XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:33:49 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
      
   >On 10/10/2014 11:06 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >> On 10/10/2014 8:48 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>> On 10/10/2014 6:52 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/10/2014 3:33 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/10/2014 2:39 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/10/2014 1:50 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 10/10/2014 11:24 AM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/9/2014 4:41 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 09/10/2014 4:02 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2014 8:12 PM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:02:55 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/7/2014 9:12 PM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:45:46 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/6/2014 7:49 PM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 18:27:42 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/28/2014 9:05 PM, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:10:14 -0500, Free Lunch   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:34:35 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:27:00 -0600, Uergil   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mur@.not.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most that I've encountered try to claim they have no   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not believing   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any gods exist can mean having no belief, or it could   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing no gods   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. Even after making it clear they believe no gods   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many atheists   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most atheists only SUSPECT that no gods exist   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        No place(s) in the entire universe? Or just none   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with this planet   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or star system?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are zero gods that are supported by evidence.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Try to explain WHAT sort of evidence you think   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "should be", WHERE you   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it "should be", and WHY you think it "should be" to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit for him   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to provide us with it if he exists.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Science is materialist, thus limited and confined to natural   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurrence   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural entities made up of matter, thus the scientific   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method has   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no capability to examine and study the unnatural; therefore   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no solid, empirical evidence for Deity, since Deity does not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consist of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are objecting that science doesn't accept bullshit   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make up and attribute to some god or other.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I simply stated facts.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Religious claims are not facts.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> What about the above statement, in you opinion, does not portend   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> facts?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that there a nonexistent things that can be studied.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> By non existent things, you mean non-material.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure he meant nonexistent.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> It's arrogance to assert   
   >>>>>>>>>> there are no non-existent things,   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> If you can demonstrate that any nonexistent thing exists, go for   
   >>>>>>>>> it.   
   >>>>>>>>  >   
   >>>>>>>> A contradiction in terms - you demand evidence of the existence of   
   >>>>>>>> non-existing things? This is the equivalent of demanding funds in a   
   >>>>>>>> non-existent bank account. This is demanding the impossible.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Then why did you say, "It's arrogance to assert there are no   
   >>>>>>> non-existent things"? The statement implies that you think that some   
   >>>>>>> non-existent things exist which, as you've correctly pointed out,   
   >>>>>>> is a   
   >>>>>>> contradiction in terms.   
   >>>>>>  >   
   >>>>>> I think the continued use the term "non-existent" instead of   
   >>>>>> "non-material" is arrogance, since non-existent does not apply where   
   >>>>>> Christians are concerned.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It doesn't? Surely either something exists or it doesn't, right?   
   >>>>> Believing that God exists doesn't automatically mean that God exists,   
   >>>>> right?   
   >>>   
   >>> Hmm... you don't seem to like answering questions. Is there a particular   
   >>> reason for that?   
   >>  >   
   >> We've addressed this before. I've never _claimed_ it does.   
   >   
   >That's correct but that isn't an answer to my question. Not even   
   >remotely. Here it is again in a slightly different form:   
   >   
   >     Does belief in the truth of a claim mean that   
   >     the claim is true?   
   >   
   >> When you   
   >> demand natural explanations for everything how is this resolved?   
   >   
   >I'll say the same thing to you that I've told others, that I'd accept a   
   >sound argument in place of natural explanations.   
      
       What arguments would you accept? What arguments do you reject?   
      
   >>>>>> In my view, It's strictly an anti-religious   
   >>>>>> proclivity.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In the same way that continuing to claim that God exists is a religious   
   >>>>> proclivity?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Who is this in reference to? Who _claims_ that God exist?   
   >>>   
   >>> Unless I miss my guess, *all* Christians do. There's really not much   
   >>> reason to be a Christian if God doesn't exist, is there?   
   >>>   
   >> Christians _believe_ God exist.   
   >   
   >Many of them _claim_ that God exists. However, for those that don't make   
   >such a claim overtly, believing that God exists is identical to   
   >believing that the claim "God exists" is true. No matter which way you   
   >cut it, Christians hold a definite position on the claim that God   
   >exists. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see much difference between   
   >making a claim and believing a claim to be true.   
      
       So the same can be said for atheists.   
      
   >> They cannot prove he does.   
   >   
   >Correct. That doesn't seem to stop many of them from trying, though.   
   >Some of them brandish the argument from design as if it was intended to   
   >demonstrate something.   
      
       Similarly atheists brandish...uh...nothing as if it was intended to   
   demonstrate something.   
      
   >> It's a matter   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)