align-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcamerachatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-crosscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfullheartglobegoogleimagesinstagramlocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartwitteryahoo

Re: [KC-Midtown-FreeThinkers] Dear Religion - >>>>>>>>>>­>> I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Revolution.

From: Kansas City S.
Sent on: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:18 PM

Your god is not the most important thing in my life :o) Life goes on. My son just left for KU today, so life goes on. Your god can wait, my dogs cannot (my daughter left me her dog for 1 month while she's camping) :o)

I am with Marlys about determining "what qualities" and "attributes" of the god we need to test and determine first and then hammer them one by one. She outlined the variables well. 

As for controls and additional variables, you as a science journalist should have no problem coming up with some to test the concept of god? Let's try it, Fred and see if you can pitch in and help design an experiment for something you in my face told me you cannot prove or disprove BUT the Jesus you cannot prove or disprove is still the one you cling to. Let's apply your scientific views to the scientific claims of your 3 gods. I, right off the bat will discount the Telepathic Holy Spirit - James Randi Education Foundation would be delighted to test him and any other variations by faith healers, mediums, etc. No luck so far.

So, this leaves Jesus and Yahweh. So, Fred, let's devise a plan to deal with the Invisible Pink Unicorn of Jesus and Yahweh?

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Fred <[address removed]> wrote:
What I thought.  No answer.  You're "pretending to know what you don't know" and can't apply the same standards to your view that you ask me to use to support mine.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Kansas City Skeptic <[address removed]> wrote:

Your gnosticized new agey self made home brewed version of Xinaity reminds me of arguments like this.

When you click on this comic click "Zoom in"

So Iggy, how do you know that a "creator/cosmology designer" would do all this designing and then take no interest in the results?  And what kind of "variables" have you tested with "controls" to tell you that the Judeo-Christian god, in particular, is false?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Kansas City Skeptic <[address removed]> wrote:
Fred wrote>>>>>>>> So most of what you say is arguing with a straw man version of Christianity, not mine.

Fred, you need to stop pretending to know what you don't know. Or rather pretending to know that it's OK to create your own version of Christianity in light of complete and utter probabilistic world and uncertainties that reign the world.

At best, your "creator/cosmology designer" exists but what is the probability of him/her/it being a Judeo Christian god? You don't have a variable to test and have any controls.

Hence, you are arguing for why circles are not squares or rather in your case that cycles are ellipses with two foci in the same location - god and scientific understanding of the universe. 

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Fred ([address removed]) from KC Midtown FreeThinkers.
To learn more about Fred, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy