XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: sylvia@not.at.this.address
On 27/07/2014 4:08 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:36:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
>> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
