XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:54:29 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
   .   
   >In article <15s2ka1tmtb8cfmmnet547ppv4fcam1434@4ax.com>, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:45:18 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   >> wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> >I have no beliefs.   
   >>   
   >>     That's a lie of course since everyone has beliefs   
   >   
   >Yes. But we're discussing beliefs in any god, so other subjects are   
   >irrelevant to the subject of the discussion.   
      
       You believe it's possible there's no God associated with Earth. You can't   
   imagine any way that there truly could be. That means the only possible belief   
   you "can" have is that there is no God associated with Earth. Why you're   
   ashamed   
   of that instead of at least proud enough to admit it and try to defend it is   
   all   
   that's in question about it.   
      
   >> but if it were true you   
   >> would certainly be extremely stupid for demanding verifiable evidence like   
   >> you   
   >> do,   
   >   
   >Why is not believing in something without evidence stupid? Be very   
   >specific.   
      
       It would be stupid to demand it which is what I said. The reason it would   
   be   
   stupid to demand it is because he's OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO provide it whether   
   he   
   exists or not. Since you're trying to pretend you consider the possibility that   
   he does, and he's OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO provide it if he does, that's why it   
   makes you extremely stupid IF you consider the possibility that he does.   
      
   >> when you don't believe there should be any yourself if there's a God   
   >> associated with Earth.   
   >   
   >Care to translate that word salad into English.   
      
       You can't imagine WHY God SHOULD provided verifiable evidence of his   
   existence if he exists, or even pretend that you can.   
      
   >> By demanding it you've clearly revealed that you DO   
   >> believe there should be some,   
   >   
   >Obviously.   
      
       WHY "should" there?   
      
   >It's a serious character flaw to believe in things for which   
   >there is no evidence.   
      
       There is evidence but you just don't happen to like it. That's a starting   
   line you can't get as "far" as.   
      
   >> but you don't have the slightest clue what you   
   >> think it should be, where you think it should be,   
   >   
   >There's that stupid lie again. I've lost track of how many times I've   
   >told you trolls that the evidence must be objective and verifiable. No   
   >more information is necessary.   
      
       That's a lie every time you tell it. You need to try to explain what you   
   think you think you're trying to talk about before anyone possibly COULD have   
   any respect for your childlike demands, and even IF you did that it still might   
   very well not be respectable. And in fact we have PROOF of that by your demands   
   about regrowing limbs on amputees which has been your ONLY real attempt and   
   it's   
   completely unrespectable.   
      
   >> why you think God should   
   >> provide us with it, or when you think he should or should have provided it.   
   >   
   >To prove it exists and to prove it's not an asshole.   
      
       If there is a God associated with Earth and will provide a nice afterlife   
   for some beings, he's also making it plainly obvious that he doesn't want to do   
   so for every human that ever lives. That's another easy basic starting line you   
   can't get as "far" as. In fact it's one of the easiest and most obvious.   
      
   >> >Faith is a character flaw.   
   >>   
   >>     Having no faith in anything would be much worse, and would cause a   
   person   
   >>     to   
   >> be unable to function in society or even go outside.   
   >   
   >Sez who?   
      
       Well, plenty of people understand it. My dad explained it to me when I was   
   in about second grade and I remember the example. We were at a full service   
   service station getting gas. My dad told the attendant that he wanted him to   
   fill it up. His example was the attendant had faith that he didn't need to tell   
   my dad: "You'll have to pay for that". There are many MANY more examples too,   
   even if you can't comprehend a single one of them   
      
   >> >>Best of luck to you if you're ever able to make   
   >> >>the attempt.   
   >> >   
   >> >Best of luck to you to learn how to write coherently instead of in   
   >> >gibberish.   
   >>   
   >>     What do you think you could gain by repeatedly telling us that every bit   
   >>     of   
   >> this topic is beyond your ability to comprehend at all, much less consider   
   in   
   >> detail? Even by that particular last trick of yours all you do is keep   
   saying   
   >> you can't comprehend what someone is telling you over and over again, when   
   no   
   >> one else but you is too stupid to be able to figure it out. You CAN'T be as   
   >> stupid as you keep pretending to be, even as stupid as you must be to keep   
   >> acting the way you do. Though we can't know for sure just how stupid you   
   >> really   
   >> are, one thing we do know for sure is that you're not able to consider the   
   >> possibility of God's existence in any realistic way(s). That topic is   
   >> completely   
   >> beyond your extremely limited mental ability.   
   >   
   >And there's that projection again.   
      
       You again can't even pretend to have a respectable point with your stupid   
   shit.   
      
   >No, dude, sanity is not stupidity.   
      
       What particular "sanity" would you like people to think you think you're   
   trying to refer to, can you say?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)