XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:46:46 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/8/2014 8:26 PM, mur.@.not. 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?
>>
>> One fact that throws a shadow of doubt on your supposed facts is the
fact
>> that you not only don't have any idea whether deities are composed of
matter or
>> not,
>.
>you're missing the point, in a later post as was pointed out, this is a
>christian dogma going back for hundreds of centuries. And whether true
>or not, this is a fact!
You presented it as a fact and now later are confirming what I pointed out
which is that you don't know if it's a fact or not at the same time you're
trying to persuade me to believe I was wrong about what I correctly pointed
out..
>.
>but you don't even have any way of TRYING TO find out. All you have is
> faith that your guess is correct, but no reason for it.
>.
>As has been pointed out before, modern science has self imposed
>restrictions and limitations on itself. Science restricts itself
>strictly to naturalism - the material universe and energy, thus science
>can say nothing about religious matters. if you are looking for solid,
>empirical evidence, of spiritual entities, you will not find it, it's
>outside the realm on scientific inquiry -
Not necessarily. We have no way of knowing if it is or not in fact. You
seem
to have faith that it's not, even though there's no way for humans on this
planet to find out for themselves. What if you were to admit that much? What if
everyone was to admit that much?
>unless you afford the god-like
>attributes of omnipotence, all-knowing and omniscient to the scientific
>edifice.
Try to explain how that comment makes any sense at all if you can.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
