Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: When an initial premise has no supporting evidence, [View all]trotsky
(49,533 posts)56. Alright, we'll keep your humiliation going.
There is no doubt he posted his reply to me. I have never disputed that. He clicked "Reply" on the wrong post.
But his REPLY is TO YOU. Read the reply, gil. He's addressing YOU because he talks about the god(s) that YOU believe in. I know this might be difficult to recall, but I don't believe in any gods.
Here's his reply again:
Fuck this. Fine I believe the stunning lack of any evidence that your gods exist to be highly convincing. In all likelihood your gods do not exist.
You sir, on the other hand, appear to view the same complete lack of evidence for the existence of your loathsome gods to be a confirmation of their existence.
You sir, on the other hand, appear to view the same complete lack of evidence for the existence of your loathsome gods to be a confirmation of their existence.
Exactly what sense does it make to assume his reply was to me? Keep in mind, I don't believe in any gods, and Voltaire2 knows that.
Please continue.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations