XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:09:43 +0100, Chicken wrote:   
      
   >"felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen news:ci8kt4Fmv8U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>   
   >> On 21-January-2015 9:04 AM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   >> > news:ci0u57F3a2U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >> >>   
   >> >> On 18-January-2015 12:34 PM, Malte Runz wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> > "felix_unger"  skrev i meddelelsen >   
   >> >> news:chvtrhFn36rU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   >(snip)   
   >   
   >> >> ... anyway you have now agreed with me that it takes faith to not   
   >> >> believe in God, and to believe in God. ...   
   >> >   
   >> > Just as much as it does to not believe in the pink invisible unicorns   
   >> > and all the other absurdities we atheist use to poke fun at theist's   
   >> > belief.   
   >>   
   >> and WHERE is your justification that your non-belief is superior? ...   
   >   
   >Instead of "superior" we could say 'more rational' if it makes it easier to   
   >swallow.   
   >   
   >> ... you do not KNOW that there is no afterlife. you do not KNOW that   
   >> divine spiritual experiences or revelations do not occur. you do not KNOW   
   >> that no spiritual beings or entities exist. you do not KNOW that no   
   >> prayers are answered. and so on..   
   >   
   >You do not KNOW that there are no invisible unicorns, and so on. If there is   
   >no valid scientific evidence to support an assertion, and there is none for   
   >any of the ones you mention (remember "valid scientific" is name of the   
   >game). Therefor I don't regard them as plausible. Should you be able to   
   >provide the kind of evidence I need, of course I will reconsider my   
   >position. Why wouldn't I?   
      
       Because you've already decided what you WANT TO believe. In the past you   
   claimed that:   
      
   "Aaaaarrrrghhhhh! I have written, at least ten times, in various posts, that   
   I believe it is likely that there are very, very advanced creatures in the   
   universe with abilities that would seem miraculous and god-like to us. The   
   idea is not new to me. Why the hell do you claim that I believe the exact   
   opposite? I must insist that you distinguish between Biblical God and   
   Advanced Alien God." - Malte Runz   
      
   "Don't you read what I actually write? God as an alien is NOT a new concept   
   to me. It's roughly 40 years since I first heard of Erich van Dänekin and   
   all that crap. Don't think you're ahead of me in that department." - Malte Runz   
      
   then at some point not long after your apparently dishonest boasting you   
   revealed the truth that you disagree with yourself completely:   
      
   "There is no god." - Malte Runz   
      
   "I showed an example of evidence that proves god does not exist." - Malte Runz   
      
   so the OBVIOUS answer to "why wouldn't" you is as I mentioned that it's not   
   what   
   you want to believe. You have no evidence for what you want to believe of   
   course, and in fact you can't even imagine what sort of "valid scientific"   
   evidence you would like to believe there should be if there is a God associated   
   with this planet, nor can you imagine where it should be, or why it should be   
   available to humans, or when it should be or should have been made available.   
   You have no clue at all what you think you think about it...LOL...yet somehow   
   you still have faith that there's no God associated with Earth. You criticise   
   theists for their faith even though they at least do have some evidence, while   
   at the same time feeling superior with your own faith that you're also ashamed   
   to admit and have no evidence for whatsoever. Hilarious!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)