XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   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. So what you wrote has no significence to the   
   >christian, but for you, it's strictly self gratification.   
      
   I don't really care what believers believe when their beliefs rely on no   
   facts, no evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)