XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 06-October-2014 12:14 AM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   > On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:25:36 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 29-September-2014 11:03 AM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >> They have no answer for this   
   > Mur may or may not have a completely different definition of god from   
   > you, but he likes being coy about it. He doesn't tell you what he   
   > believes, merely that he has fun trying to bait others.   
      
   whatever. the point is that it makes more sense to allow all   
   possibilities rather than be committed to just one   
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png   
   Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com   
   http://pamelageller.com/   
   “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” -   
   Barack Hussein Obama   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)