XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: bruces42@hotmail.com

On 06/28/2014 07:19 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> 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?
>
>> 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

And yet religious people do precisely that; they believe as fact or
truth what is not known to be true/factual.  They believe all sorts of
nonsense in the absence of any evidence to support that nonsense.  That
is, in essence, what religion is.

>> 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.

You like to say things like this, but always fail utterly to present any
such evidence.  The most you do is present evidence that people
*believe* in gods, which we accept.  You say there is evidence for gods;
present it!  Stop just hiding the evidence and *show* it.  I say
"apparently complete lack of evidence", which is factually correct.
Sure, there could be some evidence hidden away somewhere, but neither
you nor anyone else seems capable of presenting it.  Until someone,
anyone, presents some evidence for one or another god, there is an
apparently complete lack of evidence to support it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)