In article <axH4n.1875$pv.900@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> IAAH wrote :
> > fasgnadh the parrott squarks "Arrrrrk .. Polly Want a Cracker!" :
> >> John Locke wrote:
> >>> Olrik, the worthy states, the obvious:
> >>>> fasgnadh, the parrott, squarks "Arrrrrk .. Polly Want a Cracker!" :
> >>>>> L.Roberts wrote:
> >>>>>> fasgnadh begs on his knees for mercy:
> >>>>>>> Davej wrote:
> >>>>>>>> fasgnadh ,the parrott, squarks "Arrrrrk .. Polly Want a Cracker!" :
> >>>>>>>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >
> > Uh huh. And what part of the supposed existence of any god (for which no
> > empirical evidence has ever been presented after tens of centuries of
> > searching) can *you* present for us, fannynads?
>
> WTF has that got to do with the subject
it has absolutely everything to do with whether there is any
justification for establishing theism.
And there ain't.
Any good in any religion can be found in religions that do not require
belief in any gods.
> and why are you asking an
> agnostic your one, BRAINLESS, SLOGAN CHANTING, NON-PROVABLE
> Question!?!?????
Because it is the non-provability of theist claims of godly existence
which make them evil, whereas atheists only claim NOT to believe in
those unprovable claims.
> Nothing has changed in the world of atheist tools,
> you are all still brainless automatons parroting your ONE
> slogan;
>
>
The slogan of atheism might well be "We're from Missouri".
We choose not to believe in any god which cannot simultaneously prove
its own existence and disprove the existence of all other gods to our
satisfaction.
And fasgnadh hasn't shown us any god that can do either, much less both.