XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:38:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:53:59 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 06:40:24 -0500, duke  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:04:00 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:11:12 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   >>>>wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> >I'm going to guess none.  He's shown no willingness to accept a   
   rational   
   >>>>>> >point-of-view.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>     Like what? I consider the possibility that there's no God   
   associated with   
   >>>>>> this planet. I also consider the possibility that there's no God   
   associated   
   >>>>>> with   
   >>>>>> any place(s) in the universe but consider that extremely unlikely.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Why do you find it unlikely?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Because of how old the universe is, how many star systems there are,   
   and how   
   >>>>much humans have figured out how to do in such a short period of time.   
   >>>   
   >>>Better than that.  The universe began when an infinitely small point of   
   >>>mass/energy of infinite density appeared in nothingness.  Said infinitely   
   small   
   >>>point expanded/inflated for 13.7 billion years (calculated) such that the   
   known   
   >>>universe is now some 160 billion-trillion miles in diameter.   
   >>>   
   >>>It's creation at it's finest.  Something from nothing into nothingness.   
   >>>Mass/energy is not intelligent and hence could not do it on it's own.  The   
   >>>creator's name is almighty God who is neither mass nor energy.   
   >>   
   >>    Well, I feel it would be the other way around, and that if there are Gods   
   >>associated with the universe the developed from it, even if that was in   
   previous   
   >>cycles of expansion. One way is no more or less fantastic than another   
   though,   
   >>when we consider how so much matter and energy could have come into existence   
   >>from nothing. Just saying God did it doesn't mean anything to me and if he   
   >>exists and cares he knows it, so there's no reason for me to pretend it seems   
   >>like a reasonable explanation when discussing it with other humans.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> But I go   
   >>>>>> on   
   >>>>>> to consider more than some people are able to as well. So what would   
   you like   
   >>>>>> people to think I'm not willing to "accept"?   
   >>>   
   >>>>>Reality.   
   >>>>    Like what? Don't you have any idea about that either?   
   >>>   
   >>>I concur.  I wonder what his "reality" reality is.   
   >>   
   >>    I do too. No one can figure it all out, but these people usually don't   
   even   
   >>seem able to figure out what they think they think themselves. And even after   
   >>they make it clear they believe there's no God associated with Earth, they   
   more   
   >>often than not also make it clear that they're ashamed of the fact.   
   >   
   >In what way, precisely, do we "make it clear that we're ashamed of the   
   >fact"?   
      
       Any time any of you deny you have faith that there is no God associated   
   with   
   Earth.   
      
   >Our exact words indicating shame.   
      
   I don't keep many of those claims in my notes, but here are some:   
   _________________________________________________________   
   "We REALLY have no belief about gods." - Smiler   
      
   "Faith is a character flaw." - Jeanne Douglas   
      
   "if You have FAITH OF ANYKIND whatsoever about weather god exists you   
   are a theist" - bilgat@m.nu   
      
   "I am glad that you realize that there are no such thing as atheist beliefs.   
   It took long enough." - thomas p   
      
   "It is the absence of a *particular* belief - 'the belief gods exists'." - Les   
      
   "I have no beliefs." - Jeanne Douglas   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   They were so common for so long that there was no reason to keep many of them.   
   It was MUCH more unusual for atheists to admit their belief, and still is, so I   
   kept more examples of that even though there were a lot fewer of them. Would   
   you   
   now like to deny that atheists deny they have any beliefs?   
      
   >>The most   
   >>pathetic of all from my pov though is the evidence thing. I would very much   
   like   
   >>to know what sort of evidence they think "should be" where, why they think it   
   >>should be there and when they think God should have presented it or should   
   >>present it if he exists. The pathetic part is that they've proven they   
   haven't   
   >>got any idea...no respectable idea anyway. They seem to have faith something   
   >>should be somewhere for some reason, but have no idea what, where or why.   
   LOL...   
   >>just describing their position is hilarious, also pathetic, but still   
   hilarious.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)