Why "no evidence"...

[mur@.not]

Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start. All
of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they have no
belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. The fact that God
can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is beyond
the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. None the less I'll
present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his
existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.
Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
God out. For people that can think things through beyond that idea the concept
is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's existence
it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists things
people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets things
done, it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't
appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means if God
did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people devoting
their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much different
than they are now.

[raven1]

You are as confused as it is possible to be.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Freedom Man]

<mur@.not> wrote in message
news:34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com...

> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same
> thing
> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
> All
> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they
> have no
> belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they
> believe
> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. The fact
> that God
> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is
> beyond
> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate.

Is it beyond YOUR mental ability to grow up and realize the non-reality of
the tooth fairy, the sandman, and mother goose?
These are fiction, harmless fabrications created to entertain.
"God" however presents both the bright and dark sides of such fantasy.
Taking the god myth seriously has resulted in countless wars and
unimaginable suffering.

Man has fabricated hundreds, perhaps thousands of mythical "Gods" over the
centuries. Which is the REAL one?
I know - the one YOU believe in. And more likely than not, you hate those
that disagree!

WAKE UP!

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>as no evidence,

ok lets stop there. There is in fact no proof. But I ask you why is
there no proof? Could that be because there is not one shred of
evidence. In other words in order to reach a proof you need the
evidence to make the theroies facts. So no there are no the same
thing, However they are related by the fact that without one you cant
have the other

>which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start. All

No small minded thinking is making up liet to support the fairy tales
that is your religous dogma

>of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they have no

Noone is pretending

>belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
>God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. The fact that God

it is not as much as there is no evidence that god exists it is more
like the plethera of evidence that god simply cant exist

>can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is beyond
>the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can

nah it is beyond you mental capicity to accept change and realize that
you god is in fact santa claus tinker bell and peter pan all rolled
into one h yeah and harry potter

>clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. None the less I'll

again it is not beyond anyone mental ability to appreciate. It is more
like we simply dong give a fuck about your fairy tales

>present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his
>existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.
> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
>like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
>God out.

Well there is the science and then there is that big joke of a book
called the bible

> For people that can think things through beyond that idea the concept
>is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's existence
>it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists things
>people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets things
>done, it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't
>appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means if God
>did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people devoting
>their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much different
>than they are now.

you fucking idiot. Religon doesnt want people to follow science or get
an education. You are contradiction you own faith. You silly fool.
I am done with this guy!

[duke]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.

They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.


duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****

[duke]

No, nobody beats out you losers.

[duke]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:50:38 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>as no evidence,
>
>ok lets stop there. There is in fact no proof. But I ask you why is
>there no proof?

Because proof is evidence that flat qualifies as proof.

WE have tons of evidence.

>Well there is the science and then there is that big joke of a book
>called the bible

Said "big joke" is a book of spiritual lessons, not physical facts.

>you fucking idiot. Religon doesnt want people to follow science or get
>an education. You are contradiction you own faith. You silly fool.
>I am done with this guy!

Thank God. So please go away.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:42:42 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:50:38 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>>as no evidence,
>>
>>ok lets stop there. There is in fact no proof. But I ask you why is
>>there no proof?
>
>Because proof is evidence that flat qualifies as proof.
>
>WE have tons of evidence.

silly silly man thing. U make no sense. and no you havbe no evidence
and therefore no proof. If you have evidence then please use the
necessary space and present it.

>
>>Well there is the science and then there is that big joke of a book
>>called the bible
>
>Said "big joke" is a book of spiritual lessons, not physical facts.

to you and your god. but according to your religon the belief held by
many <but not all> is that there really was an adam and eve and a noah
a burning vbush and all that other crap. but I think it is safe to say
that most of the dumb ass cathloics believe that the old testament is
just stories and the new testament is factual. However it is not. I
have not been involved with the dumb ass catholics in about 30 years
but I think it is safe to say that even though they have changed thier
minds and stories and dogma many times in that 30 years I think thier
base beliefs are still the same. I mean they are in fact still ALL
FUCKING RETARDED.

>
>>you fucking idiot. Religon doesnt want people to follow science or get
>>an education. You are contradiction you own faith. You silly fool.
>>I am done with this guy!
>
>Thank God. So please go away.
>
>duke, American-American

no you dumb fuck these newsgroups are for me and my kind not for dumb
fucks believers like you. so stop using other peoples words and you go
away loser

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:39:49 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>
>They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.

poor poor silly litttle man.. LOL he just doesnt know....

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.

I love Usenet. Just when you think it can't more retarded, it does.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Les Hellawell]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:39:49 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>
>They ARE small minded.

Reality may vary

Considerably

>They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.

Exactly

Thereby no grounds for a god belief.


--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

[BDK]

In article <f691c91na4rt64r07...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

When it comes to losers Puke, you are the "King".

The King of losers.

Congrats


--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster. Friend to all kOOkbashers.

[thomas p.]

"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:nqr0c9h4vnlavencu...@4ax.com...

He does his best. I am certainly impressed.
--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[george152]

On 30/12/13 11:39, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>
> They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.

There is no such thing as a god.
You produce your god and put it through its paces.
I'll wait

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com...

>
> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same
> thing
> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.

> ...

Oh, oh! This cannot end well.

> ... All

> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they
> have no

> belief about the topic, ...

My lack of belief is genuine, I assure you. Why would I pretend?

> ... while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. ...

I have no reason to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Do
you?


> ... The fact that God

> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is
> beyond

> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, ...

No, no. I understand fully, that you can make up all kinds of stories about
a god, whose existence is not backed by evidence. Like that said god is
male, and likes to hide.


> ... and we can
> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. ...

Trust me, not appreciating the stories has very little to do with lacking
mental abilities.

> ... None the less I'll

> present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of
> his
> existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.

> ...

Tell me, what are you curious about? What kind of experiments are you
partaking in?

> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of
> that. They
> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that
> rules

> God out. ...

You just said yourself, that "God can't let everyone know that he exists".
Obviously said god can't be the subject of scientific study under that
premise. No matter how curious you might be. Surely you can appreciate that.


> For people that can think things through beyond that idea ...

And "that idea" is "God can't let everyone know that he exists"?

> ... the concept

> is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's
> existence
> it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists
> things
> people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets
> things

> done, ...

I thought the whole point was for God to stay unknown. You came up with
"obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his existence". Now you
say that God might appear in the equations as a fundamental physical
constant? Or as a yellow liquid by-product in a petry dish, or a brown smear
on a filtering paper?


> ... it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't

> appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means if
> God
> did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people
> devoting
> their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much
> different
> than they are now.

Why would scientists stop doing research if God provided us with proof of
his existence? Is it because the answer to all their questions would be 'I
see. God did it!', which would render all further inquiry superfluous?



--
Malte Runz

[WangoTango]

In article <34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
says...

> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
> God out.
>

That's fully inaccurate.
While I don't talk for other Atheists, I would say that most of us would
claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any
gods, and that sums it up. If there was some we would have no choice
but to believe.

All of this begs the question that you explain what the definition of
"God" is and what its characteristics are. Most folks don't even have a
clue as to what their own mind is when it comes to such things. They
have this general idea of what they "feel", but until you can put a
definition down on paper there is no way to begin doing any tests to
find such a thing.
Why don't you give us a detailed description of what your god consists
of and let's see if we can agree that those traits are rational or at
least there are no contradictions or mutually exclusive attributes.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <52c20412$0$6980$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,

"Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:


> constant? Or as a yellow liquid by-product in a petry dish

petri

--

JD

"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)

[felix_unger]

On 30-December-2013 9:39 AM, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
> They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.

when ppl are locked into a position, it acts like a firewall that blocks
their thinking in many ways

>
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
> proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
> will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
> *****

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
�People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf�

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:33:27 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz>

wrote:


>>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>> They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.
>
>when ppl are locked into a position, it acts like a firewall that blocks
>their thinking in many ways

Irony - You're doing it right.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <bieons...@mid.individual.net>,

felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:

> >> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same
> >> thing
> >> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
> > They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.

There is no more proof of the reality of your alleged Christian god
there is of an alleged Brahma or any of the alleged gods of any other
theist religion.

So until all theist religions can agree on which god or gods to allege,
there is no point to considering any of their allegations.

[felix_unger]

I never wrote any of that. learn to attribute properly!

[Malte Runz]

"Jeanne Douglas" skrev i meddelelsen
news:hlwdjsd2-08DD28...@news.giganews.com...

>
> In article <52c20412$0$6980$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
>
>
> > constant? Or as a yellow liquid by-product in a petry dish
>
> petri

Of course.

>

--
Malte Runz

[thomas p.]

<kni...@baawa.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:p4g4c919akcm26aa5...@4ax.com...

I suspect he knows it.

>
> Warlord Steve
> BAAWA

[thomas p.]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.biz> skrev i meddelelsen
news:bif3c0...@mid.individual.net...

> On 31-December-2013 4:15 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
>
>> In article <bieons...@mid.individual.net>,
>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the
>>>>> same
>>>>> thing
>>>>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the
>>>>> start.
>>>> They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.
>> There is no more proof of the reality of your alleged Christian god
>> there is of an alleged Brahma or any of the alleged gods of any other
>> theist religion.
>>
>> So until all theist religions can agree on which god or gods to allege,
>> there is no point to considering any of their allegations.
>
> I never wrote any of that. learn to attribute properly!

Now that is great irony.

[Les Hellawell]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:33:27 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz>
wrote:

>On 30-December-2013 9:39 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>> They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.
>
>when ppl are locked into a position, it acts like a firewall that blocks
>their thinking in many ways

Or more accurately. I suspects it blocks attempts by people like you
to be able to control our thinking. The best you are able to do is to
constantly make derogatory remarks (calling us small minded for
example) in the hope it will undermine our confidence in ourselves
and make us feel small, inadequate and in need of guidance. It does
not work because we know what your game is and we know with full
confidence we are right not to have any god beliefs when there are no
grounds for such beliefs.

There really is nothing more to say on the subject. No evidence
no belief

[duke]

Can't be. I follow God.

>Congrats

Thanks.

[felix_unger]

On 01-January-2014 1:53 AM, Les Hellawell wrote:


> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:33:27 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30-December-2013 9:39 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>>> They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.
>> when ppl are locked into a position, it acts like a firewall that blocks
>> their thinking in many ways
> Or more accurately. I suspects it blocks attempts by people like you
> to be able to control our thinking.

why would I want to do that?

> The best you are able to do is to
> constantly make derogatory remarks (calling us small minded for
> example)

read the attributions, not my remark. I said "when ppl are locked into a

position, it acts like a firewall that blocks

their thinking in many ways" and I stand by that. for example atheists
will not consider the possibility of supernatural forces, and that's
been amply demonstrated by mur in these threads.

> in the hope it will undermine our confidence in ourselves
> and make us feel small, inadequate and in need of guidance.

you flatter me if you believe anything I can say will have that effect,
and you just demonstrate your own insecurity if you think it could.

> It does
> not work because we know what your game is

golf!

> and we know with full
> confidence we are right not to have any god beliefs when there are no
> grounds for such beliefs.
>
> There really is nothing more to say on the subject. No evidence
> no belief
>
>
> --
> Les Hellawell
> Greetings from
> YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
>
>

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <bih6ck...@mid.individual.net>,

felix_unger <m...@nothere.biz> wrote:

> > The best you are able to do is to
> > constantly make derogatory remarks (calling us small minded for
> > example)
>
> read the attributions, not my remark. I said "when ppl are locked into a
> position, it acts like a firewall that blocks
> their thinking in many ways" and I stand by that.

There are dozens of theist religions each claiming to be the ultimate
truth and calling all the others lies. So for any theist religion to be
accepted as true by non-theists, it must not only present evided=nce of
its own truth., but equally valid evidence of the falsehood of all the
toher theist religions.

That is, a member of any theist religion must be able to prove all but
one of the vast multitude of mutually incompatible theist religions must
be false before he can argue that his own version is true.

We atheists are quite willing to consider that all of them, without
exception, may be false. Which is only one more false than any theist
claims.

[Brad Guth]

On 12/29/2013 9:31 AM, mur@.not wrote:
> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing

> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start. All
> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they have no
> belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. The fact that God
> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is beyond
> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. None the less I'll
> present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his
> existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.
> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
> God out. For people that can think things through beyond that idea the concept
> is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's existence
> it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists things
> people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets things
> done, it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't
> appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means if God
> did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people devoting
> their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much different
> than they are now.
>

The pretend-Atheists that reside here in Usenet/newsgroups have an
agenda and a NWO goal.

[mur@.not]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:50:38 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>as no evidence,
>

>ok lets stop there. There is in fact no proof. But I ask you why is

>there no proof? Could that be because there is not one shred of
>evidence.

How could billions of people possibly believe God exists if there is nothing
at all to encourage them to believe he does? If there truly was not one shred of
evidence then the concept wouldn't even exist.

>In other words in order to reach a proof you need the
>evidence to make the theroies facts. So no there are no the same
>thing, However they are related by the fact that without one you cant
>have the other

>
>>which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start. All
>

>No small minded thinking is making up liet to support the fairy tales
>that is your religous dogma

>
>>of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they have no
>

>Noone is pretending

>
>>belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
>>God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. The fact that God
>

>it is not as much as there is no evidence that god exists it is more
>like the plethera of evidence that god simply cant exist

Present some now:

>>can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is beyond
>>the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
>

>nah it is beyond you mental capicity to accept change and realize that
>you god is in fact santa claus tinker bell and peter pan all rolled
>into one h yeah and harry potter

To think of beings we know don't exist and a being we could never know
doesn't exist in the same way is childlike and naive at "best".

>>clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate.

Try to provide some evidence that you can appreciate what I pointed out for
you, or it will remain clear that you can't.

>None the less I'll
>

>again it is not beyond anyone mental ability to appreciate. It is more
>like we simply dong give a fuck about your fairy tales

>
>
>>present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his
>>existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.
>> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
>>like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
>>God out.
>

>Well there is the science and then there is that big joke of a book
>called the bible
>

>> For people that can think things through beyond that idea the concept
>>is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's existence
>>it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists things
>>people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets things
>>done, it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't
>>appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means if God
>>did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people devoting
>>their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much different
>>than they are now.
>
>

>you fucking idiot. Religon doesnt want people to follow science or get
>an education. You are contradiction you own faith.

No I'm sure not.

>You silly fool.

You childlike naive fool.

>I am done with this guy!

Fuck you too moron. All you did was show how childlike and naive your
attempts to think about this subject are.

[mur@.not]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:39:49 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing

>>as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>
>They ARE small minded. They totally lack any knowledge on the matter.

They seem like children, all the way to the extent that they think of things
we know are fiction and God which no one could ever know doesn't exist in the
same way. That alone puts them in the group of most naive people on Earth.

[mur@.not]

You certainly demostrate that well. Not only can you not make worthwhile
comments regarding what this thread is about or even acknowledge what it is, but
you can't get anywhere with the first sentence. I challenge you to try again,
and try to refute the reason I gave.

[mur@.not]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:38:59 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>skrev i meddelelsen news:34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same
>> thing
>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>> ...
>
>Oh, oh! This cannot end well.

How could it end?

>> ... All
>> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they
>> have no
>> belief about the topic, ...
>
>My lack of belief is genuine, I assure you. Why would I pretend?

The possibility that God doesn't exist is easy. Explain how you believe he
could exist if you have no belief that he does not.

>> ... while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
>> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. ...
>
>I have no reason to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Do
>you?

No. The fact that we can consider the possibility of his existence is
evidence of it from my pov.

>> ... The fact that God
>> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is
>> beyond
>> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, ...
>
>No, no. I understand fully, that you can make up all kinds of stories about
>a god, whose existence is not backed by evidence. Like that said god is
>male, and likes to hide.

LOL. Where have you been able to look for him that you think he would be?

>> ... and we can
>> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. ...
>
>Trust me, not appreciating the stories has very little to do with lacking
>mental abilities.

Explain why God would not provide proof of his existence if he does exist,
to show that you have the mental ability to comprehend why.

>> ... None the less I'll
>> present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of
>> his
>> existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.
>> ...
>
>Tell me, what are you curious about? What kind of experiments are you
>partaking in?

Though this is probably beyond your mental ability too, I was referring to
people who do and have done experiments.

>> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of
>> that. They
>> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that
>> rules
>> God out. ...
>
>You just said yourself, that "God can't let everyone know that he exists".
>Obviously said god can't be the subject of scientific study under that
>premise. No matter how curious you might be. Surely you can appreciate that.

The fact that I can is part of what makes the atheistic demand for evidence
seem so incredibly stupid. Not necessarily that atheists can't figure it out for
themselves, but certainly that they can't appreciate it even after it has been
pointed out for them.

>> For people that can think things through beyond that idea ...
>
>And "that idea" is "God can't let everyone know that he exists"?
>
>> ... the concept
>> is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's
>> existence
>> it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists
>> things
>> people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets
>> things
>> done, ...
>
>I thought the whole point was for God to stay unknown. You came up with
>"obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his existence". Now you
>say that God might appear in the equations as a fundamental physical
>constant? Or as a yellow liquid by-product in a petry dish, or a brown smear
>on a filtering paper?

That things like evolution show us how God could have developed millions of
creatures.

>> ... it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't
>> appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means if
>> God
>> did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people
>> devoting
>> their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much
>> different
>> than they are now.
>
>Why would scientists stop doing research if God provided us with proof of
>his existence? Is it because the answer to all their questions would be 'I
>see. God did it!', which would render all further inquiry superfluous?

The idea is that since many if not most scientific minded people seem to
feel that science and God conflict with each other, there would be fewer people
who become scientists if everyone knew that God exists. It may not be true, but
it's certainly a strong possibility. One you can't appreciate apparently, but
there's nothing odd about that.

[mur@.not]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 18:56:04 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
>says...
>> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
>> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
>> God out.
>>
>That's fully inaccurate.
>While I don't talk for other Atheists, I would say that most of us would
>claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any
>gods, and that sums it up. If there was some we would have no choice
>but to believe.

Which shows that if God does exist he wants people to have the freedom to
question whether he does or not.

>All of this begs the question that you explain what the definition of
>"God" is and what its characteristics are. Most folks don't even have a
>clue as to what their own mind is when it comes to such things. They
>have this general idea of what they "feel", but until you can put a
>definition down on paper

To me the minimum requirement would be a being or group of beings who have
deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet he/they are not
native to. It could go on in countless ways from there, but that would be the
minimum imo. So from my pov God would almost certainly have to be an "alien".

>there is no way to begin doing any tests to
>find such a thing.

Have you considered that being unable to do the tests might be part of the
reason you don't think there's any evidence, or do you think that somehow has
nothing to do with it? If so, why not????

[mur@.not]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:52:46 -0500, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>

>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing

>>as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start. All

>>of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they have no

>>belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
>>God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. The fact that God

>>can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is beyond

>>the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
>>clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. None the less I'll

>>present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his
>>existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.

>> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
>>like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules

>>God out. For people that can think things through beyond that idea the concept

>>is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's existence
>>it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists things
>>people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets things

>>done, it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't

>>appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means if God
>>did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people devoting
>>their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much different
>>than they are now.
>

>You are as confused as it is possible to be.

If you can't appreciate what I pointed out for you then you're worse off than
I am.

[mur@.not]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:57:22 -0500, "Freedom Man" <frees...@4eva.com> wrote:

><mur@.not> wrote in message
>news:34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com...

>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same
>> thing
>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>> All
>> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they
>> have no
>> belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they
>> believe
>> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. The fact
>> that God
>> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is
>> beyond
>> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
>> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate.
>

>Is it beyond YOUR mental ability to grow up and realize the non-reality of
>the tooth fairy, the sandman, and mother goose?

We KNOW those things are made up fiction. In complete and total contrast if
God doesn't exist it's not possible to know that, but apparently it's beyond
YOUR mental ability to grow up and appreciate that fact. Accepting that fact is
a starting line meaning it's possible to move on from there, but you can't even
get started.

>These are fiction, harmless fabrications created to entertain.
>"God" however presents both the bright and dark sides of such fantasy.
>Taking the god myth seriously has resulted in countless wars and
>unimaginable suffering.

So you like to think God doesn't exist so all the wars and suffering were
for no reason. I don't have such a desire, and in fact feel that if the concept
of God didn't exist most if not all of those things would have been done with
some other excuse behind them.

>Man has fabricated hundreds, perhaps thousands of mythical "Gods" over the
>centuries. Which is the REAL one?

If there's a creator then all who refer to him refer to the same being (or
beings) regardless of what they call him or what they think about him. That's
another starting line. So far I don't recall any atheists being mentally able to
get as "far" as the starting line with that one yet either, even though the same
thing is true of the sun and the moon.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 09:52:49 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:50:38 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>>as no evidence,
>>
>>ok lets stop there. There is in fact no proof. But I ask you why is
>>there no proof? Could that be because there is not one shred of
>>evidence.
>
> How could billions of people possibly believe God exists if there is nothing
>at all to encourage them to believe he does? If there truly was not one shred of
>evidence then the concept wouldn't even exist.

ok smart guy why were there norse gods egyptian gods hindu gods greek
gods the billions and billions of the personal gods hey wait a second
I am a god... hell why do I exist? hmm this is gettins so confusing


<snip crap talk>

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:m28gc9tc0um0cou9r...@4ax.com...

>
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:38:59 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >skrev i meddelelsen news:34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the
> >> same
> >> thing
> >> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the
> >> start.
> >> ...
> >
> >Oh, oh! This cannot end well.
>
> How could it end?

The begining of the end for you will be a cracking noise.

>
> >> ... All
> >> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they
> >> have no
> >> belief about the topic, ...
> >
> >My lack of belief is genuine, I assure you. Why would I pretend?
>
> The possibility that God doesn't exist is easy. Explain how you
> believe he
> could exist if you have no belief that he does not.

I don't hold the belief that no gods exist any more or any less than I don't
believe a trillion other things, for which I see no evidence, exist.
What I /don't/ believe is that gods exist.

>
> >> ... while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
> >> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. ...
> >
> >I have no reason to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.
> >Do
> >you?
>
> No. The fact that we can consider the possibility of his existence is
> evidence of it from my pov.

I can consider the possible existence of Shladings in the 7th Dimension. How
much time are you going to spend researching them? To me it is nonsense, of
course, just like the possible existence of a god is.

>
> >> ... The fact that God
> >> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are
> >> is
> >> beyond
> >> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, ...
> >
> >No, no. I understand fully, that you can make up all kinds of stories
> >about
> >a god, whose existence is not backed by evidence. Like that said god is
> >male, and likes to hide.
>
> LOL. Where have you been able to look for him that you think he would
> be?

I simply paraphrased what you wrote: "The fact that God can't let everyone
know that he exists ...". God is a he, and he can't let everybody know he
exists. Male and wants to hide.

>
> >> ... and we can
> >> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. ...
> >
> >Trust me, not appreciating the stories has very little to do with lacking
> >mental abilities.
>
> Explain why God would not provide proof of his existence if he does
> exist,
> to show that you have the mental ability to comprehend why.

Eh... I'm the one not believing gods exist, and you're the one fantasizing
about their inner wishes.

>
> >> ... None the less I'll
> >> present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof
> >> of
> >> his
> >> existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and
> >> experiment.
> >> ...
> >
> >Tell me, what are you curious about? What kind of experiments are you
> >partaking in?
>
> Though this is probably beyond your mental ability too, I was
> referring to
> people who do and have done experiments.

If you had anything to show, anything at all, you would have presented it as
Exhibit one a long time ago.

>
> >> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of
> >> that. They
> >> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that
> >> that
> >> rules
> >> God out. ...
> >
> >You just said yourself, that "God can't let everyone know that he
> >exists".
> >Obviously said god can't be the subject of scientific study under that
> >premise. No matter how curious you might be. Surely you can appreciate
> >that.
>
> The fact that I can is part of what makes the atheistic demand for
> evidence
> seem so incredibly stupid. Not necessarily that atheists can't figure it
> out for
> themselves, but certainly that they can't appreciate it even after it has
> been
> pointed out for them.

You keep forgetting, that atheists really don't believe in gods, and that
our lack of belief has nothing to do with whatever abilities and reasonings
you want to attribute to your particular pet deity. You can say he's purple
and likes pizza for all I care. With olives and pepperonis? Sure, why the
Hell not (but don't let everybody know, because then nobody would order
pizza anymore)!

>
> >> For people that can think things through beyond that idea ...
> >
> >And "that idea" is "God can't let everyone know that he exists"?
> >
> >> ... the concept
> >> is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's
> >> existence
> >> it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God
> >> exists
> >> things
> >> people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets
> >> things
> >> done, ...
> >
> >I thought the whole point was for God to stay unknown. You came up with
> >"obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his existence". Now
> >you
> >say that God might appear in the equations as a fundamental physical

> >constant? Or as a yellow liquid by-product in a petr[i] dish, or a brown

> >smear
> >on a filtering paper?
>
> That things like evolution show us how God could have developed
> millions of
> creatures.

The evolution of species, and the scientific theory that explains it, works
absolutely fine without divine intervention. Why add an unnecessary
ingredient?

> >> ... it seems many if not most people who are interested in science
> >> can't
> >> appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means
> >> if
> >> God
> >> did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people
> >> devoting
> >> their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much
> >> different
> >> than they are now.
> >
> >Why would scientists stop doing research if God provided us with proof of
> >his existence? Is it because the answer to all their questions would be
> >'I
> >see. God did it!', which would render all further inquiry superfluous?
>
> The idea is that since many if not most scientific minded people seem
> to
> feel that science and God conflict with each other, there would be fewer
> people
> who become scientists if everyone knew that God exists. It may not be
> true, but
> it's certainly a strong possibility. One you can't appreciate apparently,
> but
> there's nothing odd about that.

Why would fewer people become scientists? Is it because the results they
get, would be in conflict with the existence of God? As predicted, you're on
thin ice by now.



--
Malte Runz

[mur@.not]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:24:10 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>skrev i meddelelsen news:m28gc9tc0um0cou9r...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:38:59 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >skrev i meddelelsen news:34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the
>> >> same
>> >> thing
>> >> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the
>> >> start.
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >Oh, oh! This cannot end well.
>>
>> How could it end?
>
>The begining of the end for you will be a cracking noise.

We see yours below. Well, you *could* learn from and end your mistakes and
begin again in new and better ways, but that's not likely to happen.

>> >> ... All
>> >> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they
>> >> have no
>> >> belief about the topic, ...
>> >
>> >My lack of belief is genuine, I assure you. Why would I pretend?
>>
>> The possibility that God doesn't exist is easy. Explain how you
>> believe he
>> could exist if you have no belief that he does not.
>
>I don't hold the belief that no gods exist

Explain how you believe God could exist if you have no belief that he does
not.

>any more or any less than I don't
>believe a trillion other things, for which I see no evidence, exist.
>What I /don't/ believe is that gods exist.

So you can't think of any way there could be beings that can be considered
gods anywhere in the universe. I can though.

>> >> ... while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
>> >> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. ...
>> >
>> >I have no reason to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.
>> >Do
>> >you?
>>
>> No. The fact that we can consider the possibility of his existence is
>> evidence of it from my pov.
>
>I can consider the possible existence of Shladings in the 7th Dimension. How
>much time are you going to spend researching them? To me it is nonsense, of
>course, just like the possible existence of a god is.

I'm not ashamed of my faith that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny don't
exist on this planet, even though there is plenty of evidence for both.

>> >> ... The fact that God
>> >> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are
>> >> is
>> >> beyond
>> >> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, ...
>> >
>> >No, no. I understand fully, that you can make up all kinds of stories
>> >about
>> >a god, whose existence is not backed by evidence. Like that said god is
>> >male, and likes to hide.
>>
>> LOL. Where have you been able to look for him that you think he would
>> be?
>
>I simply paraphrased what you wrote: "The fact that God can't let everyone
>know that he exists ...". God is a he, and he can't let everybody know he
>exists. Male and wants to hide.

How and where have you tried to approach him?

>> >> ... and we can
>> >> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. ...
>> >
>> >Trust me, not appreciating the stories has very little to do with lacking
>> >mental abilities.
>>
>> Explain why God would not provide proof of his existence if he does
>> exist,
>> to show that you have the mental ability to comprehend why.
>
>Eh... I'm the one not believing gods exist, and you're the one fantasizing
>about their inner wishes.

My challenge is beyond your mental ability. That's not an insult but a fact,
even if the fact does insult you for some reason.

>> >> ... None the less I'll
>> >> present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof
>> >> of
>> >> his
>> >> existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and
>> >> experiment.
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >Tell me, what are you curious about? What kind of experiments are you
>> >partaking in?
>>
>> Though this is probably beyond your mental ability too, I was
>> referring to
>> people who do and have done experiments.
>
>If you had anything to show, anything at all, you would

"There is a much higher percentage of atheism/agnosticism among scientists than
the general population, and a smaller percentage of fundamentalism. "

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080108213234AAeWHSr


"One fact that concerns some Christians and elates some atheists is that 93
percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most
elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in God."

http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/does-it-matter-that-many-scientists-are-atheists


see also:
http://is.gd/6czcUP

You apparently can't think realistically about any of this. So you see it
DOES have "to do with lacking mental abilities."

>> >> For people that can think things through beyond that idea ...
>> >
>> >And "that idea" is "God can't let everyone know that he exists"?
>> >
>> >> ... the concept
>> >> is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's
>> >> existence
>> >> it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God
>> >> exists
>> >> things
>> >> people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets
>> >> things
>> >> done, ...
>> >
>> >I thought the whole point was for God to stay unknown. You came up with
>> >"obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his existence". Now
>> >you
>> >say that God might appear in the equations as a fundamental physical
>> >constant? Or as a yellow liquid by-product in a petr[i] dish, or a brown
>> >smear
>> >on a filtering paper?
>>
>> That things like evolution show us how God could have developed
>> millions of
>> creatures.
>
>The evolution of species, and the scientific theory that explains it, works
>absolutely fine without divine intervention. Why add an unnecessary
>ingredient?

In this particular case it was to consider how what science teaches us can
also teach us more about God if he exists. Did you forget already?

>> >> ... it seems many if not most people who are interested in science
>> >> can't
>> >> appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means
>> >> if
>> >> God
>> >> did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people
>> >> devoting
>> >> their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much
>> >> different
>> >> than they are now.
>> >
>> >Why would scientists stop doing research if God provided us with proof of
>> >his existence? Is it because the answer to all their questions would be
>> >'I
>> >see. God did it!', which would render all further inquiry superfluous?
>>
>> The idea is that since many if not most scientific minded people seem
>> to
>> feel that science and God conflict with each other, there would be fewer
>> people
>> who become scientists if everyone knew that God exists. It may not be
>> true, but
>> it's certainly a strong possibility. One you can't appreciate apparently,
>> but
>> there's nothing odd about that.
>
>Why would fewer people become scientists?

Because a higher percentage of people would choose to serve God instead of
becoming scientists than do the way things are now, for one reason.

>Is it because the results they
>get, would be in conflict with the existence of God?

Probably not.

>As predicted, you're on thin ice by now.

May be, but you have fallen through already.

[mur@.not]

They seem to be atheists, but often clueless about what that means. For
example it seems the majority of them can't comprehend the difference between
strong and weak atheism, and are amusing ashamed that strong atheism even
exists. To make it even worse, those few who do have a clue NEVER correct the
clueless ones afaik. It's like they are terrified to try educating their own
brethren. Making it even worse than all that, they ALL appear to be strong
atheists from my pov, since not a one of them appears able to consider the
possibility of God's existence in any realistic ways. The "best" any of them
have been able to do is imagine some childlike very improbable and stupid idea,
but never anything that seems realistic. They also often compare the possibility
of God's existence with things we KNOW are fiction, again showing the
unrealistic, childlike and naive ways of "thinking" they're apparently resticted
to. Making it all even worse, and possibly worst of all, is that all these
people who apparently believe there is no God associated with this planet are
clearly very ashamed that they have that belief. The question is: Why are they
so ashamed? I'm not ashamed of my belief that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny
don't exist, and would feel like a fool if I was. If they're ashamed of their
belief that those beings don't exist then they are fools. They also appear to be
fools for being ashamed of their belief that God doesn't exist, since they
certainly behave like they not only have such a belief but want to make it known
by criticising people who consider the possibility of God's existence.

>have an agenda

Which is?

>and a NWO goal.

What makes you say that?

[mur@.not]

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:17:29 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 09:52:49 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:50:38 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>>>as no evidence,
>>>
>>>ok lets stop there. There is in fact no proof. But I ask you why is
>>>there no proof? Could that be because there is not one shred of
>>>evidence.
>>
>> How could billions of people possibly believe God exists if there is nothing
>>at all to encourage them to believe he does? If there truly was not one shred of
>>evidence then the concept wouldn't even exist.
>
>ok smart guy why were there norse gods egyptian gods hindu gods greek
>gods the billions and billions of the personal gods

For varying reasons.

>hey wait a second I am a god...

Present your evidence if you think you really believe you are one.

>hell why do I exist?

Maybe for no reason. If there is one, then the reason must be for some
being.

>hmm this is gettins so confusing

Any level of discussion that involves the possibility of God's existence is
probably very confusing for you, to the extent that you can't even consider it
in any realistic way.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:49:23 -0500, mur@.not wrote:


>>ok smart guy why were there norse gods egyptian gods hindu gods greek
>>gods the billions and billions of the personal gods
>
> For varying reasons.

name some..errr name one

>
>>hey wait a second I am a god...
>
> Present your evidence if you think you really believe you are one.

as a theist would say... prove that I am not.

>
>>hell why do I exist?
>
> Maybe for no reason. If there is one, then the reason must be for some
>being.
>
>>hmm this is gettins so confusing
>
> Any level of discussion that involves the possibility of God's existence is
>probably very confusing for you, to the extent that you can't even consider it
>in any realistic way.

I wonder why that may be? do you have any idea? well let me take a
stab at it....

I cant consider god in any realistic way because GOD IS NOT REAL YOU
FUCKING RETARD!
is harry potter real what about snow white the seven dwarves puff the
magic dragon gandolf can you prove they are real??
The correct answer is no you can not.
Can you prove they are not real?
The answer is no you can not.

you chose to believe in magic and the supernatural and fairy tales and
pure fiction. so next time someone ask you if you thing santa claus is
real you either say yes or you lie then you will burn in your hell

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...

>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:24:10 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >skrev i meddelelsen news:m28gc9tc0um0cou9r...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:38:59 +0100, "Malte Runz"
> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >skrev i meddelelsen news:34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com...
> >> >>

(snip)

>
> >> The possibility that God doesn't exist is easy. Explain how you
> >> believe he
> >> could exist if you have no belief that he does not.
> >
> >I don't hold the belief that no gods exist
>
> Explain how you believe God could exist if you have no belief that he
> does
> not.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you want me to 'admit' that since I
don't believe that gods do not exist, then I can't imagine that he could
exist, and that makes me inferior to you?

>
> >any more or any less than I don't
> >believe a trillion other things, for which I see no evidence, exist.
> >What I /don't/ believe is that gods exist.
>
> So you can't think of any way there could be beings that can be
> considered
> gods anywhere in the universe. I can though.

I can imagine anything I want. Including the existence of gods. What makes
you believe that God exists and not [insert something you don't believe
exists]?

>
> >> >> ... while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
> >> >> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. ...
> >> >
> >> >I have no reason to believe in anything for which there is no
> >> >evidence.
> >> >Do
> >> >you?
> >>
> >> No. The fact that we can consider the possibility of his existence
> >> is
> >> evidence of it from my pov.
> >
> >I can consider the possible existence of Shladings in the 7th Dimension.
> >How
> >much time are you going to spend researching them? To me it is nonsense,
> >of
> >course, just like the possible existence of a god is.
>
> I'm not ashamed of my faith that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny
> don't
> exist on this planet, even though there is plenty of evidence for both.

'It takes a lot of faith not to believe in God!' Is that it?

You don't believe in Santa, but you believe in God. I believe in neither,
and for identical reasons.

>
> >> >> ... The fact that God
> >> >> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they
> >> >> are
> >> >> is
> >> >> beyond
> >> >> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, ...
> >> >
> >> >No, no. I understand fully, that you can make up all kinds of stories
> >> >about
> >> >a god, whose existence is not backed by evidence. Like that said god
> >> >is
> >> >male, and likes to hide.
> >>
> >> LOL. Where have you been able to look for him that you think he
> >> would
> >> be?
> >
> >I simply paraphrased what you wrote: "The fact that God can't let
> >everyone
> >know that he exists ...". God is a he, and he can't let everybody know he
> >exists. Male and wants to hide.
>
> How and where have you tried to approach him?

In the mens room at the station. 'Hey! What's a good looking god like you
doing here, all on his own, and so late at night? Looking for some company?'

(snip)

> >> Though this is probably beyond your mental ability too, I was
> >> referring to
> >> people who do and have done experiments.
> >
> >If you had anything to show, anything at all, you would
>
> "There is a much higher percentage of atheism/agnosticism among scientists
> than
> the general population, and a smaller percentage of fundamentalism. "
>
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080108213234AAeWHSr
>
>
> "One fact that concerns some Christians and elates some atheists is that
> 93
> percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the
> most
> elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in
> God."
>
> http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/does-it-matter-that-many-scientists-are-atheists
>
>
> see also:
> http://is.gd/6czcUP

Yes, the great majority of the best educated people are atheists. And the
few scientists who are theists, nail their god to the door, when they enter
the lab. Don't you think I know this?

Are we moving the goal posts now, or are we actually witnessing the popping
into existence of an intellegently designed, irreducibly complex strawman?

(snip)

> >You keep forgetting, that atheists really don't believe in gods, and that
> >our lack of belief has nothing to do with whatever abilities and
> >reasonings
> >you want to attribute to your particular pet deity. You can say he's
> >purple
> >and likes pizza for all I care. With olives and pepperonis? Sure, why the
> >Hell not (but don't let everybody know, because then nobody would order
> >pizza anymore)!
>

> You apparently can't think realistically about any of this. ...

Of course I can, but I don't have any respect your beliefs, and I'm tend to
let it show. I reached the only realistic conclusion there is: Man invented
all the gods. There is no reason to believe that any one of them is a true
god, and no reason to believe that gods even exist at all. You believe
differently. Unrealistically. Every one of your arguments for the existence
of gods can be used on Santa too, but you think there is a difference where
there isn't.

(snip)

> >The evolution of species, and the scientific theory that explains it,
> >works
> >absolutely fine without divine intervention. Why add an unnecessary
> >ingredient?
>
> In this particular case it was to consider how what science teaches us
> can
> also teach us more about God if he exists. Did you forget already?

Nobody is actively investigating the existence of God using scientific
methods. I asked you way back how you imagine that God could appear to us in
a scientific setting, but you still owe us answer.

(snip)

> >Why would fewer people become scientists?
>
> Because a higher percentage of people would choose to serve God
> instead of
> becoming scientists than do the way things are now, for one reason.

(There is something wrong with that sentence.)

>
> >Is it because the results they
> >get, would be in conflict with the existence of God?
>
> Probably not.

Then why would people stop pursuing scientific knowledge and understanding
of the Universe, if God was a detectable natural (or a known supernatural)
part of it? Would there be no need to find cure for cancer. No more robots
to the planets? All our energy problems would be solved, and we'd all "serve
God"?

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[WangoTango]

In article <2p8gc9hjh02fquvbt...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
says...

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 18:56:04 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
> >says...
> >> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
> >> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
> >> God out.
> >>
> >That's fully inaccurate.
> >While I don't talk for other Atheists, I would say that most of us would
> >claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any
> >gods, and that sums it up. If there was some we would have no choice
> >but to believe.
>
> Which shows that if God does exist he wants people to have the freedom to
> question whether he does or not.

How do YOU know what any god's motivation would be?
This is just a baseless assertion.
You would have to give evidence of this motivation, which would require
that you have somehow had direct contact and conversation with a "god".
Has anything like that happened?

>
> >All of this begs the question that you explain what the definition of
> >"God" is and what its characteristics are. Most folks don't even have a
> >clue as to what their own mind is when it comes to such things. They
> >have this general idea of what they "feel", but until you can put a
> >definition down on paper
>
> To me the minimum requirement would be a being or group of beings who have
> deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet he/they are not
> native to. It could go on in countless ways from there, but that would be the
> minimum imo. So from my pov God would almost certainly have to be an "alien".

That's a pretty flimsy start.

>
> >there is no way to begin doing any tests to
> >find such a thing.
>
> Have you considered that being unable to do the tests might be part of the
> reason you don't think there's any evidence, or do you think that somehow has
> nothing to do with it? If so, why not????

Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.
That's pretty much the litmus test of the faithful, but it is completely
useless as a basis of a belief system.

[felix_unger]

On 05-January-2014 1:52 AM, mur@.not wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:50:38 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:31:51 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>>> as no evidence,
>> ok lets stop there. There is in fact no proof. But I ask you why is
>> there no proof? Could that be because there is not one shred of
>> evidence.
> How could billions of people possibly believe God exists if there is nothing
> at all to encourage them to believe he does? If there truly was not one shred of
> evidence then the concept wouldn't even exist.

true!

>> nah it is beyond you mental capicity to accept change and realize that
>> you god is in fact santa claus tinker bell and peter pan all rolled
>> into one h yeah and harry potter
> To think of beings we know don't exist and a being we could never know
> doesn't exist in the same way is childlike and naive at "best".

right!

[mur@.not]

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:30:02 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:49:23 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>
>>>ok smart guy why were there norse gods egyptian gods hindu gods greek
>>>gods the billions and billions of the personal gods
>>
>> For varying reasons.
>
>name some..errr name one

I don't know any. Do you?

>>>hey wait a second I am a god...
>>
>> Present your evidence if you think you really believe you are one.
>
>as a theist would say... prove that I am not.

You just did.

>>>hell why do I exist?
>>
>> Maybe for no reason. If there is one, then the reason must be for some
>>being.
>>
>>>hmm this is gettins so confusing
>>
>> Any level of discussion that involves the possibility of God's existence is
>>probably very confusing for you, to the extent that you can't even consider it
>>in any realistic way.
>
>I wonder why that may be? do you have any idea?

It's one of two things. The most likely is that you really are not mentally
capable. If you were you would already be doing it. The second is that you are
mentally capable but you refuse to.

>well let me take a
>stab at it....
>
>I cant consider god in any realistic way because GOD IS NOT REAL YOU
>FUCKING RETARD!

That is your GUESS, you fucking stupid retard.

>is harry potter real what about snow white the seven dwarves puff the
>magic dragon gandolf can you prove they are real??
>The correct answer is no you can not.
>Can you prove they are not real?
>The answer is no you can not.
>
>you chose to believe in magic and the supernatural and fairy tales and
>pure fiction. so next time someone ask you if you thing santa claus is
>real you either say yes or you lie then you will burn in your hell

I'm not afraid of my faith that the fictional things you mentioned above do
not exist on this planet. I feel that humans know they don't. If you don't feel
that way then you're an extra stupid fucking moron. Whether you do or not, if
you honestly think of God who we don't know does not exist, and fictional beings
that we do know don't exist in the same way, then you truly are a damned stupid
fucking shit headed moron. :-)

[mur@.not]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>skrev i meddelelsen news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:24:10 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >skrev i meddelelsen news:m28gc9tc0um0cou9r...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:38:59 +0100, "Malte Runz"
>> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >skrev i meddelelsen news:34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com...
>> >> >>
>
>(snip)
>
>>
>> >> The possibility that God doesn't exist is easy. Explain how you
>> >> believe he
>> >> could exist if you have no belief that he does not.
>> >
>> >I don't hold the belief that no gods exist
>>
>> Explain how you believe God could exist if you have no belief that he
>> does
>> not.
>
>I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you want me to 'admit' that since I
>don't believe that gods do not exist, then I can't imagine that he could
>exist, and that makes me inferior to you?

If you don't believe gods don't exist but can't imagine any way(s) in which
they could, you are inferior to whatever the average would be since there are
certainly countless more possible ways that gods could exist than the one
possibility that none do. If you can't imagine any, but still don't believe none
exist, you are mentally inept regarding the issue.

I do believe flying dragons don't exist on this planet but can still imagine
ways in which they could. So yes, I must feel that you're inferior to me or
anyone else who can consider the possibility that gods exist. Could you overcome
that? I don't know. Do you?

>> >any more or any less than I don't
>> >believe a trillion other things, for which I see no evidence, exist.
>> >What I /don't/ believe is that gods exist.
>>
>> So you can't think of any way there could be beings that can be
>> considered
>> gods anywhere in the universe. I can though.
>
>I can imagine anything I want. Including the existence of gods.

Provide evidence.

>What makes
>you believe that God exists

I don't believe it, but I certainly believe it's possible that he does and
so far still feel it's more likely than not.

>and not [insert something you don't believe
>exists]?
>>
>> >> >> ... while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
>> >> >> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. ...
>> >> >
>> >> >I have no reason to believe in anything for which there is no
>> >> >evidence.
>> >> >Do
>> >> >you?
>> >>
>> >> No. The fact that we can consider the possibility of his existence
>> >> is
>> >> evidence of it from my pov.
>> >
>> >I can consider the possible existence of Shladings in the 7th Dimension.
>> >How
>> >much time are you going to spend researching them? To me it is nonsense,
>> >of
>> >course, just like the possible existence of a god is.
>>
>> I'm not ashamed of my faith that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny
>> don't
>> exist on this planet, even though there is plenty of evidence for both.
>
>'It takes a lot of faith not to believe in God!' Is that it?

Any belief requires whatever amount of faith that it is correct. The amount
of faith a person has that it's correct is what determines how strongly they
believe it.

>You don't believe in Santa, but you believe in God. I believe in neither,
>and for identical reasons.
>
>>
>> >> >> ... The fact that God
>> >> >> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> beyond
>> >> >> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, ...
>> >> >
>> >> >No, no. I understand fully, that you can make up all kinds of stories
>> >> >about
>> >> >a god, whose existence is not backed by evidence. Like that said god
>> >> >is
>> >> >male, and likes to hide.
>> >>
>> >> LOL. Where have you been able to look for him that you think he
>> >> would
>> >> be?
>> >
>> >I simply paraphrased what you wrote: "The fact that God can't let
>> >everyone
>> >know that he exists ...". God is a he, and he can't let everybody know he
>> >exists. Male and wants to hide.
>>
>> How and where have you tried to approach him?
>
>In the mens room at the station. 'Hey! What's a good looking god like you
>doing here, all on his own, and so late at night? Looking for some company?'

Unless he's a hard up homosexual there's no reason for you to think he
wouldn't just ignore you and move along.

>(snip)
>
>> >> Though this is probably beyond your mental ability too, I was
>> >> referring to
>> >> people who do and have done experiments.
>> >
>> >If you had anything to show, anything at all, you would
>>
>> "There is a much higher percentage of atheism/agnosticism among scientists
>> than
>> the general population, and a smaller percentage of fundamentalism. "
>>
>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080108213234AAeWHSr
>>
>>
>> "One fact that concerns some Christians and elates some atheists is that
>> 93
>> percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the
>> most
>> elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in
>> God."
>>
>> http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/does-it-matter-that-many-scientists-are-atheists
>>
>>
>> see also:
>> http://is.gd/6czcUP
>
>Yes, the great majority of the best educated people are atheists. And the
>few scientists who are theists, nail their god to the door, when they enter
>the lab. Don't you think I know this?

I don't feel like going back to see if you tried to deny that or if it was
other people but not you.

>Are we moving the goal posts now, or are we actually witnessing the popping
>into existence of an intellegently designed, irreducibly complex strawman?
>
>(snip)
>
>> >You keep forgetting, that atheists really don't believe in gods, and that
>> >our lack of belief has nothing to do with whatever abilities and
>> >reasonings
>> >you want to attribute to your particular pet deity. You can say he's
>> >purple
>> >and likes pizza for all I care. With olives and pepperonis? Sure, why the
>> >Hell not (but don't let everybody know, because then nobody would order
>> >pizza anymore)!
>>
>> You apparently can't think realistically about any of this. ...
>
>Of course I can, but I don't have any respect your beliefs, and I'm tend to
>let it show. I reached the only realistic conclusion there is: Man invented
>all the gods.

That's one possibility but I have no reason to accept your belief about it.

>There is no reason to believe that any one of them is a true
>god, and no reason to believe that gods even exist at all. You believe
>differently. Unrealistically.

From my pov it's far more unrealistic to believe there are no beings in the
universe that can be considered gods than to believe there are. I'm less
confident that there are any associated with this planet, but as I said so far
it seems more likely that there are/is than not.

>Every one of your arguments for the existence
>of gods can be used on Santa too,

Try doing it then.

>but you think there is a difference where
>there isn't.

If you don't believe Santa does not exist then you are horribly challenged
mentally from not only my pov, but that of most adult humans on this planet.

>(snip)
>
>> >The evolution of species, and the scientific theory that explains it,
>> >works
>> >absolutely fine without divine intervention. Why add an unnecessary
>> >ingredient?
>>
>> In this particular case it was to consider how what science teaches us
>> can
>> also teach us more about God if he exists. Did you forget already?
>
>Nobody is actively investigating the existence of God using scientific
>methods. I asked you way back how you imagine that God could appear to us in
>a scientific setting, but you still owe us answer.

For all we know he makes the answer obvious all the time. For all we know
life would never have started without his help. Or it would never have developed
beyond single celled organizms. Or it would never have moved beyond a very few
more complex beings. Etc.... You think you know it would have, but all you have
is your own faith in that being the correct possibility. I don't share your
faith, and you are ashamed of it. Your own shame really should tell you
something, but the cognitive dissonance in your brain produced by me pointing
the fact out to you "protects" you from trying to overcome it and consider the
possibility that your faith might be misplaced.

>(snip)
>
>
>> >Why would fewer people become scientists?
>>
>> Because a higher percentage of people would choose to serve God
>> instead of
>> becoming scientists than do the way things are now, for one reason.
>
>(There is something wrong with that sentence.)

(Not enough to make it wrong.)

>> >Is it because the results they
>> >get, would be in conflict with the existence of God?
>>
>> Probably not.
>
>Then why would people stop pursuing scientific knowledge and understanding
>of the Universe, if God was a detectable natural (or a known supernatural)
>part of it? Would there be no need to find cure for cancer. No more robots
>to the planets? All our energy problems would be solved, and we'd all "serve
>God"?

I higher percentage of people would, and some of them would be people who
otherwise would have been scientists. Why does that bother you?

[mur@.not]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:22:37 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <2p8gc9hjh02fquvbt...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
>says...
>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 18:56:04 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
>> >says...
>> >> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
>> >> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
>> >> God out.
>> >>
>> >That's fully inaccurate.
>> >While I don't talk for other Atheists, I would say that most of us would
>> >claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any
>> >gods, and that sums it up. If there was some we would have no choice
>> >but to believe.
>>
>> Which shows that if God does exist he wants people to have the freedom to
>> question whether he does or not.
>
>How do YOU know what any god's motivation would be?
>This is just a baseless assertion.
>You would have to give evidence of this motivation, which would require
>that you have somehow had direct contact and conversation with a "god".

No it sure would not. In fact all it would require would be to consider the
way that things ARE.

>Has anything like that happened?
>
>>
>> >All of this begs the question that you explain what the definition of
>> >"God" is and what its characteristics are. Most folks don't even have a
>> >clue as to what their own mind is when it comes to such things. They
>> >have this general idea of what they "feel", but until you can put a
>> >definition down on paper
>>
>> To me the minimum requirement would be a being or group of beings who have
>> deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet he/they are not
>> native to. It could go on in countless ways from there, but that would be the
>> minimum imo. So from my pov God would almost certainly have to be an "alien".
>
>That's a pretty flimsy start.

I challenge you to try to do better.

>> >there is no way to begin doing any tests to
>> >find such a thing.
>>
>> Have you considered that being unable to do the tests might be part of the
>> reason you don't think there's any evidence, or do you think that somehow has
>> nothing to do with it? If so, why not????
>
>Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.

Yes.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:38:08 -0500, mur@.not wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:30:02 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:49:23 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>ok smart guy why were there norse gods egyptian gods hindu gods greek
>>>>gods the billions and billions of the personal gods
>>>
>>> For varying reasons.
>>
>>name some..errr name one
>
> I don't know any. Do you?

actually I might. it for the same exact reason your god has been
created. i dont mean the christian gods, I am talking about your
personal god. The one you created to suit your needs....

>>>>hey wait a second I am a god...
>>>
>>> Present your evidence if you think you really believe you are one.
>>
>>as a theist would say... prove that I am not.
>
> You just did.

no you have not proven anything and I havent either so go ahead mr
ignorant theist prove that I am not a god

>>> Any level of discussion that involves the possibility of God's existence is
>>>probably very confusing for you, to the extent that you can't even consider it
>>>in any realistic way.
>>
>>I wonder why that may be? do you have any idea?
>
> It's one of two things. The most likely is that you really are not mentally
>capable. If you were you would already be doing it. The second is that you are
>mentally capable but you refuse to.
>
>>well let me take a
>>stab at it....
>>
>>I cant consider god in any realistic way because GOD IS NOT REAL YOU
>>FUCKING RETARD!
>
> That is your GUESS, you fucking stupid retard.

nope not a guess sorry. simple logic

>>
>>you chose to believe in magic and the supernatural and fairy tales and
>>pure fiction. so next time someone ask you if you thing santa claus is
>>real you either say yes or you lie then you will burn in your hell
>
> I'm not afraid of my faith that the fictional things you mentioned above do
>not exist on this planet. I feel that humans know they don't. If you don't feel
>that way then you're an extra stupid fucking moron. Whether you do or not, if
>you honestly think of God who we don't know does not exist, and fictional beings
>that we do know don't exist in the same way, then you truly are a damned stupid
>fucking shit headed moron. :-)

Well congrats you just admitted that your faith is a fictional that
that does not exist. Silly girl dont you realize the second you deny
harry potter or santa claus as being real then you are just the same
denying your god. If you believe in one magical being you must believe
in them all. that goes for gandolf harry potter puff the magic dragon
and yes santa and the easter bunny.

Than you for admitting you think they are all fictinal along with your
gods.. all of your gods

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:0rquc9pidk66gn71j...@4ax.com...

>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >skrev i meddelelsen news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:24:10 +0100, "Malte Runz"
> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> >> wrote:
> >>

(snip)

> >I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you want me to 'admit' that since
> >I
> >don't believe that gods do not exist, then I can't imagine that he could
> >exist, and that makes me inferior to you?
>
> If you don't believe gods don't exist but can't imagine any way(s) in
> which
> they could, you are inferior to whatever the average would be since there
> are
> certainly countless more possible ways that gods could exist than the one
> possibility that none do. If you can't imagine any, but still don't
> believe none
> exist, you are mentally inept regarding the issue.

How many times do I need to tell you that, yes, I can imagine an imnipotent
god (who is purple and lives between the atoms, or a zillion other gods)?
Why is it important?

> I do believe flying dragons don't exist on this planet but can still
> imagine
> ways in which they could. So yes, I must feel that you're inferior to me
> or
> anyone else who can consider the possibility that gods exist. Could you
> overcome
> that? I don't know. Do you?

Sure I can imagine God. I go for the bearded one, who lives in the fifth
dimension and created the Universe ex nihilo. Does that somehow validate my
lack af belief in gods?

>
> >> >any more or any less than I don't
> >> >believe a trillion other things, for which I see no evidence, exist.
> >> >What I /don't/ believe is that gods exist.
> >>
> >> So you can't think of any way there could be beings that can be
> >> considered
> >> gods anywhere in the universe. I can though.
> >
> >I can imagine anything I want. Including the existence of gods.
>
> Provide evidence.

Are you asking me to provide evidence for my ability to imagine the
existence of gods? Really?

>
> >What makes
> >you believe that God exists
>

> I don't believe it, ...

You don't believe that God exists? That makes you an atheist. Welcome to the
club!

> ... but I certainly believe it's possible that he does and

> so far still feel it's more likely than not.

Sure, maybe gods exist, but I don't believe they do. Actually, I find it
extremely unlikely, and I live my life as if I believed that they don't
exist.

(snip)

> >> I'm not ashamed of my faith that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny
> >> don't
> >> exist on this planet, even though there is plenty of evidence for both.
> >
> >'It takes a lot of faith not to believe in God!' Is that it?
>
> Any belief requires whatever amount of faith that it is correct. The
> amount
> of faith a person has that it's correct is what determines how strongly
> they
> believe it.

But lack of belief has nothing to do with faith.

(snip)

> >Yes, the great majority of the best educated people are atheists. And the
> >few scientists who are theists, nail their god to the door, when they
> >enter
> >the lab. Don't you think I know this?
>
> I don't feel like going back to see if you tried to deny that or if
> it was
> other people but not you.

So you just assumed I had. Better safe than sorry, eh? Fling enough shit
around and some of it will stick. Yes, one person's strawman is another
man's opinion. Next time, do check for yourself or be called a liar.

>
> >Are we moving the goal posts now, or are we actually witnessing the
> >popping
> >into existence of an intellegently designed, irreducibly complex
> >strawman?
> >
> >(snip)
> >
> >> >You keep forgetting, that atheists really don't believe in gods, and
> >> >that
> >> >our lack of belief has nothing to do with whatever abilities and
> >> >reasonings
> >> >you want to attribute to your particular pet deity. You can say he's
> >> >purple
> >> >and likes pizza for all I care. With olives and pepperonis? Sure, why
> >> >the
> >> >Hell not (but don't let everybody know, because then nobody would
> >> >order
> >> >pizza anymore)!
> >>
> >> You apparently can't think realistically about any of this. ...
> >

> >Of course I can, but I don't have any respect [for] your beliefs, and [I]

> >tend to
> >let it show. I reached the only realistic conclusion there is: Man
> >invented
> >all the gods.
>
> That's one possibility but I have no reason to accept your belief
> about it.

I'm not expecting you to. Or should I ask you to provide evidence for your
lack of faith in my beliefs?

>
> >There is no reason to believe that any one of them is a true
> >god, and no reason to believe that gods even exist at all. You believe
> >differently. Unrealistically.
>
> From my pov it's far more unrealistic to believe there are no beings
> in the

> universe that can be considered gods than to believe there are. ...

And further down we'll see what your pov is.


> ... I'm less

> confident that there are any associated with this planet, but as I said so
> far
> it seems more likely that there are/is than not.

To you, but not to me. To me it is extremely unlikely that gods exist,
considering the complete lack of evidence and the fact, that there really
isn't a need for invoking gods, as active agents, to explain ANY physical
observation.

(snip)

> >Nobody is actively investigating the existence of God using scientific
> >methods. I asked you way back how you imagine that God could appear to us
> >in
> >a scientific setting, but you still owe us answer.
>

> For all we know he makes the answer obvious all the time. ...

Then you know nothing.

> ... For all we know
> life would never have started without his help. ...

There it is, your pov. It's pure, unbridled ignorance. I knew it all along.

(snip to wrap)


--
Malte Runz

[mur@.not]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:27:31 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
.

>skrev i meddelelsen news:0rquc9pidk66gn71j...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >skrev i meddelelsen news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:24:10 +0100, "Malte Runz"
>> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>
>(snip)
>
>> >I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you want me to 'admit' that since
>> >I
>> >don't believe that gods do not exist, then I can't imagine that he could
>> >exist, and that makes me inferior to you?
>>
>> If you don't believe gods don't exist but can't imagine any way(s) in
>> which
>> they could, you are inferior to whatever the average would be since there
>> are
>> certainly countless more possible ways that gods could exist than the one
>> possibility that none do. If you can't imagine any, but still don't
>> believe none
>> exist, you are mentally inept regarding the issue.
>
>How many times do I need to tell you that, yes, I can imagine an imnipotent
>god (who is purple and lives between the atoms, or a zillion other gods)?
>Why is it important?

If you could think about how God really could exist then you wouldn't have
faith that he does not but instead would consider how he could.

>> I do believe flying dragons don't exist on this planet but can still
>> imagine
>> ways in which they could. So yes, I must feel that you're inferior to me
>> or
>> anyone else who can consider the possibility that gods exist. Could you
>> overcome
>> that? I don't know. Do you?
>
>Sure I can imagine God. I go for the bearded one, who lives in the fifth
>dimension and created the Universe ex nihilo. Does that somehow validate my
>lack af belief in gods?

You can't do what you lamely tried to pretend you could, or you would
consider the possibility instead of having faith that he doesn't exist.

>> >> >any more or any less than I don't
>> >> >believe a trillion other things, for which I see no evidence, exist.
>> >> >What I /don't/ believe is that gods exist.
>> >>
>> >> So you can't think of any way there could be beings that can be
>> >> considered
>> >> gods anywhere in the universe. I can though.
>> >
>> >I can imagine anything I want. Including the existence of gods.
>>
>> Provide evidence.
>
>Are you asking me to provide evidence for my ability to imagine the
>existence of gods? Really?

Your childlike bullshit above shows that you can't. If you could, you would
as everyone else who can does. LOL...you find that fact hard to believe somehow,
don't you?

>> >What makes
>> >you believe that God exists
>>
>> I don't believe it, ...
>
>You don't believe that God exists? That makes you an atheist.

I'm a weak agnostic.

>Welcome to the
>club!
>
>> ... but I certainly believe it's possible that he does and
>> so far still feel it's more likely than not.
>
>Sure, maybe gods exist, but I don't believe they do. Actually, I find it
>extremely unlikely,

Unlikely that they exist anywhere in the universe, or just in association
with this particular planet?

>and I live my life as if I believed that they don't
>exist.
>
>(snip)
>
>> >> I'm not ashamed of my faith that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny
>> >> don't
>> >> exist on this planet, even though there is plenty of evidence for both.
>> >
>> >'It takes a lot of faith not to believe in God!' Is that it?
>>
>> Any belief requires whatever amount of faith that it is correct. The
>> amount
>> of faith a person has that it's correct is what determines how strongly
>> they
>> believe it.
>
>But lack of belief has nothing to do with faith.

But believing God does not exist, or believing anything else, has everything

to do with faith.

>(snip)
>
>> >Yes, the great majority of the best educated people are atheists. And the
>> >few scientists who are theists, nail their god to the door, when they
>> >enter
>> >the lab. Don't you think I know this?
>>
>> I don't feel like going back to see if you tried to deny that or if
>> it was
>> other people but not you.
>
>So you just assumed I had. Better safe than sorry, eh?

It was good enough. I waste too much time with this stupid shit already.

I have no faith in any of your beliefs or lack of beliefs, afaik.

>> >There is no reason to believe that any one of them is a true
>> >god, and no reason to believe that gods even exist at all. You believe
>> >differently. Unrealistically.
>>
>> From my pov it's far more unrealistic to believe there are no beings
>> in the
>> universe that can be considered gods than to believe there are. ...
>
>And further down we'll see what your pov is.
>
>
>> ... I'm less
>> confident that there are any associated with this planet, but as I said so
>> far
>> it seems more likely that there are/is than not.
>
>To you, but not to me. To me it is extremely unlikely that gods exist,
>considering the complete lack of evidence and the fact, that there really
>isn't a need for invoking gods, as active agents, to explain ANY physical
>observation.

You don't know if there's a need or not for one thing. That's just your
guess. And even if there really is no need for gods to exist in order for there
to be some life on Earth there may very well be need in order for things to be
as they are. You have no clue about that, and no way of getting a clue about it.

>(snip)
>
>
>> >Nobody is actively investigating the existence of God using scientific
>> >methods. I asked you way back how you imagine that God could appear to us
>> >in
>> >a scientific setting, but you still owe us answer.
>>
>> For all we know he makes the answer obvious all the time. ...
>
>Then you know nothing.

WE know nothing in that regard.

>> ... For all we know
>> life would never have started without his help. ...
>
>There it is, your pov. It's pure, unbridled ignorance. I knew it all along.
>
>(snip to wrap)

Yours is the same, and I knew that all along. You may not know it though,
but I still did, and still do.

[mur@.not]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:07:33 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 22:38:08 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:30:02 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:49:23 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>ok smart guy why were there norse gods egyptian gods hindu gods greek
>>>>>gods the billions and billions of the personal gods
>>>>
>>>> For varying reasons.
>>>
>>>name some..errr name one
>>
>> I don't know any. Do you?
>
>actually I might. it for the same exact reason your god has been
>created. i dont mean the christian gods, I am talking about your
>personal god. The one you created to suit your needs....

That's a long way of saying "no".

>>>>>hey wait a second I am a god...
>>>>
>>>> Present your evidence if you think you really believe you are one.
>>>
>>>as a theist would say... prove that I am not.
>>
>> You just did.
>
>no you have not proven anything and I havent either so go ahead mr
>ignorant theist prove that I am not a god

I can't but you did. You also proved that you're very comfortable telling
blatant lies.

>>>> Any level of discussion that involves the possibility of God's existence is
>>>>probably very confusing for you, to the extent that you can't even consider it
>>>>in any realistic way.
>>>
>>>I wonder why that may be? do you have any idea?
>>
>> It's one of two things. The most likely is that you really are not mentally
>>capable. If you were you would already be doing it. The second is that you are
>>mentally capable but you refuse to.
>>
>>>well let me take a
>>>stab at it....
>>>
>>>I cant consider god in any realistic way because GOD IS NOT REAL YOU
>>>FUCKING RETARD!
>>
>> That is your GUESS, you fucking stupid retard.
>
>nope not a guess sorry. simple logic

It's no more than a guess, regardless of how much faith you have in it being
the correct one.

>>>you chose to believe in magic and the supernatural and fairy tales and
>>>pure fiction. so next time someone ask you if you thing santa claus is
>>>real you either say yes or you lie then you will burn in your hell
>>
>> I'm not afraid of my faith that the fictional things you mentioned above do
>>not exist on this planet. I feel that humans know they don't. If you don't feel
>>that way then you're an extra stupid fucking moron. Whether you do or not, if
>>you honestly think of God who we don't know does not exist, and fictional beings
>>that we do know don't exist in the same way, then you truly are a damned stupid
>>fucking shit headed moron. :-)
>
>Well congrats you just admitted that your faith is a fictional that
>that does not exist. Silly girl dont you realize the second you deny
>harry potter or santa claus as being real then you are just the same
>denying your god.

I know that's another blatant lie.

>If you believe in one magical being you must believe
>in them all. that goes for gandolf harry potter puff the magic dragon
>and yes santa and the easter bunny.

I know those are more blatant lies.

>Than you for admitting you think they are all fictinal along with your
>gods.. all of your gods

And of course you end with blatant lies. You didn't write a single thing
that was not a lie in this post.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:10:34 -0500, mur@.not wrote:




>
>>>>>>ok smart guy why were there norse gods egyptian gods hindu gods greek
>>>>>>gods the billions and billions of the personal gods
>>>>>
>>>>> For varying reasons.
>>>>
>>>>name some..errr name one
>>>
>>> I don't know any. Do you?
>>
>>actually I might. it for the same exact reason your god has been
>>created. i dont mean the christian gods, I am talking about your
>>personal god. The one you created to suit your needs....
>
> That's a long way of saying "no".

actually no I was hoping you would be intelligent enough to know why
every god has ever been created. But alas I guess you are the way you
are for the same exact reason. And the reason for both is stupidity

[WangoTango]

In article <nrquc9t9ds60r0usa...@4ax.com>, mur@.not

says...
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:22:37 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <2p8gc9hjh02fquvbt...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
> >says...
> >> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 18:56:04 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <34n0c9d8sgo4231kp...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
> >> >says...
> >> >> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
> >> >> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
> >> >> God out.
> >> >>
> >> >That's fully inaccurate.
> >> >While I don't talk for other Atheists, I would say that most of us would
> >> >claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any
> >> >gods, and that sums it up. If there was some we would have no choice
> >> >but to believe.
> >>
> >> Which shows that if God does exist he wants people to have the freedom to
> >> question whether he does or not.
> >
> >How do YOU know what any god's motivation would be?
> >This is just a baseless assertion.
> >You would have to give evidence of this motivation, which would require
> >that you have somehow had direct contact and conversation with a "god".
>
> No it sure would not. In fact all it would require would be to consider the
> way that things ARE.

Oh, bullshit, that would mean that every person individual perception
would then be the "truth".
A bunch of mumbo jumbo.
You don't know shit about shit when it comes to the motivation of any
such creatures(s).

>
> >Has anything like that happened?
> >
> >>
> >> >All of this begs the question that you explain what the definition of
> >> >"God" is and what its characteristics are. Most folks don't even have a
> >> >clue as to what their own mind is when it comes to such things. They
> >> >have this general idea of what they "feel", but until you can put a
> >> >definition down on paper
> >>
> >> To me the minimum requirement would be a being or group of beings who have
> >> deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet he/they are not
> >> native to. It could go on in countless ways from there, but that would be the
> >> minimum imo. So from my pov God would almost certainly have to be an "alien".
> >
> >That's a pretty flimsy start.
>
> I challenge you to try to do better.

Why?
I'm not the one that is making any claim of existence.
You say you believe in this "thing" and yet you have no solid definition
for it.
I say it's all trolls.

>
> >> >there is no way to begin doing any tests to
> >> >find such a thing.
> >>
> >> Have you considered that being unable to do the tests might be part of the
> >> reason you don't think there's any evidence, or do you think that somehow has
> >> nothing to do with it? If so, why not????
> >
> >Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.
>
> Yes.

Well that pretty sums up your total failure to support your position.
If no evidence *IS* evidence, that is a logical failure.

[bil...@m.nu]

That swings both ways... no evidence of god is evidence that it does
not exist

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:e686d9ljpshkvkp0a...@4ax.com...

>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:27:31 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> wrote:
> .
> >skrev i meddelelsen news:0rquc9pidk66gn71j...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz"
> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >skrev i meddelelsen news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...

(snip)

> >How many times do I need to tell you that, yes, I can imagine an
> >imnipotent
> >god (who is purple and lives between the atoms, or a zillion other gods)?
> >Why is it important?
>
> If you could think about how God really could exist then you wouldn't
> have
> faith that he does not but instead would consider how he could.

So, in order to rationally reject the concept of gods, I have to be able to
"really" think about how gods could exist.

Do you often why people just turn around and walk away from you?

(snip)

> >Sure I can imagine God. I go for the bearded one, who lives in the fifth
> >dimension and created the Universe ex nihilo. Does that somehow validate
> >my
> >lack af belief in gods?
>
> You can't do what you lamely tried to pretend you could, or you would
> consider the possibility instead of having faith that he doesn't exist.

Why is my conclusion, that gods most likely do not exist, not acceptable? It
seems that no matter how vigorously I imagine the possible existence of
gods, it'll never be good enough for you, unless I reach the conclusion that
yes, gods most likely do exist.

(snip)

> >> >I can imagine anything I want. Including the existence of gods.
> >>
> >> Provide evidence.
> >
> >Are you asking me to provide evidence for my ability to imagine the
> >existence of gods? Really?
>
> Your childlike bullshit above shows that you can't. If you could, you
> would
> as everyone else who can does. LOL...you find that fact hard to believe
> somehow,
> don't you?

When I first realized, in my early teens, that some people actually believe
in the god of the Bible I was flabbergasted, and quickly reached the
conclusion, that they were deluded. Well, I believed they were
unintelligent, but over the years I have mellowed, and now I have a better
understanding of why some people have those beliefs. But if you were to ask
me, what I really think about gods and belief in such creatures, I think
I'll quote you: "childlike bullshit".

> >> >What makes
> >> >you believe that God exists
> >>
> >> I don't believe it, ...
> >
> >You don't believe that God exists? That makes you an atheist.
>
> I'm a weak agnostic.

I agree 100%. I'm not so sure about the 'agnostic' part, though.

(snip)

> >Sure, maybe gods exist, but I don't believe they do. Actually, I find it
> >extremely unlikely,
>
> Unlikely that they exist anywhere in the universe, or just in
> association
> with this particular planet?

Anywhere, of course. But I'm not talking about highly developed and very
advanced aliens living in a galaxy far, far away. Maybe it's time for you to
define what 'god' means to you, because I don't know what it is I'm supposed
to imagine in the proper way.

(snip)

> >But lack of belief has nothing to do with faith.
>
> But believing God does not exist, or believing anything else, has
> everything
> to do with faith.

Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?

(snip)

> > ... To me it is extremely unlikely that gods exist,

> >considering the complete lack of evidence and the fact, that there really
> >isn't a need for invoking gods, as active agents, to explain ANY physical
> >observation.
>
> You don't know if there's a need or not for one thing. That's just
> your
> guess. And even if there really is no need for gods to exist in order for
> there
> to be some life on Earth there may very well be need in order for things
> to be
> as they are. You have no clue about that, and no way of getting a clue
> about it.

Are you going full Descartes on my ass? You might as well throw in the
towel.

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[felix_unger]

On 14-January-2014 9:44 PM, Malte Runz wrote:

> skrev i meddelelsen news:e686d9ljpshkvkp0a...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:27:31 +0100, "Malte Runz"
>> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>> .
>> >skrev i meddelelsen news:0rquc9pidk66gn71j...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz"
>> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...
>
> (snip)
>
>> >How many times do I need to tell you that, yes, I can imagine an
>> >imnipotent
>> >god (who is purple and lives between the atoms, or a zillion other
>> gods)?
>> >Why is it important?
>>
>> If you could think about how God really could exist then you wouldn't
>> have faith that he does not but instead would consider how he could.
>
> So, in order to rationally reject the concept of gods, I have to be
> able to "really" think about how gods could exist.

If you are going to take the position that gods don't exist you would
first need to consider that their existence is possible. If it is not
possible then there is nothing to reject.

[WangoTango]

In article <kuk8d9tpgskvbcn5h...@4ax.com>, bil...@m.nu
says...

Sure, but which is the more rational position?
Go back and read our conversation and think about whom made the more
valid points. Your irrational position and total lack of a logical and
reasoned position is proof enough that you don't even know what it is
you claim to believe in.
Case closed, believers are bat shit nuts.

[mur@.not]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:01:03 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:23:18 -0500, WangoTango
><Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> >
>>> >Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>Well that pretty sums up your total failure to support your position.
>>If no evidence *IS* evidence, that is a logical failure.
>
>That swings both ways... no evidence of god

My mistake. No proof is evidence that God exists and wants things to be as
they are, whether he exists or not. If there was really no evidence at all the
concept itself woudn't exist at all. How could it?

[mur@.not]

No it sure wouldn't. Like that statement for example. But there might be a
God associated with this planet regardless of how much faith you have that there
is not, and if there is he OBVIOUSLY wants people to have the freedom to
question his existence. That is unless he's not able to prove that he exists,
but that possibility is so unlikely and the idea so idiotic that I don't feel
it's worthy of any consideration at all. If you think it is though, try to
defend it.

>A bunch of mumbo jumbo.
>You don't know shit about shit when it comes to the motivation of any
>such creatures(s).

We know we have the freedom to question. So we know if he exists he allows
it. Even a strong atheist should be able to comprehend something that obvious.

>> >Has anything like that happened?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >All of this begs the question that you explain what the definition of
>> >> >"God" is and what its characteristics are. Most folks don't even have a
>> >> >clue as to what their own mind is when it comes to such things. They
>> >> >have this general idea of what they "feel", but until you can put a
>> >> >definition down on paper
>> >>
>> >> To me the minimum requirement would be a being or group of beings who have
>> >> deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet he/they are not
>> >> native to. It could go on in countless ways from there, but that would be the
>> >> minimum imo. So from my pov God would almost certainly have to be an "alien".
>> >
>> >That's a pretty flimsy start.
>>
>> I challenge you to try to do better.
>Why?

To show that you're not ineptly clueless and just being critical of someone
else who's doing something you can't even make an attempt at doing. Unless of
course you are that clueless, in which case you're showing that instead.

>I'm not the one that is making any claim of existence.
>You say you believe in this "thing"

No. In fact I say I don't have a belief. I'm a weak agnostic. But I
certainly do consider the possibility that this "thing" does exist and has
influence on this planet.

>and yet you have no solid definition
>for it.

I have much better than you're capable of coming up with, or even
comprehending.

>I say it's all trolls.

I say it's all way above your mentality. You think you're above it. I say
it's above you.

>> >> >there is no way to begin doing any tests to
>> >> >find such a thing.
>> >>
>> >> Have you considered that being unable to do the tests might be part of the
>> >> reason you don't think there's any evidence, or do you think that somehow has
>> >> nothing to do with it? If so, why not????
>> >
>> >Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Well that pretty sums up your total failure to support your position.
>If no evidence *IS* evidence, that is a logical failure.

No proof is evidence. My bad. You can't even get that far though, so what
would be the point of going on into more detail? I'll again point out that if
God exists and wants things to be as they are, he can't provide proof of his
existence. That's the starting line on that issue. Can you get as "far" as the
starting line? Why not?

[mur@.not]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>skrev i meddelelsen news:e686d9ljpshkvkp0a...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:27:31 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>> .
>> >skrev i meddelelsen news:0rquc9pidk66gn71j...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz"
>> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >skrev i meddelelsen news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...
>
>(snip)
>
>> >How many times do I need to tell you that, yes, I can imagine an
>> >imnipotent
>> >god (who is purple and lives between the atoms, or a zillion other gods)?
>> >Why is it important?
>>
>> If you could think about how God really could exist then you wouldn't
>> have
>> faith that he does not but instead would consider how he could.
>
>So, in order to rationally reject the concept of gods, I have to be able to
>"really" think about how gods could exist.

You sure got that way wrong. Try again:

If you could think about how God really could exist then you wouldn't have
faith that he does not but instead would consider how he could.

>(snip)
>
>> >Sure I can imagine God. I go for the bearded one, who lives in the fifth
>> >dimension and created the Universe ex nihilo. Does that somehow validate
>> >my
>> >lack af belief in gods?
>>
>> You can't do what you lamely tried to pretend you could, or you would
>> consider the possibility instead of having faith that he doesn't exist.
>
>Why is my conclusion, that gods most likely do not exist, not acceptable?

For one thing you have no reason to think he would have a beard. You
probably think he would be an old man too, though you didn't clarify that.
There's no reason to believe he would take the form of an old man imo.

>It
>seems that no matter how vigorously I imagine the possible existence of
>gods, it'll never be good enough for you, unless I reach the conclusion that
>yes, gods most likely do exist.

So far you haven't been able to come up with anything that seems realistic
to me, and I don't believe it seems realistic to you either. Maybe you could if
you keep trying, but so far you haven't done it and you may not be mentally
capable at all.

>(snip)
>
>> >> >I can imagine anything I want. Including the existence of gods.
>> >>
>> >> Provide evidence.
>> >
>> >Are you asking me to provide evidence for my ability to imagine the
>> >existence of gods? Really?
>>
>> Your childlike bullshit above shows that you can't. If you could, you
>> would
>> as everyone else who can does. LOL...you find that fact hard to believe
>> somehow,
>> don't you?
>
>When I first realized, in my early teens, that some people actually believe
>in the god of the Bible I was flabbergasted, and quickly reached the
>conclusion, that they were deluded. Well, I believed they were
>unintelligent, but over the years I have mellowed, and now I have a better
>understanding of why some people have those beliefs. But if you were to ask
>me, what I really think about gods and belief in such creatures, I think
>I'll quote you: "childlike bullshit".

That's because you've never be able to develop a realistic way of thinking
about how God could exist, not because the concept itself is necessarily
childlike. You've never been able to move beyond a childlike way of thinking and
develop a more realistic one. Here's something that may help you if you ever
decide to try: Since it seems that all faiths must have some incorrect beliefs
if God does exist, there's no reason for you (or anyone for that matter) to be
restricted to the beliefs of any particular faith. If you ever were to make an
attempt you would need to decide for yourself how you think it could be
possible, even if that means not clinging to and trying to believe every concept
associated with any one particular faith.

>> >> >What makes
>> >> >you believe that God exists
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe it, ...
>> >
>> >You don't believe that God exists? That makes you an atheist.
>>
>> I'm a weak agnostic.
>
>I agree 100%. I'm not so sure about the 'agnostic' part, though.

That would be because you can't comprehend what it's like to be agnostic.
Your faith that there's no god associated with this planet is so strong that you
can't imagine how one could be, nor can you imagine how anyone else is able to
consider the possibility. You're like a person who has been blind all his life
trying to imagine what green looks like.

>(snip)
>
>> >Sure, maybe gods exist, but I don't believe they do. Actually, I find it
>> >extremely unlikely,
>>
>> Unlikely that they exist anywhere in the universe, or just in
>> association
>> with this particular planet?
>
>Anywhere, of course.

There's no "of course" to it. Even if there are none associated with this
planet or even this galaxy there are plenty of others where there's no reason to
think it can't be going on. You have a loooooooong way to go to ever develop a
realistic way of thinking, that's for sure. Sadly you'll probably never even
begin to try, much less actually develop one.

>But I'm not talking about highly developed and very
>advanced aliens living in a galaxy far, far away.

I take it for granted that if God exists he would have to be a very advanced
alien since it's not likely he'd be a technologically inept native of Earth.
LOL...just considering your position on the matter is quite amusing.

>Maybe it's time for you to
>define what 'god' means to you, because I don't know what it is I'm supposed
>to imagine in the proper way.

To begin with he would HAVE TO be an advanced alien, imo. That's the
starting line on that one.

>(snip)
>
>> >But lack of belief has nothing to do with faith.
>>
>> But believing God does not exist, or believing anything else, has
>> everything
>> to do with faith.
>
>Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?

All beliefs are faith based. How strongly you believe it's correct IS the
amount of faith you have in the belief.

>(snip)
>
>> > ... To me it is extremely unlikely that gods exist,
>> >considering the complete lack of evidence and the fact, that there really
>> >isn't a need for invoking gods, as active agents, to explain ANY physical
>> >observation.
>>
>> You don't know if there's a need or not for one thing. That's just
>> your
>> guess. And even if there really is no need for gods to exist in order for
>> there
>> to be some life on Earth there may very well be need in order for things
>> to be
>> as they are. You have no clue about that, and no way of getting a clue
>> about it.
>
>Are you going full Descartes on my ass?

Even with all the life humans have been able to develop from lifeless
material, and all the different varieties of species they have been able to
develop from there, it is STILL not proof that all the millions of different
life forms that have existed on this planet could have taken place just by
accident with nothing deliberately helping things move along. You have put your
faith in the one possibility that it not only could have happened but did. I
can't put my faith in that possibility though, meaning that I have to consider
others as well.

[Free Lunch]

You have no evidence that your god exists. You have no evidence that
your scriptures are anything but human writings. You have no evidence
that you understand why your religious claims are indefensible.

[bil...@m.nu]

three sense none make you cant flying monkies

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:2fvae9t2j37agccen...@4ax.com...

>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> wrote:

(big, big snip)

> >Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?
>

> All beliefs are faith based. ...

And this is where you are horribly wrong.

EOD

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[bil...@m.nu]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:32:27 +0100, "Malte Runz"

<malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>skrev i meddelelsen news:2fvae9t2j37agccen...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>
>(big, big snip)
>
>> >Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?
>>
>> All beliefs are faith based. ...
>
>And this is where you are horribly wrong.
>
>EOD

Oh my what an idiot. BELIEF requires faith. In order to believe in
something you must have faith in that object

be·lief
bi'lef/Submit
noun

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=vULDUt6YFMLT2QXL8YDgCw&ved=0CBQQ1S4#q=belief

Yeah I got you know in you lies.. Go get some schoolin then come back
to this newsgroup. You are by far the second biggest moron on here.
Duke (earl) claims that first spot. However it is a very close race

[thomas p.]

<bil...@m.nu> skrev i meddelelsen
news:8tbde9hekhba87603...@4ax.com...

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:32:27 +0100, "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>skrev i meddelelsen news:2fvae9t2j37agccen...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>
>(big, big snip)
>
>> >Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?
>>
>> All beliefs are faith based. ...
>
>And this is where you are horribly wrong.
>
>EOD


Oh my what an idiot. BELIEF requires faith. In order to believe in
something you must have faith in that object

be·lief
bi'lef/Submit
noun

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

Why would you want to make an argument based on obvious equivocation? Are
you trying to be humorous?

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:8tbde9hekhba87603...@4ax.com...
>

You talkin' to me?


--
Malte Runz

[WangoTango]

In article <mevae9dn2hjni6b39...@4ax.com>, mur@.not

You have yet to show that any such thing exists.
You can make all the claims you want, because you are just making this
shit up as you go.
Making up shit isn't proof.

>
> >A bunch of mumbo jumbo.
> >You don't know shit about shit when it comes to the motivation of any
> >such creatures(s).
>
> We know we have the freedom to question. So we know if he exists he allows
> it. Even a strong atheist should be able to comprehend something that obvious.

See above.

>
> >> >Has anything like that happened?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >All of this begs the question that you explain what the definition of
> >> >> >"God" is and what its characteristics are. Most folks don't even have a
> >> >> >clue as to what their own mind is when it comes to such things. They
> >> >> >have this general idea of what they "feel", but until you can put a
> >> >> >definition down on paper
> >> >>
> >> >> To me the minimum requirement would be a being or group of beings who have
> >> >> deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet he/they are not
> >> >> native to. It could go on in countless ways from there, but that would be the
> >> >> minimum imo. So from my pov God would almost certainly have to be an "alien".
> >> >
> >> >That's a pretty flimsy start.
> >>
> >> I challenge you to try to do better.
> >Why?
>
> To show that you're not ineptly clueless and just being critical of someone
> else who's doing something you can't even make an attempt at doing. Unless of
> course you are that clueless, in which case you're showing that instead.
>

I'm not the one making up a super being, you are, *I* don't have to do
"better" because I know you are fantasizing and none of this means
anything outside your head.

> >I'm not the one that is making any claim of existence.
> >You say you believe in this "thing"
>
> No. In fact I say I don't have a belief. I'm a weak agnostic. But I
> certainly do consider the possibility that this "thing" does exist and has
> influence on this planet.

You are not an agnostic, you have already claimed to know the
motivations of this god of yours, and by definition that means you can
not be an agnostic. Which is just further proof that you don't know
shit about what you are talking about.

>
> >and yet you have no solid definition
> >for it.
>
> I have much better than you're capable of coming up with, or even
> comprehending.

Um, no, you don't have any mental faculties that I do not possess.
You have no special knowledge, or abilities.

>
> >I say it's all trolls.
>
> I say it's all way above your mentality. You think you're above it. I say
> it's above you.

Yeah, prove that your on a different level than I am, or ANYONE is.
You have just talked yourself into believing your own bullshit.

>
> >> >> >there is no way to begin doing any tests to
> >> >> >find such a thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Have you considered that being unable to do the tests might be part of the
> >> >> reason you don't think there's any evidence, or do you think that somehow has
> >> >> nothing to do with it? If so, why not????
> >> >
> >> >Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> >Well that pretty sums up your total failure to support your position.
> >If no evidence *IS* evidence, that is a logical failure.
>
> No proof is evidence. My bad. You can't even get that far though, so what
> would be the point of going on into more detail? I'll again point out that if
> God exists and wants things to be as they are, he can't provide proof of his
> existence. That's the starting line on that issue. Can you get as "far" as the
> starting line? Why not?

It was your claim, not mine.
You should read your own posts before making such stupid replies.

[mur@.not]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:32:27 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
.

>On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:28:07 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
>>

>>>skrev i meddelelsen news:e686d9ljpshkvkp0a...@4ax.com...
>>>>

>>>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:27:31 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> .
>>>> >skrev i meddelelsen news:0rquc9pidk66gn71j...@4ax.com...
>>>> >>

>>>> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz"
>>>> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>

>>>Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?
>>

>> All beliefs are faith based. How strongly you believe it's correct IS the
>>amount of faith you have in the belief.
>

>And this is where you are horribly wrong.

Try presenting an example it's not true for.

[mur@.not]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:54:25 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
.

>On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:26:01 -0500, mur@.not wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:01:03 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:23:18 -0500, WangoTango
>>><Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>Well that pretty sums up your total failure to support your position.
>>>>If no evidence *IS* evidence, that is a logical failure.
>>>
>>>That swings both ways... no evidence of god
>>
>> My mistake. No proof is evidence that God exists and wants things to be as
>>they are, whether he exists or not. If there was really no evidence at all the
>>concept itself woudn't exist at all. How could it?
>
>You have no evidence that your god exists.

Try explaining EXACTLY HOW billions of people got the idea that he does with
no evidence to encourage them.

>You have no evidence that
>your scriptures are anything but human writings.

You have no evidence that any human writings are anything but human
writings.

[mur@.not]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:05:03 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
.

You lose so far...

>You

...still losing...

>can make all the claims you

...still losing...

>want, because you

...still losing...

>are just making this shit up as you

....still losing...

>go.

>Making up shit isn't proof.

...and you lost entirely without being able to even make an attempt.

>> >A bunch of mumbo jumbo.
>> >You don't know shit about shit when it comes to the motivation of any
>> >such creatures(s).
>>
>> We know we have the freedom to question. So we know if he exists he allows
>> it. Even a strong atheist should be able to comprehend something that obvious.
>
>See above.

You lost entirely without being able to even make an attempt.

>> >> >Has anything like that happened?
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >All of this begs the question that you explain what the definition of
>> >> >> >"God" is and what its characteristics are. Most folks don't even have a
>> >> >> >clue as to what their own mind is when it comes to such things. They
>> >> >> >have this general idea of what they "feel", but until you can put a
>> >> >> >definition down on paper
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To me the minimum requirement would be a being or group of beings who have
>> >> >> deliberate influence on the development of life on a planet he/they are not
>> >> >> native to. It could go on in countless ways from there, but that would be the
>> >> >> minimum imo. So from my pov God would almost certainly have to be an "alien".
>> >> >
>> >> >That's a pretty flimsy start.
>> >>
>> >> I challenge you to try to do better.
>> >Why?
>>
>> To show that you're not ineptly clueless and just being critical of someone
>> else who's doing something you can't even make an attempt at doing. Unless of
>> course you are that clueless, in which case you're showing that instead.
>>
>I'm not the one making up a super being, you are, *I* don't have to do
>"better" because I know you are fantasizing and none of this means
>anything outside your head.

You are "that clueless", and have shown it clearly.

>> >I'm not the one that is making any claim of existence.
>> >You say you believe in this "thing"
>>
>> No. In fact I say I don't have a belief. I'm a weak agnostic. But I
>> certainly do consider the possibility that this "thing" does exist and has
>> influence on this planet.
>
>You are not an agnostic,

You can't comprehend what it means to be agnostic.

>you have already claimed to know the
>motivations of this god of yours,

Present the quote(s).

>and by definition that means you can
>not be an agnostic. Which is just further proof that you don't know
>shit about what you are talking about.

The potential value of your claim is completely reliant on whatever quote(s)
you can or can't present.

>> >and yet you have no solid definition
>> >for it.
>>
>> I have much better than you're capable of coming up with, or even
>> comprehending.
>
>Um, no, you don't have any mental faculties that I do not possess.
>You have no special knowledge, or abilities.

You have it completely wrong. It's not a special ability to be able to
consider possible ways God could exist. It's especially inept to be UNable to.
YOU are the "special" one because of your "special" INability. Like people in
"special" ed, but without the "ed" because you can't handle it.

>> >I say it's all trolls.
>>
>> I say it's all way above your mentality. You think you're above it. I say
>> it's above you.
>
>Yeah, prove that your on a different level than I am, or ANYONE is.

Anyone who can consider the possibility of God's existence in any way is
above you....or rather you are below them. The average person can, meaning you
are below average. Way below.

>You have just talked yourself into believing your own bullshit.

You're like a blind person saying people who can see are not above them
regarding visual things.

>> >> >> >there is no way to begin doing any tests to
>> >> >> >find such a thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Have you considered that being unable to do the tests might be part of the
>> >> >> reason you don't think there's any evidence, or do you think that somehow has
>> >> >> nothing to do with it? If so, why not????
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >
>> >Well that pretty sums up your total failure to support your position.
>> >If no evidence *IS* evidence, that is a logical failure.
>>
>> No proof is evidence. My bad. You can't even get that far though, so what
>> would be the point of going on into more detail? I'll again point out that if
>> God exists and wants things to be as they are, he can't provide proof of his
>> existence. That's the starting line on that issue. Can you get as "far" as the
>> starting line? Why not?
>
>It was your claim, not mine.

You not only could never have figured it out for yourself, but you can't
comprehend it even after it has been pointed out FOR YOU.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:24:40 -0500, mur@.not wrote in alt.atheism:

>On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:54:25 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>.
>>On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:26:01 -0500, mur@.not wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:01:03 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:23:18 -0500, WangoTango
>>>><Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Ah, so no evidence *IS* evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well that pretty sums up your total failure to support your position.
>>>>>If no evidence *IS* evidence, that is a logical failure.
>>>>
>>>>That swings both ways... no evidence of god
>>>
>>> My mistake. No proof is evidence that God exists and wants things to be as
>>>they are, whether he exists or not. If there was really no evidence at all the
>>>concept itself woudn't exist at all. How could it?
>>
>>You have no evidence that your god exists.
>
> Try explaining EXACTLY HOW billions of people got the idea that he does with
>no evidence to encourage them.

Empty promises and threats. Do you know anything about Christianity or
Islam?

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:dd3je91lhotq7ugja...@4ax.com...

>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:32:27 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
> wrote:
> .
> >On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:28:07 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz"
> >><malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
> >>

(snip)

> >>>Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?
> >>
> >> All beliefs are faith based. How strongly you believe it's correct
> >> IS the
> >>amount of faith you have in the belief.
> >
> >And this is where you are horribly wrong.
>
> Try presenting an example it's not true for.

I believe that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.
I believe I'd die if I drank a cup of rattle snake venom.
I believe that when I push you over, you'll fall down.

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[felix_unger]

On 30-January-2014 10:24 AM, mur@.not wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:32:27 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

> ..

>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:28:07 -0500, mur@.not wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> skrev i meddelelsen news:e686d9ljpshkvkp0a...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:27:31 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But lack of belief has nothing to do with faith.
>>>>> But believing God does not exist, or believing anything else, has
>>>>> everything
>>>>> to do with faith.
>>>> Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?
>>> All beliefs are faith based.

I agree with you up to point, but realistically only beliefs not based
on fact/proof/knowledge are faith based. we could argue what constitutes
fact or knowledge, but in the real world, we know (for example) that if
we jump into a swimming pool we will get wet, so any faith in the belief
that it will happen is so miniscule it's not even considered. It would
require a change in what we know about the physical world for that NOT
to happen.

>>> How strongly you believe it's correct IS the
>>> amount of faith you have in the belief.

I agree

>> And this is where you are horribly wrong.
> Try presenting an example it's not true for.
>
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
“People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:19 +0100, "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>>
>> Try presenting an example it's not true for.
>
>I believe that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.
>I believe I'd die if I drank a cup of rattle snake venom.
>I believe that when I push you over, you'll fall down.
>
>(snip)

I have a better one.

I believe he is a fucking idiot bordering oh the real of being all
that is gimp

[bil...@m.nu]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:17:31 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:



>>

>> Try explaining EXACTLY HOW billions of people got the idea that he does with
>>no evidence to encourage them.
>
>Empty promises and threats. Do you know anything about Christianity or
>Islam?
>

he most likely thinks all the people that have died and all the
children that have been molested and all the women that have been
raped and tortured in the name of god was just an accident and all the
priest preachers popes bishops cardinals did not actually mean what
they were doing because when they finished thier buisness they asked
god for forgiveness...

therefore noone ever felt threatened at all

[linuxgal]

I believe I'll have another beer.

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen news:md3je9dcbuui15n0d...@4ax.com...

>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:54:25 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:

(snip)

> >You have no evidence that your god exists.
>
> Try explaining EXACTLY HOW billions of people got the idea that he
> does with
> no evidence to encourage them.

Come on, it's not a huge mystery. If you are suffiently ignorant, then the
words of the Bible will be considered evidence. If you know very little
about reality, then the mere existence of anything is evidence that God
created it. If you have been indoctrinated from childhood to trust the
religious authorities then you'll believe anything they say.

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[SkyEyes]

"Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote in
news:52e99e43$0$51275$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk:

> I believe I'd die if I drank a cup of rattle snake venom.

Actually, unless you have an ulcer or some other bleeding lesion in your
mouth, stomach or intestinal tract, you're not likely to die from drinking
rattlesnake venom, although I don't know about drinking a whole *cup* of
the stuff would do.

There are some gomers in the U.S. west and south who believe that drinking
rattlesnake venom will make them immune to rattlesnake bites. (It
doesn't.) They frequently develop an allergy to the snake venom that would
prevent them taking antivenin shots in the event that they *did* get
bitten, but they don't die from drinking the venom.

--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:19 +0100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk>:

<snip>

>I believe I'd die if I drank a cup of rattle snake venom.

And you would be incorrect, assuming you have no open wounds
in your mouth or throat, and no bleeding ulcers. You'd
simply digest the foreign proteins which make rattlesnake
venom deadly if directly injected.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Malte Runz]

"Bob Casanova" skrev i meddelelsen
news:h64le912dm34j6432...@4ax.com...

>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:19 +0100, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
> <malte...@forgitit.dk>:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I believe I'd die if I drank a cup of rattle snake venom.
>
> And you would be incorrect, assuming you have no open wounds
> in your mouth or throat, and no bleeding ulcers. You'd
> simply digest the foreign proteins which make rattlesnake
> venom deadly if directly injected.

But this... ? This... this means... This means that believing something
doesn't make it true! Has all the whole world gone mad?

I've already been schooled on the subject by Brenda. I changed 'poison' to
'rattlesnake venom' just before I clicked send. Poison sounded a bit dull, I
thought. But I'd rather be dull than incorrect, though, that's the atheist's
way!

(Why can't I see my own reply to Ms SkyEyes from earlier today?)


--
Malte Runz

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:33:26 +0100, the following appeared

in sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk>:

>"Bob Casanova" skrev i meddelelsen
>news:h64le912dm34j6432...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:35:19 +0100, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Malte Runz"
>> <malte...@forgitit.dk>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >I believe I'd die if I drank a cup of rattle snake venom.
>>
>> And you would be incorrect, assuming you have no open wounds
>> in your mouth or throat, and no bleeding ulcers. You'd
>> simply digest the foreign proteins which make rattlesnake
>> venom deadly if directly injected.
>
>But this... ? This... this means... This means that believing something
>doesn't make it true! Has all the whole world gone mad?

Oh the horror! ;-)

>I've already been schooled on the subject by Brenda.

Yep, I saw her post after I sent mine. So she gets the
credit, having published first. ;-)

> I changed 'poison' to
>'rattlesnake venom' just before I clicked send. Poison sounded a bit dull, I
>thought. But I'd rather be dull than incorrect, though, that's the atheist's
>way!
>
>(Why can't I see my own reply to Ms SkyEyes from earlier today?)
--

[WangoTango]

In article <4e3je91vtm69b7p8t...@4ax.com>, mur@.not

You haven't done any such thing, you CAN'T do any such thing.
Claiming victory is not the same as achieving victory.
Just another dip shit that talks in circles and makes no sense.

[Sylvia Else]

On 30/12/2013 4:31 AM, mur@.not wrote:
> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start. All
> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they have no
> belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence. The fact that God
> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is beyond
> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate. None the less I'll
> present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his
> existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.

> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules

> God out. For people that can think things through beyond that idea the concept
> is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's existence
> it seems intelligent. Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists things
> people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets things
> done, it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't
> appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it. If that's true it means if God
> did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people devoting
> their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much different
> than they are now.
>

You seem to be trying to explain why there would be no evidence. Your
argument may even have some merit, but you're still left with the
absence of evidence.

Indeed, you appear to be arguing that a universe with a God would be
indistinguishable from one without a God. If that's true, then belief in
God's existence cannot have any rational basis, regardless of whether
God exists. That is, whether or not God exists, religious belief is
still a delusion.

Sylvia.

[fom]

On 12/29/2013 11:31 AM, mur@.not wrote:
> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.

There is a difference between dogmatic skepticism
and philosophical skepticism. There is no reason
to insult others for rejecting hypotheses in which
they place no credibility. It is true that one might
engage in philosophical skepticism for the purpose
of examining a hypothesis.

But, you only hurt yourself when you attempt to
compel choices in others rather than let them
choose freely.

> All
> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they have no
> belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence.

Anyone who is being harassed is unlikely to afford
the courtesies which they might under other circumstances.

> The fact that God
> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is beyond
> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate.

That is an unwarranted statement. While a small number
in any newsgroup will demonstrate various personality
traits or intellectual limitations, the fact of the
matter seems to be that many with whom you engage are
well educated and even have knowledge concerning religion
that exceed the believers with whom they engage.

Moreover, those same individuals clearly understand
that faith is often the product of personality,
socialization, and pedagogy in childhood. Often,
when such an observation is made, it is made without
any malice or disrespect to those with belief in
deities.

> None the less I'll
> present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his
> existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.
>

I despise "Dr. Phil", but...

"How's that been workin' for ya'?"

> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
> God out.

I would guess that not all atheists approach their
personal account of the world scientifically.

As with the statement above, if one grows up as a
child in an environment where the responsible adults
do not believe in deities, then personality, socialization,
and pedagogy will lead to beliefs independent of the
existence of deities.

Mostly, science is compared with religious faith on
the basis of demonstrable utility in contrast with
indemonstrable semantics. The notion of "science
as semantics" is just as prone to skepticism as is
religious faith. But, not everyone in these forums
makes that particular argument when invoking science.

> For people that can think things through beyond that idea the concept
> is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's existence
> it seems intelligent.

There is nothing that is quite as persuasive as is
a declaration of superiority over others.

> Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists things
> people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets things
> done, it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't
> appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it.

One could say that about many occupations.

It is true, however, that the corpus of scientific
fact tends to present the world in terms of a
mechanical device. That is a bit dehumanizing.

But, most people are not able to speak freely
in their workplaces. This affects their views
toward the world at large as they deal with this
fact in life. There are constraints on what
constitutes empirical evidence in science whether
or not one believes in a deity. And, there is
no reason for every scientist to publish personal
beliefs in addition to their work product.

> If that's true it means if God
> did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people devoting
> their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much different
> than they are now.
>

So, your conclusion is that if those with religious
faith had actual knowledge of a deity, then they would
not show their love and appreciation for the gift of
life through a pursuit to comprehend that deity's act
of creation.

That is an odd conclusion.

[fom]

I seem to have accidentally come across the first
post. It was unintentional.

[BruceS]

Outstanding! That (especially the conclusion) is the best thing I've
read on the 'Net today.

[mur@.not]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 22:57:30 +1100, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address>
wrote:

It could be afawk. But then we don't know if like could have originated on
this planet without the help of God. We can only guess, even though it might be
obvious to some beings somewhere in the universe and may be to humans on Earth
some day.

>If that's true, then belief in
>God's existence cannot have any rational basis, regardless of whether
>God exists.

That's your guess, regardless of how much faith you have in it being
correct.

>That is, whether or not God exists, religious belief is
>still a delusion.

I believe some parts of all religious faiths are incorrect, but I believe
that about other beliefs as well as religious ones.

[mur@.not]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 13:34:16 -0600, fom <fom...@nyms.net> wrote:

>On 12/29/2013 11:31 AM, mur@.not wrote:
>> Atheists like to pretend that no proof of God's existence is the same thing
>> as no evidence, which shows a small minded way of thinking from the start.
>
>There is a difference between dogmatic skepticism
>and philosophical skepticism. There is no reason
>to insult others for rejecting hypotheses in which
>they place no credibility. It is true that one might
>engage in philosophical skepticism for the purpose
>of examining a hypothesis.
>
>But, you only hurt yourself when you attempt to
>compel choices in others rather than let them
>choose freely.

Denying the evidence is not the same as acknowleding it and not being
persuaded to believe in God because of it.

>> All
>> of the atheists I've encountered in these forums likes to pretend they have no
>> belief about the topic, while at the same time clearly showing that they believe
>> God does not exist because they claim there is "no" evidence.
>
>Anyone who is being harassed is unlikely to afford
>the courtesies which they might under other circumstances.

Under what circumstances do you think they might be more open minded, and
why?

>> The fact that God
>> can't let everyone know that he exists and things still be as they are is beyond
>> the mental capacity for these people to apparently comprehend, and we can
>> clearly see it's beyond their mental ability to appreciate.
>
>That is an unwarranted statement. While a small number
>in any newsgroup will demonstrate various personality
>traits or intellectual limitations, the fact of the
>matter seems to be that many with whom you engage are
>well educated and even have knowledge concerning religion
>that exceed the believers with whom they engage.

What I pointed out still stands though.

>Moreover, those same individuals clearly understand
>that faith is often the product of personality,
>socialization, and pedagogy in childhood. Often,
>when such an observation is made, it is made without
>any malice or disrespect to those with belief in
>deities.

The things you mentioned don't show me wrong about what I pointed out.

>> None the less I'll
>> present one of the most obvious reasons why God would not provide proof of his
>> existence if he does exist. So that people will be curious and experiment.
>>
>
>I despise "Dr. Phil", but...
>
>"How's that been workin' for ya'?"

Of course they can't appreciate that either, but it wouldn't be any great
benefit for me if they could. It might help them, but I already can appreciate
it. I won't appreciate it more if they learn to, just as I don't appreciate it
less because they can't.

>> Atheists themselves are a perfect example of the significance of that. They
>> like to try to pretend they think of things scientifically and that that rules
>> God out.
>
>I would guess that not all atheists approach their
>personal account of the world scientifically.
>
>As with the statement above, if one grows up as a
>child in an environment where the responsible adults
>do not believe in deities, then personality, socialization,
>and pedagogy will lead to beliefs independent of the
>existence of deities.
>
>Mostly, science is compared with religious faith on
>the basis of demonstrable utility in contrast with
>indemonstrable semantics. The notion of "science
>as semantics" is just as prone to skepticism as is
>religious faith. But, not everyone in these forums
>makes that particular argument when invoking science.

What I pointed out is still true. Do you think it's possible to change the
truth of it?

>> For people that can think things through beyond that idea the concept
>> is amusing, but for people who can't consider the possibility of God's existence
>> it seems intelligent.
>
>There is nothing that is quite as persuasive as is
>a declaration of superiority over others.

It's just another aspect of the situation that I pointed out. It didn't
become less true because of your remark about it. How could it?

>> Even though the obvious truth is that if God exists things
>> people learn through science teach us more about him and how he gets things
>> done, it seems many if not most people who are interested in science can't
>> appreciate that aspect, or even comprehend it.
>
>One could say that about many occupations.
>
>It is true, however, that the corpus of scientific
>fact tends to present the world in terms of a
>mechanical device. That is a bit dehumanizing.
>
>But, most people are not able to speak freely
>in their workplaces. This affects their views
>toward the world at large as they deal with this
>fact in life. There are constraints on what
>constitutes empirical evidence in science whether
>or not one believes in a deity. And, there is
>no reason for every scientist to publish personal
>beliefs in addition to their work product.

Again that doesn't do anything to cancelt the truth of what I pointed out,
nor to make it any less significant. It is very significant imo, and so far I
don't see how that could change.

>> If that's true it means if God
>> did provide proof of his existence there would be few or no people devoting
>> their lives to science and that's one of the ways things would be much different
>> than they are now.
>>
>
>So, your conclusion is that if those with religious
>faith had actual knowledge of a deity, then they would
>not show their love and appreciation for the gift of
>life through a pursuit to comprehend that deity's act
>of creation.
>
>That is an odd conclusion.

You would need to provide reason to believe a high percentage of scientists
have religious faith before I could believe a significant number of people with
religious faith show their love and appreciation for his gifts through a pursuit
to comprehend them scientifically. So far it seems more the opposite to me.

[mur@.not]

That's ok. I still feel the same way about all of it, even after your input.

[Sylvia Else]

It's not a guess. It's an unavoidable outcome. If a universe without a
God is indistinguishable from one with a God, then there can be nothing
that occurs in a universe with a God that could not occur in one without
a God.

This means that there can be nothing that a person could ever experience
that would indicate the existence of a God. So a belief in God could
never be based on anything experienced. That is, it would not be
rationally based.

>
>> That is, whether or not God exists, religious belief is
>> still a delusion.
>
> I believe some parts of all religious faiths are incorrect, but I believe
> that about other beliefs as well as religious ones.
>

The point I was making was that whether or not a belief is a delusion is
not dependent on whether it's true, but only on whether it is rationally
based.

By way of example, suppose a person is completely convinced that some
unknown person wants to murder them, even though there is no evidence at
all to support the idea. The belief is thus a delusion.

Let's suppose that this person visits a psychiatrist once a week in
connection with treatment for this delusion. While sitting in the
waiting room, he is seen by another patient. As it happens, that other
patient is being treated for a tendency to form irrational desires to
murder people. On this occasion, that patient decides that he wants to
murder the first patient.

What can we now say about the first patient's belief. Well, as it
happens, it is now true. Someone does indeed want to murder him. But
nothing about the first patient's state of mind has changed. He doesn't
know about the murderous patient's desire. His belief remains a delusion
despite being true. It's a delusion because, despite being true, it is
still not rationally based.

Sylvia.

[mur@.not]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:52:45 +1100, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address>

A guess is all it possibly COULD be. That's a starting line, and you haven't
been able to get as far as the starting line at any point during your entire
life. You probably never will either, but if you ever could it would be
interesting to see if you could move beyond it.

>It's an unavoidable outcome. If a universe without a
>God is indistinguishable from one with a God, then there can be nothing
>that occurs in a universe with a God that could not occur in one without
>a God.

That's just another guess you have put your faith in since from our position
"a universe without a God is indistinguishable from one with a God" so you put
your faith in the possibility you're most comfortable with. I consider other
possibilities as well as the one you put your own faith in. One of those
possibilties is that it would be distinguishable for the pov of other beings
even though not from ours.

>This means that there can be nothing that a person could ever experience
>that would indicate the existence of a God.

I certainly can't believe that claim since so far life on Earth is evidence
of a God even if it did happen to occur without the help of anything other than
random chance.

>So a belief in God could
>never be based on anything experienced.

Being a weak agnostic myself I can't believe that either, since I believe if
God does exist it's very possible that he has let some people know it.

>That is, it would not be
>rationally based.

You have faith in that. I don't. Not even close in fact. In fact I have much
more faith that you're wrong than that you're right. Of course you have more
faith that you're right, even thoug you're also likely to be ashamed of any
faith you have in anything you have faith in.

>>> That is, whether or not God exists, religious belief is
>>> still a delusion.
>>
>> I believe some parts of all religious faiths are incorrect, but I believe
>> that about other beliefs as well as religious ones.
>>
>
>The point I was making was that whether or not a belief is a delusion is
>not dependent on whether it's true, but only on whether it is rationally
>based.

You certainly could have no rational basis for having faith that God never
let anyone know of his existence if he exists. You only have faith with not
rational basis for having it. How could you possibly get it? There's no way you
could.

>By way of example, suppose a person is completely convinced that some
>unknown person wants to murder them, even though there is no evidence at
>all to support the idea. The belief is thus a delusion.

Like your faith that no one could have a rational basis for believing in
God's existence.

>Let's suppose that this person visits a psychiatrist once a week in
>connection with treatment for this delusion. While sitting in the
>waiting room, he is seen by another patient. As it happens, that other
>patient is being treated for a tendency to form irrational desires to
>murder people. On this occasion, that patient decides that he wants to
>murder the first patient.
>
>What can we now say about the first patient's belief. Well, as it
>happens, it is now true. Someone does indeed want to murder him. But
>nothing about the first patient's state of mind has changed. He doesn't
>know about the murderous patient's desire. His belief remains a delusion
>despite being true. It's a delusion because, despite being true, it is
>still not rationally based.
>
>Sylvia.

So if God does exist, your delusion that he does not is still not rationally
based and never could be because there's no way you could ever find out if he
doesn't exist. You could possibly find out if he DOES, but you will never be
able to find out if he does NOT.

[mur@.not]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
.

>skrev i meddelelsen news:e686d9ljpshkvkp0a...@4ax.com...
>>

>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:27:31 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>> wrote:
>> .
>> >skrev i meddelelsen news:0rquc9pidk66gn71j...@4ax.com...
>> >>

>> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz"
>> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>

>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >skrev i meddelelsen news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...
>
>(snip)
>
>> >How many times do I need to tell you that, yes, I can imagine an
>> >imnipotent
>> >god (who is purple and lives between the atoms, or a zillion other gods)?
>> >Why is it important?
>>
>> If you could think about how God really could exist then you wouldn't
>> have
>> faith that he does not but instead would consider how he could.
>
>So, in order to rationally reject the concept of gods, I have to be able to
>"really" think about how gods could exist.

You probably won't be able to comprehend how this could be true, but IF you
could think about how God really could exist then you would have no reason to
believe he doesn't exist. LOL...that remains hilarious.

>Do you often why people just turn around and walk away from you?

>
>(snip)
>
>> >Sure I can imagine God. I go for the bearded one, who lives in the fifth
>> >dimension and created the Universe ex nihilo. Does that somehow validate
>> >my
>> >lack af belief in gods?
>>
>> You can't do what you lamely tried to pretend you could, or you would
>> consider the possibility instead of having faith that he doesn't exist.
>

>Why is my conclusion, that gods most likely do not exist, not acceptable? It

>seems that no matter how vigorously I imagine the possible existence of
>gods, it'll never be good enough for you, unless I reach the conclusion that
>yes, gods most likely do exist.

You won't be able to actually consider how gods could exist unless you're
eventually able to consider how gods could exist. That seems impossible to you
somehow, but it seems like an obvious fact to me. To you being unable to
consider how they could exist feels like being able to...LOL...just describing
your position is really very amusing.

>(snip)
>
>> >> >I can imagine anything I want. Including the existence of gods.
>> >>
>> >> Provide evidence.
>> >
>> >Are you asking me to provide evidence for my ability to imagine the
>> >existence of gods? Really?
>>
>> Your childlike bullshit above shows that you can't. If you could, you
>> would
>> as everyone else who can does. LOL...you find that fact hard to believe
>> somehow,
>> don't you?
>
>When I first realized, in my early teens, that some people actually believe
>in the god of the Bible I was flabbergasted, and quickly reached the
>conclusion, that they were deluded. Well, I believed they were
>unintelligent, but over the years I have mellowed, and now I have a better
>understanding of why some people have those beliefs. But if you were to ask
>me, what I really think about gods and belief in such creatures, I think
>I'll quote you: "childlike bullshit".

That's because you've never learned to think beyond that. It's not because
you have, even though you may want to think it is somehow. It's because you have
NOT.

>> >> >What makes
>> >> >you believe that God exists
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe it, ...
>> >
>> >You don't believe that God exists? That makes you an atheist.
>>

>> I'm a weak agnostic.
>

>I agree 100%. I'm not so sure about the 'agnostic' part, though.
>

>(snip)
>
>> >Sure, maybe gods exist, but I don't believe they do. Actually, I find it
>> >extremely unlikely,
>>
>> Unlikely that they exist anywhere in the universe, or just in
>> association
>> with this particular planet?
>

>Anywhere, of course. But I'm not talking about highly developed and very
>advanced aliens living in a galaxy far, far away. Maybe it's time for you to

>define what 'god' means to you, because I don't know what it is I'm supposed
>to imagine in the proper way.

Unless you can explain how you think God could be a technologically inferior
native of Earth, just try to take it for granted that he could not be and try to
move on away from this particular problem you're having.

>(snip)
>

>> >But lack of belief has nothing to do with faith.
>>
>> But believing God does not exist, or believing anything else, has
>> everything
>> to do with faith.
>

>Believing that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is faithbased?

I have strong faith that it is. Even if you don't, I do.

>(snip)
>
>> > ... To me it is extremely unlikely that gods exist,
>> >considering the complete lack of evidence and the fact, that there really
>> >isn't a need for invoking gods, as active agents, to explain ANY physical
>> >observation.
>>
>> You don't know if there's a need or not for one thing. That's just
>> your
>> guess. And even if there really is no need for gods to exist in order for
>> there

>> to be some life on Earth there may very well be need in order for things
>> to be

>> as they are. You have no clue about that, and no way of getting a clue
>> about it.
>

>Are you going full Descartes on my ass? You might as well throw in the
>towel.

What I pointed out is true no matter how much your cognitive dissonance
tries to protect you from it.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <sukjj9lt57cmf5tvg...@4ax.com>, mur@.not
wrote:

> You probably won't be able to comprehend how this could be true, but IF you
> could think about how God really could exist then you would have no reason to
> believe he doesn't exist

What misleads you to think any of us believe anything at all about your
gods, or about anyone else's gods for that matter?

So far I have no reason to think either way, and your attitude does not
help your case.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:49:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc>
wrote:

thanks again for the cut and shave yet I still can not make myself
even read the little you did leave. so I chose to just read what you
wrote and make up the rest

[mur@.not]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:49:55 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc> wrote:

.

>On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:45:19 -0400, mur@.not wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:44:12 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:
>>.
>>>skrev i meddelelsen news:e686d9ljpshkvkp0a...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:27:31 +0100, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> .
>>>> >skrev i meddelelsen news:0rquc9pidk66gn71j...@4ax.com...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:00:33 +0100, "Malte Runz"
>>>> >> <malte...@forgitit.dk>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >skrev i meddelelsen news:7h2jc99r0dnqq33iu...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>> >How many times do I need to tell you that, yes, I can imagine an
>>>> >imnipotent
>>>> >god (who is purple and lives between the atoms, or a zillion other gods)?
>>>> >Why is it important?
>>>>
>>>> If you could think about how God really could exist then you wouldn't
>>>> have
>>>> faith that he does not but instead would consider how he could.
>>>
>>>So, in order to rationally reject the concept of gods, I have to be able to
>>>"really" think about how gods could exist.
>>

>> You probably won't be able to comprehend how this could be true, but IF you
>>could think about how God really could exist then you would have no reason to

>>believe he doesn't exist. LOL...that remains hilarious.

>
>> You probably won't be able to comprehend how this could be true, but IF you
>> could think about how God really could exist then you would have no reason to
>> believe he doesn't exist
>
>What misleads you to think any of us believe anything at all about your
>gods, or about anyone else's gods for that matter?

"Personally I say 'I believe there are no gods, but I don't claim to know
with certainty'." - Malte Runz

"I believe no gods exist" - Malte Runz

"How many times do I need to write: "I believe no gods exist" for you to
realize that nobody is ashamed of neither not believing in gods, nor
believing gods do not exist?" - Malte Runz

>So far I have no reason to think either way, and your attitude does not
>help your case.

No attitude could so it doesn't matter what mine is. Do you want me to think
if I was nicer or whatever you people would be able to think about it more open
mindedly?