XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:50:28 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 4/29/2015 5:58 PM, mur wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 00:35:37 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> On 4/17/2015 2:51 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes   
   >>   
   >>      Do you really believe that fact?   
   >>   
   >   
   >What fact?   
      
       That evidence is denied by blatant liars of course.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)