XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: David@block.net
On 4/29/2015 5:57 PM, mur wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:55:08 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
> .
>> On 4/17/2015 2:46 PM, mur wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:39:58 -0600, David Johnston 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.
>>>>
>>>> An agnostic is normally an atheist who doesn't care to argue the point.
>>>> You are clearly an exception since you will argue the point endlessly.
>>>
>>> I'm an actual weak agnostic which necessarily involves considering
the
>>> possibility that there is a God associated with Earth, and other things
all of
>>> which are beyond the consideration of some other people.
>>>
>>
>> Hell I "consider" that.
>
> Try providing evidence that you can by showing us how you can do it.
I did that when I started discussing original sin and Hell. Note that
the word "consider" does not mean "fail to decide".
>
>> But since I only consider it and don't believe
>> it, I'm an atheist.
>
> As yet there's no reason for anyone to believe you can consider it.
Even if
> you eventually are able to provide evidence that you can you could still be a
> weak agnostic rather than the weak atheist you want people to believe you
are.
That doesn't make any sense. Everyone is a "weak agnostic" if they are
sane. Everyone is aware that they could be wrong. That's why I don't
call myself "agnostic". The word's meaningless in itself.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
