XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:47:25 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>On 16-January-2015 9:08 AM, mur wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:53:28 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>> ..
>>> On 11-January-2015 5:11 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:49:22 -0600, Free Lunch
wrote:
>>>> ..
>>>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:48:47 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:35:21 -0600, Free Lunch
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:15:38 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:23:45 -0600, Free Lunch
wrote:
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:26 -0500, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> No. If there is a designer then it's pretty obvious that he
made use of the
>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary method of developing life on this planet, even though
we can't jump
>>>>>>>>>> in the "lab" with him and see exactly how he went about making it
take place.
>>>>>>>>>> That's one of the basic starting lines atheists are unable to get
as "far" as.
>>>>>>>>>> Can you?
>>>>>>>>> Show us your evidence that a designer did something. As far as I can
>>>>>>>>> tell, your argument is that science is right, but that you want to
add a
>>>>>>>>> designer that you have absolutely no evidence for, a designer that is
>>>>>>>>> indistinguishable from nothing
>>>>>>>> Yet WE have no reason to believe the proof you demand should be
available to
>>>>>>>> humans, much less do any of us have any idea what you're imaginig it
should be,
>>>>>>>> or where it should be, or why it should be available to us, or when
it should
>>>>>>>> have been or should be made available. Your supposed criticism means
NOTHING,
>>>>>>>> and you can't even pretend it does mean anything as you consistently
prove every
>>>>>>>> time you're challenged on it.
>>>>>>> I never demand proof. I ask for evidence.
>>>>>> YOU ARE evidence.
>>>>> You keep making that foolish claim. Repeating it ten thousand times will
>>>>> not make it true.
>>>> Pointing out that I keep pointing it out won't make the fact stop
being
>>>> true. Nothing will or can make it stop being true, in fact.
>>> his claim that it's untrue (whether it is or not) does not make it
>>> untrue, just as his claim of 'no evidence' for God does not make any
>>> evidence disappear!
>> His own dishonesty is what makes HIM evidence. The dishonesty of so
many
>> atheists in general is what makes THEM evidence, and the high number of
people
>> being so blatantly dishonest supports the fact that they ARE evidence.
>
>I agree. but to make it simpler for them to understand, we could say
>that they are evidence for the contention that Satan exerts his (it's?)
>evil influence on the minds of men (and women of course).
Their inability to think things through and comprehend basic starting
lines,
and their dishonesties are evidence that SOMETHING is influencing their minds.
If God exists then I've no reason not to believe Satan exists as well. And also
have no reason to believe he doesn't have the influence we're told he does in
the Bible, and appears to be happening to these people who are displaying
evidence of that influence in these ngs right now.
>this is
>without claiming that Satan does actually exist, of course.
It could be that they all just happen to be unable to get to basic starting
lines, and they all just happen to be stupidly dishonest lying about the most
blatant of things for what appears to be no benefit to anyone or anything, but
it's hard to believe. If only one or two people did that I'd just think they
had
some sort of mental disorder like bilgat, but with so many of them doing it I
can't put faith in the idea that they're all mental morons.
>but from my perspective.. there is no doubt that evil exists in this
>world, and that it is a powerful destructive force. to talk about Satan
>or the devil is just a means of conveniently identifying or embodying
>that power or force. the fact that evil exists means that it has to have
>a source/come from somewhere
It's not that simple. "Evil" itself IS a matter of perspective. Spiders
trap
other creatures in traps they set for them, then suck the fluids from their
bodies while they're still alive. If that happened to you or me we would
certainly consider it evil, but if we were in the spider position we might
consider it more evil if we never caught anything and starved to death.
Mud daubers catch spiders and put them in their nests for their offspring
to
feed on. But the spiders aren't dead. They are paralysed but they're still
conscious from what I understand. Think what an evil horror that must be, even
for something as simple as a spider who causes it's own "evil horror"...
The point is that I don't believe we can say evil itself exists, and in
fact
that for something to actually "be" evil it has to be a deliberate act whether
with good intent behind it or bad, but in most cases I would say bad. If God
and
Satan do exist and they're both aware of it, Satan's influence seems deliberate
and with bad intent for those he's influencing. In some slight contrast these
atheists are trying to have the same infuence, but because of their own
egotistical extreme ignorance in most cases I don't believe their intent is for
their influence to really be bad for those they influence, even though in
reality it COULD end up sending their victims to suffer for eternity which
certainly WOULD BE evil.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
