XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 01-July-2014 4:36 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 06:55:12 +1000, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   > Yes, he has. But he refuses to accept that non-evidence does   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)