XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 29-June-2014 11:01 AM, BruceS wrote:   
   > On 06/26/2014 11:24 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:28:35 +1000, the following appeared   
   >> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >>   
   >>> On 26-June-2014 5:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:05:32 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by James <1rilu2@windstream.net>:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> mur@.not.   
   >>>>>> For how long have atheists been begging for and demanding   
   >>>>>> "evidence" of   
   >>>>>> God's existence? For quite a while, we know that. Yet when   
   >>>>>> challenged to try to   
   >>>>>> explain WHAT sort of evidence they think "should be" where, they   
   >>>>>> can't even   
   >>>>>> address the challenge. When challenged to explain WHERE the   
   >>>>>> supposed evidence   
   >>>>>> "should be" they again are helpless. When challenged to explain   
   >>>>>> WHY it "should   
   >>>>>> be" to God's benefit to provide us with it AGAIN they have no   
   >>>>>> clue at all what   
   >>>>>> they think they think, or even what they want other people to   
   >>>>>> think they think   
   >>>>>> they think. It is certainly a sad sad thing that within this   
   >>>>>> entire group of   
   >>>>>> atheists none of their small minds can answer these questions,   
   >>>>>> nor can they as a   
   >>>>>> group figure out what they think they're trying to talk about.   
   >>>>>> Why is it sad?   
   >>>>>> Because it would be interesting to learn what they thought they   
   >>>>>> were trying to   
   >>>>>> talk about IF they had any idea themselves. We've seen that they   
   >>>>>> don't.   
   >>>>> They are stubborn rascals. When a true scientist looks at   
   >>>>> evidence, he   
   >>>>> will accept any logical evidence seen, whether or not it agrees with   
   >>>>> his personal beliefs.   
   >>>> Wrong. A scientist will evaluate any objective evidence,   
   >>>> *especially* evidence which will help to refute current   
   >>>> theory; that's how scientists become famous. Note the word   
   >>>> "objective", which eliminates personal testimony and   
   >>>> untestable claims in religious texts.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> But atheists are apparently a different breed.   
   >>>> Nope, they have the exact same requirements - objective   
   >>>> evidence.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> They will only accept evidence that doesn't interfere with their   
   >>>>> personal beliefs.   
   >>>> My IronyMeter has started to smoke...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Tell the group again why the overwhelming scientific   
   >>>> evidence regarding such issues as evolution is rejected by   
   >>>> many believers?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Thus they think they are 'stacking the deck' in   
   >>>>> their favor. They think it is a 'win, win' situation. But they are   
   >>>>> actually the losers, blocking out real truths. There was once a State   
   >>>>> that acted that way to; it was Nazi Germany.   
   >>>> ....which had the motto "Gott Mitt Uns". Care to guess what   
   >>>> that means?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And we're *still* waiting for all the objective evidence   
   >>>> which is claimed to exist.   
   >>>   
   >>> despite your claims to the contrary, there's no doubt in my mind that   
   >>> atheists are ppl who either want to reject the possibility of God's   
   >>> existence or want to believe that God doesn't exist. there's no good   
   >>> reason to be an atheist, so it has to be a case of wanting to be one.   
   >>   
   >> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just as I am   
   >> entitled to reject that opinion.   
   >   
   > I also reject that opinion. I have no desire to be an atheist, it's   
   > just the default condition for a rational person in the face of the   
   > complete lack of any meaningful reason to believe in any of the   
   > multitude of gods others have invented. Why would I believe in Thor,   
   > Jehova, Shaitan, Zeus, or any of the rest of them any more than I   
   > believe in the reality of Superman, Spiderman, Harry Potter, or John   
   > Carter of Mars?   
      
   ppl beleive as they do because they believe the claims of the particular   
   faith. what is difficult to understand about that?   
      
   > There's no good reason to be anything *but* an atheist.   
      
   there's no good reason to believe as fact or truth what is not known to   
   be true/factual   
      
   > Sure, there are some reasons for *pretending* to be of one or another   
   > religion, as there are social, business, and political benefits from   
   > joining the "right" club, but no reason to actually *believe* the   
   > nonsense that club spouts. For that matter, I don't actually "reject   
   > the possibility of God's existence" (or John Carter's existence, for   
   > that matter), I just don't accept the existence of same given the   
   > apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.   
      
   there is no 'complete lack of evidence' for God. there is evidence that   
   you are free to accept or reject.   
      
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg   
   “People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough   
   men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)