Free Lunch wrote:
> 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.
>
Do you accept design as evidence of a designer? As a youth playing
HS football I broke my knee: in my later years arthritis set
in I had to have a knee replacement. The doctor showed me the knee
beforehand, explaining how it worked and the procedure involved in
replacement. He commented that the "artificial knee was the best
design that anyone had designed and a good design, but not half
as good as the design your natural knee. No question that the natural
knee is a designed a body part and has function. And I reject the idea
that this design is "apparent" design.
>
>> 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.
>
This has nothing to do with me. Because I do not appeal to religious
sources for anything. If I'm religious it's only because I stand
convinced that there is/was some intelligent agency behind the scene
and some people consider this a religious position.
But I do not participate in organized religion. I have no need to do so.
>
>> 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 agree, since God is outside of scientific investigation. This fact
in and of itself does not falsify the belief in God.
>
>> 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.
>
This is wrong. Atheist as well as theist deserve respect from those who
do not agree.
>
> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dana Wood
>>
>>> take you all,
>>> rockymt
>>>
>>>
|
