Re: Man Drops Dead - After Getting Vaxxed

On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 06:15:45 -0400, Attila <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 21:13:22 -0400, Vincent Maycock
><[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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. 
>
>No because the conditions involved can never be equally
>evaluated.  In every religious story there is some type of
>variable which cannot be projected as a part of some factual
>basis.

What do you mean by "projected as a part of some factual basis"?

>>For example, do you think a global Flood, à la young-earth
>>creationism, has been disproven or not?
>
>Not if you consider a god that can create an earth with any
>conditions at al and the can change those conditions to any
>other that he likes.

It could, but is there any reason to *think* it did, from a
creationist perspective? 

>Such a god could create an earth that is covered in water
>(or oil, cake batter, ice cream, fudge, poop, or anything
>else) and at a later point changed the earth so that none of
>this ever happened.

The Bible doesn't record any of those things happening, so there's no
reason for a YEC to try to take them into account.  

>How would you prove (or disprove) anything under those
>conditions?

No one is going to interested in gods that cover their tracks so
completely.  It's just not part of human nature to do so.

>>>  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?
>
>See the above outline.  Just how would science even begin to
>support any of it?

Creationist arguments are supported by religion, not science,  though.
>>>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?
>>
>
>You cannot limit magic to any one result.  There is no
>reason doing the same magical thing five times could not
>result in five different results.

Theists don't necessarily reason from cause to effect -- they only
reach the one effect they've been told is appropriate to investigate.

>In order to investigate or evaluate magic with any kind of
>rational system requires the magic to be restricted in some
>way,

Theists are always shooting themselves in the foot, though, by
including restrictions on their claims about the world. 

> even if only to always produce the same results.  But
>there is no reason to expect magic to be restricted in any
>way.

All fiction *can* be restricted, though. That's the only way you can
make a story to create a religion around.