XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 02-July-2014 3:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:23:40 +1000, the following appeared   
   > in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :   
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)