Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Maximus Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,alt.atheism Subject: Re: Atheism is a belief, it's not a science. Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 11:28:25 +1000 Lines: 139 Message-ID: References: <66350E8E.7D2F@ix.netcom.com> <6638F8B4.4C4C@ix.netcom.com> <66393269.4913@ix.netcom.com> <6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> <663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> <0iim3jp6emvpogsg1obp5bgppk8798f2v6@4ax.com> <663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net qxVMMsrceWYFetrWY7aETA9vAa8AxHvnxR4AvUF2lf0PM0nrpE Cancel-Lock: sha1:7l34SGGyfLNEuidinEJgUtxDW/g= sha256:lq5RBsBJ4zvohDrxC/xL1GBOrzZtpfS010/B2qV+kD4= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:653551 sci.physics:887355 alt.atheism:3372474 Attila wrote: > On Thu, 09 May 2024 08:29:27 -0700, The Starmaker > in alt.atheism with message-id > <663CEBD7.3857@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Attila < wrote: >>> On Tue, 07 May 2024 23:52:13 -0700, The Starmaker >>> in alt.atheism with message-id >>> <663B211D.EF4@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Attila < wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 06 May 2024 22:02:30 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id >>>>> <6639B5E6.4553@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Okay, back to my reverse engineering... >>>>>> >>>>>> you agree there was some verification for an >>>>>> earth and the heavens (you call it the universe) >>>>> They exist as proven by any number of verifiable and >>>>> repeatable experiments. Since they provide the structure >>>>> for our lives it would be a bit difficult to exist without >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> And no, I am not getting into a dialog about whether or not >>>>> we exist. >>>>> >>>>>> 'In the beginning, God >>>>>> created the heavens and >>>>>> the earth.' >>>>> You keep repeating a meaningless quote from an unverified >>>>> source as if is relevant. Why is that? >>>>> >>>>> Since it is unverified it is useless. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Next in reverse engineering is >>>>>> >>>>>> "created" >>>>>> '...created the heavens and >>>>>> the earth.' >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you agree the universe/heavens and the earth >>>>>> was... >>>>>> 'created'??? >>>>> Not necessarily. And especially I have no idea how such >>>>> possible creation took place. Those are things that are not >>>>> yet known. >>>> you wrote: >>>> "creation took place" >>> "Possible creation" I do not concede such creation >>> occurred. >>> >>>> >>>> That means you agree creation took place. >>> Wrong. See above. >>> >>>> >>>> What's next on my reverse engineering list? >>>> >>>> >>>> You already agreed on earth, heavens, and created... >>> Nope. Nice try at putting words in my mouth. >>> >>>> >>>> Next is God...God created >>>> the heavens and the earth. >>> If anything created anything the evidence indicates it could >>> have been space hamsters, beings from another dimension, or >>> a bored teenager with magical skills. Or something else. >>> >>> IOW, there is no evidence to support anything. >>> >>> I can keep repeating I have yet to see any valid evidence >>> supporting the existence of any god as long as you insist on >>> referring to one. >>> >>>> >>>> What does the word "God" mean to you? How would you define the word...God? >>> 1. >>> (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the >>> creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral >>> authority; the supreme being. >> >> I asked you..."God" mean to you?, you define the word...God? > Did you miss the " other monotheistic religions" part? I > did not include those with multi-gods (such as Hind and > ancient Egyptian because I have seen few advocates here. > >> >> >> and You picked Your Christian God. > Not mine. > >> So, you are a die hard self-hating Christian! >> >> >> Typical atheists. >> >> >> Your girlfriend Christian too, right? >> >> >> It's okay, Charles Darnwin is a self-hating Christian too! > Is? I thought he was dead. > >> >> But I had prefer if you had gave me YOUR definition of God, not Google's. > I speak standard English and use definitions that are common > to most English speaking people. If I posted in Klingon I > doubt may people would know what I was saying. > >> >> Everyone here wants to know what exactly is YOUR definition of God... > Why? It would mean nothing to me. exactly. it's not for atheists to define God. >> >> teach me. > Sorry. I don't attempt the impossible. > :) -- “Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23 "Christian beliefs fail against reason, facts, and knowledge" "Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle" "God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand. The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation." "The problem with theism is that it never remains within the realm of belief, but invariably proceeds to assertion"