XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:08:16 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:57:07 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:54:14 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:47:16 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >...   
   >>>>    "The gods of the theists who bother us here don't exist, even in   
   non-god   
   >>>>form." - Free Lunch   
   >>>   
   >>>The fact that we don't bother trying to decide of the entire set of all   
   >>>possible gods do or do not exist does not affect the fact that the gods   
   >>>preached by the theist fools who waste our time in alt.atheism do not   
   >>>exist.   
   >>   
   >>    Present your evidence, not just the possibility you've put your faith in.   
   >   
   >Define your god for me so I can show you that your god does not exist.   
      
      To me the minimum would be a being not native to Earth that had deliberate   
   influence on the way life developed on this planet.   
      
   >Until you offer a well-defined god, there is nothing to discuss. Not   
   >only is it too vague to be useful, but some theists will keep redefining   
   >their god to make excuses for why their prior definition made it   
   >impossible for that god to exist.   
   >   
   >>>When you find some evidence to support a god, get back to us.   
   >>   
   >>    You lie about the evidence you are presented with, yet have no   
   >>clue...LOL...what sort of evidence you think there should be. It's still   
   amusing   
   >>just describing your position.   
   >   
   >You have never offered any evidence.   
      
       You have never asked for any evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)