XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:52:52 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:
>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 <
ylvia@not.at.this.address>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <1r
lu2@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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
