Because it says so...
 

In article , says...

On 7/17/2012 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.


Well, of course it is... But Progressives are by nature, irrational..

Bigot.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 6:44 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/17/12 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:02 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't
prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.

There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

Does there have to be?


I don't put "Faith" in the constructs man creates to help him understand
what he doesn't yet know. There isn't the slightest bit of serious
evidence to prove the existence of a creator.

You believe that what is is because it is. Won't you be surprised when
you find out your belief isn't rational.

Because it says so...
 

In article , says...

On 7/17/2012 10:35 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 7:14 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:41 pm, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 4:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

If one had *ever* been verified I would consider it.

I'm sure you would consider it. Maybe not believe it, but yes, you'd
consider it.

I'm quite willing to change my mind with credible evidence and care much
more what is true than what feels good.

When you pigeon hole faith like you do, nobody is really going to take
you seriously enough to share anyway. Besides, you already have made up
your mind....

Do you mean the way you "pigeon hole" progressives, liberals, agnostics
etc. every day here, bigot?

Because it says so...
 

In article om,
says...

On 7/17/2012 10:25 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 10:39 AM, Meyer wrote:

And you're certain he didn't do it? You're not agnostic; you're full
blown athiest.

An atheist is simply someone without belief in god/gods. Many are open
to the concept if there were sufficient evidence of existence.

Do you usually misspell theist also?

I don't claim to be a great speller.

Besides, Don needs something to do here beside sniff Harry's ass.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 8:05 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/18/12 7:46 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 18, 5:44 am, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/17/12 10:12 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 8:02 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't
prove it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never
"prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be
discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm
also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.

There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

Does there have to be?

I don't put "Faith" in the constructs man creates to help him understand
what he doesn't yet know. There isn't the slightest bit of serious
evidence to prove the existence of a creator.

You don't have to, Harry. Just because you don't doesn't mean the
extra ordinary doesn't exist..

Just because you don't , doesn't make it wrong or ridiculous if
others do.


My point, which I repeated several times, was that belief in the
supernatural or divine was *irrational.* Such beliefs have nothing to do
with reason. Oh, and I don't see "extraordinary" as a synonym for
supernatural or divine.

I also didn't say belief in the supernatural or divine was wrong. Once
again, I said it was *irrational.* Belief in demigods is also
irrational. I can believe in the existence of Heracles as an
extraordinarily strong man, but that doesn't mean I have to believe he
was the son of Alcmene, probably an actual woman, and Zeus, who the
Greeks believed to be their "chief" god. Religion is full of demigods.





How can you call something you don't fully understand, irrational?

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 1:27 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 8:00 PM, JustWait wrote:

When you pigeon hole faith like you do, nobody is really going to take
you seriously enough to share anyway. Besides, you already have made up
your mind....

My tentative conclusions will change if better evidence warrants. You
offer nothing.

I offer nothing to you.... Because you don't want it, you just want to
sit here and feel superior in your ignorance.... So be it..

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 8:56 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/18/2012 1:27 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 8:00 PM, JustWait wrote:

When you pigeon hole faith like you do, nobody is really going to take
you seriously enough to share anyway. Besides, you already have made up
your mind....

My tentative conclusions will change if better evidence warrants. You
offer nothing.

I offer nothing to you.... Because you don't want it, you just want to
sit here and feel superior in your ignorance.... So be it..


I approve this message

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 8:30 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 7/18/12 1:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove
it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.




There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

--------------------------------------------------------

There is, Harry and it's very serious. There are millions and
millions of
people who support and demonstrate it everyday. It can be summed
up in a single word.

Faith.

Not all have it. You obviously don't. I don't. But that doesn't mean
it doesn't exist.


"Faith" isn't serious evidence.

------------------------------------------------

If "Faith" isn't serious evidence of something, what are you
complaining about?
For those who have embraced it, it is the most significant cause of
millions upon
millions of other people's lifestyles, views on controversial issues and
even
why we are all here in the first place. "Faith" has an enormous affect
on how
people think and act world wide . If that isn't serious evidence of
something,
I don't know what is.

For those of us that lack it, we may not understand it. Doesn't mean it
doesn't
exist. I tend not to ridicule or attempt to destroy in others
something that I don't
have or understand. You tend to demonstrate otherwise.


Well said.
This is just the kind of rational guidance Harry needs.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/12 8:30 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 7/18/12 1:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 7/17/12 8:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:35 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 7:08 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 17, 10:48 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 5:45 AM, Tim wrote:

And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove
it,
then there is (nor can not be ) any other explanation.

Undoubtedly there are *many* things that science will never "prove".
That doesn't make supernatural explanations valid.

You're right. but "supernatural explanations" shouldn't be discounted
because of such.

Goodness...and I thought you were at least near rational.

I am. Why should I not be? I'm not discounting science, but I'm also
not discounting anything supernatural or divine. No Harry, I'm not a
close minded person as you seem to like to paint Christians to be. in
fact, I'd think I'd ;like to be considered open-minded. Not choosing
only one side.

That to me is irrational.




There isn't even the slightest bit of serious evidence to support "the
supernatural" or "the divine." Nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

--------------------------------------------------------

There is, Harry and it's very serious. There are millions and
millions of
people who support and demonstrate it everyday. It can be summed
up in a single word.

Faith.

Not all have it. You obviously don't. I don't. But that doesn't mean
it doesn't exist.


"Faith" isn't serious evidence.

------------------------------------------------

If "Faith" isn't serious evidence of something, what are you
complaining about?
For those who have embraced it, it is the most significant cause of
millions upon
millions of other people's lifestyles, views on controversial issues and
even
why we are all here in the first place. "Faith" has an enormous affect
on how
people think and act world wide . If that isn't serious evidence of
something,
I don't know what is.

For those of us that lack it, we may not understand it. Doesn't mean it
doesn't
exist. I tend not to ridicule or attempt to destroy in others
something that I don't
have or understand. You tend to demonstrate otherwise.



Faith, as it is being discussed here, is not serious evidence of
anything beyond belief.

I don't give a damn if the "faithful" believe in the easter bunny, santa
claus, jesus or punxsutawney phil. The problems arise when such
believers try to force their "faith" and their religiously based beliefs
onto non-believers or those who believe differently. That is happening
with increasing frequency and nastiness in this country.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/12 8:56 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/18/2012 1:27 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 8:00 PM, JustWait wrote:

When you pigeon hole faith like you do, nobody is really going to take
you seriously enough to share anyway. Besides, you already have made up
your mind....

My tentative conclusions will change if better evidence warrants. You
offer nothing.

I offer nothing to you.... Because you don't want it, you just want to
sit here and feel superior in your ignorance.... So be it..



*You* are the one who sits in a puddle of ignorance and feels superior
about the squalor of your intellect. Neither you nor any of the other
"believers" can offer up one conclusive bit of evidence that proves the
existence of a creator.