XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:05:15 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
.
>On 5/8/2015 8:03 PM, mur wrote:
>> 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
hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>What's the evidence the blatant liars are denying?
Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists lying
about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and recover
from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The success
of
AA and NA programs is evidence.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
