XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:57:27 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 5/22/2015 10:03 AM, mur wrote:   
   >> 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    
   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.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >Of what?   
      
       That something influenced the development of things on this planet.   
      
   >>All accepted miracles are evidence.All miracles   
   >> recorded in the Bible are evidence.   
   >   
   >Really?  So everyone knows for a fact that all the miracles recorded in   
   >the Bible actually happened?   
      
       No. What a stupid thing to say.   
      
   >How do they know?   
   >   
   >   
   >All saints are evidence. Atheists lying   
   >> about it are evidence.   
   >   
   >How did you establish that they are lying about "it", whatever "it" is,   
   >rather than say, wrong?   
      
       It's giving them the benefit of the doubt of being more dishonest than   
   stupid.   
      
   >All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem   
   >> to have been answered are evidence.   
   >   
   >Does that mean that all unanswered prayers are evidence?   
      
       No. Another stupid thing to say.   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   >Of what?   
      
       Influence by God or whatever.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)