XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:22:40 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
.
>In article <2o4ldah5qo072pcljugc8kseima7qoplib@4ax.com>, mur wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:46:56 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> wrote:
>> .
>> >In article , mur wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 03:43:54 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> .
>> >> >In article <0qrqcalc1ofgv7gemh395qn40u3tofeiro@4ax.com>, mur wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:25:02 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> >> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> .
>> >> >> >On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:45:42 -0500, mur wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:28:47 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist
>> >> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >> >>.
>> >> >> >>>In article ,
>> >> >> >>> felix_unger wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> it takes faith to believe that God does not
>> >> >> >>>> exist
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>Perhaps it does may faith to disbelieve in what a person has once
>> >> >> >>>believed in,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> To disbelieve can mean to have no belief at all, but it can also
>> >> >> >> mean
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >>believe something is incorrect. That is very unfortunate imo, and
>> >> >> >>possibly
>> >> >> >>the
>> >> >> >>cause of some honest confustion...POSSIBLY.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>but it takes no such faith not to believe in something one
>> >> >> >>>never has believed in.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> To honestly have no belief requires considering the possibility
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >>something is correct as well as that it's not correct. You make it
>> >> >> >>clearly
>> >> >> >>obvious you can consider the possibility that God does not exist as
>> >> >> >>being
>> >> >> >>correct. Try to present some evidence that you can also consider the
>> >> >> >>possibility
>> >> >> >>that God does exist as being correct, if you really would like to
try
>> >> >> >>pretending
>> >> >> >>you honestly have no belief about it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Why?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because unless you do it will remain clear that the only belief
>> >> >> you're
>> >> >> capable of considering is the one but not any others. If you want to
>> >> >> try
>> >> >> pretending you "have" no belief then you need to show that you can
>> >> >> consider
>> >> >> more
>> >> >> than just the ONE we know you DO consider.
>> >> >
>> >> >Care to translate that gibberish into English?
>> >>
>> >> You can't do what I challenged you to do as I suspected, so you
proved
>> >> me
>> >> correct. You've apparently served your purpose as well and clearly as you
>> >> are
>> >> able to.
>> >
>> >
>> >Now you have 2 pieces of word salad to translate into English. When can
>> >I expect your translation?
>>
>> If you can't figure out what I meant then you just can't comprehend
>> because
>> you're not mentally capable, and the concept will always remain beyond your
>> mental ability regardless of how it's presented to you.
>
>And once again you deflect. Is there a reason you never answer a
>question you're asked or respond to requests?
Oh okay, now you've made it clear that you want people to believe you're
even MORE clueless than I pointed out for you above. Everything I wrote is in
English. Would you care to explain why you dishonestly want people to think
you're so stupid that you think it needed to be translated into the language it
was written in to begin with? Or are you going to continue to pretend you
honestly ARE as stupid as you portrayed yourself to be?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
