XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:45:26 +0100 (CET), "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.   
      
       I don't consider it to "be" a religion, but strong atheism certainly IS as   
   much a religious belief and faith as any other.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)