XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism   
      
   On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:41:01 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:20:29 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:25:40 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:57:16 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:16:00 -0500, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>.   
   >>>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:05:38 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 18:36:15 -0500, Free Lunch    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:35:37 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>Free Lunch    
   >>>>>>>>>On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:24:07 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net>   
   wrote:   
   >>>...   
   >>>>>>>>>>What is the mechanism or energy that   
   >>>>>>>>>>causes life to appear in a life form? Alien technology from the   
   galaxy   
   >>>>>>>>>>Andromeda?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>No gods needed.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>Then its aliens?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>No.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    Unless you can explain how God could be native to Earth, if he   
   exists he   
   >>>>>>would have to be an alien. How could a being be the God of a planet he   
   is native   
   >>>>>>to anyway?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>I don't explain any gods because I am not a theist. If you want to know   
   >>>>>about that, ask theists, atheists don't care about theistic claims.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    So you had no idea what you thought you were trying to talk about when   
   you   
   >>>>said "no". Why do you make claims pretending to have some clue, when you   
   clearly   
   >>>>have no clue at all?   
   >>>   
   >>>I don't have any reason to accept your unsubstantiated assumption that   
   >>>gods exist or have something to do with life on earth.   
   >>   
   >>    Regardless of that your "no" was still a clueless response.   
   >   
   >You are the one who foolishly decided that aliens are the only   
   >alternative to gods   
      
       You've revealed the fact that YOU ALSO don't believe a God could be native   
   to a planet he is the God of. You may not and probably can't consider the topic   
   in any realistic way(s) at all, but you've shown you had no reason to say "no".   
      
   >in causing life on earth.   
      
       Even IF humans are eventually able to produce life from lifeless material   
   life might STILL REMAIN evidence of God's existence as it still is today.   
      
   >You have chosen to be a   
   >fool. I quite understand how little you understand about science   
      
       I'm able to consider how science, evolution, and God could all be part of   
   the same big picture. You're not.   
      
   >or religion or anything else. I am quite happy not to be you.   
   >   
   >Keep worshipping your own ignorance. You'll stay happy.   
      
       You try to pretend you have some superior information yet you're unable to   
   even attempt to explain what you think it is. I challenge you to try to explain   
   why I should put my faith in the one possibility that there is no God   
   associated   
   with Earth. I do consider it, but you need to give good detailed reason(s) why   
   I   
   should put faith in that being the correct possibility before I could ever have   
   any reason to consider the possibility that you're somehow in a superior   
   position. So far all you've shown is that you're able to consider LESS than I   
   am, certainly not as much, and most especially not more.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)