XPost: alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:c0or3d9i682a49igsjncfektk6enbo26ea@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 20:58:19 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> wrote in message   
   >>news:tnp83d5iek49cnbvumgh2kqmg42c9bdf62@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 15:26:57 -0500, "Scout"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>And perhaps they are indeed bits of god....but then again, so could the   
   >>>>entire Universe.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>After all, but the Bible and Science agree on one thing at the beginning   
   >>>>of   
   >>>>everything......there was nothing other than God...or the primordial   
   >>>>singularity.  If we assume they both describe the same thing...then the   
   >>>   
   >>> That is in no way an agreement on anything. Wow you really hit a home   
   >>> run there...   
   >>   
   >>So which of this do you claim is wrong? The Bible or Science?   
   >   
   > I am making no claims, because science and religion do not agree on   
   > anything, which is what I said previously but I guess you did not   
   > quite catch that part even though I said   
      
      
   What they both agree on is that there was nothing in the entire universe   
   except for one body, by whatever name you chose to call it.   
      
   It's merely your contention that they don't agree. For all you know the   
   primordial singularity of science and God of the bible are one and the same.   
      
   I know, you will immediately dismiss the idea because it's not something   
   your faith would allow you to consider.   
      
      
   >>>That is in no way an agreement on anything   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>Universe itself would be the evidence.....if only we had the knowledge   
   >>>>to   
   >>>>recognize it. However, without such knowledge no one can really say   
   >>>>whether   
   >>>>such physical evidence exists or doesn't exist, and I've not yet found   
   >>>>anyone able to show otherwise.......on either side.   
   >>>   
   >>> There is no either side.   
   >>   
   >>Theists vs Antitheists.   
   >>   
   >>2 sides....as denoted by the "anti"   
   >   
   >   
   > You are obviously one of those people who always must have conflict,   
      
   That's what "anti" means. An opposing force, energy, view, etc.   
      
      
   > does that make you a barbarian? Perhaps a Neanderthal? Or just a less   
   > evolved homo sapiens? Either way There are no two sides, this is not a   
   > game and we are not at war. Seriously WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?   
      
   So you don't understand the English language?   
      
   >>> That is what you seem to be missing out on. Theists say god exists.   
   >>   
   >>And Antitheist says god(s) do not exist.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> THEY and only they are responsible for showing that fairies are real.   
   >>   
   >>And you are responsible for showing they aren't.   
   >   
   > Lame, really lame. Yet you would be correct, I am responsible for   
   > showing that there are no gods, so as soon as you can show that gods   
   > are real,   
      
   Why would I need to show anything?   
      
   I've made no claim in either direction.   
      
   Oh, and it's interesting how you always demand the other side has to produce   
   their proof first. It's almost like you're admitting you have no proof to   
   support your own position.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)