🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37482483.87859CC7@online1.magnus1.com> revmark <revmark@online1.magnus1.com> writes:
>>
>> Quit talking for god.
>
>Quit talking for who? It amazes me how you still identify an entity that you are

Why do so many believers who insist on talking to us about the 
hypothetical object of their beliefs as though it actually existed, 
fail to understand the concept of "assuming for the sake of argument"
as part of a reductio disproof?

>trying so hard to disprove. I am just glad that you spelled that one with a

Why do the same theists not realise that there is nothing to 
disprove because the burden of proof is theirs?

>little g, because the GOD of the Bible has an identification unique to Him.

Why do the same theists not realise the inherent dishonesty and
equivocation in calling their god "God"? Actually it's a rather 
simple form of thought control: by naming their generic god as 
"The God" it implicitly means all the other equivalent god-beliefs
)and that's all yours can be assumed to be until demonstrated 
otherwise) are automatically invalid.

>I will waste no more time with your, "debating" because I have children that are
>hungering and thirsting after righteousness in their Lord.

Why do the same theists not have the intelligence to realise 
that they're talking about something mythical FROM THEIR AUDIENCE'S 
PERSPECTIVE when their audience doesn't already share their belief?

>Amazing. Children that question everything accept GOD, but an adult that should
>know better cannot. Oh, well, it is a waste of time to argue.

Arguing with a god-botherer is a waste of time - they are incapable 
of even admitting there is any perspective other than their own. 
So they "argue" as though the as-yet hypothetical object of their
belief is a given. Which it's not UNTIL THEY CAN ESTABLISH THIS 
TO MUTUAL SATISFACTION.

>GOD BLess

Who sneezed all over you?

>revmark