XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 30-June-2014 4:00 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
      
   > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:52:27 +1000, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >> 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   
   > It's 100% correct that I'm not aware of any such evidence,   
   > but it's also 100% correct that no one seems able to present   
   > such evidence.   
      
   I believe mur has made the point that a lack of objective evidence does   
   not translate to non-existence, on the basis that there's no reason to   
   assume that God would interfere with the physical realm.   
      
   --   
   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)