XPost: alt.atheism, alt.flame.jesus.christ, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:15:22 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:50:22 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:00:47 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:42:02 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:32:40 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>.   
   >>>>>On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 20:49:38 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:00:09 -0600, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>.   
   >>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:52:34 -0700, A Nony Mouse  wrote:   
   >>>>>...   
   >>>>>>>>A careful person will not reject the possibility of no gods existing on   
   >>>>>>>>the basis of any evidence as yet presented, nor reject the reverse   
   >>>>>>>>possibility on that evidence.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>Such careful persons are called agnostics.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Not really. Agnostics say that they do not know and cannot know if any   
   >>>>>>>deities exist. They may be believers or not be believers.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    Do you think there's no distinction between strong and weak   
   agnostics? How   
   >>>>>>about strong and weak atheists? Your idiot brother bilgat can't   
   comprehend the   
   >>>>>>distinction between any of them, or even that there is a distinction.   
   Are you as   
   >>>>>>clueless as that idiot?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>I have no idea what distinction you imagine exists among agnostics other   
   >>>>>than belief in god or unbelief, theist or atheist.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Strong agnostics believe it can't be known whether or not God exists.   
   Weak   
   >>>>agnostics believe that if God does exist it is possible for some people to   
   know   
   >>>>it. I'm a weak agnostic and consider strong agnosticism to be even more   
   stupid   
   >>>>than strong atheism.   
   >>>   
   >>>Tell us about the evidence that can be gathered to show that a deity   
   >>>exists.   
   >>   
   >>    For a person to know it it would be between God and the in   
   ividual...LOL...   
   >>It's amusing to think you feel there should be proof for everyone always   
   >>available. It's like if you think everyone who goes in Walmart should be   
   >>entitled to get a paycheck even if they don't work there. Hilarious! Not so   
   much   
   >>that there couldn't be a planet with a God who DOES provide free easy proof   
   for   
   >>everybody, but since it's obvious that's not the case here it's amusing that   
   you   
   >>think it should be that way and keep demanding it...LOL... over and over and   
   >>over again.   
   >   
   >So you have no evidence that any deity exists   
      
       No that's a lie and by now I feel sure I've presented you with evidence   
   meaning that you're aware it's a lie.   
      
   >and offer a meaningless   
   >word salad in place of an answer.   
      
       I pointed out aspects of the position WE ALL are in that you're not able to   
   comprehend much less appreciate...LOL...which is why it's "meaningless" to you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)