XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:25:48 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
       Not compared to you, or me, or anyone else who has ever lived.   
      
   >Fine.   
      
       You damn sure can't do anything about it no matter what you say or try to   
   do.   
      
   >>>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.   
      
       "Atheists dont demand evidence." - bilgat@m.nu   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)