XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:00:58 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>On 07-October-2014 10:11 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:02:38 +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, 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
>> Why are you willing to believe the most absurd, evidence-free claims?
>
>lol, that's funny coming from an atheist who has no evidence for his
>no-god position.
Since there is no evidence for any gods, it would be silly to claim that
Wotan or whatever god you worship exists.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
