XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:46:48 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>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.
I don't have any reason to believe it or even consider it to be a likely
possibility that deity is restricted to spirit form. That they may take on what
appears to be spirit form seems likely enough though, and that that's how they
often present themselves. From my pov it's probably more like a holographic
projection or something along those lines though, possibly of images of beings
that never exist at all except in some sort of "program" somewhere...
>>> 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?
We have no way of freely moving around checking things out in all areas of
our own solar system, much less beyond. If we did we might, but then again
might
not, find that evidence for "spiritual entities" is within the realm of
scientific inquiry. Can you get that far with 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.
Please restore the context if you think it would then make good sense.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
