XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: David@block.net
On 6/5/2015 2:23 PM, mur wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
Oh. You mean sunlight. Yes, sunlight exists.
>
>>> 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.
The first requisite for something to be evidence rather than an
unsupported allegation is for that thing to be shown to exist.
>
>> 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.
And yet you claim to be agnostic while simultaneously claiming that all
nonbelievers are 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.
Why are unanswered prayers not 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.
>>
>> Of what?
>
> Influence by God or whatever.
Whatever? So sunlight? Natural selection? The utility of peer
pressure? The first thing about evidence is that it has to be something
that actually exists. But the second thing about evidence is that it
has to actually point in a specific direction rather than just at
"whatever"...which means "nowhere".
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
