Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------Post by KevrobPost by !! Atheist ------------------------------Post by KevrobPerhaps I'm too "weak" an atheist for you,
You're not just "weak", you're a wimp, a milquetoast, a pussy.
So sue me.
I really don't care; the world is full of "weak" momma-boy pussies.
"Momma-boy" "Pussy." The misogyny and homophobia is palpable.
I'm straight and it pisses me off.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------And your "ghod" is annoying, as if you're afraid using "god" will get
you struck dead. Be an adult, use "god".
I write what I like. Tolkien used "dwarves" instead of "dwarfs."
I put an "h" in the common spelling of the "g-word" to mock, but
also to avoid connotations I don't agree with.*
You must have noticed the Xtian trolls who think their deity's
name, rather than title, is "God."
When I want to call out a particular ghod, I call it by it by the
name its followers give it. I use Allah or Yahweh or Zeus where
appropriate. Nobody really knows how to pronounce YHWH, and '"Jesus"
is a Greek transliteration of Yeshua (Joshua)as converted into
Latin. Hence,I like to call the Christian trinity Yahooey, Josh
and the pigeon.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------Your entire weak imprecise non-committal demeanor is annoying.
Deal with it. Not every atheist is a flame-thrower.
I have the exact same attitude towards the existence of deities as I
do towards that of extra-terrestrial intelligent life. I actually
think the latter more likely to have once existed, or to exist now,
or could arise later, than any ghod existing. In both cases
conjecture and unreliable testimony are the "best evidence,"
and the wonder-stories accompanying both legends make the testimony
less than credible. Dead people aren't revived by magic and
there's no known way to overcome the light speed limit for practical
interstellar travel.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------Post by Kevrob"Not a shred of verifiable evidence" isn't "no evidence."
There's tons of flimsy, non-reproducible "evidence."
I suppose we could define that as "no evidence,"
rounding off, as it were.
See what I mean. Annoying pussified words.
Again with the disdain for girl-cooties.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------We don't simply define-away; we evaluate using reason and logic.
Proper philosophy starts with univocal definitions.
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------Post what you think is evidence of a god, your best
It wouldn't be my best, but the usual hooey given to us
by the believers: visions, "answered prayers," scriptures
that fail basic minimum standards of historiography.
Kevin R
* From Fancyclopedia
[quote]
The "h" indicates that the reference is to fannish deities. Art Rapp
reports this to be the only genuine superstitious taboo known in the
Microcosm. He points out its probable source: with intellectual maturity
fans as a rule realize the dubious nature of evidence for a deity, but
they've been so well inculcated in childhood with the various religious
precepts against direct blasphemy that rejection of theism is sublimated
in burlesque rather than manifested in militant forms. Fussiness over
spelling God's name is a characteristic of Western religions, and such
points of etiquette are natural objects for burlesque.
[/quote] - http://fancyclopedia.wikidot.com/ghods