XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: me@nothere.biz
On 29-June-2014 1:12 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:19:20 +1000, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>
>> 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?
> Not a thing. What's so difficult to understand about the
> fact that many people don't believe in something for which
> no objective evidence exists?
>
>>> 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
> So you agree that there's no good reason to accept the
> unevidenced claims of the various religions? That *is* what
> you just said, you know.
the tenets of the various religions are taken on faith
>
>>> 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.
> There is no *objective* evidence for the existence of any
> deity, which is irrelevant if one has faith.
all you can really say with 100% certainty is that there is no objective
evidence you are aware of
--
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)
|
