XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:02:45 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
      
   >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,   
   >   
   >he freely admits to being a weak agnostic   
      
   Agnostic is not a place to hide between theism and atheism. It is a   
   statement that one can never find evidence for gods whether one believes   
   in them or not. Agnostics are either theist or atheist. Mur appears to   
   be theist.   
      
   >> merely that he has fun trying to bait others.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)