Guest Midwinter Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said : > Get an education. Science proves the facts of the world every day. > Religionists create illusions > of facts every day. Get an education. Your statement is pure nonsense. And yours remains insistence. I agree entirely that science proves the facts of the world every day. If I didn't think that then, as Agent Smith implied, there would be no reason for me to obey the rules of the road. If they might not even be real, so why should I comply with them? But without any indication of an alternative reality, or how such an alternative reality might work, it would make little sense for me to refuse to comply with the reality I perceive. But that reality also contains every instrument that I might use to measure it - and thus, while these instruments might report accurately what they observe, by definition they can be observing only the 'reality' within which they are contained. Similarly, your view of the world depends solely on your perceptions. Everything you experience is dependent on them. If, for some reason, your perceptions are reporting inaccurately, then your view of the world will be unreliable - but you will still have no reason to assume it is unreliable. Everything will seem - as it so clearly does now - blindingly obvious and logical to you. It is that confidence in your perceptions that leads you to reject the very possibility that what you see might not be precisely what's there. You know the world is as it is because you can see that it is . The question, then, is whether you can confirm objectively what your perceptions are telling you. The fact remains, however it might irritate you, that you can't. (Incidentally, it might be worth pointing out - whether or not it'll be of any consequence to you - that I'm not actually making this argument in some attempt to 'prove God', as I've no doubt you'll assume. I'm not actually a Christian fundamentalist trying to convert you. The mention of solipsism just interested me in relation to your constant demands for 'objective, verifiable evidence', and how far objectivity can really go.) Quote
Guest Midwinter Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> said : >>> Solipsism is a dead end. >> >> But that alone doesn't rule it out. > > Not to a fool, no. Oh, there's a lot better minds than mine that concern themselves with it: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ I think the problem here isn't so much a matter of the validity of solipsism as a philosophical model, or as a problem that requires resolution - it's more a matter of polarised opinions on Usenet. It's just that there are a lot of people on Usenet who like to believe that their viewpoint is correct, that all who don't share it are fools, and that spending time in discussion with fools is merely wasting good opportunities for mockery. >>>> Given that my consciousness is the only one I can know for certain >>>> actually exists, solipsism would seem to be a reasonable >>>> conclusion. >>> >>> Then who are you talking to? >> >> Read again. You'll see that I said: >> >> "I don't adhere to the strict standards demanded by some here, and >> so, > > So you are a hypocrite. Really? Let me see: I said that there is no way to prove objectively that other minds exist (philosophers seem to agree - see link above). The attitude of some here is that if there is not "objective, verifiable evidence" for something then it should be rejected. I said that if I adhered to that standard then, by virtue of the non-existence of objective evidence that the reality I perceive is the real one, I should reject the reality I perceive. I then said that, because I did not adhere to that standard, I am free to accept the reality I see and behave accordingly. Now, if you'd like to explain to me how that amounts to hypocrisy, I'd be fascinated to hear it. Or maybe it's just a favourite word? >> What you call 'reality' is simply your own assumption, as my reality >> is > > But you forget. I'm not real according to you. No, you missed the point. If I said I required 'objective, verifiable evidence' of a thing before I accepted it, then I would have to consider you unreal. Since I do not require that, and am willing to accept what I see, I am free to treat you as real based on nothing more than my perception of you (or at least, of the messages that appear to be from you). > And since, as you have said, you can't know reality > then what you say is not real. It may well not be. Assuming you are a consciousness in your own right, that would be for you to decide for yourself. If you're not, then it doesn't really matter anyway. >> Your points here are all perfectly reasonable, as far as they go - >> but they all depend on a pre-established assumption that what you see >> is what's actually there. > > Have your heard of the term 'irony'? There's a stock Baldrick quote for occasions such as this. >> What is real? > > Nothing you know, according to your statements. Precisely. Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: > Precisely!!! Also God wants [...] Whatever the rest of this sentence says, it's a lie. Anytime anyone begins a sentence with the words "God wants...", it's a lie. It may be what YOU want, but one of the fundamental qualities you Christards have given your imaginary father figure is that NO ONE can know what your God wants. Don't you know that, little fella? Didn't you read your book of fairy tales, your instruction manual where they told you this very clearly? I guess not. All we can conclude is that not only are you an obnoxious religionist, you're a failure at that as well. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Richo wrote: > On Feb 5, 3:20�pm, Michael <newsus...@orneveien.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:26 -0500, Bill M wrote: > > > > > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that > > > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations. > > > > > Who will accept the challenge??? > > > > I challenge you to give me a pure gold coin made of silver. �I know that > > you cannot do it, because the definition of pure gold coin excludes making > > it from silver. > > > > Likewise, the definition of God, or any that I have encountered, preclude > > "objective, verifiable evidence". > > > > In fact, you cannot even produce objective, verifiable evidence that G. > > Bush is the President of the United States. �Oh, you can produce newspaper > > reports, you might even produce the man himself should it happen that he > > is at your beck and call. �But how will I know this man is indeed the > > president? �I cannot. �A two million man army at his command is > > persuasive, but of course, he would have to present all two million of > > them to me to REALLY convince me. > > > > You are conflating "evidence" with "absolute proof". > Evidence of the existence of George Bush is plentiful - absolute proof > of anything doesnt exist. > > Perhaps you did this unknowingly - perhaps you did it with the intent to decieve. He knows what he's trying to do. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Semper Libèr® wrote: > "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:a8vhq3tih0homfi74ahjhvp6rn59rr53ob@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:07:00 GMT, "Semper Lib�r�" > > <nopolicestates????!?Hje77@freedom4all.org> wrote: > > > > >"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > >news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > >> God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and > > >> complexity of the world is proof of God. > > > > > >Complex AND purposefully organized.... > > > > Where did you demonstrate "purposefully", moron? > > You don't see the universe as creating anything? That's quite funny. The > entire system is one massive enviroment and life producing engine - there is > even a name for it. > > I suppose the creators of Vista or Ford trucks, etc.. didn't have a purpose > either.... Oh, and don't forget to tell Steven Hawking you think he's a moron. Lol! > > "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically > designed for us." - Stephen Hawking Doesn't it strike you as odd that the ONLY references on the web to this quote of Hawking's are from websites using it as an appeal to authority support of deity? I tried to look up the article this supposedly came from in the Austin American-Statesman archives; didn't find it. Huh, that's odd, I wonder how it came to be on the web. Oh, well, I'm sure all the websites using this quote researched it thoroughly, and are in no way being dishonest. Quote
Guest JessHC Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Semper Libèr® wrote: > "Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:pcqdnYFA8-8PnzTanZ2dnUVZ8tbinZ2d@bt.com... > > "Semper Lib�r�" <nopolicestates????!?Hje77@freedom4all..org> said : > > > > > Complex AND purposefully organized.... That is observable evidence in > > > the same way that any fool can recognize a complex and organized > > > computer program as having an intelligent and purposeful > > > creator/programmer. > > > > The trouble with this very common argument - the Watchmaker, I believe it's > > usually called - is that if the complexity of the universe alone requires > > the existence of a creator, then the complexity of the creator must require > > its own creator. > > In other words you agree its proof of a creator... you just can't place the start of the singularity. No, in other words, "special pleading." Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ifgiq3h87jieksschs6jooqmbp7sbv2uaf@4ax.com... > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:03:11 GMT, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message news:4225605e-65e4-47e9-bc6e-f6fe6daa5063@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... Semper Lib Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 "Richo" <m.richardson61@gmail.com> wrote in message news:46192a55-a8a1-46ef-ab5a-ccf7ae173b24@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Feb 6, 3:29 pm, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 <gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8040cf31-cc44-4125-8f84-8be0bf8068b1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On 6 Feb., 05:03, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Semper Lib Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 "Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:wZ6dnTP30p-jJTTanZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@bt.com... > "Semper Lib Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Scott Richter wrote: > Pastor Frank <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: > > > Precisely!!! Also God wants [...] > > Whatever the rest of this sentence says, it's a lie. Anytime anyone > begins a sentence with the words "God wants...", it's a lie. It may be > what YOU want, but one of the fundamental qualities you Christards have > given your imaginary father figure is that NO ONE can know what your God > wants. Don't you know that, little fella? Didn't you read your book of > fairy tales, your instruction manual where they told you this very > clearly? > > I guess not. > > All we can conclude is that not only are you an obnoxious religionist, > you're a failure at that as well. Seems to me the fake pastor has done a good job in establishing both. I no longer open his posts, they are terribly dreary and repetitive Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:37:58 GMT, "Semper Lib Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:12:00 -0500, "Jamffer" <jamffer@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message >news:47a8252e$0$26004$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... >> "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net... >> > >> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the >> > world is proof of God. >> > >> Atheist fundamentalist fanatics always claim, that complex designs >> like living cells need no designer, but just happen to appear out of >> nothing, and >> from nothing like a miracle. Problem is that such a scenario requires more >> belief and faith, than religionists can come up with. > >There was never (nothing), in eternity. What does Pastor Wank imagine he achieved by attacking his own lies about atheists? >> >> >> -- >> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> > Quote
Guest bob young Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 "Christopher A. Lee" wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:12:00 -0500, "Jamffer" <jamffer@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message > >news:47a8252e$0$26004$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > >> "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > >> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > >> > > >> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of the > >> > world is proof of God. > >> > > >> Atheist fundamentalist fanatics always claim, that complex designs > >> like living cells need no designer, but just happen to appear out of > >> nothing, and > >> from nothing like a miracle. Problem is that such a scenario requires more > >> belief and faith, than religionists can come up with. > > > >There was never (nothing), in eternity. > > What does Pastor Wank imagine he achieved by attacking his own lies > about atheists? ....as we used to say as kids.......... "He has a screw loose" > > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> > > Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.