XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:16:12 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by James <1rilu2@windstream.net>:   
   >   
   >>Bob Casanova    
   >>>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.   
   >>   
   >>Yes, some scientists think more of their reputation than being   
   >>truthful about their evidence. That is unfortunate.   
   >   
   >Missed the part about "objective evidence", huh? No problem;   
   >most believers do.   
   >   
   >>Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,   
   >>archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.   
   >   
   >Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any   
   >book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories   
   >about actual places have been confirmed (or were already   
   >known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities   
   >which haven't been.   
      
       WHAT sort of confirmation do you think there should be, WHERE else do you   
   think it should be, and WHY do you think it should be to God's benefit for him   
   to provide it in the supposed other place(s)?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)