6e6209b5
XPost: alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, talk.politics.guns
XPost: sac.politics
From: spamstopper@nerdshack.com
Siri Cruise wrote in
news:chine.bleu-EAA8F9.10400524122017@reader.eternal-september.org:
> In article ,
> walksalone wrote:
>
>> >> "Why are unicorns hollow?"
>> >
>> > They evolved with lungs and an alimentary canal like all other
>> > mammals.
>>
>> Which means they are not hollow. They have solid matter inside.
>
> Under that constraint only surfaces that are one atom thick can be
> hollow. According to you soccer balls and flower vases are not hollow.
>
>> >> "Why are Smurf farts orange?"
>> >
>> > Orange and blue combine to brown or black. It's an evolved
>> > camoflage.
>>
>> So, you now have proof of the existence of smurfs? Share?
>
> There have been two documentaries popular enough to show in theatres.
Really, have URL's for those documentary's, or are they youtube.com
specials.
There are even documentary's saying, in spite of history, there was a Yesus
ben Yosef, as 1st century Hebrews would have said. Unfortunately, the
supporting evidence is missing.
A documentary based on fiction is as worthless as not knowing the origins
of religions & pretending to know that information.
>
>> >> "Why did God create the universe?"
>> >
>> > So that after 14 billion years you would exist, and he could laugh
>> > at your conniption fits.
>>
>> Nope, there is no reason to assume a singular god created the
>> universe.
>
> There is no reason not to. And there's reason to think science can't
But there is, especially when that god doesn't match history. I don't
recommend you go there, but consider the age of the earth, the solar share,
the galaxy, or the universe. All verify there can not be a god based on
Sumerian gods like the Hebrew one.
> help you. Science can only deal with observables, and there's
No, science that is accepted as theory is. A hypothesis is, not so much.
> currently no known way to see outside the universe or even know if
> there is an outside.
>
>> I see your confusion. You seem to accept that others have your
>> limitations. No, I've never said gods don't exist. They do, in the
>> believers imagination. I've said I don't believe in your god, &
>> don't.
>
> > Now if you have proof, naw, let's settler for evidence, of
> > el, other than statues & figurines, share?
>
> I already know you bible thumpers have no limitations. You see the
> absolute truth, without hesitation or qualification. And each of you
> see a different absolute truth depending on what you choose as your
> bible.
>
>> > I don't think Thor is a god, and I proceed under that assumption by
>> > refusing any worship or even acknowledgement of a real Thor, but I
>> > also know that it is an assumption.
>>
>> Ah, but you don't know he is not a god. Not your god, according to
>> you
>
> Ah. So you have a completely definition of 'assumption' then the rest
> of humanity.
Probably, English is not my first language. But...I have an unfair
advantage. I can & do use dictionary's. One of the things about
assumption, what is assumed dos not have to be evidence base,
>> walksalone who has always wondered, if the gods are so wonderful, how
>> come they never drop in for a beer & BS session?
>
> It could be your aftershave.
Don't shave.
> Santa Claus has never chatted with me. Does that mean he doesn't
> exist?
No, but if he had the claimed attributes of your gods, & yes plural is
correct, then it would be an indication he might not exist.
BTW, it would be a good idea to name your god, but limit it to the seven
most common names.
walksalone who is already noticing signs of the discussion fracturing.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
