XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.christnet

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 <
ylvia@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 <1ril
2@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

[continued in next message]

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