XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 23:06:14 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   wrote:   
      
   >On 10/10/2014 8:48 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >> On 10/10/2014 6:52 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>> On 10/10/2014 3:33 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/10/2014 2:39 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   ...   
   >>>>> I think the continued use the term "non-existent" instead of   
   >>>>> "non-material" is arrogance, since non-existent does not apply where   
   >>>>> Christians are concerned.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It doesn't? Surely either something exists or it doesn't, right?   
   >>>> Believing that God exists doesn't automatically mean that God exists,   
   >>>> right?   
   >>   
   >> Hmm... you don't seem to like answering questions. Is there a particular   
   >> reason for that?   
   > >   
   >We've addressed this before. I've never _claimed_ it does. When you   
   >demand natural explanations for everything how is this resolved?   
      
   You'll need to show us what other explanations exist and how they work.   
      
   >>>>> In my view, It's strictly an anti-religious   
   >>>>> proclivity.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In the same way that continuing to claim that God exists is a religious   
   >>>> proclivity?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Who is this in reference to? Who _claims_ that God exist?   
   >>   
   >> Unless I miss my guess, *all* Christians do. There's really not much   
   >> reason to be a Christian if God doesn't exist, is there?   
   > >   
   >Christians _believe_ God exist. They cannot prove he does. It's a matter   
   >primarily of faith.   
      
   Why do so many of them insist that we believe what they know they cannot   
   back up?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)