XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:21:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas    
   wrote:   
      
   >In article , Olrik    
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >> Le 2014-07-26 14:18, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:53:51 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >> > .   
   >> >> Le 2014-07-23 12:07, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >> >>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:56:18 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>> Le 2014-07-19 16:54, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:49:39 -0400, Olrik  wrote:   
   >> >>>>> .   
   >> >>>>>> Le 2014-07-17 18:16, mur@.not. a écrit :   
   >> >>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:31:03 -0400, Olrik    
   wrote:   
   >> >>>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>>>> Le 2014-07-10 02:25, Wisely Non-Theist a écrit :   
   >> >>>>>>>>> In article , Olrik    
   >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >> >>>>>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>>>>>> It depends on the definition of that «god» thing.   
   >> >>>>>>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>>>>>> If your «god» existed, life would me like a Harry Potter book.   
   >> >>>>>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>>>>> Would such a god be like  Harry or like Voldemort?   
   >> >>>>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>>>> There would me magic and fantasy all around.   
   >> >>>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>>>         LOL!!! I'll keep presenting this starting line over and over   
   >> >>>>>>>         to see if any   
   >> >>>>>>> of you atheists are ever able to get as "far" as this particular   
   >> >>>>>>> starting line:   
   >> >>>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>>> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from   
   >> >>>>>>> magic." - Arthur   
   >> >>>>>>> C. Clarke   
   >> >>>>>>   
   >> >>>>>> You absolutely have no clue whatsoever about what Clarke meant, did   
   >> >>>>>> you?   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>        Yes which is why I presented it for you. In your case, relative   
   >> >>>>>        to God it   
   >> >>>>> means that you believe if God exists what he accomplished he did using   
   >> >>>>> some sort   
   >> >>>>> of magic, when the reality is much more likely that if he exists he   
   >> >>>>> accomplished   
   >> >>>>> what he did using advanced technology that your little mind can only   
   >> >>>>> interpret   
   >> >>>>> as magic.   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>> It's not «magic» when we understand it, replicate it and manufacture   
   >> >>>>>> it.   
   >> >>>>>   
   >> >>>>>        Some things that aren't magic you can't understand, replicate   
   or   
   >> >>>>>        manufacture   
   >> >>>>> either. That's another starting line you can't get as "far" as. It   
   >> >>>>> would   
   >> >>>>> possibly change your entire way of thinking if you ever could get as   
   >> >>>>> "far" as   
   >> >>>>> either of these starting lines, but how could you ever get there? When   
   >> >>>>> could you   
   >> >>>>> ever get there?   
   >> >>>>   
   >> >>>> I'll grant you this: you can type words on a keyboard.   
   >> >>>   
   >> >>>       I can share information and point out facts other people don't   
   like   
   >> >>>       to think   
   >> >>> about while doing so too.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Indeed. That line of «reasoning» also applies to every degenerate   
   >> >> fucktards like you.   
   >> >   
   >> >      I point out facts you don't like to think about.   
   >>   
   >> Name it. I actually do like facts.   
   >   
   >Facts are awesome. Even when uncomfortable.   
   >   
   >But I prefer to live in reality.   
      
       Having no good examples of transition animals is reality, but you so far   
   refuse to live in that one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)