Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gggreijbdm17@corp.supernews.com... > > Gandy, I said.... You said you could prove god couldn't exist. That's what this is about and you STILL haven't retracted that lie. "wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:128rh6rcfordnab@corp.supernews.com... > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> "wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message >> news:128rb01ands5m28@corp.supernews.com... >> >>> What he cannot do is note I did not say that argument covered all the >>> gods, >> >> That's a lie. You did in fact say it several times, Barwell. > > You are incapable of reading or reasoning. And you're incapable of telling the truth, Barwell. From: wbarwell <wbarw...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.origins Subject: Re: Does God Exist? Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:42:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <cq0gu6$7ru@library2.airnews.net> References: 1103304751.6b9de4428728e571de47f367dde14ea9@teranews Barwell wrote: One cannot prove god exists, but one can easily disprove god exists. Since god does not exist, that is why he cannot be proven to exist. Since god can be proven not to exist, he cannot possibly exist. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12ggh2hposvrt6f@corp.supernews.com... > > Viet Nam war "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gggnsiuima8eb@corp.supernews.com... > > In the end, no major religious denominations save the > usual Menonnites and Quakers came out against Vietnam. That's a blatant lie. Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker Movement ... Dorothy Day, Prophet of Pacifism for the Catholic Church ... The influence of the Catholic Worker during the Vietnam War is explored in detail in American ... http://www.cjd.org/paper/pacifism.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages Roman Catholic The Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious institution in the United ... and corporate actions that awakened Catholic opposition to the Vietnam War. ... http://www.soulforce.org/article/95 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Research Advisory Service - Doe/Moffitt Libraries ... Catholic Church's Position on Vietnam War & Daniel Berrigan; Healthcare-Cuba ... African Americans & Education; Catholic Opposition to Birth Control ... http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/doemoff/ras_topics.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Crisis Magazine A noticeable feature of Catholic opposition to the war was that, outside America ... The second, more radical view thought that the Vietnam War had revealed ... http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/feature2.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages US Christian Leaders Rally as Peacemakers "We're further along now than we were in the Vietnam War. ... of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, hand-delivered a letter of opposition to ... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1102-07.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Chapter 16 To the Catholic Church, however, Vietnam was more than a mere stepping stone in ... The Catholic communities reacted in turn. From passive opposition they ... http://www.reformation.org/chapter16.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages Legendary liberal WW Finlator fought segregation, poverty, war Finlator, longtime pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, ... including opposition to the Vietnam War, support for women's rights, ... http://www.abpnews.com/1307.article - 11k - Cached - Similar pages Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam. Delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr April 1967 At Manhattan's Riverside Church ... http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-13.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages First Baptist Church - History First Baptist declared its opposition to the deportation of "refugees as long as persecution, torture and murder of civilians continued." The church has ... http://www.firstbaptistithaca.org/history.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages Opposition to the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The executive committee of World Council of Churches, an organization joined by churches .... Opposition to US foreign policy Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message news:1158170535.071799.268890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > > Your Logic Tutor wrote: >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> >> > Copi deals with a claim of necessity. >> >> The gullible might believe what you say, were it not for the theist >> argument >> _ad ignorantiam_, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist >> conjecture] >> Galileo could not prove false!" > Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker Movement ... Dorothy > Day, Prophet of Pacifism for the Catholic Church ... The influence of the > Catholic Worker during the Vietnam War is explored in detail in American > ... So succssful was she that the RCC excommincated all GOP politcians supporting the war, excommunicated Spellman and demanded the US pull out of the war. In the following re-election, Nixon lost to McGovern, the peace candidate. September 11 - Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> In the end, no major religious denominations save the >> usual Menonnites and Quakers came out against Vietnam. > > That's a blatant lie. No, it is truth. No churches came out officially against the war and Nixon and GOP. Nixon won re-election with 60% of the vote. Christian votes. Why continue your lies? September 11 - Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. No, you cannot divert attention from the issue with lies and lies and lies about other things. This will go on and on. You are doomed. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest stoney Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:38:09 +0100, Lizz Holmans <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism >On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:59:07 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > > >>Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice, >>hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more. > >Stoney, Stoney, Stoney, thee knows better than this. All these things >existed before Christ and exist where no one has ever heard the name >of Jesus, and if thee is honest with thyself, thee will admit it. I never indicated otherwise, Liz. However, many Christians prattle their religion is based on; honesty, empathy, justice, compassion, kindness, and humanity. Such is not the case. >>Morality like that isn't something to be proud of. > >Most of human history isn't very pretty. Of which Christianity was a hefty driver for the last millenia to a millenia and a half. >Christianity can be misused >as well as any other ideal----like, oh, Homeland Security, or >Communism, or bicycle riding (1). Misused? The Bible glorifies; genocide, rapine, theft, greed, torture, prejudice, infantcide, bigotry, and more. >>In my newsgroup it's mostly Christian crap. > >At least it's Friendly crap. From you it's friendly and not crap as you consider your religion to be the private treasure it should be. >Lizz 'the Yakult of sci.skeptic' Holmans > >(1) who can tell me the joke that goes with this reference? There's a >dime riding on it. Hmmmm..... /mother superior Ladies, quit moaning and groaning or I'll have your bicycle seats put back on. -- 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. Quote
Guest stoney Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:27:36 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >news:94rtf2tr95j4dagv7o033cr6bdchri6v8i@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:12:32 -0400, herb z <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote in >> alt.atheism >> >> > >> > >> >Dan Wood wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >[...] >> >> >> >> I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to those >> >> who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil, >forthright >> >> even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing honest >> >> and sincere discussions. >> >> >> >> I hope you've had a wonderful day, >> >> Dan >> > >> >Bravo, Dr. Dan. This is a better argument for Christianity >> >> Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice, >> hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more. >> >Such is bound for punnishment. Rapunnzel Rapunnzel. Free clue Dan; when a character has omni characteristics all results are as it wants it. -- 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. Quote
Guest stoney Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 01:51:11 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >news:c5stf2p772bpbiaefvi8ulgs16bm2lpciu@4ax.com... [] >> >Chris, otoh, thought we were miles apart. One example: >> >in applying the laws of physics we can go to go back to >> >Planck Time. But, where we disagreed, imho, was the >> >period beyond Planck Time. My position was that while >> >some kind of physics was at work during this epoch i.e. >> >T0 - 10^-43 secs. This was were no modern laws of >> >physics as we understand them. >> >> I would agree about 'no modern laws...' but am uncertain about if 'some >> kind of physics' is even a player. >> >The laws of physics break down at 10^-43 sec after the Big Bang. I know. >For this reason we cannot extrspolate beyond Planck Time with the same >degree of confidence. Agreed. That's why I said I was uncertain if 'some kind of physics' applied. -- 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. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12ggo27ep3ohf80@corp.supernews.com... > >>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process >>>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The >>>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process >>>> theology. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process >>> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE OF PROCESS THEOLOGY. What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work. All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is willing to go to spread his lies. Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829 Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin [excerpt] Summary The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God and the world interact. But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal, which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12ggo27ep3ohf80@corp.supernews.com... > >>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process >>>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The >>>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process >>>> theology. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process >>> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE OF PROCESS THEOLOGY. What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work. All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is willing to go to spread his lies. Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829 Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin [excerpt] Summary The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God and the world interact. But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal, which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp. Quote
Guest John Jones Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1158170535.071799.268890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > > > > Your Logic Tutor wrote: > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> > >> > Copi deals with a claim of necessity. > >> > >> The gullible might believe what you say, were it not for the theist > >> argument > >> _ad ignorantiam_, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist > >> conjecture] > >> Galileo could not prove false!" > > Quote
Guest John Jones Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:KOKdnX5X250qLZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4504b95f$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:GNGdnUJYmJNeKJnYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> >> > >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > >> >> > <SNIP!!> > >> >> > > >> >> > <unsnip> > >> >> > > >> >> > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to > >> > demonstrate > >> >> > consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance > >> >> > >> >> I'm not trying to demonstrate anything ... > >> > > >> > Yes, I know, and that is a big problem, > >> > >> A big problem for you. > > > > No, a big problem for your side > > Not at all. Since such statements are NOT demonstrations, and since > demonstrations are linked to arguments, and since only an actual argument > could be an argument from ignorance, you've fundamentally admitted that your > attack on such statements are false by definition. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message news:1158181788.230225.26100@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:KOKdnX5X250qLZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:4504b95f$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:GNGdnUJYmJNeKJnYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> >> >> > <SNIP!!> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > <unsnip> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to >> >> > demonstrate >> >> >> > consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not trying to demonstrate anything ... >> >> > >> >> > Yes, I know, and that is a big problem, >> >> >> >> A big problem for you. >> > >> > No, a big problem for your side >> >> Not at all. Since such statements are NOT demonstrations, and since >> demonstrations are linked to arguments, and since only an actual argument >> could be an argument from ignorance, you've fundamentally admitted that >> your >> attack on such statements are false by definition. > Quote
Guest John Jones Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gospel Bretts wrote: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > > ><jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1156227178.495729.118180@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> Immortalist wrote: > >> > >> > God is a concept some humans use as a lever > >> > [crutch-lever?]. > >> > >> Okay. But with some 6 billion people on the planet, > >> this isn't exactly going out on a limb. > >> > >> I mean, try to imagine if some aliens visited the > >> Earth from another planet, and not knowing a lot > >> about us they asked me about sex, what it is we > >> do. At this point I tell the aliens that some people > >> are masochistic, that they get a sexual thrill out > >> of having pain inflicted on them. > >> > >> I'd be leaving them with a pretty misleading view > >> of human sexuality, would I not? > >> > >> > If evolutionary theory is correct, people with > >> > particular religious instincts survived and the > >> > atheists died. > >> > >> There is absolutely no reason to believe this. > >> > >> None. > >> > >> How are you arriving at this claim? > >> > >There are people who go to their deaths completely > >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they > >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however, > >have none of this assurance. > > > > Neither do Christians, Dan. They want to believe their fantasies, but > they don't really. > > ------------------ > > Gospel Bretts > a.a. Atheist #2262 > Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 >> Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >>> >>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process >>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The >>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process >>> theology. >>> >> >> >> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process >> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders > > The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy. > > You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it? Why are you lying here when people can easily check up on your bizarre and hate filled lies? http://www.religion-online.org/ Process Studies Journal Al this is from process theologysown journals! Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological, chronic liar you are? 123 Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking, admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and offers some solutions. Griffin is a long time process theology proponent. Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked? because you just do not care if you are a liar found out! You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie! -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 >> Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >>> >>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process >>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The >>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process >>> theology. >>> >> >> >> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process >> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders > > The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy. > > You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it? Why are you lying here when people can easily check up on your bizarre and hate filled lies? http://www.religion-online.org/ Process Studies Journal Al this is from process theologysown journals! Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological, chronic liar you are? 123 Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking, admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and offers some solutions. Griffin is a long time process theology proponent. Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked? because you just do not care if you are a liar found out! You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie! Gandy challenge - day 01 - Process metaphyics is basis of science? Gandy Grey: > As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's > philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science. Barwell: Bwahahahahahahahahahhah! Only by process theology Dweebs! There is not a single well known leading scientist that can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all. When I last challenged you brazen lies on this, you to back that up, sprayed AA down with lots of crap you dredged from google, not a single one which showed this claim! You didn't read anything, just slapped shit from google it it had Whithead, Feynman etc in the headers! If some college freshmen wrote a blog article tha mention Feynmen and Whitehead and not necessarily on process theology, you spewed it here! Unread! If some bozo had babbled nonsense and quoted from Whitehead and then from Feynman, it got put here even when it these quotes had nothing to do with each other! You did this three times you deeply incompetent! Of the numerous bits of crap you spewed here, not one, not one, had anything to do with any well known physicists accepting process bullshit. You lied and got caught and got laughed at as a lying and incompetent fool! Again, the challenge stands! Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science." Show us any really great, well known working physicists this day who say that! NO! Do not spam us with crap you google up and spray here without ever reading that turns out to ALL have nothing to do with process stupidity and science. SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM PHYSICISTS! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS! Put them here. ----------------> I will post this challenge ever day until you comply to show you are a lying, stupid bastard. -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gh2209l2toree@corp.supernews.com... > > >>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process >>>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The >>>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process >>>> theology. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process >>> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders >> >> The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy. >> >> You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it? > > Why are you lying here when people can easily check > up on your bizarre and hate filled lies? Yes. They can check and they'll find this.... Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE OF PROCESS THEOLOGY. What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work. All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is willing to go to spread his lies. Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829 Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin [excerpt] Summary The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God and the world interact. But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal, which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gh2i71kv21ib3@corp.supernews.com... > >>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process >>>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The >>>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process >>>> theology. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process >>> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders >> >> The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy. >> >> You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it? > Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE OF PROCESS THEOLOGY. What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work. All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is willing to go to spread his lies. Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829 Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin [excerpt] Summary The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God and the world interact. But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal, which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:45069fd6.81224171@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On 11 Sep 2006 18:36:12 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists >>> or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or >>> tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you >>> claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a >>> God that does not exist. > >>How is it that this essenceless God > > Such a God does not exist in the realist objective ontological world. > > Maybe that will help you sort out the massive confusion you suffer > from. > Shit, Bob - next you'll be telling him Santa isn't real. -- 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?" Quote
Guest stoney Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:25:39 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >news:44feb86a.82381656@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 07:15:35 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> >> wrote: >> >>>As for my other beliefs, how the hell would YOU know what they are? >> >> I know that you are not a true atheist because you can't even define >> the God you claim does not exist. > >Since when do YOU get to define what an atheist is or is not? Christians like Bob are so damned dishonest and cowardly it isn't funny. -- 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. Quote
Guest stoney Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:35:44 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >>> >>>"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message >>>news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net... >>>> >>>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >>>> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com... >>>> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, >>>> > >>>> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If >>>> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you >>>> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind. >>>> >>>> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs >>>> to >>>> read the Christian bible. >>>> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful >>>> killer. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament. >>>> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent >>>> >>people. >>>> > >>>> > That would be the God of the Chosen People. >>>> >>>> And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly? >>>> >>>> > >>>> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named >>>> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer. >>>> > >>>> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both. >>>> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or >>>> did >>>> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments? >>>> > >>>No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the >>>New Testiment which contained the New Covenant. >> >> No change then. > >I think he's trying to say that God became a born again Christian when Jesus >arrived on the scene... If so, no change then. -- 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. Quote
Guest stoney Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 01:53:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> > >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net... >> >> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, >> >> > >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind. >> >> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs >to >> >> read the Christian bible. >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful >> >> killer. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament. >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent >> >> >>people. >> >> > >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People. >> >> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly? >> >> >> >> > >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer. >> >> > >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both. >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or >did >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments? >> >> > >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant. >> >> No change then. >> >Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant >was made with man. No. The 'old laws' remained in effect until 'heaven and earth passed away.' It's quite common for Christians to be very ignorant of their bronze age superstition, so don't feel bad. -- 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. Quote
Guest stoney Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:11:51 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >news:45019f89.145075437@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:29:50 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> Why do you consider self defense to be bloodthirsty? >> >> >Pay attention >> >> Upu pay attention. I asked you a question, and you did not answer it. >> >> >it is you old testament God which is depicted as a >> >bloodthirsty killer in your own book o' blood. >> >> Bloodthirsty is good when you are defending yourself. >> >People too often see what they want to see. And theists are blind as bats. -- 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. Quote
Guest stoney Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:50:29 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message >news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net... >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:PtOLg.48368$w7.20204@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >> > >> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> > news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. >If >> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless >you >> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind. >> >> >> >> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one >needs >> > to >> >> >> read the Christian bible. >> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and >> >> >> wrathful >> >> >> killer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament. >> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and >innocent >> >> >> >>people. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People. >> >> >> >> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what >way,exactly? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy >named >> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer. >> >> >> > >> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both. >> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, >or >> > did >> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments? >> >> >> > >> >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the >> >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant. >> >> >> >> No change then. >> >> >> > Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant >> > was made with man. >> > >> I see- a new covenant with the same old bloodthirsty killer. >> >Sorry, but as I trieed to explain before, our understand of the > nature of God changed. The Old Testiment depicted God as >a wrathfull, spiteful, cruel being who demands sacrifices by man. > >But not the God of New Testiment. It pctures God one of love, >understanding, kindness and a God one who sacrificed himself >on behalf of man. Multiple lies and there was no 'sacrifice.' -- 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. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 >> Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >>> >>> Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process >>> theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The >>> subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process >>> theology. >>> >> >> >> Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process >> Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders > > The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy. > > You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it? Why are you lying here when people can easily check up on your bizarre and hate filled lies? http://www.religion-online.org/ Process Studies Journal Al this is from process theologysown journals! Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological, chronic liar you are? 123 Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking, admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and offers some solutions. Griffin is a long time process theology proponent. Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked? because you just do not care if you are a liar found out! You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!corp.supernews.com... >> >> -- Where did all these braindead morons come from! What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did they manage to find their way out on their own? Cheerful Charlie 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.