🚀 go-pugleaf

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