Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:12:46 -0400, Attila <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:15:05 -0400, Vincent Maycock
><[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:04:05 -0400, Attila <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:28:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock
>>><[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:42:08 -0400, Attila <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:23:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
>>>>><[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:13:37 -0700, "Andrew"
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>> I consider most all atheists as friend, because they
>>>>>>>>>  have always helped strengthen my faith.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Andrew,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If you truly believe, then continue!  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I truly believe what is supported by 'rock solid science'. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it's a fact, as you seem to imply here, is it best described as a
>>>>>>"belief"?
>>>>>
>>>>>He constantly asserts his beliefs as if they are fact.
>>>>
>>>>He also refers to them as "beliefs" though (see the above quoted
>>>>text).  He wants the approval of science ("facts") as well as the
>>>>approval of God ("faith"), so he ends up just really confused. 
>>>
>>>Which is why science never addresses religion.  The two are
>>>mutually exclusive.
>>
>>You're too kind.  The scientific method has disproved religion
>>(although I doubt anyone would need science for that; everyday life
>>disproves religion all on its own).
>
>Sorry.  Any decent religion has a supernatural component
>where some magic man can do anything he likes including
>ignoring the laws of science.

"Can do anything" is not the same as "will do anything."  There's
always a story of how things happened in religious stories, and
comparing those stories with reality can be part of the scientific
method. 

For example, do you think a global Flood, à la young-earth
creationism, has been disproven or not?

>  Remember, anything science
>cannot support is wide open to the supernatural.  That's why
>they call it super natural.

What are some examples of things science "can't support," in your
view?  

>Science can never prove or disprove magic.

What if the alleged magical events make predictions about what we can
expect to find...if in fact the events really occurred?