XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:12:38 -0500, 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.   
      
       You can't imagine how you think God should be able to be studied if he   
   exists, much less where the studies should be able to be done, much much less   
   why he should make himself available for study....LOL....or when. As usual just   
   describing the position you're in is hilarious.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)