XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet
From: sylvia@not.at.this.address

On 3/08/2014 3:58 AM, 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 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/07/2014 1:26 AM, mur@.not. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:27:51 -0400, James <1rilu
@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

[continued in next message]

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