🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 29, 1:54 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 12:34 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >>> On Jun 26, 3:56�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> >>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 27, 6:09 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
> >>>>> W.A. Sawford wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 26, 5:05� am, RobertL <robertml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48� am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven. � All you have done
> >>>>>>> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is
> >>>>>>> suppsed to have done it. �Atheists have said they have proven all
> >>>>>>> manner of things. �Almost always it turns out to be something some
> >>>>>>> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists.
> >>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
> >>>>>> I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it
> >>>>>> isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh).
> >>>>>> 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.'
> >>>>>> Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists
> >>>>>> have claimed it? �Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything,
> >>>>>> because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first
> >>>>>> place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any
> >>>>>> more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal.
> >>>>> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor
> >>>>> a fact.
> >>>>> So it can't be proven or disproven.
> >>>>> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get
> >>>>> a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less.
> >>>>> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open
> >>>>> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as
> >>>>> something one can simply do without.
> >>>>>> Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual
> >>>>>> evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place...
> >>>>> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its
> >>>>> a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology.
> >>>>> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a
> >>>>> statement about its existence, or lack thereof.
> >>>>>> Wendy
> >>>> Your "god" is yours. �Different people have more or less
> >>>> anthropomorphic ideas of gods. �And the claim wasn't so much that your
> >>>> god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're
> >>>> suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical
> >>>> god is provably false. �The most obviously wrong points would be the
> >>>> age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood.
> >>>> There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to
> >>>> reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge
> >>>> by transcribers.
> >>>> Al- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> So scientists can be proven wrong by
> >> Correct.
>
> >> Religious beliefs cannot be proven wrong, because they are  not a
> >> scientific theory: Since religion  predicts nothing that can be tested,
> >> its is never open to challenge on a scientific basis.
>
> >>   their belief in the Loerentz
>
> >>> equations, which requires a miracle to describe relativity of time.
> >>> But a miracle described by equations is OK if it results in
> >>> appropriations from public revenues so that scientists can do
> >>> research, while miracles to feed the hungry are not allowed by
> >>> science.
> >> A 'miracle' is worthy of funding if it can be tested and leads to
> >> consistent results.
>
> >>> Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
> > Well, that was what the people who were fed by the loaves and fishes
> > said also.  I do not personally see any reason to be giving scientists
> > trillions of dollars every year just because they say they believe in
> > one miracle.
>
> Thats not the reason why they get trillions of dollars, they get that
> for all the billions of little miracles that scienece has already made
> happen, like this machine you are looking at.
>
> In the compute stakes,
>
> Science 100%
> God 'Null point'
>
> Its not My fault that you are confusing religion and science and want to
> compare them: they are not comparable.
>
> Neither science nor religion are what you believe them to be. That's the
> trouble with belief in general. It very easy to believe in things that
> don't help, and are probably false.
>
Well, people today do that all of the time.  Almost everything they
believe is propaganda.
Robert B. Winn