XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/13/2014 7:00 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   With one or two exceptions, I agree with this statement. I reject the   
   idea that the deity is a physical being. Since physical means elements,   
   it isn't a reasonable pov because the elements were created inside stars   
   and supernova except for hydrogen some helium and lithium which was   
   created in the big bang itself. So, I can't square my views with the   
   idea that the intelligent designer is a product of it's own design. I   
   accept the scientific theory that the universe had a beginning  and   
   will come to an end.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)