-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
>>> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
>>> their own faith. Very ashamed.
>>
>>Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.
>>
>>That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
>>your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.
>
> It seems that way to me. Some of them are ashamed of their faith in
> everything they have faith in. Some of them are ashamed of their faith that
> gravity will keep them from floating off the planet. LOL...it's amusing, but
> also pathetic.

I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.

Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity! What a ridiculous
notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.

>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>
> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.

Non sequitur

You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.

>>Doesn't mean I exclude the
>>possibility.
>
> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.

I just did above!

>>> If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
>>> believe in.
>>
>>It's called faith.
>
> People have faith for reasons because of things that have happened to them.
> Were you unaware of that? First people try to establish some relationship
> through prayer, then things happen that indicate to them that they could have
> been given some sort of responce. Then it happens again...and again...until they
> develop faith. How did you think it worked? Did you think people pray and
> nothing seems to happen, and they keep praying and nothing ever seems to happen,
> but they still have faith that God exists? LOL...it probably has happened, but
> not to anyone I've encountered or heard about.

Yep, that's exactly what people do. It's called confirmational bias and
is evidence of nothing.

You pray 1,000 times. Remember the 1 good result which happened anyway
through chance, and discount the 999 times it did not work.

Theist conclusion: Prayer works!


It's called faith. There's no evidence to support their belief.

>>You're claiming that belief and faith are evidence??
>
> The reasons people have for believing are evidence to them, and what causes
> them to develop faith.

Evidence isn't subjective. They believe through blind faith, not
evidence.

>>There's zero point inserting God into things where God has not been
>>proved to exist.
>
> I'm even more convinced you can't explain why you'd want them to.

When is "them", I'm talking to you.

>>Would you say this...
>>
>> "It does if giant invisible pink hippo exists, almost certainly even
>> if he's not aware that this planet exists."
>>
>>
>>You'd have to cover an almost infinite amount of things that cannot be
>>proven to exist.
>>
>>Why pick God out of the list?
>
> Because there's evidence that there has been some intelligent influence on
> things that have developed on Earth, so I consider the possibility that there
> was and is. I also consider the possibility that there was not, but don't put
> faith in it being the correct one as some people do.

There's no evidence for this. If there was, you'd present some that
wasn't a non sequitur.

I'm sorry but you're doing more than considering the possibility, you've
made yourself clear with the above statement you are a theist.

A trojan horse maneuver.

> You're incapable but probably amusingly want people to think you're not. WHY
>>> do you want people to think you're not, and HOW do you want people to try to
>>> persuade themselves that you're not???
>>
>>Not what?
>>
>>I'm an agnostic-atheist. What am I trying to convince people I'm not??
>
> You seem completely unable to consider possibilities involving the existence
> of God [...]

Repeating your assertion doesn't make it true.

> [...]

Present some evidence that isn't a non sequitur and we'll examine it.
Until then God isn't a consideration to anyone with a brain.

Anymore than a invisible giant gorilla at the center of the universe.


It's possible, but there's zero point bothering with it until it's
proven.

>>So what evidence do you have that God exists then??
>
> To me what we're doing is evidence that God could exist.

Ridiculous *anything* *could* exist.

>>Why are those things above all invalid apart from "God". It's special
>>pleading and it's indicative that you believe in God.
>>
>>
>>Now maybe you do believe in God but are ashamed about it, I know a lot
>>of theists like this --- He-he.
>
> I consider the possibility of God's existence. You appear unable to. If you
> were able to, do you think it would mean you do believe in God? Do you think for
> some reason that if you were able to, it would mean you would have to?

I can consider the possibility, you go further.

You are a theist, you believe in God. You made it very clear.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA5NcwACgkQRuP0ePfiZW6TMQP7BOwpf+pWZw jMwAkDGcJIL2Fh
jdUKikWa9GczjqG4jY4ammBuA6/WIPetdcN3fKvAo/hJQDXKWhWSMSzSb2W+5Orb
NYHPWxAyJT1LAy6WmzsQeyGFYMvSh5Yuu7KpUBP9B2Fs7ad+Ax kdZvSJrGPuEp7q
KZWh30ddmvYE7KtlI8M=
=HPUZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>Careful - the idiot will read into that what he wants to, not what you
>>mean.
>
> So far there's no reason to believe he's capable of considering the
> possibility of God's existence, so it's amusing that he seems to want people to
> believe he is capable. Why do YOU think he'd want people to believe he's
> capable? Do you think you know of any evidence that he might actually be
> capable?

Nobody can offer anymore evidence that their own words stating they can.

You offer no more evidence you consider the possibility than me. So it's
all just your opinion.

Which is pretty worthless

> . . .
>>"If there were no evidence of Zeus there would have been nothing for
>>people to have believed in".
>
> It's the second thing on my list:
>
> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
> they call him or what they think about him.

Christian talk ;-) Theist.

People have completely difference concepts of God, many conflicting,
many not even representing a creator figure.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA5NogACgkQRuP0ePfiZW6pmgQAkjWqyk8ZtU UgTmM22fwWlzOv
DcrnbROH52PdLwxmSfzIaPL2STPGeA0uyvO299uq3YaHcy8QcD 3qkB0W7amzonKw
ISK2D8Xkk5G4dfcgwZ6w398IBGyvTUkjO/dBAsPuNldydVFvxzz4+P5q78hCsczj
wSiyY0Z04a9ZKHQMQuk=
=NT9L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:33:15 -0500, Mike Lovell >
wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>Careful - the idiot will read into that what he wants to, not what you
>>>mean.
>>
>> So far there's no reason to believe he's capable of considering the
>> possibility of God's existence, so it's amusing that he seems to want people to
>> believe he is capable. Why do YOU think he'd want people to believe he's
>> capable? Do you think you know of any evidence that he might actually be
>> capable?

These loonie theists just can't stop lying, can they?

>Nobody can offer anymore evidence that their own words stating they can.
>
>You offer no more evidence you consider the possibility than me. So it's
>all just your opinion.

Until these religious narcissists provide a reason even to consider a
god, there is nothing to consider.

The reason they believe is childhood brainwashing, not evidence.

An in spite of their personal lies, all it would take is the evidence
they talk about but never provide.

>Which is pretty worthless
>
>> . . .
>>>"If there were no evidence of Zeus there would have been nothing for
>>>people to have believed in".
>>
>> It's the second thing on my list:
>>
>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>> they call him or what they think about him.

The moron hides behind the "if".

He imagines this is OK because he was brainwashed to believe in a
creator in his early childhood.

But e doesn't realise this and imagines he believes because of some
evidence that is never provided.

>Christian talk ;-) Theist.
>
>People have completely difference concepts of God, many conflicting,
>many not even representing a creator figure.

Exactly.

It is of course a coincidence that it's only those programmed to
believe in one as children.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, attempted to lie:

>>>
>>>> *you*, Goo, think of them as existing "in some sense"
>>>
>>> [snip fake quotes]

Sorry, Goo, but it's you:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999


Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999


You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.

On Aug 7, 12:54*pm, Painius > wrote:
> Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. =A0As ****wit uses it, "unborn
> > > animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.
>
> > The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
> > blatant of lies, every pregnant
> > animal carries at least one unborn animal."
>
> If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of
> his interaction must have some physical manifestation.

Their names were Moses Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Krsna.. et al..

they inspired great and enduring civilisations, proving the efficacy
of their teaching.


> Hence
> his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable.

Judeao Christian Islamic civilisation is pretty apparrent
to any sentient being..

unless you have your head up your arse... ie are an atheist.


> If God is essentially nondetectable, it must therefore be the
> case that he does not interact with our universe in any way.

But those who act on the teachings of those who EXPLICITLY
claim those teachings are from God, are historically successful..

While EVERY atheist state in history has ben a catastrophic cluster
****!

> Many atheists would argue

It doesn't matter HOW MANY people argue something, if it's
contradicted by the evidence, as atheism is.


> that if God does not interact with our
> universe at all,


GIGO delete;


> Surely he should still be detectable today?

As I travelled through half a dozen states in the US I detected
a phenomenal amount of discussion about God..
and bugger all about atheism.

History shows atheism is irrelevant, even antithetical, to
civilisation
and progress.


> Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
> verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation,
> some direct experience of God.

It doesn't matter how many nutters like you claim that, what is
significant is
that EVERY great and enduring civilisation was based on such a
revelation
indicating some are real, and many are simply nutjobs.


> An experience like that would be
> incommunicable,

Clearly not... I read and understood the Torah, the Bible,
The Qu'ran, the Upanishads....

please stop projecting your atheist incomprehension onto
those whose comprehension skills are clearly superior to yours.

> and not subject to scientific verification-

Rubbish, history shows that great and enduring civilisations
are routinely built by majority religious populations who claim their
core values are derived from indivduals who received revelation from
God.

Conversely EVERY atheist regime has been a catastrophic failure;
The USSR, Mao's Great Leap Backward and Cultural Devolution, Pol Pots
Genocidal Year Zero, Nth Korea...
terrorising torturing and killing over 80,000,000 people, far more
than any religion



> -but it
> would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be.

Q.E.D.


> But whether by direct revelation or by observation, it must surely
> be possible to perceive some effect caused by God's presence

as shown above.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:30:08 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
>>>> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
>>>> their own faith. Very ashamed.
>>>
>>>Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.
>>>
>>>That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
>>>your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.
>>
>> It seems that way to me. Some of them are ashamed of their faith in
>> everything they have faith in. Some of them are ashamed of their faith that
>> gravity will keep them from floating off the planet. LOL...it's amusing, but
>> also pathetic.
>
>I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.
>
>Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity!

Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
but also pathetic.

>What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.

You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet. That is a fact. You
appear to be very ashamed of that faith, which is also a fact AND amusing.

>>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>>
>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>
>Non sequitur

It's just another fact you don't like. There are lots of similar facts which
you also would not like. That's really extra amusing since you seem to want to
pretend you're capable of considering the possibility that God does exist.

>You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.

You couldn't be more wrong, imo.

>>>Doesn't mean I exclude the
>>>possibility.
>>
>> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
>> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
>
>I just did above!

How do you think you did???

>>>> If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
>>>> believe in.
>>>
>>>It's called faith.
>>
>> People have faith for reasons because of things that have happened to them.
>> Were you unaware of that? First people try to establish some relationship
>> through prayer, then things happen that indicate to them that they could have
>> been given some sort of responce. Then it happens again...and again...until they
>> develop faith. How did you think it worked? Did you think people pray and
>> nothing seems to happen, and they keep praying and nothing ever seems to happen,
>> but they still have faith that God exists? LOL...it probably has happened, but
>> not to anyone I've encountered or heard about.
>
>Yep, that's exactly what people do.



>It's called confirmational bias and
>is evidence of nothing.
>
>You pray 1,000 times. Remember the 1 good result which happened anyway
>through chance, and discount the 999 times it did not work.
>
>Theist conclusion: Prayer works!
>
>
>It's called faith. There's no evidence to support their belief.
>
>>>You're claiming that belief and faith are evidence??
>>
>> The reasons people have for believing are evidence to them, and what causes
>> them to develop faith.
>
>Evidence isn't subjective. They believe through blind faith, not
>evidence.
>
>>>There's zero point inserting God into things where God has not been
>>>proved to exist.
>>
>> I'm even more convinced you can't explain why you'd want them to.
>
>When is "them", I'm talking to you.
>
>>>Would you say this...
>>>
>>> "It does if giant invisible pink hippo exists, almost certainly even
>>> if he's not aware that this planet exists."
>>>
>>>
>>>You'd have to cover an almost infinite amount of things that cannot be
>>>proven to exist.
>>>
>>>Why pick God out of the list?
>>
>> Because there's evidence that there has been some intelligent influence on
>> things that have developed on Earth, so I consider the possibility that there
>> was and is. I also consider the possibility that there was not, but don't put
>> faith in it being the correct one as some people do.
>
>There's no evidence for this. If there was, you'd present some that
>wasn't a non sequitur.
>
>I'm sorry but you're doing more than considering the possibility, you've
>made yourself clear with the above statement you are a theist.
>
>A trojan horse maneuver.
>
>> You're incapable but probably amusingly want people to think you're not. WHY
>>>> do you want people to think you're not, and HOW do you want people to try to
>>>> persuade themselves that you're not???
>>>
>>>Not what?
>>>
>>>I'm an agnostic-atheist. What am I trying to convince people I'm not??
>>
>> You seem completely unable to consider possibilities involving the existence
>> of God [...]
>
>Repeating your assertion doesn't make it true.
>
>> [...]
>
>Present some evidence that isn't a non sequitur and we'll examine it.
>Until then God isn't a consideration to anyone with a brain.
>
>Anymore than a invisible giant gorilla at the center of the universe.
>
>
>It's possible, but there's zero point bothering with it until it's
>proven.
>
>>>So what evidence do you have that God exists then??
>>
>> To me what we're doing is evidence that God could exist.
>
>Ridiculous *anything* *could* exist.
>
>>>Why are those things above all invalid apart from "God". It's special
>>>pleading and it's indicative that you believe in God.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now maybe you do believe in God but are ashamed about it, I know a lot
>>>of theists like this --- He-he.
>>
>> I consider the possibility of God's existence. You appear unable to. If you
>> were able to, do you think it would mean you do believe in God? Do you think for
>> some reason that if you were able to, it would mean you would have to?
>
>I can consider the possibility, you go further.
>
>You are a theist, you believe in God. You made it very clear.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>iJwEAQECAAYFAlA5NcwACgkQRuP0ePfiZW6TMQP7BOwpf+pWZ wjMwAkDGcJIL2Fh
>jdUKikWa9GczjqG4jY4ammBuA6/WIPetdcN3fKvAo/hJQDXKWhWSMSzSb2W+5Orb
>NYHPWxAyJT1LAy6WmzsQeyGFYMvSh5Yuu7KpUBP9B2Fs7ad+A xkdZvSJrGPuEp7q
>KZWh30ddmvYE7KtlI8M=
>=HPUZ
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

****wit David Harrison, a scrounging Southern Baptist true-believer, lied:

> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:30:08 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
>>>>> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
>>>>> their own faith. Very ashamed.
>>>>
>>>> Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.
>>>>
>>>> That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
>>>> your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.
>>>
>>> It seems that way to me. Some of them are ashamed of their faith in
>>> everything they have faith in. Some of them are ashamed of their faith that
>>> gravity will keep them from floating off the planet. LOL...it's amusing, but
>>> also pathetic.
>>
>> I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.
>>
>> Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity!
>
> Yes you do

Nope. No one has "faith" in gravity.



>> What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.
>
> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet.

No, he *knows* that it will. It is a certainty. There can be no doubt.
Gravity is a known fact of the universe.


>>>> There is no evidence for a creator.
>>>
>>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.

No, it isn't.


>>
>> Non sequitur
>
> It's just another fact you don't like.

It's not a fact.


>> You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong, imo.

HA HA HA HA HA! You stupid scrounging true-believing deluded Southern
Baptist ****wit! Your "opinion" has nothing to do with whether or not
he's right or wrong, ****wit. Either he's right or he's wrong.



>>>> Doesn't mean I exclude the
>>>> possibility.
>>>
>>> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
>>> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
>>
>> I just did above!
>
> How do you think you did???

By showing that what you consider a "realistic way" is nothing of the
kind. He showed it - undisputed.


>>>>> If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
>>>>> believe in.
>>>>
>>>> It's called faith.
>>>
>>> People have faith for reasons because of things that have happened to them.
>>> Were you unaware of that? First people try to establish some relationship
>>> through prayer, then things happen that indicate to them that they could have
>>> been given some sort of responce. Then it happens again...and again...until they
>>> develop faith. How did you think it worked? Did you think people pray and
>>> nothing seems to happen, and they keep praying and nothing ever seems to happen,
>>> but they still have faith that God exists? LOL...it probably has happened, but
>>> not to anyone I've encountered or heard about.
>>
>> Yep, that's exactly what people do.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-26, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.
>>
>>Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity!
>
> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
> but also pathetic.

No I do not. Some things I have faith in, gravity is now one of them.

>>What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.
>
> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet. That is a fact. You
> appear to be very ashamed of that faith, which is also a fact AND amusing.

If there were no evidence I'd fly away faith would be required.

Can you spot the evidence that I won't fly off the planet? ;-) You
should have had enough time to accumulate this evidence. Say every
waking moment of your entire life.

He-he.

>>>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>>>
>>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>>
>>Non sequitur
>
> [...]

Sorry, still a non sequitur. Your immune system provides no evidence
for a creator.

>>You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong, imo.

It's an equally valid statement as your, both re non sequiturs

>>>>Doesn't mean I exclude the
>>>>possibility.
>>>
>>> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
>>> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
>>
>>I just did above!
>
> How do you think you did???

I've said many times I don't exclude the possibility. That's an
indication.

No more evidence than that can be provided of my own thoughts.

If you know a way you better let us all know.

> [...]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA6U2UACgkQRuP0ePfiZW6mcwP7B6XDl8cKuC r/26RhfZdslU8y
1B6+c+LXYv6Too/kb4Rl/McDuWm+WyYhEovrTxYdGOn0DMXsuaVQE+9VeUb5YTCv
a2w2YZvIV7/hLkVmx+ojP2e/pkO+JlUoBv4FzBREeIfyi263aeJtbgc0EhWkctRv
z5bMtD4+wfyzyYWFSoI=
=1K1/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:30:08 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
>>>> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
>>>> their own faith. Very ashamed.
>>>
>>>Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.
>>>
>>>That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
>>>your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.
>>
>> It seems that way to me. Some of them are ashamed of their faith in
>> everything they have faith in. Some of them are ashamed of their faith that
>> gravity will keep them from floating off the planet. LOL...it's amusing, but
>> also pathetic.
>
>I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.
>
>Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity!

Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
but also pathetic.

>What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.

You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet. That is a fact. You
appear to be very ashamed of that faith, which is also a fact AND amusing.

>>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>>
>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>
>Non sequitur

It's just another fact you don't like. There are lots of similar facts which
you also would not like. That's really extra amusing since you seem to want to
pretend you're capable of considering the possibility that God does exist.

>You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.

You couldn't be more wrong, imo.

>>>Doesn't mean I exclude the
>>>possibility.
>>
>> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
>> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
>
>I just did above!

How do you think you did???

>>>> If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
>>>> believe in.
>>>
>>>It's called faith.
>>
>> People have faith for reasons because of things that have happened to them.
>> Were you unaware of that? First people try to establish some relationship
>> through prayer, then things happen that indicate to them that they could have
>> been given some sort of responce. Then it happens again...and again...until they
>> develop faith. How did you think it worked? Did you think people pray and
>> nothing seems to happen, and they keep praying and nothing ever seems to happen,
>> but they still have faith that God exists? LOL...it probably has happened, but
>> not to anyone I've encountered or heard about.
>
>Yep, that's exactly what people do.

Not anyone I've encountered or heard about, and probably not anyone you have
either. If you think you have then you need to provide some example(s) before I
could believe you.

>It's called confirmational bias and
>is evidence of nothing.
>
>You pray 1,000 times. Remember the 1 good result which happened anyway
>through chance, and discount the 999 times it did not work.

That's not what I was referring to. It's not what you were referring to
either. We were both referring to no evidence, not some.

>Theist conclusion: Prayer works!
>
>
>It's called faith. There's no evidence to support their belief.
>
>>>You're claiming that belief and faith are evidence??
>>
>> The reasons people have for believing are evidence to them, and what causes
>> them to develop faith.
>
>Evidence isn't subjective. They believe through blind faith, not
>evidence.

Maybe some do, but not anyone I've ever discussed it with. That means even
if you're right in regards to some people, you're wrong in regards to every
believer that I've discussed it with.

>>>There's zero point inserting God into things where God has not been
>>>proved to exist.
>>
>> I'm even more convinced you can't explain why you'd want them to.
>
>When is "them", I'm talking to you.

Why do you want me to think you're capable of considering the possibility of
God's existence when it seems that you should be proud of your faith that he
doesn't exist? Is it ONLY because you're ashamed of your faith in everything you
have faith in, or is that part unrelated?

>>>Would you say this...
>>>
>>> "It does if giant invisible pink hippo exists, almost certainly even
>>> if he's not aware that this planet exists."
>>>
>>>
>>>You'd have to cover an almost infinite amount of things that cannot be
>>>proven to exist.
>>>
>>>Why pick God out of the list?
>>
>> Because there's evidence that there has been some intelligent influence on
>> things that have developed on Earth, so I consider the possibility that there
>> was and is. I also consider the possibility that there was not, but don't put
>> faith in it being the correct one as some people do.
>
>There's no evidence for this.

Why would you want people to think you consider the possibility of a God you
insist there is no evidence for?
.. . .
>God isn't a consideration to anyone with a brain.

Then why do you want people to think you consider the possibility of his
existence, do you have any idea at all???
.. . .
>*anything* *could* exist.

Then why do you want people to think God isn't a consideration to anyone
with a brain, don't you have any idea at all???

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:33:15 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>Careful - the idiot will read into that what he wants to, not what you
>>>mean.
>>
>> So far there's no reason to believe he's capable of considering the
>> possibility of God's existence, so it's amusing that he seems to want people to
>> believe he is capable. Why do YOU think he'd want people to believe he's
>> capable? Do you think you know of any evidence that he might actually be
>> capable?
>
>Nobody can offer anymore evidence that their own words stating they can.
>
>You offer no more evidence you consider the possibility than me.

I sure do, meaning you've been forced to resort to blatant dishonesty.
.. . .
>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>> they call him or what they think about him.
>
>Christian talk

Try proving that. My prediction is you can't even come close.

>;-) Theist.
>
>People have completely difference concepts of God, many conflicting,
>many not even representing a creator figure.

Then they aren't referring to the creator. Duh.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:54:04 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:33:15 -0500, Mike Lovell >
>wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>Careful - the idiot will read into that what he wants to, not what you
>>>>mean.
>>>
>>> So far there's no reason to believe he's capable of considering the
>>> possibility of God's existence, so it's amusing that he seems to want people to
>>> believe he is capable. Why do YOU think he'd want people to believe he's
>>> capable? Do you think you know of any evidence that he might actually be
>>> capable?
>
>These loonie theists just can't stop lying, can they?
>
>>Nobody can offer anymore evidence that their own words stating they can.
>>
>>You offer no more evidence you consider the possibility than me. So it's
>>all just your opinion.
>
>Until these religious narcissists provide a reason even to consider a
>god, there is nothing to consider.

Recently your buddy is trying to pretend he can consider the possibility.
Are you saying he can't? I say he can't.

>The reason they believe is childhood brainwashing, not evidence.
>
>An in spite of their personal lies, all it would take is the evidence
>they talk about but never provide.
>
>>Which is pretty worthless
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>"If there were no evidence of Zeus there would have been nothing for
>>>>people to have believed in".
>>>
>>> It's the second thing on my list:
>>>
>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>
>The moron hides behind the "if".

What makes you so afraid of considering possibilities. I'm not hiding behind
any possibilities, but you are afraid to consider them.

>He imagines this is OK because he was brainwashed to believe in a
>creator in his early childhood.

You think your faith that God does not exist is OK because it's the only
thing you're not afraid to consider.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.
>>
>>Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity!
>
> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
> but also pathetic.

No I do not. You don't tell me what I think, I tell you what I think
;-)

>>What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.
>
> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet. That is a fact. You
> appear to be very ashamed of that faith, which is also a fact AND amusing.

If there were no evidence to support it then it would be faith.

There is. Shit tons of it.

>>>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>>>
>>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>>
>>Non sequitur
>
> It's just another fact you don't like. There are lots of similar facts which
> you also would not like. That's really extra amusing since you seem to want to
> pretend you're capable of considering the possibility that God does exist.

Then your intestines are evidence that giant hippo sneezed the Universe
into existence.

And your nose is evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun.


There we go. Some "Facts" in the same style!

>>You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong, imo.

It is wrong. It's a non sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow.

Like what you said..

>>> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
>>> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
>>
>>I just did above!
>
> How do you think you did???

How do you think I think I did???

>>Yep, that's exactly what people do.
>
> Not anyone I've encountered or heard about, and probably not anyone you have
> either. If you think you have then you need to provide some example(s) before I
> could believe you.

Believing purely by faith?

Examples, every theist on the planet.

>>It's called confirmational bias and
>>is evidence of nothing.
>>
>>You pray 1,000 times. Remember the 1 good result which happened anyway
>>through chance, and discount the 999 times it did not work.
>
> That's not what I was referring to. It's not what you were referring to
> either. We were both referring to no evidence, not some.

There is no evidence there.

It's probability. Taking 1 good result as evidence of something and
dismissing the 999 times that it failed.

You run with that 1 as if the others didn't happen.

>>Evidence isn't subjective. They believe through blind faith, not
>>evidence.
>
> Maybe some do, but not anyone I've ever discussed it with. That means even
> if you're right in regards to some people, you're wrong in regards to every
> believer that I've discussed it with.

This is because they don't want to look like idiosts.

They try and create a weak "evidence" back story when they actually
believed all along.

>>>>There's zero point inserting God into things where God has not been
>>>>proved to exist.
>>>
>>> I'm even more convinced you can't explain why you'd want them to.
>>
>>When is "them", I'm talking to you.
>
> Why do you want me to think you're capable of considering the possibility of
> God's existence when it seems that you should be proud of your faith that he
> doesn't exist? Is it ONLY because you're ashamed of your faith in everything you
> have faith in, or is that part unrelated?

Well looks like a double straw man there.

I do consider the possibility. And I don't say God doesn't exist, let
alone have fait that he does not.

>>>>Why pick God out of the list?
>>>
>>> Because there's evidence that there has been some intelligent influence on
>>> things that have developed on Earth, so I consider the possibility that there
>>> was and is. I also consider the possibility that there was not, but don't put
>>> faith in it being the correct one as some people do.
>>
>>There's no evidence for this.
>
> Why would you want people to think you consider the possibility of a God you
> insist there is no evidence for?

It's not my insistance, it's a fact.

Seeing as I tried all things not proven to exist equally, and you treat
God differently than these things you must therefore have proof that God
exists.

So please present it.

>>God isn't a consideration to anyone with a brain.
>
> Then why do you want people to think you consider the possibility of his
> existence, do you have any idea at all???

I don't want people to think anything.

>>*anything* *could* exist.
>
> Then why do you want people to think God isn't a consideration to anyone
> with a brain, don't you have any idea at all???

I don't want them to think anything.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA9OmYACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5CSAP/Ug7C6fSB0qcQp3jxSxDP8QW7
dXlu9VU/bDy8S0C3tPstELSofud2EK0WSnLOZ/5786ZjOHukgWE4NnFFfA6YWMgD
dU6O9GHaOY+2yj3Niys8k8SgtKNXVwKrr9bGvaFrk5p5cdZjLD 987RBvF5/I200m
Rw7/x4yqrZ9WpY60cv4=
=jVTK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:48:41 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-26, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.
>>>
>>>Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity!
>>
>> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
>> but also pathetic.
>
>No I do not. Some things I have faith in, gravity is now one of them.

It sure is. You also have faith that there will be enough oxygen for you to
survive when you enter a building or vehicle. Are you ashamed of that one too?

>>>What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.
>>
>> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet. That is a fact. You
>> appear to be very ashamed of that faith, which is also a fact AND amusing.
>
>If there were no evidence I'd fly away faith would be required.
>
>Can you spot the evidence that I won't fly off the planet? ;-) You
>should have had enough time to accumulate this evidence. Say every
>waking moment of your entire life.

The evidence is what gives you faith. That's the way it is with the people
I've met who have faith in God as well. Things happen that are evidence to them
that God exists, whether he does or not.

>He-he.

The only people I've seen who just "had" faith without having any reasons
for it were on TV shows. The ones I've actually met have their reasons for
believing.

>>>>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>>>>
>>>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>>>
>>>Non sequitur
>>
>> [...]
>
>Sorry, still a non sequitur. Your immune system provides no evidence
>for a creator.

It sure does, even if one doesn't exist.

>>>You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.
>>
>> You couldn't be more wrong, imo.
>
>It's an equally valid statement as your, both re non sequiturs
>
>>>>>Doesn't mean I exclude the
>>>>>possibility.
>>>>
>>>> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
>>>> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
>>>
>>>I just did above!
>>
>> How do you think you did???
>
>I've said many times I don't exclude the possibility. That's an
>indication.

Not from my pov. You may THINK you're able to consider the possibility, but
you've given no indication that you're at all capable. You've given indication
that you can't by being insulting about people who believe.

>No more evidence than that can be provided of my own thoughts.
>
>If you know a way you better let us all know.

YOU would have to show some sign that you're able to consider the
possibility, which you have not and probably can not.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Goo continued to agree:

>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:08:24 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:22:37 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:32 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:52:17 -0700, Goo agreed:
>>>>
>>>>>*you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>>>>>"in some sense"
>>>>
>>>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's
>>>>problem." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
>>>>is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
>>>>for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
>>>>existing entities" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>>>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>>>>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
>>>>"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
>>>>improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>>>life we can detect" - Goo
>>>
>>>You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>>
>> "they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
>>state was" - Goo
>
>You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

On 8/28/2012 2:08 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:30:08 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 2012-08-25, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>> Maybe you're not. Maybe you are and are ashamed to admit it. The vast
>>>>> majority of apparently strong atheists that I've encountered are ashamed of
>>>>> their own faith. Very ashamed.
>>>>
>>>> Nah I'm not, implication won't change that.
>>>>
>>>> That's their problem really if they are ashamed. If you're ashamed of
>>>> your beliefs, perhaps they need to be reexamined.
>>>
>>> It seems that way to me. Some of them are ashamed of their faith in
>>> everything they have faith in. Some of them are ashamed of their faith that
>>> gravity will keep them from floating off the planet. LOL...it's amusing, but
>>> also pathetic.
>>
>> I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.
>>
>> Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity!
>
> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
> but also pathetic.
>
>> What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.
>
> You have faith that gravity

No.


>>>> There is no evidence for a creator.
>>>
>>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>>
>> Non sequitur
>
> It's just another fact

No - not a fact.


>> You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong

His being right or wrong is not a matter of "your opinion", you
****witted cracker.


>>>> Doesn't mean I exclude the
>>>> possibility.
>>>
>>> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
>>> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
>>
>> I just did above!
>
> How do you think you did???

You wouldn't know a "realistic way" if someone explained it to you for
fifty years, Goo.


>>>>> If there were no evidence of God there would be nothing for people to
>>>>> believe in.
>>>>
>>>> It's called faith.
>>>
>>> People have faith for reasons because of things that have happened to them.
>>> Were you unaware of that? First people try to establish some relationship
>>> through prayer, then things happen that indicate to them that they could have
>>> been given some sort of responce. Then it happens again...and again...until they
>>> develop faith. How did you think it worked? Did you think people pray and
>>> nothing seems to happen, and they keep praying and nothing ever seems to happen,
>>> but they still have faith that God exists? LOL...it probably has happened, but
>>> not to anyone I've encountered or heard about.
>>
>> Yep, that's exactly what people do.
>
> Not anyone I've encountered or

Everyone who has religious faith, Goo.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>Nobody can offer anymore evidence that their own words stating they can.
>>
>>You offer no more evidence you consider the possibility than me.
>
> I sure do, meaning you've been forced to resort to blatant dishonesty.

Empty assertion. How do you offer more evidence that you consider the
possibility of God?

>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>>
>>Christian talk
>
> Try proving that. My prediction is you can't even come close.

It's a common Christian argument. That all the people throughout the
ages were referring to their God.

It's a way of trying to "steal God" as it were. A theistic land-grab.

>>;-) Theist.
>>
>>People have completely difference concepts of God, many conflicting,
>>many not even representing a creator figure.
>
> Then they aren't referring to the creator. Duh.

We're talking about God(s). Not just "creators".

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA9O4MACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5ObQP9FEq1eGbOn7 bCb0XCXrRZW5tN
klHZddmDJJAs0p00B1ArU57sZRM4nNdDYfB3zz07uaz8qg8LqX eNTDN/mxNfvxwp
GRsP3oNuDmj+vQVFHYMuq3mjcsIDAS6kwVLSkl40Kj6sUty1tl iFrNFuCuzxsOJ8
z4OpTNSsCqOddIllBN0=
=Us5D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>He imagines this is OK because he was brainwashed to believe in a
>>creator in his early childhood.
>
> You think your faith that God does not exist is OK because it's the only
> thing you're not afraid to consider.

What faith that God doesn't exist??

Who is saying God doesn't exist? Or do we now have faith in positions
we don't even hold?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA9O8UACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4FfwP+PK31Z3nGE0 Iydyz7yFKwZIqN
qve4svtsZXGPtVIFT2oYMD5FW61h3unXVYBs6FHadvgKV9OjeY lZfLoWLsLhLMeY
4qP+A7LXZHoKYRcDVvo5hMorGvDb27F6nDsS0x6lJav8h6BCSc nQMFolVjh1OsvH
j7kS00KjjIEwuxojcKA=
=A0Q4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

>>>>>
>>>>>> *you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>>>>>> "in some sense"
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip fake quotes]
>>>> You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>>>
>>> [fake quote]
>>
>> You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>
> [fake quote]

<chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
>>> but also pathetic.
>>
>>No I do not. Some things I have faith in, gravity is now one of them.
>
> It sure is. You also have faith that there will be enough oxygen for you to
> survive when you enter a building or vehicle. Are you ashamed of that one too?

Nope, I don't have faith in those things.

You can keep asserting I do, you can't force me to have faith in these
things ;-)

>>If there were no evidence I'd fly away faith would be required.
>>
>>Can you spot the evidence that I won't fly off the planet? ;-) You
>>should have had enough time to accumulate this evidence. Say every
>>waking moment of your entire life.
>
> The evidence is what gives you faith. That's the way it is with the people
> I've met who have faith in God as well. Things happen that are evidence to them
> that God exists, whether he does or not.

Then it's not faith if evidence supports it.

Evidence is not subjective.

>>He-he.
>
> The only people I've seen who just "had" faith without having any reasons
> for it were on TV shows. The ones I've actually met have their reasons for
> believing.

Really? I've met none. Only ones they lie and create back-stories.

>>>>Non sequitur
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>Sorry, still a non sequitur. Your immune system provides no evidence
>>for a creator.
>
> It sure does, even if one doesn't exist.

Then it's not evidence then!

Geez, seriously that is without doubt one of the most blatant
demonstrations of idiocy I have *ever* seen. Congrats.

>>I've said many times I don't exclude the possibility. That's an
>>indication.
>
> Not from my pov [...]

Well I'm not governed by your point of view.

Think what you like, it's not my position, it's your straw man.

>>No more evidence than that can be provided of my own thoughts.
>>
>>If you know a way you better let us all know.
>
> YOU would have to show some sign that you're able to consider the
> possibility, which you have not and probably can not.

Like?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlA9P4MACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5yFQQAiZ6LT1QBZq YqfEibgipsItTO
ubuCrf987FnuiKnrrT9qUowFLgjZ5R0/SFsjhpmeFWhtPQjRecKM9cZoMRzw+iGp
BNjHcNH4eHiqgFQzVYggbXMYGbb5cNyPkwlo0H/gO+xyE0/89lXeY+A6kF0bhAuh
5k8yXxwAUbVhZkrCOZs=
=U/NC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>>>>>>> "in some sense"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip fake quotes]
>>>>> You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>>>>
>>>> [fake quote]
>>>
>>> You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
>>
>> [fake quote]
>
><chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?

Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:44:40 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>He imagines this is OK because he was brainwashed to believe in a
>>>creator in his early childhood.
>>
>> You think your faith that God does not exist is OK because it's the only
>> thing you're not afraid to consider.
>
>What faith that God doesn't exist??
>
>Who is saying God doesn't exist? Or do we now have faith in positions
>we don't even hold?

IF you are able to consider the possibility that God does exist, then WHAT
tf is your problem with people who believe he does?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:43:36 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>Nobody can offer anymore evidence that their own words stating they can.
>>>
>>>You offer no more evidence you consider the possibility than me.
>>
>> I sure do, meaning you've been forced to resort to blatant dishonesty.
>
>Empty assertion. How do you offer more evidence that you consider the
>possibility of God?
>
>>>> 2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
>>>> who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
>>>> they call him or what they think about him.
>>>
>>>Christian talk
>>
>> Try proving that. My prediction is you can't even come close.
>
>It's a common Christian argument. That all the people throughout the
>ages were referring to their God.
>
>It's a way of trying to "steal God" as it were. A theistic land-grab.

You sure have that wrong. If there is a creator then all who worship him
worship the same being. Only if there is more than one can people be worshiping
more than one. It's possible some people believed we have more than one moon,
but it's the same moon regardless of what people think about it or how they
refer to it. The same is true of everything else like that like the sun, and
God.... It seems you should have already been aware of that really, AND that it
doesn't have anything to do with any particular religious belief.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:00:40 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
>>>> but also pathetic.
>>>
>>>No I do not. Some things I have faith in, gravity is now one of them.
>>
>> It sure is. You also have faith that there will be enough oxygen for you to
>> survive when you enter a building or vehicle. Are you ashamed of that one too?
>
>Nope, I don't have faith in those things.
>
>You can keep asserting I do, you can't force me to have faith in these
>things ;-)
>
>>>If there were no evidence I'd fly away faith would be required.
>>>
>>>Can you spot the evidence that I won't fly off the planet? ;-) You
>>>should have had enough time to accumulate this evidence. Say every
>>>waking moment of your entire life.
>>
>> The evidence is what gives you faith. That's the way it is with the people
>> I've met who have faith in God as well. Things happen that are evidence to them
>> that God exists, whether he does or not.
>
>Then it's not faith if evidence supports it.
>
>Evidence is not subjective.

The amount of confidence you have that something is correct is the same as
the amount of faith you have. You can have little or no faith, or you can have
strong faith. The amount of faith a person has that God does not exist is what
determines how strong an atheist the person is or is not.

>>>He-he.
>>
>> The only people I've seen who just "had" faith without having any reasons
>> for it were on TV shows. The ones I've actually met have their reasons for
>> believing.
>
>Really? I've met none. Only ones they lie and create back-stories.

The ones I've heard about often involve nearly being killed or horribly
injured.

>>>>>Non sequitur
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>Sorry, still a non sequitur. Your immune system provides no evidence
>>>for a creator.
>>
>> It sure does, even if one doesn't exist.
>
>Then it's not evidence then!

It is even if there's no creator. What if there IS a creator? Do you think
it would be evidence if there is one?
.. . .
>> YOU would have to show some sign that you're able to consider the
>> possibility, which you have not and probably can not.
>
>Like?

Try anything, to begin with.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:38:52 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>I imagine it is. But like I said, I'm not one of those people.
>>>
>>>Apart from gravity. I don't have faith in gravity!
>>
>> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
>> but also pathetic.
>
>No I do not. You don't tell me what I think, I tell you what I think
>;-)

You have faith that gravity will keep you on the Earth and I know it.

>>>What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.
>>
>> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet. That is a fact. You
>> appear to be very ashamed of that faith, which is also a fact AND amusing.
>
>If there were no evidence to support it then it would be faith.
>
>There is. Shit tons of it.

The amount of evidence has nothing to do with whether or not you have faith.
Your belief and the strength or lack of strength in it are ALL that matters.

>>>>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>>>>
>>>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>>>
>>>Non sequitur
>>
>> It's just another fact you don't like. There are lots of similar facts which
>> you also would not like. That's really extra amusing since you seem to want to
>> pretend you're capable of considering the possibility that God does exist.
>
>Then your intestines are evidence that giant hippo sneezed the Universe
>into existence.

Wrong.

>And your nose is evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun.

ONLY because it is on the Earth and it is orbiting the sun.

>There we go. Some "Facts" in the same style!
>
>>>You might as well say bugs bunny is evidence of solar flares.
>>
>> You couldn't be more wrong, imo.
>
>It is wrong. It's a non sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow.
>
>Like what you said..
>
>>>> You've given no indication that you're capable of considering the
>>>> possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
>>>
>>>I just did above!
>>
>> How do you think you did???
>
>How do you think I think I did???

If you think you did you will need to say how you think you did since I
don't believe you did and by now expect that you can't.

>>>Yep, that's exactly what people do.
>>
>> Not anyone I've encountered or heard about, and probably not anyone you have
>> either. If you think you have then you need to provide some example(s) before I
>> could believe you.
>
>Believing purely by faith?
>
>Examples, every theist on the planet.
>
>>>It's called confirmational bias and
>>>is evidence of nothing.
>>>
>>>You pray 1,000 times. Remember the 1 good result which happened anyway
>>>through chance, and discount the 999 times it did not work.
>>
>> That's not what I was referring to. It's not what you were referring to
>> either. We were both referring to no evidence, not some.
>
>There is no evidence there.

You acted like the one good result is evidence for some people, and now you
seem to have forgotten.

>It's probability. Taking 1 good result as evidence of something and
>dismissing the 999 times that it failed.
>
>You run with that 1 as if the others didn't happen.

I doubt it happens that way often, if ever. More often it would be that
prayer seems to help things more often than not, not almost never. So you're
still just making up unlikely souding fantasy and then trying to apply it to
every person's life.

>>>Evidence isn't subjective. They believe through blind faith, not
>>>evidence.
>>
>> Maybe some do, but not anyone I've ever discussed it with. That means even
>> if you're right in regards to some people, you're wrong in regards to every
>> believer that I've discussed it with.
>
>This is because they don't want to look like idiosts.
>
>They try and create a weak "evidence" back story when they actually
>believed all along.
>
>>>>>There's zero point inserting God into things where God has not been
>>>>>proved to exist.
>>>>
>>>> I'm even more convinced you can't explain why you'd want them to.
>>>
>>>When is "them", I'm talking to you.
>>
>> Why do you want me to think you're capable of considering the possibility of
>> God's existence when it seems that you should be proud of your faith that he
>> doesn't exist? Is it ONLY because you're ashamed of your faith in everything you
>> have faith in, or is that part unrelated?
>
>Well looks like a double straw man there.
>
>I do consider the possibility. And I don't say God doesn't exist, let
>alone have fait that he does not.

But you do have faith that he doesn't have anything to do with the outcome
of people's prayers if he does exist, apparently. LOL...that's even worse than
having faith he doesn't exist, imo.

>>>>>Why pick God out of the list?
>>>>
>>>> Because there's evidence that there has been some intelligent influence on
>>>> things that have developed on Earth, so I consider the possibility that there
>>>> was and is. I also consider the possibility that there was not, but don't put
>>>> faith in it being the correct one as some people do.
>>>
>>>There's no evidence for this.
>>
>> Why would you want people to think you consider the possibility of a God you
>> insist there is no evidence for?
>
>It's not my insistance, it's a fact.
>
>Seeing as I tried all things not proven to exist equally, and you treat
>God differently than these things you must therefore have proof that God
>exists.

No, it's just more possible that some intelligent beings from other parts of
the universe have had influence on the development of this planet, than some of
the things you like to think about like leprechauns and bugs bunny or whatever.

>So please present it.
>
>>>God isn't a consideration to anyone with a brain.
>>
>> Then why do you want people to think you consider the possibility of his
>> existence, do you have any idea at all???
>
>I don't want people to think anything.
>
>>>*anything* *could* exist.
>>
>> Then why do you want people to think God isn't a consideration to anyone
>> with a brain, don't you have any idea at all???
>
>I don't want them to think anything.

Why do you ridicule people for their faith if you don't want them to believe
something they don't already believe, or whatever you're trying to do???

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>
>><chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>
>Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...

Goo claims:

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

and I don't believe him.

On 8/30/2012 2:28 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>
>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>
>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>
> George claims:
>
> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> a pre-existent state"

Which is *exactly* what you do.

Bob: look for a thread called "FAQ: ****wit's Beliefs". It's all laid
out in great detail there. If you can't find one of the occasional
(snicker) instances of it, I'll repost it.

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>
>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>
>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>
> Goo claims:
>
> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>
> and I don't believe him.
>

Because you're an idiot.

On 8/30/2012 8:11 PM, Dutch wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>
>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>
>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>
>> Goo claims:
>>
>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>> and I don't believe him.
>>
>
> Because you're an idiot.


Actually, it's because he's embarrassed at having based his goofy story
on "pre-existence."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-30, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>He imagines this is OK because he was brainwashed to believe in a
>>>>creator in his early childhood.
>>>
>>> You think your faith that God does not exist is OK because it's the only
>>> thing you're not afraid to consider.
>>
>>What faith that God doesn't exist??
>>
>>Who is saying God doesn't exist? Or do we now have faith in positions
>>we don't even hold?
>
> IF you are able to consider the possibility that God does exist, then WHAT
> tf is your problem with people who believe he does?

Nothing if they keep it to themselves. If they try and assert it in
alt.atheism I will point out how irrational they are being.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlBAQHEACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4LngQAlYh7layb7k rX9aPpfoBI/OIn
0RG0O/U1LNcrvCERKW+6U6n/IJgTWt5a4tw7q+Tmx8obgAfdHMpkuqqHKtPxgMrH
9dvWrCmCPP6ZPAGzNgtM1UJ1NIR3wZ7Ac94MXtnFxRzIk+mFd9 gWxZ/0evkUCFYZ
5/4gcKugcp7Lr6t+cpo=
=IYOu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-30, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>No I do not. You don't tell me what I think, I tell you what I think
>>;-)
>
> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the Earth and I know it.

No, I do not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact."


>>>>What a ridiculous notion. Gravity is a fact, faith is not required.
>>>
>>> You have faith that gravity will keep you on the planet. That is a fact. You
>>> appear to be very ashamed of that faith, which is also a fact AND amusing.
>>
>>If there were no evidence to support it then it would be faith.
>>
>>There is. Shit tons of it.
>
> The amount of evidence has nothing to do with whether or not you have faith.
> Your belief and the strength or lack of strength in it are ALL that matters.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact."


>>>>>>There is no evidence for a creator.
>>>>>
>>>>> You immune system is evidence of a creator, whether one exists or not.
>>>>
>>>>Non sequitur
>>>
>>> It's just another fact you don't like. There are lots of similar facts which
>>> you also would not like. That's really extra amusing since you seem to want to
>>> pretend you're capable of considering the possibility that God does exist.
>>
>>Then your intestines are evidence that giant hippo sneezed the Universe
>>into existence.
>
> Wrong.

Then you better lead us from "a creator" to the human immune system.
Take us on that journey of evidence please.

>>>>You pray 1,000 times. Remember the 1 good result which happened anyway
>>>>through chance, and discount the 999 times it did not work.
>>>
>>> That's not what I was referring to. It's not what you were referring to
>>> either. We were both referring to no evidence, not some.
>>
>>There is no evidence there.
>
> You acted like the one good result is evidence for some people, and now you
> seem to have forgotten.

It's not evidence supporting their case, it's evidence that there's such
a thing as "probability".

>>It's probability. Taking 1 good result as evidence of something and
>>dismissing the 999 times that it failed.
>>
>>You run with that 1 as if the others didn't happen.
>
> I doubt it happens that way often, if ever. More often it would be that
> prayer seems to help things more often than not, not almost never. So you're
> still just making up unlikely souding fantasy and then trying to apply it to
> every person's life.

Evidence for this?

All studies I've seen on the power of prayer, scientific studies, show
it to have zero effect.

It does not effect the probability.

>>Well looks like a double straw man there.
>>
>>I do consider the possibility. And I don't say God doesn't exist, let
>>alone have fait that he does not.
>
> But you do have faith that he doesn't have anything to do with the outcome
> of people's prayers if he does exist, apparently. LOL...that's even worse than
> having faith he doesn't exist, imo.

There's no faith involved there, I will remind you once mo

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact.:


Scientific studies have shown no "power" behind prayer.

>>It's not my insistance, it's a fact.
>>
>>Seeing as I tried all things not proven to exist equally, and you treat
>>God differently than these things you must therefore have proof that God
>>exists.
>
> No, it's just more possible that some intelligent beings from other parts of
> the universe have had influence on the development of this planet, than some of
> the things you like to think about like leprechauns and bugs bunny or whatever.

Please show the math for these scenarios.

If one is more possible there must be a reason behind this.

>>>
>>> Then why do you want people to think God isn't a consideration to anyone
>>> with a brain, don't you have any idea at all???
>>
>>I don't want them to think anything.
>
> Why do you ridicule people for their faith if you don't want them to believe
> something they don't already believe, or whatever you're trying to do???

I ridicule them for acting irrationally.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlBAQjwACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4IRQP+PJV1aYJNY9 GZG8GysFHjGn1o
9DYTR+RTtX2sB8fPqth7/UwFOLL2AO0c9xpAuECamDs9q2daSmgzUTBQ1lBqaPpv
PO9qGf9I+VntUIC1yn95616PSiD+m3/JQuC1VNWSucqYJaxVJRcV4ocaSEGi7YLy
CBP9cO7RLdkE5pn/wZ0=
=TiyX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-30, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>Then it's not faith if evidence supports it.
>>
>>Evidence is not subjective.
>
> The amount of confidence you have that something is correct is the same as
> the amount of faith you have. You can have little or no faith, or you can have
> strong faith. The amount of faith a person has that God does not exist is what
> determines how strong an atheist the person is or is not.

That's not what faith means.

"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact."

>>> The only people I've seen who just "had" faith without having any reasons
>>> for it were on TV shows. The ones I've actually met have their reasons for
>>> believing.
>>
>>Really? I've met none. Only ones they lie and create back-stories.
>
> The ones I've heard about often involve nearly being killed or horribly
> injured.

You've met a lot of nearly killed or horrible injured people then. And
apparently not many other Christians.

>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, still a non sequitur. Your immune system provides no evidence
>>>>for a creator.
>>>
>>> It sure does, even if one doesn't exist.
>>
>>Then it's not evidence then!
>
> It is even if there's no creator. What if there IS a creator? Do you think
> it would be evidence if there is one?

Nope, it still would no be evidence regardless. It does not follow.
it's a non sequitur.

> . . .
>>> YOU would have to show some sign that you're able to consider the
>>> possibility, which you have not and probably can not.
>>
>>Like?
>
> Try anything, to begin with.

You're have to do better than that. What sign would you like? I've
already stated that I am open to the possibility, which is "something".
You obviously need more than that.

What?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlBAQwAACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5F+wQAlp5XkVU8HK BPG9n0nsIKBDm5
XsrW9uEdYoKYM4mP4zSHtRuJ6r/LF2c37C9ybG4Teo5K61e7ovHjSRQYDuVtdHxn
R4O1yL5+4XbXJ4lrTi4fzOkiHQWLUb0eELV8uPXMlPXcXcO/WzVVqZFGvnrMqP4k
i2idHabLN3Xc83gVmF4=
=C+EM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-30, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>It's a common Christian argument. That all the people throughout the
>>ages were referring to their God.
>>
>>It's a way of trying to "steal God" as it were. A theistic land-grab.
>
> You sure have that wrong. If there is a creator then all who worship him
> worship the same being. [...]

Some people believe there are numerous Gods and creators.

And the way they worship is also important. As is their conflicting
view that often leads to armed conflict, death and suffering.

> Only if there is more than one can people be worshiping
> more than one. [...]

Which some people believe.

> It's possible some people believed we have more than one moon, [...]

We *know* we have one moon.

We do not know any Gods exist, let alone the number of them if they do.


You example is completely invalid. You must pick something we don't
know.

> [...]

You are just dribbling onto your keyboard now, did you finish high
school???

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlBAQ68ACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7iGwQAr8L5DXXu66 hO4WsME0Bap4fl
ptYvYTxQIdQtugN0b3gObPvRhF/xGFds2jMs2BmOLnGTM71D5stFcG5e23LWanPd
8PWC7H9YIOYzNNxQJSM2lQhFdq/HmUa7d68EuGLoxByWOyWTlXrmUGXjuGzCY7uL
GmgngDaDMpd4xDNfdtw=
=a4Iy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 8/9/2012 3:07 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>> [bullshit snipped]

....but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
using PGP when posting to Usenet.

What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.

On 8/30/2012 2:00 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:00:40 -0500, Mike Lovell > wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 2012-08-28, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>>> Yes you do, LOL...and you're obviously ashamed that you do. It's amusing,
>>>>> but also pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> No I do not. Some things I have faith in, gravity is now one of them.
>>>
>>> It sure is. You also have faith that there will be enough oxygen for you to
>>> survive when you enter a building or vehicle. Are you ashamed of that one too?
>>
>> Nope, I don't have faith in those things.
>>
>> You can keep asserting I do, you can't force me to have faith in these
>> things ;-)
>>
>>>> If there were no evidence I'd fly away faith would be required.
>>>>
>>>> Can you spot the evidence that I won't fly off the planet? ;-) You
>>>> should have had enough time to accumulate this evidence. Say every
>>>> waking moment of your entire life.
>>>
>>> The evidence is what gives you faith. That's the way it is with the people
>>> I've met who have faith in God as well. Things happen that are evidence to them
>>> that God exists, whether he does or not.
>>
>> Then it's not faith if evidence supports it.
>>
>> Evidence is not subjective.
>
> The amount of confidence you have that something is correct is the same as
> the amount of faith you have.

No. Faith and confidence are not the same thing - not even close.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-31, George Plimpton > wrote:
> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>
> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.

Nope. Deal with it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlBARaEACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4PHgQAv9EiUrKT4J qrsj4TFN4WSNJn
pe6lfAPo5HDLVDkjMiGMcrZikwsvsOlYnDldE8V1f4gPlL4FT/f/7gnK4jcmqO89
aiUQ/6678hXgSu2XGG+ZoPLPIw59KHbAn9DRptVVNIx/vMi7+a2TMSuOoyogAxzI
H4zYY8GP6YITbfJpiPA=
=KO7S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 8/30/2012 10:03 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-31, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>
>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>
> Nope. Deal with it.

Why don't you turn it off, you pretentious cocksucker? You really are a
pretentious, self-important prick.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-31, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>>
>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>>
>> Nope. Deal with it.
>
> Why don't you turn it off, you pretentious cocksucker? You really are a
> pretentious, self-important prick.

Pretentious? Me??? <spits latte out>

Nope, I shall not. Many theist trolls try and forge posts from me,
because I'm the atheist pope.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlBASf0ACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4t/AP9HOoO7JsIjVAVLKqJ5hOB3vE+
hpt9kutp0d83VqyB90uvtC0YwhcFWvFASQhMv+/Nh3mDAG7wxZAjnYSOfeagmgZX
yLNXqNPxzZRfJ7lj8U2Ne3lTELgYfW2DVHNZCIqWHFHQLhtkS5 ikpazPykQ3smXn
GUwxCXLzcudpb71XrEg=
=WxqJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 8:11 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:48:14 -0700, Bob Casanova >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:45:56 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>
>>>>> <chortle> How's that "pre-existent state" thing working for you, Goo?
>>>>
>>>> Is that like "pre-emergent" herbicide? At least that sort of
>>>> works, so I'd guess the answer is "not very well"...
>>>
>>> Goo claims:
>>>
>>> "The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>> can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>> a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>>
>>> and I don't believe him.
>>>
>>
>> Because you're an idiot.
>
>
> Actually, it's because he's embarrassed at having based his goofy story
> on "pre-existence."
>

I honestly don't think he understands why that is the case. He is
several levels of dumb.

On 8/30/2012 10:22 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-31, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> ...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>>>> using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>>>>
>>>> What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.
>>>
>>> Nope. Deal with it.
>>
>> Why don't you turn it off, you pretentious cocksucker? You really are a
>> pretentious, self-important prick.
>
> Pretentious? Me???

Yep - nothing but sheer pretentiousness and arrogance. Oh, and a quitter.

George Plimpton > wrote:
>On 8/9/2012 3:07 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>> On 2012-08-09, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>>> [bullshit snipped]
>...but then by early August, you got the ****-brained idea to start
>using PGP when posting to Usenet.
>What the **** is wrong with you? Turn it off, mother****er.

Um, George, many people use PGP to sign postings given that UUCP
is not an authenticated protocol and forging people's idents is
done millions of times daily.

Mike's got issues, yeah, but come on, PHP is reasonable to use.

---
Google is a liberal conspiracy. That's why cultists don't use it.