XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:45:31 -0400, Ralph  wrote:   
      
   >On 10/20/2014 5:46 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:37:48 -0400, August Rode  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 15/10/2014 7:36 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:50:31 -0400, August Rode    
   wrote:   
   >>>> .   
   >>>>> On 13/10/2014 7:06 PM, mur.@.not. wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:33:49 -0400, August Rode    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That's correct but that isn't an answer to my question. Not even   
   >>>>>>> remotely. Here it is again in a slightly different form:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>        Does belief in the truth of a claim mean that   
   >>>>>>>        the claim is true?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> When you   
   >>>>>>>> demand natural explanations for everything how is this resolved?   
   >>>>>>> I'll say the same thing to you that I've told others, that I'd accept a   
   >>>>>>> sound argument in place of natural explanations.   
   >>>>>>        What arguments would you accept? What arguments do you reject?   
   >>>>> I accept sound arguments. I reject arguments which have undecidable or   
   >>>>> false premises or which have logical fallacies, i.e. unsound arguments.   
   >>>>> Is that too hard for you?   
   >>>>       You didn't give examples, so a person must try to read your mind   
   for you and   
   >>>> try to figure out what you think you're trying to talk about. What sort   
   of sound   
   >>>> arguments are you imagining?   
   >>> Inasmuch as it isn't my responsibility to say what evidence   
   >>      Whether or not it's your responsibility to have any idea, you've shown   
   that   
   >> you have no idea what you're trying to talk about.   
   >>   
   >>> might be   
   >>> presented, it also isn't my responsibility to say what arguments you   
   >>> might put forward. Put forward an argument that you think convincing and   
   >>> let me evaluate it for myself.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Is it "too hard for" me to try to figure it out FOR   
   >>>> YOU and explain it TO YOU when you apparently can't do it for yourself?   
   It seems   
   >>>> it's "to hard for" both of us.   
   >>> I'm not claiming to be a believer. If you are a believer but you don't   
   >>> care what anyone else believes, then we have nothing to discuss. If   
   >>> you're a believer and you *do* care what others believe, then you ought   
   >>> to know what kind of argument should be convincing.   
   >>      But neither of us can imagine what you think would be convincing.   
   There is   
   >> no such argument you've ever heard, and you can't imagine what would be, so   
   >> nothing could be convincing for you afawk.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>> Many of them _claim_ that God exists. However, for those that don't   
   make   
   >>>>>>> such a claim overtly, believing that God exists is identical to   
   >>>>>>> believing that the claim "God exists" is true. No matter which way you   
   >>>>>>> cut it, Christians hold a definite position on the claim that God   
   >>>>>>> exists. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see much difference   
   between   
   >>>>>>> making a claim and believing a claim to be true.   
   >>>>>>        So the same can be said for atheists.   
   >>>>> By definition, atheists reject the claim that God exists.   
   >>>>       Are you ashamed to admit some atheists believe God does not exist?   
   Are you   
   >>>> ashamed to admit you believe God does not exist?   
   >>> I am not ashamed to admit to either of those. I believe that God most   
   >>> likely does not exist but I cannot claim that he does not.   
   >>      Do you see much difference between making that claim and believing that   
   >> claim to be true?   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>> They cannot prove he does.   
   >>>>>>> Correct. That doesn't seem to stop many of them from trying, though.   
   >>>>>>> Some of them brandish the argument from design as if it was intended to   
   >>>>>>> demonstrate something.   
   >>>>>> Similarly atheists brandish...uh...nothing as if it was intended to   
   >>>>>> demonstrate something.   
   >>>>> Hunh??   
   >>>>       Atheists have no real argument much less anything to back it up,   
   which is   
   >>>> why I pointed out what I did.   
   >>> As an atheist, I do *not* make the claim that God does not exist. I   
   >>> therefore have no need to back up any such claim.   
   >>      What I pointed out remains true and would remain equally true if you   
   *did*   
   >> make the claim.   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>> It's a matter   
   >>>>>>>> primarily of faith.   
   >>>>>> Again the same is true of atheists. All they have is their own faith   
   that   
   >>>>>> there is no God associated with this planet, and some that there is no   
   God   
   >>>>>> associated with any planet anywhere in the universe.   
   >>>>> If that is a claim that you support, i.e. that God or gods exist, I   
   >>>>> invite you to make the argument for it.   
   >>>>       I don't claim that Gods exist. I'm a weak agnostic. I will say I   
   believe   
   >>>> it's much more likely that in some places there are beings in the   
   universe who   
   >>>> can be considered Gods than that there are not any anywhere. I'll also   
   say that   
   >>>> so far from my pov it seems more likely than not that there is a God   
   or/and gods   
   >>>> associated with Earth.   
   >>> Okay. So go ahead and make the argument for that. That *is* what I asked   
   >>> for.   
   >>      The only "arguments" I'm aware of are the evidence.   
   >   
   >Then you should heed the evidence.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>   The fact that there are   
   >> no living examples of animals in transition between reptiles and birds etc   
   is   
   >> evidence.   
   >   
   >Of course there are no 'living' examples of animals in transition, you   
   >damn fool. Fossilization is a process that takes more than a human   
   >lifetime to achieve.   
      
       LOL!!! I mean: How would you like people to think that has anything to do   
   with why there are no animals in transition stages today? Would you like us to   
   think that fact somehow stopped the process, and if so, how? If not, why did   
   you   
   even mention it?   
      
   >>   The fact that there are not lots of fossil examples is evidence.   
   >   
   >What are 'lots', moron?   
      
       500 would be a start for you.   
      
   >Billions of fossils have been discovered.   
      
       Then from the way you presented that it seems it should be no problem for   
   you to present 500 examples of creatures in transition between reptiles and   
   birds. If you can only provide 200 though we'll say that you've at least done   
   some little tiny itty bitty thing, so see if you can do that much. And they   
   must   
   all be examples of DIFFERENT creatures. If you only present 100 examples of   
   archaeopteryx and then 100 examples of other different creatures you won't get   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)