 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2009science vs. faith in WSJ
Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding religion in the wider society. Letters poured in, check them yourself: http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html What do they all have in common? hint: who was the first character Dorothy met on the Yellow Brick Road? -- Rich > Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Letters poured in, check them yourself: > http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html < snip snide comment > True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory. IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I can't prove scientifically that God exists. However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non- existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is irrational. The only scientific stand is to be agnostic; "I don't know" is fundamental to science. What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human. Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need a god. What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to changing conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow. The atheist seem to not understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of evolution just as the religious people did with creationism. >> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. Which is utterly irrelevant. It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things. >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things. Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe our own consciousness. This is NOT invented. There are some things science can't do. >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't > measure it, you can't detect it. Hint : we can play with it with drugs. > You ignore it, but we can all observe > our own consciousness. This is NOT invented. > > There are some things science can't do. >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Hint : we can play with it with drugs. And it shows up on a voltmeter? No it doesn't There is no scientific way to measure it. And your method of evading the question is a fallacy. You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can not be detected except as a personal experience remains. There are some things that science can't do. Since 'god' cannot be disproved, and humans need it, if god didn't exist we'd have to invent him. So, the point is moot. The Science of anthropology has shown that those without science are damned to extinction. So, welcome to Darwin's dustbin! You do believe in evolution and science, don't you? >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > And it shows up on a voltmeter? Are you daft? Cancer does not show up on a voltmeter either, are you telling me it does not exist? > No it doesn't There is no scientific way > to measure it. So are a lot of brain activities. > And your method of evading the question is a fallacy. I answered it perfectly. Consciousness is made up in our brain, like anything we feel. > You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can not be > detected except as a personal experience remains. So are dreams. What the f.ck is your point, by the way? > There are some things that science can't do. Absolutely. So don't ask it for them. > Since 'god' cannot be disproved, It certainly could is you'd care to define it for us : (I'll leave some space here for your definition) > and humans need it, Really? > if god didn't exist we'd have to invent him. And, BY JOVE, we *DID*! > So, the point is moot. The Science of > anthropology has shown that those without science are damned to > extinction. > > So, welcome to Darwin's dustbin! You do believe in evolution and science, > don't you? These are not beliefs. Olrik >>>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things. >>>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Are you daft? Cancer does not show up on a voltmeter either, are you > telling me it does not exist? I can find cancer with an X-ray or a microscope. You can't do that with consciousness. There is no way to measure it. It is outside the realm of science. So, if we KNOW we have it, and we can't measure it except for within ourselves, how do we know that other things don't have it? WE don't. WE don't know. Now, it is here I'd like to point out your hateful demeanor. A Christian would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. If they did lose their temper, they would feel guilty and ashamed for doing so. You atheist tend to feel ENTITLED to hate and spew at anyone you disagree with, and to slander them without mercy. It is one of the anti-social traits of the atheist that has damned you and your kind to Darwin's Dustbin of evolution. >> No it doesn't There is no scientific way to measure it. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I answered it perfectly. Consciousness is made up in our brain, like > anything we feel. Prove it. Scientifically. Measure it and prove it. Point to a measurement. How much, what does it weigh, what energy does it have? You can't. >> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can >> not be detected except as a personal experience remains. > > So are dreams. What the f.ck is your point, by the way? That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if you were religious and that in any culture save the Christian one, some one would have offed you for being socially unacceptable. Funny thing, that. You hate the only culture in which you can exist. Like I said, you and your fellows are already in Darwin's dustbin. < snip snide "aint so" posting. > Snip >>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can >>> not be detected except as a personal experience remains. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if you > were religious Woah. Stop. Here's where you need to present a little evidence of your own. Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than the religious? That's a pretty bold and sweeping claim. Care to back it up, or was it just a little snide insult back from yourself? It's ok if it was. But I think we should know. > Snip > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than the > religious? I don't see any Christians here flaming me, but the first three or four atheist have gleefully done so and they feel quite justified in doing so. Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they make it a sin to display such hatred. You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. >> Snip >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they make it a sin > to display such hatred. You seem to take it as a cultural value to sweepingly generalise, not caring who you insult in the process. I know of plenty of hate-filled Christians. > You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. And again, f.ck you too. >Anthropology > shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. You really are an arrogant fool. Try posting something objective, rather than your own predjudices. >>> Snip >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > You really are an arrogant fool. Try posting something objective, rather > than your own predjudices. He wouldn't have anything to post.  SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus >>> Snip >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You seem to take it as a cultural value to sweepingly generalise, not > caring who you insult in the process. I made the point that there are many things I don't know. I made a statement about how people who think they know everything were foolish. You found that offensive. I stand by the fact that people who think they know everything are foolish. IF that offends you, then you are a fool. What can I say? Not many people would question the if... then premise I made. > I know of plenty of hate-filled Christians. There is no culture where everyone meets the cultural ideal. The difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate filled is a sin. You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating people. >> You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. > > And again, f.ck you too. And again, you prove my point by example. >>Anthropology >> shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. >> > You really are an arrogant fool. Try posting something objective, rather > than your own predjudices. Ironic. >>>> Snip >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > statement about how people who think they know everything were foolish. > You found that offensive. No. You made a statement that 'atheists', a group of people you seem to think you are very familiar with, are mostly hate-filled fools who are also sociopaths. If I called you a sociopathic, hate-filled fool I think you might find it more offensive than a simple 'f.ck you'. You insulted me first, and yet you describe me as hateful when I react to that. So much for the 'silver rule', eh. > I stand by the fact that people who think they know everything are > foolish. And on this, at least, we agree. Now show me someone who thinks they know everything. *I* certainly don't, and I have never claimed to. It just seems to me that if there is a total absence of evidence for something, it makes sense to live one's life as if that something does not exist. There is evidence for consciousness, as already noted in this thread. Take one room. Put an unconscious and a conscious person in there. Please tell me you can tell the difference between them? Scientists have designed and built devices that can take input from electrodes attached to a person's head. We can now identify 'thoughts'. >IF that offends you, then you are a fool. What can I say? Not > many people would question the if... then premise I made. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate > filled is a sin. This has to be the most ludicrous argument yet. Here's a refutation in the form of a URL: www.godhatesfags.com And please, please don't reply with the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. > You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating people. You don't know anything about me other than I don't take kindly to being insulted, so how can you possibly make the above statement? >>> You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. >> >> And again, f.ck you too. > > And again, you prove my point by example. And again, you seem blissfully unaware of when you are actually insulting somebody, and where their response is perfectly justified. Would you describe yourself as an agnostic? If so, would you take offensive if I was to say "Most agnostics are ignorant, cowardly, patronising jerks. Any culture which is primarily agnostic is doomed to failure. They are hateful." >>>Anthropology >>> shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ironic. I said something objective. You know, something with evidence, that backs up your bigoted claims. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > I made the point that there are many things I don't know. I made a > statement about how people who think they know everything were foolish. > You found that offensive. Religious people believe they know everything. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Religious people believe they know everything. Heck, they'll even kill for it! (And then argue it's against their religion to do so!) Olrik >> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Olrik Maybe true enough, but the largest mass murderers of the 20th century were all atheist communist. Compared to the body counts of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, Hitler and the Armenian genocide were small stuff. Even so, Von Braun said he felt that Hitler became an atheist. >>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Even so, Von Braun said he felt that Hitler became an atheist. Who cares? I don't believe the "god" described in the "bible" exist. The rest is not important to me. Olrik >>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Even so, Von Braun said he felt that Hitler became an atheist. #1 none of the "governments" you mentioned were communist, they were dictator ships, they were only called communist. Hitler's little war was religious in nature. He worked to create his own religion and he used religious belief as a way to rally and influence the masses to get behind his plans. Theism has managed to kill an estimate of 2,229,074,100 people. Atheism has managed to kill an estimate of 95,000,000 people. Just let those figures sink in a bit. Over 2 billion people are dead as a result of theist wars and actions. That number is about 33.3% of the current human population of Earth. In contrast, atheism is responsible for the deaths of just less than 100 million, roughly 1.58% of the current human population of Earth. Now, these results don’t in any way suggest that theism causes people to commit murder, but that the main factor in most of the wars and conflicts in history has been a difference in religious beliefs. Every holy book of every theist religion preaches love and respect for fellow man, there is no way I can debate that. However, every holy book also preaches the destruction of anyone who says otherwise and stands against the words of whichever god it claims is the “correct” one. >>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > #1 none of the "governments" you mentioned were communist, they were > dictator ships, they were only called communist. Communist governments are dictatorships by definition. No rights for the individual, and all that the individual makes belongs to the state. Communism and socialism is mass slavery with the people being slaves of the state. All of which is irrelevant to the fact that no one can prove or disprove the existence of God. > Hitler's little war was > religious in nature. He worked to create his own religion and he used > religious belief as a way to rally and influence the masses to get > behind his plans. Prove it. > Theism has managed to kill an estimate of 2,229,074,100 people. That is a hateful lie. But not unexpected from you. < snip hate speech > >>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Communism and socialism is mass slavery with the people being slaves of > the state. You might want to do some research. Your ignorance of political/government systems is holding you back. Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator, without hereditary ascension. Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer. > All of which is irrelevant to the fact that no one can prove or disprove > the existence of God. Being you do not understand governments, it would be very difficult for you to fathom the ability to discern the lack of evidence of a deity as disproof. >> Hitler's little war was >> religious in nature. He worked to create his own religion and he used >> religious belief as a way to rally and influence the masses to get >> behind his plans. > > Prove it. Disprove it. > >> Theism has managed to kill an estimate of 2,229,074,100 people. > > That is a hateful lie. But not unexpected from you. > Truth hurts? So sorry. > < snip hate speech > No, it's not hate speech, it's facts on world history. You ought to read up on world history some time. Maybe then you would be able to engage in conservation in an intelligent manner. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Hitler's little war was > > religious in nature. He worked to create his own religion and he used > > religious belief as a way to rally and influence the masses to get > > behind his plans. > > Prove it. http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm REvisionist!! Hitler was no Christian. His holocaust is proof! SignatureMember - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 >>Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Hitler was no Christian. His holocaust is proof! Ahhh . . . nothing like the sound of bagpipes in the morning. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." - Friedrich Nietzsche >>>Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Ahhh . . . nothing like the sound of bagpipes in the morning. A call to arms you mean! SignatureMember - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 >>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > A call to arms you mean! See - I told you religion was the basis for war - not peace - now you prove it! >>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >See - I told you religion was the basis for war - not peace - now you >prove it! Are you familiar with Scots Heritage Mac? SignatureMember - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 >>>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Are you familiar with Scots Heritage Mac? Are you familiar with the christian wars of northern ireland? >>>>Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > A call to arms you mean! Google "No true scotsman" SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a lack of confidence." -- Doug McLeod >>>>>Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>>chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Google "No true scotsman" What makes you say that? SignatureMember - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 >>>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > What makes you say that? Actually - it is simply a recognition of reality - there are no god to protect anyone - that is why religions insure their property too! If there were a TRUE religion - it would be OBVIOUS. Its god would protect the property of that religion without the need to worry about floods - earthquakes - tidal waves - and the ravages of time as well. All one needs to do is go down to Louisianna where the Hurricane hit - to find that one church that remains completely untouched down to the sod - too bad - none did! doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2qf09$36o$1 @gallifrey.nk.ca: >>> Hitler was no Christian. His holocaust is proof! >> >>Ahhh . . . nothing like the sound of bagpipes in the morning. > A call to arms you mean! Tom Baker ought to kick your a.s for bogarting his character. Or did he have an "ignorant religious prick" incarnation? SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2qf09$36o$1 >@gallifrey.nk.ca: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Or did he have an "ignorant religious prick" incarnation? And where are you from? SignatureMember - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2rgkv$1f8$1 @gallifrey.nk.ca: >>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2qf09$36o$1 >>@gallifrey.nk.ca: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And where are you from? Ask your god, since you know it so well. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ahhh . . . nothing like the sound of bagpipes in the morning. THe shrill squeeel!!!!! doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2qe7h$2lr$1 @gallifrey.nk.ca: >>http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm > > REvisionist!! > > Hitler was no Christian. His holocaust is proof! Get in your TARDIS, fanboi, and check it for your damnself. I thought you Canadians were supposed to be smarter than that. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2qe7h$2lr$1 >@gallifrey.nk.ca: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I thought you Canadians were supposed to be smarter than that. Like too many theists he has redefined Christianity as "and can't do bad things". So he is in serious denial about its bloody history. Which includes 2000 years of ant-Semitism ordered by both Catholic and Protestant church fathers. He was only carrying out what Martin Luther ordered - with access to modern technology. By their lights Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther and Calvin weren't Christian. Nor the Crusaders, the conquistadors, the slave owners and traffickers etc. >>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2qe7h$2lr$1 >>@gallifrey.nk.ca: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Christian. Nor the Crusaders, the conquistadors, the slave owners and >traffickers etc. REvisionism for you. SignatureMember - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 >>>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2qe7h$2lr$1 >>>@gallifrey.nk.ca: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >REvisionism for you. In-denial liar for you. >>>>doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in news:h2qe7h$2lr$1 >>>>@gallifrey.nk.ca: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >In-denial liar for you. Context deceived for you. SignatureMember - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 > In article <MPG.24babd598a624991989...@news.ade.connect.com.au>, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Hitler was no Christian. His holocaust is proof! The only revisionist is you, son. He was, and that's all. PDW >> In article <MPG.24babd598a624991989...@news.ade.connect.com.au>, >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >PDW A Faux-Christian was Hitler, just to please another like you. SignatureMember - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Never Satan President Republic! The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1 Last time that great scribe The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >> In article <MPG.24babd598a624991989...@news.ade.connect.com.au>, > >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > A Faux-Christian was Hitler, just to please another like you. No true Scotsman fallacy. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>> In article <MPG.24babd598a624991989...@news.ade.connect.com.au>, >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > A Faux-Christian was Hitler, just to please another like you. Then sin makes ALL theists - faux theists! Last time that great scribe The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > >chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hitler was no Christian. His holocaust is proof! I could do what Marvin would do and take a cheap nasty shot. Here goes. <Mode="Marvin the Martian"> Hitler was a Christian. His holocaust is proof. </mode> I will not do that of course. But The Doctor's argument is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Below is a list of quotes from Hitler taken from the "Quotable Achiest" by Jack Huberman p. 151. ________________________________________________________________________ "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the Almighty Creator; by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord...I would thank providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people..." "Loyalty and responsibility towards the people and the Fatherland are most deeply anchored in the Christian faith." "I have followed the Church in giving our party program the character of the unalterable finality, like the Creed....The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, as long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it." ________________________________________________________________________ In addition to these quotes from Hitler there are listed 2 more quotes pertaining to Hitler and the Holocaust. ________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Franklin Littell, chairman of the religion department, Temple University: "The Holocaust was, of course the bitter fruit of long centuries of Christian teaching about the Jewish people." Peter de Rosa, former Jesuit priest and theologian: "In 1936...Hitler assured his lordship [Bishop Osnabruch] there was no fundamental difference between National Socialism and the Catholic Church. Had not the Church,he argued, looked on Jews as parasites and shut them in ghettos?'I am doing,' he boasted, 'What the Church has done for fifteen hundred years, only more effectively." ________________________________________________________________________ You may argue that the 4th quote of the first lot sounds cynical and Machiavellian Hitler still believed himself to be Christian and to be doing the Church's work. In fact the 4th quote could sound like Marvin saying that "anything and everything can be built up", alluding to the useful of religion, even if "contradictory or irreconcilable", saying that religion is useful for society and people who are "lower than us". Marvin does come across as having that superior attitude. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Hitler was no Christian. His holocaust is proof! What kind of reasoning is that? " The Jews don't believe in god. The genocide on the Philistines, later the Palestines, is proof of that! " (Disclaimer. The reasoning I present is shown as an example of absolute nonsense, similar to yours.) >-- >Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Groetjes Albert -- SignatureAlbert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst >>>Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > (Disclaimer. The reasoning I present is shown as an example of > absolute nonsense, similar to yours.) Are you a good person if you do bad things all the time? Signaturemonkfish >>>>Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Are you a good person if you do bad things all the time? Why am I unsurprised at that comment? Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > >> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Even so, Von Braun said he felt that Hitler became an atheist. Hitler was a xian. I really get very tired of the strawman of the totalitarian atheist. f.ck Marvin, if Stalin had been alive in the 15th or 16th century he would have been an inquisitor. Totalitarianism is NOT a necessary result of atheism and is often observed with religion. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Religious people believe they know everything. For most religions, yes. Either the believers have the answer to everything (there is one Muslim posting in some of the sci groups that all science comes from the Koran) or their God knows everything and guides them (the Roman Catholic "mysteries"). Your tu quequo argument is noted, however. It remains that the atheist pretend to know that there is no god. That religious people take the opposite stand doesn't at all change the fact that both groups are utterly full of sh.t. >> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Your tu quequo argument is noted, however. It remains that the atheist > pretend to know that there is no god. As discussed before on this group, there are two definitions of atheist: 1 Someone who believes there are no gods. 2 Someone with no belief in god(s) I fall into the latter, as do you. So pull your head out of your a.s, already. > That religious people take the > opposite stand doesn't at all change the fact that both groups are > utterly full of sh.t. Hateful. >> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Your tu quequo argument is noted, however. It remains that the atheist >pretend to know that there is no god. Your utter cluelessness regarding what atheism is and what atheists "pretend to know" is duly noted. >That religious people take the >opposite stand doesn't at all change the fact that both groups are >utterly full of sh.t. Son, I believe you've just about got a lock on full of sh.t. > . . . however. It remains that the atheist > pretend to know that there is no god. No, we go where the evidence points. There is evidence for gravity, for evolution, for black holes, so we believe these theoretical models describe reality, though we're open to modification or replacement of these models if new evidence comes in. There is no evidence for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Allah, God, Shiva, etc, so we take that lack of evidence to mean that these gods don't exist, though we're open to change if new evidence comes in. You do exactly the same thing. You don't put out rat poison around your bed to kill the invisible butt-rats, because there is absolutely no evidence, not a shred of reason to believe they exist, so you dismiss them out of hand. You don't need to prove they don't exist . . . it's enough to see that there's no reason to believe they do. If you wake up in the morning with rat sh.t in your bed and rat bites on your a.s, it's time to reconsider your lack of belief. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Don't you know there ain't no devil, it's just god when he's drunk." -- Tom Waits >> . . . however. It remains that the atheist pretend to know that there >> is no god. > > No, we go where the evidence points. You have no evidence. > There is evidence for gravity, for evolution, for black holes, so we > believe these theoretical models describe reality, though we're open to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > God, Shiva, etc, so we take that lack of evidence to mean that these > gods don't exist, though we're open to change if new evidence comes in. Lots of straw dogs in that argument. Were did I say god was Santa Clause? I didn't. < snip anal bestiality perversion rant > You really need therapy. That's pretty sick stuff. >>> . . . however. It remains that the atheist pretend to know that there >>> is no god. >> >> No, we go where the evidence points. > > You have no evidence. Yep. There is no evidence that any God as traditionally defined exists, so the presumption is that no God as traditionally defined exists. New evidence might lead to a different presumption. >> There is evidence for gravity, for evolution, for black holes, so we >> believe these theoretical models describe reality, though we're open to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Lots of straw dogs in that argument. Were did I say god was Santa > Clause? I didn't. Reading your other posts, it's become clear that you don't mean the same thing when you use the word God that the rest of the world means. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do. --[from Usenet] >>> . . . however. It remains that the atheist pretend to know that there >>> is no god. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I didn't. > Lack of comprehension shows in the inability to see the connection. > < snip anal bestiality perversion rant > > > You really need therapy. That's pretty sick stuff. >>>> Snip >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating people. Hmmmmmm, is beheading people in the name of religion loving? Is killing a doctor because you do not agree with his practice and consider is "morally" wrong showing "Christian love". There appears to be a lot of.............hypocrisy here. >>> You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. >> And again, f.ck you too. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ironic. >> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating >> people. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "morally" wrong showing "Christian love". There appears to be a lot > of.............hypocrisy here. The biggest mass murderers of the 20th century were all atheist, and they had no remorse at all over doing so. Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy here. If you're going to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few, then it is fair to use your standard and hold all atheists responsible for the actions of their few. And again, you're over looking the science of cultural anthropology and pretending that humans don't need religion to form a working, successful culture. Besides, of all the religions, very few hold the value of "loving". That is your bigotry showing. > And again, you're over looking the science of cultural anthropology and > pretending that humans don't need religion to form a working, successful > culture. Tell that to the Danes or the Sweedes or the Chineese. They seem to have working cultures and a majority of atheists. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do. --[from Usenet] >> And again, you're over looking the science of cultural anthropology and >> pretending that humans don't need religion to form a working, >> successful culture. > > Tell that to the Danes or the Sweedes or the Chineese. They seem to have > working cultures and a majority of atheists. The Danes and Swedes have a dying culture, which is being replaced with a culture based on Islam. That is hardly a working culture. The Chinese also have a birth rate below the replacement rate. They too are headed for Darwin's Dustbin. You were pretty good at offering some very bad examples. :-) Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >> And again, you're over looking the science of cultural anthropology and > >> pretending that humans don't need religion to form a working, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You were pretty good at offering some very bad examples. :-) So you think the ONLY criteria of a world view worth a dime is one that result in people multiplying like flies. This means that flies are gods. I will sculpture and image of a fly straight away and offer unto it all manner of tithes. I will use this image as my template for hammering and chiseling. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/fly.jpg SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating >>> people. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a few, then it is fair to use your standard and hold all atheists > responsible for the actions of their few. Thank you for admitting that you have no evidence that atheists are more immoral or violent than theists. > And again, you're over looking the science of cultural anthropology and > pretending that humans don't need religion to form a working, successful > culture. Are you ever going to provide support for any of your claims? snip >>>> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating >>>> people. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Are you ever going to provide support for any of your claims? No, he because can not. > snip > >>> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a few, then it is fair to use your standard and hold all atheists > responsible for the actions of their few. World history says the opposite. Theism has managed to kill an estimate of 2,229,074,100 people. Atheism has managed to kill an estimate of 95,000,000 people. > And again, you're over looking the science of cultural anthropology and > pretending that humans don't need religion to form a working, successful > culture. It's not pretend, they don't. > Besides, of all the religions, very few hold the value of "loving". That > is your bigotry showing. Define the word love. Like your use of the word athiesm, I rather doubt you know the meaning and how to use the word bigot. > >>> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Besides, of all the religions, very few hold the value of "loving". That > is your bigotry showing. The problem with that statement is that "love" does not require religious belief - did not originate with religious belief - and is not exclusive to any particular religious belief - PAX >>> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating >>> people. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >a few, then it is fair to use your standard and hold all atheists >responsible for the actions of their few. No liar, not believing in gods is no different than not believing ibn pixies. What does your own not believing in pixies motivate you to do? Or justifies it? > >>> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The biggest mass murderers of the 20th century were all atheist, Snipped NONSENSE Now I will Quote YOU "Ah, the "correlation proves causation" fallacy." > There is no culture where everyone meets the cultural ideal. The > difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate > filled is a sin. Incorrect. Or rather, incomplete. Christians know that hate is a sin *unless* it is directed at targets approved by God, the bishops or their priest. Thus, one should not hate one's fellow man unless he is gay, in which case it is perfectly acceptable and pleasing in the eye of the Lord to tell him that fags will burn in hell. > You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating people. That is also incorrect. As a non-believer, it is actually *harder* to hate other people because we do not have a ready-made divine commandment permitting us to indulge. We have to go and work up a reason to hate from scratch -- and that takes effort. >> There is no culture where everyone meets the cultural ideal. The >> difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > acceptable and pleasing in the eye of the Lord to tell him that fags > will burn in hell. Actually, the bible says to stone them, which cuts down on kidney infections and VD. This gave the Jews an adaptive advantage over other cultures, like the culture found at Sodom which became extinct. Yes, evolution is brutal, but your beliefs are winning your kind a darwin award. >> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating >> people. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We have to go and work up a reason to hate from scratch -- and that > takes effort. Obvious bullshit as I can tell from the red hot hate from reading this thread. >>> There is no culture where everyone meets the cultural ideal. The >>> difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> acceptable and pleasing in the eye of the Lord to tell him that fags >> will burn in hell. > Actually, the bible says to stone them, which cuts down on kidney > infections and VD. This gave the Jews an adaptive advantage over other > cultures, like the culture found at Sodom which became extinct. Sodom was never found. Your approval of barbarism is noted. > Yes, evolution is brutal, but your beliefs are winning your kind a darwin > award. What beliefs are you talking about? I personally object to stoning people, is that evidence of how evil atheists are? >>> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating >>> people. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Obvious bullshit as I can tell from the red hot hate from reading this > thread. Your assumed ability to read minds is noted. I understand your need to keep the discussion on a personal level; what else could you do without object data to back up any of your claims? >>> There is no culture where everyone meets the cultural ideal. The >>> difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Actually, the bible says to stone them, which cuts down on kidney > infections and VD. In the world of percentages, it does not. > This gave the Jews an adaptive advantage over other > cultures, like the culture found at Sodom which became extinct. Sodom has never convulsively found. The towns/cities found in that area appear to have been destroyed by natural events, like volcano/earth quake. > Yes, evolution is brutal, but your beliefs are winning your kind a darwin > award. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Obvious bullshit as I can tell from the red hot hate from reading this > thread. Red hot hate??? That's funny. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >> There is no culture where everyone meets the cultural ideal. The > >> difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes, evolution is brutal, but your beliefs are winning your kind a darwin > award. You are very confused about what biological evolution relates and what it does not and what cultural evolution relates to. The beliefs of the Jews did not confer biological advantage. They may have conferred political, geopolitical or cultural advantage or disadvantage compared to others. The sort of selection out of Sodom only works if you live in an earthquake zone. There the tectonic movements trumps religious practices. Any sort of religion or non religions would not have changed Sodom's chances one little bit. > >> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating > >> people. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Obvious bullshit as I can tell from the red hot hate from reading this > thread. Marvin you are projecting. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >> Snip >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I don't see any Christians here flaming me, > but the first three or four > atheist have gleefully done so and they feel quite justified in doing so. We do not suffer fools. > Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they make it a sin > to display such hatred. > > You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology > shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. What "culture"? Olrik >> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than >> the religious? > > I don't see any Christians here flaming me . . . . You're pushing God in alt.atheism! What the f.ck did you expect? SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus >>> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than >>> the religious? >> >> I don't see any Christians here flaming me . . . . > > You're pushing God in alt.atheism! What the f.ck did you expect? I wasn't the troll who started the thread. But your point about how atheists are hateful and intolerant is well made! >>>> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than >>>> the religious? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But your point about how atheists are hateful and intolerant is well made! We just do not suffer fools easily. Olrik >>>> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than >>>> the religious? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But your point about how atheists are hateful and intolerant is well made! Bigotry noted. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology > shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. You're confusing cause and effect. Take Easter Island. The gods did not deliver more trees after the islanders cut them all down. Result. The Easter Island culture declined, people blamed and deserted their gods, stopped working on the ones they were building and toppled many others. The decline of the gods happened after - not before the decline of Easter Island. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The decline of the gods happened after - not before the decline of > Easter Island. A debatable point. It is not without good reason that the shock troops of colonialism were missionaries. Conquest is easy if you have Maxim guns, but if you plant to stay and rule, you have to subvert the local culture, and that means destroying local religion since these are almost interchangeable in less complex societies. >> Snip >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I don't see any Christians here flaming me, How odd, no Christians are flaming you for defending theism! That certainly proves your point. but the first three or four > atheist have gleefully done so and they feel quite justified in doing so. > Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they make it a sin > to display such hatred. > > You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology > shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. Anthropology shows that? I suppose it would be pointless to ask for documentation of that? >> Snip >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology > shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. You want to show some cites? History has show religion and religious belief caused most if not all social unrest. BTW, do you know what the word atheist means? I rather doubt you do. >>> Snip >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > belief caused most if not all social unrest. BTW, do you know what the > word atheist means? I rather doubt you do. I gave cites for the God Gene and that was immediately ignored. Some people ask for cites and when they get them claim the matter makes no difference at all. Show me how this will change your mind if I provide the requested data, what is required in the data, and maybe I'll find it amusing to put some pearls before the swine, so to speak. >>>> Snip >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > people ask for cites and when they get them claim the matter makes no > difference at all. humor me, I've never seen them. > Show me how this will change your mind if I provide the requested data, > what is required in the data, and maybe I'll find it amusing to put some > pearls before the swine, so to speak. I see you have no answer on if you really understand the word you throw out "atheist". Lack of evidence is evidence. >>>>> Snip >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> > humor me, I've never seen them. In other words, you're just trolling >> Show me how this will change your mind if I provide the requested data, >> what is required in the data, and maybe I'll find it amusing to put >> some pearls before the swine, so to speak. >> > I see you have no answer on if you really understand the word you throw > out "atheist". Lack of evidence is evidence. "No evidence is evidence" is gibbering nonsense. >>>>>> Snip >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > In other words, you're just trolling As I thought, your devoid of any. >>> Show me how this will change your mind if I provide the requested data, >>> what is required in the data, and maybe I'll find it amusing to put [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "No evidence is evidence" is gibbering nonsense. Perhaps you do not understand what evidence is and how it is used. >> Snip >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > doing so. Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they > make it a sin to display such hatred. It's not hatred. It's a public service. They're trying to help you. > You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology > shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart. Yet one of the most non-religious countries in the world--Sweden--is considered one of the best places to live. Google it. You could get your facts straight before you posted. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. > A Christian > would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. Ever hear of VenomFangX? He's a Christian, and a hateful little weasel just like you. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony >> A Christian >> would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. > > Ever hear of VenomFangX? He's a Christian, and a hateful little weasel > just like you. Flames noted. Nope, never heard of that person, and your neglectful induction fallacy proves you're irrational. >>> A Christian >>> would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Flames noted. Nope, never heard of that person, and your neglectful > induction fallacy proves you're irrational. You wouldn't know rational if it bit you on the a.s. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus <snippage> > You wouldn't know rational if it bit you on the a.s. In fact it has, which is making it very difficult for him to argue by the seat of his pants. >>>>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things. >>>>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I can find cancer with an X-ray or a microscope. You can't do that with > consciousness. That's why your example of the voltmeter was flawed. As I wrote, you *can* play with consciousness with drugs. Consciousness is no more measurable than other human emotions and perceptions. > There is no way to measure it. It is outside the realm of science. > So, if we KNOW we have it, and we can't measure it except for within > ourselves, how do we know that other things don't have it? WE don't. WE > don't know. So? > Now, it is here I'd like to point out your hateful demeanor. A Christian > would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. If they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > traits of the atheist that has damned you and your kind to Darwin's > Dustbin of evolution. Wow. >>> No it doesn't There is no scientific way to measure it. >> So are a lot of brain activities. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Prove it. Scientifically. Measure it and prove it. Point to a > measurement. How much, what does it weigh, what energy does it have? How much weight dreams? Ambition? Sense of orientation? Those are idiotic questions. > You can't. Sure : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaesthetic_drugs With those drugs, you lose consciousness, i.e. you're not aware of anything anymore, proving that consciousness is a product of the human brain. >>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can >>> not be detected except as a personal experience remains. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Funny thing, that. You hate the only culture in which you can exist. Like > I said, you and your fellows are already in Darwin's dustbin. You sure like that "Darwin's dustbin" expression. Olrik > < snip snide "aint so" posting. > >> I can find cancer with an X-ray or a microscope. You can't do that with >> consciousness. > > That's why your example of the voltmeter was flawed. As I wrote, you > *can* play with consciousness with drugs. Consciousness is no more > measurable than other human emotions and perceptions. I see, you're making one big semantic fallacy using the word consciousness to mean "awake". < snip semantic fallacy game > >>> I can find cancer with an X-ray or a microscope. You can't do that with >>> consciousness. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I see, you're making one big semantic fallacy using the word > consciousness to mean "awake". No, I meant "consciousness". > < snip semantic fallacy game > You snipped what showed you wrong : That's why your example of the voltmeter was flawed. As I wrote, you *can* play with consciousness with drugs. Consciousness is no more measurable than other human emotions and perceptions. > There is no way to measure it. It is outside the realm of science. So, if we KNOW we have it, and we can't measure it except for within ourselves, how do we know that other things don't have it? WE don't. WE don't know. So? > Now, it is here I'd like to point out your hateful demeanor. A Christian would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. If they did lose their temper, they would feel guilty and ashamed for doing so. You atheist tend to feel ENTITLED to hate and spew at anyone you disagree with, and to slander them without mercy. It is one of the anti-social traits of the atheist that has damned you and your kind to Darwin's Dustbin of evolution. Wow. >>> No it doesn't There is no scientific way to measure it. >> So are a lot of brain activities. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Prove it. Scientifically. Measure it and prove it. Point to a measurement. How much, what does it weigh, what energy does it have? How much weight dreams? Ambition? Sense of orientation? Those are idiotic questions. > You can't. Sure : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaesthetic_drugs With those drugs, you lose consciousness, i.e. you're not aware of anything anymore, proving that consciousness is a product of the human brain. >>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can >>> not be detected except as a personal experience remains. >> So are dreams. What the f.ck is your point, by the way? > > That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if you were religious and that in any culture save the Christian one, some one would have offed you for being socially unacceptable. > Funny thing, that. You hate the only culture in which you can exist. Like I said, you and your fellows are already in Darwin's dustbin. You sure like that "Darwin's dustbin" expression. Olrik > < snip snide "aint so" posting. > >>>>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things. >>>>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Now, it is here I'd like to point out your hateful demeanor. A Christian > would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. Ah - but we are not FLAMING you. WE are simply voicing the only supportable conclusion about gods - none of them are proven to exist. And - humans have created over 28 million of them so far. Yes - they are HUMAN creations - and cannot be proven to be anything else but. Lots of things are not proven to exist - like leprechauns, the fairy god mother, the easter bunny, ogres, devils, angels - etc. However - WE (YOU AND US) do not raise temple to the honor of a vampire - or pray to a goblin - or kneel down to a statue of an imp. We do not expect a leprechaun to hear us and grant our wishes. We do not put ourselves through human sacrifice rituals - and bow to statues - and pray to icons - because NONE of those things have any proven meaning. Religions have come and gone over the centuries - normally based on who won the war. Yet - no matter how many times they have tried - over millenia - billions of theists using the very best methods possible with almost unlimited funds have failed to produce a single piece of testable and verifiable proof that their gods are any different than Peter Pan or Captain Hook (IE fiction). AS far as sin - that is also a human creation - and has no basis in reality. One would need to have a real god - and to know what a real god wants - before one could establish what a sin might be. Since no one can claim any communication with a proven god - sin remains and undefinable thing. While you may claim that evil (To us) is sin - as the only "Creator" of the christian faith - your god "Created" it (THere is no other option in a monotheism - the power of creation was NEVER given to anyone else) - AND - he saw it was GOOD! >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things. Well? >Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't >measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe >our own consciousness. This is NOT invented. Where did I say it was, imbecile? And it's not my problem. What has it got to do with anything that was being discussed> Or was it a red herring because you couldn't address mey point? If you had demonstrated this hypothetical god of yours to the same level as consciousness you might have had a point. But you didn't, and you haven't. >There are some things science can't do. There is nothing that religion can do apart from making people incapable of dealing with reality. >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Where did I say it was, imbecile? Ah! The atheist, who claims to be rational, makes a fallacy! You are not a rational person, but a hateful beast. Why would I try and reason with animal, especially since you CHOSE to be an animal with your irrational, emotional behavior and not choose to be human? If you cannot detect consciousness, then you cannot detect the consciousness of god. So, you don't know. Ergo, agnostic. Welcome to darwin's dustbin, extinct one! Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > If you cannot detect consciousness, then you cannot detect the > consciousness of god. So, you don't know. Ergo, agnostic. The existence of god(s) does not depend on explaining consciousness. But the reality is that religion has no explanation either. What you are doing is using the "god of the gaps" fallacy. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The existence of god(s) does not depend on explaining consciousness. I can't tell if you can't understand, or if you're making straw dogs. Either way, you didn't get it right. Exactly backwards. > But > the reality is that religion has no explanation either. What you are > doing is using the "god of the gaps" fallacy. There is no "god of the gaps" fallacy. You made that up. I can tell you are not acquainted with logic at all. My point was that religion should stay the hell out of areas where science can operate, and should be used only in those areas where science can't operate. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Either way, you didn't get it right. Exactly backwards. What I said exactly is that having an ubderstanding of consciousness is neither here nor there for god beliefs. Not being able to explain consciousness is NOT proof of any gods. > > But > > the reality is that religion has no explanation either. What you are > > doing is using the "god of the gaps" fallacy. > > There is no "god of the gaps" fallacy. You made that up. I can tell you > are not acquainted with logic at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps "The phrase God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge" > My point was that religion should stay the hell out of areas where > science can operate, and should be used only in those areas where science > can't operate. Which has to do with what exactly? SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >> Either way, you didn't get it right. Exactly backwards. > > What I said exactly is that having an ubderstanding of consciousness is > neither here nor there for god beliefs. Not being able to explain > consciousness is NOT proof of any gods. You're a gibbering idiot, or a liar. Either way, I never said there was proof of god. Quite the opposite. I said you cannot PROVE nor DISPROVE the existence of God. Given that you're a compulsive lair or an idiot, I'm done with you. I'm not doctor doolittle, but you do have an intelligence on the level of a beast. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > >> Either way, you didn't get it right. Exactly backwards. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > proof of god. Quite the opposite. I said you cannot PROVE nor DISPROVE > the existence of God. And I'm saying that proof of non existence is NOT what what atheism is all about. It is about lack of belief. Why would I bother with proof that god(s) do not exist any more than I would bother with proofs that fairies don't exist? The above quote about "god of the gaps" which you have snipped is not my wording but a quote from the web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps > Given that you're a compulsive lair or an idiot, I'm done with you. I'm > not doctor doolittle, but you do have an intelligence on the level of a > beast. And you are just plain ignorant calling atheists "hate filled", "sociopaths" and "fools" and then you express surprise that others flame you. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Welcome to darwin's dustbin, extinct one! Sorry - but The atheist remains MORE rational than the theist ever is. (Even though I am a Huxley agnostic who only accepts what can be proven about gods) Theists ignore the sheer numbers of the lunacy involved in religion and gods. In the world - over 28 million gods so far named - and hundreds of thousands of religions. Add to that denominations of those religions at war with each other over what their "scripture" means - among other things. THe christians alone have over 39,000 different sects of that belief - only united by the name of ONE of their gods. Theists themselves have established that EVERY religion and every god is false. Christians point to each others denomination and establish them as false. THe pope - who is recognized as the ONLY infallible leader of the worlds christians - by the majority of the worlds christians - and who speaks as the channeler of their god on earth when he makes an encyclical said this: "Pope Pius IX in an encyclical in 1854 said this: "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood." So - according to the christ (An encylical are the words of the god spoken through the pope) - all other christian sects are false and those people who belong to them will not be saved (From what I don't know) OF course- the Koran says that the christ was NOT a god - was NOT the son of god - and did not die on the cross - and that the bible has been irreparably damaged over time too. So - the pope is nonsense. THere are christians who say the same thing about the pope. ANd when you get to the actual persons involved - as evidenced by this group alone - they have cat fights over what the meaning of the words are - and what they believe - and what they do not believe - and what they accept or not as well. Religion has become as personal as your wardrobe - and people do what they want to about it - making all religions - personal human created beliefs. And that is the problem with religions - they are ALL human created - without question. NONE of them can prove any validity over any of the others. THe chruch of the FSM - who claims that their god (The flying spaghetti monster) is the father of the christ - and they offer a million dollar reward to anyone who can prove them wrong. And no one has either! When given the choices - noting that none are more proven than any other - there are literally MILLIONS of different choices. Any thiest who claims their choice is rational - has no basis for that statement. And atheist need only point out that even theists cannot agree on what a god is - and what a religion should be. With NO gods ever proven to exist - and religions coming and going over the millenia - with the people who "invented them" - religion was simply the belief of the victor =- whose god was more powerful than the loser. And eventually - ALL gods were determined to be less powerful - than the people who created governments that were not based on religions anymore. Today - we celebrate the founding of just one such government - one that recognizes that the power is derived not from gods - or divine right - but from the collective will of the people - and religion have no official place in that. >>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > (Even though I am a Huxley agnostic who only accepts what can be proven > about gods) Let's look at your reasons, then. > Theists ignore the sheer numbers of the lunacy involved in religion and > gods. Loaded word fallacy, and emotional appeal. This is not rational. > In the world - over 28 million gods so far named - and hundreds of > thousands of religions. Add to that denominations of those religions at > war with each other over what their "scripture" means - among other > things. THe christians alone have over 39,000 different sects of that > belief - only united by the name of ONE of their gods. It is irrelevant how many religious beliefs there are. True enough, many of them claim to be the one true religion and all the others are false. And it can be quite true that all of them are false religions. This does not mean there is no god. For most of human history, Quantum mechanics was unknown. That didn't mean that quantum physics did not exist. This part of your argument is a fallacy. > Theists themselves have established that EVERY religion and every god is > false. No, they haven't established that, and neither have you, as you're using an invalid argument. > Christians point to each others denomination and establish them > as false. They don't 'establish' sh.t, to be blunt. They CLAIM that other denominations are false. Lots of people make baseless claims. > THe pope - who is recognized as the ONLY infallible leader of > the worlds christians Only by the Roman catholics. Your statement starts with a false premise. < snip more attacks saying that this or that belief is wrong, which has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god.> You didn't even make the case that atheist were rational, much less the case that atheist were more rational than the religious. You just can't stand the idea of having to say "I don't know if god exists", can you? >>>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > And it can be quite true that all of them are false religions. This does > not mean there is no god. Which, as we both know, is irrelevant; since atheism is not a belief. snip >>>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Loaded word fallacy, and emotional appeal. This is not rational. Nothing of a fallacy there, religious beliefs very much tend to be illogical and very much on the lunacy side. >> In the world - over 28 million gods so far named - and hundreds of >> thousands of religions. Add to that denominations of those religions at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And it can be quite true that all of them are false religions. This does > not mean there is no god. Or there is one. > For most of human history, Quantum mechanics was unknown. That didn't > mean that quantum physics did not exist. And until modern physics nobody thought about it. > This part of your argument is a fallacy. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You just can't stand the idea of having to say "I don't know if god > exists", can you? >>>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Loaded word fallacy, and emotional appeal. This is not rational. Sorry - just a simple statement - and it is simply TRUTH >> In the world - over 28 million gods so far named - and hundreds of >> thousands of religions. Add to that denominations of those religions at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And it can be quite true that all of them are false religions. This does > not mean there is no god. Nor does you statement establish there is one. > For most of human history, Quantum mechanics was unknown. That didn't > mean that quantum physics did not exist. Indeed - but people didn't worship it - create monuments and temples to is - or pray to it - or argue over what it "said" or "means" by its so called statements. > This part of your argument is a fallacy. No - it is simply the truth again >> Theists themselves have established that EVERY religion and every god is >> false. > > No, they haven't established that, and neither have you, as you're using > an invalid argument. Yes - they have - based on their beleifs. >> Christians point to each others denomination and establish them >> as false. > > They don't 'establish' sh.t, to be blunt. They CLAIM that other > denominations are false. Lots of people make baseless claims. Indeed - there is the one about gods as well. >> THe pope - who is recognized as the ONLY infallible leader of >> the worlds christians > > Only by the Roman catholics. Your statement starts with a false premise. YOU are being dishonest by snipping the rest of the sentence - which said by the MAJORITY of the worlds chrisians - which makes the statements true. > < snip more attacks saying that this or that belief is wrong, which has > nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god.> Sorry - but you are basing that on a belief that has no merit in reality and is therefore dismissed > You didn't even make the case that atheist were rational, much less the > case that atheist were more rational than the religious. > > You just can't stand the idea of having to say "I don't know if god > exists", can you? Actually - as an agnostic - that IS part of my statement - However - if you can say that one - they you have established that NONE of the current ones have been established to be true And THAT proves the point Athiests do no believe in something you cannot prove exist That is simply a rational position It is irrational to believe otherwise. >>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > things. THe christians alone have over 39,000 different sects of that > belief - only united by the name of ONE of their gods. It's dangerous to start flinging numbers because atheists, too, tend to ignore the sheer numbers involved in religion. As these things go, atheism is a pretty small minority. Even more dangerously, you used the term "lunacy". Beware of this, because insanity is to a significant degree defined by society (and the corollary of "normality" even more so), meaning that they might be tempted to define atheism as lunacy by simple weight of numbers.... > When given the choices - noting that none are more proven than any other > - there are literally MILLIONS of different choices. Any thiest who > claims their choice is rational - has no basis for that statement. Going back to your comments about numbers: one could argue that belief is a rational choice because as the majority view to believe is to conform and by extension benefits the individual. >>>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > too, tend to ignore the sheer numbers involved in religion. > As these things go, atheism is a pretty small minority. No - we do not ignore the numbers - we are constantly bombarded by them. However - non-belief in gods - which include Buddhism and Confucianism (Who don't have any) - is a pretty large minority > Even more dangerously, you used the term "lunacy". Beware > of this, because insanity is to a significant degree defined > by society (and the corollary of "normality" even more so), > meaning that they might be tempted to define atheism as > lunacy by simple weight of numbers.... Lunacy is a pretty good description of many of the religions out there. (I did not use the word insane on purpose). One can find a religion that worships almost anything - from rocks and trees and plants and animals to the flying spaghetti monster (Who is the father of the christ no less) However - if you really take into account all of the things claimed in their religions - especially in the creation stories - comical sometimes applies as well. >> When given the choices - noting that none are more proven than any other >> - there are literally MILLIONS of different choices. Any thiest who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > view to believe is to conform and by extension benefits the > individual. Sorry - but just because you do not do what the majority of people do - does not make you irrational. When one bases his opinions on proven facts - and proven truth - a rational opinion results. Just because billions of people believe in millions of different gods in hundreds of thousands of different ways does not make them ONE class of people. THe evidence for that is the constant bickering right here in this group over what is important about their religion. When "marvin the martian" claimed that a rational atheist is a fallacy - he was simply WRONG. IF a person really did look into ALL the religious beliefs of today - much less of all time - one would be overcome with laughter at the sheer nonsense involved. >>> Theists ignore the sheer numbers of the lunacy involved in religion and >>> gods. In the world - over 28 million gods so far named - and hundreds of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > However - non-belief in gods - which include Buddhism and Confucianism > (Who don't have any) - is a pretty large minority OK, if we include Buddhism and Confucianism/Taoism, we get some decent numbers. But I was thinking more of the core atheist who rejects not only gods but religion. This is a much, much smaller group and our relatively puny demographic means that we have to be that much clearer and make a that much better argument if we want secularism and rationality to prevail in public life. >> Even more dangerously, you used the term "lunacy". Beware >> of this, because insanity is to a significant degree defined [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > their religions - especially in the creation stories - comical sometimes > applies as well. Comical does not mean harmless.... ;-) >>> When given the choices - noting that none are more proven than any other >>> - there are literally MILLIONS of different choices. Any thiest who [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sorry - but just because you do not do what the majority of people do - > does not make you irrational. You may say that, and I would be inclined to agree -- but that does not change the fact that society sets limits on acceptable and rational behaviour and by extension defines (at least to a degree) insanity. It's only been a few decades, for example, since they stopped locking away homosexuals in asylums: the logic was that homosexual urges were so clearly unnatural that there must be a mental defect afflicting the unfortunate men. Ditto unmarried pregnant women: it was argued that no normal rational woman would willingly invite such shame and disgrace upon her head, so she must be mentally defective in some way. Note that this was considered the charitable, Christian option rather than a hard prison sentence. > When one bases his opinions on proven facts - and proven truth - a > rational opinion results. Just because billions of people believe in > millions of different gods in hundreds of thousands of different ways > does not make them ONE class of people. THe evidence for that is the > constant bickering right here in this group over what is important about > their religion. I happen to agree with you, but I would not risk going near the argument of "when one bases his opinions on proven facts", because the fact is that by and large, that is what we do not do. Our disbelief in god is predicated on an *absence* of proof, and a great many of the notions we subscribe to are anything but factual. <snippage> > Going back to your comments about numbers: one could argue that belief > is a rational choice because as the majority view to believe is to > conform and by extension benefits the individual. Let me paraphrase this to say what it actually implies: "Let's just all lead completely hypocritical lives, ignoring any facts that infringe on our collective happiness!" I rather suspect Dennett is right that most religious people don't really believe the claptrap -- they simply believe in _belief_, and will do what is necessary to keep it going. > <snippage> >> Going back to your comments about numbers: one could argue that belief [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ignoring any facts that infringe on our collective > happiness!" That's a pretty fair summation of the way most people's minds work. And yes, that does include most atheists. It's the way the human mind works ... > I rather suspect Dennett is right that most > religious people don't really believe the claptrap -- > they simply believe in _belief_, and will do what is > necessary to keep it going. I suspect you are right in your suspicion. As far as I know, there is and never has been an a-religious society or culture.... >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > There are some things science can't do. Yet. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him." - Arthur C. Clarke >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Yet. Or at all, even in theory. If you think otherwise, then you're ignorant of science. I would like to see a religion created with certain ground rules; like the religion can only address areas where science cannot go. These Christians get upset because evolution or the physics of the big bang conflict with their religious belief. Quite frankly, the bible is a book written by humans, like all the other religious books out there. Now, the universe, that MUST be written by "God" if God exists. God's laws and the laws of mathematics and physical law are one and the same. To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask God a question and God gives us answers. Like I've said, atheist are damned to Darwin's dustbin. Their birth rate is below their replacement rate, their behavior is anti-social and hateful, and their beliefs irrational. They really BELIEVE that there are too many people and they WANT to die off. How stupid is that? They feel that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with, particularly if they are Christian. Drop these same folks into a Moslem society, and they would have their heads cut off in short order. Few cultures would tolerate their anti- social behaviors. The only culture that would put up with them is the modern christian one, and the atheist are trying to take the Christians down with them. >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with, > particularly if they are Christian. How's this for hateful? Go f.ck yourself, you arrogant prick. You say "They feel > that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with, > particularly if they are Christian. " ...about a very broad group of people who just don't happen to share your beliefs and you cant see the irony there? > How's this for hateful? > > Go f.ck yourself, you arrogant prick. Q.E.D. >> How's this for hateful? >> >> Go f.ck yourself, you arrogant prick. > > Q.E.D. Bullshit. >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Or at all, even in theory. If you think otherwise, then you're ignorant > of science. So you know what can be known and what cannot be known? You know what is unknowable? How can you know the unknowable? Such omniscience . . . care to back it up? SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony > So you know what can be known and what cannot be known? You know what is > unknowable? How can you know the unknowable? > > Such omniscience . . . care to back it up? Again, dumping fallacies at me only proves you're irrational. This fallacy is called the "straw man" fallacy; you fabricate (read you lied) a false argument that I didn't present, then you attack that and pretend that you've attacked my argument. I said somethings were NOT knowable. You laughingly misconstrued that to say that I'm claiming to be omniscience. What goes on inside of a black hole is unphysical. What goes on outside the universe is unphysical. There are many things that are not knowable. > I said somethings were NOT knowable. Give an example. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > There are many things that are not knowable. This is NOT the position of religions. For them everything is known and certain. They make their business to push it onto everyone else. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire <...> > What goes on inside of a black hole is unphysical. What goes on > outside the universe is unphysical. There are many things that > are not knowable. <...> Is that why I keep hearing strange ideas, informed guesses and more or less serious hypoteses about cycling universes, multiverses and other versions of "outside the universe"? How long do you think it will take for some of those ideas to have been disproven (science)? Are you so sure that in (say) 200 years from now there is not a generally accepted theory that goes way beyond today's science to explain a lot about that? (Not nessessarily anything that is around in idea-form today.) (Who was it that was so sure that we could never know the compositions of the stars, just before helium was discovered?) Lisbeth. ---- The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die. *What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it. > What goes on inside of a black hole is unphysical. What goes on outside > the universe is unphysical. There are many things that are not knowable. Not knowable YET! Never bet against science. Now, let's talk about the reason deities were invented. They provide "answers" to things that are unknown. Not all answers are created equal, some are flat out full boogie wrong. Deities are simply the anthropomorphization of the unknown. All these theists are doing, ultimately, is worshiping the unknown, as silly as that may sound. > "Marvin the Martian" <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > anthropomorphization of the unknown. All these theists are doing, > ultimately, is worshiping the unknown, as silly as that may sound. You misunderstood. To believe in God is to admit that we need help in understanding the meaning of life and yes there is such a help available! Would you like to meet that person? Signaturemonkfish >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Or at all, even in theory. If you think otherwise, then you're ignorant >of science. What a f.cking moron. >I would like to see a religion created with certain ground rules; like >the religion can only address areas where science cannot go. These >Christians get upset because evolution or the physics of the big bang >conflict with their religious belief. And nobody would give a flying f.ck if they had the sense to keep their religion t o themselves. >Quite frankly, the bible is a book written by humans, like all the other >religious books out there. Now, the universe, that MUST be written by >"God" if God exists. God's laws and the laws of mathematics and physical >law are one and the same. Which is irrelevant outside the virtual reality of Christianity. >To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask >God a question and God gives us answers. Only in the deluded fantasies of theists out of touch with reality. >Like I've said, atheist are damned to Darwin's dustbin. Liar. > Their birth rate >is below their replacement rate, their behavior is anti-social and >hateful, and their beliefs irrational. Liar. And what "beliefs"? > They really BELIEVE that there are >too many people and they WANT to die off. Liar. > How stupid is that? It's your stupid fabrication. > They feel >that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with, >particularly if they are Christian. Only the stupid or dishonest ones who wipe it in people's faces, liar. >Drop these same folks into a Moslem society, and they would have their >heads cut off in short order. Few cultures would tolerate their anti- >social behaviors. The only culture that would put up with them is the >modern christian one, and the atheist are trying to take the Christians >down with them. Liar. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask > God a question and God gives us answers. Try to get results without the instruments and use ONLY a prayer. You can't. Your god does not exist except with scientific experimentation and when you isolate the science part to test for the god part you are left with nothing. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Try to get results without the instruments and use ONLY a prayer. Since I said that experiments are prayers, I've already gotten good results, and they will be published. :-) What? You think if you verbally ask a question, god's going to answer you? How lame is that? Did that ever work for you? of course not. Experiments work, however. > You > can't. Your god does not exist except with scientific experimentation > and when you isolate the science part to test for the god part you are > left with nothing. My god? You don't know diddly about my god. You're assuming I'm a christian. Like I said, no fracken' way is that Jesus and his death cult anything close to about God. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Experiments work, however. I'm saying that to isolate the god part you have to exclude that part of the results that arise from scientific method. If you do that there is no god in the results. > > You > > can't. Your god does not exist except with scientific experimentation > > and when you isolate the science part to test for the god part you are > > left with nothing. > > My god? You don't know diddly about my god. Nether do you. You only imagine that you do. > You're assuming I'm a > christian. Like I said, no fracken' way is that Jesus and his death cult > anything close to about God. The above would work for any supposed god. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > The above would work for any supposed god. You've got him all wrong. He's actually a closet atheist who pretends agnosticism so he can look down on other atheists. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > Drop these same folks into a Moslem society, and they would have their > heads cut off in short order. Few cultures would tolerate their anti- > social behaviors. The only culture that would put up with them is the > modern christian one, and the atheist are trying to take the Christians > down with them. This is bone stupid. Most "modern christian cultures" are barely Xian and barely religious at all. The more Xian cultures are the more intolerant cultures. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and barely religious at all. The more Xian cultures are the more > intolerant cultures. Why do you spew irrelevant gibberish? I don't care about your opinion of the Christian cultures. Considering how much flaming is going on in this thread on the side of the atheists, talking about "tolerant" seems very hypocritical. >> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Considering how much flaming is going on in this thread on the side of > the atheists, talking about "tolerant" seems very hypocritical. You're a bigoted idiot who plays the victim when others defend themselves. That seems very hypocritical to me. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why do you spew irrelevant gibberish? I don't care about your opinion of > the Christian cultures. You asserted that modern Christian cultures tolerate their anti-social behaviors and I pointed out that the most tolerant are barely Xian or barely religious. If you do not care for anyone's else opinion why state yours? > Considering how much flaming is going on in this thread on the side of > the atheists, talking about "tolerant" seems very hypocritical. You are the one who has called atheist sociopaths and you talk about atheists flaming. Doing this in an atheist forum why are you surprised that atheists flame you? SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask > God a question and God gives us answers. Fine - give us an example of an answer that was actually receive IN A TEstable and Verifiable way - from a god. IF your god is almight and everywhere - he is here now and can speak for himself Let HIM answer for himself. >> To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask >> God a question and God gives us answers. >> > Fine - give us an example of an answer that was actually receive IN A > TEstable and Verifiable way - from a god. Michelson Morely experiment, Stern Gerlock experiment, the photo electric effect and about a billion other experiments. > IF your god is almight and everywhere - he is here now and can speak for > himself > > Let HIM answer for himself. So, you're straw man is that God speaks English. You created the definition, and then you debunked your definition. That is a logical fallacy. I said "a good scientific experiment is a prayer". What part of "scientific experiment" did you fail to understand? > >>> To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Michelson Morely experiment, Stern Gerlock experiment, the photo electric > effect and about a billion other experiments. Not a single thing so far that proves communication from a god. > >> IF your god is almight and everywhere - he is here now and can speak for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fallacy. I said "a good scientific experiment is a prayer". What part of > "scientific experiment" did you fail to understand? I will take that as an admission that gods cannot speak for themselves - only through the humans that created them > >>> To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask > >>> God a question and God gives us answers. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I will take that as an admission that gods cannot speak for themselves - > only through the humans that created them And people who a real god wouldn't want to have speaking for them... PDW >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe >> our own consciousness. This is NOT invented. Somebody tell the dishonest imbecile I never said consciousness was invented. It's a label given to an observed phenomenon. And his red herring. >> There are some things science can't do. > >Yet. The imbecile used a standard dishonest bait'n'switch from the unevidenced and disputes, to something evidenced and undisputed. As though they were equivalent. It's hiding behind solipsism - you can't prove anything therefore my unsupported claim is as valid as anything else. Do they really expect this kind of dishonest cop out to satisfy anybody? > Somebody tell the dishonest imbecile > The imbecile More evidence that atheist are sociopaths. Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is wrong. A sociopath would out of necessity reject all moral values, and thus cannot be religious. This particular sociopath feels ENTITLED and rightful to be hateful and mean spirited. There is no way this individual can be a party to a functional society. > Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold > religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is wrong. Yep . . . religious people never commit crimes, never lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, etc. Except they do. Atheists are underrepresented in U.S. prisons and in divorce courts. Why is that, if religion makes people better? SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus >> Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold >> religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > U.S. prisons and in divorce courts. Why is that, if religion makes > people better? I said "people who have a religious belief and hold religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is wrong." I didn't say they didn't do it. I, too, have met Christians who are sanctimonious and full of themselves and yet are pedophiles, rapist or sadistic thugs. While they feel they are "saved", they do know what they are doing is wrong. >>> Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold >>> religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is >>> wrong. Unless the evil they do is in God's name. Very religious people stone young girls. They don't know it's wrong to do so, they know it's right to do so because their religion tells them it's right to do so. >> Yep . . . religious people never commit crimes, never lie, cheat, >> steal, commit adultery, etc. Except they do. Atheists are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > values have to know that such hateful behavior is wrong." I didn't say > they didn't do it. And they do it at higher rates than atheists. There religion doesn't seem to make them better people. > I, too, have met Christians who are sanctimonious and full of themselves > and yet are pedophiles, rapist or sadistic thugs. While they feel they > are "saved", they do know what they are doing is wrong. So religion doesn't make them better people, it just makes them a more cohesive group, all wrong and evil together. Thanks, I'll pass. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious project." -- graffito >>>> Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold >>>> religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > young girls. They don't know it's wrong to do so, they know it's right > to do so because their religion tells them it's right to do so. True enough, but they have a thriving, growing culture and YOU don't. Which is more cruel? Killing a few, or killing an entire people? Evolution is brutal. Deal with it. >>> Yep . . . religious people never commit crimes, never lie, cheat, >>> steal, commit adultery, etc. Except they do. Atheists are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And they do it at higher rates than atheists. There religion doesn't > seem to make them better people. You've not proven that. As I pointed out, it takes a luke warm intelligence to be an atheist and the brain dead stupid tend to be religious, and crime tends to follow intelligence. You need to show, with scientific control groups, that people with the same population distributions of intelligence, but different beliefs, have different rates of crime. >> I, too, have met Christians who are sanctimonious and full of >> themselves and yet are pedophiles, rapist or sadistic thugs. While they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks, I'll pass. You're clearly neither a scientist nor rational. >> Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold >> religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >U.S. prisons and in divorce courts. Why is that, if religion makes people >better? Some testable alternative theories: 1. prisons make people religious 2. it is advantageous to pretend religion in US prison 3. stupid people are caught more easily, 4. smart people can earn their living and need not resort to crime The latter two on the premise that there is a relation between religion and stupidity/smartness. The divorce courts is more interesting. Atheist have more realistic beliefs, and are not disappointed easily. >-- >Enkidu AA#2165 Groetjes Albert -- SignatureAlbert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst >>> Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold >>> religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The divorce courts is more interesting. Atheist have more realistic > beliefs, and are not disappointed easily. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians. It is also arguable that to be a Christian is to be a good person. What does it mean for you to be a Christian? Signaturemonkfish >>>> Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold >>>> religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It is also arguable that to be a Christian is to be a good person. > What does it mean for you to be a Christian? What does it mean for you to be a good atheist? > "monkfish" <monkfish@nowhere> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> > What does it mean for you to be a good atheist? Not interested in God at all; at least not enough to talk about it on the Usenet all the time. Signaturemonkfish Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Somebody tell the dishonest imbecile > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rightful to be hateful and mean spirited. There is no way this individual > can be a party to a functional society. In my experience sociopathy is not a barrier to being religion, in fact it is often a prerequisite. In my experience religious fanatics feel ENTITLED and rightful to be hateful and mean spirited. If a society is sociopathic then a sociopath will fit in and the religion of that society will be sociopathic. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In my experience sociopathy is not a barrier to being religion, in fact > it is often a prerequisite. Your anecdotal evidence is noted, but not shared. > In my experience religious fanatics feel ENTITLED and rightful to be > hateful and mean spirited. And you've not seen that with the atheist here? LOL! > If a society is sociopathic then a sociopath will fit in and the > religion of that society will be sociopathic. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Your anecdotal evidence is noted, but not shared. Read history and you will see the religion and sociopathy often go hand in hand. > > In my experience religious fanatics feel ENTITLED and rightful to be > > hateful and mean spirited. > > And you've not seen that with the atheist here? LOL! Ad hom! > > > If a society is sociopathic then a sociopath will fit in and the > > religion of that society will be sociopathic. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Read history and you will see the religion and sociopathy often go hand > in hand. Since religion is pan human, and sociopathy exists, you are obviously making the correlation proves causation fallacy. This is such a bad and well known fallacy that it can only be spawed by a contempt for logic and a strong bias. To draw a meaningful conclusion, the objective observer would need a control group; no such control group exists save for the mass murdering communist atheist. But you don't want to go there, because it leads to a conclusion that you don't like. Here, have a banana. Peace. >> Read history and you will see the religion and sociopathy often go >> hand in hand. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > control group; no such control group exists save for the mass > murdering communist atheist. Your words back at you...."This is such a bad and well known fallacy that it can only be spawed by a contempt for logic and a strong bias." SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > > Read history and you will see the religion and sociopathy often go hand [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > well known fallacy that it can only be spawed by a contempt for logic > and a strong bias. Like for example, assigning the genocide of Stalin with atheism. > To draw a meaningful conclusion, the objective observer would need a > control group; no such control group exists save for the mass murdering > communist atheist. But you don't want to go there, because it leads to a > conclusion that you don't like. You're talking rubbish. You are doing exactly what you have just accused me of. You are projecting. You are using the causation/correlation fallacy. > Here, have a banana. Peace. I thought you were done with me. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire <snippage> > Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't > measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe > our own consciousness. This is NOT invented. <snippage> No: Most of us claim to _have_ consciousness, but really quite a few of us do not claim to observe it. I can identify many internal states, but not one of them is identifiable as My Consciousness itself. Interest, fear, aggression, attraction, confusion, elation, depression, remembering, ---- just a few of thousands of internal states we have access to ---- yet not any of these can be identified as "consciousness." At least not by many of us. This has a close parallel in Hume's relply to Descartes. Treatise of Human Nature (I, IV, vi): “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other… I never can catch myself without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception.” So, when you say we all observe consciousness, I say "whaddya mean we?" > On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:41:40 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: <snippage> >> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Most of us claim to _have_ consciousness, but really quite a few of us > do not claim to observe it. I'll take your word for it that you're not living. >> <snippage> >>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'll take your word for it that you're not living. It is you who is failing to pass the Turing test here. >> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:41:40 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: <snippage> >>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I'll take your word for it that you're not living. What a f.cking moron. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > There are some things science can't do. Religion can not explain these things either. What you have used is the "god of the gaps" argument. An oldie but a goodie among believers. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't >> measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Religion can not explain these things either. What you have used is the > "god of the gaps" argument. An oldie but a goodie among believers. Religion does to explain these thing. It's all made up and the judge of the worthiness of their made up explanation is how natural selection works on the religion. Natural selection DOES work on religion, you know. http://www.physorg.com/news122577140.html Begin quote The process of natural selection can act on human culture as well as on genes, a new study finds. Scientists at Stanford University have shown for the first time that cultural traits affecting survival and reproduction evolve at a different rate than other cultural attributes. Speeded or slowed rates of evolution typically indicate the action of natural selection in analyses of the human genome. End Quote So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive, and the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to cook pork more than beef, but the "god kills pork eaters" works as well as the real explanation. > So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive, > and the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to cook > pork more than beef, but the "god kills pork eaters" works as well as > the real explanation. No, the real explanation leads to more and safer food. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus >> So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive, >> and the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to cook >> pork more than beef, but the "god kills pork eaters" works as well as >> the real explanation. > > No, the real explanation leads to more and safer food. You're being irrational. Either the "god kills you for eating pork" explanation or "There are vectors in the pork that will kill you unless you cook it very well" lead to the same result. The actual cause doesn't matter to darwin's principle, the result is the same: the people who hold the culture which says "god will kill you if you eat pork" survived long enough to reproduce. >>> So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive, >>> and the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to cook [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the culture which says "god will kill you if you eat pork" survived long > enough to reproduce. So now "more and safer food" apparently has no bearing on a species surviving long enough to reproduce. >>>> So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive, >>>> and the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So now "more and safer food" apparently has no bearing on a species > surviving long enough to reproduce. I am utterly fascinated at your willful desire to not understand, and to present yourself as a moron. Why would you do that? Or does it give you some sort of perverse pleasure to not understand? Again, if they don't EAT the food, they don't DIE from eating the food. That's a survival example. It is simple; they make the inductive conclusion that people who eat pork tend to get sick and die. They have NO IDEA about diseases that are carried in the pork, but that does not matter! what matters is the behavior... There was an article here on how natural selection works on culture: http://www.physorg.com/news122577140.html If you knew the first thing about evolution, you'd KNOW that this just naturally follows; the culture itself gives adaptive advantages or not for natural selection purposes. >>>>> So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive, >>>>> and the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Again, if they don't EAT the food, they don't DIE from eating the food. And if they have more of a range of different types of food to eat, they are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, on average. This is another basic of evolution. Are you trying to appear stupid? > That's a survival example. It is simple; they make the inductive > conclusion that people who eat pork tend to get sick and die. They have > NO IDEA about diseases that are carried in the pork, but that does not > matter! what matters is the behavior... No sh.t. > There was an article here on how natural selection works on culture: > http://www.physorg.com/news122577140.html I understand that, thanks. > If you knew the first thing about evolution, You have no idea how much, or not, I know about evolution. > you'd KNOW that this just > naturally follows; the culture itself gives adaptive advantages or not > for natural selection purposes. OR disadvantages... like not having as much of a range of different types of foods to eat. >> Again, if they don't EAT the food, they don't DIE from eating the food. > > And if they have more of a range of different types of food to eat, they > are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, on average. This is > another basic of evolution. Dead people killed by eating bad food don't reproduce. Your reply is not relevant. The Jews survived, and the other cultures died out. That's evolution. >>> Again, if they don't EAT the food, they don't DIE from eating the food. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The Jews survived, and the other cultures died out. We did? I didn't know that! I was certain that we survived. That's evolution. There's glory for you. Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >>> Again, if they don't EAT the food, they don't DIE from eating the food. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > We did? I didn't know that! I was certain that we survived. I feel alive. Unless that is an afterlife illusion. Lucky for Marvin the culture of Ancient Israel is alive and well in the Taliban areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan so he can go there if he likes. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped away > at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Taliban areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan so he can go there if he > likes. I guess he will have to, since all the other cultures died out. I am just imagining that there are other cultures besides the Jewish one. Does that mean I do not really exist? I don't suppose little Marvin will help us out here. >> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped away >> at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > mean I do not really exist? I don't suppose little Marvin will help us out > here. If you're not Danish, what are you? A semi-Swede? A North North German? A Hamlet re-enactment extra? For that matter, what about us Brits? If we do not exist, who will the Germans and Australians humiliate at football or Cricket? >>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped away >>> at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > If you're not Danish, what are you? A semi-Swede? A North > North German? A Hamlet re-enactment extra? I thought I was Danish. Apparently the Danish culture died out long before the Viking period. No wonder Søren Kirkegaard is so difficult to understand. > For that matter, what about us Brits? If we do not exist, > who will the Germans and Australians humiliate at football > or Cricket? EU will probably appoint a committee to study the matter. What with staff for each of the members, independent research grants, parliamentary inquiries etc., it will at least solve the unemployment problem. >>>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped away >>>> at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > the Viking period. No wonder Søren Kirkegaard is so difficult to > understand. Look on the bright side. If you had been an extinct Swede, you'd have to fail to understand Swedenborg ... >> For that matter, what about us Brits? If we do not exist, >> who will the Germans and Australians humiliate at football [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for each of the members, independent research grants, parliamentary > inquiries etc., it will at least solve the unemployment problem. Can I have the minutes translated into Albanian, please? >>>>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped away >>>>> at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > If you had been an extinct Swede, you'd have to fail to > understand Swedenborg ... OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>> For that matter, what about us Brits? If we do not exist, >>> who will the Germans and Australians humiliate at football [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Can I have the minutes translated into Albanian, please? Translators are very enthusiastic about EU. >>>>>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped away >>>>>> at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Calm down, my little nopn-existent friend. The news is good: you are not Swedish. You can continue to perpetrate Kierkegaard on the world. >>>> For that matter, what about us Brits? If we do not exist, >>>> who will the Germans and Australians humiliate at football [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Translators are very enthusiastic about EU. Some very creative niches ... Serbian into Sami, anyone? >>>>>>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped >>>>>>> away [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > The news is good: you are not Swedish. > You can continue to perpetrate Kierkegaard on the world. And great acting talents such as Gitte Stallone! I wonder why she has not appeared on the honors list yet. >>>>> For that matter, what about us Brits? If we do not exist, >>>>> who will the Germans and Australians humiliate at football [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Some very creative niches ... Serbian into Sami, anyone? >>>>>>>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped >>>>>>>> away [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > And great acting talents such as Gitte Stallone! I wonder why she has not > appeared on the honors list yet. What honour did you have in mind? Royal taster-in-chief of surströmming? Special ambassador to Greenland? >>>>>>>>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped >>>>>>>>> away [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > What honour did you have in mind? Royal taster-in-chief of > surströmming? Special ambassador to Greenland? Protectress of the dignity of marriage and motherhood. >>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped >>> away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > who will the Germans and Australians humiliate at football > or Cricket? Each other, of course. Can you see Germany beating Australia at cricket, or Australia beating Germany at football? SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >>>> Last time that great scribe thomas p. <gudloos@yahoo.com> chipped >>>> away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Can you see Germany beating Australia at cricket, or Australia beating > Germany at football? While I cannot see the Germans ever getting to grips with the gentlemen's game, I could see the Aussies beating the Krauts at football. These plucky colonials are so manically obsessed with sports, if the ambition gripped them they would not rest until they beat the world.... In the meanwhile, we shall have to continue our ritual penance of allowing even the smallest and most unimportant of colonies to beat us at Rugby (except for Rhodes^H^H^Zimbabwe, because that Mugabe chap has been beastly to Her Majesty). > >> Again, if they don't EAT the food, they don't DIE from eating the food. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The Jews survived, and the other cultures died out. That's evolution. Like the Chinese - no one ever hears from those pork eaters anymore! What a loon! Mark. >>>> Again, if they don't EAT the food, they don't DIE from eating the food. >>> And if they have more of a range of different types of food to eat, they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Mark. Since the majority of the people of the world are not jewish - AND also not christian - it is obvious that LOTS of cultures have survived. >>> So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive, >>> and the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to cook [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > hold the culture which says "god will kill you if you eat pork" survived > long enough to reproduce. The correct answer leads to safely eating pork and everything else by cooking everything long enough to destroy harmful contaminants. The incorrect answer leads to the lost of many food sources in a hungry world, food sources that were safely eaten by many peoples for tens of thousands of years. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious project." -- graffito Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > >> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > more than beef, but the "god kills pork eaters" works as well as the real > explanation. The truth would be that pig eaters died off because they were killed off by the fanatics. Here cultural evolution and memes would explain more than biological evolution. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire It is an ancient Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org>, and he posteth: >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> >>>However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. I can do and have done, you see, God actually has a definition, and attributes, all of which are pretty much self-refuting. >> Which is utterly irrelevant. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There are some things science can't do. Science cannot, for example, stop you being a willfully ignorant jerk, well, at least not until you learn some. SignatureDavid Silverman aa #2208 Defender of Civilisation "God" is a casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority, resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that must not be questioned. Not authentic without this signature. >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > There are some things science can't do. Your argument is still a straw man, since atheism is lack of belief. It is not necessary to positively believe that there is no god; atheism is merely the lack of belief in such a thing. I don't expect an answer, but I would appreciate being surprised. Why do so many theists use that argument even after its invalidity has been pointed out thousands of times? Are you afraid to face our actual position, or do you really think that you can define our position for us? >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> > Your argument is still a straw man, since atheism is lack of belief. You don't even know what a straw man is. Your semantic fallacy is noted, however. If atheism is a lack of belief, then agnostics are atheist and atheist is a meaningless word. > It > is not necessary to positively believe that there is no god; atheism is > merely the lack of belief in such a thing. Playing word games doesn't change the objective facts. There are three possible positions; God, No God, and don't know; these are named theist, atheist and agnostic. If you're one of those who words don't have any meaning, then there is no point to your having the gift of language. < snip gibber; questions and loaded language > Questions say nothing, so you can't make a point with them. >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>> >> Your argument is still a straw man, since atheism is lack of belief. > You don't even know what a straw man is. Your semantic fallacy is noted, Your above absurdity is noted. You were ridiculing atheists because of their certainty that there is no god. Since no such certainty is required of atheism, you were ridiculing a straw man. > however. If atheism is a lack of belief, then agnostics are atheist and > atheist is a meaningless word. I also know what a non sequitur is. Atheists lack a belief in a god. If an agnostic lacks such a belief, he is, in addition to being an agnostic, an atheist. If somebody insists that he knows there is no god, he is, in addition to his claim of such knowledge, an atheist. The word is not meaningless just because atheists can hold other positions in addition to their lack of belief in a deity, i.e. your above statement is a non sequitur. >> It >> is not necessary to positively believe that there is no god; atheism is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > possible positions; God, No God, and don't know; these are named theist, > atheist and agnostic. I am not the one ignoring all definitions not convenient to my position - I am not playing word games. A person who has no theist belief is an atheist (rather obvious). He could also hold that he knows there is no god or that such knowledge is not possible. If you wish to claim that positive certainty of the non-existence of a god is unsupportable, we are in agreement on that point; but such certainty does not make a person an atheist but is merely in addition to his atheism. Furthermore the belief that knowing is not possible and lack of belief (atheism) are obviously logical for one person to hold. > If you're one of those who words don't have any meaning, then there is no > point to your having the gift of language. > > < snip gibber; questions and loaded language > > > Questions say nothing, so you can't make a point with them. Yet another straw man. My questions were perfectly legitimate, but, as I said, I did not expect them to be answered. I assumed you would just ignore them; I congratulate you on fitting in another personal insult instead. In all sincerity I would really prefer an objective discussion, but everyone to their own taste. >>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > in addition to their lack of belief in a deity, i.e. your above > statement is a non sequitur. An atheist is a person that believes there is no deity or gods period, that person does not even imply there could be. An agnostic person does not know if there is or is not. There is quite a difference. > An atheist is a person that believes there is no deity or gods period, > that person does not even imply there could be. An agnostic person does > not know if there is or is not. There is quite a difference. Bingo. Lack of belief == don't believe. >> An atheist is a person that believes there is no deity or gods period, >> that person does not even imply there could be. An agnostic person does >> not know if there is or is not. There is quite a difference. > > Bingo. Lack of belief == don't believe. Showing your comprehension problem again. Have you always been this slow or did you have a head injury? > > An atheist is a person that believes there is no deity or gods period, > > that person does not even imply there could be. An agnostic person does > > not know if there is or is not. There is quite a difference. > > Bingo. Lack of belief == don't believe. No. PDW Last time that great scribe Fred Thomas <fred@aol.com> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, > >>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > person does not even imply there could be. An agnostic person does not know if > there is or is not. There is quite a difference. I would disagree with that definition. The word is a-theism meaning a lack of belief in god(s) as in a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral. Agnostics can be atheists or theists. I do not have time in life to have a belief system of non existence in every possible god ever imagined. Why would I bother anymore than I would bother having a belief system that fairies do not exist. I simply lack a belief in fairies and in gods. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Fred Thomas <fred@aol.com> chipped away at > his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> know if >> there is or is not. There is quite a difference. (piggybacking here, since I did see the post above) You will always win an argument if you get to define the terms. Congratulations. > I would disagree with that definition. The word is a-theism meaning a > lack of belief in god(s) as in a-moral, not im-theism as in im-moral. > Agnostics can be atheists or theists. Yes, it is surprising how many people are unable to see that. As a matter of fact, since traditional Christianity has always opposed gnosticism, an orthodox believer should be an agnostic. > I do not have time in life to have a belief system of non existence in > every possible god ever imagined. Why would I bother anymore than I > would bother having a belief system that fairies do not exist. I simply > lack a belief in fairies and in gods. > Last time that great scribe Fred Thomas <fred@aol.com> chipped away at > his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > would bother having a belief system that fairies do not exist. I simply > lack a belief in fairies and in gods. Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? From Webster: agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity > Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? > > From Webster: > Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity This entry is incorrect. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This entry is incorrect. Again, the sematic fallacy. If you want to communicate, words must have meaning. Redefining the word atheist to mean agnostic is a silly word game that denies any meaning to either word. There are three possible positions: 1) Those who believe there is a god. These are called "theist". 2) Those who believe there is no god. These are called "atheist". 3) Those who believe they don't know if there is a god or not. These are called agnostic. This semantic game of "no belief" but not being an agnostic is a silly childish word game. If words don't have meaning for you, then you cannot speak intelligently, you can only gibber. The words don't meaning anything, thus gibberish. >>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Again, the sematic fallacy. Again, the lie. > If you want to communicate, words must have >meaning. And you've been given the one that describes us. The fact that yiu start arguing meanings when you have already been given one that describes us, shows you are not even trying to communicate. > Redefining the word atheist to mean agnostic is a silly word >game that denies any meaning to either word. Nobody is doing that, liar. >There are three possible positions: Do I sense a false trilemma coming? >1) Those who believe there is a god. These are called "theist". >2) Those who believe there is no god. These are called "atheist". Only by the pig-ignorant who are incapable of thinking outside the theist paradigm. >3) Those who believe they don't know if there is a god or not. These are >called agnostic. There are a lot more than that, imbecile. 4)What's a god? 5)It's merely somebody else's religious belief. 6)Etc But then you know these already because you have been given them several times already Stop pretending. >This semantic game of "no belief" but not being an agnostic is a silly >childish word game. What a f.cking moron. A deliberately nasty liar as well as an idiot. You know perfectly well nobody is doing that. Atheism/atheist is about theism and its absence. Agnostic is about knowledge and its absence. About something irrelevant outside the virtual reality of the theist religion. The two are orthogonal. One can be either, neither or both. But in spite of your pretence at ignorance, most atheists have nothing to be agnostic about. >If words don't have meaning for you, then you cannot speak intelligently, >you can only gibber. The words don't meaning anything, thus gibberish. Projecting again. >>>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > But in spite of your pretence at ignorance, most atheists have nothing > to be agnostic about. The fact is = all athiests and all agnostics have nothing to be agnostic about - since no gods are proven to exist. The difference is that an agnostic allows for the possibility that a god could be proven - and an atheist does not - based on the definitions. However - in reality - I doubt that anything PROVEN to exist would not be accepted by either. >>>>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >The fact is = all athiests and all agnostics have nothing to be agnostic >about - since no gods are proven to exist. Which makes the word meaningless. But I want to know why agnostics claim to be agnostic about one particular god belief while they ignore all the others. >The difference is that an agnostic allows for the possibility that a god >could be proven - and an atheist does not - based on the definitions. No. An atheist is somebody who isn't theist. For the atheist, "gods" vary between "what somebody else believes" and "an abstract logic exercise on what theists insist on telling us". >However - in reality - I doubt that anything PROVEN to exist would not >be accepted by either. And you would be wrong. There is no symmetry between theism and atheism. It is not the equiovalent opposite that people stuck inside the theist box seem to thing. It's like saying not believing in fairies is equivalent to believing in them. >>>>>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > But I want to know why agnostics claim to be agnostic about one > particular god belief while they ignore all the others. That is Not true. Agnostics are agnostic about ALL gods - just as atheists are The real question is why theists - without any basis in provable fact - can be a theist of one god and an atheist of all the others? >>>>>>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >Agnostics are agnostic about ALL gods - just as atheists are No. Most agnostics think you're crazy when you ask them if they are equally agnostic about Zeus and all the others. Andmost atheists haven't got anythingto be agnostic about because it's merely somebody else's religious belief. >The real question is why theists - without any basis in provable fact - >can be a theist of one god and an atheist of all the others? Childhood conditioning that they can't overcome. > The real question is why theists - without any basis in provable fact - > can be a theist of one god and an atheist of all the others? 1) Ignorance - they don't know anything about other religions. 2) Narrow mindedness - They can't extricate themselves from their religious framework long enough to see what their religion looks like to an outsider. 3) Stupidity - They are intellectually incapable of the mental gymnastics required to (1) learn about other religions or (2) extricate themselves from their religious framework long enough to see what their religion looks like to an outsider. 4) Laziness - Thinking is hard work, and they can't be bothered to do it for themselves. 5) Fear - God punishes people who think for themselves. Really, it's in the book! SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool." - Voltaire >>>>>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > But I want to know why agnostics claim to be agnostic about one > particular god belief while they ignore all the others. Did it ever occur that a person can be both? It depends on the scenario or story. In the case of all the names deitys that have been explored here on earth a person has examined all the evidence and made an opinion, that opinion is that those deities in question are figments of imagination. In this case the person is atheist. Now the same person is told of a deity that travels from planet planet sparking life, this ( if you want to call it a deity ) deity has nothing to offer, makes no claims of needing worship, this sparking life and allowing evolution to do it's thing is it's way of reproduction, that's all it does. The person in question has no evidence one way or the other so withholds making an opinion, the person is now agnostic on this issue. If the person takes a hard line and makes takes the opinion of the story that it is B.S, then the person is atheist on the new story. >>The difference is that an agnostic allows for the possibility that a god >>could be proven - and an atheist does not - based on the definitions. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's like saying not believing in fairies is equivalent to believing > in them. >>>>>>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >Did it ever occur that a person can be both? It depends on the scenario or >story. Why didn't you answer the question? >In the case of all the names deitys that have been explored here on earth a >person has examined all the evidence and made an opinion, that opinion is that >those deities in question are figments of imagination. In this case the person >is atheist. No moron. An atheist is somebody who isn't theist. Why can't you step outside the theist paradigm? And why do you imagine you get to tell us what our POV is, ignoring correction? >Now the same person is told of a deity that travels from planet planet sparking >life, this ( if you want to call it a deity ) deity has nothing to offer, makes >no claims of needing worship, this sparking life and allowing evolution to do >it's thing is it's way of reproduction, that's all it does. The person in >question has no evidence one way or the other so withholds making an opinion, >the person is now agnostic on this issue. No, moron. It is a belief about knowledge and its absence. If an agnostic is only agnostic about one god then they are being dishonest. >If the person takes a hard line and makes takes the opinion of the story that it >is B.S, then the person is atheist on the new story. No, moron. One is atheist if one isn't theist. >>>The difference is that an agnostic allows for the possibility that a god >>>could be proven - and an atheist does not - based on the definitions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> For the atheist, "gods" vary between "what somebody else believes" and >> "an abstract logic exercise on what theists insist on telling us". Why don't you acknowledge this? >>>However - in reality - I doubt that anything PROVEN to exist would not >>>be accepted by either. The dishonest lapse into solipsism. >> And you would be wrong. There is no symmetry between theism and >> atheism. It is not the equiovalent opposite that people stuck inside >> the theist box seem to thing. >> >> It's like saying not believing in fairies is equivalent to believing >> in them. Why didn't you acknowledge this? >>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 3) Those who believe they don't know if there is a god or not. These are > called agnostic. Sorry - you are still wrong about an agnostic You are using the second defintion when most agnostics use the first - ie agnostic:1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; It is not that we BELIEVE we don't know if there is a god - it is that we only accept what can be proven about gods. > >> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > meaning. Redefining the word atheist to mean agnostic is a silly word > game that denies any meaning to either word. Oh, look. Another believer who arrogantly assumes to tell us what we think. You shall reap what you sow, son. PDW Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: >>> Ever hear of a book called DICTIONARY? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Aga<SLAP> Shaddap, Meathead. The entry is incorrect. You don't get to tell us what we are. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. > Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in > news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You don't get to tell us what we are. Who defined you? Now that it's clear you do not like the dictonary for the English language, write your own. I'd love to see what you come up with for words like..........dog, cat, ignorance, stupid, moron. >> Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in >> news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >English language, write your own. I'd love to see what you come up with for >words like..........dog, cat, ignorance, stupid, moron. Liar. You can find definitions pretty close to what we actually in many dictionaries. Like "one who does not believe in any god or gods". And we get to tell you which one actually describes us. You don't get to decide which. >> Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in >> news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the English language, write your own. I'd love to see what you come up > with for words like..........dog, cat > ignorance "Being like Fred Thompson and deliberately missing the point." > stupid Used in a sentence: "Fred Thompson is stupid if he thinks he's making a point, here." > moron Used in a sentence: "Fred Thompson's ignorance makes him look like a moron, deliberately missing the point that the dictionary was wrong." SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >>> Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in >>> news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >"Being like Fred Thompson and deliberately missing the point." Fred Thomas - Fred Thompson was a redneck President wannabe and lousy TV actor. >> stupid > >Used in a sentence: > >"Fred Thompson is stupid if he thinks he's making a point, here." Fred can't tell the difference between not believing something, and believing its opposite. He's too stupid to understand the difference between performing an action and not performing one. Or that believing its opposite is just one of the many possibilities. >> moron > >Used in a sentence: > >"Fred Thompson's ignorance makes him look like a moron, deliberately >missing the point that the dictionary was wrong." Don't expect any honesty or intelligence from him. Whether he really is a w.nker or just wants us to think he is one doesn't matter because all we see is the w.nker. >>>> Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in >>>> news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Fred Thomas - Fred Thompson was a redneck President wannabe and lousy > TV actor. Yup :) All the same to me--Thompson was a loser, too. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >> Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in >> news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >English language, write your own. I'd love to see what you come up with for >words like..........dog, cat, ignorance, stupid, moron. Tell me, Fred. Are you really this f.cking stupid, or are you just a troll? >>> Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in >>> news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Tell me, Fred. Are you really this f.cking stupid, or are you just a >troll? If he wants people to think he's stupid the result is the same. >>> Marvin the Meathead <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote in >>> news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Tell me, Fred. Are you really this f.cking stupid, or are you just a > troll? the stupid one would be you. >> Tell me, Fred. Are you really this f.cking stupid, or are you just a >> troll? >> > the stupid one would be you. So you're just a troll. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >>> Tell me, Fred. Are you really this f.cking stupid, or are you just a >>> troll? >>> >> the stupid one would be you. > >So you're just a troll. And a stupid one at that. > >> Marvin the Meathead <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in > >>news:pan.2009.07.05.18.40.10@ontomars.org: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Tell me, Fred. Are you really this f.cking stupid, or are you just a > troll? Sorry - but MY statement was <snipped> from this thread - in which I said that the word "god" has no provable meaning in reality. If you disagree - provide a list of all the things you can PROVE in a testable and verifiable way - that a god IS. >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Questions say nothing, so you can't make a point with them. > Truth does say something though And it is TRUE that no gods have been proven to exist. >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > possible positions; God, No God, and don't know; these are named theist, > atheist and agnostic. Theists can also be agnostics. They believe, but have no tangible proofs (i.e., knowledge) of "god". Olrik > If you're one of those who words don't have any meaning, then there is no > point to your having the gift of language. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Questions say nothing, so you can't make a point with them. > > >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - There are any number of things I cannot explain scientifically. That does not automatically mean that the explanation MUST be a deity. 300 years ago, man couldn't explain why it rained, ergo it must be God. We now know that there is a physical and logical explanation for rain. In another 100 years, we may be able to explain consciousness as well. There is nothing that science can't do, there are only things that science hasn't done yet. >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Which is utterly irrelevant. > It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things. OK, Chris! Invented things are irrelevant! It might be time to start up the "Nutbar Nominations" again. Anyway, so science has a method. Among other things, the scientific method includes the testing of hypotheses and the results need to be repeatable for them to be accepted by science. Good so far? Good! I am so glad we are all on the same page. OK, so let's say, for sake of argument, God is up there somewhere doing some miracles and stuff but science says miracles are not in the realm of science as they are not testable and repeatable. And so some folks say "God does not exist, if he does then where is the evidence? If He exists then He should show Himself." So God says to Himself "Gee whiz, man, these miracles are not gettin' folks to believe in Me, what am I gonna do about that?" So after a while He says "I know, I'll do something repeatable so they can have evidence that I exist. Yes, that is the ticket, a repeatable miracle; then they will believe in me!" So God fires up his brand new repeatable miracle machine and, voilà, the repeatable miracle occurs and reocurrs and reoccurs yet again... Then some scientist notices this reoccuring miracle and checks it out. Every time it comes up the same. Then he publishes a paper and other scientists check it out and confirm the repeatable miracle. The next thing you know the headlines scream "Scientists discover a new law of physics!" The first scientist gets the Nobel prize. Later, at home sipping a fine brandy with a few friends, the conversation turns again to religion - "God does not exist, if he does then where is the evidence? If He exists He should show himself ..." Dave Greene [snip] > OK, so let's say, for sake of argument, God is up there somewhere doing some > miracles and stuff but science says miracles are not in the realm of science [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > if he does then where is the evidence? If He exists He should show himself > ..." Except that, for it to be a miracle, it must NOT be reliably repeatable. Or you'll have to redefine God as lacking free will. If I do X and Y occurs, every time, it isn't a miracle. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Speed is n0 subsittute fo accurancy. >[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >If I do X and Y occurs, every time, it isn't a miracle. True, if YOU do X and Y occurs every time, it would not be a miracle from our perspective, but if God does X and Y occurs every time, it may be classed as a miracle, from our perspective. Things that we can not control or cause to happen may be a simple, straight-forward process for God. Jesus' walking on water is describe as a miracle, from the human perspective, but it may have been nothing more than a hologram sort of image of him walking along a solid surface in another dimension set, as he migrated into this space/time that we perceive. We simply do not know how this and many other such events happened, but God knows, and CAN cause them to happen every time he wants them to happen. Gordon >>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Gordon I wonder what time of year it was. He could have been standing on a large piece of flat ice. (Does the Sea of Galillee freeze?) But isn't his message more important than the supernatural legends? (snip) >>>Except that, for it to be a miracle, it must NOT be reliably repeatable. >>>Or you'll have to redefine God as lacking free will. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >But isn't his message more important than the supernatural legends? Geopelia, you are absolutely right, His message is more important, but if some people reject His message because they can't resolve those lesser things in their mind, maybe this will help them along. Jesus did these "miracles" for the express purpose of convincing the people that He was not just an articulate, charismatic person who was bluffing his way along. He was what He said He was, and He showed them and us by those miracles. No, I don't think an ice float was what buoyed Him up. He was walking along in a way that the men in the boat interpreted as walking on water. They would surely have known about a large ice float that was that near their boat. In fact it would likely have been banging and scraping against their boat. Jesus actually walked up to and stepped into their boat. Gordon > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > bluffing his way along. He was what He said He was, and He showed them > and us by those miracles. This argument is simply imagination from your brain. Surely if your Jesus can do miracles, he couldn't do extra "miracles" to help. Rather, his miracles was just for show, and not for real issues? > No, I don't think an ice float was what buoyed Him up. He was walking > along in a way that the men in the boat interpreted as walking on > water. They would surely have known about a large ice float that was > that near their boat. In fact it would likely have been banging and > scraping against their boat. Jesus actually walked up to and stepped > into their boat. Gordon There is no ice in the hot Middle-east. But your Jesus, having the capability to walk the water, have no ability to use his power to overcome "whatever"....but had to died on the cross .... to sacrifice his life for the sins of human? He could not get rid of the sins by using his power? What argument you think is more sensible? >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> bluffing his way along. He was what He said He was, and He showed them >> and us by those miracles. Can't these psychos say anything without preaching? He knows we'r enot Christioan so he rudely and stupidly talks about it as if it were real. >This argument is simply imagination from your brain. >Surely if your Jesus can do miracles, he couldn't do extra "miracles" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> scraping against their boat. Jesus actually walked up to and stepped >> into their boat. Gordon Except of course it's a frikking fairy story, made up to tell early christians what to believe. There is no historical basis for the gospels. Just a few names in connection with events that never happened. Eg there was a census but it was a few years out - and they never had people go back to their ancestral village. It's so obvious: if everybody did that the entire country would have ground to a halt for a few weeks. >There is no ice in the hot Middle-east. >But your Jesus, having the capability to walk the water, have no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >He could not get rid of the sins by using his power? >What argument you think is more sensible? You're asking him to apply logic to myths. But he believes the stories and has to shut out logic, evidence against etc. >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >He could not get rid of the sins by using his power? >What argument you think is more sensible? Yap, I respect and appreciate your thoughts on this subject, but I find no way to embrace your perspective. The first incongruence is that God placed us all here for the express purpose of learning enough about sin and rebellion to assure Him that we would never, ever want to go back and explore it any further, once we've been granted immortality and absolute sovereignty. Without this learning phase, we could never be anything other than pre-programmed puppets. That is, we would not have had the opportunity to explore all the vagaries of sin and rebellion, then make our own sovereign choice as to which side of the nexus we want to be on, when it's all over and done with. The main point I'd like to make here is that every one of us can choose to go either way. Those who choose to go "without" God will not ever be forced to reverse their choice. Let's do another thought experiment....if computers were sentient. Imagine a large office central computer with a firewall/router in place. All the individual computers in this office can connect to that large office computer by means of the firewall/router, but they are not compelled to do so. Every computer has the necessary hardware and software to enable them to connect, but they have to volitionally initialize that hardware and software before they can make a connection. Some, for one reason or another simply refuse to initialize their Wi-Fi card setup and remain isolated from the main computer. Those who do so might even argue that the main computer simply does not exist...that those who have made the connection are just blowing smoke, so to speak. Take it from there..... Gordon >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > to go back and explore it any further, once we've been granted > immortality and absolute sovereignty. So your god is not so powerful that is can not abort it's own creation when it goes bad. (snip) >>> There is no ice in the hot Middle-east. >>> But your Jesus, having the capability to walk the water, have no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >So your god is not so powerful that is can not abort it's own creation when it >goes bad. I'm sure God could abort this project, but why should He. It is going very well. In fact it is going perfectly. In the first place God's creation was perfect, meaning that it was complete...nothing was left out or out of control. This means that there had to be good and evil. To have initiated His creation without evil would have resulted in an incomplete creation...less than perfect. So, God's creation includes both good and evil, and He is now in the process of separating good from evil. When this process is completed God will establish some kind of nexus that will keep good and evil separated, eternally. Those who chose to align with God will be matured into the region where there is no evil. Those who reject God and are not accepted into this side of the nexus will remain on the other side...the side they have chosen. Gordon > (snip) >>>> There is no ice in the hot Middle-east. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm sure God could abort this project, but why should He. It is going > very well. In fact it is going perfectly. I did not say this "project" you missed the point. <snip> the fantasy story line, it's been in other movies. > (snip) >>>> There is no ice in the hot Middle-east. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Gordon But do good and evil really exist? Every culture has its own ideas on right and wrong. Is it right to slaughter the enemy, men, women and children, and even to eat them, as in some cultures? Some would say yes, some would say no. Look at all the arguments over bombing enemy civilians in WWII. Quite right, most of us said at the time. Now, some say no. In my young days sex before marriage was considered wrong, too. And how about killing animals for meat? Opinions change about good and evil all the time. How do we know what God approves of, if he exists? Some of the things in the Old Testament shock us, today. And the big question, can one person sacrifice himself for the sins of others? Aren't we responsible for our own sins - if we know what they are, of course? >> (snip) >>>>> There is no ice in the hot Middle-east. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > most of us said at the time. Now, some say no. > In my young days sex before marriage was considered wrong, too. For most that has not changed. > And how about killing animals for meat? Still a very small part of the population, and I'm betting there have always been vegetarians. > Opinions change about good and evil all the time. How do we know what God > approves of, if he exists? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > others? Aren't we responsible for our own sins - if we know what they are, > of course? Shows the lunacy of religious belief. > (snip) >>>> There is no ice in the hot Middle-east. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Gordon You do realize, I assume, that the above is a fantasy without any demonstrable connection to reality? <snippage> > Some, for one reason or another simply refuse to initialize their Wi-Fi > card setup and remain isolated from the main computer. Those who do so > might even argue that the main computer simply does not exist...that > those who have made the connection are just blowing smoke, so to speak. > Take it from there..... Your story has no evidence of factuality. This does: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > to go back and explore it any further, once we've been granted > immortality and absolute sovereignty. Which gods did that - there are over 28 million of them named so far? > Without this learning phase, we could never be anything other than > pre-programmed puppets. That is, we would not have had the opportunity > to explore all the vagaries of sin and rebellion, then make our own > sovereign choice as to which side of the nexus we want to be on, when > it's all over and done with. Give it a "supreme" being to create faulty humans - and fail to blame himself for their shortcomings! > The main point I'd like to make here is that every one of us can > choose to go either way. Those who choose to go "without" God will not > ever be forced to reverse their choice. That is nonsense If a god is ALL knowing - he would have known BEFORE he ever created anyone - what they were going to do - based on HOW he created those people. If a god has a plan for everyone - then he had a plan for Hitler and all the other evil people in the world - and he KNEW what was going to happen. The biggest problem for a monotheism is that there is ONLY one creator - that had to create EVERYTHING - not just good - but evil - and everything in between - NO other entity had the power of creation. So - while humans ASSUME that what THEY consider evil is against god and is a sin - their god - on the other hand - saw what he created and saw it was GOOD. So - one cannot assume that evil is someting god is against - why would he create it if it was not what he wanted? At the same time - take the example of all the recent knowledge about the long ongoing sexual attacks on children by ministers and priests - ALL done in the name of their god. THese were children unable to protect themselves in the instances. If a god is LOOKING DOWN at all time - and sees that people are doing BAD things in his name - why did he do NOTHING about it for centuries? We are left with three choices 1- He cannot do anything about it - so he is not a god 2- IT is what he wanted to happen - so he is a pervert 3- There is no one looking down - no gods actually exist > Let's do another thought experiment....if computers were sentient. > Imagine a large office central computer with a firewall/router in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > initialize that hardware and software before they can make a > connection. While it sounds good - you miss the very obvious - the "creator" of the computers only gives the computer the capabilities that he wants them to have. COmputers cannot do EVERYTHING - they can only do what their circuits and electronics are capable of doing. > Some, for one reason or another simply refuse to initialize their > Wi-Fi card setup and remain isolated from the main computer. Those who > do so might even argue that the main computer simply does not > exist...that those who have made the connection are just blowing > smoke, so to speak. Take it from there..... Makes little difference - since it is the "creators" of the computers who established what capabilites that the computers had - and what they did NOT have. > (snip) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > scraping against their boat. Jesus actually walked up to and stepped > into their boat. Gordon St Peter walked on water too, according to the Bible. There was nothing supernatural about him, just a simple fisherman chosen to be a disciple. People must have believed the story back in those times. I wonder how many people would believe it today. >> (snip) >>>>> Except that, for it to be a miracle, it must NOT be reliably repeatable. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > People must have believed the story back in those times. I wonder how many > people would believe it today. According to a Gallup pole from 2007 1/3 of Americans believe the bible is literally true. scary, very scary! >> [snip] >>> OK, so let's say, for sake of argument, God is up there somewhere doing some [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Gordon So he broke the rules of the space/time continuum. I wonder if he'll be reprimanded by the alliance. You have got to be kidding with that. Who can make a sunrise........the candy man can. (snip) >>> If I do X and Y occurs, every time, it isn't a miracle. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >reprimanded by the alliance. You have got to be kidding with that. Who can make >a sunrise........the candy man can. Or, maybe He just knows a whole lot more about the laws of the universe/multiverse than all humanity, collectively, could ever understand. We are able to observe and test some of the more obvious natural laws that apply to this space/time we perceive, but we have no known means for exploring beyond this space/time. Let's do a thought experiment. Assume that the ten spatial and one temporal dimension posited by Super String Theory exist. Label them P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y & Z. Use T as the label for the temporal dimension. Label our spatial dimensions X, Y & Z. Label the spatial dimensions of the first level of Heaven as W, X & Y. That is, we share the X & Y dimensions but our Z dimension is rolled up to less than a Planck length from a perspective in that first level of Heaven and their W dimension is rolled up to less than a Planck length from our perspective. An easy way to conceptualize this is to think of taking a deck of cards and dividing them into two equal stacks, holding one stack in your left and the other stack in your right hand. Next, do a regular card shuffle, mixing those left hand and right hand cards uniformly. Now, think of the cards that were in your right hand as being less than a Planck length in thickness. Their length and width is the same as the length and width of the cards in the other hand, but from the left hand's perspective, those cards from the right hand can not be perceived. Next, think of someone on one of those cards that were in your right hand as having the power to expand the thickness of those cards until they are just a tiny bit more than a Planck length in thickness. They will now begin to be vaguely discernable from the left hand's perspective. Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was vaguely visible, somewhat like a hologram image, to those men in the boat? Gordon <snippage> > Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was > vaguely visible, somewhat like a hologram image, to those men in the > boat? Gordon Or was it just a silly made-up story from an iron age mind??? Only the SHADOW knows!!!!!!!!!!! ><snippage> >> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Only the SHADOW knows!!!!!!!!!!! polymer, it's surely your option to accept or reject the whole thing, but don't you agree that an intellectual mind should do a full, in depth exploration of all available evidence, with sincere intentions before rejecting this? Had the evidence been presented in a totally unarguable manner, would you, or would anyone have a sovereign choice in accepting or rejecting it? Gordon >> <snippage> >>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > depth exploration of all available evidence, with sincere intentions > before rejecting this? So you contention is that people reject "the whole thing" with out even a glance at the "evidence"? > Had the evidence been presented in a totally unarguable manner, would > you, or would anyone have a sovereign choice in accepting or rejecting > it? Well, lets see if you can make a completely unarguable, rock solid, no holes, in an intelligent manner presentation. Gordon >>> <snippage> >>>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Well, lets see if you can make a completely unarguable, rock solid, no holes, in >an intelligent manner presentation. Nope, I can't. nor can anyone else. If we could, you and no one else would have any sovereign choice. You'd just have to knuckle under and go with the flow, whether you wanted to or not, but sometime on down the line, in the next level of your existence, you'd still want to go back and explore these things further...like Lucifer did. God's only options were to either forego the hopes that we can become absolute sovereign immortal beings and just pre-program us as His puppets. He wanted the sovereign option, and that is why he set things up such that anyone can accept or reject the whole set of ideas. Gordon >>>> <snippage> >>>>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > Nope, I can't. nor can anyone else. agreed, > If we could, you and no one else > would have any sovereign choice. No, you still have a choice to follow or not. >You'd just have to knuckle under and > go with the flow, whether you wanted to or not, but sometime on down > the line, in the next level of your existence, you'd still want to go > back and explore these things further...like Lucifer did. Now your getting silly again. > God's only options were to either forego the hopes that we can become > absolute sovereign immortal beings and just pre-program us as His > puppets. He wanted the sovereign option, and that is why he set things > up such that anyone can accept or reject the whole set of ideas. Now your in the realm in being beyond silly. > Gordon > >>> <snippage> > >>>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > puppets. He wanted the sovereign option, and that is why he set things > up such that anyone can accept or reject the whole set of ideas. You simply wish to speak on behalf of your non-existent god, right? Give us some valid reasons to accept the existence of a god. One example: He could appear in the Timesquare as a human form, use his magic and bring down a nearby tall building into ground zero and click his finger for the original building to stand up again. Surely he can, right? > Gordon >>>> <snippage> >>>>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > God's only options Nice try - no gods are proven to exist - so they have no options you can prove as well! >>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:57:20 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: <snippage> >>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > exploration of all available evidence, with sincere intentions before > rejecting this? Oh, give me a frigging break. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. We know that humans can make up stories, and do so with the easy facility of a cat jumping onto a table. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Old science fiction stories have _fictional_ characters manipulating dimensions because audiences have a deep wish to hear stories about beings who are powerful and magical. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. We have no evidence of any _actual_ being that could manipulate dimensions through the course of history to today. <snip crap> > >>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:57:20 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: <snippage> > >>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > wish to hear stories about beings who are powerful and > magical. Exactly. Just like the Americans who are fascinated at the superman, superwoman, spiderman..........now. > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. > We have no evidence of any _actual_ being that could > manipulate dimensions through the course of history to > today. There is simply no dimensions to manipulate even now. > <snip crap> >> >>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:57:20 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: <snippage> >> >>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Just like the Americans who are fascinated at the superman, superwoman, > spiderman..........now. And then there was P. D. Ouspensky, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Ouspensky ... the grandfather of dimension jumping claptrap. >> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. >> We have no evidence of any _actual_ being that could manipulate >> dimensions through the course of history to today. > There is simply no dimensions to manipulate even now. >> >> <snip crap> > ><snippage> > >> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you, or would anyone have a sovereign choice in accepting or rejecting > it? Gordon No, it is simply your own imagination to try to explain the Jesus event. We now know about hologram...there is none then. If your Jesus was so advance then, why can't he teach to build a car AT THAT TIME? He did not do anything remotely intelligent or miracles, during his time. Every thing attributed to him is just like the Harry Potter story. >><snippage> >>> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you, or would anyone have a sovereign choice in accepting or rejecting > it? Gordon There would be a reason for accepting it. Without any evidence at all, there is no reason to accept it. Not only have you not presented evidence in a totally unarguable manner, you have presented no evidence at all for a "full, in depth exploration"; therefore there is no reason to believe what is essentially your fantasy. > <snippage> >> Was this about the way Jesus had manipulated the W dimension so he was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Only the SHADOW knows!!!!!!!!!!! And say Candyman five times and........ > (snip) >>>> If I do X and Y occurs, every time, it isn't a miracle. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> reprimanded by the alliance. You have got to be kidding with that. Who can make >> a sunrise........the candy man can. <snip> the bad sci-fi. > (snip) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > natural laws that apply to this space/time we perceive, but we have no > known means for exploring beyond this space/time. Maybe this and maybe that, what do you have besides "Well it could have happened if...."? snip > So he broke the rules of the space/time continuum. I wonder if he'll be > reprimanded by the alliance. You have got to be kidding with that. Who can > make a sunrise........the candy man can. So Fred, wouldn't that be the Rat Pack... Dave "we miss you Sammy" Greene >> So he broke the rules of the space/time continuum. I wonder if he'll be >> reprimanded by the alliance. You have got to be kidding with that. Who can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dave "we miss you Sammy" Greene Yea, Sammy put the song on the map. > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:03:30 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > image of him walking along a solid surface in another dimension set, > as he migrated into this space/time that we perceive. Right. > We simply do not know how this and many other such events happened, > but God knows, and CAN cause them to happen every time he wants them > to happen. This is exactly what we are telling you. You don't know a sh.t, but you all imagine the events all the time. If there is a god and he chose to do something, did he inform any one to be the witness? You make so much assumptions for your god,. on things he could do or not do. > Gordon >>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > not control or cause to happen may be a simple, straight-forward > process for God. Or it could be radioactive decay. Y just seems to occur at random intervals, but there is no observable God doing X. > Jesus' walking on water is describe as a miracle, from the human > perspective, but it may have been nothing more than a hologram sort of > image of him walking along a solid surface in another dimension set, > as he migrated into this space/time that we perceive. Superman flying is a miracle too. Your bible is my DC Comics. SignaturePaul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Have gnu, will travel. >> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I > can't prove scientifically that God exists. We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this "god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the desert a few thousands years back, let it have its big come back! Go "god"! (Although I'm not going to wait...) Olrik > However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of > evolution just as the religious people did with creationism. >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I >> can't prove scientifically that God exists. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. It is merely somebody else's religious belief. >We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this >"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the >desert a few thousands years back, let it have its big come back! Go "god"! I'll never understand these morons. This is the real world outside their religion. Do they honestly imagine people would give a toss about its deity-belief if they had the sense to keep it inside their religion? Or that when they don't, the intellectually dishonest "you can't prove it doesn't exist" is somehow a satisfactory answer? >(Although I'm not going to wait...) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of >> evolution just as the religious people did with creationism. >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > There is no evidence for it whatsoever. Yes. You are making the "appeal to ignorance fallacy"; you're claiming that since we can't know if there is a thing, that there is no thing. That's illogical. Don't know means you don't know. > It is merely somebody else's religious belief. >>We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this >>"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'll never understand these morons. This is the real world outside their > religion. Irrelvant argumentum ad hominem, and appeal to your own ignorance, is noted and amusing. > Do they honestly imagine people would give a toss about its deity-belief > if they had the sense to keep it inside their religion? > > Or that when they don't, the intellectually dishonest "you can't prove > it doesn't exist" is somehow a satisfactory answer? Don't know is the scientific answer. Your choice is to be irrational and hateful. I'm good with that. I like dogs, too. You're mistaken if you think I'm a Christian. Not at all. I know, scientifically, however, that Christianity has been wildly successful evolution wise. But I can't have a rational discussion with a liberal wack-job. >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Yes. You are making the "appeal to ignorance fallacy"; you're claiming I am doing no such thing, moron. If you idiots had any you wouldn't resort to the dishonest fallacies that fool nobody. >that since we can't know if there is a thing, that there is no thing. There is no reason whatsoever even to give it a though. >That's illogical. Don't know means you don't know. What is there to "not know", moron? >> It is merely somebody else's religious belief. Well? >>>We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this >>>"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> I'll never understand these morons. This is the real world outside their >> religion. Well, moron? >Irrelvant argumentum ad hominem, and appeal to your own ignorance, is >noted and amusing. What "appeal to my own ignorance" are you lying about? >> Do they honestly imagine people would give a toss about its deity-belief >> if they had the sense to keep it inside their religion? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Don't know is the scientific answer. To what, moron? Until you demonstrate otherwise it is no different than a teapot orbitibng Pluto. Is "don't know" the scientific answer to that as well? > Your choice is to be irrational and >hateful. No liar. Just treating a moron posting his stupidity and dishonesty in an atheist newsgroup, as a stupid and dishonest moron. > I'm good with that. I like dogs, too. Idiot. >You're mistaken if you think I'm a Christian. Not at all. I know, >scientifically, however, that Christianity has been wildly successful >evolution wise. II don't care what you are - just that you imagine transparent dishonesty sgould fool anybody. >But I can't have a rational discussion with a liberal wack-job. You can't hold a rational discussion, period. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > Yes. You are making the "appeal to ignorance fallacy"; you're claiming > that since we can't know if there is a thing, that there is no thing. > That's illogical. Don't know means you don't know. But this is exactly what YOU are doing. You are making an appeal to ignorance. We don't know where consciousness comes from, therefore God exists. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ignorance. We don't know where consciousness comes from, therefore God > exists. No, it is not what I'm doing. It is a lie to say that is what I'm doing. I'm saying "I don't know" when there is no evidence. I'm saying "no evidence, so I don't know." The theists say "No evidence so I believe". The atheist say "no evidence so I don't believe". Both of these positions are irrational. The only rational position is "no evidence so I don't know". And since I DON'T know, and humans have a pan human need for religion to form a working culture, I CHOOSE to ASSUME that there is a god, not for God's sake, but for my own. Just as a choose to believe you are a conscious being and not a meat puppet or biological machine, I do it for MY OWN BENEFIT. Not only does it not do any harm as long as I restrict my religion to not conflict with what can be tested by science (no walking on water, no sun standing still, no 7000 year old earths...) there is a lot of benefit to it. > No, it is not what I'm doing. It is a lie to say that is what I'm doing. > I'm saying "I don't know" when there is no evidence. I'm saying "no > evidence, so I don't know." So you don't know if a God exists. Do you pray to each and every God because it *might* exist? Or do you take it as a working hypothesis that, since there is no evidence for any of them you live as if they don't exist? SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious project." -- graffito >> No, it is not what I'm doing. It is a lie to say that is what I'm >> doing. I'm saying "I don't know" when there is no evidence. I'm saying >> "no evidence, so I don't know." > > So you don't know if a God exists. Finally he gets it! > Do you pray to each and every God > because it *might* exist? I "pray" by doing scientific experiments. No book written by man is certain to be God's word, but the universe .. if there is a God, then the universe is certain to be God's law and God's word, isn't it? < snip crap based on a false premise > >>> No, it is not what I'm doing. It is a lie to say that is what I'm >>> doing. I'm saying "I don't know" when there is no evidence. I'm saying [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > certain to be God's word, but the universe .. if there is a God, then > the universe is certain to be God's law and God's word, isn't it? Why even consider a god if the evidence doesn't suggest it? That's not science. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do. --[from Usenet] In sci.skeptic Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: > I "pray" by doing scientific experiments. How come god _always_ answers the atheist scientist when doing an experiment but will ignore a desperate christian mother praying to save her sick child? SignatureAtheists are not anti-god, they are not at war with theists. They just don't believe that gods, devils etc exist at all. > In sci.skeptic Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: >> I "pray" by doing scientific experiments. > > How come god _always_ answers the atheist scientist when doing an > experiment but will ignore a desperate christian mother praying to save > her sick child? That's exactly why we need Jesus Christ. Signaturemonkfish >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that since we can't know if there is a thing, that there is no thing. > That's illogical. Don't know means you don't know. So all your gawd needs to do is a) exist and b) show itself to us. Get to it--put some calluses on your knees and rub your palms together and push really really hard making that little call "up there" on our behalf, 'kay? We'd try, but we lack the ability to fool ourselves into believing something's listening. So anyway, get to it. Long weekend. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, > to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So all your gawd needs to do is a) exist and b) show itself to us. You misunderstood. God is prior to existence. Take your time to comprehend what that means. Signaturemonkfish >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > We don't have to prove anything. If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. To believe in something that you cannot prove is a religious belief. As long as we're going to be religious, may as well pick a religion that has been validated by natural selection and Darwin's principles. Since science started in the western culture, and science has enabled the population to expand by a factor of a thousand and is thus wildly successful, the rational choice would be to start with a basis of Christianity as practiced. I'm not talking about "Christianity" of the modern era where they depend upon the teachings of Jesus; oh no! This was tried 2000 years ago and those people became extinct. Any philosophy that leads to the extinction of the people who practice it is a philosophy to be rejected. I'm talking about the Roman Religion of enlightenment, based on the old Greek/Roman gods and perverted to a monotheistic religion. The work ethic, the development of rational thought, a culture that valued the scientific method. The atheist belief has lead them to a negative growth rate; these people and their degenerate culture are already in Darwin's dust bin. It is foolish to take advice on how to live from a people who are already doomed. > If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the > position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. I believe giant invisible rats crawl out of your butt every night as you sleep. I can't *prove* they do, but you can't *prove* they don't. So you must be an agnostic with regard to the giant invisible butt-rats, right? After all, you can't simply lack the belief because I lack evidence to support my butt-rat theory. It sounds stupid when it's somebody else's stupid beliefs. But your Jesus makes as much sense to me at the butt-rats do to you. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony >> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the >> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It sounds stupid when it's somebody else's stupid beliefs. But your > Jesus makes as much sense to me at the butt-rats do to you. Your anal fixation and bestiality perversions are noted. No wonder you rejected Christianity. I see no reason to believe in your butt rats. I see reason to believe in God. My Jesus?! You're presumption is that I'm a Christian, but there is no frackin' way that Jesus guy is God! Too much of what he says conflicts with the way the universe is made. It has been shown mathematically that the BEST rule is "the silver rule", not the golden rule. The silver rule being "treat others the way they treat you" or "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". And that "turn the other cheek" and give up all your belongings stuff and live like a bird without working is just plain old suicide. That 'slaves obey your masters" order was just insane. No way should someone treat themselves so poorly as to accept a life of slavery. Nope. I'm sure that Jesus and God are not acquainted. Jesus started a death cult. Don't breed, don't own anything, let others take your tools (humans are tool users by nature...), don't defend yourself! Luckily, the Romans took over his religion and changed it; they added a work ethic, the right to self defense, and made some sense out of it. And their religion WORKED. It was wildly successful and not just lead to the success of western culture but the entire world. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > I see no reason to believe in your butt rats. > > I see reason to believe in God. And yet there is no more evidence for your god than for the rats. To me your god is no different from those rats. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the >>> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Your anal fixation and bestiality perversions are noted. No wonder you > rejected Christianity. Trying for ad hom, now? You're assuming there's something anal and bestial--without evidence. Really, it was your a.s and your rats. We really don't know about those things. If it had been "your laundry hamper" and "invisible ultraviolet dragons" would you have been so unnecessarily abusive and defensive? > I see no reason to believe in your butt rats. That's your logical fallacy of argument from ignorance again. Only this time you're the one making it, by your own standards. And again, those are YOUR butt-rats. I can understand how they'd be an uncomfortable topic, but there are support groups and oitments that will help you in your delicate condition. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. >>>> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the >>>> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > support groups and oitments that will help you in your delicate > condition. Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded brain? BTW. Does anyone else here get the stench of failednuts coming from this moron. He's certainly another one with elephantitis of the ego. -- Smiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >>>>> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the >>>>> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >moron. >He's certainly another one with elephantitis of the ego. He's just rat arsed. >>>>> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the >>>>> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >moron. >He's certainly another one with elephantitis of the ego. Religious idiots are all the same. It doesn't matter if they're Christians, Muslims or, like this stooge, believers in some off-the-wall "religion" they made up themselves. They all fancy themselves morally and intellectually superior to anyone who doesn't buy into their bullshit. And dontcha just *love* how these morons all think they know what we really think and believe better than we know it? Last time that great scribe John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >>>>> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the > >>>>> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > And dontcha just *love* how these morons all think they know what we > really think and believe better than we know it? It's interesting that Marvin started out sounding relatively rational and reasonable in his first post of this thread and quickly degenerated into hateful irrationality. His calmness slipped to reveal an egotistical and superior nature and he responded badly when challenged on his assertions. He projected everything he was as being characteristics of atheists. His only criteria for judging a model or world view is its ability to encourage multiplication of humans. If it multiplies it's good, if it doesn't it's bad. I command all female atheists who have dared peruse other avenues of fulfillment to get back home and start popping them out. I am prostrating myself before a fly as I type for these little creatures must be the most wise of all. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> chipped away > at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > I am prostrating myself before a fly as I type for these little > creatures must be the most wise of all. They can't be all that wise......Pyrethrum. . . . . . . . '#''~ SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. > Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded brain? Uncork. Pour. Swig. Repeat. Alcohol disinfects .... >> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded brain? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Alcohol disinfects .... Leave out the 'pour', it just wastes time :-) I was thinking of something like a grease-gun applied to the ears. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >>> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded brain? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Leave out the 'pour', it just wastes time :-) You may have a point there, you peasant... :-) >>>> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded brain? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You may have a point there, you peasant... > :-) It also wastes alcohol. You can't get it all from the inside of the glass with your tongue or 'pinkie'. See. I use my pinkie. I'm not so much of a peasant after all :-) SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >>>>> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded brain? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It also wastes alcohol. You can't get it all from the inside of the glass > with your tongue or 'pinkie'. Ah, but on the downside it can be hard to insert ice cubes through the bottleneck. > See. I use my pinkie. I'm not so much of a peasant after all :-) No, you're worse -- lower middle class. :-) (damn, I miss Hyacinth)... >>>>>> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded >>>>>> brain? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Ah, but on the downside it can be hard to insert ice cubes > through the bottleneck. You want to add frozen *WATER*!!! Now who's the peasant? :-) >> See. I use my pinkie. I'm not so much of a peasant after all :-) > > No, you're worse -- lower middle class. > :-) > > (damn, I miss Hyacinth)... So do I. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >>>>>>> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded >>>>>>> brain? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Now who's the peasant? > :-) Of course! Have you ever drunk neat English table wine? Frozen water *improves* the flavour! >>> See. I use my pinkie. I'm not so much of a peasant after all :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So do I. Yes, dear. >>>>>>>> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded >>>>>>>> brain? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Have you ever drunk neat English table wine? > Frozen water *improves* the flavour! By English wine, do you mean wine produced from grapes grown in England or are you referring to 'British' wine, a disgusting concoction made from imported grape juice and alcohol? I've never had the former and regret trying the latter. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >>>>>>>>> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded >>>>>>>>> brain? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > imported grape juice and alcohol? > I've never had the former and regret trying the latter. Yes. > See. I use my pinkie. I'm not so much of a peasant after all :-) Forgot to post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0DUsGSMwZY Alex -- any excuise for the classics "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:_FS3m.46666$Eq6.45694 @newsfe24.ams2: >>>>> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the >>>>> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded brain? Caulking gun, through a hole in the upper nasal cavity. Needle's about 8 inches long and is used the first time to make the hole for further applications. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. > "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:_FS3m.46666$Eq6.45694 > @newsfe24.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > about 8 inches long and is used the first time to make the hole for > further applications. Thanks (I think!) for that explanation. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 @newsfe06.ams2: >> "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:_FS3m.46666$Eq6.45694 >> @newsfe24.ams2: >>> Just curious...how do sufferers apply ointment to a deluded brain? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks (I think!) for that explanation. I try to be informative to the non-medical public; I hope to have an autopsy show like "Doctor G" on Discovery Health soon, only without the blurred-out giblets and brains. Full disclosure! SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. > "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Full disclosure! That'll take real guts! SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:YF96m.49172$bu6.46426 @newsfe29.ams2: >> "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 >> @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > That'll take real guts! Some gall, too. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor > made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. Now that PD hgas admitted that HE decided what he believes - and what he doesn't - he admitted JUST THAT ONE > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Now that PD hgas admitted that HE decided what he believes - and what > he doesn't - he admitted JUST THAT ONE I didn't say anything of the sort. Would you care to quote me? > > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I didn't say anything of the sort. Would you care to quote me? Yes - YOU said you do not believe in all the things said about your god 1100 years ago- follow your own thread. ANd you complained that I do not know what YOU believe - so I can determine from that - that you have decided to ignore some things. > > > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > do not know what YOU believe - so I can determine from that - that you > have decided to ignore some things. Well I certainly don't believe in logical contradictions. Why should I? > > > > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Well I certainly don't believe in logical contradictions. Why should I? That was YOUR decision - not mine - I don't believe in any of the nonsense. > > > > > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > > > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > I don't believe in any of the nonsense. Yes, I know. So, why should your decisions apply to me? On Jul 12, 5:20 pm, ThomM <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote: > On Jul 12, 6:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > I don't believe in any of the nonsense. "Yes, I know. So, why should your decisions apply to me?" Another strawman . . . > On Jul 12, 5:20 pm, ThomM <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Another strawman . . . He keeps conveying some obligation on my part for proof. What obligation? On Jul 13, 8:53 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Another strawman . . . "He keeps conveying some obligation on my part for proof. What obligation?" If you are saying that deities exist, he wants to know why. I don't see that as him demanding that his decisions apply to you. > On Jul 13, 8:53 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > If you are saying that deities exist, he wants to know why. I don't see > that as him demanding that his decisions apply to you. But he hasn't asked me why. He's demanded a justification in a particular form (proof). If he wants to know why I know what I know, then he should ask me. If my rationale doesn't involve a proof, then it's apparent that what works for me as knowledge won't work for him, but so what? Now, on the other hand, if he insists that because he demands proof, I should too (in order to claim knowledge), then that's where we're going to have a problem. PD On Jul 13, 9:22 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > If you are saying that deities exist, he wants to know why. I don't see > that as him demanding that his decisions apply to you. "But he hasn't asked me why. He's demanded a justification in a particular form (proof). If he wants to know why I know what I know, then he should ask me. If my rationale doesn't involve a proof, then it's apparent that what works for me as knowledge won't work for him, but so what? Now, on the other hand, if he insists that because he demands proof, I should too (in order to claim knowledge), then that's where we're going to have a problem." I think you are weasling. PD > On Jul 13, 9:22 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > I think you are weasling. Ask me if I care what you think. You've been thinking some pretty undefendable things lately. Remember, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You don't win any prize or victory by remaining unconvinced. A table leg or a saucer of milk can do that. On Jul 13, 12:44 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > I think you are weasling. "Ask me if I care what you think. You've been thinking some pretty undefendable things lately. Remember, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You don't win any prize or victory by remaining unconvinced. A table leg or a saucer of milk can do that." No problem! >> On Jul 13, 9:22 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > undefendable things lately. > Remember, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Then why are you here? > You don't win any prize or victory by remaining unconvinced. Nor do you win anything by being deluded. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. > >> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > Then why are you here? To see if you are consistent in your thinking. To see if you really practice what you preach. To see if what you CLAIM you are using as a rationale is really what you use as a rationale. I'm also here to let you know that many people simply do not use the knowledge-gathering methodologies that you use, because they have not imposed the artificial constraints that you have imposed for yourself. You nevertheless ask for arguments for that knowledge within the artificial constraints that you have imposed. I'm pointing out that this is an obviously fruitless exercise, without point or value. > > You don't win any prize or victory by remaining unconvinced. > > Nor do you win anything by being deluded. But I'm not. We obviously have a difference in what we know. > -- > Smiler, > The godless one > a.a.# 2279 > All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor > made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >>>> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > But I'm not. We obviously have a difference in what we know. But the point is that you don't know and cannot know without evidence. All you have is belief. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. > >>>> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > But the point is that you don't know and cannot know without evidence. This is precisely what I'm disputing. This is YOUR constraint and yours alone, not shared by me. As I mentioned, cognitive psychologists and philosophers acknowledge many forms of *knowledge* that do not come from objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. You are denying such knowledge exists. OK, it doesn't exist FOR YOU. Others are not so constrained. > All you have is belief. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor > made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. On Jul 14, 8:30 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Jul 13, 11:08 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > But the point is that you don't know and cannot know without evidence. "This is precisely what I'm disputing. This is YOUR constraint and yours alone, not shared by me. As I mentioned, cognitive psychologists and philosophers acknowledge many forms of *knowledge* that do not come from objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. You are denying such knowledge exists. OK, it doesn't exist FOR YOU. Others are not so constrained." You need to be careful that you don't view the subject of "knowledge" in a bimodal fashion - either subjective or objective. Such things are analog, existing along a contimuum. The axis from objective to subjective runs parallel with the level of how well the "knowledge" reflects reality. Pure objective things like math reflect reality as well as anything can. Religious belief, being obviously highly subjective, reflects it poorly. When making decisions, it is good to think about the quality of the data. > On Jul 14, 8:30 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > Religious belief, being obviously highly subjective, reflects it poorly. > When making decisions, it is good to think about the quality of the data. I dispute that too, because it presumes that pertaining to any given statement, this spectrum is fully available. Specifically, it presumes that for any given statement, there is in principle some way to gather objective, scientifically verifiable evidence pertaining to the statement. This is in fact not the case, as any cognitive psychologist will tell you. I also dispute your statement about the correlation between objectivity and reflection of reality. Again, what you consider reality is that set of statements (and ONLY such) that has objective, scientifically verifiable information available. That is, if it isn't subject to scientific methodology, then it isn't reality. That is also crap. Scientific methodology, as many philosophers of science will tell you, deals with that SUBSET of reality that is amenable to scientific investigation. What you are doing is calling the SUBSET reality itself. Finally, the certitude of a statement is not tightly correlated to the scale you mention, either. Most people hold a number of statements (like "I exist") to be absolutely certain, though completely without support of objective, scientifically verifiable information. If you maintain that statements that simply don't have objective, scientifically verifiable information available, then the certainty of the statement will necessarily be limited as well, then this too you will find is not what cognitive scientists or philosophers will tell you. The problem, you see, is that you are trying to apply a simple rule to knowledge, perhaps to make things simpler for yourself. But I don't think it IS that simple, despite your best attempts to paint it that way. "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b6901cdd-8462-459c-9eb8-> > You need to be careful that you don't view the subject of "knowledge" in a > bimodal fashion - either subjective or objective. Such things are analog, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Religious belief, being obviously highly subjective, reflects it poorly. > When making decisions, it is good to think about the quality of the data. I dispute that too, because it presumes that pertaining to any given statement, this spectrum is fully available. Specifically, it presumes that for any given statement, there is in principle some way to gather objective, scientifically verifiable evidence pertaining to the statement. This is in fact not the case, as any cognitive psychologist will tell you. I also dispute your statement about the correlation between objectivity and reflection of reality. Again, what you consider reality is that set of statements (and ONLY such) that has objective, scientifically verifiable information available. That is, if it isn't subject to scientific methodology, then it isn't reality. That is also crap. Scientific methodology, as many philosophers of science will tell you, deals with that SUBSET of reality that is amenable to scientific investigation. What you are doing is calling the SUBSET reality itself. Finally, the certitude of a statement is not tightly correlated to the scale you mention, either. Most people hold a number of statements (like "I exist") to be absolutely certain, though completely without support of objective, scientifically verifiable information. If you maintain that statements that simply don't have objective, scientifically verifiable information available, then the certainty of the statement will necessarily be limited as well, then this too you will find is not what cognitive scientists or philosophers will tell you. The problem, you see, is that you are trying to apply a simple rule to knowledge, perhaps to make things simpler for yourself. But I don't think it IS that simple, despite your best attempts to paint it that way. > You need to be careful that you don't view the subject of "knowledge" in a > bimodal fashion - either subjective or objective. Such things are analog, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Religious belief, being obviously highly subjective, reflects it poorly. > When making decisions, it is good to think about the quality of the data. "I dispute that too, because it presumes that pertaining to any given statement, this spectrum is fully available. Specifically, it presumes that for any given statement, there is in principle some way to gather objective, scientifically verifiable evidence pertaining to the statement. This is in fact not the case, as any cognitive psychologist will tell you." The statement will fall along the spectrum. Where, exactly, becomes less and less obvious as you move away from objective, toward subjective. In other words, it becomes less objective and more subjective. I also dispute your statement about the correlation between objectivity and reflection of reality. Again, what you consider reality is that set of statements (and ONLY such) that has objective, scientifically verifiable information available. That is, if it isn't subject to scientific methodology, then it isn't reality. That is also crap. Scientific methodology, as many philosophers of science will tell you, deals with that SUBSET of reality that is amenable to scientific investigation. What you are doing is calling the SUBSET reality itself. Strawmen again,. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. Finally, the certitude of a statement is not tightly correlated to the scale you mention, either. Most people hold a number of statements (like "I exist") to be absolutely certain, though completely without support of objective, scientifically verifiable information. If you maintain that statements that simply don't have objective, scientifically verifiable information available, then the certainty of the statement will necessarily be limited as well, then this too you will find is not what cognitive scientists or philosophers will tell you. The problem, you see, is that you are trying to apply a simple rule to knowledge, perhaps to make things simpler for yourself. But I don't think it IS that simple, despite your best attempts to paint it that way. >> On Jul 14, 8:30 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 137 lines] > think it IS that simple, despite your best attempts to paint it that > way. WHile you may THINK it is not that simply - that does not make it any less simple than it actually is. We live in this reality - and not any other that we KNOW of. So - any KNOWLEDGE we have is based on it being in OUR reality. WE have no knowledge of any other reality - so our knowledge cannot be PROVEN to be anything but all there is - ie not a subset of anything. Even if there are other realities - which cannot be proven - in order for that to be of any worth would require someone who can live in BOTH. If we have no contact with another reality - it is worthless to discuss what that reality is -= since we really have no ability to know anything about it - or IF it even could exist. So -= all the theoretical guesswork you supply aside - this - for OUR practical purposes - is the ONLY reality. And that is what the words in OUR languages are based on. And in reality - gods are not proven by anyone to exist. > >> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > WHile you may THINK it is not that simply - that does not make it any > less simple than it actually is. Nor does it make it as simple as YOU think it is. We appear to be at a stand-off. What now? > We live in this reality - and not any other that we KNOW of. So - any > KNOWLEDGE we have is based on it being in OUR reality. WE have no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And in reality - gods are not proven by anyone to exist. You do not have any proof of free will, either. Therefore, according to you, free will is not part of your reality. Therefore, there is no value to any of the choices you've made, because those were in fact not choices, nor are the choice of any of those you condemn. You do not have proof of anything that can be defined unambiguously and objectively as love, either. Therefore, according to you, love is not part of your reality. This, somehow, doesn't surprise me. You do not have proof of external reality, either. You have only impressions from your senses which by definition are indistinguishable from hallucination. Therefore, according to you, external reality is not part of your reality. My, this game of yours is fun. Have you ever played it to the edges? PD >>>> On Jul 14, 8:30 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote: >>>>> PD wrote: [quoted text clipped - 155 lines] > > You do not have any proof of free will, either. Wrong Actually - we ALL have free will - as do all other animals as well. It is part of being human. Therefore, according > to you, free will is not part of your reality. Wrong again! Actually - free will IS part of our reality (We both live in the same reality - no matter what YOU say). Therefore, there is no > value to any of the choices you've made, because those were in fact > not choices, nor are the choice of any of those you condemn. Sorry - but again you are attempting to apply a religious principle that has NO basis in provable fact- to a simple fact of life. WE all have free will - that is the way we are ALL born. And everything we do is OUR choice - and our choices have the value humans apply to them in the only reality that actually is proven to exist. We do not need permission from any deity to have free will - either. It remains no deities are proven to exist. > >>>> On Jul 14, 8:30 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote: > >>>>> PD wrote: [quoted text clipped - 159 lines] > > Actually - we ALL have free will - as do all other animals as well. Where's the PROOF? Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported assertions? > It is part of being human. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > read more » Snip more unsupported nonsense from PD >>>>> way. >>>> WHile you may THINK it is not that simply - that does not make it any [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > assertions? It is YOUR assertion was that we do not have free will - where is YOUR proof. YOU DON"T have any. THe proof that everyone has free will is in the court system and Jails all across the USA - proof that people are able to make the wrong choice - as well as in colleges and small businesses where people are able to choose their professions. The fact that we DO have free will is proven overwhelmingly. >> It is part of being human. >> >> Therefore, according >> >>> to you, free will is not part of your reality. Sorry = BUT THat is simply a LIE - I never said that one > Snip more unsupported nonsense from PD > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > It is YOUR assertion was that we do not have free will - where is YOUR > proof. YOU DON"T have any. Ah. So your assertions do not require proof but mine do. > THe proof that everyone has free will is in the court system and Jails > all across the USA - proof that people are able to make the wrong choice > - as well as in colleges and small businesses where people are able to > choose their professions. > > The fact that we DO have free will is proven overwhelmingly. And where does this free will reside? In the soul? What we have is a brain that works by electrochemical processes, as scientifically predictable as salt dissolving in water. It is fed by energy received through organic sensory organs, and from then, science tells you deterministically what is going to happen next, if you just follow all the chemical reactions. That is what the scientific evidence says. No where in any scientific evidence is there any proof of any free will or anything that could be responsible for free will. There may be the DELUSION of free will, and in fact, our chemical processes must deterministically drive us to also create courts and jails in support of this DELUSION of free will. But you do not believe in delusions, remember? Even mass delusions, like the ones that create court systems and jails and churches. You only believe in that for which you have scientific proof. Where is the scientific proof of free will? Astounding hypocrite. > >> It is part of being human. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sorry = BUT THat is simply a LIE - I never said that one > > > Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > > > assertions? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ah. So your assertions do not require proof but mine do. No - when I make an assertion - I back mine up YOU LIED when you said I asserted that we to not have free will - I never said that -it was YOU who did . > > THe proof that everyone has free will is in the court system and Jails > > all across the USA - proof that people are able to make the wrong choice [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And where does this free will reside? In the soul? Soul? Another word that has no provable meaning - making the rest of your statement meaningless. YOu are again trying to use a religious term that HAS NO REAL PROVABLE MEANING to make it look like I am saying something I am not. I dismiss the statement and the rest as unsupported religious babble WHen you can PROVE what a "soul" is - by all means get back to me - otherwise - it is again an unsupported statement by a theist. There are no proven gods - and the rest of the stories of religion have no provable basis in fact as well. > > > > Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > > > > assertions? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No - when I make an assertion - I back mine up With what? Delusions? > YOU LIED when you said I asserted that we to not have free will - I > never said that -it was YOU who did . You do not have objective proof of free will. You have evidence of people who *believe* in free will. These are the people who have assembled courts and jails. But this is no better than having evidence of people who believe in God. These are the people who build churches. So you were saying something about backing up what you say... > > > THe proof that everyone has free will is in the court system and Jails > > > all across the USA - proof that people are able to make the wrong choice [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > There are no proven gods - and the rest of the stories of religion > have no provable basis in fact as well. You haven't given any proof of free will. Until you do, I see no reason why I should believe in free will. >>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported >>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > assembled courts and jails. But this is no better than having evidence > of people who believe in God. These are the people who build churches. Again - it is YOUR assertion to prove - you lied about what I said > So you were saying something about backing up what you say... > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You haven't given any proof of free will. Until you do, I see no > reason why I should believe in free will. Again - YOU lied when you said that I said that there was no free will - I never said it - that was YOU saying that And since that was YOUR assertion - it is yours to prove. > >>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > >>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Again - it is YOUR assertion to prove - you lied about what I said Dodging? You expect others to prove things, but you don't have to? > > So you were saying something about backing up what you say... > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Again - YOU lied when you said that I said that there was no free will - > I never said it - that was YOU saying that I said you had no proof there was free will. Read again what I said. > And since that was YOUR assertion - it is yours to prove. >>>>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported >>>>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > I said you had no proof there was free will. Read again what I said. No - I can quote you right from above - read your own statement YOU SAID "It is YOUR assertion was that we do not have free will - where is YOUR proof. YOU DON"T have any." Neither I nor my son said that. THat was YOUR assertion - prove it yourself. I can tell you it is a LIE - out and out lie. > >>>>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > >>>>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > THat was YOUR assertion - prove it yourself. I can tell you it is a LIE > - out and out lie. You or your son asserted that you believe free will exists, and that it is proven to do so. You have not provided any proof whatsoever that free will exists. Why you would believe in something you have no proof of is beyond me. PD > > >>>>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > > >>>>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > You or your son asserted that you believe free will exists, and that > it is proven to do so. No - YOU brought up the subject - and we are NOT caught in your web of lies. The fact is - you can make out a will - for free -without the need for a lawyer. The concept of "free will" as described by religion is a unproven nonsense - and is therefore dismissed. > > > >>>>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > > > >>>>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > The fact is - you can make out a will - for free -without the need for > a lawyer. Oh, good lord, is this what you think "free will" means? Both you and your son are morons. Thanks very much, good of you to represent. > The concept of "free will" as described by religion is a unproven > nonsense - and is therefore dismissed. >>>>>>>>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported >>>>>>>>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Oh, good lord, is this what you think "free will" means? Both you and > your son are morons. Thanks very much, good of you to represent. SOrry - but calling names still only identifies back to YOU. We have repeatedly said that the religious concept of free will is NONSENSE - that has no provability in fact or truth. (See both above and below in the thread for PROOF of that) NOW YOU agree with US on that issue COngratulations on debunking that myth of religion! >> The concept of "free will" as described by religion is a unproven >> nonsense - and is therefore dismissed. >>>>>>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported >>>>>>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > PD Actually - YOU are wrong again = read the above I said " YOu are again trying to use a religious term that HAS NO REAL PROVABLE MEANING to make it look like I am saying something I am not. I dismiss the statement and the rest as unsupported religious babble" My son said "There are no proven gods - and the rest of the stories of religion have no provable basis in fact as well." BOTH statements are RIGHT above in the thread - so you cannot say they were not there. However - although we never said either way that free will does or does not exist - My son did ask you "Why don't you wear pink underwear" (You snipped it) - I note no answer from YOU. Afraid to admit you have a choice? > > >>>>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > > >>>>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > PD No - we did not - we BOTH said that the religious concept of "Free will" is nonsense. Look above My father said - "You are again trying to use a religious term that HAS NO REAL PROVABLE MEANING to make it look like I am saying something I am not." I said "There are no proven gods - and the rest of the stories of religion have no provable basis in fact as well." The fact is - the religious assertion of free will was NOT true to begin with - since Free would have implied a choice with similar outcomes. No choice is given in religion - however. The actual statement if religion was - DO as I say - or I will punish you completely and eternally - that is NOT FREE WILL - that is COERCION. (give me the money or I will kill you is NOT free choice). So -we both completely agree with YOU that the religious "free will" is NONSENSE - now what else about your religion would you like to admit is wrong? >>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported >>>>> assertions? >>>> It is YOUR assertion was that we do not have free will - NO - I never made that assertion. And since I did not - I need not prove it. > You haven't given any proof of free will. Until you do, I see no > reason why I should believe in free will. You are again placing importance on a subject that you are claiming a religion source. In your mind - humans do not have free will unless it is granted by a higher power. However - to date - NO higher power has been proven to exist. YOu certainly have failed to prove any exists. And since - there is no proven higher power - there is nothing to inhibit the "free will" of humans. IF you prefer to believe that you are on a short leash and are unable to make your own decisions - because of a unproven deity - so be it. However - when YOU commit a crime - that will NOT be a defense except as being insane! However - before you attempt to answer - remember back to what YOU chose to eat today - wear today - and what to do today = and most every other day you live. That you are able to make such choices indicates YOU have the power to do so. - ANd everyone else has that power - whether they believe in gods or not - making it clear that religion is not the source of that ability to choose! >>>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported >>>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And since I did not - I need not prove it. It's a standard theist tactic. They replace what you say with a strawman opposite of what they said and demand you prove it. > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:59:10 -0400, Thommadura > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's a standard theist tactic. They replace what you say with a > strawman opposite of what they said and demand you prove it. Well, since he is demanding proof of something because he considers it a standard process for believing something, then I'm asking him for proof of something else he does believe in. It's an exercise in testing for hypocrisy, you see. PD > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:59:10 -0400, Thommadura > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's a standard theist tactic. They replace what you say with a > strawman opposite of what they said and demand you prove it. Instead of worrying so much about argument tactics, why not answer the question? Do you believe in free will? If you do, then where is the objective, scientifically supportable evidence for free will? I presume that you would require such, since you have stated that you need such evidence to hold that something exists. PD Life is just a party; all the same, most prefer to imagine that there's more to it than that. Case in point, I write code for myself because it's fun; like playing cards, it's meaningless to all but me ( or nearly so ). Evolution is the closest thing to a “God” I know ―― because it created me ―― and it will destroy me. The “big bang” created evolution. The Big Bang is just the cosmos its consuming fuel, creating “life”. No matter hows much the cosmos consumes, there's always something left ―― life goes on, in another form. Again, most prefer to imagine “God” is kinder than that... more concerned with our welfare. Nothing could ever be acausal. SemiRandomness is SemiMeasurement, nothing more. True choices don't exist, all choices are virtual. Some “chose” to live life faster, especially the poorest among us; the rest “chose” to live longer, e.g. the coddled rich. In truth, such “decisions” are forced on us. No matter, most prefer to imagine we have freedoms. Grasping for hope, we build casinos, churches, goverments, etc. > >>>>> Is what you call proof nothing but a string of your own unsupported > >>>>> assertions? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > religion source. In your mind - humans do not have free will unless it > is granted by a higher power. I said no such thing. There either is free will or there isn't. You've stated you believe there is free will, which is a statement about objective existence. And yet you believe this without any proof. This seems to me to be extraordinarily hypocritical. > However - to date - NO higher power has been proven to exist. YOu > certainly have failed to prove any exists. And you've failed to prove that free will exists. And yet you believe in it. > And since - there is no proven higher power - there is nothing to > inhibit the "free will" of humans. Inhibit what? You mean that anything that isn't inhibited is proven to exist? What inhibits little pink fairies from existing, and if there isn't anything that inhibits it, does that prove they exist? Certainly there are people who believe in little pink fairies. > IF you prefer to believe that you are on a short leash and are unable to > make your own decisions - because of a unproven deity - so be it. > However - when YOU commit a crime - that will NOT be a defense except as > being insane! You mean because there is a mass delusion that there is free will, and there are a whole bunch of people that have built institutions like courts and jails, all built on that delusion? > However - before you attempt to answer - remember back to what YOU chose > to eat today - wear today - and what to do today = and most every other > day you live. That you are able to make such choices indicates YOU have > the power to do so. - ANd everyone else has that power - whether they > believe in gods or not - making it clear that religion is not the source > of that ability to choose! PD wrote:>> have no provable basis in fact as well. > You haven't given any proof of free will. Until you do, I see no > reason why I should believe in free will. Answer this question then Why don't YOU wear PINK underwear? > PD wrote:>> have no provable basis in fact as well. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why don't YOU wear PINK underwear? Gee, I dunno. Maybe because I'm constrained by rigorous, deterministic, electrochemical processes for which I have ample scientific evidence. That seems MUCH more plausible than free will for which I have no proof at all. Why do YOU not wear PINK underwear, you goofball? PD > Where is the scientific proof of free will? There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim there are. > > Where is the scientific proof of free will? > > There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim > there are. I agree with that statement. However, some posters here (ThomM, e.g.) would claim that science has in fact proven a lot. There are others, though, that say that it is sufficient to show a certain amount of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. For those, I ask: where is the objective, scientifically verifiable evidence for free will? And if there is none, then why should anyone believe in it? (This is the test that is put forward regarding God, and so I feel free to ask the same test be applied to other matters, like free will.) ThomM cites the fact that there are lots of people who believe in free will and have created whole social structures around free will, including courts and jails, and this is sufficient proof (for him) of free will. But this is really no different than the fact that there are lots of people who believe in God and have created whole social structures around God, including churches and schools. So it seems like there are things that people like ThomM are willing to believe in and other things they are not willing to believe in, but the rationale for doing either is capriciously and randomly applied. Hmmmm.... PD >>> Where is the scientific proof of free will? >> There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim >> there are. > > I agree with that statement. However, some posters here (ThomM, e.g.) > would claim that science has in fact proven a lot. Ahhh, then don't let them bait you into using their fallacy. > There are others, though, that say that it is sufficient to show a > certain amount of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. For > those, I ask: where is the objective, scientifically verifiable > evidence for free will? And if there is none, then why should anyone > believe in it? And where is the scientific evidence that we don't have free will? I have seen no cites from either side of this debate, and if there was, I am sorry as I came along later and this just looks like a man fight without meaningful precedence. As I don't see, from my personal perspective, anything but proxy evidence, I don't see how the question can be 'definitively' answered. To say 'we' don't have free will would require the premise that the brain, (self), is purely derived through classical mechanics. Now, that may be true, but to date, it is not 'true'. We don't know the 'why' of some of our simplest observations. So I don't know how we can leap to knowing the scientific 'why' of sentience. You would have to admit you 'believe' we don't have free will. And that it also requires belief to say we do. Best, Dan. > >>> Where is the scientific proof of free will? > >> There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ahhh, then don't let them bait you into using their fallacy. Why not? My point is not to convince them of anything. My point is to show that they don't know WHAT they think, because they don't even use the rules they claim to use. > > There are others, though, that say that it is sufficient to show a > > certain amount of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. For [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And where is the scientific evidence that we don't have free will? Where is the scientific evidence there is no God? > I > have seen no cites from either side of this debate, and if there was, I > am sorry as I came along later and this just looks like a man fight > without meaningful precedence. It's illustrative that people believe certain things and not other things, but not for the reasons they CLAIM to have. > As I don't see, from my personal perspective, anything but proxy > evidence, I don't see how the question can be 'definitively' answered. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Best, Dan. That's precisely right. There are certain things that people believe without evidence one way or the other, and in many cases with a strong certitude. There are some in this long thread (now approaching 1000 posts) who maintain that without evidence there should be no belief. And this is claimed to be rational justification for not believing in God, which I suppose is fine. However, the same justification does not seem to apply to other claims, such as the belief in free will, and so the rationale is immediately called into question as a red herring and a dodge. PD In article <0e998d12-72e4-49bd-b6e1-c27eb9346211@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > Where is the scientific evidence there is no God? In the same place as the scientific evidence that there are any. So that by Ockham's principle, the wise do not presume any gods. SignatureVirgil > In article > <0e998d12-72e4-49bd-b6e1-c27eb9346...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So that by Ockham's principle, the wise do not presume any gods. Nor then should one presume the existence of free will. And therefore the *choice* to believe or not believe in God is an illusion. > -- > Virgil On Jul 24, 2:00 pm, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > In article > <0e998d12-72e4-49bd-b6e1-c27eb9346...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So that by Ockham's principle, the wise do not presume any gods. Nor then should one presume the existence of free will. And therefore the *choice* to believe or not believe in God is an illusion. Is there a "choice" in the belief in Leprechauns too? > On Jul 24, 2:00 pm, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Is there a "choice" in the belief in Leprechauns too? Apparently not. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will or choice. >> On Jul 24, 2:00 pm, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Apparently not. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will > or choice. Indeed - therefore invalidating religions - which is based on that claim! > >> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Indeed Ah, ok, so you say now that there is no evidence for free will or choice. And by your declared metric, that for which there is no evidence should not be believed. Therefore, you do not believe in free will or choice, lest you be a hypocrite. Therefore, it immediately follows that you made no intelligent choice in evaluating whether or not to believe in God, as intelligent choice is an illusion in the first place. Your status as a nonbeliever in God is as determined as the color of your eyes and the number of toes on your feet. Likewise, it follows that those that DO believe in God do so not by virtue of choice or free will (since those are imaginary), but because they are causally determined to do so, just like the natural color of their hair or the shape of their ears. Therefore, to have a dispute with someone who DOES believe in God is like holding a dispute with someone with blue eyes because you have brown eyes, or having a dispute with someone with dark skin because you have light skin. Seems like a pretty foolish venture, if you follow your position to its natural and logical consequences. PD > - therefore invalidating religions - which is based on that claim! > > >> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Therefore, it immediately follows that you made no intelligent choice > in evaluating whether or not to believe in God First let me establish that this is Thom speaking (Not my son) Sorry - but YOUR statement is again dismissed as nonsense -there are no proven gods to believe in. THe choice was made based on the complete lack of testable and verifiable proof of the existence of any gods - PLUS the actual actions of religions and their representatives over the millenia - Plus the obvious contradiction and errors of the so called scripture of those religions. OVer thousands of years - billions of theists - using the very best methods possible - with almost unlimited funding - have failed to produce even ONE single piece of testable and verifiable proof of the existence of a god. And intelligent person looks for facts and truth. WHen you consider the Millions of gods - and hundreds of thousands of religions - and millions of different beliefs -= ALL thiests dismiss most of them for no PROVABLE reason - which YOU do also. I find no PROVABLE reason to separate any of them from the rest. Theists have established that ALL religions and all gods are false Christians have also established that ALL christian denominations are somehow false as well. According to the Leader of the largest christian denomination - who when speaking in an encyclical is supposedly speaking directly from his god and is infallible - Pope Pius IX in an encyclical in 1854 said this: "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood." Yet - YOU will argue that point - and YOU certainly do not have the credentials of the leader of the largest christian sect. That there are over 38,000 different christian sects alone - proves that something is WRONG about the belief - or there would be ONLY ONE. The scripture of one religion will contradict itself constantly - as well as contradicting lots of other religions. THere were supposedly four eye witness accounts of the death of the christ in the bible - and all include his supposed last words - and none of them agree on them. The Koran not only states that the christ was not a god - was not the son of a god - and did not die on a cross (Mentioned by NAME) - but it also establishes WHY the bible is no longer worthwhile. There have been (claimed) hundreds of different creations of the universe by different gods - none of which have all the facts straight - yes - NONE OF THEM. An intelligent person would look at the claims of creation - like the flat earth that is stationary in the sky - built on pillars - around which the entire universe revolves - and has four corners that can be seen from high places - and instantly realize (Knowing that this is ALL proven wrong)that this is ancient MYTH - of superstitious goat herders and cave dwellers and fishermen - who were too afraid to fall off the ends of the earth. WHY can't YOU see that one? I could go on with the nonsense of religion that has been claimed - and is NOT true. I could point out the atrocities that religion has fomented over the milenia. I could point out the lies they have made. I could point out the molestation of women and children by religion - not just now by priests and ministers - but by religion over the millenia. I could also point out that obvious problem with religions discrimination of women - their support of slavery- and fill in several pages. But I do not have to. So - as an intelligent person - I asked a simple question - PRovide a list of ALL of the things you can PROVE about a god - what a god is - and what a god has said. And theists have come up with lots of lame excuses - and all sorts of theoretical claims of other dimensions and the like (Also unproven) - but - to date - NO theist has yet added a single thing to the list that they can prove. It would take are really deluded nutcase to ignore all of that and still believe On Jul 24, 8:46 pm, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Jul 24, 2:59 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Indeed "Ah, ok, so you say now that there is no evidence for free will or choice. And by your declared metric, that for which there is no evidence should not be believed. Therefore, you do not believe in free will or choice, lest you be a hypocrite. Therefore, it immediately follows that you made no intelligent choice in evaluating whether or not to believe in God, as intelligent choice is an illusion in the first place. " Oh nonsense. Your use of "free will" is a theological construct that should be ignored. You claim I have not made an intelligent choice of belief. That is simply nonsense - it is YOU have have failed to do that. YOu act as if there are only two possibilities - non-belief - or your personal belief - however - there are MILLIONS of possibilities - and YOU have failed to consider them all. YOu have not even considered that there are 39,000 different christian sects - -all of which have slightly different beliefs (Including that the christ was NOT the son of god - but he was the god alone) However - since there are that many possibilities - an intelligent person would initially look at the claims of those religions - and eliminate the religions who claims are already proven not to be true. EVEN if we ignore the 100,000 different stories of creation from ancient religions - ALL of which have factual errors that would eliminate them - let us look to other examples. I will start with the story of the great flood. It never happened - period. Such an event would have created the largest mass extinction of life in the history of the world - and the remains of the incredible number of plants and animals that would have died in such a flood would be hard to miss around the world - if it had happened. However - no such "layer" exists in the fossil record. Let us look further though. THe description of the flood would have required water cover the entire earth to a depth of about 30,000 feet above sea level. Besides the FACT that there is not enough water on earth to do that - let us look at what should have happened it if did. 1 - EVERY structure of man would have been completely destroyed by the water pressure - yes - ALL of them. YET - we have Egyptian structures of that time - some that were built during that time - as well as chinese structures that were UNTOUCHED by flood waters. 2 - EVERY plant and animal not on the ark would have been destroyed. Even after the waters receded (To where?) there would not have been an olive branch left for a bird to see. 3 - ALL of the water of the earth would have mixed - creating a salty brine that would have completely wiped out all plant life (again - creating a layer that does not exist)- and ALSO - destroying the possibilty of the earth developing new life since the ground would have been contaminated with salt after a year. 4 - THere would have been no fresh water for animal life that required it. THe ark itself is called into question. The dimensions of the ark are not sufficient to contain ALL of the animals possible. Remebering that the majority of animal life cannot be seen by the naked eye - there appears no way for them to keep that life on the ark. No fish were in the ark - however - that would mean that ALL fresh water fish should have become completely extinct - and that did not happen either. TODAY - using hundreds of planes and boats - we could not assemble two of every animal on earth in one year - much less having a couple of people do it without those planes. The story - for an intelligent person - is a myth - period. *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill- filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day. > You claim I have not made an intelligent choice of belief. > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > The story - for an intelligent person - is a myth - period. > >> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Indeed - therefore invalidating religions - which is based on that claim! Ah, so you agree that there is no evidence for free will or choice. And by your own declaration, there is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Therefore, to stay consistent with your principles, you must not believe in free will or choice. Therefore, your nonbelief in God was not the result of your free will or choice (since those are questionable), but is instead the result of deterministic processes that constrained you to have that position, much as it constrains the color of your eyes or the number of your toes. Therefore as well, those that DO believe in God have that position not because of free will or choice, but as the result of deterministic processes that have constrained them to have that position, just like the color of their skin and the number of their teeth. And so please tell me the value of condemning someone for a position that is simply determined by forces outside of free will and choice, and which happens to be different than your position which is similarly determined? Do you condemn someone for being right-handed if you are left-handed? Do you condemn blue-eyed people if you are brown- eyed? PD >>>> On Jul 24, 2:00 pm, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> In article [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Therefore, to stay consistent with your principles, you must not > believe in free will or choice. SOrry - I never said I do not believe in free will or free choice - ] I said that the religious concept of free choice is nonsense - and I said that one clearly. AND YOU are again putting words into my mouth that are not true THerefore - the rest of your statements are garbage > Therefore, your nonbelief in God was not the result of your free will > or choice (since those are questionable), but is instead the result of > deterministic processes that constrained you to have that position, > much as it constrains the color of your eyes or the number of your > toes. And there you go again. How does 'A' presume to 'prove' 'B'? You really need to address this if you intend to continue this claim and be credible. Or, you can continue to claim with obviously flawed logic. Consider. I can build, from a blueprint, (analogous of DNA being a blueprint), a QRNG. This device is constructed with purely classical physics. But when observations are made with this device, i.e. its dynamic form, it produces completely unpredictable results. Yet you would extend a classical bases for what sentience is to a dynamic that includes the ability to learn and learning. Is language in my genes? I'm I predisposed to learn many different languages so all those languages are in some initial blueprint at my birth? That includes DNA for radically different language structures like Navajo. Is the QRNG an exception to the rule that the universe and all that is in it, (including sentient beings), is completely deterministic? Best, Dan. >> Therefore, your nonbelief in God was not the result of your free will >> or choice (since those are questionable), but is instead the result of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Best, Dan. There is an additional problem with his logic (Besides the FACT that I never said I do not believe in free will - only the nonsense free will of religion - which is coercion - not free will) Since he is the one who is denying the existence of free will - because he sees no proof of it - then HIS belief in gods - is not the result of a free choice either - and is therefore rendered moot as well. So - if he continues to say that free will does not exist - then he cannot claim that his decisions are proper either. >>>> On Jul 24, 2:00 pm, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> In article [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > much as it constrains the color of your eyes or the number of your > toes. Ah - but it is YOU who claim that free will does not exist (Quoiting YOU - "There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will >>> or choice.")- because YOU see no proof of it- and THAT invalidates YOUR position completely - based on your logic. So - that not only invalidates religions - but also YOUR choice of gods as well. So - to stay consistent with your principles - you would need to admit that you have free choice - something you apparently are unwilling to admit. SMILE! On Jul 24, 2:59 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Is there a "choice" in the belief in Leprechauns too? "Apparently not. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will or choice." Freewill is a theological construct, I don't bother with such things. On Jul 24, 2:59 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Is there a "choice" in the belief in Leprechauns too? "Apparently not. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of free will or choice." Not from any theological use of the terms. . . >>>>> Where is the scientific proof of free will? >>>> There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim >>>> there are. >>> I agree with that statement. However, some posters here (ThomM, e.g.) >>> would claim that science has in fact proven a lot. >> Ahhh, then don't let them bait you into using their fallacy. > > Why not? My point is not to convince them of anything. My point is to > show that they don't know WHAT they think, because they don't even use > the rules they claim to use. Well, if you think using these 'not' rules yourself makes the point... >>> There are others, though, that say that it is sufficient to show a >>> certain amount of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. For >>> those, I ask: where is the objective, scientifically verifiable >>> evidence for free will? And if there is none, then why should anyone >>> believe in it? >> And where is the scientific evidence that we don't have free will? > > Where is the scientific evidence there is no God? I'm not sure if you are missing my point or making my point. >> I >> have seen no cites from either side of this debate, and if there was, I [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > certitude. There are some in this long thread (now approaching 1000 > posts) who maintain that without evidence there should be no belief. Well, that is just silly. We, as humans, make interpretive observations. Every thing we 'know' is based on belief. Is there a priori? Like, "I think, therefor I am.". But we can't definitively define 'I' so what are the turtles standing on? I'd guess 'I' is what we believe it is... > And this is claimed to be rational justification for not believing in > God, which I suppose is fine. However, the same justification does not > seem to apply to other claims, such as the belief in free will, and so > the rationale is immediately called into question as a red herring and > a dodge. Well I'm not sure how you can lump god and free will into the same conclusion so loosely. If I have a red fruit in my pocket, is it an apple? i.e., you can claim that there is no god so therefor there is no free will, but it doesn't hold up. What I meant by proxy evidence... You have not even shown your premise, 'there is no god', to be a truth. Best, Dan. > PD > >>>>> Where is the scientific proof of free will? > >>>> There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I'm not sure if you are missing my point or making my point. I think we're actually pretty close to being on the same page. However, as you say, you came into a conversation late where others hold a different position... > >> I > >> have seen no cites from either side of this debate, and if there was, I [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Well, that is just silly. We, as humans, make interpretive observations. > Every thing we 'know' is based on belief. Aha! And this, too, I agree with. > Is there a priori? Like, "I > think, therefor I am.". But we can't definitively define 'I' so what are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well I'm not sure how you can lump god and free will into the same > conclusion so loosely. If I have a red fruit in my pocket, is it an apple? It's not the conclusion so much as the claimed methodology used to arrive at the conclusion. There are some in the group who *claim* that knowledge is arrived at only through objective, scientifically verifiable evidence or axiomatic proof. And that anything that falls short of that is belief, not knowledge. And furthermore, there are some who *claim* to not believe anything that they do not know (strong version), or see no reason at all to believe in something without knowing it (weak version). And there are, among these who claim to have exercised their free will to *choose* to not believe in God, using the above as a rationale. And so I ask the question, what on earth leads you to believe there IS free will? There is no objective, scientifically verifiable evidence for it. And then of course, if free will turns out not to be something they believe in after all, then what's the dispute over what different people believe, since there is no choice in the matter in any event? PD > i.e., you can claim that there is no god so therefor there is no free > will, but it doesn't hold up. What I meant by proxy evidence... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > PD >> Well I'm not sure how you can lump god and free will into the same >> conclusion so loosely. If I have a red fruit in my pocket, is it an apple? > > It's not the conclusion so much as the claimed methodology used to > arrive at the conclusion. If the universe were so kind... We don't know how the photon chooses a place to manifest or what gravity is. Yet we can assume to make blanket deductions, with yet substantiated premises, on the nature of awareness? My point, a little clearer: We choose premises that support our conclusions about reality to suit our beliefs. > There are some in the group who *claim* that knowledge is arrived at > only through objective, scientifically verifiable evidence or > axiomatic proof. And that anything that falls short of that is belief, > not knowledge. And I would take that farther. We are 'subjective' observers. > And furthermore, there are some who *claim* to not > believe anything that they do not know (strong version), or see no > reason at all to believe in something without knowing it (weak > version). The strong camp wins because they have not narrowed their ability to learn. > And there are, among these who claim to have exercised their free will > to *choose* to not believe in God, using the above as a rationale. And > so I ask the question, what on earth leads you to believe there IS > free will? There is no objective, scientifically verifiable evidence > for it. And again, what is the evidence that there is no free will? > And then of course, if free will turns out not to be something they > believe in after all, then what's the dispute over what different > people believe, since there is no choice in the matter in any event? That must be a rhetorical question. Best, Dan. >>> Well I'm not sure how you can lump god and free will into the same >>> conclusion so loosely. If I have a red fruit in my pocket, is it an apple? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >My point, a little clearer: We choose premises that support our >conclusions about reality to suit our beliefs. Speak for yourself, and don't project your own deficiencies on to everybody else. >> My point, a little clearer: We choose premises that support our >> conclusions about reality to suit our beliefs. > > Speak for yourself, and don't project your own deficiencies on to > everybody else. You must be special... So, when did you 'believe' you got your netcop badge? >>> My point, a little clearer: We choose premises that support our >>> conclusions about reality to suit our beliefs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You must be special... You must be a liar. >So, when did you 'believe' you got your netcop badge? Like I said. >>>> My point, a little clearer: We choose premises that support our >>>> conclusions about reality to suit our beliefs. >>> Speak for yourself, and don't project your own deficiencies on to >>> everybody else. >> You must be special... > > You must be a liar. Believe what you would like. Bye, bye.... >>>>> My point, a little clearer: We choose premises that support our >>>>> conclusions about reality to suit our beliefs. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Bye, bye.... Was it some other DanB who said "We choose premises that support our conclusions about reality to suit our beliefs"? Hint: WE don't. You might do. But don't say WE do. Because WE don't even if you do. And when this is pointed out, don't lie aboout netcops. Like I said, speak for yourself and don't project your own deficiencies on everybody else. >>>>>>> Where is the scientific proof of free will? >>>>>> There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > free will? There is no objective, scientifically verifiable evidence > for it. Just like gods - you need to provide a definition of what you are talking about when you say "free will" WE have already established that the religious version of that definition is nonsense. DO as I say - or you will be eternally punished is NOT a choice - nor is it free. However - if you choose to define "free will" as the right to make choices - then YOU do have the ability to make choices - and that ability EXISTS without question. >>> Where is the scientific proof of free will? >> There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ThomM cites the fact that there are lots of people who believe in free > will and have created whole social structures around free will, WHich is TRUE - since YOUR religion is based on that concept And that YOU do not believe it that concept is indeed a step in the right direction Welcome to the side of reality My son and I have steadfastly said that the "religious free will" - is a bunch of nonsense - and NOW you obviously agree. On Jul 24, 11:52 am, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote: > PD wrote: > > > Where is the scientific proof of free will? > > There are no 'proofs' in science. It is so much religious dogma to claim > there are. "I agree with that statement. However, some posters here (ThomM, e.g.) would claim that science has in fact proven a lot. There are others, though, that say that it is sufficient to show a certain amount of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. For those, I ask: where is the objective, scientifically verifiable evidence for free will? And if there is none, then why should anyone believe in it? " Why believe in a theological load of crap? > On Jul 24, 11:52 am, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Why believe in a theological load of crap? Why believe in free will then? And if you do NOT believe in free will, then your *choice* to not believe a load of theological crap is an illusion in itself. You are biologically constrained to not believe, and you would have to concede that those who DO believe are biologically also constrained. And consequently, there is no more distinction between your position and those of believers than there is between blue-eyed and brown-eyed people. PD On Jul 24, 2:01 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Why believe in a theological load of crap? Why believe in free will then? And if you do NOT believe in free will, then your *choice* to not believe a load of theological crap is an illusion in itself. You are biologically constrained to not believe, and you would have to concede that those who DO believe are biologically also constrained. And consequently, there is no more distinction between your position and those of believers than there is between blue-eyed and brown-eyed people. Same for Leprechauns? > On Jul 24, 2:01 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Same for Leprechauns? Of course. If there is someone that believes in leprechauns, then because there is no evidence for the existence of free will, then it must be that they are deterministically constrained to believe in leprechauns, the same way they are deterministically constrained to have ten fingers. PD On Jul 24, 3:00 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Same for Leprechauns? "Of course. If there is someone that believes in leprechauns, then because there is no evidence for the existence of free will, then it must be that they are deterministically constrained to believe in leprechauns, the same way they are deterministically constrained to have ten fingers." It is good that you are capable of seeing leprechauns in the same light as deities. PD >> On Jul 12, 5:20 pm, ThomM <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > He keeps conveying some obligation on my part for proof. What > obligation? IT is the responsibility of the claimant to prove his statement is true YOU have no obligation to prove what you say - but without proof - we can simply dismiss it as unproven - without opinion otherwise. We do make the opposing claim against your statement - we simply dismiss your statement as being without merit based on the proof you provide - which you admit is NONE. > >> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > IT is the responsibility of the claimant to prove his statement is true No, it isn't. You haven't proven that what you assert is true, either. You simply repeat yourself. There are some subjects for which proof is simply not an option, because statements in that area are not provable. Hence it makes absolutely no sense to require a proof of a statement that cannot be proven. You may recall that there is a mathematical proof that not all statements in an axiomatic system can be proven. What then is the point of demanding a proof? > YOU have no obligation to prove what you say - but without proof - we > can simply dismiss it as unproven - without opinion otherwise. That's fine. I have no concern what you dismiss or don't dismiss. You seem to think that I do. > We do make the opposing claim against your statement - we simply dismiss > your statement as being without merit based on the proof you provide - That's fine. That's due to your choice of requiring proof. > which you admit is NONE. Yes, several times. You seem to enjoy pounding nails that are already all the way in. I've never said otherwise. If you want to pound that point in with somebody that disagrees with you, you may find that more satisfyingly confrontational. PD On Jul 13, 1:02 pm, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Jul 13, 8:53 am, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > IT is the responsibility of the claimant to prove his statement is true No, it isn't. You haven't proven that what you assert is true, either. You simply repeat yourself. There are some subjects for which proof is simply not an option, because statements in that area are not provable. Hence it makes absolutely no sense to require a proof of a statement that cannot be proven. You may recall that there is a mathematical proof that not all statements in an axiomatic system can be proven. What then is the point of demanding a proof? > YOU have no obligation to prove what you say - but without proof - we > can simply dismiss it as unproven - without opinion otherwise. That's fine. I have no concern what you dismiss or don't dismiss. You seem to think that I do. > We do make the opposing claim against your statement - we simply dismiss > your statement as being without merit based on the proof you provide - That's fine. That's due to your choice of requiring proof. > which you admit is NONE. "Yes, several times. You seem to enjoy pounding nails that are already all the way in. I've never said otherwise. If you want to pound that point in with somebody that disagrees with you, you may find that more satisfyingly confrontational." I have said this before. For the moment, I do not ask for "proof" of the existence of deities. all I ask for, and never get, is mere evidence that they might exist. What do you have? > On Jul 13, 1:02 pm, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > existence of deities. all I ask for, and never get, is mere evidence that > they might exist. What do you have? And that's you. The other poster demands proof. You demand objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. Either way, you're both demanding a particular form of response from theists that may not at all drive their knowledge. Perhaps you should ask theists why THEY believe, not ask for information that YOU would believe. >> On Jul 13, 1:02 pm, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > ask theists why THEY believe, not ask for information that YOU would > believe. Why they believe something that they cannot establish as truth is immaterial to the discussion - as would asking why someone believes in Leprechuans. > >> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > immaterial to the discussion - as would asking why someone believes in > Leprechuans. Why is it immaterial to a discussion if someone has reasons for doing things that you would not accept as a reason? >> On Jul 13, 1:02 pm, Thommadura <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > And that's you. The other poster demands proof. You demand objective, > scientifically verifiable evidence. That is the only thing that could make me believe in any god. Your assertions, without evidence, are meaningless. > Either way, you're both demanding a particular form of response from > theists that may not at all drive their knowledge. Please stop confusing belief with knowledge. Knowledge is provable, belief isn't. > Perhaps you should > ask theists why THEY believe, not ask for information that YOU would > believe. We know full well why people believe. It's due to indoctrination from an early age. Have you ever wondered why people who've not been indoctrinated rarely become religious? SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. > >> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > That is the only thing that could make me believe in any god. > Your assertions, without evidence, are meaningless. I understand that. So you will be unsatisfied, by virtue of that constraint. That's your call. I have no interest in making you believe anything. I don't care if you don't believe in quantum mechanics, either. Lots of people don't. > > Either way, you're both demanding a particular form of response from > > theists that may not at all drive their knowledge. > > Please stop confusing belief with knowledge. > Knowledge is provable, belief isn't. I'm not confused. You've made the personal choice that your knowledge- gathering methods are constrained so that only that which is provable should be accepted as knowledge. Others do not. And cognitive psychologists and philosophers have published extensive works that show why this is the case, your simple rule of choice notwithstanding. I understand your simple rule works for you. It is not sufficient for me, or for many, many others. There is no reason why others should adopt your rule. > > Perhaps you should > > ask theists why THEY believe, not ask for information that YOU would > > believe. > > We know full well why people believe. It's due to indoctrination from an > early age. Well, that's obviously something you've decided without gathering any information from theists, isn't it? This coming to a conclusion without proper gathering of complete evidence -- is this consistent with your claimed careful scientific methodology? > Have you ever wondered why people who've not been indoctrinated rarely > become religious? Why, have you ever wondered how churches spring up in wide geographic regions where religion has been suppressed for generations? > -- > Smiler, > The godless one > a.a.# 2279 > All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor > made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8299cc95-146e-4e43-ac25-> I have said this before. For the moment, I do not ask for "proof" of the > existence of deities. all I ask for, and never get, is mere evidence that > they might exist. What do you have? And that's you. The other poster demands proof. You demand objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. Either way, you're both demanding a particular form of response from theists that may not at all drive their knowledge. Perhaps you should ask theists why THEY believe, not ask for information that YOU would believe. OK, not a problem. Why do theists seem to believe in deities? On Jul 13, 2:18 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > existence of deities. all I ask for, and never get, is mere evidence that > they might exist. What do you have? "And that's you. The other poster demands proof. You demand objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. Either way, you're both demanding a particular form of response from theists that may not at all drive their knowledge. Perhaps you should ask theists why THEY believe, not ask for information that YOU would believe." OK, give me the reasons why theists believe in the nonsense that the seem to do. > On Jul 13, 2:18 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > OK, give me the reasons why theists believe in the nonsense that the seem to > do. :) Because I have solid, subjectively-obtained evidence. And because I have placed trust in the accounts of those you do not place trust in, whereas I have less trust in the accounts of those you do place trust in. PD On Jul 24, 2:02 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > to > do. :) "Because I have solid, subjectively-obtained evidence." Great! So do I! What do you have? > On Jul 24, 2:02 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > > Great! So do I! What do you have? I just told you! On Jul 24, 3:07 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > > Great! So do I! What do you have? "I just told you!" Funny, I missed it. Please try again. >> On Jul 13, 2:18 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > Because I have solid, subjectively-obtained evidence. Ah - but subjective evidence is not evidence Evidence and proof remain something that would be equal to all - regardless of their beliefs. Therefore - true evidence would be something that would convince the highest Islamic I-man that your belief was true - and his was false. It would do the same for a Hindu cleric as well. And no one has yet to provide any such supportable evidence or proof. >>>>>>>> "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 >>>>>>>> @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>> have decided to ignore some things. >>> Well I certainly don't believe in logical contradictions. That is YOUR decision - gods themselves are logical contradictions. Yet - you still believe in three of them apparently. Why should I? >> That was YOUR decision - not mine - >> >> I don't believe in any of the nonsense. > > Yes, I know. So, why should your decisions apply to me? AS I said - YOU created your own religion bu deciding what is included and what is not - how you came to that decision IS not my care - Nevertheless - that is WHAT YOU DID. Establishing your belief as Human created. > >>>>>>>> "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > >>>>>>>> @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Establishing your belief as Human created. Nah. It comes from the way my brain is wired to absorb knowledge, which includes a variety of paths, other than proof and verifiable scientific evidence. This is an extremely common trait among humans. You, on the other hand, have set yourself apart by claiming to limit those things that you will admit as proper methodologies for acquiring knowledge. To me, your decisions have placed artificial constraints on what is naturally more open and flexible. I don't have such constraints other than how the brain naturally works. Now, that doesn't imply that everything my brain generates is man-made myth. Because after all, what scientists discern about nature isn't all man-made myth either, is it? And they are using the same brain. PD >>>>>>>>>> "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Nah. It comes from the way my brain is wired to absorb knowledge, Then you don't know the difference between knowledge and belief. Knowledge is provable, belief is not. > which includes a variety of paths, other than proof and verifiable > scientific evidence. Then it isn't knowledge, only belief. > This is an extremely common trait among humans. That it's a common trait only shows how gullible some people are. "There's one born every minute." P.T. Barnum > You, on the other hand, have set yourself apart by claiming to limit > those things that you will admit as proper methodologies for acquiring > knowledge. Because knowledge is provable. > To me, your decisions have placed artificial constraints on what is > naturally more open and flexible. I don't have such constraints other > than how the brain naturally works. IOW you're gullible. > Now, that doesn't imply that everything my brain generates is man-made > myth. Because after all, what scientists discern about nature isn't > all man-made myth either, is it? And they are using the same brain. Except they aren't gullible fools and have to provide proof of their findings. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. > >>>>>>>>>> "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in > >>>>>>>>>> news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Then you don't know the difference between knowledge and belief. > Knowledge is provable, belief is not. That's your claim. I suggest you read Pinker, Dennett, and Hofstadter, as well as a laundry list of others, who do not think it is as simple as you would like it to be. But if these simple rules make you feel more comfortable, by all means go ahead and apply it to your life. That's what the Ten Commandments are for -- simple rules to make people feel comfortable. You shouldn't be different in having that need. :>) > > which includes a variety of paths, other than proof and verifiable > > scientific evidence. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor > made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. > >>>>>>>> "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > >>>>>>>> @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > That is YOUR decision - gods themselves are logical contradictions. No, God is not a contradiction. The human words used to describe him are logical contradictions, but this doesn't make God contradictory. The human words used to describe electrons are also logical contradictions, but this doesn't make an electron contradictory. You keep confusing God with what you were TAUGHT about God. I can't help it that you had a screwed-up education about God. > Yet > - you still believe in three of them apparently. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Establishing your belief as Human created. > > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I didn't say anything of the sort. Would you care to quote me? Yes YOU did YOU said that YOU do not believe in everything said about gods 1100 years ago. IT is IN your thread > > > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > years ago. > IT is IN your thread Yes, I didn't say that was a *decision* about what I believe. It's obvious that I'm *constrained* not to believe a logical contradiction. Where is the decision in not believing that an open box is also closed? > > > > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > obvious that I'm *constrained* not to believe a logical contradiction. > Where is the decision in not believing that an open box is also closed? Sorry - but what YOU are saying does not change the issue THere are people here in this group (Gabriel and Guardian snow) who beleive that everything in the bible is TRUE inerrant and inspired by gods - and the scientists are WRONG. However - YOU decided to beleive the scientists in those issues - that was YOU decision. > > > > > > > "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 > > > > > > > @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > beleive that everything in the bible is TRUE inerrant and inspired by > gods - and the scientists are WRONG. Well, take that up with them, not with me. I'm not responsible for their positions, and you have no right to lump me in with them. > However - YOU decided to beleive the scientists in those issues - that > was YOU decision. Well, no, my refusal to entertain a logical contradiction has nothing to do with scientists. It isn't just scientists that refuse to entertain logical contradictions, you know. Housewives are likely to do the same. PD >>>>>>>> "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> news:m5w5m.76277$dz.71156 @newsfe06.ams2: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > entertain logical contradictions, you know. Housewives are likely to > do the same. So show how gods are not logical contradictions. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. To believe in > something that you cannot prove is a religious belief. You do not understand what atheism is. A-theism is a lack of belief in god(s)as in amoral. It is NOT a belief that there is/are no god(s). That would be im-theism as in immoral. Agnosticism is not about belief. It is about knowledge of god(s). An agnostic does not have KNOWLEDGE of god (s). An agnostic can be an atheist or a theist. > As long as we're going to be religious, may as well pick a religion that > has been validated by natural selection and Darwin's principles. Religions evolve by cultural evolution, not biological evolution. > Since science started in the western culture, and science has enabled the > population to expand by a factor of a thousand and is thus wildly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > leads to the extinction of the people who practice it is a philosophy to > be rejected. That is a very narrow criteria for judging philosophy. > I'm talking about the Roman Religion of enlightenment, based on the old > Greek/Roman gods and perverted to a monotheistic religion. The work > ethic, the development of rational thought, a culture that valued the > scientific method. One that has no use for religion. > The atheist belief has lead them to a negative growth rate; these people > and their degenerate culture are already in Darwin's dust bin. It is > foolish to take advice on how to live from a people who are already > doomed. Now you're talking nonsense. Negative growth of what? When. What's the connection? You really are very confused about your thinking. You defend religion and yet you value the very enlightenment values which have shown religion the back door with a boot. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You do not understand what atheism is. A-theism is a lack of belief in > god(s)as in amoral. It is NOT a belief that there is/are no god(s). One of the definitions is the belief that there is/are no god or gods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism BEgin quote Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the assertion that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3] End Quote Nice semantic fallacy. >> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Nice semantic fallacy. And you assume every atheist fits under definition 1, not 2. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious project." -- graffito > Religions evolve by cultural evolution, not biological evolution. > Which raises the interesting sidebar to what extent religion -- its forms, preoccupations, fears -- is influenced or determined by our biology. Last time that great scribe Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Religions evolve by cultural evolution, not biological evolution. > > > > Which raises the interesting sidebar to what extent religion > -- its forms, preoccupations, fears -- is influenced or > determined by our biology. I dare say religiosity (the holding of supernatural beliefs as opposed to what supernatural beliefs people hold) is emergent of biology but evolution of religious beliefs can not be since the process of change is simply too fast compared to biological evolution. There could be a selective advantage to religiosity or credulity in general or it could just be a collateral effect of an enlarged cerebral cortex with no particular survival advantage just as collateral damage in war has no particular tactical advantage. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. To > believe in something that you cannot prove is a religious belief. Er, no. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in and of itself, no matter how you guys try to twist it around. Here, I'll make it simple for you: If non-belief is a belief, what color is bald? If non-belief is a belief, why is not collecting betterflies not a hobby? If non-belief is a belief, what color shoe is a bare foot? It's about LACK. We LACK belief--that's why it's spelled "a-theism" as in "without theism." It really is that simple. I don't know why you people have so much trouble understanding it. Fortunately, that's not my problem--or our problem, for that matter. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. > >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the position > of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. Nonsense. >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > We don't have to prove anything. Of course not - you worship, pray to, and run your entire life on something that you not only cannot prove exists - but also cannot prove all of the rest of the story of religion that has no basis in fact. You don't have to prove it as long as you don't expect people to believe YOU. Religions are nothing more than fear mongering among people to keep them in line - at a time when the average person was illiterate and uneducated. We don't need THAT anymore. PROOF? Statistics of christian research studies from the christian Barna Group - and the Jesuit Creighton University = as well as UN and USA public statistics PROVE that non-believers are less criminal - less likely to commit murder, suicide, divorce, or be in prison. > Religions are nothing more than fear mongering among people to keep them > in line - at a time when the average person was illiterate and > uneducated. We don't need THAT anymore. Bullshit we don't need that anymore. People are more stupid and uneducated than ever. No child left behind caused that. > PROOF? Statistics of christian > research studies from the christian Barna Group - and the Jesuit > Creighton University = as well as UN and USA public statistics PROVE > that non-believers are less criminal - less likely to commit murder, > suicide, divorce, or be in prison. Ah, the "correlation proves causation" fallacy. The root cause is stupidity. To be blunt, it takes a small amount of brain power to question one's belief, and atheist tend to be smarter than religious folks. Stupid people tend to cause more crime. Now, if you want a study, you'd have to compare groups of identical intelligence distributions. This isn't done. Dumb people need religion to keep them in line. It makes for a better society. Atheist are like the guy who doesn't know diddly about cars and pops open the hood and says "I don't know what the f.ck that is, so OUT it comes!" and then start removing parts with a hacksaw. They sit back proud of their work but they don't notice that the car doesn't run anymore. Atheist are doing the same thing with culture. > >> Religions are nothing more than fear mongering among people to keep them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bullshit we don't need that anymore. People are more stupid and > uneducated than ever. No child left behind caused that. Sorry - but that statement is simply wrong. Today - the majority of the people CAN read and write - and do not need scribes to do that for them >> PROOF? Statistics of christian >> research studies from the christian Barna Group - and the Jesuit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ah, the "correlation proves causation" fallacy. No - I did not do that one. You obviously didn't read my statement well - as usual. I specifically avoided saying that religion causes those things. What I said was that the statistics prove that non-believers are lower in certain categories of morality - something that IS true. > The root cause is stupidity. To be blunt, it takes a small amount of > brain power to question one's belief, and atheist tend to be smarter than > religious folks. Stupid people tend to cause more crime. > > Now, if you want a study, you'd have to compare groups of identical > intelligence distributions. This isn't done. Snipped nonsense. Since that is not possible - based on the higher intelligence of non-believers - it cannot be done! >> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they do. "No one can prove X doesn't exist" is no reason to believe X does exist, whatever X may be. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him." - Arthur C. Clarke >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they > do. That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid. Olrik > "No one can prove X doesn't exist" is no reason to believe X does exist, > whatever X may be. > >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - God doesn't have to prove He exists. Mitch Raemsch >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > God doesn't have to prove He exists. How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... Olrik > Mitch Raemsch >> God doesn't have to prove He exists. > > How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... I can, by your logic, disbelieve that YOU are more than a hunk of meat on the hoof, a mindless automaton, a simple biological machine without consciousness. >>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the hoof, a mindless automaton, a simple biological machine without > consciousness. God posts on usenet, does he now? Because I'm pretty sure Olrik has been. >>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > God posts on usenet, does he now? Because I'm pretty sure Olrik has > been. How do I know you're not a figment of my imagination? How do I know Olrik isn't anything more than a meat puppet? I don't. I take it as a matter of faith, not for HIS miserable sake, but for MINE. >>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > isn't anything more than a meat puppet? I don't. I take it as a matter of > faith, not for HIS miserable sake, but for MINE. My existence is not controversial, nor exceptional. You experience other people every day. Olrik >>>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My existence is not controversial, nor exceptional. You experience other > people every day. You can't PROVE you exist and that you are not a figment of my imagination. I take it as a matter of faith that you're a being like myself and not a meat puppet or even less. >>>>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > imagination. I take it as a matter of faith that you're a being like > myself and not a meat puppet or even less. What you think is not important. That's the lesson you have to learn. Olrik >>>>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > imagination. I take it as a matter of faith that you're a being like > myself and not a meat puppet or even less. Hokey religions and ancient books are no match for a science book at your side, kid. SignatureDoc Solo >>>>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > imagination. I take it as a matter of faith that you're a being like > myself and not a meat puppet or even less. I can not imagine the person whom you are replying too is anything but human as you. It is not a matter of faith by any means. Unless of course you think that there are USENET fairies that post messages in reply to yours. Maybe there is a trained monkey that posts in reply to you, I'm sure it is possible. Of course neither can be proven or disproven, which would mean that yes there USENET fairies and trained monkeys posting replies to your posts. >>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > How do I know you're not a figment of my imagination? If you don't believe your senses, then there's no sense in you trying to communicate. An attempt to communicate assumes an external world accurately perceived. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus >>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Olrik isn't anything more than a meat puppet? I don't. I take it as a > matter of faith, not for HIS miserable sake, but for MINE. What, you're an a-meatist? I'm sure your "faith" makes Olrik capable of sleeping nights. Keep the faith, brother, or he might not exist anymore. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. > >>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the hoof, a mindless automaton, a simple biological machine without > consciousness. It is your prerogative to believe or disbelieve anything. What is *NOT* your prerogative is to tell people what to believe or disbelieve. Olrik >>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is your prerogative to believe or disbelieve anything. What is *NOT* > your prerogative is to tell people what to believe or disbelieve. There is no right to be irrational. >>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There is no right to be irrational. Yes, there is. Otherwise, religions and ideologies would be illegal. Olrik Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. > >>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > There is no right to be irrational. But you've been exercising it anyway. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists. >>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > There is no right to be irrational. In the United States, the Bill of Rights says there is. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious project." -- graffito >> There is no right to be irrational. > > In the United States, the Bill of Rights says there is. Quote where it says you have a right to be irrational. >>> There is no right to be irrational. >> >> In the United States, the Bill of Rights says there is. > > Quote where it says you have a right to be irrational. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You have the right (in the United States) to say any silly thing you want. Sadly, some people think this includes a right to be listened to and to have their silly ideas respected. You have the right (in the United States) to hold any silly beliefs you want, to pass around rattlesnakes because the Bible says they won't hurt you, to refuse of withhold medical treatment because the Bible tells you to pray instead. Of course, the universe gets the last word, and silly beliefs may kill you. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do. --[from Usenet] In sci.skeptic Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: >>> There is no right to be irrational. >> >> In the United States, the Bill of Rights says there is. > > Quote where it says you have a right to be irrational. That would be the bit about freedom of speech. SignatureMel Gibson isn't known for being faithful to the original source. His remake of The Life of Brian is rubbish. -- Michael C >> God doesn't have to prove He exists. > >How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing... It's another standard theist donesty. Nobody is asking it to prove it exists - we're asking these dishonest w.nkers to either put up or shut up. And all dishonest idiots like him do, is reinforce the conclusions made long ago about both them and their beliefs. >Olrik > >> Mitch Raemsch >> >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >> >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch You're right. That particular onus is on... whoever wants to talk about God with any degree of credence, to anyone outside of their particular belief system. And that would be you, I guess? >> >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >> >>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > God doesn't have to prove He exists. God doesn't have to exist. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony >>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > God doesn't have to exist. Good one! Olrik > God doesn't have to prove He exists. Indeed! I can't prove that Olrik isn't anything more than animated meat. I take it as a matter of faith that he is a living human being with consciousness. One may as well take it as faith that God exists as well. given the order and consistency of physical law we find in the universe and the fact that we can, by experiment, know God's laws. We need it, least we all become hate filled Olriks that spew insults at everyone and feeling entitled to do so. >> God doesn't have to prove He exists. > >Indeed! I can't prove that Olrik isn't anything more than animated meat. >I take it as a matter of faith that he is a living human being with >consciousness. Nobody is asking it to prove it exists, imbecile. Just that its followers either put up or shut up. Are you even capable of understanding the difference? >One may as well take it as faith that God exists as well. given the order >and consistency of physical law we find in the universe and the fact that >we can, by experiment, know God's laws. We need it, least we all become >hate filled Olriks that spew insults at everyone and feeling entitled to >do so. What's God, moron? >> God doesn't have to prove He exists. > > Indeed! I can't prove that Olrik isn't anything more than animated meat. > I take it as a matter of faith that he is a living human being with > consciousness. You abuse the word "faith". You can use the word "trust", for example. > One may as well take it as faith that God exists as well. given the order > and consistency of physical law we find in the universe and the fact that > we can, by experiment, know God's laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question > We need it, least we all become > hate filled Olriks that spew insults at everyone and feeling entitled to > do so. Don't take this debate personally. It's not about winning, it's about participating. You're doing very well. Olrik Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > One may as well take it as faith that God exists as well. You may as well take it on faith that the Great Cosmic Cat exists and destroyed your god. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire Last time that great scribe BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > > >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch But you have to if you're going to talk to me about god(s). SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > God doesn't have to prove He exists. Hey, Burt! I saw you out with Oscar, Burt! They say he's hung like a Snuffluffagus, Burt! Is that true, Burt? I let you play with my little Duckie, Burt! Does size really matter, Burt? SignatureErnie, hurt and lonely, Burt. > > >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > > >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > God doesn't have to prove He exists. Neither does the Great Flying Unicorn God! So he must exist, right? > > No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you > > sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they > > do. > > That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic > about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid. 1. To say that something is "impossible" is identical to saying "I'm a moron". [In order to actually KNOW something is impossible, one would have to possess knowledge of all possible things in the entire universe...in other words you'd have to BE "god"] 2. "no reason" has different levels. It might be that YOU have never seen any evidence of giant invisible rats in the morning. Or it might be that while you haven't seen any evidence yourself, various people have reported evidence, or it might be that "science" has simply not yet invented the rat-viewer needed to see them. All these things may raise doubts about the "invisible butt-rat" theory. But the point is not are the rats 100% true or 100% false, but rather an assessment of the probability of each case. To round up either view to 100% is an act of faith not science. 3. But what is interesting is that the final statement above shows that you want to turn the rat-theory into a religion. It's all about BELIEF! Why should anyone believe or disbelieve in butt-rats based on no evidence or at best incomplete evidence? That is quite unscientific. 4. Which means that Agnostics have the "scientific view" by demanding proof of everything. Where evidence is incomplete, their belief is incomplete. The atheists (the No-butt-rat believers in this case) may find comfort from their faith, but as pointed out above logically they are the ones who are stooopid. >>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you >>> sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > proof of everything. Where evidence is incomplete, their belief is > incomplete. But about their knowledge? The atheists (the No-butt-rat believers in this case) may > find comfort from their faith, but as pointed out above logically they > are the ones who are stooopid. Psst : You're not required to write like a kid to make a point. >> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that >> they do. > > That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic > about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid. Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say "I don't know" precludes the use of science. It is irrelevant if god exists, and I don't know if he/she/it does. The fact remains humans need religion least we end up as pathetic hate filled sociopaths as seen here in this thread. >>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fact remains humans need religion least we end up as pathetic hate filled > sociopaths as seen here in this thread. You insulted me first. Along with most of the posters on alt.atheism. What exactly were you expecting? >>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What exactly were you expecting? I see... you think you know everything and thus when I said "only idiots and fools think they know everything", you felt I called you and idiot and a fool and that is insulting. If the shoe fits... >>>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>>>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I see... you think you know everything No. I have never said that. Is it not 'hateful' to lie about people? > and thus when I said "only idiots > and fools think they know everything", you felt I called you and idiot > and a fool and that is insulting. No. When you said: "> Like I've said, atheist are damned to Darwin's dustbin. Their birth rate > is below their replacement rate, their behavior is anti-social and > hateful, and their beliefs irrational. They really BELIEVE that there are > too many people and they WANT to die off. How stupid is that? They feel > that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with, > particularly if they are Christian." I felt THAT was pretty insulting. And bigoted. Replace 'atheist' with any religion, gender, sexual orientation or race, is it still acceptable comment? > If the shoe fits... >> I see... you think you know everything > > No. I have never said that. Is it not 'hateful' to lie about people? You are either a liar or totally brain damaged. I called people who think they know everything fools, You felt I called you a fool. I didn't say you said it, I said you decided that the description fit you. >>> I see... you think you know everything >> >> No. I have never said that. Is it not 'hateful' to lie about people? > > You are either a liar or totally brain damaged. How hateful of you to say so. Most agnostics really are hateful, wouldn't you say? > I called people who think > they know everything fools, You felt I called you a fool. I didn't say > you said it, I said you decided that the description fit you. No. When you said: "> Like I've said, atheist are damned to Darwin's dustbin. Their birth rate > is below their replacement rate, their behavior is anti-social and > hateful, and their beliefs irrational. They really BELIEVE that there are > too many people and they WANT to die off. How stupid is that? They feel > that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with, > particularly if they are Christian." Are you going to make some sort of reaction to this bigoted trash? I'm an atheist, and you descibe me as "irrational" and "stupid" in the above. Seems close enough to "fool" for me. Now why not quit playing semantics and actually stand by something you've said. >>>> I see... you think you know everything >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How hateful of you to say so. Most agnostics really are hateful, > wouldn't you say? It isn't hateful if what I say is a fact. >>>>> I see... you think you know everything >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It isn't hateful if what I say is a fact. That's the second time you have avoided answering to the bigoted trash you posted. "> Like I've said, atheist are damned to Darwin's dustbin. Their birth rate > is below their replacement rate, their behavior is anti-social and > hateful, and their beliefs irrational. They really BELIEVE that there are > too many people and they WANT to die off. How stupid is that? They feel > that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with, > particularly if they are Christian." Do you stand by it? >>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fact remains humans need religion least we end up as pathetic hate > filled sociopaths as seen here in this thread. Don't like atheist? Leave alt.atheism. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony >>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Don't like atheist? Leave alt.atheism. Ah, the famous tolerance of the atheist. Not. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as > >>>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ah, the famous tolerance of the atheist. Not. You are the one who calls atheists "hate filled", "fools" and "sociopaths". You accuse everyone else of what is true of yourself. You are projecting. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt >>>>> as you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ah, the famous tolerance of the atheist. Not. Not at all. If I'm unhappy someplace, I go elsewhere. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious project." -- graffito >>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say >"I don't know" precludes the use of science. Yet another straw man. WHAT IS THERE TO SAY "I DON'T KNOW" ABOUT? >It is irrelevant if god exists, and I don't know if he/she/it does. The So what? >fact remains humans need religion least we end up as pathetic hate filled >sociopaths as seen here in this thread. Liar. >>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say > "I don't know" precludes the use of science. It's a matter of probability. If I say that there's a green dragon at the center of the moon, part of you *has* to think that it might be so, and part of you *has* to think it's not true. > It is irrelevant if god exists, and I don't know if he/she/it does. The > fact remains humans need religion Humans need conformity within the group. Olrik > least we end up as pathetic hate filled > sociopaths as seen here in this thread. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say > "I don't know" precludes the use of science. The incapacity to say "I don't know" is universal among theists. They imagine their own certainty through fear of doubt. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The incapacity to say "I don't know" is universal among theists. They > imagine their own certainty through fear of doubt. Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. >> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. Knowledge, in some matters, is irrelevant. What matters is probability. Olrik > You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you > despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even though I have never seen evidence that they exist, there I lack a belief in fairies. Life is not long enough to have a belief in the non existence of everything unproven. > You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you > despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. You ave misunderstood what atheism is. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > though I have never seen evidence that they exist, there I lack a belief > in fairies. Therefore you are saying you do not believe they exist with your current knowledge on the subject. You have formed an opinion but are willing to change that opinion if there is evidence to the contrary. That by definition is a form of atheisum, not being an agnostic. An agnostic has not formed an opinion. >Life is not long enough to have a belief in the non > existence of everything unproven. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You ave misunderstood what atheism is. You do not understand........ An atheist has made up his/her mind that there is no god/deity of any kind, thus saying I know or beleive there is no god/deity of any kind. An agnostic has not made up his/her mind, and can not see any conclusive evidence one way or the other, thus saying I do not know one way or the other, there could be or there is not. >> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Therefore you are saying you do not believe they exist with your current >knowledge on the subject. You have formed an opinion but are willing to change No opinion necessary. >that opinion if there is evidence to the contrary. That by definition is a form >of atheisum, not being an agnostic. An agnostic has not formed an opinion. Yes he has. That one particular baseless claim of somebody else's is important enough to say you don't know. Atheists don't have anything to "not know" because it's part of the theist paradigm. And we're not theist. So it's merely "somebody else's religious belief". On the other hand you treat it as something that could or couldn't exist outside their religion. Putting you at least part way inside their paradigm. >>Life is not long enough to have a belief in the non >> existence of everything unproven. >> >>> You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you >>> despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. A liar as well as an idiot. >> You ave misunderstood what atheism is. >> >You do not understand........ What an arrogantly nasty piece of sh.t. I'm sure glad I've got two a.sholes - one to sh.t through and the other to tell me what my POV "really" is. Plat makes you such an arrogantly nasty psychopath? >An atheist has made up his/her mind that there is no god/deity of any kind, thus Why don't you ask us instead if telling us and nastily, stupidly getting it wrong? In spite of what arrogant psychopaths like you imagine, we do happen to know what our own POV is. If you had any intelligence, common sense, courtesy or understanding you would realise that an atheist is somebody who isn't theist. >saying I know or beleive there is no god/deity of any kind. Are you really so ignorant you don't understand that god/gods mean outside the virtual realities of their various religions? >An agnostic has not made up his/her mind, and can not see any conclusive >evidence one way or the other, thus saying I do not know one way or the other, >there could be or there is not. Are you equally agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Krishna nd all the others? Or even the fairies at the bottom of the garden? Or are just being dishonest? >>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Or are just being dishonest? It's rather funny how you can not follow the conservation, you replied to others comments as if they were mine, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......however, shall we use the dictionary to define the words in question? If you have been following, and your reading comprehension skills are at least at the 6th grade level you will see that I have not pulled my explanation of the difference between an atheist and an agnostic out of thin air. Webster: Atheist:one who believes that there is no deity Agnostic:1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> Smile! >>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>>>> imagine their own certainty through fear of doubt. >>>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. No, moron. It means you grant 50:50 probability to somebody else's baseless claim. Even though the real world methodology for dealing with it, is "until you prove it the default is 'no it isn't'". Because even in the unlikely event that it does exist, it might as well not for all the effect it has on reality. Yet you treat existence and non-existence as equally likely. Hint: that's what the "either way" does. >>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even >>>> though I have never seen evidence that they exist, there I lack a belief >>>> in fairies. >>> Therefore you are saying you do not believe they exist with your current >>> knowledge on the subject. You have formed an opinion but are willing to change Did you write that, Fred? And you accuse others of not being able to read for comprehension. >> No opinion necessary. >> >>> that opinion if there is evidence to the contrary. That by definition is a form >>> of atheisum, not being an agnostic. An agnostic has not formed an opinion. Did you write that, Fred? Because that's what I replied to. >> Yes he has. That one particular baseless claim of somebody else's is >> important enough to say you don't know. >> >> Atheists don't have anything to "not know" because it's part of the >> theist paradigm. And we're not theist. So it's merely "somebody else's >> religious belief". Well? >> On the other hand you treat it as something that could or couldn't >> exist outside their religion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> Life is not long enough to have a belief in the non >>>> existence of everything unproven. Well? >>>>> You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you >>>>> despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. >> >> A liar as well as an idiot. You lied about atheists to atheists in an atheist newsgroup. >>>> You ave misunderstood what atheism is. >>>> >>> You do not understand........ >> >> What an arrogantly nasty piece of sh.t. It takes one to try to "prove" we're not telling the truth about ourselves citing a cherry picked dictionary definition. >> I'm sure glad I've got two a.sholes - one to sh.t through and the >> other to tell me what my POV "really" is. >> >> What makes you such an arrogantly nasty psychopath? Well? >>> An atheist has made up his/her mind that there is no god/deity of any kind, thus >> >> Why don't you ask us instead if telling us and nastily, stupidly >> getting it wrong? Well? >> In spite of what arrogant psychopaths like you imagine, we do happen >> to know what our own POV is. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Are you really so ignorant you don't understand that god/gods mean >> outside the virtual realities of their various religions? Couldn't answer this? It's at the heart of why definitions which start from theistic presumptions always get atheists wrong. >>> An agnostic has not made up his/her mind, and can not see any conclusive >>> evidence one way or the other, thus saying I do not know one way or the other, >>> there could be or there is not. >> >> Are you equally agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Krishna nd all the >> others? Or even the fairies at the bottom of the garden? Could't answer this? >> Or are just being dishonest? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that I have not pulled my explanation of the difference between an atheist and >an agnostic out of thin air. I replied to what you wrote, imbecile. >Webster: > >Atheist:one who believes that there is no deity Do you seriously imagine either you or Webster gets to tell atheists what our POV "really" is? Why don't you have the courtesy to grant that atheists know perfectly well what it means to be atheist, and it isn't what you or Webebster imagine? Well? >Agnostic:1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is >unknown and probably unknowable What "ultimate reality (as God)"? > ; broadly : one who is not committed to >believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god Which presumes "God or a god". There is a real world beyond theistic religion. A point which neither you nor Webster seem to understand. Which includes people of other religions/deity-beliefs. AND THOSE WHO AREN'T THEIST who have nothing to believe doesn't exist. Or to be "not committed" about. Because it is merely somebody else's religious belief. Which word was too long to understand? >2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> Why don't you explain what it is there is to be "unwilling to commit to an opinion about"? If you were honest you would apply it to every single unsupported religious/etc belief. Including all the other god-beliefs, as well as pixies, fairies, leprechauns etc. Because outside theistic religion there is no reason to take any god any more seriously that any of those. Why didn't you answer this? One of the best posts I have seen on this subject is Peter Walker's in alt.atheism in 2000: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/msg/f4e02681fc02ef84 IMO, serious agnostics (not the "look at me, I'm so open-minded!" crowd) and atheists are natural allies. More often than not, they are not distinguished by strong differences in opinion, but in focus. For example, I consider the philosophical agnostic position to be true, but trivially so. One might as well construct a philosophical position around the assertion that the sky is blue. I'm not interested in absolute knowledge, because I recognize that it can not be had on any subject. Saying "we can't know if there is a god or not" is like saying "we can't know if 600 years from now, Microsoft's stock will be up or down" - the question is, for one reason or another, beyond knowledge. That being the case, I can not be defined by what I absolutely know, or can know, but what I have colcluded thus far (ie. *believe*). Thus I describe myself in terms of belief, or lack thereof - atheist - rather than relative to an unattainable state of perfect knowledge. The equivocation-agnostic, on the other hand, is the race-traitor of unbelievers. He makes common cause with our enemy to demonize us, for the selfish goal of making himself look open-minded (which he surely is not, as the open-minded will not scream at someone, telling him that he holds a position he does not). His vanity and selfishness cleaves like a sword in what should be *one* community of many voices. He declares "you claim absolute knowledge" when we do not, and "see how superior I am", when he is not. They are a black knife plunged into the heart of freethought, a narcissism posing as a philosophy, and a rallying point for those who would silence us ad majoriam gloriam dei. Is it any wonder that we see the equivocation-agnostic position taken as frequently by theists as by would-be unbelievers, to say "no, this is the honest position - and since you do not hold it, since you do not describe yourself thus, you must be wicked, criminal, in rebellion against God"? Equivocation-agnosticism is the theist's best friend, precisely because it divides us, when we should be united in a plurality of opinion, sharing skepticism and unbelief. Pardon me if I sound a little like a certain Freelover in my stridency here; but the wound stings more when my neighbor robs my house than when a foreigner does. And atheists and agnostics should by all rights be neighbors, and good neighbors without fences at that. >Smile! >>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > that's what the "either way" does. > You are replying to some one else, that's not me.....hmmmmmmmmmmmm >>>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even >>>>> though I have never seen evidence that they exist, there I lack a belief [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > read for comprehension. > This I wrote: Therefore you are saying you do not believe they exist with your current knowledge on the subject. You have formed an opinion but are willing to change that opinion if there is evidence to the contrary. That by definition is a form of atheisum, not being an agnostic. An agnostic has not formed an opinion. >>> No opinion necessary. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Well? Well what? > >>> On the other hand you treat it as something that could or couldn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well? Well what? >>>>>> You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you >>>>>> despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. >>> A liar as well as an idiot. > > You lied about atheists to atheists in an atheist newsgroup. How? >>>>> You ave misunderstood what atheism is. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ourselves citing a cherry picked dictionary definition. > Words have meanings, those meaning are defined, it's called a dictionary, get used to it. >>> I'm sure glad I've got two a.sholes - one to sh.t through and the >>> other to tell me what my POV "really" is. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well? > Well what? BTW, ever hear of a word mirror? Do you know what a mirror is used for? Do you get the drift? >>>> An atheist has made up his/her mind that there is no god/deity of any kind, thus >>> Why don't you ask us instead if telling us and nastily, stupidly >>> getting it wrong? > > Well? Well what? > >>> In spite of what arrogant psychopaths like you imagine, we do happen [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Couldn't answer this? Why? Fact is I doubt you are able to comprehend. > It's at the heart of why definitions which start from theistic > presumptions always get atheists wrong. > I did not use a "theistic" definition. >>>> An agnostic has not made up his/her mind, and can not see any conclusive >>>> evidence one way or the other, thus saying I do not know one way or the other, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Could't answer this? I only defined the words with a recognized thing called a dictionary, I gave no opinion, or any information as to my belief one way or the other on my belief. I sure you got that, yes? That would be called benefit of the doubt in a sarcastic manner. Surly your bright enough to see that. Smile. > >>> Or are just being dishonest? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Well? Tell you what, write your own dictionary, lets see if it's accepted. >> Agnostic:1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is >> unknown and probably unknowable > > What "ultimate reality (as God)"? Hmmmmmmmmmm........there's that reading problem of yours. >> ; broadly : one who is not committed to >> believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god > > Which presumes "God or a god". God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism. A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers. Smile! > There is a real world beyond theistic religion. A point which neither > you nor Webster seem to understand. It's clear you do not. The definition is the meaning of the words, the fact that there are levels of an agnostic does not change the meaning of the word. > Which includes people of other religions/deity-beliefs. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which word was too long to understand? Your confused. Slow down regroup your thoughts and try again. >> 2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> > > Why don't you explain what it is there is to be "unwilling to commit > to an opinion about"? That would be a personal choice the person has made, why not ask someone who has projected they have not formed an opinion. > If you were honest you would apply it to every single unsupported > religious/etc belief. Including all the other god-beliefs, as well as > pixies, fairies, leprechauns etc. pixies.......leprechauns..........fairies..........not exactly deities. Mythical, maybe supernatural, but not classified as deities. > Because outside theistic religion there is no reason to take any god > any more seriously that any of those. You then would be classified as a "hardened atheist". > Why didn't you answer this? Answer what? > One of the best posts I have seen on this subject is Peter Walker's in > alt.atheism in 2000: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >> Smile! >>>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >You are replying to some one else, that's not me.....hmmmmmmmmmmmm Is it some other moron also calling himself Fred Thomas who keeps citing Webster to "prove" that atheism isn't what atheists keep telling him to correct him after he got it wrong? >>>>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even >>>>>> though I have never seen evidence that they exist, there I lack a belief [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >that opinion if there is evidence to the contrary. That by definition is a form >of atheisum, not being an agnostic. An agnostic has not formed an opinion. So it was you. And I replied to you. You didn't read what you were replying to for compregension, and invented a straw man as a non sequitur. >>>> No opinion necessary. >>>> >>>>> that opinion if there is evidence to the contrary. That by definition is a form >>>>> of atheisum, not being an agnostic. An agnostic has not formed an opinion. >> >> Did you write that, Fred? Because that's what I replied to. Well? >>>> Yes he has. That one particular baseless claim of somebody else's is >>>> important enough to say you don't know. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Well what? Why didn't you acknowledge what corrected you after you told us we has a POV we don't actually have? >>>> On the other hand you treat it as something that could or couldn't >>>> exist outside their religion. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Well what? Obviously you couldn't address the point. >>>>>>> You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you >>>>>>> despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >How? "You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear." Stop pretending. >>>>>> You ave misunderstood what atheism is. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Words have meanings, those meaning are defined, it's called a dictionary, get >used to it. Dictionaries only describe how words are used. They are descriptive not proscriptive. And they don't tell us what we do or don't believe. Neither do you. Get used to it yourself, pig-ignorant psychopathic imbecile. >>>> I'm sure glad I've got two a.sholes - one to sh.t through and the >>>> other to tell me what my POV "really" is. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Well what? BTW, ever hear of a word mirror? Do you know what a mirror is used >for? Do you get the drift? Oh, the irony. You're just reaping what you sow. >>>>> An atheist has made up his/her mind that there is no god/deity of any kind, thus >>>> Why don't you ask us instead if telling us and nastily, stupidly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Well what? Why didn't you ask us instead of telling us and getting it arrogantly, stupidly, nastily wrong? Stop pretending. >>>> In spite of what arrogant psychopaths like you imagine, we do happen >>>> to know what our own POV is. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Why? Fact is I doubt you are able to comprehend. You obviously don't - neither that you have no idea what an atheist is, nor your arrogantly nasty insistence that our POV isn't what it actually is. >> It's at the heart of why definitions which start from theistic >> presumptions always get atheists wrong. > >I did not use a "theistic" definition. You used one that implicitly grant presumptions which only apply inside theistic religion. >>>>> An agnostic has not made up his/her mind, and can not see any conclusive >>>>> evidence one way or the other, thus saying I do not know one way or the other, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >sure you got that, yes? That would be called benefit of the doubt in a sarcastic >manner. Surly your bright enough to see that. Smile. You used it to lie about atheists especially after youwere corrected, And instead ogf having the courtesy to actualy know what our own POC is, you used a cherry picked definition to tell us we were prerjuring ourselves. And you're too scoiopathic to understand just how nasty this is. Or perhaps you do. It makes no difference because either way the result is the same. >>>> Or are just being dishonest? >>> It's rather funny how you can not follow the conservation, you replied to others [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> I replied to what you wrote, imbecile. So stop pretending. >>> Webster: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Tell you what, write your own dictionary, lets see if it's accepted. You can find "one who does not believe on any god or gods" in most dictionaries, imbecile. YOU need to learn how they work. The definitions are OR-ed. You don't get to insist that your preferred one is correct when you have several times been given a different ine which actually describes us. >>> Agnostic:1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is >>> unknown and probably unknowable >> >> What "ultimate reality (as God)"? > >Hmmmmmmmmmm........there's that reading problem of yours. Translation: you can't answer the question. >>> ; broadly : one who is not committed to >>> believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in >polytheism. AND ATHEISTS ARE OUTSIDE THOSE BELIEF SYSTEMS, SO IT IS MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S BELIEF, NOT A THING THAT COULD OR COULD NOT EXIST. Which word didn't you understand? >A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be >thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by >believers. AGAIN WE ARE OUTSIDE THOSE BELIEF SYSTEMS. Why treat it as anything more than somebosy else's religious belief? >Smile! You think your own arrogant stupidity is amusing? >> There is a real world beyond theistic religion. A point which neither >> you nor Webster seem to understand. [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >> >>> Smile! >>>>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > citing Webster to "prove" that atheism isn't what atheists keep > telling him to correct him after he got it wrong? What you replied to, the above part of this post............ ">>> Yet you treat existence and non-existence as equally likely. Hint: >>> that's what the "either way" does. >>" not me, you do have a problem following don't you. Hmmmmm....maybe you want to be called slow........... >>>>>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even >>>>>>> though I have never seen evidence that they exist, there I lack a belief [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And I replied to you. There are parts of this post that I did write, some I did not, if you have not noticed it THREADED TOGETHER, i.e., a number of people have posted. You have made replies that you thought I wrote, you are mistaken. > You didn't read what you were replying to for compregension, and > invented a straw man as a non sequitur. Ok, I'm forming an opinion, your not slow, your less than intelligent. >>>>> No opinion necessary. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Why didn't you acknowledge what corrected you after you told us we has > a POV we don't actually have? Your correction is not a correction. >>>>> On the other hand you treat it as something that could or couldn't >>>>> exist outside their religion. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Obviously you couldn't address the point. I do not see it as a point, and nothing worth while to reply too. Your babbling. >>>>>>>> You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you >>>>>>>> despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold > dear." LOL!!!! Ok, I correct myself, you not less than intelligent, your moronic. > Stop pretending. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Dictionaries only describe how words are used. They are descriptive > not proscriptive. Thank you for proving my opinion of you. > And they don't tell us what we do or don't believe. > > Neither do you. Who told you what to believe, I gave you the definition of words from a book that does that, give definitions, it's called a dictionary. Maybe it's the water you drink. > Get used to it yourself, pig-ignorant psychopathic imbecile. > >>>>> I'm sure glad I've got two a.sholes - one to sh.t through and the >>>>> other to tell me what my POV "really" is. Your "POV" has nothing to do with the meaning of words. A "POV" is nothing more at least in your case of a very stupid person with a stomach pain, take some Tums. >>>>> What makes you such an arrogantly nasty psychopath? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, the irony. You're just reaping what you sow. I've sown nothing. <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >What you replied to, the above part of this post............ Yet you lied that I was replying to somebody else. And refuse to admit that your cherry picked definition does not descrinbe atheists, or that other ones found alongside it it most dictionaries, do. >">>> Yet you treat existence and non-existence as equally likely. Hint: >>>> that's what the "either way" does. >>>" > >not me, you do have a problem following don't you. Hmmmmm....maybe you want to >be called slow........... Was it some other liar also called Fred Thomas who said "not know either way"? Who also ignores the methodology he knows is applied to all the other equally baseless claims? >>>>>>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even >>>>>>>> though I have never seen evidence that they exist, there I lack a belief [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >noticed it THREADED TOGETHER, i.e., a number of people have posted. You have >made replies that you thought I wrote, you are mistaken. Count the carets, imbecile. Those show who wrote what. And you yourself wrote what I replied to. >> You didn't read what you were replying to for compregension, and >> invented a straw man as a non sequitur. > >Ok, I'm forming an opinion, your not slow, your less than intelligent. Confiirming that you are a pig-ignorant, psychopathic liar who can't be bothered to address responses to what he wrote, when he told atheists what our POV was and got it wrong. >>>>>> No opinion necessary. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >Your correction is not a correction. A liar as well as an idiot. There are atheists here telling you what an atheist is after uyou repeatedly got iot wrong. You are not the arbiter of what is in our minds. >>>>>> On the other hand you treat it as something that could or couldn't >>>>>> exist outside their religion. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >I do not see it as a point, and nothing worth while to reply too. Your babbling. You're lying again. Because it is the root of your problem. >>>>>>>>> You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you >>>>>>>>> despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >LOL!!!! Ok, I correct myself, you not less than intelligent, your moronic. You think your deliberate nastiness is funny? >> Stop pretending. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >Thank you for proving my opinion of you. What a f.cking moron. >> And they don't tell us what we do or don't believe. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that does that, give definitions, it's called a dictionary. Maybe it's the water >you drink. You told us what we believed because we were atheist,moron, rather than listening to what our actual POV is. >> Get used to it yourself, pig-ignorant psychopathic imbecile. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >at least in your case of a very stupid person with a stomach pain, take some >Tums. Whenh the word is the label for our position, neither you nor Webster get to tell us what it means. Especially when there are other definitions in dictionaries which get it right. AQnd whether you like it or not, we get to tell you which is the correct one. Hint: it's the one that comes closest to describing out POV. What a strange concept. >>>>>> What makes you such an arrogantly nasty psychopath? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >I've sown nothing. You told atheists we have a position that we don't. And instead of listening you tried to "prove" we did. Which is arrogantly, nastily rude. As well as stupid when you dismiss explanations. ><snip the rest of the lunacy> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with LOL, calling them lunacy rather than acknowledging them >>>>>>>>> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> >>>>>>>>> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 235 lines] > The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with > LOL, calling them lunacy rather than acknowledging them Ok moron......lets go over this, your slow, but if you pay attention you might learn something. From here#################################################### >Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>>>>> imagine their own certainty through fear of doubt. >>>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. ###########To here, I did not write, write, and looky below, your replying..........thinking it's me, damn you are stupid!######### No, moron. It means you grant 50:50 probability to somebody else's baseless claim. Even though the real world methodology for dealing with it, is "until you prove it the default is 'no it isn't'". Because even in the unlikely event that it does exist, it might as well not for all the effect it has on reality. Yet you treat existence and non-existence as equally likely. Hint: that's what the "either way" does. ########Your stupid rant ends here################# >>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even >>>> though I have never seen evidence that they exist, there I lack a belief >>>> in fairies. >>> Therefore you are saying you do not believe they exist with your current >>> knowledge on the subject. You have formed an opinion but are willing to >>> change Did you write that, Fred? And you accuse others of not being able to read for comprehension. >> No opinion necessary. >> >>> that opinion if there is evidence to the contrary. That by definition is a >>> form >>> of atheisum, not being an agnostic. An agnostic has not formed an opinion. Did you write that, Fred? Because that's what I replied to. >> Yes he has. That one particular baseless claim of somebody else's is >> important enough to say you don't know. >> >> Atheists don't have anything to "not know" because it's part of the >> theist paradigm. And we're not theist. So it's merely "somebody else's >> religious belief". Well? >> On the other hand you treat it as something that could or couldn't >> exist outside their religion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> Life is not long enough to have a belief in the non >>>> existence of everything unproven. Well? >>>>> You share your ability for irrational belief with the theist, but you >>>>> despise the theist for the very same qualities you yourself hold dear. >> >> A liar as well as an idiot. You lied about atheists to atheists in an atheist newsgroup. >>>> You ave misunderstood what atheism is. >>>> >>> You do not understand........ >> >> What an arrogantly nasty piece of sh.t. It takes one to try to "prove" we're not telling the truth about ourselves citing a cherry picked dictionary definition. >> I'm sure glad I've got two a.sholes - one to sh.t through and the >> other to tell me what my POV "really" is. >> >> What makes you such an arrogantly nasty psychopath? Well? >>> An atheist has made up his/her mind that there is no god/deity of any kind, >>> thus >> >> Why don't you ask us instead if telling us and nastily, stupidly >> getting it wrong? Well? >> In spite of what arrogant psychopaths like you imagine, we do happen >> to know what our own POV is. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Are you really so ignorant you don't understand that god/gods mean >> outside the virtual realities of their various religions? Couldn't answer this? It's at the heart of why definitions which start from theistic presumptions always get atheists wrong. >>> An agnostic has not made up his/her mind, and can not see any conclusive >>> evidence one way or the other, thus saying I do not know one way or the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Are you equally agnostic about Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Krishna nd all the >> others? Or even the fairies at the bottom of the garden? Could't answer this? >> Or are just being dishonest? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that I have not pulled my explanation of the difference between an atheist and >an agnostic out of thin air. I replied to what you wrote, imbecile. >Webster: > >Atheist:one who believes that there is no deity Do you seriously imagine either you or Webster gets to tell atheists what our POV "really" is? Why don't you have the courtesy to grant that atheists know perfectly well what it means to be atheist, and it isn't what you or Webebster imagine? Well? >Agnostic:1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is >unknown and probably unknowable What "ultimate reality (as God)"? > ; broadly : one > who is not committed to >believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god Which presumes "God or a god". There is a real world beyond theistic religion. A point which neither you nor Webster seem to understand. Which includes people of other religions/deity-beliefs. AND THOSE WHO AREN'T THEIST who have nothing to believe doesn't exist. Or to be "not committed" about. Because it is merely somebody else's religious belief. Which word was too long to understand? >2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political >agnostics> Why don't you explain what it is there is to be "unwilling to commit to an opinion about"? If you were honest you would apply it to every single unsupported religious/etc belief. Including all the other god-beliefs, as well as pixies, fairies, leprechauns etc. Because outside theistic religion there is no reason to take any god any more seriously that any of those. Why didn't you answer this? One of the best posts I have seen on this subject is Peter Walker's in alt.atheism in 2000: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/msg/f4e02681fc02ef84 IMO, serious agnostics (not the "look at me, I'm so open-minded!" crowd) and atheists are natural allies. More often than not, they are not distinguished by strong differences in opinion, but in focus. For example, I consider the philosophical agnostic position to be true, but trivially so. One might as well construct a philosophical position around the assertion that the sky is blue. I'm not interested in absolute knowledge, because I recognize that it can not be had on any subject. Saying "we can't know if there is a god or not" is like saying "we can't know if 600 years from now, Microsoft's stock will be up or down" - the question is, for one reason or another, beyond knowledge. That being the case, I can not be defined by what I absolutely know, or can know, but what I have colcluded thus far (ie. *believe*). Thus I describe myself in terms of belief, or lack thereof - atheist - rather than relative to an unattainable state of perfect knowledge. The equivocation-agnostic, on the other hand, is the race-traitor of unbelievers. He makes common cause with our enemy to demonize us, for the selfish goal of making himself look open-minded (which he surely is not, as the open-minded will not scream at someone, telling him that he holds a position he does not). His vanity and selfishness cleaves like a sword in what should be *one* community of many voices. He declares "you claim absolute knowledge" when we do not, and "see how superior I am", when he is not. They are a black knife plunged into the heart of freethought, a narcissism posing as a philosophy, and a rallying point for those who would silence us ad majoriam gloriam dei. Is it any wonder that we see the equivocation-agnostic position taken as frequently by theists as by would-be unbelievers, to say "no, this is the honest position - and since you do not hold it, since you do not describe yourself thus, you must be wicked, criminal, in rebellion against God"? Equivocation-agnosticism is the theist's best friend, precisely because it divides us, when we should be united in a plurality of opinion, sharing skepticism and unbelief. Pardon me if I sound a little like a certain Freelover in my stridency here; but the wound stings more when my neighbor robs my house than when a foreigner does. And atheists and agnostics should by all rights be neighbors, and good neighbors without fences at that. >Smile! >>><snip the rest of the lunacy> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ok moron......lets go over this, your slow, but if you pay attention you might >learn something. The only moron here, is yourself, who has no idea what an atheist is, and instead of acknowledging what has long since to ceased to be an honest mistake, arrogantly and nastily imagines he gets to tell atheists what our POV "really" is. [repetitionof the same old lies and stupidity deleted] >>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > [repetitionof the same old lies and stupidity deleted] IT is always nice to see a theist miss the obvious An atheist does not "believe" anything. And atheist simply says that no gods exist. It is not a belief. >>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > An atheist does not "believe" anything. > And atheist simply says that no gods exist. It is not a belief. By saying that a deity does not exist is the same as saying you do not believe that deity exists. If you agree that the deity is real, you believe the deity exists. It's the context of how the word is used. It is a belief, you hold the belief that deities do not exist. Nothing to be ashamed of, it's OK, really. I hold the same belief, deities do not exist. That is not to say that being of the mind that deities do not exist as a belief system, it's not. You have made an opinion of a topic, that topic is do you believe the Christian god or any god exists, the answer is no. I do not believe in deities or gods, they do not exist. The word believe is both a transitive and an intransitive verb, it can be used in a number of contexts. >>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >exist. The word believe is both a transitive and an intransitive verb, it can >be used in a number of contexts. Not only does he not read for comprehension, he hasn't the most basic grasp of logic. Why does he refuse to accept that an atheist isn't what he imagines? >>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Why does he refuse to accept that an atheist isn't what he imagines? You mean what you imagine. >>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >You mean what you imagine. If I'd meant that I would have sais that, serial liar. >>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > If I'd meant that I would have sais that, serial liar. Ohhh, that's right, you have a problem with the meaning fo words..........but I digress, you mean what you imagine. >>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >Ohhh, that's right, you have a problem with the meaning fo words..........but I >digress, you mean what you imagine. This from the imbecile who says not believing something, is a belief in the opposite. >>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>>believe >>>that deity exists. Saying that you do not believe a deity exists is not the same thing as saying it does not exist. If you agree that the deity is real, you believe the deity >>>exists. It's the context of how the word is used. It is a belief, you >>>hold the >>>belief that deities do not exist. Are you actually telling people what they believe? Nothing to be ashamed of, it's OK, really. I >>>hold the same belief, deities do not exist. I don't, and I am an atheist according to the definition used in alt-atheism and the one used in my dictionary. It is about time that you stopped your silly game and found something else to do. snip >>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Are you actually telling people what they believe? If you actually unstood the English language, you would know what I mean. > Nothing to be ashamed of, it's OK, really. I >>>>hold the same belief, deities do not exist. > > I don't, and I am an atheist according to the definition used in alt-atheism > and the one used in my dictionary. It is about time that you stopped your > silly game and found something else to do. The only silliness is you. BTW, what dictionary? One you conjured up? > snip >>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >If you actually unstood the English language, you would know what I mean. Your problem is that you don't. If you did you wouldn't insist that not believing something, is the same as believing the opposite. >> Nothing to be ashamed of, it's OK, really. I >>>>>hold the same belief, deities do not exist. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >The only silliness is you. BTW, what dictionary? One you conjured up? You've been given several. You even quoted some yourself. But you blew it by pretending that not believing in it, is the same as believing it doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> > If you actually unstood the English language, you would know what I mean. I know that one of the definitions found in dictionaries for "atheism" is the lack of belief in a god. I do not know why you continue to insist that atheism is a belief and that the definition you use is the only possible one. Why do you do that? >> Nothing to be ashamed of, it's OK, really. I >>>>>hold the same belief, deities do not exist. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > The only silliness is you. BTW, what dictionary? One you conjured up? I have at least 10 dictionaries. Just to name one example one of "Funk and Wagnalls" definitions for "atheism" is disbelief in a god. "Disbelief", by the way, is not a belief; it is lack of belief. I accept your apology for suggesting I made it up. >> snip "Disbelief", by > the way, is not a belief; it is lack of belief. Theists, being all eaten up with superstition, have a real hard time accepting this concept. >>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >atheism is a belief and that the definition you use is the only possible >one. Why do you do that? Far too many people who aren't atheist "know" it's a belief, refuse to be corrected and use all sorts of fallacies to try and "prove" we're not telling the truth about ourselves. Which is a combination of arrogant rudeness and aggressive stupidity. When they resort to definition wars they have already lost and are obstructing communication to avoid acknowledging an explanation . which shouldn't even have been necessary. It's an infuriating, deliberate and nasty red herring that earns the perp every ounce of contempt he gets. Especially when they compound their aggressive stupidity by not knowing what dictionaries are for and how they work, so they cherry pick a definition which they think supports them ignoring those which don't. >>> Nothing to be ashamed of, it's OK, really. I >>>>>>hold the same belief, deities do not exist. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the way, is not a belief; it is lack of belief. I accept your apology for >suggesting I made it up. At its most basic it means "not to believe". It doesn't say why or what other believes they might have. So "not to believe" is the most that can be assumed. It's another word where they cherry pick a definition after the speakers has clarified which meaning they are using. Again to obstruct communication as an excuse to ignore the explanation. Especially when they have ignored definitions that support us next to it on the very same dictionary page. It tells us a lot of unflattering things about their honesty, courtesy intelligence. "An atheist is somebody who disbelieves in gods, in the sense of doesn't believe". Which is a pretty clear description of the position. "But that's not what atheist or disbelieve means". Instead of acknowledging that it's the label for our position that we have taken the trouble to explain to them after they got it wrong. Or... "I'm atheist because I wasn't taught to be theist and remained as atheist as the day I was born, in the sense of not being theist" Which is also pretty clear. "But that's not what atheist means". The correct thing for them to do would be to listen to how the word is being used especially when it has just been explained. Which they don't do. It's very revealing about them. From Austin Cline's (he was an alt.atheism regular for several years) articles on atheism at about.com: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard_4.htm A common theme throughout the definitions on this page is the primary use of "disbelieve" when defining atheism. Some modern dictionaries drop this, but most comprehensive dictionaries do not. For some reason, however, people simply ignore this word and move right along to the secondary sense of "denial." When we take a closer look at the word "disbelieve," however, we find two senses: an active and a passive. In the passive sense, "disbelieve" can simply mean "not believe".... >>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > atheism is a belief and that the definition you use is the only possible one. > Why do you do that? Would you agree with this statement? God's or deities ( which ever word you feel comfortable with ) do not exit. >>> Nothing to be ashamed of, it's OK, really. I >>>>>>hold the same belief, deities do not exist. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >>> snip > Would you agree with this statement? > God's or deities ( which ever word you feel comfortable with ) do not exit. Two gods enter, only one exits. SignatureIf you don't beat your meat You can't have any pudding How can you have any pudding If you don't beat your meat? >> Would you agree with this statement? >> God's or deities ( which ever word you feel comfortable with ) do not exit. > >Two gods enter, only one exits. That's way out, man. >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > God's or deities ( which ever word you feel comfortable with ) do not > exit. I'd agree that my belief in them does not exist. Of that much I am extremely confident. >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I'd agree that my belief in them does not exist. > Of that much I am extremely confident. Do you agree with the statment? It's simple yes, no or "I do not know". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> > Do you agree with the statment? It's simple yes, no or "I do not know". Ok. The honest answer is 'I don't know' The extended answer would be that the probability of god(s) existing is so vanishingly small based on the continuing lack of evidence, that I may as well have said 'yes' I agree with your statement. If asked in the pub in casual conversation I would unhesitatingly agree with your statement. It's an approximation that most definitely works for me. I would answer exactly the same way if asked about other mythical figures for which there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >Ok. The honest answer is 'I don't know' A browbeaten answer to a loaded question so he'll think the "I don't know" doesn't mean what you meant. >The extended answer would be that the probability of god(s) existing is so >vanishingly small based on the continuing lack of evidence, that I may as >well have said 'yes' I agree with your statement. If asked in the pub in >casual conversation I would unhesitatingly agree with your statement. It's >an approximation that most definitely works for me. He's had this explained several times already. >I would answer exactly the same way if asked about other mythical figures >for which there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence. Which isn't the answer he wants. And the other guy in the pub would see it as meaning more than you meant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > I would answer exactly the same way if asked about other mythical figures for > which there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence. The statement is what's called a preposition. And a belief is nothing more than a state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true or false. proposition refers to either (a) the "content" or "meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or (b) the pattern of symbols, marks, or sounds that make up a meaningful declarative sentence. Propositions in either case are intended to be truth-bearers, that is, they are either true or false. No matter what the subject psychologically you will make a decision, which will be yes, no; or I don't know. A yes or no is belief, you either believe the statement as true, yes; or believe the statement as false, no; or you have no opinion one way or the other. In that case you are agnostic on the subject, meaning you do not have knowledge. The whole argument in this thread is nothing more than a play on semantics. A lot of atheist web sites play this game in response to theist sites calling atheism a religion. The fact of the matter is a belief is not a religious thing. It's just a state of mind as to what you believe on the subject. If I were to say it's raining here now you will make the same psychological decision. I can pretty much bet you will not believe me or not have an opinion one way or the other. Why? You do not know where I live, you do not know me, so why should you take me at my word. The only way for you to make the decision to believe the statement is to find where I live and check the weather report. So your belief in the statment would most likely that you do not believe me Non- religious belief. Just as there are levels of being agnostic, there are levels of belief. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > that you do not believe me Non- religious belief. Just as there are levels > of being agnostic, there are levels of belief. The problem is that many people who I have this argument with are not interested in my belief or not in gods. They are interested in using the word 'belief' against me ie as in the 'atheism is a religion' crap. Maybe, from your definition of 'belief' (which I am prepared to accept as one valid definition) I *do* believe that there are no gods. But this is not the same 'take it on faith' definition of 'belief' which theists use. This is the type of belief which is based on logic. In the same way that I believe a chair will support my weight. Or that headbutting a wall will hurt. Or that a ball thrown in the air will return to earth. So yes, by this definition of belief I will accept that I *do* believe there are no gods. The *other* definition of belief would be the 'take it on faith' definition of 'belief'. This is the definition most used in arguments against atheists. By this definition I most assuredly do not hold the belief that there are no gods. Whichever definition you use, I would still maintain that when I say I am an atheist, I mean "I have no belief in gods" rather than "I believe there are no gods". I would never even say those words "I believe there are no gods" simply because of the faith connotations. 'Belief' is one of those words whose meaning has become so corrupted by misuse that on its own it is virtually meaningless. Far better words exist, and combinations of words. "I have concluded there are no gods" "I have decided there are no gods" heck, even "I think there are probably no gods" is better than using the word 'belief' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > interested in my belief or not in gods. They are interested in using the word > 'belief' against me ie as in the 'atheism is a religion' crap. Agreed, that is exactly what happens. Our language is evolving to become something it is not by just the example you cited. Words like pagan or gay for example do not mean today what they really mean, or at least one time meant. > Maybe, from your definition of 'belief' (which I am prepared to accept as one > valid definition) I *do* believe that there are no gods. > > But this is not the same 'take it on faith' definition of 'belief' which > theists use. You noticed I did not even go into the faith thing. Faith is not belief, nor is belief faith. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof, is also not a religious thing. Theist think they have a corner on that, they are wrong. Example: I'm sure you've heard how love bugs came about? The story that they were a biological mistake at a Florida university, that the university was working on a solution to the mosquito population, and that they got out? Now that they are out there are no natural predators so they just breed and breed? A lot, and I mean a LOT of people buy that. That is faith. The fact is love bugs are an introduced fly from Central America. > This is the type of belief which is based on logic. > In the same way that I believe a chair will support my weight. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 'Belief' is one of those words whose meaning has become so corrupted by misuse > that on its own it is virtually meaningless. Which is what I've been getting at. Like "love", or "favorite". > Far better words exist, and combinations of words. > "I have concluded there are no gods" > "I have decided there are no gods" > heck, even "I think there are probably no gods" is better than using the word > 'belief' > > I'd agree that my belief in them does not exist. > > Of that much I am extremely confident. > > > Do you agree with the statment? It's simple yes, no or "I do not know". Apparently you cannot make your argument without demanding that other people artificially limit their responses, that they keep to a carefully chosen, indeed equivocal, subset of possible answers. That is strong evidence that your thinking on this matter is hopelessly circumscribed. You're stuck inside a very small box, and you're trying to pull everyone else into it. Signature----------- Brian E. Clark >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > God's or deities ( which ever word you feel comfortable with ) do not > exit. What if I answered ' I don't know what this 'God' thing you keep talking about is'. If I had never even heard of or considered the concept of God before (and let's face it, it's hardly a requirement for living one's life, is it?) then am I an atheist or a theist? By the 'definition' of atheism that says atheists 'believe there are no gods', I am not an atheist. I'm also not a theist. It's either, or. You either have religious belief (theist) or you don't (atheist). A person who has never considered God, or that such a thing needs to exist, is by definition an atheist. >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > A person who has never considered God, or that such a thing needs to exist, is > by definition an atheist. A belief is not religious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > A belief is not religious. Beliefs about god(s) are indeed by their nature religious. They are, by definition, theistic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> >> A belief is not religious. Silly. If it's a religious belief it's a religious belief. >Beliefs about god(s) are indeed by their nature religious. >They are, by definition, theistic. He won't let god(s) be "somebody else's religious belief". It's simplistic single-level thinking about something that is inherently meaningless outside the religion as anything other than "what they believe". Nobody insists that you have to see Archie Bunker as anything more than a character in a TV series. They don't demand a simplistic yes/no answer to "does he or doesn't he exist?" so they can crow that they were right about your POV even though they weren't. What makes a character from somebody else's religious beliefs any different?. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Beliefs about god(s) are indeed by their nature religious. > They are, by definition, theistic. You do not have to be religious to believe that deities exist or not exist. It's really a metaphysical question. A theist will make it a religious question if you let them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > A person who has never considered God, or that such a thing needs to > exist, is by definition an atheist. Actually - since no actual provable definition of a god has even been presented - consideration of belief is moot >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Would you agree with this statement? >God's or deities ( which ever word you feel comfortable with ) do not exit. Can't you read for comprehension? Why do you feel the need to browbeat people into giving simplistic least-bad-fit answers which don't describe their actual POV? What part of OUTSIDE THE RELIGION THEY ARE "SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF" is so hard to understand that you want them to treat it as any more than that? Why do you feel the need to do this? >>>> Nothing to be ashamed of, it's OK, really. I >>>>>>>hold the same belief, deities do not exist. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >>>> snip >>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Why does he refuse to accept that an atheist isn't what he imagines? That would be a good description of YOU However - for an atheist - the word "god" has no established meaning. Theists have yet to provide any proof of anything about them. >>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >That would be a good description of YOU Of course not, liar. I'm atheist. >However - for an atheist - the word "god" has no established meaning. Yes it does, moron - in terms of religious and cultural belief. Think comparative religion rather than something that could or could not exist. What neither believers nor agnostics seem to miss, is that the concept of "god as seen inside the religion", is meaningless outside the religion" - all it is, is what they believe, perform acts of ritual and supplication etc to, weave myths and legends about etc. In other words the same way pretty much everybody sees Zeus, Odin and all the others. >Theists have yet to provide any proof of anything about them. If they had the sense not to talk about it outside their religion as though everybody should see them their way there would be no problem. Atheists only demand proof to get them to shut up when they can't prove them. >>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The word believe is both a transitive and an intransitive verb, it can > be used in a number of contexts. Indeed based on your statement However - Atheists and agnostics ACCEPT what is true - they don't believe what is not proven to be. So - for an atheist - the word "god" has no meaning. FOr an agnostic - it means only what can be established to be true. >>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > So - for an atheist - the word "god" has no meaning. > FOr an agnostic - it means only what can be established to be true. The word god/deity, which ever you feel more comfortable with does have a meaning. You can find it as well in a dictionary. It's along the same lines as Dan's lepercon or any other mythical creature. The real question is are you of the mind to say yes it's real or not. That is the bottom line of the topic. Deny existence or not, believe it exists or not. If the word had no meaning, there would be no discussion. > >>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> > >>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > By saying that a deity does not exist is the same as saying you do not believe > that deity exists. No. PDW >> >>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >> >>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > An atheist does not "believe" anything. >> > And atheist simply says that no gods exist. It is not a belief. What the atheist says, depends on the believer he is responding to. >> By saying that a deity does not exist is the same as saying you do not believe >> that deity exists. > >No. He's already demonstrated he can't tell the difference between not believing something and believing the opposite. So he replaces accurate expressions like "no reason to believe something" and "conclude as an abstract exercise on what theists insist on telling us" with "believe". It doesn't matter whether X is his god or his Porsche, the result is the same. Zero. And he's too stupid to realise this, or that this is falsifiable by theists providing evidence - which is simply how unsupported claims are dealt with in the real world. To call these belief is dishonest, an emotionally prejudicial falsehood. He's Russell's stupid man, getting himself very confused because he filters what he is told through his own ignorance: "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand" - Bertrand Russell "And they think we're stupid because they think they understand but don't" - me >PDW >>> >>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>> >>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > He's already demonstrated he can't tell the difference between not > believing something and believing the opposite. So your saying you have no confidence in your statement that deities do not exist. > So he replaces accurate expressions like "no reason to believe > something" and "conclude as an abstract exercise on what theists [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >>PDW >>>> >>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>> >>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >So your saying you have no confidence in your statement that deities do not >exist. What statement are you lying about, serial liar? >> So he replaces accurate expressions like "no reason to believe >> something" and "conclude as an abstract exercise on what theists >> insist on telling us" with "believe". It doesn't matter whether X is >> his god or his Porsche, the result is the same. Zero. Which is the root of your problem. >> And he's too stupid to realise this, or that this is falsifiable by >> theists providing evidence - which is simply how unsupported claims [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >>>PDW >>>>>>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>>>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Which is the root of your problem. THere is no problem - since there are no supernatural deities that are proven to exist - and there has never been any proven to exist. That remains a fact. On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: > "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > By saying that a deity does not exist is the same as saying you do not believe > that deity exists. No. PDW Then you believe the deity exists. > On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > PDW > Then you believe the deity exists. No moron. Atheists have no beliefs with regard to dieties, until it can be shown that any of them exist. That no evidence has ever been produced in whole of recorded history leads me to the conclusion that the likelyhood of any diety ever being shown to exist is very close to zero. To anyone who claims (without evidence) that there is a god, my answer is "I don't believe you". SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >exist is very close to zero. To anyone who claims (without evidence) that >there is a god, my answer is "I don't believe you". He thinks that not believing something means believing the opposite. >>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > He thinks that not believing something means believing the opposite. Maybe they think that everybody has the same level of "faith" / gullibility they do "you have to believe in something." I believe I will have another beer. >>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > He thinks that not believing something means believing the opposite. No - when something actually doesn't exist - belief is not involved. So atheists simply state that gods do not exist - it is not belief - it is reality - and no one has EVER proven that they do exist. >>>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >So atheists simply state that gods do not exist - it is not belief - it >is reality - and no one has EVER proven that they do exist. No - he's told us serveral times they mean the same even though they don't. It's what he's used to justify telling us what we "really" believe. Like too many others who aren't mind readers he refuses to accept that all it takes to be atheist, is not being theist. >>>>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Like too many others who aren't mind readers he refuses to accept that > all it takes to be atheist, is not being theist. As much as I would like to agree with you - I cannot I am an agnostic - I am neither a theists or an atheist. What it takes to be an atheists is to reject the idea that the word "god" has any meaning! Sci.hysics? snip to current participants. snip >> Like too many others who aren't mind readers he refuses to accept >> that all it takes to be atheist, is not being theist. > As much as I would like to agree with you - I cannot Fair dinkum gov, but. I cannot in clear conscience agree with you, or the following. > I am an agnostic - I am neither a theists or an atheist. Actually, you are, to my way of thinking, a theist. Not a particular brand of theist, but if you weren't, the question about gods would be so moot it would never willingly come up. You see, to give weight to the question, the aprori stance just about has to be, there may be a god & the question is worth considering & wasteing skull sweat on. Quite a differance from there may be a god, but without evidence, WTFO, no skull sweat required. > What it takes to be an atheists is to reject the idea that the word > "god" has any meaning! The word god has meaning, & depending on the culture that uses it, the meaning varies. Outside the fanatical revealed gods of the desert followers, the concept is geneally benign & helpful to humanity. Keyword, generally. When studying the myths of various cultures, there are more good gods than those like the revealed gods of the desert. But what is a god, or can one be defined to everyone's satisfaction? probably not, they all like to make exceptioons for theirs, but from my reading, there is only one requirement for deity status. Thou Must Be Supernatural. Given that, & the lack of evidence to support the claims, tghe question begs folr an answer. Why bother to even worry over it, or even consider the question. Now, if you are into philosophy, it is the perfect question. One that can not be answered, but many answers can be calimed for it. >>>> What is a god, a short & incomplete list. Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities of the human species. [Incomplete] Anthropomorphic A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared] B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek pantheon as an example] C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny. D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are concerned. E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a victim of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these types of gods.] Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are, lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful than others. Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic & Germanic in origin. Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the European ones. Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red Hat, are not. Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world, they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most understand the term. Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation. Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to go. Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life Astral/solar All heavenly bodies Can you add to the list, have I slighted any god concept? walksalone who will not pretend to academic level of knowledge about the gods of humanity, & will not suppress a grin when someone tells me they, or theirs is real. Zarathushtra asked Ahura Mazda: 'O Ahura Mazda, most beneficent Spirit, Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! 'What is the only word in which is contained the glorification of all good things, of all the things that are the offspring of the good principle?' Ahura Mazda answered: 'It is the praise of Holiness (Asha: the Ashem Vohu), O Spitama Zarathushtra! >>>>>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >I am an agnostic - I am neither a theists or an atheist. The a- prefix makes it binary. One is either theist or one isn't. Just like political/apolitical, sexual/asexual, symmetric/asymmetric, chromatic/achromatic etc. Atheist and agnostic are orthogonal. One can be either, neither or both. Atheist is about theism and its absence. Agnostic is about knowledge of something that is part of the theist's religious paradigm. >What it takes to be an atheists is to reject the idea that the word >"god" has any meaning! Again, somebody who isn't atheist tells atheists what our POV is and gets it wrong even after correction. It has meaning. But not the one theists and agnostics like you use. Which you have already nastily dismissed as my "deluded belief". >>>>>>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Agnostic is about knowledge of something that is part of the theist's > religious paradigm. No - it is not. A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either way. We reject the statements of theists just as vehemently as atheists - but simply based on the FACT that they actually do not KNOW anything about what they are saying. Huxley's famous line was "I don't know anything about gods - and neither do you" I was a long term heavy theist - I was raised in a very religious family - two of my father's brothers were monsignors - my father and anther also went to the seminary - although ultimately did not become priests - their sister was a nun - I was raised to be a priest - had to memorize the bible and the Baltimore Catechism at an early age - could speak latin with the priests in the family - and was a church organist for 35 years. When religion finally managed to convince me that they were frauds - and it took a lot to do that - I decided that I wanted a position that was supportable and could not be questioned. The atheist position is no more provable than the theists position - even if atheists are correct. However - the agnostic position - specifically the Huxley agnostic position - that no gods are PROVEN to exist - is true and factual. > Which you have already nastily dismissed as my "deluded belief". With the snipped portions - I mixed your posts up with those of theist - I was wrong -and apologize >>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >way. Which are part of the theist's religious paradigm, and "either way" implies 50:50 probability. They're not and have never been part of mine. Why are they part of yours? >>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >>way. > > Which are part of the theist's religious paradigm, and "either way" > implies 50:50 probability. That is a very strong assumption. >>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >>>way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >That is a very strong assumption. No. It's what "either way" means. >>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >>>>way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No. It's what "either way" means. If that is the case, perhaps"either way" were not the appropriate words to use. >>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >>>>way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No. It's what "either way" means. Wait, I don't think that he was expressing a probability. He was merely stating that there are two sides. >>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >>>>>way. Huxley when he coined the phrase agnostic was not talking about god's / deities only but religion and religious doctrines, it was too him a much larger topic. His positon was because it can not be proven or evidence shown in an intelligent manner he has no need to entertain a debate. In other words he could not care less, it's not an important subject too him. He also then went on to say that if someone could come up with enough evidence on a topic such as the immortality of man, he would believe it, other wise it's a closed subject. Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account: When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"-had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took. By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). While A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable. >>>> Which are part of the theist's religious paradigm, and "either way" >>>> implies 50:50 probability. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wait, I don't think that he was expressing a probability. He was merely > stating that there are two sides. >>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >>>>>way. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Wait, I don't think that he was expressing a probability. He was merely >stating that there are two sides. "Either way" expresses an equivalence, even if he didn't mean it. >>>>>> A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >>>>>> way. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "Either way" expresses an equivalence, even if he didn't mean it. Yes - neither side knows anything about gods. >>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "Either way" expresses an equivalence, even if he didn't mean it. I think you can easily, and accurately, be accused of misconstruing his statement to further your agenda. >>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I think you can easily, and accurately, be accused of misconstruing his >statement to further your agenda. What "personal agenda"? I know you can easily and truthfully be accused of resorting to personal lies. >>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > What "personal agenda"? Theissm. > I know you can easily and truthfully be accused of resorting to > personal lies. Please offer an example or shut up. >>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Theissm. What a f.cking moron. I'm a life-long atheist. >> I know you can easily and truthfully be accused of resorting to >> personal lies. > >Please offer an example or shut up. Your lie about "personal agenda". Stop pretending. Here's a clue: He uses "no evidence either way" with its implied equivalence TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS. How do you think we are suppsed to read it? Especially when we have repeatedly explained the atheist POV after he got it wrong? >>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > What a f.cking moron. I'm a life-long atheist. I was unaware of that. You seem to have an odd view of evidence for an atheist. >>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >I was unaware of that. You seem to have an odd view of evidence for an >atheist. Then you suffer from reading comprehension difficulties. ' >>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Then you suffer from reading comprehension difficulties. > ' Not under normal circumstances. >>>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Not under normal circumstances. So why pretend I have a strange view of evidence for an atheist? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > So why pretend I have a strange view of evidence for an atheist? Pretend? You seem very open to "evidence" of a rather low quality. No doubt that this is sometimes necessary, but I try to never view such things as equivalent to demonstratable science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >this is sometimes necessary, but I try to never view such things as >equivalent to demonstratable science. You're either a f.cking moron or a liar. At this point it doesn't matter which. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > You're either a f.cking moron or a liar. At this point it doesn't > matter which. And all you have brought to the table is an insult. >>>>>>>> A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>> either [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I know you can easily and truthfully be accused of resorting to > personal lies. You are interpreting "either way" in a way I did not intent it- that's all. >>>>>>>>> A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>> either [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >You are interpreting "either way" in a way I did not intent it- that's all. Thanks. But the problem is that you used it as a differentiator between agnosticism and atheism. A lot of agnostics have a position very close to atheists, just with a different focus. Which is why I keep saying atheists haven't got anything to be agnostic about. But you kept saying there was no evidence either way. Whereas most atheists treat it as somebody else's religious belief. We are outside the theist paradigm. Which you called "my delusion". You obviously treat it differently than we do. For it to get beyond merely somebody else's religious belief the theist has a lot of work to do, starting with getting us to see it in their terms - then we might be agnostic about it. Then they have to provide evidence for it. Until then the same weak version of Popperian falsifiability is used that even theists use with practically every other unsupported claim. The falsifiable "no it isn't, prove it" isn't a counter claim, a belief or a claim to knowledge. It's simply the way the world works. And it's certainly not "my delusion". >>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I think you can easily, and accurately, be accused of misconstruing his >statement to further your agenda. Then he shouldn't have use language that expressed equivalence, in posts where he repeatedly misrepesents atheists. Which is hardly rocket science. How is that the "agenda" you lied about? >>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > How is that the "agenda" you lied about? "Either or" merely means that there are more than one view. It expresses nothing as to probability unless you decide to choose to see it that way. And your agenda is theism, obviously. >>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >nothing as to probability unless you decide to choose to see it that way. >And your agenda is theism, obviously. He said "either way" which he used to differentiate between atheists and agnostics. >>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > He said "either way" which he used to differentiate between atheists > and agnostics. "A Huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either way." He is offering two alternatives, saying nothing about their respective probabilies. >>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >He is offering two alternatives, saying nothing about their respective >probabilies. Yet he uses language that implies an equivalence, which he uses to differentiate between agnostics and atheists. >>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Yet he uses language that implies an equivalence, which he uses to > differentiate between agnostics and atheists. You chose to try to read it that way. I await you baffling next. >>>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >You chose to try to read it that way. I "choose" no such thing, liar. Especially when it's the differentiator he uses between atheists and agnostics. >I await you baffling next. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Especially when it's the differentiator he uses between atheists and > agnostics. And that is not what he was doing - liar - yourself . . . . >>I await you baffling next. Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >And that is not what he was doing - liar - yourself . . . . Then why does he keep saying it to atheists? >>>I await you baffling next. > >Thank you. FOAD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ods - [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > FOAD Is that supposed to be an insult? >>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > nothing as to probability unless you decide to choose to see it that way. > And your agenda is theism, obviously. Now that is very strange. How could you possibly confuse him with a theist? >>>>>>>>>>A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - >>>>>>>>>>either [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Now that is very strange. How could you possibly confuse him with a > theist? I have not followed this thread very closely and his discussion of evidence seemed to me to be something that a theist might use to excuse his beliefs. >>>>> A huxley agnostic simply says there is no knowledge about gods - either >>>>> way. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wait, I don't think that he was expressing a probability. He was merely > stating that there are two sides. Indeed >>>>>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > I am an agnostic - I am neither a theists or an atheist. You either have a belief in a god or you do not. Being an agnostic does not exclude the possibility of being theist or atheist. > What it takes to be an atheists is to reject the idea that the word "god" > has any meaning! No, it is merely not to have any belief in any god. One does not even have to be aware that such a concept exists. >>>>>>> On Jul 5, 8:31 pm, "Fred Thomas" <f...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > You either have a belief in a god or you do not. Being an agnostic does > not exclude the possibility of being theist or atheist. Sorry - YOU are simply wrong - belief is NOT required about the subject at hand - ie gods. I do not believe - I only accept FACTS - about gods. >> What it takes to be an atheists is to reject the idea that the word >> "god" has any meaning! > > No, it is merely not to have any belief in any god. Again - you are wrong. One needs no belief - to reject the existence of leprechauns, the easter bunny, ogres, imps, fairies, angels, devils, and gods - as having no basis in fact. The word "god" as used by theists like you - has No provable meaning - and until YOU can prove it does - there is no reason to consider whether to believe it or not. > That no evidence has ever been produced in whole of recorded history leads > me to the conclusion that the likelyhood of any diety ever being shown to > exist is very close to zero. To anyone who claims (without evidence) that > there is a god, my answer is "I don't believe you". I do like your typo ... "diety". A nicely ironic commentary on the religious fervour with which weight-loss schemes are both proselytised and followed. But always remember: dieties never work.... >> That no evidence has ever been produced in whole of recorded history >> leads [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > both proselytised and followed. But always remember: > dieties never work.... That must by why so many fundy preachers are fat, or maybe they are just full of it. >>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > An atheist does not "believe" anything. > And atheist simply says that no gods exist. It is not a belief. Take your misunderstandings elsewhere, please. Signaturemonkfish >>>>>> <snip the rest of the lunacy> >>>>> The only lunacy was yours, serial liar wh dismisses explanations with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Take your misunderstandings elsewhere, please. Sorry - My statement remains true The word god has yet to have an established provable meaning So - provide a list of all the things about a god that you can PROVE I misunderstand - which of course is NOTHING. >>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > definition is a form of atheisum, not being an agnostic. An agnostic has > not formed an opinion. Sorry, you are simply wrong. That is not the correct definition of atheism or agnosticism. An (A)-(THEIST) is one who is (WITHOUT)-(GOD-BELIEF). An atheist can one who does not believe in any god because he finds the evidence lacking or has never encountered the concept. This is often called a weak atheist. Some may go farther, and claim that no god is possible, that the nature of the universe excludes the possibility of a god. This person would be called a strong atheist. An (A)-(GNOSTIC) is one who is (WITHOUT)-(CERTAINTY) regarding the existence of a god, or perhaps without certainty regarding god's true nature. One can be an atheist-agnostic, or a theist-agnostic. I'll agree that in the common tongue, people slur these precise definitions into a muddled mess, but those who want to discuss the issues should use words carefully and correctly. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." - Friedrich Nietzsche >>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >definitions into a muddled mess, but those who want to discuss the issues >should use words carefully and correctly. No agnostic is honestly enough to be equally agnostic about Zeus, Odin and all the others. And too many scream how much more open-minded thay are than atheists. Yet they aren't open-minded enough to let atheists be what we actually are. Instead they nastily insist we are described by their straw man. Because they are incapable of grasping that they see g/God(s) in theist terms to say they don't know. While an atheist is totally outside the theist worldview. >>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > definitions into a muddled mess, but those who want to discuss the issues > should use words carefully and correctly. Webster: agnostic:1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity Smile! >Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity They're just as wrong as you are. Here's a clue: when it's the label for our position the only valid meaning is the one that describes our position. Not what pig-ignorant religious loonies who can't think outside the box imagine it is. Because we're outside that box and cannot be described according to presumptions that only apply inside it. >Smile! >>>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Smile! If you want to know what atheists are, you need to ask the atheists. Dictionaries include usage, even wrong usage, of words. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a lack of confidence." -- Doug McLeod >> Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity >> >> Smile! > >If you want to know what atheists are, you need to ask the atheists. >Dictionaries include usage, even wrong usage, of words. I've never understood the mentality that doesn't understand this, which tries to put us right after we have explained ourselves. Yet so many of them tell atheists that we are confused about what it means to be atheist. The ones who cite "the" dictionary as an authority on what we "really" believe have a mental blobs that stops them even seeing anything else but the meaning they have already decided on. They also don't seem to understand that they don't to decide which definition is used. Context does that - in this case what our actual position is. Not the one they invent that we don't have. It isn't just stupid, it's arrogant and rude as well. >>> Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >It isn't just stupid, it's arrogant and rude as well. Tell me about it. These self-proclaimed "agnostics" are usually even more pig-headed and annoying than the fundies. >>>> Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Tell me about it. These self-proclaimed "agnostics" are usually even >more pig-headed and annoying than the fundies. They're not interested in communication - otherwise they'd listen to what our position is rather than argue about what they think the word atheist means. >>>>> Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > what our position is rather than argue about what they think the word > atheist means. IIRC, Webster was a fundie. His definition of atheist, therefore, comes with much theistic baggage attatched. SignatureSmiler, The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer. >>>>>> Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >IIRC, Webster was a fundie. His definition of atheist, therefore, comes with >much theistic baggage attatched. Most other dictionaries give definitions from both the theist and atheist perspective. Even though the theist one is a straw man that invents beliefs it attributes to us. http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9161.htm "Let Dictionaries Usurp Ur Right To Self-Definition" After pointing out that Webster defines God as real but Encarta and Oxford define it in terms of those religions that believe in it, while they all treat the Greek gods, astrology etc as beliefs..... Now, let's look at the various reports of the usage of the word atheist and compare them with how atheists themselves have defined themselves. First, let's look at Merriam Webster's: one who denies the existence of God Now Encarta: somebody who does not believe in a God or gods Now Oxford American: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods The Merriam Webster's definition shows two biases: First, this definition presupposes the existence of God. Then, MW has the audacity to assert that an atheist is someone who denies this "fact." Encarta and Oxford, on the other hand, leave open the possibility that an atheist simply lacks belief, not forcing their definitions to mean that an atheist asserts that no gods exist. Neither Encarta nor Oxford overtly presupposes the existence of God. But you try getting this through to a psycho who is convinced there is something wrong with us. >>>>>>> Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > But you try getting this through to a psycho who is convinced there is > something wrong with us. Merriam-Webster athe·ist Pronunciation: \'a-the-ist\ Function: noun Date: 1551 : one who believes that there is no deity American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language a·the·ist (th-st) KEY NOUN: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) noun Definition: unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities Cambridge International Dictionary of English atheist Show phonetics noun [C] someone who believes that God or gods do not exist Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed athe·ist (-ist') noun a person who believes that there is no God Infoplease Dictionary a.the.ist Pronunciation: (a'the-ist), [key] -n. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. It does not matter what dictonary you use, they all carry the same meaning. A person that does not believe in deities. Which means the person believes there is no god. Which means the person denies that gods are real. Which menas the person is an unbeliever in deities. Which means a person who disbelieves in deities. I do not care which wording you "prefer", the means are the same. Now, who said that because you are an athiest there is something wrong with you? I did nothing of the sort. Your atheist, that's ok with me, I do not care. Your are stupid though, that has nothing to do with your being an athiest, it has to do with ..................................well, your stupid. > Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition > a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or >deities WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS MEANS, IMBECILE? Did your cognitive dissonance make it disappear? >It does not matter what dictonary you use, they all carry the same meaning. Can't you read for comprehension? >A person that does not believe in deities. Which means the person believes there >is no god. Failed logic as well, imbecile? Once again, atheists haven't got anything to "believe does not exist" because it's merely part of someody else's religious worldview. Why do you keep ignoring this? [rest of this moronic stupidity deleted] >> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > [rest of this moronic stupidity deleted] Dont care what "word" you want to use dumb a.s, it all means the same. Believe. belief, disbelief, all the same. >>> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >>> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Dont care what "word" you want to use dumb a.s, it all means the same. Believe. >belief, disbelief, all the same. BUT NOT BELIEVING SOMETHING ISN'T A BELIEF, IMBECILE. Which word was too long for you? >>>> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >>>> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>> Once again, atheists haven't got anything to "believe does not exist" >>> because it's merely part of someody else's religious worldview. It's not a religious worldview. >>> Why do you keep ignoring this? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Which word was too long for you? None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a disbelief. If that were not true you would not be so defensive about it. You either believe something is true or you believe something is false. You believe the concept of deities is false. Because of that you deny the existence of deities, your belief is that they are imagination. The only reality of a deity is the same reality of any other fictional character, the existence is in print or some other media only. You are confused. >>>>> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >>>>> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>> >It's not a religious worldview. Gods are SOMEBODY ELSE'S religious worldview, serial liar. >>>> Why do you keep ignoring this? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >None, You're a f.cking moron. Believing something means performing an action. Not believing something means not performing it. Which says nothing about what (if any) other action may or may not be performed. Are you really this stupid or just being an a.shole being a rectal orififice for the sake of being ana nal sphincter? > you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a disbelief. If >that were not true you would not be so defensive about it. Nobody is defensive, serial liar. > You either believe >something is true or you believe something is false. Don't be so f.cking stupid. Hint: lookup "false dichotomy" and "excluded middle". > You believe the concept of >deities is false. A liar as well as an idiot. I OBSERVE that people believe them as part of their religions. Are you capable of grasping the difference between OBSERVE and believe? In the real world beyond your room temperature IQ they are neither true nor false - but WHAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE TO BE TRUE as part of their religion. From the Encarta World Dictionary (print edition): "the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshiped as the only god" Inside the virtual reality of those religions they believe it is "real". Outside them it is "what they believe as part of those religions". Why do you feel the need to dismiss this with LOL? Why do you need to resort to personal insults because you can't understand this? > Because of that you deny the existence of deities, Nobody is denying anything, serial liar. Because "deny" is a loaded word that presumes what is being denied. > your belief >is that they are imagination. No, liar. I OBSERVE that some people believe they are real as part of their religions. Are you honestly incapable of understanding the difference? Are you even capabe of honesty? > The only reality of a deity is the same reality of No, liar. >any other fictional character, the existence is in print or some other media >only. No, liar. What part of "somebody else's religious beief, a cultural or anthropological phenomenon" are you pretending you are troo stupid to understand? > You are confused. No, liar. You're a f.cking moron who needs to learn both English and logic. As well as to stop lying. This is what you get if you are stupid enough to try using Sherlock Holmes' maxin in the real world without considering all the altyernatives. Even though you have been given people's exact positions several times already. Because you are too stupid you don't grant they could actually have them. And because you don't understand them you think they're stupid not you. >>>>> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >>>>> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a > disbelief. Disbelief is defined as not having a belief. It is not a belief itself. If > that were not true you would not be so defensive about it. You either > believe something is true or you believe something is false. You believe > the concept of deities is false. Because of that you deny the existence of > deities, your belief is that they are imagination. The only reality of a > deity is the same reality of any other fictional character, the existence > is in print or some other media only. You are confused. You are silly. >>>>>> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >>>>>> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue > If >> that were not true you would not be so defensive about it. You either believe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You are silly. >>>>>>> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >>>>>>> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> > : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the English Language" defines it as the inability to believe. One can fail to believe something without absolutely rejecting the possibility of it being true. Would you mind telling me why you take one, possible definition of a word, ignore the others and insist that your choice is the only possible one? >> If >>> that were not true you would not be so defensive about it. You either [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> You are silly. >>>>>>>> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >>>>>>>> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > telling me why you take one, possible definition of a word, ignore the > others and insist that your choice is the only possible one? One could ask YOU the same question. >>>>>>>>> Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition >>>>>>>>> a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists) [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > One could ask YOU the same question. You could, but it would not make any sense. <snip> > None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a > disbelief. If that were not true you would not be so defensive about it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reality of a deity is the same reality of any other fictional character, > the existence is in print or some other media only. You are confused. This is the point, Fred: Here are 2 statements: 1. "I don't believe in god(s)" 2. "I believe there are no gods" These two statements mean completely different things 1....One is a lack of belief (in god) 2.... is a belief of lack (of god) One requires faith (the latter) because it expresses a belief The other simply requires logic. It does not express a belief.. it expresses a lack of belief. Think it through, it's really not rocket science. Claiming the 2 statements are equivalent is just plain wrong. ><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Claiming the 2 statements are equivalent is just plain wrong. This has been explained several times - but for some reason the moron dismisses this with LOL accusing people who know the difference of being stupid. >> <snip> >>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > dismisses this with LOL accusing people who know the difference of > being stupid. Continuing to use childish names only established the lack of validity of your childish remarks. However - since no gods are proven to exist - it remains a moot point for me - since an agnostic will only accept what is proven to be. Since NONE are proven - this is NOT a belief - it remains a FACT. As far as an atheist - he really doesn't care - since he doesn't accept that gods can exist - much less think that they might. >>> <snip> >>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Continuing to use childish names only established the lack of validity >of your childish remarks. What "invalidity" of what "childish remarks"? Whether or not you like the language used to describe ihim is irrelevant. It has still been explained to him several times and dismissed with "LOL" and accusations thet we don't know what we are talking about. He simply reaps what he sows. >However - since no gods are proven to exist - it remains a moot point >for me - since an agnostic will only accept what is proven to be. >Since NONE are proven - this is NOT a belief - it remains a FACT. So? You and he still take no notice of atheists explaining what it means to them. >As far as an atheist - he really doesn't care - since he doesn't accept >that gods can exist - much less think that they might. An oversimplification. We care that when people tel the world our POV that they get it right. When they don't we correct them. Andd it is arrogantly >>> <snip> >>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > As far as an atheist - he really doesn't care - since he doesn't accept > that gods can exist - much less think that they might. Are you serious? It really is hard to believe that you are doing anything beyond attempting to be funny. > >>> <snip> > >>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Are you serious? It really is hard to believe that you are doing anything > beyond attempting to be funny. Being funny about WHAT - that you can PROVE? Otherwise - every statement made by theists is unsupported mumbo jumbo. IF I am supposed to back up MY statements with proof - so are you. On Jul 6, 4:00 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> skrev i > meddelelsennews:4a524c3c$0$31266$607ed4bc@cv.net... [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Are you serious? It really is hard to believe that you are doing anything > beyond attempting to be funny. Being funny about WHAT - that you can PROVE? Otherwise - every statement made by theists is unsupported mumbo jumbo. IF I am supposed to back up MY statements with proof - so are you. ------------------ thomas p I am an atheist. I have no trouble admitting the possibility that some god exists; I merely see no reason to believe that any do. Furthermore agnosticism is about the possibility of knowledge not about what people accept, it is the opposite of Gnosticism. >>>> <snip> >>>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Are you serious? It really is hard to believe that you are doing > anything beyond attempting to be funny. Funny about what There are NO supernatural gods that have been proven to exist - that remains a TRUE statement. >>>>> <snip> >>>>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > There are NO supernatural gods that have been proven to exist - that > remains a TRUE statement. I agree. There is, however, nothing about atheism that says an atheist cannot accept the possibility of a god, nor is there anything about agnosticism that says an agnostic cannot believe something that is not proven. >>> <snip> >>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > As far as an atheist - he really doesn't care - since he doesn't accept that > gods can exist - much less think that they might. : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence >> <snip> >>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > dismisses this with LOL accusing people who know the difference of > being stupid. I do not need to resort to calling names to get my point across. Look at the following statement James Bond (007) does not exist That is NOT a belief - that is a statement of fact While there may be people who actually believe that James Bond is real - I do not have to take their misguided belief into account when I say that it is a fact that James Bond IS NOT REAL. Because James Bond is not real. YOu are under that misunderstanding that atheists have to accommodate YOUR deluded belief when they YOU talk about gods - they do not. No gods exist - that is not a belief - that is simply a statement of fact for an atheist. To date - no theist has proven that to be wrong either. >>> <snip> >>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >I do not need to resort to calling names to get my point across. Nor do I first time around uless he has been egregiously stupid or offensive. >Look at the following statement > >James Bond (007) does not exist > >That is NOT a belief - that is a statement of fact And its an oversimplification of a character in a series of books and movies. >While there may be people who actually believe that James Bond is real - > I do not have to take their misguided belief into account when I say >that it is a fact that James Bond IS NOT REAL. Because James Bond is not >real. Most of us say he's a character in a set of books written by Ian Fleming that spawned a movie franchise. >YOu are under that misunderstanding that atheists have to accommodate >YOUR deluded belief when they YOU talk about gods - they do not. What "my DELUDED belief" are you lying about? Do you really have so much difficulty reading for comprehension that you have to filter it through a perspective that is sufficiently inside the theist perspective to see it as something that could or could not exist outside it? >No gods exist - that is not a belief - that is simply a statement of >fact for an atheist. Only if you imagine everybody has to see it as a thing that couild or couild not exist, rather than a character in somebody else's religion. >To date - no theist has proven that to be wrong either. So what? It's not our problem. Why do you think it is? Do you not understand how unsupported claims are pphrased in the negative so the negative can be falsified by providing evidence? Or the concept of the falsifiable conclusion, using basic logic on what theists insist on telling us? Or the falsifiable inductive conclusion based on t he fact that in spite of theists talking about "the evidence" they alway cop out of provididing it? Or that each time they do this reinforces the conclusion? > On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:25:30 -0400, Thommadura > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > And its an oversimplification of a character in a series of books and > movies. Fictional Books and movies - and James Bond is not real - no matter what you say. > >While there may be people who actually believe that James Bond is real - > > I do not have to take their misguided belief into account when I say [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Most of us say he's a character in a set of books written by Ian > Fleming that spawned a movie franchise. But not a real thing in reality! > >YOu are under that misunderstanding that atheists have to accommodate > >YOUR deluded belief when they YOU talk about gods - they do not. > > What "my DELUDED belief" are you lying about? The one about gods- that you have NO testable and verifiable proof of But then YOU knew that one > Do you really have so much difficulty reading for comprehension that > you have to filter it through a perspective that is sufficiently > inside the theist perspective to see it as something that could or > could not exist outside it? We don't care about the thiest perspective - unless they can PROVE something > >No gods exist - that is not a belief - that is simply a statement of > >fact for an atheist. > > Only if you imagine everybody has to see it as a thing that couild or > couild not exist, rather than a character in somebody else's religion. Sorry - it makes NO difference what religion you decide on . > >To date - no theist has proven that to be wrong either. > > So what? It's not our problem. Why do you think it is? You are the one making the claims - without proof of what you say - they are simply unsupported nonsense. If I make a statement , you want ME to prove it. If YOU make a statement - it is YOUR responsibility to prove it - or have is dismissed as Unsupported in facts - which in this case it true. > Do you not understand how unsupported claims are pphrased in the > negative so the negative can be falsified by providing evidence? Fire away - prove that gods actually exist in a testable and verifiable way - OR we can assume your statements about them have no validity. >>> <snip> >>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > No gods exist - that is not a belief - that is simply a statement of fact > for an atheist. It is clearly a statement of belief, and it is a belief clearly not required of atheists. I do not believe it, and I am an atheist. Some atheists probably do believe it, just as some like coffee flavored ice cream. > To date - no theist has proven that to be wrong either. > >>> <snip> > >>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > It is clearly a statement of belief, Sorry - but it is NOT a statement of belief - it remains - for an atheist - a statement of fact - just as the statement about James Bond is a fact as well. THere is nothing that can be proven that separates the two pieces of fiction. On Jul 6, 4:03 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> skrev i > meddelelsennews:4a52501a$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net... [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > It is clearly a statement of belief, Sorry - but it is NOT a statement of belief - it remains - for an atheist - a statement of fact - just as the statement about James Bond is a fact as well. THere is nothing that can be proven that separates the two pieces of fiction. #################################################### be·lief 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence > On Jul 6, 4:03 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> skrev i [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some > being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence Why use a third definition of the term - when we ALL know that there is no testable and verifiable proof of gods anyway. On Jul 6, 4:03 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Thommadura" <tommad...@optonline.net> skrev i > meddelelsennews:4a52501a$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net... [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > It is clearly a statement of belief, Sorry - but it is NOT a statement of belief - it remains - for an atheist - a statement of fact - just as the statement about James Bond is a fact as well. THere is nothing that can be proven that separates the two pieces of fiction. ------------------ The fact that I see no reason to believe in any god is not the same as saying that there is no god. >>> <snip> >>>> None, you do not believe in deities, which is the same as having a [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Claiming the 2 statements are equivalent is just plain wrong. Theists cannot comprehend that difference because they use the existence of a god as a given - without proof. However - an atheist does not accept that gods actually exist - so the belief in them is a moot point! > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. > These two statements mean completely different things > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Claiming the 2 statements are equivalent is just plain wrong. > >>>>>>> Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > Merr<Snip> No. As has been pointed out to you, arrogant jerk, you don't get to tell us what we are. PDW > Webster: > Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity Incorrect. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. > >>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. > >>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Smile! No. PDW >>>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Atheist:: one who believes that there is no deity Atheists define the terms that describe our point of view in such a way as to accurately reflect what that point of view actually is, not what someone who is *not* an atheist *thinks* it is. And our definition takes precedence over yours, Webster's, or anyone else who is not an atheist. People who are *not* something shouldn't presume to define what that thing is. >Smile! Smile yourself, Fred. No matter what Webster says, you're still wrong. Just curious. If a Hindu or a Buddhist, for example, told you that a definition of his point of view found in some dictionary or encyclopedia was wrong, would you listen to him, or would you arrogantly try to insist that *he's* wrong, as you're doing to us? >>>>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >>>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > is not an atheist. People who are *not* something shouldn't presume to > define what that thing is. Dude, I do not believe that deities exist, in that statement I am atheist. The statement is a factual statement in that is my POV on the subject, deities that men have named do not exist. >>Smile! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > encyclopedia was wrong, would you listen to him, or would you > arrogantly try to insist that *he's* wrong, as you're doing to us? There is no arrogance, that is a label you have incorrectly decided to use. POV means nothing. A definition is a definition. It's the same as 1+1=2. Just because you have a problem with something that has been defined does not make it wrong. What's next, you do not like the definition of the word "jump", so you'll redefine it to fit your "POV"? >>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > definitions into a muddled mess, but those who want to discuss the issues > should use words carefully and correctly. Sorry - but you are not correct either An agnostic does not accept that anyone actually knows anything about a god - so he would not be a theist-agnostic. And a huxley agnostic believes only in what can be proven about gods and religion - and rejects everything else as baseless. It was Huxley who coined the word agnostic. >> An (A)-(GNOSTIC) is one who is (WITHOUT)-(CERTAINTY) regarding the >> existence of a god, or perhaps without certainty regarding god's true [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> definitions into a muddled mess, but those who want to discuss the issues >> should use words carefully and correctly. > Sorry - but you are not correct either > > An agnostic does not accept that anyone actually knows anything about a > god - so he would not be a theist-agnostic. No, he is correct, since the theist/atheist part pertains to belief. If you believe there's a god but accept you can't know for sure, you're an agnostic theist. Except for genuine fundamentalists, most people in the world are agnostic theists, and most atheists are agnostic atheists. SignatureL. Raymond >>>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > religion - and rejects everything else as baseless. It was Huxley who > coined the word agnostic. Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include: Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism") —the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism") —the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out." Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism) —the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed] Agnostic atheism —the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9] Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism") —the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.) Ignosticism —the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss] Thomas Henry Huxley Thomas Henry Huxley.See also: Thomas Henry Huxley Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively: I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter... It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions... That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth. And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863: I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them. Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account:[11] When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took. Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other established Jewish and Christian doctrines. Agnosticism should not, however, be confused with natural theology, deism, pantheism, or other science positive forms of theism. By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). While A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable. >>>>>> Again, I'm agnostic. No evidence either way == I don't know. >>>>> Again you are being thick. I don't know that fairies do not exist even [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical > issues are fundamentally unknowable. Huxley's famous quote is - "I don't know anything about gods - and neither do you" His definition of an agnostic was the one found in Websters - that gods are unknown and likely unknowable. >> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you >> sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they >> do. > > That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic > about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid. No, it's cynicism. :-) In sci.skeptic Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you >>> sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, it's cynicism. > :-) I spend zero time and effort worrying about invisible pink elephants hiding under the bed. If the godbotherers were not attempting to force society into their own twisted world view I would spend zero time and effort worrying about religion. But they do, so I must. SignatureDon't believe in God? You are not alone. FreeThoughtAction.org > In sci.skeptic Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I spend zero time and effort worrying about invisible pink elephants > hiding under the bed. Good for you! > If the godbotherers were not attempting to force > society into their own twisted world view I would spend zero time and > effort worrying about religion. > > But they do, so I must. Religion makes society work. It is what binds cultures together. Your culture is in Darwin's dustbin. Quite frankly, the Islamic cultures are quickly replacing you. You have successfully attacked and damaged the very culture that tolerates your existence, and have made it so weak that a culture that will cut your head off will soon replace it. How smart is that? In sci.skeptic Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: >> In sci.skeptic Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > How smart is that? Religion is whatever the loudest godbothering shouters say it is. Not a good basis for a society. When a culture has to invent "Mecca Cola" because the younger generations are obsessed by western products, it's not the west that is in trouble. SignatureDon't believe in God? You are not alone. FreeThoughtAction.org Last time that great scribe Nomen Publicus <zzassgl@buffy.sighup.org.uk> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > In sci.skeptic Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the younger generations are obsessed by western products, it's not the west > that is in trouble. I find myself worrying about Marvin's political philosophy. He proclaims himself an agnostic who believes religion is good for society. The only success of a world view for him is the population multiplication outcome. He does not believe in a god (an atheist himself strictly speaking) but society itself is too stupid to handle life without gods. This is so superior, so Machiavellian, so fascist even. He probably believes in the "noble lie". He would see himself as part of the small number of superior people who can handle truth. He is vain and a chauvinist. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >> In sci.skeptic Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > very culture that tolerates your existence, and have made it so weak that > a culture that will cut your head off will soon replace it. No - it was the FEAR factor that that religious leaders used to create their DIVINE authority that bound cultures together in the past -= when the masses were largely uneducated and illiterate. We have already replaced that model with a superior form of government - that of the people - without any official religious involvement. > In sci.skeptic Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But they do, so I must. If it weren't religion, it would be something else. In North Korea today, it's juche and the adulation of the Great Leader. In the West, capitalism and its demand that we define ourselves first and foremost as consumers is a pretty strong influence. Hell, we are so in thrall to our political system that we go to war to impose our system on societies and nations which neither want nor can usefully enact them.... >>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>> you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, it's cynicism. > :-) Agnosticism is not about proof. There is no way to reasonably establish that the rats or a god exists according to agnosticism; it says nothing about proving the opposite. >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that > they do. The ironic thing is, the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that you're using here is the same illogic that lead to religion in the first place! The only difference between you is, when the religious got to the part where they don't know, they said ignorance means they know it exists, and you said ignorance means you know it doesn't exist. Despite the claim otherwise, we should be unconscious matter, and yet we are not. That hints at god. But I'm NOT saying God exists. I'm saying that: - I don't know one way or the other. - Religious belief is pan human, the science of anthropology has shown this. If we want a functional society, then we MUST have a religion. Look at how sociopathic you atheist are. I'd much rather live with Christians than you hate filled folks. - IF there is a god, then his word is physical law, and we can ask questions of him through scientific experiments. >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > where they don't know, they said ignorance means they know it exists, > and you said ignorance means you know it doesn't exist. *WRONG* I never said I know no god exists. I said "Based on the lack of evidence that any god exists, I am unconvinced - faced with the choice of believing or not believing, I don't believe. If you have evidence, present it." Do you believe Thor exists? The evidence is either compelling or it is not. If it is not, then you don't believe. That doesn't mean Thor can't exist . . . just that the evidence is to weak to be convincing. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, >>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > of believing or not believing, I don't believe. If you have evidence, > present it." Gibbering double speak noted. Do you even believe yourself? "I never said I know no god exists.... I don't believe (God exists)". I never said I had evidence. I said that many times. I said "I don't know". You can't understand that, can you? People who keep taking "I don't know" to mean "I am making a claim to know one way or the other" are idiots. >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >The ironic thing is, the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that you're >using here is the same illogic that lead to religion in the first place! What "appeal to ignorance" were yuou pretending he made, liar? >The only difference between you is, when the religious got to the part >where they don't know, they said ignorance means they know it exists, and >you said ignorance means you know it doesn't exist. Why don't you learn to read for comprehension, moron? >Despite the claim otherwise, we should be unconscious matter, and yet we >are not. That hints at god. Only in the deluded fantasies of those already brainwashed to believe in it. >But I'm NOT saying God exists. I'm saying that: >- I don't know one way or the other. WHAT IS THERE TO NOT KNOW "ONE WAY OR THE OTHER", IMBECILE? >- Religious belief is pan human, the science of anthropology has shown >this. If we want a functional society, then we MUST have a religion. Look No, moron. >at how sociopathic you atheist are. Theonly sociopath here is yourself, who is incapable of seeing the real world outside theistic religion. > I'd much rather live with Christians >than you hate filled folks. Oh, the irony. >- IF there is a god, then his word is physical law, and we can ask >questions of him through scientific experiments. Give us a reason to postulate one when there is nothing even to suggest one apart from pre-existing belief due to childhood brainwashing. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > The ironic thing is, the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that you're > using here is the same illogic that lead to religion in the first place! You have being that very fallacy yourself. You have said in effect we do not what consciousness is, therefore god(s) exist. What the posters have been saying to you is that you can not prove a negative and that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion. You can not prove that pink rats exist anymore than god(s). Why would anyone want to disprove pink rats or god(s)? Just a waste of time. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >> The ironic thing is, the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that you're >> using here is the same illogic that lead to religion in the first >> place! > You have being that very fallacy yourself. You have said in effect we do > not what consciousness is, therefore god(s) exist. Either stupid or a liar, what you are doesn't matter. It remains that I said "I don't know if god exists or not", and that the only rational position is agnostic. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > said "I don't know if god exists or not", and that the only rational > position is agnostic. You are misconstruing atheism. I don't know that fairies do not exist and yet I do not bother to make a belief system out of the non existence of fairies. Why would I bother? You are so unbelievably thick. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >"No one can prove X doesn't exist" is no reason to believe X does exist, >whatever X may be. Does he seriously imagine it fools anybody? Or that it is a satisfactory answer when theists beg the question? > No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you > sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they > do. Actually, it would probably be an easy thing to prove. Dave Greene >> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you >> sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they >> do. > > Actually, it would probably be an easy thing to prove. Please describe to us how you'd do it. Thanks! Olrik (Always wanting to learn!) > Dave Greene >>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>> you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> Dave Greene Take a large piece of cheese to bed with you. If it's nibbled in the morning, there's the proof! Unless you use a giant invisible piece of cheese. >>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>>> you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > morning, there's the proof! > Unless you use a giant invisible piece of cheese. Needn't be rats, though -- it could easily be mice, hamsters or a peckish alter boy. >>>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as >>>>> you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Needn't be rats, though -- it could easily be mice, hamsters > or a peckish alter boy. I know from personal experience that altar boys steal wine not cheese. > DAVID GREENE wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please describe to us how you'd do it. > Thanks! Well, for starters, I'd wrap your butt in plastic before you went to sleep. Then, in the morning, I'd check the plastic wrap for holes. If there were none then we would be done. If there were holes then we would get a government grant to research the next step. Dave Greene Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > > the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. Why is this relevant? You can not prove that the tooth fairy does not exist. > Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non- > existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is irrational. > The only scientific stand is to be agnostic; "I don't know" is > fundamental to science. You have a misunderstanding about what atheism is. It is not a belief that god(s) do not exist. It is a lack of belief in god(s). > What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human. > Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need a > god. Not exactly true. Mostly people have believe in animist spirits in every rock, tree and blade of grass or in a large number of gods. A belief in a monotheist god is not universal. Through out history slavery has been a nearly universal fact. You could extend the logic of your statement to say that "if you're going to have a functional society, humans need slavery". You are confusing the universal with the with necessary. > What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural > selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to changing > conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow. Do you have proof of a "god gene"? Here you are confusing genes with memes. I ask you has there been a biological evolution in the last couple of hundred years resulting in fewer people believing in god(s) or has there been a cultural evolution? > The atheist seem to not > understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of > evolution just as the religious people did with creationism. There's that bloody Marxist strawman again. Give him a rest. I've got to tell you that I get bloody sick and tired of that cheap shot. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Why is this relevant? You can not prove that the tooth fairy does not > exist. Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. >> Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non- >> existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You have a misunderstanding about what atheism is. It is not a belief > that god(s) do not exist. It is a lack of belief in god(s). You have made a semantic fallacy. >> What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human. >> Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rock, tree and blade of grass or in a large number of gods. A belief in > a monotheist god is not universal. Red herring fallacy, or straw man fallacy. Entirely not relevant. Belief in multiple gods means belief in at least one god. > Through out history slavery has been a nearly universal fact. Actually, it hasn't been. You labor under a false premise. Most hunter gatherers didn't do slavery. Slavery is a post-agriculture thing. Sending your "slave" out to hunt or gather almost always lead to the slave running away. Slavery isn't practical until agriculture is developed. And with the industrial age and the mercantile cultures, slavery was no longer needed. < snip more bad logic > >> What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural >> selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to >> changing conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow. > > Do you have proof of a "god gene"? Here you are confusing genes with > memes. See, for example, Dean Hamer's book "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes". > I ask you has there been a biological evolution in the last couple of > hundred years resulting in fewer people believing in god(s) or has there > been a cultural evolution? Many people don't have the god gene. I don't. However, in the past even those who didn't have the god gene had to give lip service to religion. Now they don't. >> The atheist seem to not >> understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of >> evolution just as the religious people did with creationism. > > There's that bloody Marxist strawman again. Give him a rest. I've got to > tell you that I get bloody sick and tired of that cheap shot. So, Marx wasn't an atheist, and the communist/socialist didn't call religion the opiate of the masses. And Stalin didn't murder 20 million Ukranians, and Mao didn't kill 60 million chinese, and the Yellow river didn't run red. Marxist are atheists, but not all atheists are Marxist. They are damn few, but not all. >> Why is this relevant? You can not prove that the tooth fairy does not >> exist. > > Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Let's see you do it. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> > > chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Then prove to me that the tooth fairy does not exist. You can't. > > >> Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You have made a semantic fallacy. No I have corrected you. > > >> What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Red herring fallacy, or straw man fallacy. Entirely not relevant. Belief > in multiple gods means belief in at least one god. The gods have been as varied as can be imagined. Hint. They are indistinguishable from imagined entities. > > Through out history slavery has been a nearly universal fact. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And with the industrial age and the mercantile cultures, slavery was no > longer needed. Hunter gatherers are prehistory. > < snip more bad logic > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > those who didn't have the god gene had to give lip service to religion. > Now they don't. What is the god gene and how do you know you don't have it? If genetics is so important in god belief how come god belief varies more than can be explained by genes. You said religious beliefs had been selected for by evolution. This is straight out nonsense because because the beliefs themselves vary more than can be accounted for by natural selection. > >> The atheist seem to not > >> understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So, Marx wasn't an atheist, and the communist/socialist didn't call > religion the opiate of the masses. Hitler was a Xian. Marx had no beliefs in gods > And Stalin didn't murder 20 million Ukranians, and Mao didn't kill 60 > million chinese, and the Yellow river didn't run red. That is everything to do with totalitarianism and little to do with god belief. There are plenty of god bothering totalitarians such as Hitler. > Marxist are atheists, but not all atheists are Marxist. They are damn > few, but not all. Bullcrap! Give up this sill strawman. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire >> Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. > > Then prove to me that the tooth fairy does not exist. You can't. Easily enough done. Put a tooth under your pillow. Wait for fairy. No fairy? Theory debunked. >> >> Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non- >> >> existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No I have corrected you. You clearly don't know what a semantic fallacy is; it is where you switch definitions using a word with multiple definitions. >> > Through out history slavery has been a nearly universal fact. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hunter gatherers are prehistory. Bullshit ignorance on your part. The American Indians were hunter gatherers. The !Kung Bushmen are hunter gatherers. And even if they were prehistory, it doesn't matter. Slavery is impractical in low labor cultures. >> < snip more bad logic > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What is the god gene and how do you know you don't have it? You ASKED For the scientific paper, I gave you the guy's book. Just like the creationist, if the science conflicts with your irrational belief, you feel free to dismiss science and run with your irrational belief. The whole point of the thread is that "science vs faith" don't mix. Good God, clearly atheism and science don't mix, either! >>> Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. >> >> Then prove to me that the tooth fairy does not exist. You can't. > > Easily enough done. Put a tooth under your pillow. Wait for fairy. No > fairy? Theory debunked. Lots of people pray to Jesus to save their loved ones from cancer, yet they die. The same is true of every religion, every prayer. By your logic, every religion, every god is a sham, and the only possible god is the deist creator who doesn't give a damn. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA "Don't you know there ain't no devil, it's just god when he's drunk." -- Tom Waits >>>> Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Lots of people pray to Jesus to save their loved ones from cancer, yet > they die. BFD. Jesus was an idiot. > The same is true of every religion, every prayer. Nope. In my religion, prayer has lead to the cure of many forms of cancer. God's word has taught us about chemotherapy, surgery and so on. >>>>> Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Nope. In my religion, prayer has lead to the cure of many forms of > cancer. God's word has taught us about chemotherapy, surgery and so on. Sounds like your definition of God differes somewhat from the rest of the world's. SignatureEnkidu AA#2165 EAC Chaplain and ordained minister, ULC, Modesto, CA You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do. --[from Usenet] >>>>> Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. >>>> Then prove to me that the tooth fairy does not exist. You can't. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nope. In my religion, prayer has lead to the cure of many forms of > cancer. No proof - dismissed as unproven conjecture God's word has taught us about chemotherapy, surgery and so on. Sorry - but humans developed the medical knowledge that cures cancer and other things. It has NOTHING to do with prayer. In fact - in a recent study - seriously ill patients who KNEW they were being prayed for were more likely to die - that those that didn't. > >>> Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Easily enough done. Put a tooth under your pillow. Wait for fairy. No > fairy? Theory debunked. Sometimes the asnwer is "no." Maybe the Fairy didn't want the tooth. Maybe the Fairy was short on change for the night. Overdrawn at the bank. Too many teeth. Maybe you got yellow chili-cheese-Frito-lookin' teeth and the Fairy doesn't want them. We can make excuses all day along the same lines that believers make for when their prayers don't get answered--but that still doesn't "disprove" the Fairy. Don't bother trying again--we know your dog won't hunt. SignatureDoc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication aa # 1939 Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/ Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder. Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > > >> Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Easily enough done. Put a tooth under your pillow. Wait for fairy. No > fairy? Theory debunked. Just because the tooth fairy does not deliver does not mean the tooth fairy does not exist. It could be that the tooth fairy takes a dim view about being tested just as Santa takes a dim view of children being awake when delivering prezzies. > >> >> Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non- > >> >> existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You clearly don't know what a semantic fallacy is; it is where you switch > definitions using a word with multiple definitions. You have an incorrect understanding of what atheism is. > >> > Through out history slavery has been a nearly universal fact. > >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > The whole point of the thread is that "science vs faith" don't mix. Good > God, clearly atheism and science don't mix, either! You're just talking a bunch of nonsense. SignatureRemove both YOUR_SHOES before replying apatriot #1, atheist #1417, Chief EAC prophet Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened. Apatriotism Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire > > Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > > the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. True but no one needs to. > Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non- > existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is irrational. Not being unable to prove God non existent doesn't make atheists wrong. The only thing that could make atheists wrong is for God to exist. Mark. >> > Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >> > the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > True but no one needs to. True enough. >> Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non- >> existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is >> irrational. > > Not being unable to prove God non existent doesn't make atheists wrong. They could be right, true enough. However they are still in Darwin's dustbin and they reached this conclusion irrationally. >>> > Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> > the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > They could be right, true enough. However they are still in Darwin's > dustbin and they reached this conclusion irrationally. Since their position is that they lack belief in a god, how can they be wrong? I am 100% certain that I lack such a belief. There may be a god, but I do not claim that there is not; nor do most of the atheists that I know or that post to alt.atheism. > >> > Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to > >> > the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > Not being unable to prove God non existent doesn't make atheists wrong. I just realized I had too many double negatives going - should read: "Not being able to prove God non existent doesnt make atheists wrong" > They could be right, true enough. However they are still in Darwin's > dustbin and they reached this conclusion irrationally. No idea what this means. Still it is good that you fess up to your error about knowing atheists are wrong. Mark. >> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either. This is a useless statement. It has been proven way beyond a reasonable doubt that supernatural powers are NOT needed to explain the natural world. If scientists had accepted the absurdity of religion, we'd be living in the stone age."God did it" just doesn't do it. >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > religion, we'd be living in the stone age."God did it" just doesn't do > it. The God bots keep engaging in myths, fables and illogic. Typically, if one cannot prove that god does not exist, he must exist! This is turning logic on it's head! One cannot prove The Spaghetti Monster does not exist, therefore he must exist! These people think out of their a.s instead of their heads. >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > doubt that supernatural powers are NOT needed to explain the natural > world. Irrelevant. > If scientists had accepted the absurdity of religion, we'd be > living in the stone age."God did it" just doesn't do it. LOL! If not for the mix of Greek, Roman and Jewish religions that we call "Christianity", science would never have seen the light of day. Science was first developed by the Greeks, was adopted by the Romans (who used it to create engineering wonders) and it was in the remnants of the Rome that science developed an flourished. It was the damned MONKS who promoted science. They had this religious belief that science and logic would lead to proof of God, so they encourage science. Science didn't happen everywhere, it started in the West. Religion was man's way of knowing the world and surviving it it before the scientific method was invented. It gave man an adaptive advantage, natural selection wise. >>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > promoted science. They had this religious belief that science and logic > would lead to proof of God, so they encourage science. However - Science failed to support their statements about gods Remember - the greeks, romans, and hebrews (judaism is a religion) we all humans. Science saw the light of day because HUMANS sought answers to questions - not because religion wanted it. ANd when religion found answers were not in agreement with their dogmas - they suppressed the science and the people who made the discoveries as well. >>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to >>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> promoted science. They had this religious belief that science and logic >> would lead to proof of God, so they encourage science. That would be news to Galileo, Bruno, Servetus, Kepler etc. Did the dark ages not happen on this imbecile's planet? The church was against it. And some of them still are. Or don't they have creationists and fundamentalists on his planet either? >However - Science failed to support their statements about gods > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >answers were not in agreement with their dogmas - they suppressed the >science and the people who made the discoveries as well |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message