🚀 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.

Indeed: Why cannot you extend that to yourself, and the Bible?

You are half way there. You have seen that mostly waht people think 
about stuff is what they have been told or taught to thunk. The only 
difference bewteen you and me, is that I extended that to myself,and 
assumed that I also belived in a bunch of junk, and made a hard 
conscious descision to believe in as little as possible, in order to 
maintain a critical facility for everything, and even what I did blelive 
in, was not adhered to as an article of faith, merely as an af hoc 
predicate to conscious thought.

In my humble arrogance, I think this makes me a truer Christian than you...


> Robert B. Winn