XPost: alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:26:37 +0000, grabber  wrote:   
      
   >On 20/02/2015 21:41, mur wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:12:05 +0000, grabber  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> On 15/02/2015 05:35, Jeanne Douglas wrote:   
   >>>> In article , mur wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:21:02 -0800, Jeanne Douglas    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>> .   
   >>>>>> In article <9o4ldalef6babsqbs25fu0g84am5be4jiv@4ax.com>, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:03:08 -0700, A Nony Mouse  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:29:38 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:21:33 +0100, "thomas p."    
   >>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>>> "mur" skrev i meddelelsen   
   >>>>>>>>>> news:0qrqcalc1ofgv7gemh395qn40u3tofeiro@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:25:02 -0800, Jeanne Douglas   
   >>>>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:45:42 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:28:47 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> felix_unger  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it takes faith to believe that God does not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps it does may faith to disbelieve in what a person has   
   once   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> believed in,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>      To disbelieve can mean to have no belief at all, but it can   
   also   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>      mean   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> believe something is incorrect. That is very unfortunate imo, and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> cause of some honest confustion...POSSIBLY.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it takes no such faith not to believe in something one   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never has believed in.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>      To honestly have no belief requires considering the   
   possibility   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>      that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> something is correct as well as that it's not correct. You make   
   it   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious you can consider the possibility that God does not exist   
   as   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> being   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. Try to present some evidence that you can also consider   
   the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> that God does exist as being correct, if you really would like to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> try   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> pretending   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> you honestly have no belief about it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> If one can believe in the existence of a god without any relevant   
   >>>>>>>> evidence, as so many of those who claim to believe in one do, one can   
   as   
   >>>>>>>> easily fail to believe in the existence of any gods based on an equal   
   >>>>>>>> lack of any relevant evidence.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>       If one can only consider the possibility that there's no God   
   >>>>>>>       associated   
   >>>>>>>       with   
   >>>>>>> Earth, and can't consider the possibility that there is, then the   
   person   
   >>>>>>> can   
   >>>>>>> only "have" the one possible belief. All that's in question is why so   
   many   
   >>>>>>> of   
   >>>>>>> you atheists are ashamed of the fact. Why are you, do you have any   
   idea?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> What the FUCK are you talking about?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>       Atheists.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Then re-write that paragrah of babble into proper English.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> He almost certainly can't, because his rhetoric is highly dependent on   
   >>> the phraseology he adopts - notice how he stick like glue to the same,   
   >>> strange little patterns of words.   
   >>>   
   >>> Mur needs "Fred can consider the possibility X" to be understood at some   
   >>> points to mean "Fred accepts that the possibility of X has not actually   
   >>> been ruled out", yet at other times to mean "Fred carries around in his   
   >>> head an account of X that he finds fairly plausible". If mur were to   
   >>> change the words to less ambiguous ones, his rhetoric would fall apart.   
   >>   
   >>        If a person can only consider the possibility that there's no God   
   >> associated with Earth, and can't consider the possibility that there is,   
   then   
   >> the person can only "have" the one possible belief. HOW would you like to   
   try   
   >> pretending that fact is not true? WHY do you want to pretend it's not true,   
   do   
   >> you have any idea at all about that?   
   >>   
   >   
   >Thanks once again mur, not only for illustrating my particular point   
   >from above so faithfully,   
      
       You certainly confirmed mine by being unable to even pretend that what I   
   pointed out might possibly be incorrect...not even after you were challenged   
   directly to try making an attempt. In fact you couldn't even attempt to explain   
   why you would WANT it to be incorrect.   
      
   >but also for confirming my more general one:   
   >that you are not (on current form) worth bothering with.   
      
       And you've shown yourself to be even less. You've shown that there's   
   nothing   
   to you at all, in fact.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)