🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.