You seem to have drawn your own conclusions as to what a scientist would view as evidence. You state repeatedly that my demands -or that of any scientist- are beyond what may be proven. What do you believe are "provable" concepts?
>merely asking what evidence would > cause them to change their view exposes the actual thought processes > and inherent belief structures that result in said strong atheistic > point of view. You pretend to know what it is that an "atheistic" point of view is. Please enlighten the rest of us. What is an atheistic point of view? There is no dogma involved, regardless of how much you wish there to be one. I do not believe in a god that refuses to be acknowledged by testable evidence. To say that god wants "believers" rather than "knowers" is the height of idiocy. Any god as vain as holy books report him to be (note that they are all male and force restrictions on women), would readily put some fingerprint on life, earth, or humanity; yet none has. On Jan 23, 10:01 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > For those who make the claim that god does not exist, and assuming > that their claim is falsifiable, > > On Jan 23, 9:31 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What is weird is this atheist notion that God (assuming He exists) > > would have a duty to people he does not have to grass. The only way > > one can raise an argument against God from the death of innocents here > > is if it was supposed to be otherwise. For example: > > > 1. a caring God would never let innocent grass die > > 2. but billions of innocent blades of grass died recently in Haiti > > 3. therefore God is uncaring > > > The argument does not have the ring of truth in the case of grass. But > > s/grass/humans/ and many atheists will find it persuasive. Why? > > > On Jan 23, 4:04 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The haiti disaster did not just kill people. It killed grass, too! > > > > > But from the fact that grass died, nobody argues God is not. Why do > > > > they argue that because people died, God is not? > > > > > As Alexandar Pruss points out inhttp://bit.ly/7sSRUn"We are only > > > > really bothered by the problem once we deal with critters that are > > > > conscious and capable of sophisticated lives" Why is this? > > > > Hmm. You are correct it is an illogical argument to assume there is > > > no god because people or grass died. What some people think, I > > > imagine, is that it proves if there is a god he is uncaring or > > > possibly even cruel. Rather then put myself through the agony of > > > believing the All Father doesn't give a rat's ass; I'd rather believe > > > he doesn't exist at all. It's less emotionally taxing. I don't get > > > angry. > > > > I think many angry so-called atheists aren't really atheists at all. > > > They make the claim because they want to punish God and all who > > > believe. Weird, eh? > > > > -Don > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit this group > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
