XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:09:13 -0500, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:33:40 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >How so? Your god is one of those that is completely unsubstantiated and   
   >meaningless.   
      
       We were discussing a definition, not the amount of proof of the actual   
   existence or not of what is being defined.   
      
   >>>Fine.   
   >>   
   >>    You damn sure can't do anything about it no matter what you say or try to   
   >>do.   
   >   
   >I agree that I cannot turn you into a rational human. That is your   
   >problem.   
      
       I consider the possibility that there is no God associated with Earth, and   
   the possibility that there is. I've also challenged many of you atheists, and   
   probably you yourself, to try to explain why I should put my faith in the first   
   possibility being the correct one. Until one of you people finally manages to   
   give some respectable reason(s) why I should put my faith in that first   
   possibility being the correct ONE, it will continue to seem much more rational   
   to consider more than that one and not put faith in it.   
      
   >>>>>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)