Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 02:24:59 -0500 Message-ID: <55D6D24D.612A@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:25:01 -0700 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. References: <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> <10c3tatjr307eiqqf3gmei6v68bdjbhjve@4ax.com> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> <5mn5tap5rscac95v6bkpfhoebdihfeh7bt@4ax.com> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 80 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72 X-Trace: sv3-c024i/wTsU49MHzF83A9rEdnfUKywgZM56iZbuWibNIJGgTCBEhgIBp6dWL6SP6yFyL8d1RNIzcKZUs!+n3RA03oSUbi0XqCptp60P6OPAeNuhRI869tY9hwJYXkvBr811z9Bnump6eojq7FCfxjACP0BhAP!isC7kw// X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 4783 Xref: csiph.com alt.atheism:1965581 sci.physics:515514 sci.physics.relativity:361426 rec.arts.sf.written:420750 Attila < wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:45:55 -0700, The Starmaker > in alt.atheism with message-id > <55D4B2C3.7EEE@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Attila < wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:44:10 -0700, The Starmaker > >> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> <55D433CA.7277@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:32 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> <55D36834.7733@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:47:26 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> <55D28EAE.2A30@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Attila < wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:56:46 -0700, The Starmaker > >> >> >> >> in alt.atheism with message-id > >> >> >> >> <55D0423E.777F@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Okay, I'm going to break the atheist bubble....there are no Martians....never was. It's just a fairy tale. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You are probably correct, but it's a big universe and there are a lot > >> >> >> >> of planets out there. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >There are not a lot of planets out there...there is only Earth. All the rest of the stuff out there is just...props. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Highly unlikely, and you nave no evidence at all that is true. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Why would you think life only exists on this one planet? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' > >> >> > >> >> Validate that statement. Begin by proving any god ever existed. > >> > > >> > > >> >What would you consider verification of God by other unrelated source??? > >> > >> By a variety of sources not related or connected to each other or > >> derived from any other source. The more the better, and the more > >> unlikely the subject the more sources would be needed. > > > > > >So, you're saying God's brother or sister or mother and father is too connected? > > I am saying I have seen no evidence any god ever existed, much less > any relatives. > > > Can you give an example of > >an "unrelated source", ...i'm trying to help you here but i must be clear first on what you are requiring. > > Start with something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with > your bible or any one mentioned in it. A totally unrelated source > that has no agenda to support by reporting items to support that > agenda. > > Think of a courtroom in which witnesses other than the defendant's > friends and relatives present testimony. Think of forensic evidence > unrelated to any so-called 'eyewitness'. > > What that evidence could be is up to you, but remember the more > unlikely the subject the higher the level of required evidence. What > would be needed to support the existence of a god would require about > the best that would be possible since the likelihood of a god is > highly improbable. How about The Laws of Physics?