XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 06:00:52 -0800, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >In article <129f3254a1890a73efd847857aa101e5@dizum.com>,   
   > "Thomas"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article    
   >> mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 00:51:51 +0000 (UTC), "70.66.89.54@sjrb.ca"   
   >> > <70.66.89.54@sjrb.ca> wrote:   
   >> > .   
   >> > >On 05 Jan 2015, §pammer§top  posted some   
   >> > >news:ZEDqw.196226$_R5.48954@fx28.iad:   
   >> > >   
   >> > >> From: §pammer§top    
   >> > >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0)   
   >> > >> Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0   
   >> > >> Message-ID:    
   >> > >> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.89.54   
   >> > >> X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca   
   >> > >> X-Trace: 1420494521 70.66.89.54 (Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:48:41 UTC)   
   >> > >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:48:41 UTC   
   >> > >> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:49:06 -0800   
   >> > >> X-Received-Bytes: 1407   
   >> > >> X-Received-Body-CRC: 282770615   
   >> >   
   >> >      I'll tell you a little bit. They claim that there is no evidence of   
   >> >      God's   
   >> > existence which is an obviously stupid claim because if there really was   
   >> > none,   
   >> > no one would believe he exists because there would be nothing TO believe.   
   >> > Moving   
   >> > on with that stupidity we can conclude that their dishonest denial means   
   >> > they   
   >> > are very unsatisfied with and reject all evidence that does exist. This   
   >> > clearly   
   >> > tells us they believe that if God truly does exist there should be some   
   >> > sort of   
   >> > very strong verifiable evidence to the point of being proof that he does   
   >> > exist.   
   >> > That much they make very clear. But! They have also made it very clear   
   that   
   >> > even   
   >> > though they believe such "evidence"/proof should exist, they have no clue   
   >> > at all   
   >> > what it should be, where it should be, why it should even be available to   
   >> > humans, or when it should have been or should be made available. That's   
   one   
   >> > of   
   >> > the amusing positions they are in.   
   >>   
   >> Atheists don't like it that atheism has been deemed a religion   
   >> either.   
   >   
   >It hasn't been, so what is there not to like?   
      
       Strong atheism is a religious belief. How much faith a person has that   
   there   
   is no God associated with this planet is what determines how strong an atheist   
   that person is or is not. Someone with no faith about it is a weak atheist. So   
   what is there that you don't like about those facts?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)