XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/13/2014 6:57 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > 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..   
   >   
   Maybe we are talking past each other, saying the same thing. What I   
   wrote is correct. That the deity is spirit (as opposed to composed of   
   the elements) is a ancient doctrine, whether or not the doctrine itself   
   is true or false.   
   >> .   
   >> 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?   
    >   
   This is a confusing statement. Could you clarify it?   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   This statement was part of a larger paragraph that you isolated which   
   left it out of context. So, the isolated statement independent of it's   
   context makes no sense.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)