Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: another "agnostic" with a grudge against atheists. Grow up, already.
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Bob Casanova
Apr 20, 2012, 2:04:11 PM4/20/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:14:07 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
<Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>On 4/18/2012 1:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:35:14 +1000, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>:
>>
>>> On 18-April-2012 2:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:46:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17-April-2012 3:27 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> [Crickets...]
>>>>> what is crickets?
>>>> The ones I hear in place of a response from you. It's a
>>>> common notation in Usenet.
>>>
>>> I have never encountered it in well over a decade of posting on usenet
>>> until now
>>
>> Your experience is of no meaning, since it's a common usage.
>>
>>>> Since this is crossposted to several groups I'll see any
>>>> response you make if you don't change the "Newsgroups:"
>>>> field.
>>>
>>> I'm not in the habit of doing that, since we cannot know where ppl are
>>> posting from when messages are x-posted, unless it's necessary due to
>>> the excessive number of ngs in the header that the usenet host will not
>>> allow.
>>
>> You seem to have no problem with the list in this post.
>>
>>> your practice of stating the ng you're posting from is a good one.
>>
>> It clarifies things. Sometimes.
>>
>>>> Still waiting for you to clarify your meaning...
>>>
>>> I shall decline.
>>
>> So you're willing to have others define the terms you use?
>> OK, but that hurts no one but you.
>>
>>> I'm tired of trying to talk sense to atheists
>>
>> And since I do *not* discuss my beliefs in public fora, your
>> unsupported belief that I'm an atheist comes from...?
>Actually - it would depend on the posts you have actually made as far as
>I am concerned (I have not followed many of your posts)
OK. Since I've never posted anything regarding the validity
of belief in deities, but only about the arguments presented
by both sides, that shouldn't be a problem.
>THERE are people - like felix - who has posted against both agnostics
>and atheists - with colorful and hardly objective arguments. IF you
>read the posts - you would come to a conclusion
How? If his posts pointed out fallacies in arguments it's
irrelevant whether those arguments were posted by religious
fundies or by scientism fanatics (or by anything in
between), and I've done both. Fallacy is fallacy.
>THERE are others who remain impossible to conclude though.
My position isn't complex or contradictory; I simply refuse
to discuss my beliefs in Usenet, since those beliefs are
irrelevant. My posts are usually addressed toward those on
*both* sides (and there are those on both sides, even though
the religious fundies outnumber the devotees of scientism)
who misrepresent reality or who use poor logic in their
arguments. If someone says that he believes in a deity even
though there's no physical evidence to support that belief I
have no argument against that belief. It's only when they
try to twist evidence in an attempt to support their
beliefs, or to selectively deny objective evidence which
they believe refutes their interpretations of their
particular religious texts, that I get involved. And the
same applies to the devotees of scientism who insist that
science has "proven" the nonexistence of deities.
"I believe God exists" - Fine; everyone is entitled to
belief in whatever they wish, evidenced or not.
"The universe is 6000 years old" - Not so fine; science has
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"Science has proven the nonexistence of deities" - Also not
so fine (In fact, IMHO the worst of the three, since it
misrepresents not what science has discovered about reality,
but how science works; the scientism equivalent of the "It's
only a theory" nonsense hawked by some fundies.)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
<Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>On 4/18/2012 1:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:35:14 +1000, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>:
>>
>>> On 18-April-2012 2:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:46:43 +1000, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17-April-2012 3:27 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> [Crickets...]
>>>>> what is crickets?
>>>> The ones I hear in place of a response from you. It's a
>>>> common notation in Usenet.
>>>
>>> I have never encountered it in well over a decade of posting on usenet
>>> until now
>>
>> Your experience is of no meaning, since it's a common usage.
>>
>>>> Since this is crossposted to several groups I'll see any
>>>> response you make if you don't change the "Newsgroups:"
>>>> field.
>>>
>>> I'm not in the habit of doing that, since we cannot know where ppl are
>>> posting from when messages are x-posted, unless it's necessary due to
>>> the excessive number of ngs in the header that the usenet host will not
>>> allow.
>>
>> You seem to have no problem with the list in this post.
>>
>>> your practice of stating the ng you're posting from is a good one.
>>
>> It clarifies things. Sometimes.
>>
>>>> Still waiting for you to clarify your meaning...
>>>
>>> I shall decline.
>>
>> So you're willing to have others define the terms you use?
>> OK, but that hurts no one but you.
>>
>>> I'm tired of trying to talk sense to atheists
>>
>> And since I do *not* discuss my beliefs in public fora, your
>> unsupported belief that I'm an atheist comes from...?
>Actually - it would depend on the posts you have actually made as far as
>I am concerned (I have not followed many of your posts)
OK. Since I've never posted anything regarding the validity
of belief in deities, but only about the arguments presented
by both sides, that shouldn't be a problem.
>THERE are people - like felix - who has posted against both agnostics
>and atheists - with colorful and hardly objective arguments. IF you
>read the posts - you would come to a conclusion
How? If his posts pointed out fallacies in arguments it's
irrelevant whether those arguments were posted by religious
fundies or by scientism fanatics (or by anything in
between), and I've done both. Fallacy is fallacy.
>THERE are others who remain impossible to conclude though.
My position isn't complex or contradictory; I simply refuse
to discuss my beliefs in Usenet, since those beliefs are
irrelevant. My posts are usually addressed toward those on
*both* sides (and there are those on both sides, even though
the religious fundies outnumber the devotees of scientism)
who misrepresent reality or who use poor logic in their
arguments. If someone says that he believes in a deity even
though there's no physical evidence to support that belief I
have no argument against that belief. It's only when they
try to twist evidence in an attempt to support their
beliefs, or to selectively deny objective evidence which
they believe refutes their interpretations of their
particular religious texts, that I get involved. And the
same applies to the devotees of scientism who insist that
science has "proven" the nonexistence of deities.
"I believe God exists" - Fine; everyone is entitled to
belief in whatever they wish, evidenced or not.
"The universe is 6000 years old" - Not so fine; science has
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"Science has proven the nonexistence of deities" - Also not
so fine (In fact, IMHO the worst of the three, since it
misrepresents not what science has discovered about reality,
but how science works; the scientism equivalent of the "It's
only a theory" nonsense hawked by some fundies.)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
felix_unger
Apr 20, 2012, 6:49:15 PM4/20/12
to
> that shouldn't be a problem.
>
>> THERE are people - like felix - who has posted against both agnostics
>> and atheists - with colorful and hardly objective arguments. IF you
>> read the posts - you would come to a conclusion
> How? If his posts pointed out fallacies in arguments it's
> irrelevant whether those arguments were posted by religious
> fundies or by scientism fanatics (or by anything in
> between), and I've done both. Fallacy is fallacy.
need to have that explained to them
Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám
ThomMadura
Apr 23, 2012, 11:26:27 AM4/23/12
to
>
>> THERE are people - like felix - who has posted against both agnostics
>> and atheists - with colorful and hardly objective arguments. IF you
>> read the posts - you would come to a conclusion
>
> How? If his posts pointed out fallacies in arguments it's
> irrelevant whether those arguments were posted by religious
> fundies or by scientism fanatics (or by anything in
> between), and I've done both. Fallacy is fallacy.
they generally are just Ad Hominem attacks on the posters - claiming
that all they do is LIE
I have yet to see him post a response in which he actually presents a
viable or even semi-coherent reason WHY he considers that to be the case
>
>> THERE are others who remain impossible to conclude though.
>
> My position isn't complex or contradictory; I simply refuse
> to discuss my beliefs in Usenet, since those beliefs are
> irrelevant. My posts are usually addressed toward those on
> *both* sides
(and there are those on both sides, even though
> the religious fundies outnumber the devotees of scientism)
> who misrepresent reality or who use poor logic in their
> arguments. If someone says that he believes in a deity even
> though there's no physical evidence to support that belief I
> have no argument against that belief. It's only when they
> try to twist evidence in an attempt to support their
> beliefs, or to selectively deny objective evidence which
> they believe refutes their interpretations of their
> particular religious texts, that I get involved. And the
> same applies to the devotees of scientism who insist that
> science has "proven" the nonexistence of deities.
for their gods. WHEN a religion makes claims that are obviously
contradictory and cannot BOTH be true - or simply cannot be true at all
- then one can make the statement that a particular deity - cannot exist
as defined.
So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
ThomMadura
Apr 23, 2012, 11:50:48 AM4/23/12
to
what they say - you have NOT established them to have made a fallacy
Bob Casanova
Apr 23, 2012, 12:53:15 PM4/23/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:26:27 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>> Still waiting for you to clarify your meaning...
>>>>> I shall decline.
>>>> So you're willing to have others define the terms you use?
>>>> OK, but that hurts no one but you.
>>>>> I'm tired of trying to talk sense to atheists
>>>> And since I do *not* discuss my beliefs in public fora, your
>>>> unsupported belief that I'm an atheist comes from...?
>>> Actually - it would depend on the posts you have actually made as far as
>>> I am concerned (I have not followed many of your posts)
>> OK. Since I've never posted anything regarding the validity
>> of belief in deities, but only about the arguments presented
>> by both sides, that shouldn't be a problem.
>However - Felix has indeed posted such things
Well, he's certainly not alone. But my only point in this
thread is that he needs to define what he means by the terms
he uses. He said here that he declined to do so, but
provided a logical (but in my opinion, incorrect, or at
least too general) definition elsewhere. And he failed to
acknowledge the difference between "atheist" and
"anti-theist".
>>> THERE are people - like felix - who has posted against both agnostics
>>> and atheists - with colorful and hardly objective arguments. IF you
>>> read the posts - you would come to a conclusion
>> How? If his posts pointed out fallacies in arguments it's
>> irrelevant whether those arguments were posted by religious
>> fundies or by scientism fanatics (or by anything in
>> between), and I've done both. Fallacy is fallacy.
>Ah - but if you read THOSE posts- they fail to point out fallacies -
>they generally are just Ad Hominem attacks on the posters - claiming
>that all they do is LIE
OK. Again, all I addressed was his failure to define his
terms.
>I have yet to see him post a response in which he actually presents a
>viable or even semi-coherent reason WHY he considers that to be the case
He did so (again, elsewhere) in response to my request. But
I concede that may be an aberration.
>> My position isn't complex or contradictory; I simply refuse
>> to discuss my beliefs in Usenet, since those beliefs are
>> irrelevant. My posts are usually addressed toward those on
>> *both* sides
>I hope YOU mean ALL sides - since there are more that TWO possibilities here
But only two basic ones, belief vs. non-belief. There are
shades of both, but no real compromise between them.
>> (and there are those on both sides, even though
>> the religious fundies outnumber the devotees of scientism)
>> who misrepresent reality or who use poor logic in their
>> arguments. If someone says that he believes in a deity even
>> though there's no physical evidence to support that belief I
>> have no argument against that belief. It's only when they
>> try to twist evidence in an attempt to support their
>> beliefs, or to selectively deny objective evidence which
>> they believe refutes their interpretations of their
>> particular religious texts, that I get involved. And the
>> same applies to the devotees of scientism who insist that
>> science has "proven" the nonexistence of deities.
>However - science CAN BE USED to consider the claims made by religions
>for their gods. WHEN a religion makes claims that are obviously
>contradictory and cannot BOTH be true - or simply cannot be true at all
>- then one can make the statement that a particular deity - cannot exist
>as defined.
Correct. "As defined", however, is the controlling
constraint; the existence of deities cannot, and is not,
addressed by science, at least partially because, when an
omnipotent deity is involved, *anything* goes, cause and
effect are not detectably linked, and evidence thus becomes
worthless. Science addresses and investigates observable
reality, and one of the basic assumptions is that nature may
be obscure, but doesn't lie. The abilities claimed for
deities put them outside observable reality, and thus
outside the purview of science.
>So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
I'd say rather that science can address claims made about
specific deities by their followers when those claims
involve specific testable areas of reality: the Noachian
Flood, for instance, or the age of the Earth. But keep in
mind that these involve claims made by believers regarding
characteristics they think their deity possesses, not the
deity's existence or non-existence. Science can state with
confidence that, based on the evidence, no global flood has
taken place since *at least* the Permian, but cannot state
that no deity exists; only that some characteristics and/or
actions claimed for a particular deity are inconsistent with
the evidence.
in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
<Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>On 4/20/2012 2:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:14:07 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>> <Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>>> On 4/18/2012 1:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:35:14 +1000, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>:
>>>>> On 18-April-2012 2:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
<snip>
<Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>On 4/20/2012 2:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:14:07 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>> <Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>>> On 4/18/2012 1:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:35:14 +1000, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>:
>>>>> On 18-April-2012 2:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> Still waiting for you to clarify your meaning...
>>>>> I shall decline.
>>>> So you're willing to have others define the terms you use?
>>>> OK, but that hurts no one but you.
>>>>> I'm tired of trying to talk sense to atheists
>>>> And since I do *not* discuss my beliefs in public fora, your
>>>> unsupported belief that I'm an atheist comes from...?
>>> Actually - it would depend on the posts you have actually made as far as
>>> I am concerned (I have not followed many of your posts)
>> OK. Since I've never posted anything regarding the validity
>> of belief in deities, but only about the arguments presented
>> by both sides, that shouldn't be a problem.
>However - Felix has indeed posted such things
thread is that he needs to define what he means by the terms
he uses. He said here that he declined to do so, but
provided a logical (but in my opinion, incorrect, or at
least too general) definition elsewhere. And he failed to
acknowledge the difference between "atheist" and
"anti-theist".
>>> THERE are people - like felix - who has posted against both agnostics
>>> and atheists - with colorful and hardly objective arguments. IF you
>>> read the posts - you would come to a conclusion
>> How? If his posts pointed out fallacies in arguments it's
>> irrelevant whether those arguments were posted by religious
>> fundies or by scientism fanatics (or by anything in
>> between), and I've done both. Fallacy is fallacy.
>Ah - but if you read THOSE posts- they fail to point out fallacies -
>they generally are just Ad Hominem attacks on the posters - claiming
>that all they do is LIE
terms.
>I have yet to see him post a response in which he actually presents a
>viable or even semi-coherent reason WHY he considers that to be the case
I concede that may be an aberration.
>> My position isn't complex or contradictory; I simply refuse
>> to discuss my beliefs in Usenet, since those beliefs are
>> irrelevant. My posts are usually addressed toward those on
>> *both* sides
>I hope YOU mean ALL sides - since there are more that TWO possibilities here
shades of both, but no real compromise between them.
>> (and there are those on both sides, even though
>> the religious fundies outnumber the devotees of scientism)
>> who misrepresent reality or who use poor logic in their
>> arguments. If someone says that he believes in a deity even
>> though there's no physical evidence to support that belief I
>> have no argument against that belief. It's only when they
>> try to twist evidence in an attempt to support their
>> beliefs, or to selectively deny objective evidence which
>> they believe refutes their interpretations of their
>> particular religious texts, that I get involved. And the
>> same applies to the devotees of scientism who insist that
>> science has "proven" the nonexistence of deities.
>However - science CAN BE USED to consider the claims made by religions
>for their gods. WHEN a religion makes claims that are obviously
>contradictory and cannot BOTH be true - or simply cannot be true at all
>- then one can make the statement that a particular deity - cannot exist
>as defined.
constraint; the existence of deities cannot, and is not,
addressed by science, at least partially because, when an
omnipotent deity is involved, *anything* goes, cause and
effect are not detectably linked, and evidence thus becomes
worthless. Science addresses and investigates observable
reality, and one of the basic assumptions is that nature may
be obscure, but doesn't lie. The abilities claimed for
deities put them outside observable reality, and thus
outside the purview of science.
>So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
specific deities by their followers when those claims
involve specific testable areas of reality: the Noachian
Flood, for instance, or the age of the Earth. But keep in
mind that these involve claims made by believers regarding
characteristics they think their deity possesses, not the
deity's existence or non-existence. Science can state with
confidence that, based on the evidence, no global flood has
taken place since *at least* the Permian, but cannot state
that no deity exists; only that some characteristics and/or
actions claimed for a particular deity are inconsistent with
the evidence.
ThomMadura
Apr 23, 2012, 2:30:53 PM4/23/12
to
However - MY point was that there are actually three that even YOU
recognize - in this case - theism - atheism - and agnosticism.
There may be abilities beyond observable reality - but they are claimed
to do material things in OUR REALITY - and that is where they can be
discussed and measured by OUR science.
IF a god ONLY exists OUTSIDE of our reality - and never does anything in
our reality - then you might be correct. However - of what use would be
religion in that case?
>
>> So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
>
> I'd say rather that science can address claims made about
> specific deities by their followers when those claims
> involve specific testable areas of reality: the Noachian
> Flood, for instance, or the age of the Earth. But keep in
> mind that these involve claims made by believers regarding
> characteristics they think their deity possesses, not the
> deity's existence or non-existence.
objectively eliminate a religion based on it claiming things that cannot
be true - do you agree?
Science can state with
> confidence that, based on the evidence, no global flood has
> taken place since *at least* the Permian, but cannot state
> that no deity exists; only that some characteristics and/or
> actions claimed for a particular deity are inconsistent with
> the evidence.
(A human cannot eat all seed bearing plants for food)
felix_unger
Apr 23, 2012, 7:41:47 PM4/23/12
to
On 24-April-2012 1:26 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 2:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:14:07 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>> <Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>>
>>
> On 4/20/2012 2:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:14:07 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>> <Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>>
>>
>>> THERE are people - like felix - who has posted against both agnostics
>>> and atheists - with colorful and hardly objective arguments. IF you
>>> read the posts - you would come to a conclusion
>>
>> How? If his posts pointed out fallacies in arguments it's
>> irrelevant whether those arguments were posted by religious
>> fundies or by scientism fanatics (or by anything in
>> between), and I've done both. Fallacy is fallacy.
>
>
> Ah - but if you read THOSE posts- they fail to point out fallacies -
> they generally are just Ad Hominem attacks on the posters - claiming
> that all they do is LIE
>
> I have yet to see him post a response in which he actually presents a
> viable or even semi-coherent reason WHY he considers that to be the case
>
>
Then you must be blind, as well as bigoted and hateful.
>>> and atheists - with colorful and hardly objective arguments. IF you
>>> read the posts - you would come to a conclusion
>>
>> How? If his posts pointed out fallacies in arguments it's
>> irrelevant whether those arguments were posted by religious
>> fundies or by scientism fanatics (or by anything in
>> between), and I've done both. Fallacy is fallacy.
>
>
> Ah - but if you read THOSE posts- they fail to point out fallacies -
> they generally are just Ad Hominem attacks on the posters - claiming
> that all they do is LIE
>
> I have yet to see him post a response in which he actually presents a
> viable or even semi-coherent reason WHY he considers that to be the case
>
>
felix_unger
Apr 23, 2012, 7:57:00 PM4/23/12
to
'dishonest doc' demands that I must address everything put to me,
including lies and distortions.
ThomMadura
Apr 23, 2012, 9:40:57 PM4/23/12
to
MAYbe you need professional help
Bob Casanova
Apr 24, 2012, 1:37:46 PM4/24/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:30:53 -0400, the following appeared
Someone once asked "What is truth?", and it's a valid
question; "truth" varies with the observer. I prefer
"evidence" and "observation".
>However - MY point was that there are actually three that even YOU
>recognize - in this case - theism - atheism - and agnosticism.
Not really, since both atheism (all flavors) and agnosticism
involve lack of belief. For different reasons, granted, but
still lack of belief.
Nothing is, but see below...
>There may be abilities beyond observable reality - but they are claimed
>to do material things in OUR REALITY - and that is where they can be
>discussed and measured by OUR science.
...which is why I stated below that claimed effects and
actions which are observable can be investigated, while the
existence of the deity causing those effects generally
cannot.
>IF a god ONLY exists OUTSIDE of our reality - and never does anything in
>our reality - then you might be correct. However - of what use would be
>religion in that case?
Since I specifically addressed the issue of observable
effects this question is moot.
>>> So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
>>
>> I'd say rather that science can address claims made about
>> specific deities by their followers when those claims
>> involve specific testable areas of reality: the Noachian
>> Flood, for instance, or the age of the Earth. But keep in
>> mind that these involve claims made by believers regarding
>> characteristics they think their deity possesses, not the
>> deity's existence or non-existence.
>BUT since all of those claims are MADE by believers - then we can
>objectively eliminate a religion based on it claiming things that cannot
>be true - do you agree?
You can refute specific claims. If in your opinion this
eliminates the religion so be it; it's a matter of semantics
and the fragility of a particular set of religious beliefs.
You just can't eliminate the possible existence of the deity
which supposedly inspired the religion, whether the
followers "got it right" about the deity's abilities,
attributes and actions or not. Basically, all science can
say is "Your claims are incorrect"; it can't say "Your deity
doesn't exist".
> Science can state with
>> confidence that, based on the evidence, no global flood has
>> taken place since *at least* the Permian, but cannot state
>> that no deity exists; only that some characteristics and/or
>> actions claimed for a particular deity are inconsistent with
>> the evidence.
>OR not consistent with reality as well.
We only know reality by the evidence, so I'd say this is
redundant.
>(A human cannot eat all seed bearing plants for food)
???
question; "truth" varies with the observer. I prefer
"evidence" and "observation".
>However - MY point was that there are actually three that even YOU
>recognize - in this case - theism - atheism - and agnosticism.
involve lack of belief. For different reasons, granted, but
still lack of belief.
>There may be abilities beyond observable reality - but they are claimed
>to do material things in OUR REALITY - and that is where they can be
>discussed and measured by OUR science.
actions which are observable can be investigated, while the
existence of the deity causing those effects generally
cannot.
>IF a god ONLY exists OUTSIDE of our reality - and never does anything in
>our reality - then you might be correct. However - of what use would be
>religion in that case?
effects this question is moot.
>>> So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
>>
>> I'd say rather that science can address claims made about
>> specific deities by their followers when those claims
>> involve specific testable areas of reality: the Noachian
>> Flood, for instance, or the age of the Earth. But keep in
>> mind that these involve claims made by believers regarding
>> characteristics they think their deity possesses, not the
>> deity's existence or non-existence.
>BUT since all of those claims are MADE by believers - then we can
>objectively eliminate a religion based on it claiming things that cannot
>be true - do you agree?
eliminates the religion so be it; it's a matter of semantics
and the fragility of a particular set of religious beliefs.
You just can't eliminate the possible existence of the deity
which supposedly inspired the religion, whether the
followers "got it right" about the deity's abilities,
attributes and actions or not. Basically, all science can
say is "Your claims are incorrect"; it can't say "Your deity
doesn't exist".
> Science can state with
>> confidence that, based on the evidence, no global flood has
>> taken place since *at least* the Permian, but cannot state
>> that no deity exists; only that some characteristics and/or
>> actions claimed for a particular deity are inconsistent with
>> the evidence.
>OR not consistent with reality as well.
redundant.
>(A human cannot eat all seed bearing plants for food)
ThomMadura
Apr 24, 2012, 3:52:11 PM4/24/12
to
observer -Belief is what varies - and evidence does as well.
I consider DIRECT observation to be truth
>> However - MY point was that there are actually three that even YOU
>> recognize - in this case - theism - atheism - and agnosticism.
>
> Not really, since both atheism (all flavors) and agnosticism
> involve lack of belief. For different reasons, granted, but
> still lack of belief.
>
>>>>> (and there are those on both sides, even though
>>>>> the religious fundies outnumber the devotees of scientism)
>>>>> who misrepresent reality or who use poor logic in their
>>>>> arguments. If someone says that he believes in a deity even
>>>>> though there's no physical evidence to support that belief I
>>>>> have no argument against that belief. It's only when they
>>>>> try to twist evidence in an attempt to support their
>>>>> beliefs, or to selectively deny objective evidence which
>>>>> they believe refutes their interpretations of their
>>>>> particular religious texts, that I get involved. And the
>>>>> same applies to the devotees of scientism who insist that
>>>>> science has "proven" the nonexistence of deities.
>>>
>>>> However - science CAN BE USED to consider the claims made by religions
>>>> for their gods. WHEN a religion makes claims that are obviously
>>>> contradictory and cannot BOTH be true - or simply cannot be true at all
>>>> - then one can make the statement that a particular deity - cannot exist
>>>> as defined.
>>>
>>> Correct. "As defined", however, is the controlling
>>> constraint; the existence of deities cannot, and is not,
>>> addressed by science,
In science - we address the claims that religion makes for its gods -
and if we can prove an alternate source for the claim - we are indeed
addressing the existence of the god that supposedly did those things.
at least partially because, when an
>>> omnipotent deity is involved, *anything* goes,
THERE are still things that are impossible - even for an omnipotent being.
cause and
>>> effect are not detectably linked, and evidence thus becomes
>>> worthless. Science addresses and investigates observable
>>> reality, and one of the basic assumptions is that nature may
>>> be obscure, but doesn't lie. The abilities claimed for
>>> deities put them outside observable reality, and thus
>>> outside the purview of science.
>>
>>
>> No - that is not completely true
>
> Nothing is, but see below...
>
>> There may be abilities beyond observable reality - but they are claimed
>> to do material things in OUR REALITY - and that is where they can be
>> discussed and measured by OUR science.
>
> ...which is why I stated below that claimed effects and
> actions which are observable can be investigated, while the
> existence of the deity causing those effects generally
> cannot.
Again - if a religion claims something that CANNOT BE TRUE - then a
deity can be discounted by science. THAT is how we deal with
"suggestion" - by falsification
A deity fails to reach the level of hypothesis or theory simply because
of the complete lack of evidence of their existence.
However the same rules apply - and if YOU FALSIFY a part of a
"suggestion" -= you have eliminated that suggestion from consideration -
UNTIL the suggester either
1: Correct his suggestion - taking into account the new information we
have
2 - Presents a new suggestion that also takes into account that information
IF neither of the above is done - the suggestion is falsified - and moot.
>
>> IF a god ONLY exists OUTSIDE of our reality - and never does anything in
>> our reality - then you might be correct. However - of what use would be
>> religion in that case?
>
> Since I specifically addressed the issue of observable
> effects this question is moot.
but that is NOT MY QUESTION
IF a god exists ONLY OUTSIDE of our reality and has NO observable
effects IN OUR REALTY - then of what use is religion?
IE - if a god does nothing for humans at any level - why would anyone
consider religion to be useful
>
>>>> So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
>>>
>>> I'd say rather that science can address claims made about
>>> specific deities by their followers when those claims
>>> involve specific testable areas of reality: the Noachian
>>> Flood, for instance, or the age of the Earth. But keep in
>>> mind that these involve claims made by believers regarding
>>> characteristics they think their deity possesses, not the
>>> deity's existence or non-existence.
>
>> BUT since all of those claims are MADE by believers - then we can
>> objectively eliminate a religion based on it claiming things that cannot
>> be true - do you agree?
>
> You can refute specific claims. If in your opinion this
> eliminates the religion so be it; it's a matter of semantics
> and the fragility of a particular set of religious beliefs.
> You just can't eliminate the possible existence of the deity
> which supposedly inspired the religion, whether the
> followers "got it right" about the deity's abilities,
> attributes and actions or not.
- it is NOT the god of that religion
IF the religion did not "get it right" - the religion is MOOT.
THAT does not mean that a higher power does not exist- but that the
religion's claim is not true - and therefore the religion is wrong.
Basically, all science can
> say is "Your claims are incorrect"; it can't say "Your deity
> doesn't exist".
religions - cannot exist
Bob Casanova
Apr 25, 2012, 1:34:24 PM4/25/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:52:11 -0400, the following appeared
Your privilege; as I said, beliefs are the right of
everyone.
agnostic believers. Granted, based on a strict definition
this is possible (one may harbor beliefs while accepting
that those beliefs are unprovable), but in practice I've
never seen that approach taken by any religious believer.
>
>>
>>>>>> (and there are those on both sides, even though
>>>>>> the religious fundies outnumber the devotees of scientism)
>>>>>> who misrepresent reality or who use poor logic in their
>>>>>> arguments. If someone says that he believes in a deity even
>>>>>> though there's no physical evidence to support that belief I
>>>>>> have no argument against that belief. It's only when they
>>>>>> try to twist evidence in an attempt to support their
>>>>>> beliefs, or to selectively deny objective evidence which
>>>>>> they believe refutes their interpretations of their
>>>>>> particular religious texts, that I get involved. And the
>>>>>> same applies to the devotees of scientism who insist that
>>>>>> science has "proven" the nonexistence of deities.
>>>>
>>>>> However - science CAN BE USED to consider the claims made by religions
>>>>> for their gods. WHEN a religion makes claims that are obviously
>>>>> contradictory and cannot BOTH be true - or simply cannot be true at all
>>>>> - then one can make the statement that a particular deity - cannot exist
>>>>> as defined.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. "As defined", however, is the controlling
>>>> constraint; the existence of deities cannot, and is not,
>>>> addressed by science,
>
>
>Sorry - BUT I still do not agree with that statement
Sorry, but scientists disagree; only that which can be
observed and/or measured is addressable by science.
>In science - we address the claims that religion makes for its gods -
>and if we can prove an alternate source for the claim - we are indeed
>addressing the existence of the god that supposedly did those things.
Nope. Invalidating claims of actions says nothing about the
existence of the entity supposedly responsible for those
actions other than "these actions weren't taken".
the usual one, "Having unlimited or universal power,
authority, or force". Unlimited means...well...*unlimited*;
i.e., no limits *at all*.
>Again - if a religion claims something that CANNOT BE TRUE - then a
>deity can be discounted by science. THAT is how we deal with
>"suggestion" - by falsification
The problem with this argument is that science cannot
falsify that which it cannot investigate. Science can say
"We have no evidence that deities exist", and that's all it
can say on the subject.
>A deity fails to reach the level of hypothesis or theory simply because
>of the complete lack of evidence of their existence.
Exactly. And without a falsifiable hypothesis, and no
possibility of constructing one regarding the general
existence of deities, as contrasted with their claimed
actions, the subject of their existence is outside the
purview of science.
>
question is also moot.
For what it's worth, you seem to be conflating the ideas of
"usefulness" and "existence", and arguing that failing to
demonstrate the former falsifies the latter. It doesn't.
that question can be addressed by science. It can't.
determine whether deities exist, only whether their actions
and attributes agree with those claimed for them by their
followers.
By analogy, your argument seems to be that if a person
claims he can hover in midair by mental power alone, and
science proves that claim to be false, science has thus
proven the person cannot exist.
But we seem to be at an impasse, and have different ideas
about the process and constraints of scientific
investigation, so I'll sign off.
everyone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> However - MY point was that there are actually three that even YOU
>>> recognize - in this case - theism - atheism - and agnosticism.
>>
>> Not really, since both atheism (all flavors) and agnosticism
>> involve lack of belief. For different reasons, granted, but
>> still lack of belief.
>
>No - I do not agree - and there are flavors of agnosticism as well.
...which doesn't invalidate my point, unless you know of
>
>
>
>
>
>>> However - MY point was that there are actually three that even YOU
>>> recognize - in this case - theism - atheism - and agnosticism.
>>
>> Not really, since both atheism (all flavors) and agnosticism
>> involve lack of belief. For different reasons, granted, but
>> still lack of belief.
>
>No - I do not agree - and there are flavors of agnosticism as well.
agnostic believers. Granted, based on a strict definition
this is possible (one may harbor beliefs while accepting
that those beliefs are unprovable), but in practice I've
never seen that approach taken by any religious believer.
>
>>
>>>>>> (and there are those on both sides, even though
>>>>>> the religious fundies outnumber the devotees of scientism)
>>>>>> who misrepresent reality or who use poor logic in their
>>>>>> arguments. If someone says that he believes in a deity even
>>>>>> though there's no physical evidence to support that belief I
>>>>>> have no argument against that belief. It's only when they
>>>>>> try to twist evidence in an attempt to support their
>>>>>> beliefs, or to selectively deny objective evidence which
>>>>>> they believe refutes their interpretations of their
>>>>>> particular religious texts, that I get involved. And the
>>>>>> same applies to the devotees of scientism who insist that
>>>>>> science has "proven" the nonexistence of deities.
>>>>
>>>>> However - science CAN BE USED to consider the claims made by religions
>>>>> for their gods. WHEN a religion makes claims that are obviously
>>>>> contradictory and cannot BOTH be true - or simply cannot be true at all
>>>>> - then one can make the statement that a particular deity - cannot exist
>>>>> as defined.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. "As defined", however, is the controlling
>>>> constraint; the existence of deities cannot, and is not,
>>>> addressed by science,
>
>
>Sorry - BUT I still do not agree with that statement
observed and/or measured is addressable by science.
>In science - we address the claims that religion makes for its gods -
>and if we can prove an alternate source for the claim - we are indeed
>addressing the existence of the god that supposedly did those things.
existence of the entity supposedly responsible for those
actions other than "these actions weren't taken".
>
>
>
>
>
> at least partially because, when an
>>>> omnipotent deity is involved, *anything* goes,
>
>
>And that is NOT TRUE as well
>
>THERE are still things that are impossible - even for an omnipotent being.
You must have a different definition of "omnipotent" than
>
>
>
>
> at least partially because, when an
>>>> omnipotent deity is involved, *anything* goes,
>
>
>And that is NOT TRUE as well
>
>THERE are still things that are impossible - even for an omnipotent being.
the usual one, "Having unlimited or universal power,
authority, or force". Unlimited means...well...*unlimited*;
i.e., no limits *at all*.
>
>
>
>
>cause and
>>>> effect are not detectably linked, and evidence thus becomes
>>>> worthless. Science addresses and investigates observable
>>>> reality, and one of the basic assumptions is that nature may
>>>> be obscure, but doesn't lie. The abilities claimed for
>>>> deities put them outside observable reality, and thus
>>>> outside the purview of science.
>>>
>>>
>>> No - that is not completely true
>>
>> Nothing is, but see below...
>>
>>> There may be abilities beyond observable reality - but they are claimed
>>> to do material things in OUR REALITY - and that is where they can be
>>> discussed and measured by OUR science.
>>
>> ...which is why I stated below that claimed effects and
>> actions which are observable can be investigated, while the
>> existence of the deity causing those effects generally
>> cannot.
>
>
>Sorry - but again - I do not consider that to be true
Again, your privilege.
>
>
>
>cause and
>>>> effect are not detectably linked, and evidence thus becomes
>>>> worthless. Science addresses and investigates observable
>>>> reality, and one of the basic assumptions is that nature may
>>>> be obscure, but doesn't lie. The abilities claimed for
>>>> deities put them outside observable reality, and thus
>>>> outside the purview of science.
>>>
>>>
>>> No - that is not completely true
>>
>> Nothing is, but see below...
>>
>>> There may be abilities beyond observable reality - but they are claimed
>>> to do material things in OUR REALITY - and that is where they can be
>>> discussed and measured by OUR science.
>>
>> ...which is why I stated below that claimed effects and
>> actions which are observable can be investigated, while the
>> existence of the deity causing those effects generally
>> cannot.
>
>
>Sorry - but again - I do not consider that to be true
>Again - if a religion claims something that CANNOT BE TRUE - then a
>deity can be discounted by science. THAT is how we deal with
>"suggestion" - by falsification
falsify that which it cannot investigate. Science can say
"We have no evidence that deities exist", and that's all it
can say on the subject.
>A deity fails to reach the level of hypothesis or theory simply because
>of the complete lack of evidence of their existence.
possibility of constructing one regarding the general
existence of deities, as contrasted with their claimed
actions, the subject of their existence is outside the
purview of science.
>
>However the same rules apply - and if YOU FALSIFY a part of a
>"suggestion" -= you have eliminated that suggestion from consideration -
>UNTIL the suggester either
> 1: Correct his suggestion - taking into account the new information we
>have
>2 - Presents a new suggestion that also takes into account that information
>
>IF neither of the above is done - the suggestion is falsified - and moot.
>
>
>
>>
>>> IF a god ONLY exists OUTSIDE of our reality - and never does anything in
>>> our reality - then you might be correct. However - of what use would be
>>> religion in that case?
>>
>> Since I specifically addressed the issue of observable
>> effects this question is moot.
>
>
>
>No - YOU may have attempted to answer the issue of observable effects -
>but that is NOT MY QUESTION
>
>IF a god exists ONLY OUTSIDE of our reality and has NO observable
>effects IN OUR REALTY - then of what use is religion?
Since the utility of the religion was not at issue, this
>"suggestion" -= you have eliminated that suggestion from consideration -
>UNTIL the suggester either
> 1: Correct his suggestion - taking into account the new information we
>have
>2 - Presents a new suggestion that also takes into account that information
>
>IF neither of the above is done - the suggestion is falsified - and moot.
>
>
>
>>
>>> IF a god ONLY exists OUTSIDE of our reality - and never does anything in
>>> our reality - then you might be correct. However - of what use would be
>>> religion in that case?
>>
>> Since I specifically addressed the issue of observable
>> effects this question is moot.
>
>
>
>No - YOU may have attempted to answer the issue of observable effects -
>but that is NOT MY QUESTION
>
>IF a god exists ONLY OUTSIDE of our reality and has NO observable
>effects IN OUR REALTY - then of what use is religion?
question is also moot.
>
>IE - if a god does nothing for humans at any level - why would anyone
>consider religion to be useful
Ibid.
>IE - if a god does nothing for humans at any level - why would anyone
>consider religion to be useful
For what it's worth, you seem to be conflating the ideas of
"usefulness" and "existence", and arguing that failing to
demonstrate the former falsifies the latter. It doesn't.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>>> So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say rather that science can address claims made about
>>>> specific deities by their followers when those claims
>>>> involve specific testable areas of reality: the Noachian
>>>> Flood, for instance, or the age of the Earth. But keep in
>>>> mind that these involve claims made by believers regarding
>>>> characteristics they think their deity possesses, not the
>>>> deity's existence or non-existence.
>>
>>> BUT since all of those claims are MADE by believers - then we can
>>> objectively eliminate a religion based on it claiming things that cannot
>>> be true - do you agree?
>>
>> You can refute specific claims. If in your opinion this
>> eliminates the religion so be it; it's a matter of semantics
>> and the fragility of a particular set of religious beliefs.
>> You just can't eliminate the possible existence of the deity
>> which supposedly inspired the religion, whether the
>> followers "got it right" about the deity's abilities,
>> attributes and actions or not.
>
>
>Sure I can - if a god does not fulfill the qualities the religion claims
>- it is NOT the god of that religion
>
>IF the religion did not "get it right" - the religion is MOOT.
>
>THAT does not mean that a higher power does not exist- but that the
>religion's claim is not true - and therefore the religion is wrong.
So? The question was the existence of deities and whether
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>>> So - science CAN be used to consider SOME specific deities.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say rather that science can address claims made about
>>>> specific deities by their followers when those claims
>>>> involve specific testable areas of reality: the Noachian
>>>> Flood, for instance, or the age of the Earth. But keep in
>>>> mind that these involve claims made by believers regarding
>>>> characteristics they think their deity possesses, not the
>>>> deity's existence or non-existence.
>>
>>> BUT since all of those claims are MADE by believers - then we can
>>> objectively eliminate a religion based on it claiming things that cannot
>>> be true - do you agree?
>>
>> You can refute specific claims. If in your opinion this
>> eliminates the religion so be it; it's a matter of semantics
>> and the fragility of a particular set of religious beliefs.
>> You just can't eliminate the possible existence of the deity
>> which supposedly inspired the religion, whether the
>> followers "got it right" about the deity's abilities,
>> attributes and actions or not.
>
>
>Sure I can - if a god does not fulfill the qualities the religion claims
>- it is NOT the god of that religion
>
>IF the religion did not "get it right" - the religion is MOOT.
>
>THAT does not mean that a higher power does not exist- but that the
>religion's claim is not true - and therefore the religion is wrong.
that question can be addressed by science. It can't.
>
>
>
>
>Basically, all science can
>> say is "Your claims are incorrect"; it can't say "Your deity
>> doesn't exist".
>
>
>
>And indeed - the deities of the major religions - as defined by the
>religions - cannot exist
So? Their definitions are irrelevant, and science cannot
>
>
>
>Basically, all science can
>> say is "Your claims are incorrect"; it can't say "Your deity
>> doesn't exist".
>
>
>
>And indeed - the deities of the major religions - as defined by the
>religions - cannot exist
determine whether deities exist, only whether their actions
and attributes agree with those claimed for them by their
followers.
By analogy, your argument seems to be that if a person
claims he can hover in midair by mental power alone, and
science proves that claim to be false, science has thus
proven the person cannot exist.
But we seem to be at an impasse, and have different ideas
about the process and constraints of scientific
investigation, so I'll sign off.
ThomMadura
Apr 25, 2012, 3:12:24 PM4/25/12
to
A scientist can address a deity - as a hypothesis just like any other -
and since a hypothesis contains claims - they can test those claims and
determine if they CAN Be true - and eliminate the hypothesis on that basis
>
>> In science - we address the claims that religion makes for its gods -
>> and if we can prove an alternate source for the claim - we are indeed
>> addressing the existence of the god that supposedly did those things.
>
> Nope. Invalidating claims of actions says nothing about the
> existence of the entity supposedly responsible for those
> actions other than "these actions weren't taken".
claimant to correct the hypothesis - which has been falsified
THE same would be of the SUGGESTION of religions of a god - who can do
1,2,3,4 etc.
IF the actions CANNOT BE true - the claim cannot be true
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> at least partially because, when an
>>>>> omnipotent deity is involved, *anything* goes,
>>
>>
>> And that is NOT TRUE as well
>>
>> THERE are still things that are impossible - even for an omnipotent being.
>
> You must have a different definition of "omnipotent" than
> the usual one, "Having unlimited or universal power,
> authority, or force". Unlimited means...well...*unlimited*;
> i.e., no limits *at all*.
THAT a human defines that as having no limits - is meaningless because
it CANNOT BE TRUE.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> cause and
>>>>> effect are not detectably linked, and evidence thus becomes
>>>>> worthless. Science addresses and investigates observable
>>>>> reality, and one of the basic assumptions is that nature may
>>>>> be obscure, but doesn't lie. The abilities claimed for
>>>>> deities put them outside observable reality, and thus
>>>>> outside the purview of science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No - that is not completely true
>>>
>>> Nothing is, but see below...
>>>
>>>> There may be abilities beyond observable reality - but they are claimed
>>>> to do material things in OUR REALITY - and that is where they can be
>>>> discussed and measured by OUR science.
>>>
>>> ...which is why I stated below that claimed effects and
>>> actions which are observable can be investigated, while the
>>> existence of the deity causing those effects generally
>>> cannot.
>>
>>
>> Sorry - but again - I do not consider that to be true
>
> Again, your privilege.
>
>> Again - if a religion claims something that CANNOT BE TRUE - then a
>> deity can be discounted by science. THAT is how we deal with
>> "suggestion" - by falsification
>
> The problem with this argument is that science cannot
> falsify that which it cannot investigate.
nothing is there to investigate
However - religions make claims about gods that can be investigated.
Science can say
> "We have no evidence that deities exist", and that's all it
> can say on the subject.
can say on a subject
WE can also say - it is NOT possible for a being with traits 1,2,3 - etc
- to exist because the traits contradict each other.
>
>> A deity fails to reach the level of hypothesis or theory simply because
>> of the complete lack of evidence of their existence.
>
> Exactly. And without a falsifiable hypothesis, and no
> possibility of constructing one regarding the general
> existence of deities, as contrasted with their claimed
> actions, the subject of their existence is outside the
> purview of science.
Hypothesis or theory - does not stop a scientist from addressing the
"SUGGESTIONS" or "CLAIMS" that a religion makes.
>>
>> However the same rules apply - and if YOU FALSIFY a part of a
>> "suggestion" -= you have eliminated that suggestion from consideration -
>> UNTIL the suggester either
>> 1: Correct his suggestion - taking into account the new information we
>> have
>> 2 - Presents a new suggestion that also takes into account that information
>>
>> IF neither of the above is done - the suggestion is falsified - and moot.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> IF a god ONLY exists OUTSIDE of our reality - and never does anything in
>>>> our reality - then you might be correct. However - of what use would be
>>>> religion in that case?
>>>
>>> Since I specifically addressed the issue of observable
>>> effects this question is moot.
>>
>>
>>
>> No - YOU may have attempted to answer the issue of observable effects -
>> but that is NOT MY QUESTION
>>
>> IF a god exists ONLY OUTSIDE of our reality and has NO observable
>> effects IN OUR REALTY - then of what use is religion?
>
> Since the utility of the religion was not at issue, this
> question is also moot.
talking about a specific "god"
>>
>> IE - if a god does nothing for humans at any level - why would anyone
>> consider religion to be useful
>
> Ibid.
>
> For what it's worth, you seem to be conflating the ideas of
> "usefulness" and "existence", and arguing that failing to
> demonstrate the former falsifies the latter. It doesn't.
usefulness to a human.
mythology as well
IF there definitions are irrelevant - there is NOTHING to discuss then.
the word is meaningless outside of its uses in reality
Bob Casanova
Apr 26, 2012, 12:42:58 PM4/26/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
>... since this is a group on the christian mythology- we are
thought it would be worthwhile to point out that the thread
is extensively crossposted, and for me "this group", the one
in which I'm reading the thread, is sci.skeptic, which is
not about "Christian mythology" or any other mythology; it's
about paranormal claims and how science investigates them.
You might want to consider this in light of what I've posted
about the scientific process and the evaluation of claims,
especially what can and cannot be addressed by science.
Bye...
>... since this is a group on the christian mythology- we are
>talking about a specific "god"
This is the last post I'll make on this subject, but I
thought it would be worthwhile to point out that the thread
is extensively crossposted, and for me "this group", the one
in which I'm reading the thread, is sci.skeptic, which is
not about "Christian mythology" or any other mythology; it's
about paranormal claims and how science investigates them.
You might want to consider this in light of what I've posted
about the scientific process and the evaluation of claims,
especially what can and cannot be addressed by science.
Bye...
ThomMadura
Apr 26, 2012, 4:08:04 PM4/26/12
to
On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
> <Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>
>> ... since this is a group on the christian mythology- we are
>> talking about a specific "god"
>
> This is the last post I'll make on this subject, but I
> thought it would be worthwhile to point out that the thread
> is extensively crossposted, and for me "this group", the one
> in which I'm reading the thread, is sci.skeptic, which is
> not about "Christian mythology" or any other mythology; it's
> about paranormal claims and how science investigates them.
> You might want to consider this in light of what I've posted
> about the scientific process and the evaluation of claims,
> especially what can and cannot be addressed by science.
However - you clearly are talking about religion when YOU are being
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
> <Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>
>> ... since this is a group on the christian mythology- we are
>> talking about a specific "god"
>
> This is the last post I'll make on this subject, but I
> thought it would be worthwhile to point out that the thread
> is extensively crossposted, and for me "this group", the one
> in which I'm reading the thread, is sci.skeptic, which is
> not about "Christian mythology" or any other mythology; it's
> about paranormal claims and how science investigates them.
> You might want to consider this in light of what I've posted
> about the scientific process and the evaluation of claims,
> especially what can and cannot be addressed by science.
skeptical
SO answer this one
THE claim is that the "god" is BEYOND proof
However - the god is ALSO claimed to be Almighty and ALL knowing.
SO - it should know that more people do not believe in it than do (THAT
is true of ALL possible gods - of all religions) - and IT should have
the power to prove itself in any situation.
WHY would it NOT want to do that?
Bob Casanova
Apr 27, 2012, 1:43:08 PM4/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:04 -0400, the following appeared
skepticism regarding religion. My only point was regarding
what science is able to investigate, and whether it could
"prove" the nonexistence of deities.
>SO answer this one
>
>THE claim is that the "god" is BEYOND proof
>
>However - the god is ALSO claimed to be Almighty and ALL knowing.
>
>SO - it should know that more people do not believe in it than do (THAT
>is true of ALL possible gods - of all religions) - and IT should have
>the power to prove itself in any situation.
>
>WHY would it NOT want to do that?
You'll have to ask it; the motives of omnipotent entities
aren't my field of expertise (or, for that matter, anyone
else's). For a further unproductive discussion about your
question you could ask a Jesuit; I'm sure they have ideas on
the subject.
in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
<Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>> <Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>>
>>> ... since this is a group on the christian mythology- we are
>>> talking about a specific "god"
>>
>> This is the last post I'll make on this subject, but I
>> thought it would be worthwhile to point out that the thread
>> is extensively crossposted, and for me "this group", the one
>> in which I'm reading the thread, is sci.skeptic, which is
>> not about "Christian mythology" or any other mythology; it's
>> about paranormal claims and how science investigates them.
>> You might want to consider this in light of what I've posted
>> about the scientific process and the evaluation of claims,
>> especially what can and cannot be addressed by science.
>
>
>However - you clearly are talking about religion when YOU are being
>skeptical
Wrong, but thanks for playing; at no point did I indicate
<Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>> <Tomm...@optonline.net>:
>>
>>> ... since this is a group on the christian mythology- we are
>>> talking about a specific "god"
>>
>> This is the last post I'll make on this subject, but I
>> thought it would be worthwhile to point out that the thread
>> is extensively crossposted, and for me "this group", the one
>> in which I'm reading the thread, is sci.skeptic, which is
>> not about "Christian mythology" or any other mythology; it's
>> about paranormal claims and how science investigates them.
>> You might want to consider this in light of what I've posted
>> about the scientific process and the evaluation of claims,
>> especially what can and cannot be addressed by science.
>
>
>However - you clearly are talking about religion when YOU are being
>skeptical
skepticism regarding religion. My only point was regarding
what science is able to investigate, and whether it could
"prove" the nonexistence of deities.
>SO answer this one
>
>THE claim is that the "god" is BEYOND proof
>
>However - the god is ALSO claimed to be Almighty and ALL knowing.
>
>SO - it should know that more people do not believe in it than do (THAT
>is true of ALL possible gods - of all religions) - and IT should have
>the power to prove itself in any situation.
>
>WHY would it NOT want to do that?
aren't my field of expertise (or, for that matter, anyone
else's). For a further unproductive discussion about your
question you could ask a Jesuit; I'm sure they have ideas on
the subject.
ThomMadura
Apr 27, 2012, 6:48:35 PM4/27/12
to
subject - I guess YOU were wrong about that too
AND as far as the non-existence of deities - there are no deities proven
to exist - so science has NO need to prove it to begin with.!
felix_unger
Apr 27, 2012, 8:13:45 PM4/27/12
to
and theism. don't expect anything else from him.. unless it's bashing me
of course.
>
>> SO answer this one
>>
>> THE claim is that the "god" is BEYOND proof
>>
>> However - the god is ALSO claimed to be Almighty and ALL knowing.
>>
>> SO - it should know that more people do not believe in it than do (THAT
>> is true of ALL possible gods - of all religions) - and IT should have
>> the power to prove itself in any situation.
>>
>> WHY would it NOT want to do that?
> You'll have to ask it; the motives of omnipotent entities
> aren't my field of expertise (or, for that matter, anyone
> else's). For a further unproductive discussion about your
> question you could ask a Jesuit; I'm sure they have ideas on
> the subject.
the last word.
ThomMadura
Apr 27, 2012, 9:00:31 PM4/27/12
to
IMPOLITE language and ad hominem attacks
I have simply asked for people to support their statements about gods
with PROOF
IF you simply POST THE actual testable and verifiable proof - that ALL
Of you claim you have -but NONE of you ever post - you would not be
getting an argument from me - as an Agnostic who accepts what is PROVEN
about the supernatural claims of religions and gods.
I would check the proof - and if it is real - I would have NO choice but
to accept it - and there would BE NO ARGUMENT
FUNNY - with such a simple task for YOU - why is it you do not supply
the actual proof?
>
felix_unger
Apr 28, 2012, 6:48:25 AM4/28/12
to
claimed that it's a fact that God exists
> - you would not be getting an argument from me - as an Agnostic who
> accepts what is PROVEN about the supernatural claims of religions and
> gods.
>
> I would check the proof - and if it is real - I would have NO choice
> but to accept it - and there would BE NO ARGUMENT
>
> FUNNY - with such a simple task for YOU - why is it you do not supply
> the actual proof?
>
duke
Apr 28, 2012, 8:39:22 AM4/28/12
to
>> - you would not be getting an argument from me - as an Agnostic who
>> accepts what is PROVEN about the supernatural claims of religions and
>> gods.
>>
>> I would check the proof - and if it is real - I would have NO choice
>> but to accept it - and there would BE NO ARGUMENT
>>
>> FUNNY - with such a simple task for YOU - why is it you do not supply
>> the actual proof?
>because I don't claim it. (see above) STOP LYING!!!
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
felix_unger
Apr 28, 2012, 9:33:28 AM4/28/12
to
against theism, and will say anything (it seems) that suits his purpose.
>
>>> - you would not be getting an argument from me - as an Agnostic who
>>> accepts what is PROVEN about the supernatural claims of religions and
>>> gods.
>>>
>>> I would check the proof - and if it is real - I would have NO choice
>>> but to accept it - and there would BE NO ARGUMENT
>>>
>>> FUNNY - with such a simple task for YOU - why is it you do not supply
>>> the actual proof?
>> because I don't claim it. (see above) STOP LYING!!!
> duke, American - American
>
> *****
> 1 John 3:4-6
> 4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
> sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
> appeared so that he might take away our sins.
> And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
> him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
> sin has either seen him or known him.
> *****
rgds,
Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
“Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
Give Juliar the boot!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/boot.jpg
ThomMadura
Apr 28, 2012, 9:56:14 AM4/28/12
to
I have always said that NO god is proven to exist
NOW you admit that is the truth
AND I did not lie about that
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 10:01:35 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:33:28 +1000, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:
One need not invent things to point out the failures of theism.
...
in alt.atheism:
...
ThomMadura
Apr 28, 2012, 10:25:37 AM4/28/12
to
ThomMadura
Apr 28, 2012, 10:38:25 AM4/28/12
to
On 4/28/2012 9:33 AM, felix_unger wrote:
I was a theist
I learned that it was untrue
WHEN I looked at the possibilities - I chose to be a HUXLEY (Strong)
agnostic because I can support MY position based on PROOF or the lack
thereof.
THEISTS cannot prove a god exists
Atheists cannot prove NONE exist.
A huxley agnostic WILL accept testable and verifiable proof of the
claims of supernatural gods and events -
WHEN I ask for proof - all I get is DODGING and RUNNING away or personal
ATTACKS _ even from YOU.
Atheists have an advantage because with thousands of gods claimed - they
all cannot be true - so one CAN use the claims of religion to weed oout
the ones that cannot be true - based on claims that cannot be true -
claims that contradict - or claims that simply ARE in error.
Since religion all claim their gods to be perfect - omnipotent - all
knowing - all good - all fair - all just - etc - we can determine from
the writing of that relgiion if the god FULFILLS those claims - or
cannot do so.
EXAMPLE - Human children are not born sentient. SO - they cannot do
anything to deserve punishment until they reach their age of reason.
And while it varies among children - the catholic church says that that
age is SEVEN. WHAT a seven year old could do to deserve the DEATH
PENALTY is beyond MY comprehension having had a bunch of children --but
I can go with that age.
IN ancient population - where the average age of death was in the "30s"
IT is estimated that about 20% of the population would have been under 5
years old by Paleontologists. THAT there are children under age 7 is all
I need to make my point even if that percentage is way off.
IF the passover did happen - some of the first born of egypt would have
been children - innocent children - under 7.
IF the great flood did happen - some the people drowned would have been
children under 7.
THE killing of those children is simply MURDER - and cannot be explained
any other way. A god that is claimed to be all good - WOULD NOT BE ABLE
to murder.
AND MURDER is one of the 10 big NO-no's of religions to begin with.
Do you consider it FAIR for me to say that the god of the religion that
makes the above claims - the great flood - the passover - is NOT being
GOOD when it MURDERS children?
IF you are really an agnostic as YOU claim - you should agree with me on
that!
Bob Casanova
Apr 28, 2012, 12:19:58 PM4/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:48:35 -0400, the following appeared
Yeah, additional errors, such as your assertion regarding my
"clear" skepticism, tend to prompt additional replies,
regardless of any prior intent I may have had. Sorry 'bout
that...
>AND as far as the non-existence of deities - there are no deities proven
>to exist - so science has NO need to prove it to begin with.!
Correct in essence, although I'd point out that science
doesn't usually get into the business of testing the
existence of anything which has been demonstrated to exist;
it's in the business of investigating such things. And a
reminder: science doesn't "prove" things; proof is for math
and alcoholic beverages.
"clear" skepticism, tend to prompt additional replies,
regardless of any prior intent I may have had. Sorry 'bout
that...
>AND as far as the non-existence of deities - there are no deities proven
>to exist - so science has NO need to prove it to begin with.!
doesn't usually get into the business of testing the
existence of anything which has been demonstrated to exist;
it's in the business of investigating such things. And a
reminder: science doesn't "prove" things; proof is for math
and alcoholic beverages.
duke
Apr 28, 2012, 12:37:06 PM4/28/12
to
knowledgeable.
ThomMadura
Apr 28, 2012, 1:46:00 PM4/28/12
to
teachers agree with that statement - that science does not prove things.
THERE are books filled with LOTS of facts that science has proven to be true
Science may not prove things that cannot be observed - but science does
indeed create ways to observe things - that proves their existence.
Example - you can test for the existence of an electric current in a
wire - which established if a current exists there or not - with a
device that science first created - A meter!
ThomMadura
Apr 28, 2012, 2:02:49 PM4/28/12
to
personal opinion - which is a BELIEF.
IF a truth is OBVIOUS about your religion - why is it that there are
BILLIONS of people who do not see it?
IF it were obvious - you would expect only a small minority not to see
However - you cannot even get the christians to agree on what YOU are
claiming
felix_unger
Apr 28, 2012, 11:52:44 PM4/28/12
to
simply aren't true. On every occasion when I have challenged you to cite
examples to substantiate your claims, you have never done so -except
perhaps on one occasion I recall on a minor matter. but when I have made
statements about you I have always been able to prove them.
eg:
You 19/4/12:
"felix has no intention of being honest here. WE have asked him to
identify his position - and he has DODGED and walked around and clearly
worded his statements so as to not actually reveal it. BUT Then he lies
and says he has."
me in reply:
"I refer to myself as agnostic" ..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d73bfb0636711686?hl=en
I also answered Theo..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/cbb124d1b1c4ba54?hl=en
To Merlin.. "I'm agnostic" ..
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/520ed5dd752104f9?hl=en
To Theo .. "no. but it comes down to what a person honestly believes. I
see problems/faults with both positions- atheism and theism- so for me
the honest position is agnostic."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/3ce56dfb62042367?hl=en
> I have always said that NO god is proven to exist
>
> NOW you admit that is the truth
you simply STOP saying things about me? that way you'll never get
anything wrong again!!
felix_unger
Apr 28, 2012, 11:57:38 PM4/28/12
to
> to be considered intelligent and
> knowledgeable.
>
>
> duke, American - American
>
> *****
> 1 John 3:4-6
> 4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
> sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
> appeared so that he might take away our sins.
> And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
> him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
> sin has either seen him or known him.
> *****
felix_unger
Apr 29, 2012, 12:05:05 AM4/29/12
to
It measures AC/DC voltage and current and resistance (ohms), and many
perform other functions such as testing diodes/transistors, measuring
temperature, polarity checks, etc.
felix_unger
Apr 29, 2012, 2:04:45 AM4/29/12
to
>
> I was a theist
>
> I learned that it was untrue
>
> WHEN I looked at the possibilities - I chose to be a HUXLEY (Strong)
> agnostic because I can support MY position based on PROOF or the lack
> thereof.
>
> THEISTS cannot prove a god exists
> Atheists cannot prove NONE exist.
> A huxley agnostic WILL accept testable and verifiable proof of the
> claims of supernatural gods and events -
>
> WHEN I ask for proof - all I get is DODGING and RUNNING away or
> personal ATTACKS _ even from YOU.
shut up!
>
> Atheists have an advantage because with thousands of gods claimed -
> they all cannot be true - so one CAN use the claims of religion to
> weed oout the ones that cannot be true - based on claims that cannot
> be true - claims that contradict - or claims that simply ARE in error.
>
> knowing - all good - all fair - all just - etc - we can determine from
> the writing of that relgiion if the god FULFILLS those claims - or
> cannot do so.
>
> EXAMPLE - Human children are not born sentient. SO - they cannot do
> anything to deserve punishment until they reach their age of reason.
> And while it varies among children - the catholic church says that
> that age is SEVEN. WHAT a seven year old could do to deserve the DEATH
> PENALTY is beyond MY comprehension having had a bunch of children
> --but I can go with that age.
>
> IN ancient population - where the average age of death was in the "30s"
> IT is estimated that about 20% of the population would have been under
> 5 years old by Paleontologists. THAT there are children under age 7 is
> all I need to make my point even if that percentage is way off.
>
> IF the passover did happen - some of the first born of egypt would
> have been children - innocent children - under 7.
I don't know that story
> the writing of that relgiion if the god FULFILLS those claims - or
> cannot do so.
>
> EXAMPLE - Human children are not born sentient. SO - they cannot do
> anything to deserve punishment until they reach their age of reason.
> And while it varies among children - the catholic church says that
> that age is SEVEN. WHAT a seven year old could do to deserve the DEATH
> PENALTY is beyond MY comprehension having had a bunch of children
> --but I can go with that age.
>
> IN ancient population - where the average age of death was in the "30s"
> IT is estimated that about 20% of the population would have been under
> 5 years old by Paleontologists. THAT there are children under age 7 is
> all I need to make my point even if that percentage is way off.
>
> IF the passover did happen - some of the first born of egypt would
> have been children - innocent children - under 7.
> IF the great flood did happen
http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ - explains the origin of the Noah's Ark
story. seems it grew out of Sumerian tales about a local trader and a
flooding of the region.
> - some the people drowned would have been children under 7.
>
> THE killing of those children is simply MURDER - and cannot be
> explained any other way. A god that is claimed to be all good - WOULD
> NOT BE ABLE to murder.
>
> AND MURDER is one of the 10 big NO-no's of religions to begin with.
>
> Do you consider it FAIR for me to say that the god of the religion
> that makes the above claims - the great flood - the passover - is NOT
> being GOOD when it MURDERS children?
>
> IF you are really an agnostic as YOU claim - you should agree with me
> on that!
is in the bible, but I do know that many actions of God have been
attributed to what are human reactions, eg. God getting angry,
repenting, etc., and so God has these human characteristics, which
reason might suggest would not necessarily be the case.
ThomMadura
Apr 29, 2012, 6:23:02 AM4/29/12
to
SO YOU are making a false claim OBVIOUSLY
ThomMadura
Apr 29, 2012, 6:29:17 AM4/29/12
to
REMEMBER _ YOU claim to be an agnostic - as I am.
IF you say I am blind to anything - it would mean you are blind to the
same thing
AS I have said - I am not blind to proven truth
THERE is still no god proven to exist
THE claim that there is evidence of a god has NOT been established as true.
BOTH OF THOSE statements are things YOU agree with
WHEN someone provides real testable and verifiable OBSERVABLE proof of a
god - AS agnostics we will both accept it.
Until then - NO such being is proven to exist
ThomMadura
Apr 29, 2012, 6:31:15 AM4/29/12
to
HOWEVER - they were not originally produced - there are meters for
single purposes - it makes no sense today - but in the past they did that
ThomMadura
Apr 29, 2012, 6:41:13 AM4/29/12
to
On 4/29/2012 2:04 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>> IF the great flood did happen
>
> a world wide flood never happened. this site -
> http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ - explains the origin of the Noah's Ark
> story. seems it grew out of Sumerian tales about a local trader and a
> flooding of the region.
And I have been saying that for years - and YOU would have read that
>> IF the great flood did happen
>
> a world wide flood never happened. this site -
> http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ - explains the origin of the Noah's Ark
> story. seems it grew out of Sumerian tales about a local trader and a
> flooding of the region.
from be before - that is WHY I said "IF" the great flood did happen.
However - the BIBLE defines the god as if it did - and that is the
point. WE are to consider the god - based on the stories given in the
bible - whether they are TRUE or not.
THE parables of the bible - all recognized as such by the religion - as
being FICTIONAL TALES that make a moral argument.
THE bible is a fictional tale -and in some cases there is a MORAL
Argument made -
In other cases -the actions are clearly NOT moral or ethical - just
another example of the contradictions of the bible- taking both side
WHICH is why I have posted many times that it is normally possible to
counter a quote from the bible with another quote from the bible
>
>
> It is not good according to human reasoning. I don't know a lot of what
> is in the bible, but I do know that many actions of God have been
> attributed to what are human reactions, eg. God getting angry,
> repenting, etc., and so God has these human characteristics, which
> reason might suggest would not necessarily be the case.
IF you actually read the bible - it is clear that it is the Observations
of ancient people - not the word of any god
duke
Apr 29, 2012, 12:23:53 PM4/29/12
to
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Apr 29, 2012, 12:34:17 PM4/29/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
If you believe in me, then you have much to learn about skepticism.
Bob Casanova
Apr 29, 2012, 12:59:03 PM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:46:00 -0400, the following appeared
As I said, you're free to believe anything you wish, even
though real, practicing scientists disagree with that
particular belief. Why do you think that the strongest, most
comprehensively tested ideas in science are called
"theories", and are *still* subject to revision if new
evidence is discovered?
>THERE are books filled with LOTS of facts that science has proven to be true
>
>Science may not prove things that cannot be observed - but science does
>indeed create ways to observe things - that proves their existence.
>
>Example - you can test for the existence of an electric current in a
>wire - which established if a current exists there or not - with a
>device that science first created - A meter!
though real, practicing scientists disagree with that
particular belief. Why do you think that the strongest, most
comprehensively tested ideas in science are called
"theories", and are *still* subject to revision if new
evidence is discovered?
>THERE are books filled with LOTS of facts that science has proven to be true
>
>Science may not prove things that cannot be observed - but science does
>indeed create ways to observe things - that proves their existence.
>
>Example - you can test for the existence of an electric current in a
>wire - which established if a current exists there or not - with a
>device that science first created - A meter!
Message has been deleted
George152
Apr 29, 2012, 3:52:59 PM4/29/12
to
Now produce evidence of your god
Syd M.
Apr 29, 2012, 3:57:36 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 12:23 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Sez you, Dork.
And yer opinion is not worth shit.
PDW
Check out my comic blogs:
http://theincognitomultiverse.blogspot.com/
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://warintime.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:29:17 -0400, ThomMadura <Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On 4/28/2012 11:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >> On 29-April-2012 2:37 AM, duke wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:33:28 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 28-April-2012 10:39 PM, duke wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:48:25 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 28-April-2012 11:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 8:13 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 3:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:04 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
> >>>>>>>>> <Tommad...@optonline.net>:
> >On 4/28/2012 11:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >> On 29-April-2012 2:37 AM, duke wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:33:28 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 28-April-2012 10:39 PM, duke wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:48:25 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 28-April-2012 11:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 8:13 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 3:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:04 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
> >>>>>>>>>>> <Tommad...@optonline.net>:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
And yer opinion is not worth shit.
PDW
Check out my comic blogs:
http://theincognitomultiverse.blogspot.com/
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://warintime.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
felix_unger
Apr 29, 2012, 11:53:23 PM4/29/12
to
on everything
>
> AS I have said - I am not blind to proven truth
> THERE is still no god proven to exist
>
> THE claim that there is evidence of a god has NOT been established as
> true.
> BOTH OF THOSE statements are things YOU agree with
>
> WHEN someone provides real testable and verifiable OBSERVABLE proof of
> a god - AS agnostics we will both accept it.
>
> Until then - NO such being is proven to exist
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
rgds,
Pete
-------
“If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question?!”
“Wayne Swan threatening the Banks, is a bit like being savaged by a dead sheep!”
"The only way right now to restore integrity to our Parliament, to restore the reputation of our polity, is for this sad and sorry Parliament to be dissolved and for there to be an election" - Tony Abbott, Federal Opposition Leader
Waldo Tunnel
Apr 30, 2012, 6:05:33 AM4/30/12
to
On Apr 29, 9:34 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
That speaks well of you but it isn't the issue. In my opinion.
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:23:53 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:29:17 -0400, ThomMadura
> > <Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > >On 4/28/2012 11:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> > >> On 29-April-2012 2:37 AM, duke wrote:
>
> > >>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:33:28 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> > >>> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On 28-April-2012 10:39 PM, duke wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:48:25 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> On 28-April-2012 11:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 8:13 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 3:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:04 -0400, the following appeared
> > >>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
> > >>>>>>>>> <Tommad...@optonline.net>:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:23:53 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:29:17 -0400, ThomMadura
> > <Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > >On 4/28/2012 11:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> > >> On 29-April-2012 2:37 AM, duke wrote:
>
> > >>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:33:28 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> > >>> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On 28-April-2012 10:39 PM, duke wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:48:25 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> On 28-April-2012 11:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 8:13 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 3:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:04 -0400, the following appeared
> > >>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <Tommad...@optonline.net>:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
Waldo Tunnel
May 2, 2012, 3:08:17 PM5/2/12
to
On Apr 29, 8:53 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
[...]
[...]
[...]
>
> not necessarily. just because we're agnostic doesn't mean we will agree
> on everything
Ummm, when did we agree that you are actually agnostic?
> not necessarily. just because we're agnostic doesn't mean we will agree
> on everything
[...]
duke
May 2, 2012, 6:39:34 PM5/2/12
to
>Now produce evidence of your god
George152
May 2, 2012, 8:38:56 PM5/2/12
to
ala
May 2, 2012, 9:23:13 PM5/2/12
to
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:brd3q7975g7c3fm4q...@4ax.com...
>
> I didn't say evidence. I said proven.
>
>>Now produce evidence of your god
>
> A human eyeball.
>
Chien Andalou
duke
May 3, 2012, 8:38:06 AM5/3/12
to
image onto the optic nerve in the lower part of the eye?
Waldo Tunnel
May 3, 2012, 8:44:53 AM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 5:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:38:56 +1200, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >On 5/3/2012 10:39 AM, duke wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:52:59 +1200, George152<gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/30/2012 4:23 AM, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:38:56 +1200, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >On 5/3/2012 10:39 AM, duke wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:52:59 +1200, George152<gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/30/2012 4:23 AM, duke wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:29:17 -0400, ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 4/28/2012 11:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >>>>>> On 29-April-2012 2:37 AM, duke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:33:28 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 10:39 PM, duke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:48:25 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 11:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 8:13 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 3:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:04 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <Tommad...@optonline.net>:
>
> >>>>> On 4/28/2012 11:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >>>>>> On 29-April-2012 2:37 AM, duke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 23:33:28 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 10:39 PM, duke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:48:25 +1000, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 11:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2012 8:13 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-April-2012 3:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:08:04 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Tommad...@optonline.net>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2012 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:24 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by ThomMadura
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 3, 2012, 4:12:57 PM5/3/12
to
On Thu, 3 May 2012 05:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Waldo Tunnel <waldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 5:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:38:56 +1200, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net>
> > wrote:
> > >On 5/3/2012 10:39 AM, duke wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:52:59 +1200, George152<gbl...@hnpl.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> On 4/30/2012 4:23 AM, duke wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:29:17 -0400,
> > >>>> ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
[snip]
Waldo Tunnel <waldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 5:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:38:56 +1200, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net>
> > wrote:
> > >On 5/3/2012 10:39 AM, duke wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:52:59 +1200, George152<gbl...@hnpl.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> On 4/30/2012 4:23 AM, duke wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:29:17 -0400,
> > >>>> ThomMadura<Tommad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >>>>> Until then - NO such being is proven to exist
> > >>>> You haven't proven yourself to exist, ghostman.
> >
> > >>> He posted and you replied. That is evidence that he exists.
> > >> I didn't say evidence. I said proven.
> >
> > >>> Now produce evidence of your god
> > >> A human eyeball.
> > >You are envious of Evolution
> >
> > What in evolution places a human lens in the eyeball, a lens that
> > focuses an image onto the optic nerve in the lower part of the eye?
>
> I hate to tell you but the octopus eye is superior to the human eye.
Oh the future possibilities as scientific endeaver advances, and makes
> > >>>> You haven't proven yourself to exist, ghostman.
> >
> > >>> He posted and you replied. That is evidence that he exists.
> > >> I didn't say evidence. I said proven.
> >
> > >>> Now produce evidence of your god
> > >> A human eyeball.
> > >You are envious of Evolution
> >
> > What in evolution places a human lens in the eyeball, a lens that
> > focuses an image onto the optic nerve in the lower part of the eye?
>
> I hate to tell you but the octopus eye is superior to the human eye.
it possible for someone to get an Octopus Eye Transplant.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
deem "common sense" to be (like believing that wafers are flesh and
wine is blood, or that death is the wages of sin) society has a duty to
define morality as based on truth, reality, respect, and tolerance; it
has failed to do so in this instance because of an overemphasis on
tolerating ignorance and bigotry."
-- David Silverman, Defender of Civilisation
duke
May 4, 2012, 12:23:05 PM5/4/12
to
On Thu, 3 May 2012 05:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Waldo Tunnel <waldo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The issue is not whether an octopus can see better than a human, but why does
life in nature to include an eye with a lens to focus light on the optic eye
without God's handiwork.
wrote:
life in nature to include an eye with a lens to focus light on the optic eye
without God's handiwork.
0 new messages