XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:02:18 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> 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. It's arrogance to assert
>there are no non-existent things, since by things we concede that such
>is made up of matter, and no Jews or Christians believe that deity
>consist of matter.
I'm a weak agnostic but believe if God does exist that he also sent Jesus
to
Earth referring to him as his son. I also believe he can and does exist in
physical forms, but don't believe he would be restricted to any one particular
form or gender. But where would human scientists begin to look for his physical
being? How would they look for it? Why would it be to God's benefit to make
himself available for their probing and proding??? The very idea is absurd. The
fact that there's no physical evidence of God's existence if he exists is
meaningless unless someone can say why it should be available, and how, and of
course where. The same thing still applies to the atheist demand for ANY kind
of
evidence. Obviously there IS enough evidence to satisfy billions of people that
there's a God associated with Earth. In spite of that FACT atheists like to
dishonestly deny that there is any. But when challenged to try to explain what
sort of evidence they think should exist, where they think it should be, and
why
they think it should be to God's benefit to make if available if he exists, not
a single atheist in these ngs has been able to give a respectable explanation.
So we see that atheists dishonestly deny what evidence there is, while being
entirely clueless as to what evidence they think should be where or why it
should be there if God does exist.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
