🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
Robert B. Winn