XPost: alt.atheism, sci.physics, alt.astronomy   
   XPost: alt.astrology   
   From: me@nothere.invalid   
      
   On 28-February-2016 3:39 PM, mur@. wrote:   
   > On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:59:27 +1100, felix  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 24-February-2016 1:39 PM, mur@. wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:56:45 +0100 (CET), "Arthur"    
   wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> In article >>> 213.giganet.hu>   
   >>>> je suis charly  wrote:   
   >>>>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,   
   >>>>>    Attila < wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do.  At   
   >>>>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I   
   >>>>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves   
   >>>>>> something must have been created.  Existence only proves itself and   
   >>>>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what   
   >>>>>> that origin was.   
   >>>>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb   
   "create".   
   >>>>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the   
   word, it   
   >>>>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an   
   agent?   
   >>>>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and   
   nickel"   
   >>>>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to   
   accept   
   >>>>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.   
   >>>> Lol!  You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> --   
   >>>>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments   
   >>>>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from   
   >>>>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true   
   >>>>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.   
   >>>       Strong atheism is the most faith based of any religious belief with   
   the   
   >>> possible exception of strong agnosticism, afaik. Neither has nor ever   
   could have   
   >>> a shred of evidence to support it in any way, so those who believe in   
   either are   
   >>> doing no more than putting thair faith in their own particular guess being   
   >>> correct with no evidence at all to back it up.   
   >> that's exactly right   
   >      So why are they ashamed of it? And since they clearly ARE ashamed of it,   
   > what prevents them from trying to change that position they're so clearly   
   > ashamed to be in?   
      
   atheists are simply ppl who want to deny the possibility that a God may   
   exist, and some spiritual things may be true. if they weren't, they   
   would be happy to simply be non-religious like everyone who isn't   
   religious, or nominally christian (or whatever) , if they wish to   
   identify with a culture or heritage or belief system, or call themselves   
   agnostic   
      
   --   
   "As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"   
   -William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain   
   http://www.siotw.org/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)