On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 5:52:22 AM UTC, Checkmate, DoW #1 wrote:   
   > In article ,    
   > chine.bleu@yahoo.com says...   
   >    
   >    
   > >    
   > > In article ,   
   > >  Jeanne Douglas  wrote:   
   > >    
   > > > What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,    
   > > > anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to    
   > > > accept that your god exists and that means evidence.   
   > > >    
   > > > Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?   
   > >    
   > > No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule   
   > >         ~Px then P(~x)   
   > > where Px means proof of x exists.   
   > >         ~Px then P(~x)      your inference rule   
   > >         ~P(~x) then P(x)    substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle   
   > >    
   > > Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide   
   evidence    
   > > that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy',   
   then    
   > > according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence   
   of that    
   > > this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure   
   fantasy'.   
   > >    
   > > Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your   
   belief    
   > > that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further   
   that the    
   > > interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.   
   > >    
   > > You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your    
   > > axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated   
   logic,    
   > > usually classic logic with the excluded middle.   
   > >    
   > > As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or    
   > > fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept   
   testimony of    
   > > Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you   
   don't    
   > > like it.   
   > >    
   > > You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of   
   your    
   > > bible.   
   > >    
   > >    
   > > By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert    
   > > nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins   
   of    
   > > others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an   
   obligation    
   > > on yourself.   
   > >    
   > > And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers to   
   convert or    
   > > be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live where scary moslems   
   live, so    
   > > as long as it's others at risk instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as   
   cute,    
   > > boutique, ethnic belief.   
   >    
   > All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe... we    
   > just don't know, and we have no way of knowing.  The existence of a god    
   > cannot be proven or disproven.  When I look at the complexity of life    
   > and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce itself, I    
   > think that there must be a Creator.  When I ask this Creator what it's    
   > all about... what he wants from us and why we're here, I get no answers,    
   > only silence.   
   >    
   > When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it came    
   > from, and how miraculous it all is.   Why?  From where?  How?  One day    
   > it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of a stretch    
   > than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a Universe.  Could    
   > there then be a Creator?  Why not?  Is he obligated to reveal himself to    
   > us or tell us why we're here?  No.  If there is a Creator, we may be    
   > nothing more than lab rats to him.   
   >    
   > And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the answer,    
   > it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator decides to break    
   > his silence.  To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,    
   > depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me.  Why    
   > create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity?  That is    
   > a god I would hope does not exist.   
   >    
   > And that's what the mind I was born with has decided.  Whether that mind    
   > was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it has given    
   > me, even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity    
   > because of what it tells me.  That is something that mere words from    
   > others like myself cannot ever change.  That is something that not even    
   > threats of eternal damnation can change.   
   >    
   > --    
   > Checkmate, AUK DoW #1   
   > Official AUK Award Giver-Outer   
   > Copyright © 2015    
   > all rights reserved   
      
   A nice write up   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)