XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 11:23:12 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>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?
What specifically do you want people to think you think you're trying to
talk about, can you say? If not, can you say why not?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
