>Some quote mining for brevity<

SBLittle: "“We have all we need in you and all we need is You. All we need is you."

Me: I have no need for a God that can't be shown to exist. I have no need, nor desire to sacrifice rational inquiry for superstition.

SBLittle: "What do I know of You Who spoke me into motion?"

Me: This statement lacks any means to verify it as truth.

SBLittle: "Then I caught a glimpse of who You might be The slightest hint of You brought me down to my knees"

Me: I challenge anyone who claims to have seen God to show they speak truth. Without verification for such claims how can we even know which of the hundreds to thousands of proposed gods we're even talking about?

SBLittle: "And a God who gave life "its" name?"

Me: All available evidence indicates the word life is a human creation designed to express the idea of life. I'm aware of no compelling evidence to indicate otherwise.

SBLittle: "Of the One who the angels praise?"

Me: I've yet to see verifiable evidence that angels exist, much less that these angels praise any of the hundreds to thousands of proposed gods.

SBLittle: "All creation knows Your name On earth and heaven above"

Me: I challenge anyone who claims a heaven (as popularly understood) exists to show they speak truth.

SBLittle: "What do I know of this love?"

Me: I challenge anyone who claims to know the emotions of their preferred god to show they speak truth.

Joey;

This sweet woman is simply sharing her joy from a personal experience of agape (unconditional love).

She is harming no one by expressing her vision and love. In fact, she just might put a smile on a face that has not had one for a while.

Your responses on the other hand are crude, insensitive and most definately inapporpriate. You seem as if you think she is calling for the return of the Inquisition.

Your friends in the ACLU and the Democratic Party have done a superb job of eradicating spirituality from virtually every public forum. Let this woman express herself without spewing your hate on her.

Shame on you!

Stransue: This sweet woman is simply sharing her joy from a personal experience of agape (unconditional love).

Me: And this sweet man is offering a counter to the religious claims that permeate our culture. If her love is truly "unconditional", then wouldn't she "love" the opportunity to show she speaks truth?

Stransue: She is harming no one by expressing her vision and love. In fact, she just might put a smile on a face that has not had one for a while.

Me: She just might convert someone into a belief system whose core can't be shown to be true.

Stransue: Your responses on the other hand are crude, insensitive and most definately inapporpriate. You seem as if you think she is calling for the return of the Inquisition.

Me: My intent is not to cause harm, engage in flame wars, or to insult, but to offer a counter to religious claims that can't be shown to be true.

Stransue: Your friends in the ACLU and the Democratic Party have done a superb job of eradicating spirituality from virtually every public forum.

Me: I make no allegiance with the ACLU, or the Democratic Party. Nothing in my previous statements says I do, except your conjecture in this regard. I don't seek to eliminate "spirituality", but to challenge claims in order to determine the truth of those claims. I do so for the observer who may not be aware of the nature of these claims.

As this is a public forum I feel perfectly within my rights to do so. There is always the option of reporting my posts to the administrators.

Stransue: Let this woman express herself without spewing your hate on her.

Me: There is no hate in my asking folks to show they speak truth, other than your hatred of my attempting to do so. Nowhere in my previous post did I offer anything but challenges to claims presented.

Stransue: Shame on you!

Me: I feel no shame in asking folks to show they speak truth.

Joey;

She's ninteen years old, away from home in a foreign country for months.

She posts her thoughts, pictures and poetry here as a way to connect and share her experiences.

For her, God exists. For the people to whom she directs her posts(in her paradigm), God exists. The random non-religious visitor to her site of poetry and pictures is not going to be permenently, irreversibly "corrupted" by her religious views.

On the other hand, the tone of your responses may make them think that all Atheists are mean.

When she read your last response, she was shocked; saying, "I did not mean to offend anyone."

Believe me. Whether or not it is your intent, you are comming off way too strong on this one.

She is not a mustache twisting villian trying to subvert innocent minds into a koolaid cult.

Keep up your crusade, just not with this one, OK?

Stransue: She's ninteen years old, away from home in a foreign country for months.

Me: At eighteen I was stationed in Germany serving in the Army to help guarantee her right to free speech. I make no deference to one's age or location when they go to posting on public forums.

Stransue: She posts her thoughts, pictures and poetry here as a way to connect and share her experiences.

Me: Me too.

Stransue: For her, God exists.

Me: That does seem to be the case.

Stransue: For the people to whom she directs her posts(in her paradigm), God exists.

Me: The post is in a public forum. Some of this public doesn't believe this God exists, and asks those declaring such to show they speak truth.

Stransue: The random non-religious visitor to her site of poetry and pictures is not going to be permenently, irreversibly "corrupted" by her religious views.

Me: Yet you seem to indicate my challenging her to show she speaks truth will somehow be corrupting.

Stransue: On the other hand, the tone of your responses may make them think that all Atheists are mean.

Me: I understand some folks consider challenging religious claims to be "mean". I don't.

Stransue: When she read your last response, she was shocked; saying, "I did not mean to offend anyone."

Me: I take no offense at claims that can't be shown to be true. That'd be kinda silly, IMO.

Stransue: Believe me. Whether or not it is your intent, you are comming off way too strong on this one.

Me: I agree many will consider challenging religious claims to be "coming off way too strong".

Stransue: She is not a mustache twisting villian trying to subvert innocent minds into a koolaid cult.

Me: Nowhere have I said this is the case. I simply challenged public claims on a public forum.

Stransue: Keep up your crusade, just not with this one, OK?

Me: I don't tend to use the term "crusade" for reasons I think should be obvious. I will continue to challenge those claims I deem fit to challenge until such time I'm prevented from doing so.

I do note that as I write this there's been no effort to actually support the claims, but an effort to silence my challenges.

SBLittle;

Don't let this guy bully you. You should know there are plenty of people who support you and celebrate what you are doing.

Keep up the good works.

My intent is not to "bully" anybody, but to determine the truthfulness of claims made in a public forum. Doesn't the public deserve to know if the stated claims are accurate?

Since I seem to have adequately addressed Stransue's objections, I point out yet again that no effort has been made to show the challenged claims are true.

So far you have not proven that such is your true intent. I am sorry, but I cannot simply take your assertions that your intentions are what you say they are without some iron-clad, verifiable proof.

Until you can PROVE that this is really what you are trying to do, I won't believe you.

And while you are at it, are you really who you say you are?

Prove it.

Shift the burden of proof much?

If my intent were to be a "bully", would that offer some means to verify the veracity of the claims I've challenged?

If I'm not who I say I am, does this offer some means to verify the veracity of the claims I've challenged?

I am only demonstrating a point that you seem to take advantage of frequently.

You demand proof of something that cannot be proven by the standards upon which you insist upon.

Does your demand that it be proven by your standards mean that it is not true?

No. It only proves that based upon your criteria it cannot be proven.

Spiritual experience is a private, personal thing that cannot be weighed, measured and quantified by the standards you insist upon. You know this and yet persist in badgering people anyway.

One definition of a Bully is: To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner

I challenge you to prove anything you feel. It is impossible under emperical criteria. Does that mean that your feelings are not real? Absolutely not.

Does the impossibility of your ability to empirically prove the existence of your feelings give license to any random bully to come along and pester you to prove them every time you express an emotion?

I would deduce that in your paradigm it would. But for many, that would be not only rude, but a colassal waste of time.

The experience of spiritual insight, epiphany, or presence cannot be proven. But by communicating the perspective it provides, it may offer a glimmer of deeper understanding to someone who is seeking such insight.

Its validity is exclusively relevant to the writer and those who benefit from the reading what is written.

The fact that you are untouched by it is less about the veracity of the author's beliefs than about your rigid dogma.

God is very polite. He will never interupt, and certainly will not go where he is not invited.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet, William Shakespeare

Stransue: You demand proof of something that cannot be proven by the standards upon which you insist upon.

Me: Until some evidence is presented, how can we presume to know what standard to apply?

Stransue: Does your demand that it be proven by your standards mean that it is not true?

Me: No. Nor does just making a claim prove the claim is true.

Stransue: No. It only proves that based upon your criteria it cannot be proven.

Me: I asked for some means to verify the veracity of claims. I made no other "criteria".

Stransue: Spiritual experience is a private, personal thing...

Me: Are you having difficulty understanding the difference between "public" and "private" forum? Again, I have no way of knowing what standard to apply to evidence I've yet to see.

Stransue: You know this and yet persist in badgering people anyway.

Me: I agree some will consider challenging claims to be "badgering". Are you not "badgering" me now?

Stransue: One definition of a Bully is: To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner

Me: Interesting you'd consider challenging claims to be "intimidating" and "overbearing". Do you think your actions here constitute "bullying" me?

Stransue: I challenge you to prove anything you feel..

Me: I don't think I've made claims in this regard.

Stransue: Does the impossibility of your ability to empirically prove the existence of your feelings give license to any random bully to come along and pester you to prove them every time you express an emotion?

Me: Again I find it odd you would consider me a "bully" and "pesterer" while you seem to be doing the exact same thing.

Stransue: I would deduce that in your paradigm it would. But for many, that would be not only rude, but a colassal waste of time.

Me: I make no presumptions about folks' "paradigms". What I do however is seek to determine if what folks say is true.

Stransue: The experience of spiritual insight, epiphany, or presence cannot be proven.

Me: That's kinda my point.

Stransue: But by communicating the perspective it provides, it may offer a glimmer of deeper understanding to someone who is seeking such insight.

Me: And by challenging claims in this regard we can better understand these "insights".

Stransue: Its validity is exclusively relevant to the writer and those who benefit from the reading what is written...

Me: This is why I ask for some means to verify the veracity of these claims.

Stransue: God is very polite. He will never interupt, and certainly will not go where he is not invited.

Me: So it is claimed. "Never interrupting" and "not going where he is not invited" looks an awful lot like "He ain't there".

Stransue: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet, William Shakespeare

Me: You are aware Shakespeare wrote fiction?

SB,

I love and miss my best friend in the whole universe! You are awseome and a big encouragement. I know that God is working in and through you. You are growing and learning every day that you are in Costa Rica and no one can lessen God's calling on your life. Don't be discouraged or feel that you have to explain you faith in Christ remember 2nd Corinthians 3:14-16. Unless God removes the veil no one can understand.

Love you meant it!

Clain

Joey:

On one hand you say, “I don't much fret over [Obama’s] birth certificate, but in how he acts as President.” Yet if Obama’s hidden birth certificate is revealed and proves that he is not a natural born citizen it will verify with absolute certainty that his entire Presidency is a lie and that his first act as President was a blatant act of deceit which taints everything else he has done.

His deception will have caused incalculable harm to every American and many foreigners as well. It will further taint America’s already damaged reputation. It will invalidate every bill he has signed. There will be other consequences that none of us can fully anticipate but will certainly be harmful to large swaths of people across the globe.

This crime could turn out to be one of the most despicable and deleterious acts of fraud perpetrated in American history. But you, “...don't much care if Obama is a native born citizen or not...”

Then, on the opposite side of your chasm of hypocrisy, we have a young woman posting comments and poetry speaking of her personal experiences of a spiritual nature – whose content is harmless to any and all; on a community blog site of a small newspaper in the heart of the bible belt, and suddenly “Joey: the GREAT ENFORCER OF TRUTH IN PUBLIC SPEECH” descends upon her with pretentious, arrogant demands that she prove what he, she and every other adult in the civilized world knows cannot be proven.

So, in the case of a demonstrably despotic, certifiably narcissistic, arrogantly unapologetic and audaciously cavalier liar of gargantuan proportions; whose willful violation of the most sacred body of law in human history, can wreak unimaginable havoc and hardship for millions, you “...don’t much care...”

But in the case of spontaneous, innocent and harmless expressions of joy, love and celebration shared by an innocent girl about her God; in posts that are transparently offered as a balm of succor for those readers who enjoy them; and nothing more than a loving gift to them from her, your comments and demands of proof only serve to demonstrate your ignorance of what everyone reading her work already knows.

News Flash: Joey reveals earth-shaking discovery – God’s existence CANNOT BE PROVEN in empirical terms. Duh!

So, in the case of truly malevolent liars whose lies really hurt people you are indifferent. In the case of harmless yet obviously improvable expressions of joy, you boldly declare, “...religious belief has had "too easy" a time of it...”

If you are going to devote so much energy to challenging the veracity of public statements how about going after a REAL target. Unless picking on nineteen year old girls is all you’ve got the chops for...

I have been asked by the moderators to refrain from further comment within this thread. I will comply with the censors, except to note here why I will no longer respond in this thread.