XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: sylvia@not.at.this.address
On 4/08/2014 4:54 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 13:16:54 +1000, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
> .
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:58:02 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:34:37 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:18:51 -0400, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:21:53 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
sylvia@not.at.this.address>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/07/2014 1:26 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:51 -0400, James <1ri
u2@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,
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
