On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:46:43 +0000, Myal wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:24:42 +0000, Myal wrote:
>>
>>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:26:57 +0000, Myal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:21:48 -0800, in alt.atheism Gunner
>>>>>> <gunner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>> <oh13m3pltkf7jv0cq45g8mefh0q21g981q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:11:21 +0000, Therion Ware
>>>>>>> <autodelete@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:37:24 -0800, Gunner
>>>>>>>> <gunner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is *not* a philosophy, it is a mere lack of belief in
>>>>>>>>>>> gods.
>>>>>>>>> Atheism, just another faith based belief system.
>>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your assertion is simply that, an assertion, which you presumably
>>>>>>>> expect to be taken as fact simply because you're incapable of
>>>>>>>> stepping outside for a moment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me sufficient reasons to believe, anything, even such
>>>>>>>> extreme beliefs as your appear to hold, and I'll believe them,
>>>>>>>> but until then why not accept many people both think, feel and
>>>>>>>> *can demonstrate* that such arguments and evidences as you can
>>>>>>>> produce, ah, insufficiently support the claims you make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But to return to the question, perhaps you'd like to make it
>>>>>>>> explicit how "Atheism, [is] just another faith based belief
>>>>>>>> system".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do tell. Please.
>>>>>>> Read my post of a moment ago
>>>>>> The one that relied on an erroneous assumption and drew an
>>>>>> erroneous conclusion while using an erroneous definition?
>>>>> hey , that sounds like atheism
>>>> Please explain that assumption.
>>>>
>>>> --Regards, Curly
>>>>
=============================================================================
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/nrqzw
>>>>
=============================================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the existance or non existance of god has not been proven conclusively
>>> both are a matter of faith .
>>
>> Your postings imply that you are not a blithering idiot so I must
>> assume that you are purposely misrepresenting atheism.
>>
>> --Regards, Curly
>>
=============================================================================
>> http://tinyurl.com/nrqzw
>>
=============================================================================
>>
>>
> Im merely pointing out that the same rule that is used to rule out god (
> ya cant prove he exists ) , is also equally valid to rule out there
> being no god , ( ya cant prove he dont exist .)
>
> both are a matter of faith , and from the perspective of either side ,
> the others argument is bogus .
If atheism was about believing there is no god, you'd have a point. But
it isn't and you're pointless.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son,
that whosoever would believe in him would believe in anything."
|
