XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:22:41 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>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.
So your god is trivially unimportant. Fine.
>>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.
Whatever.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
