🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7Supd.207327$9b.65052@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:Ndupd.189543$df2.35583@edtnps89...
>> In article <8Yspd.207170$9b.73596@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Odqpd.207061$9b.160829@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <h%7pd.181407$df2.125158@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:RnUod.15328$l65.11153@clgrps13...
>> >> >> In article <PaSod.319584$%k.59888@pd7tw2no>, CalgaryBill@shaw.ca
>> >says...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"SilverStar" <you.dont.get@it.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:hGQod.309646$Pl.266071@pd7tw1no...
>> >> >> >> Helper Monkey Assault Squad 7 wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:40:51 GMT, DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
>> >> >> >> > (Danie|_ Swan) wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>>>No, faith is belief in something without proof.  Since proof
>> >> >> >doesn't exist
>> >> >> >> >>>>faith can be based on a hunch, a "gut feeling", or highly
>> >> >> >developed tools of
>> >> >> >> >>>>reasoning.  Personally, I choose the latter to build my faith
>> >on.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>Ok. I'll bite. How do your highly developed tools of
>> >> >> >> >>>reasoning lead you to believe in God?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>They don't, they've led me to atheism.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Oh well, so much for that argument.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, and it's still just a belief. A blind leap of faith,
>choosing
>> >to
>> >> >> >> ignore any possible evidence that may show up to the contrary.
>The
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Bullshit.  An atheist is reasonably likely to accept evidence ...
>> >> >> >measurable, reproducible events would allow many atheists and
>> >agnostics
>> >> >> >to re-evaluate.  Then apply Occam's razor to such evidence ... if
>the
>> >> >> >scientific method could not debunk such evidence, I'd certainly
>> >> >> >reconsider.  Unfortunately, no such evidence has arisen during the
>> >> >> >entire history of mankind.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >No more than a theist is likely to accept evidence that is measurable
>and
>> >> >reproduceable.  Sufficient evidence is a very subjective thing.  For
>some
>> >> >theists and atheists only absolute certainly would do.  For others, a
>> >> >reasonable indication would do.  For others, no amount of evidence
>will
>> >do.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hey at least you're learning from me while pouting, eh?
>> >>
>> >I haven't learned anything from you.  My guess is that there is little
>you
>> >can teach me except to confirm what I already know; and you have already
>> >accomplished that, eh?
>> >>
>>
>> You're right, I re-read your post and you learned nothing. Sorry about the
>> mixup.
>>
>Nope.  You have nothing to teach.
>
>

You would have no way of knowing that since in order to, you would have had to 
have agreed to engage with me as a pupil in the Socratic method of teaching 
autononous thinking.