XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 06:28:06 -0500, duke  wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:03:53 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:29:59 -0500, duke  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:02:20 -0400, mur. <> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 03:19:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   >>>>wrote:   
   >>>>.   
   >>>>>On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:33:27 -0400, mur. <> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 05:04:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   >>>>>>wrote:   
   >>>>>>.   
   >>>>>>>In article ,   
   >>>>>>> David Johnston  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 3/18/2015 5:11 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> >> I prefer the gigantic cow hypothesis.   
   >>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>> >      One absolute consistency is that you atheists can only   
   "consider" the   
   >>>>>>>> > possibility of God's existence in very childlike ways, but never in   
   any   
   >>>>>>>> > realistic ways.Of course that is significant since if you could   
   think of it   
   >>>>>>>> > in   
   >>>>>>>> > any realistic way you wouldn't be restricted to an atheist way of   
   thinking,   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Your assumption that I am "restricted" to an atheist way of thinking   
   is   
   >>>>>>>> false.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>What the fuck is "an atheist way of thinking"?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    LOL....you really can't figure out a damn thing.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Why didn't you answer my question?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Before reading your post I predicted it would be either some sort of   
   blatant   
   >>>>lie, or more of you revealing that you can't comprehend what's being   
   discussed.   
   >>>>We'll if you can deal with it after I point out some basics.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>1. Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god associated with this   
   planet   
   >>>>and may or may not be that there is no type of god associated with any   
   place(s)   
   >>>>in "the" universe, depending on the personal belief of the individual.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>2. Weak atheism is having no belief about whether or not there is any god   
   >>>>associated with any place(s) in "the" universe, which would necessarily   
   involve   
   >>>>giving consideration to the possibility that there may be as well as that   
   there   
   >>>>is not if a person has been exposed to the idea.   
   >>>   
   >>>Weak atheism is otherwise called agnosticism.   
   >>   
   >>    There's more to it than that. Strong agnostics believe nobody can know if   
   >>God exists. Weak agnostics believe it's possible that some people can know if   
   >>God exists. I'm a weak agnostic.   
   >   
   >Too much hair splitting.   
      
       Why are you so overwhelmed by those easy distinctions, do you have any   
   idea?   
      
   >Evidence exists for the presence of God - it can't be   
   >denied.   
      
       It is denied by blatant liars.   
      
   >One may not like it, but none the less, it stares them in the face,   
   >hence:   
   >   
   >An atheist denies the presence of God refusing to see the evidence   
   >   
   >An agnostic sees the evidence but does not find it convincing.   
      
       To claim to have faith in God's existence when a person doesn't have it   
   seems worse than to be honest about it from my pov. To actually have reason to   
   develop faith that God does exist is something God would have to provide imo,   
   and to claim that without really having it would again be worse than being   
   honest about it, imo.   
      
   >A theist accepts the presence of God by evidence and/or faith.   
      
       The faith is established by the evidence, which is another basic starting   
   line atheists can't get as "far" as.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)