XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:35:23 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:03:52 -0400, 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    
   hlwdjsd2@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.   
      
       They sure are. Why do you like to think otherwise, do you have any idea   
   about that?   
      
   >>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 if he does.   
   >   
   >And how would that be possible?  How is it possible to know anything?   
      
       It would be possible to know that as much as it's possible to know anything   
   else exists.   
      
   >>No one   
   >>could possibly know if there is no God, even though some people believe they   
   >>found out somehow:   
   >>   
   >>"I know that gods are merely a figment of your deluded imagination" - Smiler   
   >>   
   >>"I found out that your supposed god character is a lie." - Smiler   
   >>   
   >>"yes I do know that there is no god." - bilgat@m.nu   
   >>   
   >>"If a person can not say with 100% clarity   
   >>that they know that there is no god that there will never be a god and   
   >>there has never been a god, then that person is NOT an atheist." -   
   bilgat@m.nu   
   >>   
   >>"Just as You know that superman does not exist I can   
   >>tell you with the same assuredness that god does not exist" - bilgat@m.nu   
   >>   
   >>"I have admitted numerous times that I *KNOW* there is not god. On this   
   planet   
   >>or any others for that matter." - bilgat@m.nu   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)