"Free Lunch" <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:34r8j39g5bp0fjc0v8lfaldl40h7ing29r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:41:07 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
> Danwood <noreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> <ViTYi.279$qv5.86@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>rockymt wrote:
>>> I can understand that many of you who frequent these newsgroups
expect
>>> scientific proof/evidence and no less.
>> >
>>I deliberately removed alt atheism from the this thread. I have learned
>>from experience it's virtually impossible to communicate. They demand
>>physical proof of the existence of a non-physical being - the creator.
>>Personally, I see evidence of the "hand" of the creator in the design
>>we see all around us. From the universe, to life itself and especially
>>the reproduction process. But for most, atheist _cannot_ see design.
>>But ironically some apparently do.
>>Richard Dawkins, for example referred to design as "apparent" design.
>>As a corollary, I see a beaver dam as evidence of of a dam builder, even
>>though I've never seen a beaver. Similarly, I see design as evidence of
>>a designer although I never seen the designer. I reject the notion of
>>"apparent" design. Design is real, and I see design as evidence of a
>>designer.
>>
>>I find it curious that unbelievers demand scientific proof of the deity,
>
> I don't recall such a question. I do recall that theists were asked for
> evidence and had none.
>
>>yet science is _not_ in the business of proof. I quote Stephen Hawking,
>>Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only
>>a hypothesis" you can never prove it.
>
> But scientists do gather more and more evidence. Religious folks don't
> even try to find evidence about their god. They reiterate their claims.
>
>>No matter how many times the
>>results of experments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that
>>the next time the result will not contridict the theory. On the other
>>hand you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that
>>disagrees with the predictions of the theory.. If ever a new observation
>>is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory. At least
>>that is what is supposed to happen, but you can always question the
>>competence of the person who carried out the observation.
>
> So, no evidence about gods can be found using science.
>
>>I also understand how many of you
>>> would perceive your 'reality' world and those who embrace the
>>> Christian or
>>> a Monotheistic faith to be in complete opposition. A lot of what I'm
>>> hearing, at a much deeper level is that it is just too painful...
>> >
>>I do not subscribe to the Genesis account. I think it lacks specificity.
>> >
>>> impossible for me to listen to you let alone believe in a god with the
>>> state
>>> this world is in.
>> >
>>I challenge the notion that the deity is a micro-manager.
>> >
>>Apart from those who do not believe in God, we'd probably
>>> tolerate each other, maybe even agree on other topics, such as
hobbies,
>>> literature, s****ts travel etc. Maybe even come to enjoy each others
>>> company( outside of this newsgroup or in person), and even like one
>>> another.
>>> Who knows. What bothers me is that most are not just disagreeing,
>>> they're
>>> offending, insulting, making those that disagree, feel unwelcome, and
>>> carrying on as though there were more than this one major difference(
>>> like
>>> people born in nations that are in political turmoil).
>> >
>>Theist are not welcome on atheist newsgroups. And atheist often use the
>>fact that some theist infringe in their space to justify attacks on
>>Christians and other religionists.
>
> Theists are welcome if they do not lie or insultingly attack atheists.
> Read some of the theist postings in alt.atheism. Some are not unwelcome,
> some are nothing but insults and lies. Generalizing doesn't work very
> well.
>
>> Work associates (
>>> for example) whom after I've come to know personally,(over a year or
>>> so)
>>> begin discussing the deeper thing, to even religion and faith in a
god.
>> >
>>I not presently a church goer, but when I did attend Methodist services,
>>I do not recall anyone ever claiming to _know_ anything for a fact.
>>Or making any claims to know for a fact that God exist. Everything, as I
>>remember was a said to be a matter of _faith_. Is this still true?
>>
>> >
>>
>>Our
>>> differences surface, yet we don't stoop to degrading, offensive
>>> language.
>>> This is most likely because we've come to accept and respect one
>>> another.
>>> There is a foundation built of mutual respect.
>>> beneath all this 'tit for tat' dialogue, there is something more...
much
>>> more we can offer one another. It's to bad it has to be like this so
>>> much-
>>> wish it'd tone down. I know this is not a friend****p newsgroup, but at
a
>>> deeper level I feel for each and everyone of you, good bad or
>>> indifferent.
>>> And I know we don't really mean those hurtful things we say.
>> >
<><><><>
<><><>
>>When "Christians" say hurtful things, I question their sincerity. This
>>was not part of the teachings expressed in the Methodist Church.
....and how! ( the Church in general)
this is just one reason why I think the (body of Christ) church has
become
so ineffective. So many conveniently speak the lingo, but display so
little
love ( agape love) with their acquired knowledge. Sincerity comes into
question. I am not at all proud of this, because I myself have fallen
short
of this measure of agape love. Our own selfish interests take over, and
what
we have is a slant in what is suppose to be an upright Christian walk.
"People don't care how much you know till they know how much you care."
"If I speak in the voice of angels... if I surrender my body to the
flames,
and have not love, I am nothing... my efforts come to nil. I am just a
resounding gong."
rockymt
<><><><>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dana Wood
>>
>>>
>>> take you all,
>>> rockymt
>>>
>>>
|
