On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:13:11 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:43:38 +1030, Michael Gray
><mikegray@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:06:56 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
>><calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:29:56 +1030, Michael Gray
>>><mikegray@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:48:25 -0000, "Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have been active in these newsgroups for many years and have yet to
see
>>>>>anyone supply authentic objective verifiable evidence that ANY REAL
Gods
>>>>>exist.
>>>>
>>>>I have repeatedly presented evidence for several real gods.
>>>>Amongst them:
>>>>* The Sun
>>>>* Prince Phillip
>>>>* The Em****er of Japan
>>>
>>>Unfortunately just because some people wor****p them as gods, that
>>>doesn't make them such in the real world.
>>
>>But until someone can coherently define "god" or "gods", my claim
>>stands as being eminently reasonable.
>>
>>Can you define a "god"?
>
>Only in terms of the belief and who believes it.
Then how is that different from my above offering?
Or how does it exclude them?
The belief and the believers in the above are extant, numerous, and
utterly sincere.
I do not understand the "essential" difference between your
definition, and my clear examples of same.
I have quizzed many folk, atheist and not, but am yet to get a
coherent and consistent reply, apart from "Apostate", (I think), who
agrees with me.
|
