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?

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.

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..

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...

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.