XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:57:38 +1100, felix_unger  wrote:   
   .   
   >On 07-October-2014 10:49 AM, 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.   
   >   
   >you assume that ppl are making up stuff. how can you be sure that any   
   >testimony regarding experiences of/with/from God is not about real   
   >experiences?   
      
       Today people can tell any lie they want to, say anything they want to, and   
   write anything they want to about how God had direct influence on them. They   
   can   
   even openly proclaim themselves to be Gods and they won't get so much as a   
   misdemeanor for it. In the days when the books of the Bible were being put   
   together and people were making their testimonies about the things that   
   happened   
   it was completely different. In those days people were killed for lying about   
   such things, or even for being suspected of lying about such things. Jesus was   
   a   
   perfect example since after having performed many miracles in front of lots of   
   people he was still killed in a horrible way because they suspected he was   
   lying. It's amazing that the significance of such things are incomprehensible   
   to   
   these atheists who like to consider themselves enough of an authority on the   
   subject to encourage other people to believe things that could damn them if   
   damnation exists. Again being evidence of God by being evidence of Satan's   
   influence on their minds. What else restricts them from being able to consider   
   such significant aspects of the situation?   
      
   >you can't. all you have is your belief. that is ALL you have.   
      
       Yes ALL they have is their own faith in their own belief, yet somehow   
   they're blinded to that very obvious fact. In their twisted and distorted minds   
   it somehow seems different than the clear and obvious fact it is. What causes   
   the distortion? The fact that it exists at all is again evidence of God by   
   being   
   evidence of Satan's influence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)