XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:50:22 -0500, mur wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:00:47 -0600, Free Lunch  wrote:   
   >.   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >    For a person to know it it would be between God and the ind   
   vidual...LOL...   
   >It's amusing to think you feel there should be proof for everyone always   
   >available. It's like if you think everyone who goes in Walmart should be   
   >entitled to get a paycheck even if they don't work there. Hilarious! Not so   
   much   
   >that there couldn't be a planet with a God who DOES provide free easy proof   
   for   
   >everybody, but since it's obvious that's not the case here it's amusing that   
   you   
   >think it should be that way and keep demanding it...LOL... over and over and   
   >over again.   
      
   So you have no evidence that any deity exists and offer a meaningless   
   word salad in place of an answer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)