Because it says so...
 

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?

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

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..

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 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 guess the above "opinion" is one progressives theory... I have seen
things that to me do support "the divine"... I don't expect everyone to
understand but I know I can count on the haters here, to well, hate...

Because it says so...
 

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....

Because it says so...
 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:02:40 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

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

======

There are certainly plenty of unexplained phenomena, any of which
could be supernatural until proven otherwise. Have you ever taken a
close look at the implications of quantum physics? Nowhere else is
the supernatural so closely intertwined with science.

I'm not particulary religious but I respect the right of others to
believe as they wish. So did the founding fathers of this great
country of ours.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 9:47 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:16 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 11:48 AM, thumper wrote:

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

As valid as anything else until it's ruled out.

After re-reading this I have to comment on your logic, it's really
bad... Do you literally believe that "anything" is possible until
proven wrong?


I'll stick to what I actually said rather than what you thought I said.

Many seemingly impossible things have been proven otherwise.

There is no scientific evidence that suggests the supernatural is
impossible.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/2012 8:12 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:47 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:16 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 11:48 AM, thumper wrote:

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

As valid as anything else until it's ruled out.

After re-reading this I have to comment on your logic, it's really
bad... Do you literally believe that "anything" is possible until
proven wrong?

I'll stick to what I actually said rather than what you thought I said.

Many seemingly impossible things have been proven otherwise.

That's not what you said.

There is no scientific evidence that suggests the supernatural is
impossible.

Nor is there any suggesting it possible. Assigning equal probability is
unjustified.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

"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.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/17/12 10:58 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 7/17/2012 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 guess the above "opinion" is one progressives theory... I have seen
things that to me do support "the divine"... I don't expect everyone to
understand but I know I can count on the haters here, to well, hate...



But you are exactly the sort of person who believes in the supernatural.
It's not a matter of hate, it's a matter of being "guided" by rational
behavior, and *you* are the least rational poster in rec.boats.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

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.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 1:26 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 8:12 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:47 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/17/2012 9:16 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 7/17/2012 11:48 AM, thumper wrote:

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

As valid as anything else until it's ruled out.

After re-reading this I have to comment on your logic, it's really
bad... Do you literally believe that "anything" is possible until
proven wrong?

I'll stick to what I actually said rather than what you thought I said.

Many seemingly impossible things have been proven otherwise.

That's not what you said.

There is no scientific evidence that suggests the supernatural is
impossible.

Nor is there any suggesting it possible. Assigning equal probability is
unjustified.

I'm thankful that Jonas Salk's mind wasn't as restricted as yours.

Because it says so...
 

In article ,
says...

"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 7/17/12 1:32 PM, Califbill wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 7/17/12 8:47 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:31 am, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/17/12 6:57 AM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 17, 1:13 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 5:05 PM, Tim wrote:

On Jul 16, 10:44 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/16/2012 4:38 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:33 am, thumper wrote:
On 7/15/2012 2:47 PM, Tim wrote:

Definite articles of faith. Like the absurdity of Bumblebees
flying
(they ain't supposed to, y'know)...
That's a fallacy Tim.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...odynamically-i...

But, even that explanation has been held in question.
http://plus.maths.org/content/buzz-bumblebees
"Based on these experiments we concluded that the [Cambridge]
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex
throughout the
stroke," said Professor Dickinson. So how does the bumblebee
fly? "We
still don't know for sure" - and the bumblebee flies anyway.
"The data support an alternative hypothesis?that downward flow
induced
by tip vortices limits the growth of the leading-edge vortex."
James M. Birch & Michael H. Dickinson

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412729a0.html
Oh I know they can fly, but there seems to be just as much study
data
supporting the unknown as there is supportive proof.

IMHO it's up for grabs.

Bumblebee flight is hardly an article of faith... IMHO. ;)

My only objection is the allusion to a false equivalence with the
apparent purpose to discredit science. As if, since science can't
explain everything perfectly without controversy, it is no better than
mythology in describing reality.

Dude, I'm not discrediting science at all, but you gotta admit there's
a lot that science can't explain.

Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but that doesn't mean those
answers lie within the realm of religious superstition.

Like I told "thumper"

'And what marvels me is those who feel that if science can't prove it,
then there is (nor can be ) any other explanation. None!'

(I did correct my sentence)

?;^ )



The rational answer is, "Science hasn't been able to prove "X" *yet*.
The irrational answer: god did it.
-------------------------------------------
Authur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "



The irrational answer: god did it.


---------------------------------
The rational answer. Gods did it, alien's did it, F'n magic did it. Any
answer fits.

And we're all going to Golob!

Because it says so...
 

In article , says...

On 7/17/2012 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 guess the above "opinion" is one progressives theory... I have seen
things that to me do support "the divine"... I don't expect everyone to
understand but I know I can count on the haters here, to well, hate...

Please tell us, just what have you seen that "supports the divine"?

Because it says so...
 

"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.

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.

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.




I have no interest in "destroying," as it were, the faith others have in
religious beliefs. I'm not standing in a pulpit anywhere telling people
not to believe, nor am I trying to get legislation passed outlawing
religious belief. My issue with religion is mainly with the efforts
believers make (especially fundamentalists) to shove their beliefs down
the throats of those who believe differently or not at all.

If the "religious" simply kept their attempts to control within their
flock, I'd pretty much ignore them. But they don't...they're poisoning
everyone's well with overt hatred of those they don't like or perfectly
legal activities of which they don't approve.

Frankly, I would support efforts to remove the tax exemptions from any
religious organizations or surrogate organizations that are actively
engaged in political activities that go beyond lobbying for help for the
hungry, the homeless, the poor, the sick, et cetera.

Because it says so...
 

"X ` Man" wrote in message
...


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

No sir. Faith is much more than a belief. That's why I know I don't
have it, nor do you. But, I see serious evidence of it's existence
in others every day.
--------------------------------------------------------

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.
--------------------------------------------------------
This last paragraph is simply something you believe.
Keep it up. These sessions do you so much good! ;-)

Because it says so...
 

In article , says...

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 you have nothing.

http://www.break.com/pictures/the-more-you-know-2349135

Because it says so...
 

In article om,
says...

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

http://www.break.com/pictures/the-more-you-know-2349135

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/12 9:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...


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

No sir. Faith is much more than a belief. That's why I know I don't
have it, nor do you. But, I see serious evidence of it's existence
in others every day.
--------------------------------------------------------

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.
--------------------------------------------------------
This last paragraph is simply something you believe.
Keep it up. These sessions do you so much good! ;-)



It's not "simply something" I believe. There is plenty of factual,
undeniable evidence that "the religious" are working diligently to force
their religiously based beliefs onto society.

Oh, and the "fact" that you see "serious evidence" of faith in others
does not mean there is anything to that "faith" beyond faith itself.
It's easy enough to "believe" via faith in a creator. Let's see some
proof of a creator's existence, beyond the faith that there is one.

Because it says so...
 

"X ` Man" wrote in message ...


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

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

I have no interest in "destroying," as it were, the faith others
have in religious beliefs. I'm not standing in a pulpit anywhere
telling people not to believe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your pulpit is rec.boats. Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/12 9:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...


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

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

I have no interest in "destroying," as it were, the faith others have
in religious beliefs. I'm not standing in a pulpit anywhere telling
people not to believe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your pulpit is rec.boats. Sorry. Couldn't resist.



It's okay. I have faith in you.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 9:13 AM, X ` Man wrote:
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.



Do you feel intimidated by the Easter bunny. People offering to share
information about their faith is far less dangerous than saying you must
pay for the healthcare of people who won't work to take care of
themselves. Far less dangerous than a powerful person saying "Next year
I'll have a lot more flexibility to do whatever I want to the USA". Far
less dangerous than government holding hands with unions. On and on and
on...............

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 9:16 AM, X ` Man wrote:
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.

Not necessary. All you have to do is believe in something. You can't get
away with saying I don't know who or what caused what's happening; but
it wasn't a creator of any kind" It makes you sound ignorant.

Because it says so...
 

On 7/18/2012 9:29 AM, X ` Man wrote:
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.




I have no interest in "destroying," as it were, the faith others have in
religious beliefs. I'm not standing in a pulpit anywhere telling people
not to believe, nor am I trying to get legislation passed outlawing
religious belief. My issue with religion is mainly with the efforts
believers make (especially fundamentalists) to shove their beliefs down
the throats of those who believe differently or not at all.

If the "religious" simply kept their attempts to control within their
flock, I'd pretty much ignore them. But they don't...they're poisoning
everyone's well with overt hatred of those they don't like or perfectly
legal activities of which they don't approve.

Frankly, I would support efforts to remove the tax exemptions from any
religious organizations or surrogate organizations that are actively
engaged in political activities that go beyond lobbying for help for the
hungry, the homeless, the poor, the sick, et cetera.

If you kept your flock together and quiet, I'll bet you won't hear any
"shoving down your throat", at least as far as rec.boats is concerned.

So the lesson for you to learn is don't push if you don't want to be
pushed back.

Can I get an Amen?