XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: David@block.net
On 5/22/2015 10:03 AM, mur wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:04:35 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
> .
>> On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:03:17 -0400, mur wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <
lwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Actually I'm capable of hypothetical reasoning.
>
> You apparently like to believe that thinking there is NOT a God
associated
> with Earth is the same thing as considering how there might be.
Wrong. The two things are merely not incompatible.
It brings to
> question what other things you like to fool yourself about, and WHY???
>
>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> So you claim.
>
> Being agnostic involves having a belief regarding whether or not anyone
> could know God does exist. A strong agnostic believes no one could know. A
weak
> agnostic believes it's possible for some people to know it
And how would that be possible? How is it possible to know anything?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
