XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:42:48 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   .   
   >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".   
      
       If you decide there is no God associated with Earth it means you could NOT   
   realistically consider how there could be. Even an atheist SHOULD be able to   
   comprehend that much.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
       No it's not. You just can't comprehend what the meaning is. Are you able to   
   find out and learn what it means on your own, or do you need someone to explain   
   it for you?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)