XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:42:02 -0500, mur wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:32:40 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >.   
   >>On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 20:49:38 -0500, mur wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:00:09 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >>>.   
   >>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:52:34 -0700, A Nony Mouse  wrote:   
   >>...   
   >>>>>A careful person will not reject the possibility of no gods existing on   
   >>>>>the basis of any evidence as yet presented, nor reject the reverse   
   >>>>>possibility on that evidence.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Such careful persons are called agnostics.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Not really. Agnostics say that they do not know and cannot know if any   
   >>>>deities exist. They may be believers or not be believers.   
   >>>   
   >>>    Do you think there's no distinction between strong and weak agnostics?   
   How   
   >>>about strong and weak atheists? Your idiot brother bilgat can't comprehend   
   the   
   >>>distinction between any of them, or even that there is a distinction. Are   
   you as   
   >>>clueless as that idiot?   
   >>   
   >>I have no idea what distinction you imagine exists among agnostics other   
   >>than belief in god or unbelief, theist or atheist.   
   >   
   >    Strong agnostics believe it can't be known whether or not God exists. Weak   
   >agnostics believe that if God does exist it is possible for some people to   
   know   
   >it. I'm a weak agnostic and consider strong agnosticism to be even more stupid   
   >than strong atheism.   
      
   Tell us about the evidence that can be gathered to show that a deity   
   exists.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)