Re: Definition of God

[Guest Virgil]

In article <tJ6dnfzm3LFqbo7YnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to

> the facts in evidence:

>

> > Copi does not include the notion of might be ...

>

> Are you blind?

Septic is apparently blind deaf and dumb re things he does not want to

acknowledge, but sees things which do not exist when they support his

prejudices.

 

 

You are overlooking the phrase "IS IN FACT", Septic.

 

The astronomers claim of "IS IN FACT" and an agnostic "claim", if one

can call it that, of "might or might not be" are not equivalent, and any

one who claims they are, is himself guilty of the fallacy of the STRAW

MAN.

 

So it is Septic who is making all the fallacious arguments.

 

Or rather making the same false argument over and over as if repeating

his lie will make it true.

[Guest Virgil]

In article <tJ6dnf_m3LFhbo7YnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to

> the facts in evidence:

>

> > Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

>

> 1953??? Your library is in dire need of an update, old son. 8^)

>

> http://tinylink.com/?Z4BURs8itE

 

Anything that has been around since the time of Galileo is not going to

change between 1953 and 2006, Septic.

[Guest Virgil]

In article <YMudnXl-d8PfZY7YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Screwup Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote:

>

> > "Screwup Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote :

> > >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>

> Liar. I did not write that, that is YOUR argument (which is contrary to the

> facts in evidence), not mine. Please try to keep your attributions straight.

 

If you count ">"'s, Septic, you will note that the quote was NOT

attributed to you.

 

So that Septic's argument against Richard is a false one.

 

And Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!

[Guest Virgil]

In article <Hv6dnZSfNtHWhInYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue contrary

> to

> the facts in evidence:

>

> > Copi does not include the notion of might be ...

>

> Are you blind?

 

Richard good deal less so that Septic, as Richard, unlike Septic, sees

what is there and does not see what is not there.

[Guest wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

>

> Barwell states:

>

>>>> When I dug up articles where the PT crew admitted

>>>> their PT god didn't exactly work,

>

 

Hello, I am Richard Hanson, noted liar.

 

I always lie and I never correct a lie or an error.

When Barwell posts, I lie.

 

>> 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!

 

 

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest wcb]

Hello, I am Richard Hanson, noted liar.

 

I always lie and I never correct a lie or an error.

When Barwell posts, I lie.

 

 

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.

 

 

>> 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!

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest wcb]

Hello! I am Gandalf Grey.

I lie and lie and lie and never correct my lies when called

on my lies. I am always wrong and never correct and error.

I spam the sam old errors and lies, errors and lies, errors and

lies again and again.

 

Because I am a pathological liar.

 

I lie because I have utter contempt for YOUR intelligence

and think I can fool you with obvious lies.

[Guest wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

 

"I am a flaming asshole liar."

Yes Gandy, you ARE!

 

Christianity let the GOP support mass murders for 35

years without really making an decent effort to stop them.

 

Gandalf thinks this is acceptable.

Christianity is a failure!

 

The last great genocide of the 20th century?

500,0000 dead Iraqi children killed by Bush's policies

of destroying iraq's water systems during Desert Storm.

 

100 million christians in Main Stream denominations and these

denominations did not arise as one and end mass murder.

 

Failure.

 

No matter how Gandy the LIAR paints it, mass murder went on

DECADES and the main stream denominations with 100 + millions

did not halt it, despite pretensious claims to be the only source of morals.

 

This after decades of other outrages, support for Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot,

Rios Montt, Pinochet, D'Aubisson of El Salvadior and many more.

 

The GOP stump broke christianity to never stood up agains evil and main

stream denominations with 100 + million members never decisively acted.

 

This is the only botton line that counts, American

Christianity's abject, utter failure despite having

numbers enough to decisively act.

 

 

 

Hanson does NOT have brains or competence to note teh bottom line.

despite having numbers to ebnd this steady support of mass murder,

genocide and evil, the churches collectively did nothing effective.

 

 

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

news:12h8f5c2gt5pjd6@corp.supernews.com...

> I lie and lie and lie and never correct my lies when called

> on my lies. I am always wrong and never correct and error.

> I spam the sam old errors and lies, errors and lies, errors and

> lies again and again.

>

> Because I am a pathological liar.

>

> I lie because I have utter contempt for YOUR intelligence

> and think I can fool you with obvious lies.

 

At last you've told the truth.

 

That's the first step.

>>

>>> I am now rewriting my Omnigenesis essay and sharpening it up rather

>>> considerably.

>>

>> Possible Translation: You mean this time it will actually be logically

>> valid?

>>

>

> Simplified, some what less confusing, still basically the same

> truth

 

Well, since your original argument was fundamentally flawed and NOT true,

you're probably still in the intellectual bog you began in.

 

> you are mentally incapable of understanding.

 

Yadda, yadda.

>

> You are a totally ignorant, unthinking fool.

 

Cough up the argument, save the taunts for your S&M friends.

>

> Again, OEC gods are claimed to be creators of all, all knowing

> via revelation.

 

Define revelation. In most modern religions, revelation is considered to be

an ongoing aspect of the church. It's not confined to the OT prophets.

> This logically creates omnigenesis and that creates

> metaphysical nihilism.

 

How does revelation imply creation? If I tell Fred what I plan on doing

next Tuesday and I don't tell Sally, I can be said to have revealed

something to Fred. Fred might even decide to call himself the prophet of

Gandalf. That doesn't mean I created the universe.

 

On the other hand, if your claiming that literally....." .....OEC gods are

claimed to be creators of all, all knowing via revelation," then all you're

saying is that the gods that are in the class of gods that are claimed to be

'omni-everything' [to use your pre-confabulated term], are in fact claimed

to be all knowing. And since 'all-knowingness' is already a part of your

'omni-everything class,' the only thing you're telling us is that the gods

that are claimed to be omni-everything are claimed to be omni-everything.

 

Redundant as well as being a strawman, since it's already been demonstrated

to you that

 

1. Modern religions do not all claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient

and neither did the original Hebrew texts state that God was omnipotent and

omniscient without internal contradiction.

2. Not all modern religions believe in revelation through holy texts

3. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is closed.

4. Not all modern religions believe that revelation is open.

 

Which leads us to wonder why or how revelation has anything to do with

anything.

>

> -----

> DOES GOD EXIST? STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - NO.

>

> 1. OMNIGENESIS, DETERMINISM, FREE WILL, METAPHYSICAL

> CHAOS AND THEOLOGICAL NIHILISM.

>

> 4.3 billion people believe in religions that have a god

> that is claimed to have created all, and is omniscient

> and omnipotent.

 

Which leaves a whole lot of people who don't believe that but still believe

in a god. Which leaves your original claim that 'god is easy to disprove'

totally without support.

> Omni-everything creator class gods (OEC).

> After OEC god religions, non-theistic religions like

> Buddhism are the largest religions. Non-OEC gods are also

> easily shown impossible

 

Apparently they aren't "easily shown impossible". Out of the piles of horse

manure you've served up to the group, you haven't come up with a single

argument that has succeeded in doing that so far. I doubt that there are

many people here who will have forgotten that the best you could do on that

subject was to offer a personal opinion that Non-OEC gods 'weren't very

important." Quite a proof.

>, but these are not very numerous

> nor important religions.

 

And true to form, there you go again. Two problems with the comment.

 

1. YOU don't get to decide what's important.

 

2. Commenting that a particular god of a particular belief or group of

beliefs is not 'important' is not PROOF that they cannot exist. Cheap

brush-offs don't equal valid conclusions.

 

You've stated:

> Non-OEC gods are also

> easily shown impossible

 

So prove it right here, right now. I think most of the readers are tired of

watching the BillyBob version of The Rehashed Theological Arguments on Revue

show. The recognizably logical parts of any of your articles aren't yours.

They're antique arguments that worked better before you started skewing

them. YOU, on the other hand, have shown NOTHING that's new, and NOTHING

that's shown that Non-omnipotent gods are "impossible."

 

You can pull your pseudo arguments out of the trash, you can re-edit them,

you can reword them, or even put sequins on them and they're still going to

be garbage, Barwell. They still don't prove that no god can possibly exist,

which is what YOU claimed you could do. Everything from then to now has

been you tapdancing around your original fraudulent claim that you could

disprove the existence of any possible god. All the sheer tonnage of your

piles of crap has been an effort on your part to avoid the truth that you

don't have one damned clue as to how to disprove the existence of any

possible god. All your manure and the only thing you have to show for it is

'well, if god exists, god isn't very important.'

> Omni - all, genesis - creation.

> Omnigenesis = creation of all.

 

No it doesn't. It means "all creation"

>

> Here I shall coin a word for further discussion.

 

Translation: Here you shall mutilate some words to try to disguise the fact

that you've got no game.

> Omnigenesis means creation of all, to the smallest

> physical detail. If god is in any way omniscient,

> and creator of all, then he in fact creates all,

> omnigenesis, to the smallest detail, all of creation

> to the smallest quantum level material, to the smallest

> Planck quantum distance, Planck quantum time, dimensions,

> fields, everything, all of it.

 

Sorry, but you flop right here, as usual. If the Big Bang were the creator

of all, there is no logical necessity that the Big Bang would have to

manufacture everything in the universe down to the smallest detail. There

is no valid logic that necessitates that a first cause must create

everything in detail.

 

The rest of your argument is fatally flawed by your first and fatal mistake.

In short, it's the same garbage argument, propped up with more sophistry.

 

If you've got an argument that disproves the existence of any god, cough it

up, Barney. The majority of readers here have read better disproofs of the

orthodox god of Xianity than anything you could possibly come up with. If

you've got something new, trot it out or take a hike.

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

news:12h8frmt2t9jl1a@corp.supernews.com...

> "I am a flaming asshole liar."

 

Yes, you are.

[Guest wcb]

Nixon, Vietnam lies. Secret bombing of Cambodia.

Support for evil Greek Junta. Torture and imprisonments do not bother nixon.

Support for Argentinian Generals and the Dirty War.

Support for Brazilian Generals and their dictatorship.

Evil. Torture and murder.

Support for illegal overthrow of Allende goverment

and support for murderous, torturing Pinochet regime.

Ghastly murderous CIA phoenix program.

Support for murderous Indonesian government.

Take over of Papua and East Timur in 1969.

Mass murders ignored.

 

 

American Christians yawn languidly, see nothing wrong with

any of this and give Nixon, an evil man a 60% vote in his

re-election.

 

No matter how much support for evil, torture, mass murder and illegal acts

Nixon does, Christian America approves and votes their approval.

 

It is not about Vietnam alone but a long series of shows of support for

evil, far right, genocidal, torturing, murdering thugs around the globe.

 

Under Nixon, christians did not care and decades later still did not care

enough to use their vast numbers, 100 + million in main stream

denominations to decisievely end such horrors.

 

To this day they still are not prepared to do so if this should

happen again.

 

 

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest wcb]

Nixon, Vietnam lies. Secret bombing of Cambodia.

Support for evil Greek Junta. Torture and imprisonments do not bother nixon.

Support for Argentinian Generals and the Dirty War.

Support for Brazilian Generals and their dictatorship.

Evil. Torture and murder.

Support for illegal overthrow of Allende goverment

and support for murderous, torturing Pinochet regime.

Ghastly murderous CIA phoenix program.

Support for murderous Indonesian government.

Take over of Papua and East Timur in 1969.

Mass murders ignored.

 

 

American Christians yawn languidly, see nothing wrong with

any of this and give Nixon, an evil man a 60% vote in his

re-election.

 

No matter how much support for evil, torture, mass murder and illegal acts

Nixon does, Christian America approves and votes their approval.

 

It is not about Vietnam alone but a long series of shows of support for

evil, far right, genocidal, torturing, murdering thugs around the globe.

 

Under Nixon, christians did not care and decades later still did not care

enough to use their vast numbers, 100 + million in main stream

denominations to decisievely end such horrors.

 

To this day they still are not prepared to do so if this should

happen again.

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest wcb]

Gandy repeats his tired old lies.

 

Why? gandy, how many times are you going to lie?

My quotes came from old process theology hnds.

david Ray Griffin. Not as you lied and lied and lied, outside hostile

critics.

 

What does this lie gain you?

 

Sympathy? Supporters?

Why lie and lie and lie?

 

Because you must be stupid and desperate and intellectually feebleminded.

 

>> 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!

 

 

 

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

news:12h8gl412ujrp99@corp.supernews.com...

> Under Nixon, christians did not care

 

That's a lie and it's been proven to be a lie over and over again.

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

news:12h8gncdluopue1@corp.supernews.com...

>

>

> Nixon, Vietnam lies.

 

Barwell and Barwell lies.

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

news:12h8guaesgkla82@corp.supernews.com...

>

> Barwell repeats his tired old lies.

>

> Why?

 

I don't know. I guess you're a crank.

[Guest wcb]

http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html

 

In a campaign that is probably best described as institutionalized genocide

some 1 million Vietnamese combatants and 2-4,000,000 South East Asian

civillians (DRV statistics, including Laos and Cambodia) were killed during

this US stage of the war (estimated anywhere between 10-20% of the

population, or proportionately 27 million Americans), with over half the

Vietnamese casualties inflicted in South Vietnam, the ostensible

protectorate of the United States. Likewise the US managed to kill some

17,000 US troops - one third of all US casualties were reportedly caused by

American-deployed landmines and cluster ordinace.

 

 

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest wcb]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,6350517.story?coll=la-home-headlines;

 

Civilian Killings Went Unpunished

 

Declassified papers show U.S. atrocities went far beyond My Lai.

By Nick Turse and Deborah Nelson, Special to The Times

August 6, 2006

 

The men of B Company were in a dangerous state of mind. They had lost five

men in a firefight the day before. The morning of Feb. 8, 1968, brought

unwelcome orders to resume their sweep of the countryside, a green

patchwork of rice paddies along Vietnam's central coast.

 

They met no resistance as they entered a nondescript settlement in Quang Nam

province. So Jamie Henry, a 20-year-old medic, set his rifle down in a hut,

unfastened his bandoliers and lighted a cigarette.

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Just then, the voice of a lieutenant crackled across the radio. He reported

that he had rounded up 19 civilians, and wanted to know what to do with

them. Henry later recalled the company commander's response:

 

Kill anything that moves.

 

Henry stepped outside the hut and saw a small crowd of women and children.

Then the shooting began.

 

Moments later, the 19 villagers lay dead or dying.

 

Back home in California, Henry published an account of the slaughter and

held a news conference to air his allegations. Yet he and other Vietnam

veterans who spoke out about war crimes were branded traitors and

fabricators. No one was ever prosecuted for the massacre.

 

Now, nearly 40 years later, declassified Army files show that Henry was

telling the truth ? about the Feb. 8 killings and a series of other

atrocities by the men of B Company.

 

The files are part of a once-secret archive, assembled by a Pentagon task

force in the early 1970s, that shows that confirmed atrocities by U.S.

forces in Vietnam were more extensive than was previously known.

 

The documents detail 320 alleged incidents that were substantiated by Army

investigators ? not including the most notorious U.S. atrocity, the 1968 My

Lai massacre.

 

Though not a complete accounting of Vietnam war crimes, the archive is the

largest such collection to surface to date. About 9,000 pages, it includes

investigative files, sworn statements by witnesses and status reports for

top military brass.

 

The records describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese ? families in

their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of

soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders,

described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with

impunity.

 

Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files

found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.

 

Retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, a Vietnam veteran who served on the task

force, says he once supported keeping the records secret but now believes

they deserve wide attention in light of alleged attacks on civilians and

abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

 

"We can't change current practices unless we acknowledge the past," says

Johns, 78.

 

Among the substantiated cases in the archive:

 

? Seven massacres from 1967 through 1971 in which at least 137 civilians

died.

 

? Seventy-eight other attacks on noncombatants in which at least 57 were

killed, 56 wounded and 15 sexually assaulted.

 

? One hundred forty-one instances in which U.S. soldiers tortured civilian

detainees or prisoners of war with fists, sticks, bats, water or electric

shock.

 

Investigators determined that evidence against 203 soldiers accused of

harming Vietnamese civilians or prisoners was strong enough to warrant

formal charges. These "founded" cases were referred to the soldiers'

superiors for action.

 

 

 

Single page

CONTINUED

 

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

 

 

Nixon was evil, American christians did not care.

 

Nixon, Vietnam lies. Secret bombing of Cambodia.

Support for evil Greek Junta. Torture and imprisonments

do not bother Nixon.

Support for Argentinian Generals and the Dirty War.

Support for Brazilian Generals and their dictatorship.

Evil. Torture and murder.

Support for illegal overthrow of Allende goverment

and support for murderous, torturing Pinochet regime.

Ghastly murderous CIA Phoenix program.

Support for murderous Indonesian government.

Take over of Papua and East Timur in 1969.

Mass murders ignored.

 

American Christians yawn languidly, see nothing wrong with

any of this and give Nixon, an evil man a 60% vote in his

re-election.

 

No matter how much support for evil, torture, mass murder

and illegal acts Nixon does, Christian America approves

and votes their approval.

 

It is not about Vietnam alone but a long series of shows of

support for evil, far right, genocidal, torturing, murdering

thugs around the globe.

 

Under Nixon, christians did not care and decades later still

did not care enough to use their vast numbers, 100 + million

in main stream denominations to decisively end such horrors.

 

To this day they still are not prepared to do so if this should

happen again.

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest wcb]

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

> ... http://www.cjd.org/paper/pacifism.html

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

news:12h8k8n7k6sah14@corp.supernews.com...

> Gandalf Grey wrote:

>

>

> Nixon was evil, American christians did not care.

 

That's a lie.

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message

news:12h8kcii152or58@corp.supernews.com...

> Nixon was evil, American christians in the majority did not care.

 

That's a lie.

[Guest wcb]

stoney wrote:

> 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.

>

>

 

Basically, if you scan the gospels and the sayings of Jesus, you will be

surprised how little there really is that could be called moral commands

from Jesus.

 

And most of it Christians refuse to act on.

 

No, public prayer, no divorce? Nahhhhhh!

 

Matthew 5, all the laws of Moses are in force.

few Christians follow jesus.

 

Mathew 25 is ignored by many, especially our

politicians pandering to christian far right hater and louts.

 

Sell all you have and sell to the poor. Luke 12.

 

No, they won't follow that one. Acts 4, god wants us to live in

holy communism.

Nope, not that one for sure!

 

Some day I will go back to my project of listing all

commands of Jesus and grouping them together for commentary.

 

 

 

--

 

You are a fluke of the Universe

You have no right to be here,

and whether you can hear it or not,

the Universe is laughing behind your back.

 

Cheerful Charlie

[Guest Al Smith]

> Nixon was evil, American christians did not care.

>

> Nixon, Vietnam lies. Secret bombing of Cambodia.

> Support for evil Greek Junta. Torture and imprisonments

> do not bother Nixon.

> Support for Argentinian Generals and the Dirty War.

> Support for Brazilian Generals and their dictatorship.

> Evil. Torture and murder.

> Support for illegal overthrow of Allende goverment

> and support for murderous, torturing Pinochet regime.

> Ghastly murderous CIA Phoenix program.

> Support for murderous Indonesian government.

> Take over of Papua and East Timur in 1969.

> Mass murders ignored.

>

> American Christians yawn languidly, see nothing wrong with

> any of this and give Nixon, an evil man a 60% vote in his

> re-election.

>

> No matter how much support for evil, torture, mass murder

> and illegal acts Nixon does, Christian America approves

> and votes their approval.

>

> It is not about Vietnam alone but a long series of shows of

> support for evil, far right, genocidal, torturing, murdering

> thugs around the globe.

>

> Under Nixon, christians did not care and decades later still

> did not care enough to use their vast numbers, 100 + million

> in main stream denominations to decisively end such horrors.

>

> To this day they still are not prepared to do so if this should

> happen again.

 

 

What you have to bear in mind is that Nixon was maybe the most

intelligent president America's ever had, and a brilliant diplomat

and strategist. Bush on the other hand ...

[Guest Your Logic Tutor]

"Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message

news:pan.2006.09.20.05.24.21.395112@keinspam.de...

> An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:02:51 -0600, Virgil hat geschreibt:

>

> > In article <Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >

> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> >>

> >>

> >> > But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an

> >> > argumentum ad ignorantiam.

> >>

> >> Not according to Copi's explanation.

> >

> > Then how does Septic declare that "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"

> > is somehow a declaration of uncertainty?

>

> He's not. He's claiming that the hypothesis offered to prove the

> assertion is an argument from ignorance as is Galelleo's counter

> hypothesis. Both arguments are ad ignorantiam. I suppose this makes

> there be a crystalline substance - moon problem.

 

Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a mind -

body problem or a crystaline substance - moon problem any more than there is

a digestion - gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from some

theists?

 

Here is how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad

ignorantiam_:

 

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for

certain." -- Dan Wood