all....but, it means you have to be
constantly trying to fool yourself so YOU can remain #1 , instead of
him.   I know the psychology behind atheism Mark because i lived it
like you are doing now.  Dont go and waste your life making yourSELF
out to be #1  in the Cosmos ;  give God his rightful honored place in
your life and you wont be regretful later on.  There isnt a more major
issue than this for yourself .  Do you know how to go about drawing
nearer to the Creator of this Universe ?  It first  starts with
humility and setting aside your Pride leading you to ask for
forgiveness for rejecting God so often in your life.   I know you can
do it if you truly want to Mark. It is the most reasonable, rational,
intelligent course of action known to mankind, for,  it has to do with
our very purpose in being here. That is, to know the Creator on a
personal basis. Please  dont shrug it off any longer and please take
it very very seriously Mark.      Dave.

On May 23, 7:24 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> On May 23, 6:15 pm, "t...@noburn.net"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 6:41 pm, Ian Smith 
> > wrote:
>
> > > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
> > > > atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questions
> > > > posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend> > > > thier Faith) ??  Thanks.
>
> > > Oh come on Dave - we've been asking you for so long now...
>
> > avoi> You've been asked before, so please don't duck it yet again. Please
> > > provide real positive convincing evidence for the existence of your god.
>
> > > regards, Ian
>
> >    Dave is absolute proof AGAINST intelligent design...any designer
> > withan agenda would be embarrassed to know what nonsense religion is
> > and Dave in particular....
>
> REPLY:  How come you use this defamation smokescreen to avoid
> answering the questions in the OP ??   Cant you answer those questions
> being a part of the atheism Faith ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

  Since your faith is a lie...you should have no problem with it...but
that is the rub with cockroach beliefs like christianity, the denial
is like rust on an old car...its the only thing holding it together
for you...

On May 23, 7:57 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> On May 23, 7:26 pm, "mark"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-No-Archive: yes
>
> > "Ian Smith"  wrote in message
>
> >news:lvudnXDeqr-91arVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> > > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> REPLY:  Is there anyone in the House who considers themselves an
> > >> atheist , who can give a rational succinct answer to the questionsd
> > >> posed without silly attempts at defamation (because they cant defend
> > >> thier Faith) ??  Thanks.
>
> > > Oh come on Dave - we've been asking you for so long now...
>
> > > You've been asked before, so please don't duck it yet again. Please
> > > provide real positive convincing evidence for the existence of your god.
>
> > Ian,   he cannot.
> > You know it, I know it and all of the members here know it.
> > He cannot because there is none firstly... but secondly because he cannot
> > present an argument cohesively, does not understand the meaning and fidelity
> > of 'evidence', regurgitates fundamentalist dogma and agenda rather than
> > inspirational thought, is psychologically affected by religious
> > indoctrination, has meaningless criteria for establishing evidence and
> > 'facts' and is unable to intellectually grasp the notion of a wider
> > possibility for existence.
> >k. His narrowmindness resultant from fundamentalist religious exposure prevents
> > consideration of other points of view as to stay faithful to his belief
> > system requires dogmatically rejecting any ideas outside of the very narrow
> > band of extreme, literalist, biblical interpretation.
> > It truly is pointless engaging (...as if one could..!!) with him.  Really,
> > really, truly, pointless......
>
> > Mark
>
> REPLY: Hi Mark.  Youve been in this NG for some time now Mark, so
> youve read and considered the evidence ive listed for a Designer/
> Creator ;  but, as an 'atheist' , its mandatory that you never
> seriously consider any evidence for a WorldView / Faith, other than
> the one which fits in well with your lifestyle of personal maximum
> freedom .  Requiring evidence 'so you can believe' is just a phony
> smokescreen excuse  ;  there isnt an adult on earth who cant determine> that a personal Designer is always needed for personal Design , and
> even without reading a simple book on the enormous complexity around
> us , each person can see the evidence of special creation.  Mark, you
> can keep on trying to convince yourself  that there is no intelligent
> Designer/Creator behind it all....but, it means you have to be
> constantly trying to fool yourself so YOU can remain #1 , instead of
> him.   I know the psychology behind atheism Mark because i lived it
> like you are doing now.  Dont go and waste your life making yourSELF
> out to be #1  in the Cosmos ;  give God his rightful honored place in
> your life and you wont be regretful later on.  There isnt a more major
> issue than this for yourself .  Do you know how to go about drawing
> nearer to the Creator of this Universe ?  It first  starts with
> humility and setting aside your Pride leading you to ask for
> forgiveness for rejecting God so often in your life.   I know you can
> do it if you truly want to Mark. It is the most reasonable, rational,
> intelligent course of action known to mankind, for,  it has to do with
> our very purpose in being here. That is, to know the Creator on a
> personal basis. Please  dont shrug it off any longer and please take
> it very very seriously Mark.      Dave.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Take this very very seriously....................
Get the fuck outta here as you've worn out the welcome you never had,
FOOL

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  If you dont like the evidence ive presented based on modern
> scientific discovery, then please tell me what kind of evidence would
> be enough for you to FOLLOW  the Universes Creator ?  What would it
> take for you to FOLLOW , that is,  to give him the glory, honor, and
> submission of your life in love and service to him ?

Simple ...

We've shown you that pointing out (real or imaginary) problems with 
science doesn't constitute evidence for your hypothesis.

You are the one who is proposing this hypothesis - it isn't down to 
us the work out what your evidence might or might not be - how 
should we know?

So, provide evidence that such a being exists. Real, positive 
evidence. It really is put up, or shut up time!

regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  How come you use this defamation smokescreen to avoid
> answering the questions in the OP ??   Cant you answer those questions
> being a part of the atheism Faith ?

I've never engaged in defamation. I've pointed out that you have 
been lying to us repeatedly and given evidence to substantiate that, 
which you have made no attempt to refute.

As far as the "Atheism faith" or "Atheist Religion" goes - I'm happy 
to answer these questions in full....

As we've explained countless times, we are not aware of the 
existence of an "Atheism faith" or "Atheist Religion". You are one 
who has proposed that these exist. We can can provide no supporting 
evidence for them, because - as far as we are aware - they don't 
exist. We think that these are simply a figment of your imagination.

regards, Ian