McCain's VP choice

[FluffyMcDeath]

I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
[...]
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

That is the whole point. The current crop of God theories can be summarily dismissed because they actually run counter to the evidence. To "believe" in any patently false God theory is nuts (or ignorant).

Any God theories that have been advanced that do agree with the facts tend to produce Gods that have no real explanatory power or ability to affect the Universe so can effectively be ignored without changing anything and so if they can be ignored why not just assume that they aren't there. To propose something undetectable that has no effect is simply superfluous in a theory and can be discarded.

If you take God to mean "any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence" then you can dismiss the God for the simple reason that you have defined him to be non-existent. Supernatural means beyond nature and nature is all that there is so by definition supernature is other than all that exists ergo - doesn't exist.

I have no more problem stating simply that no gods exist any more than I have a problem saying that phlogiston doesn't exist.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
[...]
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

That is the whole point. The current crop of God theories can be summarily dismissed because they actually run counter to the evidence. To "believe" in any patently false God theory is nuts (or ignorant).

Any God theories that have been advanced that do agree with the facts tend to produce Gods that have no real explanatory power or ability to affect the Universe so can effectively be ignored without changing anything and so if they can be ignored why not just assume that they aren't there. To propose something undetectable that has no effect is simply superfluous in a theory and can be discarded.

If you take God to mean "any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence" then you can dismiss the God for the simple reason that you have defined him to be non-existent. Supernatural means beyond nature and nature is all that there is so by definition supernature is other than all that exists ergo - doesn't exist.

I have no more problem stating simply that no gods exist any more than I have a problem saying that phlogiston doesn't exist.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
[...]
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

That is the whole point. The current crop of God theories can be summarily dismissed because they actually run counter to the evidence. To "believe" in any patently false God theory is nuts (or ignorant).

Any God theories that have been advanced that do agree with the facts tend to produce Gods that have no real explanatory power or ability to affect the Universe so can effectively be ignored without changing anything and so if they can be ignored why not just assume that they aren't there. To propose something undetectable that has no effect is simply superfluous in a theory and can be discarded.

If you take God to mean "any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence" then you can dismiss the God for the simple reason that you have defined him to be non-existent. Supernatural means beyond nature and nature is all that there is so by definition supernature is other than all that exists ergo - doesn't exist.

I have no more problem stating simply that no gods exist any more than I have a problem saying that phlogiston doesn't exist.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
[...]
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

That is the whole point. The current crop of God theories can be summarily dismissed because they actually run counter to the evidence. To "believe" in any patently false God theory is nuts (or ignorant).

Any God theories that have been advanced that do agree with the facts tend to produce Gods that have no real explanatory power or ability to affect the Universe so can effectively be ignored without changing anything and so if they can be ignored why not just assume that they aren't there. To propose something undetectable that has no effect is simply superfluous in a theory and can be discarded.

If you take God to mean "any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence" then you can dismiss the God for the simple reason that you have defined him to be non-existent. Supernatural means beyond nature and nature is all that there is so by definition supernature is other than all that exists ergo - doesn't exist.

I have no more problem stating simply that no gods exist any more than I have a problem saying that phlogiston doesn't exist.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
[...]
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

That is the whole point. The current crop of God theories can be summarily dismissed because they actually run counter to the evidence. To "believe" in any patently false God theory is nuts (or ignorant).

Any God theories that have been advanced that do agree with the facts tend to produce Gods that have no real explanatory power or ability to affect the Universe so can effectively be ignored without changing anything and so if they can be ignored why not just assume that they aren't there. To propose something undetectable that has no effect is simply superfluous in a theory and can be discarded.

If you take God to mean "any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence" then you can dismiss the God for the simple reason that you have defined him to be non-existent. Supernatural means beyond nature and nature is all that there is so by definition supernature is other than all that exists ergo - doesn't exist.

I have no more problem stating simply that no gods exist any more than I have a problem saying that phlogiston doesn't exist.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I don't believe anything without evidence. There is no evidence either way. (and I take the word 'God' to mean any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence, not an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being, which is obviously absurd to anyone who thinks about it.)
[...]
Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that the tales told by the major religions are bollox so I can confidently reject all of the ones I know of.

That is the whole point. The current crop of God theories can be summarily dismissed because they actually run counter to the evidence. To "believe" in any patently false God theory is nuts (or ignorant).

Any God theories that have been advanced that do agree with the facts tend to produce Gods that have no real explanatory power or ability to affect the Universe so can effectively be ignored without changing anything and so if they can be ignored why not just assume that they aren't there. To propose something undetectable that has no effect is simply superfluous in a theory and can be discarded.

If you take God to mean "any supernatural being capable of controlling any aspect of existence" then you can dismiss the God for the simple reason that you have defined him to be non-existent. Supernatural means beyond nature and nature is all that there is so by definition supernature is other than all that exists ergo - doesn't exist.

I have no more problem stating simply that no gods exist any more than I have a problem saying that phlogiston doesn't exist.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

 

[Robert]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

I know exactly what you mean and I confess to being that wimp. :-D

BTW, I arrive in toronto on Saturday so I'll let you know if I'm going to make it out West.

 

[Robert]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

I know exactly what you mean and I confess to being that wimp. :-D

BTW, I arrive in toronto on Saturday so I'll let you know if I'm going to make it out West.

 

[Robert]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

I know exactly what you mean and I confess to being that wimp. :-D

BTW, I arrive in toronto on Saturday so I'll let you know if I'm going to make it out West.

 

[Robert]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

I know exactly what you mean and I confess to being that wimp. :-D

BTW, I arrive in toronto on Saturday so I'll let you know if I'm going to make it out West.

 

[Robert]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

I know exactly what you mean and I confess to being that wimp. :-D

BTW, I arrive in toronto on Saturday so I'll let you know if I'm going to make it out West.

 

[Robert]

Agnostics are more even keeled imo.

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

I know exactly what you mean and I confess to being that wimp. :-D

BTW, I arrive in toronto on Saturday so I'll let you know if I'm going to make it out West.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

I know exactly what you mean and I confess to being that wimp. :-D

BTW, I arrive in toronto on Saturday so I'll let you know if I'm going to make it out West.[/quote]

Well, at least you know!

Saturday is pretty soon. Good thing you didn't get your tickets with Zoom! I'll keep a lookout for signs of contact.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Agnostics are wimps because they leave the religious room to live in their fantasy without feeling like loons - they do a disservice by wussing out and fence sitting.

I know exactly what you mean and I confess to being that wimp. :-D

BTW, I arrive in toronto on Saturday so I'll let you know if I'm going to make it out West.[/quote]

Well, at least you know!

Saturday is pretty soon. Good thing you didn't get your tickets with Zoom! I'll keep a lookout for signs of contact.