rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:24�pm, wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:06 pm, (Richard Meredith) wrote:





In article ,
(Free Lunch) wrote:
*From:* Free Lunch
*Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), (Richard
Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism:
In article ,
(Free Lunch) wrote:
Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally
dogmatic
that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of
the truth,
despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a
decent set of
repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position.
What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of
evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not
necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not
believe in
them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not
exist?
I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to
insist
on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims
to,
that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the
marked
similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the
beliefs
of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they
want to,
but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered
arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real
evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong.
Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the
theists
have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of
the
theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists,
it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A
does
not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims,
the
flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim
is
false.
If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no such
evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly.
Your argument, therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are
assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence
that it is anything of the sort.
There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and
strong atheists are correct; in the lack of such evidence there is no
justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in
the status of a viewpoint supported by faith.
You are banking on a philosophical context, or approach.
When we talk about evidence, we are then sure of things or event or
happening. Anything solid in this world would have the possibility of
a definition.
But a god...can you provide a definition and his existence?
You very well know that a heaven and hell thing are the invention of
human imagination and yet you believe we should not doubt them?
And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that?
A decent human can have a brain that is full of sense, in search of
logic but a clouded mind will never be cleared of dogma.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, yes. We have Jesus Christ, notwithstanding all of the efforts
of atheists to pretend he never existed.

You mean there isn't any evidence he existed and it upsets you that
atheists notice this fact...

rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:51 am, TT wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 7, 2:44�pm, Linda Fox wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn
wrote:
Well, I would not want to be relying on athiests if I ever got a
heatstrroke.
You'd be relying on doctors. Many of whom are atheists.
Linda ff
That is why I am careful not to get a heatstroke.
Robert B. Winn
Judging by your posts...how would you know?

People who get heatstroke usually die fairly soon.

Really? That would surprise the medical community. I actually know
somebody who got heatstroke working in my yard. He's still alive.

(Maybe it was satan?)

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:24�pm, wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:06 pm, (Richard Meredith) wrote:





In article ,
(Free Lunch) wrote:
*From:* Free Lunch
*Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), (Richard
Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism:
In article ,
(Free Lunch) wrote:
Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally
dogmatic
that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of
the truth,
despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a
decent set of
repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position.
What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of
evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not
necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not
believe in
them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not
exist?
I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to
insist
on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims
to,
that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the
marked
similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the
beliefs
of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they
want to,
but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered
arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real
evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong.
Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the
theists
have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of
the
theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists,
it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A
does
not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims,
the
flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim
is
false.
If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no
such
evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly.
Your argument, therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are
assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence
that it is anything of the sort.
There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and
strong atheists are correct; in the lack of such evidence there is no
justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in
the status of a viewpoint supported by faith.
You are banking on a philosophical context, or approach.
When we talk about evidence, we are then sure of things or event or
happening. Anything solid in this world would have the possibility of
a definition.
But a god...can you provide a definition and his existence?
You very well know that a heaven and hell thing are the invention of
human imagination and yet you believe we should not doubt them?
And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that?
A decent human can have a brain that is full of sense, in search of
logic but a clouded mind will never be cleared of dogma.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, yes. We have Jesus Christ, notwithstanding all of the efforts
of atheists to pretend he never existed.

You mean there isn't any evidence he existed and it upsets you that
atheists notice this fact...
Oh, theres lots ofevidence he existed, just not a lot that he was that
special..

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:00:54 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
wrote:

Really? That would surprise the medical community. I actually know
somebody who got heatstroke working in my yard. He's still alive.

(Maybe it was satan?)

Wouldn't the glowing red eyes have given him away?

Of course, then there was (is?) the ice-hockey player originally from
Slovakia (or somesuch) called Satan. He had his name on the back of
his sweater. You'd think he'd have melted the ice, wouldn't you?

Linda ff

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:16:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
(snip)

Well, yes. We have Jesus Christ, notwithstanding all of the efforts
of atheists to pretend he never existed.

You mean there isn't any evidence he existed and it upsets you that
atheists notice this fact...
Oh, theres lots ofevidence he existed, just not a lot that he was that
special..

Fulfillment of prophecies is the most convincing "evidence" for the
reliability of the Bible, but even these are not documented so
convincingly that one can not reject them. It is a matter of sovereign
choice.

This site gives some information on prophecies that have been
fulfilled and documented.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...prophecy.shtml

rbwinn wrote:
On Jul 8, 1:46�am, The Loan Arranger wrote:

One of the more interesting conclusions, by the way, is that although
Christian prayer appeared somewhat efficacious, a number of other
methods, some Pagan, some atheist (in the sense of having no worship
element), worked equally well or better.

Well, if you have to study it, then you do not have faith. How do you
get that Christian prayer appears somewhat efficacious when God
already said he is not going to answer any prayers made without
faith?

I suggest that you read the paper in question before opining upon it. In
the studies evaluating efficacy of Christian prayers, the prayers were
conducted by Christian congregations who, we assume, have faith.

Are you sure that Satan is not leading you to your
conclusion? I believe God when he says he is not going to answer this
kind of prayer.

No, the authors of the peer-reviewed paper published in one of the most
prestigious medical journals in the world led me to that conclusion.
Having examined the underlying data and confirmed their findings, I
accept that their conclusions are sound. That's called the Scientific
Method. You don't have to have a blind faith in it to make it work.

You appear to be saying that God won't answer ANY kind of prayer,
because if he won't even honour the requests of his own worshippers,
then prayer's a waste of time.

TLA

On May 26, 10:20*pm, wrote:
No. I don't think so.

That's kind of like asking, "Does a father need to love his sons?"

Technically, the answer is no, but wouldn't it be a good idea?

--Billy

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,
he cannot be my disciple." --Jesus talks about love, Luke 14:26

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:12:56 +0100, The Loan Arranger
wrote:

Antares 531 wrote:
Read Job 1 & 2 for some allegorical information on this. God agreed to
back off and let Satan run his agenda for a while, the only
restriction being that Satan could not destroy the entire creation.

Perhaps you should read it too! According to those chapters, God gave
Satan control only over Job and his household, and only within certain
carefully-made restrictions. There is absolutely no logical way to read
those chapters in such a way as to give Satan control over the whole of
creation.

TLA

An allegorical interpretation is required, of course.

Job and his household represent those people, throughout the history
of humanity, who are firmly committed to God and try to follow God's
directives.

Those who robbed Job and killed members of his household are those who
are not committed to God, but have chosen follow Satan. God never
relinquished these to Satan. Satan already had control over these
people. God partially relinquished His people to Satan's program with
the stipulation that they not be totally destroyed.

Those who came and sympathized with Job represent the people who are
not firmly committed to God, or are not sure of their commitment.

Gordon

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:02:59 -0700, (Ben Dolan)
wrote:

Antares 531 wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:31:58 -0700, (Ben Dolan)
wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

You atheists do not hesitate to portray youraelves as experts
concerning what Christians believe.

That's because you Christards are always blathering on about what you
believe--without, of course, providing any evidence to support your
ridiculous, puerile claims.

An abundance of evidence exists, but it isn't transferable. Each of us
has to do our own sleuthing. No one can be your deputy in these
matters, and supply you with empirical evidence or objective proof.
You'll have to do your own searching and make your own decisions. If
the evidence was transferable no one would have a sovereign choice,
and having a sovereign choice is an absolute requirement.

So, the evidence is presented in a very balanced way such that each of
us can assess it and go from there, making our own sovereign choice as
to whether we accept or reject God's existence. Gordon

I call bull****, Gordon. Evidence is by definition transferable. What
you're talking about isn't evidence, it's wishful thinking. You have
accepted God's existence not on any evidence, but strictly on a deep
rooted desire that it be true. Not the same thing at all.

Do you truly love your significant other? Do you have any evidence of
the deep running feelings you have for him/her? Is this evidence
transferable? Gordon

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:31:58 -0700, (Ben Dolan)
wrote:

rbwinn wrote:

You atheists do not hesitate to portray youraelves as experts
concerning what Christians believe.

That's because you Christards are always blathering on about what you
believe--without, of course, providing any evidence to support your
ridiculous, puerile claims.

Prophecies that have been fulfilled, though not an absolute proof,
certainly lend a lot of support to our beliefs. Gordon

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...prophecy.shtml