🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> 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.

How can you know anything about the world if not through scientific 
inquiry? What if you picked the wrong religion?! Do you hate knowledge?