XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 08:14:43 -0500, 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,   
      
       As felix pointed out for you I am a weak agnostic. Since you can't   
   appreciate what that means, and even though you still won't be able to after I   
   tell you, I'll tell you anyway. It means I don't have a true belief about God   
   which many of you atheists also claim. The difference is that I really don't,   
   so   
   I consider both possibilities. The possibility that God does exist involves   
   MUCH   
   more thought and there's much more to try to understand to whatever extent. A   
   strong agnostic feels that even if God does exist, no one can know whether he   
   does or not. A weak agnostic believes it's possibe for some people to know it   
   if   
   God does exist. No one can know it if God does not exist, though some posting   
   in   
   these ngs claim to be stupid enough to believe they do know somehow. But one of   
   their problems with it is that they can't explain any way in which they could   
   possibly have found out.   
      
       I also believe God would have to be an alien since he couldn't be native to   
   Earth, and that he would have to be technologically advanced far beyond what we   
   humans are. Also that if he does exist he knows when people are praying to or   
   addressing him if he cares at all, regardless of how they refer to him. Also   
   that if he exists, you people can't make him cease to exist regardless of how   
   much and how hard you deny his existence. No matter how much faith you put in   
   that being the correct possibility, you can't make him cease to exist if he   
   does.   
      
   >merely that he has fun trying to bait others.   
      
       I point out significant things people don't want to take into consideration   
   and encourage them to move beyond the position they're in. I also challenge   
   people to try to explain absurd seeming claims and demands in an effort to find   
   out why they may not really be absurd, or help them understand the absurdity   
   themselves when they find that they can't explain. It never works out either of   
   those ways though, but instead the challenges always defeat those who are   
   presented with them usually to the point that they can't even attempt to   
   address   
   them. That applies to situations where the response is to hurl childlike   
   personal insults, and/or change the subject to something else, as well as to   
   when no reply is made at all.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)