XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
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.
And who can't explain what sort of evidence he thinks there should be if
God
does exist, or where it should be, or why it should be there...LOL...it's still
amusing to describe the situation these people are in.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
