XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:44:16 -0700, Virgil wrote:
.
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:23:51 -0500, mur wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:08:22 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
>>.
>>>On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:29:36 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 03:43:54 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>wrote:
>>>>.
>>>>>In article <0qrqcalc1ofgv7gemh395qn40u3tofeiro@4ax.com>, mur wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:25:02 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> >On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:45:42 -0500, mur wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:28:47 -0700, Wisely Non-Theist
wrote:
>>>>>> >>.
>>>>>> >>>In article ,
>>>>>> >>> felix_unger wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> it takes faith to believe that God does not
>>>>>> >>>> exist
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>Perhaps it does may faith to disbelieve in what a person has once
>>>>>> >>>believed in,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> To disbelieve can mean to have no belief at all, but it can also
mean
>>>>>> >> to
>>>>>> >>believe something is incorrect. That is very unfortunate imo, and
possibly
>>>>>> >>the
>>>>>> >>cause of some honest confustion...POSSIBLY.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>but it takes no such faith not to believe in something one
>>>>>> >>>never has believed in.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> To honestly have no belief requires considering the possibility
that
>>>>>> >>something is correct as well as that it's not correct. You make it
clearly
>>>>>> >>obvious you can consider the possibility that God does not exist as
being
>>>>>> >>correct. Try to present some evidence that you can also consider the
>>>>>> >>possibility
>>>>>> >>that God does exist as being correct, if you really would like to try
>>>>>> >>pretending
>>>>>> >>you honestly have no belief about it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because unless you do it will remain clear that the only belief
you're
>>>>>> capable of considering is the one but not any others. If you want to try
>>>>>> pretending you "have" no belief then you need to show that you can
consider
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> than just the ONE we know you DO consider.
>>>>>
>>>>>Care to translate that gibberish into English?
>>>>
>>>> You can't do what I challenged you to do as I suspected, so you proved
me
>>>>correct. You've apparently served your purpose as well and clearly as you
are
>>>>able to.
>>>
>>>There are all sorts of things that I do not believe in because I know
>>>nothing of them.
>>
>> The possibility of God's existence is not one of them so you changed the
>>subject because you're ashamed of it for some reason.
>
>The possibility of a godly existence is precisely one of the the things
>that I do not KNOW , because I KNOW nothing about any actual existence
>of any gods, whether your alleged gods or anyone else's alleged gods,
>though I do have my suspicions.
You're able to consider the possibility that God does not exist but not
able
to consider the possibility that he does. Not "any of them" by your overly
resticted pov.
>>WHY are you ashamed of it,
>>don't you have any idea? Don't any of you have any idea? Why are you people
not
>>only NOT proud of and attempting to defending your position, but are ashamed
of
>>it and trying to squirm away from yourselves?
>
>What is it that you claim I have to be ashamed of?
Your belief that there's no God associated with this planet, and possibly
(probably) with any planet anywhere.
>That I do not claim to know something that has not been proved beyond
>reasonable doubt?
Of course not. That just brings up the question of whether you honestly
thought that could have been it, or if you were dishonestly pretending it was
when in fact you knew that wasn't it when you asked. If the latter, it brings
up
the question of why you wanted to pretend you're more stupid than you actually
are. Of course you can't answer that, but the question will always remain now
that you've brought it into consideration.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
