On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:25:07 -0600, "The poster formerly known as
Colleyville
Alan" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"duke" <duckgumbo32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:8uloq3lhtpjipm4o3493q6mq0q3743juvr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>BTW **** for brains, an atheist is simply someone that does not
practice
>>>any form of theism. There is no "wannabe" about it, you ****ing moron.
>>
>> NO, an atheist is one that denies/rejects the existence of God. You
have
>> no
>> sup****t for such a stupid idea other than your imagination. You have
no
>> sup****t for that foolishness.
>
>So you have decided to create your own definitions.
No, you too can use an online dictionary.
> There are people that
>do not "reject the existence of God" but who simply do not believe in God
as
>they have been presented no convincing evidence.
They're agnostics, not atheists.
An atheist rejects, an agnostic is unsure.
> At this newsgroup they go
>by the term "atheist", i.e. not a theist.
But, by the dictionary, an atheist rejects.
>Since you have redefined the term
>atheist, what term do you use for those who do not believe in God and do
not
>believe that the evidence that theists present is sufficient to convice
them
>otherwise?
Agnostics.
> Oh, and please no insults in reply to this; an answer like "I
>call them idiots" is not a real answer.
No problem.
>Please be reminded that looking at evidence and saying that it is not
>convincing is quite different than accepting convincing evidence and then
>saying "I choose not to believe".
Huh? Who looks at convincing evidence and chooses "not to believe"?
A theist accepts the evidence/an agnostic is unsure of the evidence/an
atheist
rejects the evidence. All have the same evidence.
An atheist goes into the game with no sup****tive evidence for his
rejection.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
|
