Re: Definition of God

[Daniel T.]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the
> > > > > consciousness is Pure Being the power behind physical
> > > > > reality. A faulty brain limits the expression of
> > > > > consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that
> > > > > expression in the current form, but the consciousness
> > > > > continues and does not die, unlike the physical body.
> > > > >
> > > > > a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual
> > > > > without the need for physical death, but I wouldn't
> > > > > recommend it unless you're willing to re-formulate your
> > > > > world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Are you open to answering a question, sir?
> > > >
> > > > You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind
> > > > physical reality" and that it does not cease with the death
> > > > of the individual.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the
> > > > case so that anyone who is skeptical might check your
> > > > observations, scientifically?
> > >
> > > Since science deals _only_ with the natural, is it possible for
> > > science to check the unnatural or supernatural scientifically?
> > > If not, does that mean there is nothing beyond the realm of
> > > science?
> >
> > What supernatural?
>
> Can you predict what discoveries the future will bring?

That's the whole point of the scientific method. We make predictions
based on theories and then check to see if our predictions are true. If
so, then it lends credence to the theory.

> Until the creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything
> about the formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula. Does
> that mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The existance
> of microscopic organisms was not recognized for centuries before
> the invention of the microscope. Does that mean they did not exist
> before they were discovered?

These are great points! People didn't even talk about microscopic
organisms until after they were discovered. Why then do you talk so
glibly about the supernatural?

> Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which come
> true.

People win the lottery too.

 

[stoney]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:32:12 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:9916f25gnc8922ah1j9fisua3925r7fe9d@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:32:28 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:7ov0f2tdap65vrqhkdvq1h6j9hretsuofo@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:01:48 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >newsiq0f2hmicdht1867n7mtuoaqhq2ldcje5@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>> >> >> >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just
>sent
>> >me
>> >> >> >> some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth,
>signed
>> >> >> >> Dan Wood.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >This is not true! I live in a up scale housing development where we
>> >have
>> >> >> >a community recreation center with in door and outdoor swimming
>pools
>> >> >> >tennis courts, a electronic game room and a couple of computers,
>> >> >> >connected to the internet. Any member has access to these
>computers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here's the message, with your signature.
>> >> >>
>> >> >It doesn't matter what you think.
>> >>
>> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>> >>
>> >I'm rather new to this community. Someone set these computers up
>> >long before I moved here. I pay my dues so I'm allowed full access
>> >to these facilities including these computers.
>>
>> Yes, but you'd have to log into your account at least for email and
>> stuff.
>>
>In order to actually create my own account I need information not
>available to me, such as passwords given by the provider (bellsouth)
>and a secret password i.e. mother's maiden name etc. Maybe you
>know a way to get around this; I do not. I was always intimidated by
>computers, but I always hired office personnel who had good computer
>skills. I never receive emails. I was always intimidated by the computer
>and I just never saw the need to have more than a basic familarity with
>them. Or maybe I'm too old to learn. I do not believe these computers
>were intended

Ah. Totally unsecured computers. You don't believe these computers
were intended for what?

>> >There are three computers
>> >one is for kid games only. There is 200 more than households able to
>> >use these recreational facilities. This is near Research Triangle Park in
>> >Raleigh-Durham N.C.
>>
>> Two computers, non kid games, for two hundred or more households?
>> Must be horrendously difficult to get computer time.
>>
>These are all upscale homes, and fortunately, most of them apparently,
>do have computers, but I don't.
>And people who do come to the center usually come for swimming,
>laying in the sun, playing tennis, pool etc. so the computers are not
>overused. I'm just an old retired person, I never thought I needed a
>personal computer. Especially when they are so available at the office,
>the community center and public libraries. I really do not have need
>for a personal computer.

Understandable. You've lived so long without them, the why bother
mindset? Do keep in mind the game playing aspect as well as virtual
travel around the world which includes art museums around the world as
well as history, science, and the like.

Heck, once I came across a website dealing with maps and information
about Venice, Italy. Too bad that wasn't available thirty years ago
when I was there for a month.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>>
>I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something
>wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>I could never deny him.

Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On 29 Aug 2006 21:27:48 -0700, "Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
alt.atheism

>
>Dan Wood wrote:
>
>> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something
>> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>> I could never deny him.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah
>foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely
>logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still
>so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded,
>but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save
>the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit
>unfinished. Wouldn't ya say?

'God' shouldn't have created evil in the first place. Nothing fails
like 'God.'


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:14:09 +0100, "Agnes" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in
alt.atheism

>
>"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
>news:1156912067.962814.212770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Dan Wood wrote:
>>
>>> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>>> something
>>> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>>> I could never deny him.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>> I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah
>> foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely
>> logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still
>> so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded,
>> but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save
>> the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit
>> unfinished. Wouldn't ya say?
>
>Which is probably why they're always bleating about him coming back again to
>finish the job.
>We've had PART 1- "Access to the Everlasting Kingdom Through Jesus" and now
>they're waiting for the sequel, -PART 2 - " Everlasting Kingdom -The
>Rapture"
>Neat how their little fantasies all fits in, isn't it?
>At least, in their minds it does.
>The mental contortions and apologetics that True Believers squeeze
>themselves through have always fascinated me.

Hi Agnes! Guess you ate Steve......

Mental toddlers, ya know.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:05:43 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ><snip>
>>> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>>>
>>I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something
>>wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>>I could never deny him.
>
>Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?

The moron has yet to demonstrate that this "Jesus Christ" is anything
to be accepted in the real world outside his religion.

So once again he begs the very question he imagines he doesn't have to
answer.

 

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:04:34 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:32:12 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>
>>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>>news:9916f25gnc8922ah1j9fisua3925r7fe9d@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:32:28 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:7ov0f2tdap65vrqhkdvq1h6j9hretsuofo@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:01:48 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >newsiq0f2hmicdht1867n7mtuoaqhq2ldcje5@4ax.com...
>>> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>>> >> >> >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just
>>sent
>>> >me
>>> >> >> >> some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth,
>>signed
>>> >> >> >> Dan Wood.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >This is not true! I live in a up scale housing development where we
>>> >have
>>> >> >> >a community recreation center with in door and outdoor swimming
>>pools
>>> >> >> >tennis courts, a electronic game room and a couple of computers,
>>> >> >> >connected to the internet. Any member has access to these
>>computers.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Here's the message, with your signature.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >It doesn't matter what you think.
>>> >>
>>> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>>> >>
>>> >I'm rather new to this community. Someone set these computers up
>>> >long before I moved here. I pay my dues so I'm allowed full access
>>> >to these facilities including these computers.
>>>
>>> Yes, but you'd have to log into your account at least for email and
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>In order to actually create my own account I need information not
>>available to me, such as passwords given by the provider (bellsouth)
>>and a secret password i.e. mother's maiden name etc. Maybe you
>>know a way to get around this; I do not. I was always intimidated by
>>computers, but I always hired office personnel who had good computer
>>skills. I never receive emails. I was always intimidated by the computer
>>and I just never saw the need to have more than a basic familarity with
>>them. Or maybe I'm too old to learn. I do not believe these computers
>>were intended
>
>Ah. Totally unsecured computers. You don't believe these computers
>were intended for what?

More than that. He must be able to read everybody else's email who
uses that machine and vice versa.

Frankly, I don't believe him.

 

[Robibnikoff]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
>>
> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something
> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
> I could never deny him.

So what? Why should anyone give a hoot about what you'd do?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
#1557

 

[Steve O]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:5eabf2d8qj4v1tgq5vee956dbtp70o4h9j@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:14:09 +0100, "Agnes" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in
> alt.atheism
>
>>
>>"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
>>news:1156912067.962814.212770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Dan Wood wrote:
>>>
>>>> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>>>> something
>>>> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>>>> I could never deny him.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>> I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah
>>> foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely
>>> logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still
>>> so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded,
>>> but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save
>>> the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit
>>> unfinished. Wouldn't ya say?
>>
>>Which is probably why they're always bleating about him coming back again
>>to
>>finish the job.
>>We've had PART 1- "Access to the Everlasting Kingdom Through Jesus" and
>>now
>>they're waiting for the sequel, -PART 2 - " Everlasting Kingdom -The
>>Rapture"
>>Neat how their little fantasies all fits in, isn't it?
>>At least, in their minds it does.
>>The mental contortions and apologetics that True Believers squeeze
>>themselves through have always fascinated me.
>
> Hi Agnes! Guess you ate Steve......
>
> Mental toddlers, ya know.

Oh ****!
Agnes is a pseudonym I use posting to the cranks over in rec.uk.psychic.
Agnes is a nice old dear who really pisses off the true believers in that
newsgroup because she insists she is in communication with the dead, but in
her case she's a little choosy, and only gets messages from famous
celebrities who have passed to the "other side"
Drives the kooks crazy, especially when she talks about having Frank Sinatra
singing to her at night.
Now I've been rumbled!
All because I forgot to change the name back!
Oh well, it wasn't that funny any more anyway!


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-F0397F.23250629082006@news.usenetmonster.com...
> In article <sKGdnY43UM5ah2jZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote
> > >
> > > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote
> >
> > > > The scientific method of investigation can be used to investigate
> > > > any statement about the nature of things. Science is simply logical,
> > > > systematic investigation of any facts you can produce surrounding
any
> > > > statement about the nature of things you care to make, any statement
at
> > > > all,
> > > > including your statement about something that is allegedly 'the
power
> > > > behind
> > > > physical reality'. But you have to give us something real to go on.
> > >
> > > Why do I have to?
> >
> > Because you are the one making that extraordinary claim of yours
concerning
> > the nature of things.
>
> Logic Tutor has made claims just as extraordinary

Virgil is a liar. Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of
Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity
anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a
part of his religion.

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f51ef2@news.eftel.com...
> >> > > No one knows for certain.
> >> >
> >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
> >> > are
> >> > famous, as Copi explains:
> >> >
> >> Your logic aside,
> >
> > Why would you want to push logic aside so cavalierly? Critical thinking
> > (logic) is how we determine if a particular argument is sound, right?
> >
> >> do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact
> >> that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind?
> >
> > Are you trying to argue for consciousness without a brain because there
is
> > no proof that hypothesis is false? That's logical fallacy, Dan.
> >
>
> the term "logical fallacy" is a fallacy, a misnomer.

You are mistaken, logical fallacy is a well-defined term in logic.

Definition:

logical fallacy : a fallacy in logical argumentation
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Arguing for consciousness without a brain because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false is logical fallacy, Sean, it is a fallacy in logical
argumentation. See argument _ad ingorantiam_.

 

[Shawn]

Let the facts show that on 8/30/06 4:04 PM, Steve O at sendspam@here.com
wrote:

>
> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> news:5eabf2d8qj4v1tgq5vee956dbtp70o4h9j@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:14:09 +0100, "Agnes" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in
>> alt.atheism
>>
>>>
>>> "Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1156912067.962814.212770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Dan Wood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
>>>>> something
>>>>> wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
>>>>> I could never deny him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>> I once asked a Jew "Why do you not accept that Jesus was the messiah
>>>> foretold in the Old Testament prophecies?" He gave me an extremely
>>>> logical answer: "How could the messiah have come if the world is still
>>>> so screwed up?" I am an atheist and think all religion is unfounded,
>>>> but to Christians I can pose the obvious remark: If Jesus came to save
>>>> the world from sin and evil he left the job just a LITTLE bit
>>>> unfinished. Wouldn't ya say?
>>>
>>> Which is probably why they're always bleating about him coming back again
>>> to
>>> finish the job.
>>> We've had PART 1- "Access to the Everlasting Kingdom Through Jesus" and
>>> now
>>> they're waiting for the sequel, -PART 2 - " Everlasting Kingdom -The
>>> Rapture"
>>> Neat how their little fantasies all fits in, isn't it?
>>> At least, in their minds it does.
>>> The mental contortions and apologetics that True Believers squeeze
>>> themselves through have always fascinated me.
>>
>> Hi Agnes! Guess you ate Steve......
>>
>> Mental toddlers, ya know.
>
> Oh ****!
> Agnes is a pseudonym I use posting to the cranks over in rec.uk.psychic.
> Agnes is a nice old dear who really pisses off the true believers in that
> newsgroup because she insists she is in communication with the dead, but in
> her case she's a little choosy, and only gets messages from famous
> celebrities who have passed to the "other side"
> Drives the kooks crazy, especially when she talks about having Frank Sinatra
> singing to her at night.
> Now I've been rumbled!
> All because I forgot to change the name back!
> Oh well, it wasn't that funny any more anyway!
>

Your secret is safe with us, and anyone that doesn't know how to search on
Google Groups...

Here's my take on it. The devoutly Christians are hypochites and won't admit
it.

If a random person was found to have abused children, people would be
rightly up in arms. But if that person's a priest, the church covers it up
and doesn't stop their parishoners for "praying for the good name of our
priest".

Because, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary, people think the
Christianity equals good, and therefore anyone hiding behind the religion is
good too.

Know what would happen if a group of Humanists discovered another Humanist
had been molesting kids? They'd be up in arms. Because being a Humanist
means you know there's no dispenser of Concentrated Good and Concentrated
Evil, it's people that take advantage of situations and people. It has
always been the case, it will always be the case. So a Humanist won't defend
a sicko just because they happen to classify themselves as belonging to the
same cliche.

There was a news article this month that around 30% of Americans believe the
Bible is literal. I can only assume that these people are paying lip-service
to saying thet're Literal Christians because they've never read the book
they're meant to.

Article is at: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060821/23880.htm

Take Genesis 1. First chapter, first book.

When was the Sun made, Christians? Not a hard question, it's a big thing
that your guys said revolved around the Earth not too long ago. Giver of
light, engine of light and nuclear fusion, when?

Well, Genesis 1 says that light and dark were made on Day One. However, the
sun wasn't made until Day Four.

OK, could have been The Light Of The Lord for a few days. Fair enough, but a
poor weasel out of it, so what about the trees? When did god make the trees?
Specifically; before Mankind, or after.

Well the answer is before. And after. God created the trees, then Adam, then
he created ALL the trees. All, meaning none were around before.

"It's not meant to be taken literally," I hear some say. Well, tell that to
the 30% that are the kind of people that sit in front of you in the cinema
and say "I don't understand this story at all, why's he in that Superman
costume and why's he flying that fast? Isn't he meant to be a reporter or
something?" because that's what we have here. A book covering quite a few
pages and 30% of Americans interviewed couldn't even spot the two continuity
errors in the opening paragraphs.

And it's obviously tied in with politics in the States. The people at Focus
On The Family (right-wing group that got the vote out in 2004) are behind
the drive to put the Bible back in people's lives, even though it's
increasingly less and less relevent in today's world.

Seriously: looking for a Messiah? Say; someone born into poverty, a man that
used peace to defeat the largest Empire in the world, a man killed for
preaching peace and love and passive resistance to all that's wrong in the
world? Looking really hard.

You missed him. Mahatma Gandhi. I guess he wasn't white enough for
Evangelical Americans, though.

So we have hundreds of TV programs dedicated to Christianity, thousands of
radio hours a week. Millions of churchgoers paying and spending billions to
their churches and splinter groups ...and the devil's still such a bit
threat? You're expending this energy and time and still hardly drawing level
with the character you've created as your nemesis?

Looks to me like this devil fella's the stronger one and you've all been
duped. Look at it this way: if you were going through the TV channels and
you came across an arm-wrestling contest and you'd wonder "who's winning
here", you'd size the two competitors up. Who's expelling the most energy.
Who's making the most noise, and what's it getting them. Well, we have
Christians throwing everything at the opponent. An opponent expelling
virtually no energy whatsoever. And the Christians are STILL having to tell
people to put more into it or the devil will win. Who would YOU say's
winning in this little anthropomorphic arm-wrestle?

It's a good job the whole lot of it's complete nonsense.

 

[Dan Wood]

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:4llrgpF2gpnvU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><snip>
> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
> >>
> > I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
something
> > wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
> > I could never deny him.
>
> So what? Why should anyone give a hoot about what you'd do?
>
This wasn't addressed to you!

Dan Wood, DDS
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> Atheist ******* Extraordinaire
> #1557
>
>

 

[Dan Wood]

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >
> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><snip>
> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist.
> >>
> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is
something
> >wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ.
> >I could never deny him.
>
> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman?
>
I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who is
real to me!

Dan
>
> --
> Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Dan Wood]

"Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daniel_t-827DA6.10372830082006@news.west.earthlink.net...
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the
> > > > > > consciousness is Pure Being the power behind physical
> > > > > > reality. A faulty brain limits the expression of
> > > > > > consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that
> > > > > > expression in the current form, but the consciousness
> > > > > > continues and does not die, unlike the physical body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual
> > > > > > without the need for physical death, but I wouldn't
> > > > > > recommend it unless you're willing to re-formulate your
> > > > > > world view much larger than it currently is. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you open to answering a question, sir?
> > > > >
> > > > > You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind
> > > > > physical reality" and that it does not cease with the death
> > > > > of the individual.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the
> > > > > case so that anyone who is skeptical might check your
> > > > > observations, scientifically?
> > > >
> > > > Since science deals _only_ with the natural, is it possible for
> > > > science to check the unnatural or supernatural scientifically?
> > > > If not, does that mean there is nothing beyond the realm of
> > > > science?
> > >
> > > What supernatural?
> >
> > Can you predict what discoveries the future will bring?
>
> That's the whole point of the scientific method. We make predictions
> based on theories and then check to see if our predictions are true. If
> so, then it lends credence to the theory.
>
And theories are based upon observation and expermentation.
>
> > Until the creation of the Hubble telescope no one knew anything
> > about the formation of planetary systems in the Orion nebula. Does
> > that mean that this was not happening before Hubble? The existance
> > of microscopic organisms was not recognized for centuries before
> > the invention of the microscope. Does that mean they did not exist
> > before they were discovered?
>
> These are great points! People didn't even talk about microscopic
> organisms until after they were discovered.
>
They had no way to observe or detect such organisms. Nevertheless,
they were very real.
>
Why then do you talk so glibly about the supernatural?
>
A few centuries ago, illness was believed to be caused by
supernatural enities, ie evil spirits, spells cast, the evil eye etc.
But today we understand that invisiable (to the naked eye)
microbes can and do cause illness and death. Nothing has
changed except our understanding and our ability to
incorporate our knowledge into prevention and cures.

An out of touch person seeing a TV for the first time
might see this as magic or supernatural. Many intelligent
Americans have absolutely no idea how TVs works, but
would feel highly superior to the superstitious primitive
who might think it works by magic, but has only a slightly
better understanding of its workings. The fact that science
doesn't know how to test for the supernatural could
possibility be because of its shortcomings at the present
time.
>
> > Most people at some time in their lives has intuition which come
> > true.
>
> People win the lottery too.
>
Sure, but this proves only good luck. I had a relative who won
$10 M. and was broke in two years. Bad investments and trusting
the wrong people.

Thanks and Best Wishes,
Dan

 

[Sean]

"Marshall" <marshall.spight@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156917819.266515.51030@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Sean wrote:
>>
>> What is this illogical rule that says a) I have no right to make
>> extraordinary claims or that b) that I must give you or anyone something
>> real to go on or c) that I have to prove it to you to your satisfaction?
>
> Without this rule, anyone can say anything about anything.

Gosh. Yes they can. Do you mean you and others have issues with Free Speech
as well? Sounds like it.

> At that point, all speech becomes meaningless. We pursue
> this rule because we wish for speech to be meaningful.
>
>
> Marshall
>

Well you're welcome to pursue any rule you wish. Doesn't mean it's rational.

This is Usenet, not a University or a Science research centre where I am
required to meet particular standards because I have already freely agreed
to them in order to be accepted.

I reject your rules. They do not apply to me. If that causes any discomfort,
well not my problem. I don't need your approval to feel ok about myself and
my own beliefs, opinions, knowledge, or experiecnes.

But thanks for explaining how you see things.

 

[Sean]

> Atheism is not a claim, atheism is simply an absence of
> Virgil's religious belief that there might be a magic invisible deity
> anyway, even though there is no such thing known in reality, it's just a
> part of his religion.
>
> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
>

I have no doubt that you and many others believe what you Claim. ;-)

imho "Atheism is characterized by a belief in the non-existence of gods."

Other people's beliefs in a God or creator, and religions in general has
very little to do with that. So describing it as an absence of belief is a
comparative term about others, and not about your own particular views and
how those were arrived at.

If the only way you can accurautely describe your own pov is in relation to
others pov, then I suspect you may not have really looked that closely at
how you have arrived at your own conclusions about what is, or isn't.
Underpinning that is usually a whole pile of beliefs. That's not a
criticism, just an observation about human nature and what all people do.
Atheists in general really aren;t that different than everybody else. imho.

 

[Sean]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aM2dndWVo7tHnGvZnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f51ef2@news.eftel.com...
>> >> > > No one knows for certain.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
>> >> > are
>> >> > famous, as Copi explains:
>> >> >
>> >> Your logic aside,
>> >
>> > Why would you want to push logic aside so cavalierly? Critical thinking
>> > (logic) is how we determine if a particular argument is sound, right?
>> >
>> >> do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact
>> >> that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind?
>> >
>> > Are you trying to argue for consciousness without a brain because there
> is
>> > no proof that hypothesis is false? That's logical fallacy, Dan.
>> >
>>
>> the term "logical fallacy" is a fallacy, a misnomer.
>
> You are mistaken, logical fallacy is a well-defined term in logic.
>
> Definition:
>
> logical fallacy : a fallacy in logical argumentation
> wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>

I used to think that, now I see it differently. I don;t agree with
princeton, but only from a semantic pov. . ;-))

> Arguing for consciousness without a brain because there is no proof that
> hypothesis is false is logical fallacy, Sean, it is a fallacy in logical
> argumentation. See argument _ad ingorantiam_.
>

I disagree. You are looking at this from your own pov, knowledge and
expereince.

Your ad ignorantiam is the assumption there is not, and cannot be any proof.
You have no idea of other people's personal experiences and abilities to
connect the dots that you may not be aware even exist. You have no evidence
to judge anothers pov, only your own.

I never said anyone had to believe me either. Further more logical fallacies
[ see how I'm willing to switch to your terms ] are about argument and
debate. I wasn't, and am not in an argument. I expressed my different pov
based upon what I know & believe. It's called sharing, not arguing. <smile>



>
>
>

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote

> I don;t agree with princeton

Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!


Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)


[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote

> I reject your rules.

Rules are for ball games and such. This is not about rules, this is about
the principles of valid argument that apply to arguments made by anyone,
even you. Study up, or prepare to be ignored:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/