🚀 go-pugleaf

"Antares 531" <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> wrote in message 
news:a2af74t4f3e1lsfcv07k7fu8khq1vqqa0d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:15:08 -0700, ben_dolan_III@reet.com (Ben Dolan)
> wrote:
>
>>Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >> When I lived in Florida a few years back, I arrived home one evening
>>> >> just after sundown and saw a very large alligator slithering across
>>> >> our front lawn. I was afraid to get close to the beast but after it
>>> >> began moving away I parked the car and went inside to tell my wife
>>> >> about this alligator.
>>> >>
>>> >> We both came back out to look at the beast but it was gone and we
>>> >> could find no trace of it. I had ample "evidence" that an alligator
>>> >> had slithered across our front lawn, but I could not transfer this
>>> >> evidence. My wife could either reject my claim or accept it on faith.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >As you said, a claim, but not evidence.
>>> >
>>> There was evidence for me, but no transferable evidence. My point was
>>> that there can be, and often is evidence that isn't transferable.
>>
>>But there's plenty of evidence that alligators live in Florida, isn't
>>there? So your claim is completely reasonable based on considerable
>>supporting evidence. If your claim was that the baby Jesus had slithered
>>across your front lawn, then that would be a different matter
>>altogether, now wouldn't it?  Believing you saw an alligator on your
>>lawn isn't purely a matter of faith, but believing you saw Jesus would
>>be (and Florida being a hotbed of religulous nutcases, I'm sure someone
>>has made such a claim at some point.) Do you understand the difference?
>>
>>Give it a rest, Gordon, we've heard this particular line of argument
>>countless times before. You're not covering any new ground, and you
>>still haven't addressed the basic issue: there is no evidence for the
>>existence of supernatural gods of any sort--reptilian or otherwise.
>>
> Ben, there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that God exists, but this
> evidence is not transferable between human minds. If you and other
> atheists have your minds closed against God's existence, it will NEVER
> be possible for anyone to overwhelm you and force you to change your
> mind. To accept or to reject God is a fully volitional choice that you
> and all of us have. If it were possible to overwhelm an atheist's mind
> on this, they would NOT have a volitional choice at all.
>

What is it with you morons and choice?
Did you CHOSE not to believe in Zeus?
Did you CHOSE not to belive in Leprechauns?
Did you CHOSE not to believe in Ra?
Did you CHOSE not to believe in Thor?
Did you CHOSE not to believe there are faires at the bottom of your garden?
No. You came to the conclusion that all the above are fiction.
Exactly as I came to the conclusion that your gods are fiction.
No choice was possible, given the total lack of evidence for any of your 
gods.

> As I've said in previous posts, I'm not trying to re-direct you or
> overwhelm you with my beliefs on these matters. I'm posting merely for
> the benefit of those who are still searching for information, and who
> might want to review the Christian perspective on these matters.

And you do this in an athiest newsgroup?
Why would atheists search for information about a fictional, impossible, 
unprovable being?
What would you think of someone who came to a xian newsgroup for the benefit 
of those who are still searching for information on, say, Vishna and who 
might want to review the Hindu perspective on these matters? Rude? Ignorant? 
Presumptious? Stupid? Obnoxious? All of these things?

>
> It is a lot easier to believe that an intelligent designer
> orchestrated the big bang and the formation of the multiverse, then
> created life on at least this one little insignificant planet, than it
> is to conclude that it was all a matter of chance.

Maybe for morons like you, but those of us that live in the real world know 
better.

>
> One little channel of thought on this subject...genetic mutations.  In
> most cases any significant chain of mutations had to progress through
> MANY very well orchestrated steps, involving many totally separate DNA
> mutations, before any tangible Darwinian natural selection benefits
> could have guided the further refinement.

Why?
Just being able to run at 1MPH faster than your predator is a natural 
selection advantage.

>
> Leaving this to chance would surely have resulted in a complete
> failure of the process, or even the extinction of the life forms
> involved.

Why? Not all the species mutate, only some individuals.
If the mutation(s) were not successful, only the mutated individuals would 
die out.
The remainder would carry on as before.

> Yet not just one, but millions of such chain-of-events
> evolutionary processes went to a very fine state of development in a
> very short period of time, in terms of the ordinary evolutionary
> processes time frame.

Your evidence for this is?

>
> Sure, evolution happens. Hereford cows and Angus cows are certainly
> different. But this micro evolution process doesn't spontaneously
> accomplish things like eyes in almost every advanced life form.

The 'Irreducable Complexity' argument has been refuted many times.
Try talk.origins for an explanation.

>
> Some form of cosmic intelligence (God) was in control through the
> critical developmental phase of all we can evaluate, objectively.

Your evidence for this is?

> It
> didn't just happen, spontaneously.

Your personal incredulity is not evidence.

>
> I'll agree, one has to be careful how one tries to conceptualize God.
> God is spirit, not an oversized old man with a white beard, sitting on
> a majestic throne somewhere off in deep space. That concept was
> acceptable and favorable to those ancient people who knew nothing
> about the scientific order of the multiverse. But, most of us modern
> hominids have progressed beyond this, and now need an understanding of
> God that is more congruent with our scientific knowledge. It isn't
> that God doesn't exist, or no longer exists. It is merely that those
> old sources of information on God are not easy to reconcile with our
> current level of scientific knowledge.
>
> God is spirit

Define 'Spirit'

> and we must worship Him is spirit.

Who says we MUST?

> That is to say, God
> exists as a cosmic intelligence that permeates the entire multiverse,
> and can interact across the entirety of the multiverse, instantly.
>

Your evidence for this is?

<snip remainder of pseudo-scientific bullshit>

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279