XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: sylvia@not.at.this.address
On 24/07/2014 2:08 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:57:57 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
>> On 20/07/2014 6:55 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 23:46:07 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/07/2014 8:15 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:10:02 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>>> On 9/07/2014 2:03 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:49:04 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> On 3/07/2014 1:26 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:51 -0400, James <1rilu2@windstream.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They don't go that way when they have a reputation to maintain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most of what you say are the miracles. I can't prove them, and you
>>>>>>>>>> can't disprove them. They are sitting in the history books.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the very basic starting lines that atheists can't
get as "far" as is
>>>>>>>>> the fact that if God does exist and did the things that are recorded
in the
>>>>>>>>> Bible, then ALL of those things are evidence of what he did. Even if
God doesn't
>>>>>>>>> exist and did none of those things the written accounts are still
evidence, but
>>>>>>>>> in that case they're false evidence. I have known some of these
stupid clowns to
>>>>>>>>> hilariously try to deny that false evidence exists at all, in their
maniacal
>>>>>>>>> desperation to deny all evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the fossil record is more in line with the Bible, than
that
>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic theory of macroevolution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's ridiculous. The fossil record, among other things,
>>>>>>>>>>> shows that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that
>>>>>>>>>>> plant and animal populations have only existed for
>>>>>>>>>>> approximately half a billion years, *and* that they have
>>>>>>>>>>> changed multiple times over that period, with no species
>>>>>>>>>>> lasting more than a few million years. And in contradiction
>>>>>>>>>>> to the Bible, the existence of the sun preceded that of the
>>>>>>>>>>> Earth by many millions of years, as did the stars ("And He
>>>>>>>>>>> made the stars also").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. Genesis 1 :1 shows when the sun was made. Ge 1:1,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NIV)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus in verse 1 the sun is shining brightly in the heavens. Since
the
>>>>>>>>>> order here is "heavens" and then the earth, the earth was created
>>>>>>>>>> after the heavens. If you have any more questions about the early
>>>>>>>>>> chapters of Genesis, just ask.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some of the seqeunces don't go along with reality though.
For example if I'm
>>>>>>>>> not mistaken it was written that plants were created before the
stars, when in
>>>>>>>>> fact the stars existed long before plants on this planet or even the
planet
>>>>>>>>> itself. That doesn't mean there still couldn't be truth to it, but
it does mean
>>>>>>>>> that how it could be true is not clear to us.
>>>>>>>>> . . .
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
