XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:42:25 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 8/11/2015 12:43 PM, mur wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 22:31:21 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   >> .   
   >>> On 8/6/2015 8:19 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:07:56 -0600, David Johnston    
   wrote:   
   >>>> .   
   >>>>> On 7/31/2015 11:03 AM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but that makes perfect sense,   
   >>>>>>> explains the concept quite simply (except to the simple, who are immune   
   >>>>>>> to understanding).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>        There may be no God associated with Eath. But there may be.   
   You're only   
   >>>>>> capable of considering one of those possibilities. I consider the other   
   and   
   >>>>>> point out basic things about it for you people, but they are beyond   
   your mental   
   >>>>>> ability to consider. Your inability is evidence of God's existence from   
   my POV.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Wow.  That's remarkably stupid reasoning.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       Wow. Your inability to comprehend how you could be evidence is more   
   evidence   
   >>>> of God's existence.   
   >>>   
   >>> But that sentence right there by the same token is evidence that there   
   >>> are no gods.   
   >>   
   >>      Maybe there aren't. Maybe there a lots of them but none associated with   
   >> Earth. But there are other possibilities you're not able to consider in any   
   >> realistic way(s), like there is a God (or gods) associated with Earth.   
   >   
   >I'll have you know my cat definitely exists.   
      
       Your position seems to be that of a young and stupid child.   
      
   >>>>>>>> Thus Darwin has produced a viable explanantion for how we   
   >>>>>>>> got to be the way we are now (how we evolved)  He may have been wrong   
   >>>>>>>> in some of the details but basically it is a viable explanation  that   
   >>>>>>>> is within the normal workings of nature and more than suffcient to   
   >>>>>>>> overturn an extraordinary  claim some god did it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> To continue to insist that some god did it when there is a perfectly   
   >>>>>>>> good natural explanation is perverse, stupid and pig-headed   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And the source of our frustration with the theist trolls.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>        One of the basic starting lines you people can't get as "far" as   
   is the   
   >>>>>> possiblity that your faith that there's no God associated with Earth is   
   not only   
   >>>>>> stupid and pig-headed, but also evidence of God's existence by being   
   evidence of   
   >>>>>> Satan's existence and influence on human minds.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Ah, so Satan is more powerful than God.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       No, that's just evidence that God doesn't always if ever give a   
   shit whether   
   >>>> we are more influenced by him or Satan.   
   >>>   
   >>> Why is that evidence of one thing and not the other?   
   >>   
   >>      Because if a person doesn't care about having a relationship with God,   
   or   
   >> even would like to have a "relationship" where God does things for them but   
   they   
   >> don't accept him as their Lord, it makes sense that God wouldn't help them   
   >> against influence from Satan. Why would he?   
   >   
   >Given that you've just argued that we're all mind controlled puppets and   
   >my opinion is provided by Satan, I am hardly responsible for it.   
      
       Maybe you're not. Maybe if you're not you're still responsible for being in   
   that position, even if you don't know it or believe it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)