XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/13/2014 7:14 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   > On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:41:05 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 10/12/2014 10:12 AM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 21:13:53 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 10/11/2014 7:08 PM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:44:33 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 10/11/2014 12:23 PM, 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> When you will accept nothing,  but naturalistic explanations, It seems   
   >>>>>> you are not open to other explanations. But that's fine, it's your   
   >>>>>> right.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 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?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Maybe a few fundamentalist try, but the mainstream denominations don't   
   >>>>>> usually bother. They do not send missionaries to the western world.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> As long as the fundamentalists are not condemned as heretics by the   
   >>>>> mainstream, the fundies feel empowered. The religion doesn't matter.   
   >>>>> Fundy Christians are no better than the Islamic State.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Islamic State? That would be Isis. I don't see Fundy Christian marching   
   >>>> into cities and slaughtering people. I've yet to see a Christian suicide   
   >>>> bomber, nor have I heard of a Fundy Christian who beheaded another   
   >>>   
   >>> Take some history lessons. The fact that fundies these days don't kill   
   >>> anyone but abortion providers and poor black men has more to do with the   
   >>> fact that they have been marginalized by society than their lack of   
   >>> desire to do what fundies in power have always done.   
   >>>   
   >> I don't know who you are calling fundies, unless you are referring to   
   >> very few extremist who murdered abortion doctor and burned clinics,   
   >> however the overwhelming majority of Christian do _not_ approve or   
   >> support such extremes.   
   >   
   >      These people like to feel that Christianity is all about killing people   
   and   
   > war, while refusing to appreciate the fact that there are many Christian   
   human   
   > aid organizations that do lots of things to help people all over the world.   
   They   
   > also like to think there are lots of atheist human aid organizations though   
   I've   
   > never been able to find evidence of any. They also like to feel that atheists   
   > never killed Christians or tried to force atheism on anyone or began any   
   wars.   
   > They like to feel that atheists are always the poor innocent victims and no   
   > atheists ever did anything to try to force atheism on any other people. I've   
   > found that there are a number of amusing things these people like to believe.   
   >   
   >> Most murdered black people are killed by other   
   >> black people.   
   >>>   
   >>>> person. While Fundy Christians send missionaries into Africa, and other   
   >>>> places, they do not demand "convert or die".   
   >>>   
   >>> More history that you do not know. Europe's Wars among the Christians   
   >>> were fought through most of Europe for a couple of hundred years. The   
   >>> end result was that Christianity lost almost all political power because   
   >>> it proved itself so willing to kill.   
   >>>   
   >> True, the Protestant Reformation was unwelcome by Catholic Rulers in   
   >> countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland so, yes religious   
   >> wars were over religious excesses, excesses which brought about the   
   >> reformation. However, the rampant notion that most wars were religious   
   >> wars is a myth and pales in comparison to non religious wars.   
   >>   
   >> carm.org/religion-cause-war   
   >>>   
   >>>> In a Christian land you can   
   >>>> criticize Christianity, Jesus Christ, or the Pope   
   >>>> with no fear being killed. But you will not criticize the Islamic   
   >>>> Prophet in an Islamic State with equal impunity.   
   >>>   
   >>> Again, you make excuses for your ignorance of history.   
   >>>   
   >> If you are going to engage in personal insults aimed at me, I refuse to   
   >> engage in any further discourse with you.   
   >   
   >      My experience with them has been that if you point out their mistakes   
   enough   
   > they eventually have nothing left other than personal insults and various   
   types   
   > of dishonesty. Then begins the questioning of whether they are actually   
   stupid   
   > enough to believe their claims, or if they really aren't but are pretending   
   to   
   > be for some reason(s). It seems to me that in the end it usually comes to   
   that   
   > point.   
   >   
   I've had discussions with Free Lunch for years. In the past, insulting   
   people he disagrees with is out of character for him. So, I can overlook   
   this slip by him.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)