XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
   From: ag@just_us.goov   
      
   On 8/18/2015 7:52 PM, mur wrote:   
   > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:59:10 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >> On 8/11/2015 12:46 PM, David Johnston wrote:   
   >>> On 8/11/2015 12:42 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________   
   >>>>>>>> There might not be any sort of God associated with this planet. If   
   >>>>>>>> not, then   
   >>>>>>>> "he" isn't going to provide any evidence, regardless of what   
   >>>>>>>> evidence there is,   
   >>>>>>>> and that people invent.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> There might BE a God associated with this planet. If so he is   
   >>>>>>>> OBVIOUSLY not   
   >>>>>>>> ready to provide verifiable evidence of his existence, even if he   
   >>>>>>>> did so a   
   >>>>>>>> number of times in the past in addition to providing however much   
   >>>>>>>> evidence that   
   >>>>>>>> can not be verified.   
   >>>>>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Nonsense.  My cat sheds all over the house.  What more evidence do   
   >>>>>>> you   
   >>>>>>> need of my cat's existence?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>     Do you have any idea how you'd like to pretend that has anything   
   >>>>>> to do with   
   >>>>>> what you're trying to talk about?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What reason do you have to believe that my cat is not a god?  In what   
   >>>>> way does it violate the parameters you have established for what is and   
   >>>>> is not a god?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      One of the most basic is that I don't believe a God could be   
   >>>> native to a   
   >>>> planet he's God of. There are of course others, but that one is plenty   
   >>>> good   
   >>>> enough. You people STILL have nothing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Ah.  So my cat would then be god of, say, Mars.   
   >>   
   >> Here are some other crackpot things this fuckwit with whom you're   
   >> arguing has said in the past, on a different topic (animal "rights").   
   >> These should give you a good idea of just how shabby an intellect you're   
   >> trying to engage:   
   >>   
   >>          It's not out of consideration for porcupines   
   >>          that we don't raise them for food. It's because   
   >>          they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We   
   >>          don't raise cattle out of consideration for them   
   >>          either, but because they're fairly easy to   
   >>          raise.   
   >>   
   >>          I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought   
   >>          that all of the animals I eat had terrible   
   >>          lives, I would still eat meat. That is not   
   >>          because I don't care about them at all, but I   
   >>          would just ignore their suffering.   
   >>   
   >>          I would eat animals even if I thought that it was   
   >>          cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from   
   >>          the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.   
   >>          But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals   
   >>          also....   
   >>   
   >>          What I'm saying is unfair for the [nonexistent]   
   >>          animals that *could* get to live, is for people   
   >>          not to consider the fact that they are only keeping   
   >>          these animals from being killed, by keeping   
   >>          them from getting to live at all.   
   >>   
   >>          Then I guess raising billions of animals for   
   >>          food provides billions of beings with a place in   
   >>          eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least   
   >>          some of it.   
   >>   
   >>          Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be   
   >>          born if nothing prevents that from happening,   
   >>          that would experience the loss if their lives   
   >>          are prevented.   
   >>   
   >> The fuckwit fancies himself an opponent of animal "rights", but his   
   >> opposition to it is entirely incoherent, and based on the nonsensical   
   >> belief that animals coming into existence and "getting to experience   
   >> life" for a brief time is a benefit to them.  It's not, of course - not   
   >> even in the most garbled sort of utilitarianism imaginable.   
   >>   
   >> By the way, this same fuckwit has been making his same stale,   
   >> discredited, demolished anti-atheism comments in the groups where those   
   >> quotes above originated since at least early 1999.   
   >   
   >      Here   
      
   Once again, you lose.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)