Guest Phill Adelphia Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1156442213.833051.114640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com > > thepossibilities wrote: >> Immortalist wrote: >> > Bob wrote: >> > > One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side >> > > can define what they mean by God. Theists claim they know God exists >> > > but when pressed to define what they mean, they lapse into religious >> > > jargon. Similarly atheists claim they know that God does not exist >> > > but >> > > they too are unable to define what they mean by this God that does >> > > not >> > > exist. >> > > >> > > No wonder such discussions always degernerate into shouting contests. >> > > Nobody knows what they are talking about. >> > > >> > > A proper definition includes a concrete rational description of the >> > > essential and necessary characteristic of the object in question. >> > > >> > > Can you define God in these terms? >> > > >> >> I believe "God" to be different to many different people. I will admit >> that I am a Christian, largely due to the fact that I don't want to >> believe we are born on this earth live out our life and then cease to >> exist. > > > I am a Billionaire for much the same reason. I don't want to believe > that I can't afford a small island in the pacific. > > I believe I paid for it from the Swiss bank account that I believe I > have. And I believe it's waiting for me when I retire. > > I am going to live my life believing that because I want to. > > Sure if I didn't believe that, then I might manage my resources > differently. I might try to do the best with what I can afford. But no, > when I retire that island is waiting for me. Good one Chris! This should win AQOTM Quote
Guest Gospel Bretts Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> >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 some theists. >> >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer >> exists. >> >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. >> >That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell >exclusively in the brain? >No one knows for certain. >> I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved confined exclusively inside the brain, although we strongly suspect that it can't exist without the brain. You said that "no one knows for certain", but the subject is amenable to experimentation. First, though, you'd have to define what is "consciousness". In any case, consciousness is certainly confined within the body, even if not wholly inside the brain (i.e. there is no "soul" that wafts on up to the sky when you die). ------------------ Gospel Bretts a.a. Atheist #2262 Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:r3ate29siahcorlkuaa0dn4s5ma7ucokps@4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:46:12 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > Dan, you haven't a shred of honesty. What do you imagine you achieve > by ignoring what you are told, > This is just it Chris. You presume to tell me how things are. You call it telling me facts, I call what you are doing pontificting. How can you claim to have the right to tell me anything. You are no authority on any subject, so far as I can determine. > resorting to personal lies and then > amateur-psychologising your own lies to come up with even more sheer > nastiness. > What lies? Is is a lie to say you are biased against Christanity? Is it a lie to say you are pontificating instead on presenting an honest, reasoned response? > > >I snipped virtually everything leaving your rants and insane screams. > > What "rant and insane screams", deliberately nasty liar? > I left them which proves resort to personal insults, attacks and slander instead of explaining where you suppose I am wrong. To pretend that I am engaged in circuliar reasoning and question begging is merely accusations not proof of anything. > > >It proves that you are a raving lunatic unable to carry on a reasoned > > It proves your psychopathy, sheer dishonesty and mendacity - but > you're a Christian and we've come to expect it when you're confronted > with reality. > Here you go again demionstrating your bias and pontificating before the world. > > >and logical discussion. I suspect this is the result of many years of > > No you don't, brainwashed liar. > Oh I suppose you have been through drug rehabilitation. > > If you had attempted "logical discussion" you would have addressed > your own logic errors when they were pointed out instead of lying > about "pontificating" - your question begging, your circular argument > and your argument from ignorance. > Again Chris, these are merely charges not proof of anything. > > But instead you piled lie personal upon personal lie, slander upon > slander. And now have the sheer hypocrisy to whine about "discussion". > >using illegal drugs. I am afraid you could do physical harm, given > >the opportunity. I will have nothing more to do with you! > > All because you are a dishonest, nasty, sanctimonious, lying hypocrite > who cannot address what he is told. > Here you go again arrogantly presuming to _tell_ me how things are. You are no authority. Consequently, your declarations are meaningless. > > But your vicious slander gives you another dishonest excuse to ignore > what you were told. > If you were even to attempt to back up your charges, you would have a modicum of credibility. > > >> Why do you keep repeating this lie, liar? > > Well, liar? > Back up you charges or keep them to yourself! > > >> I discredited your "argument" by pointing out its question-begging, > >> circular nature and told you what you had to do to CONCLUDE your god > >> in the real world outside your religion. > > So why lie that I didn't? You know I did because that's when you > accused me of pontificating. > So you boldly pontificate that I am engaged a circular nature, question begging. And you pretend that you have discredited something I wrote. I have news for you. Such unproven charges are without any merit whatsoever. > > >> I pointed out your total bullshit about "guesses, supposition and > >> unsupported hypotheses" BECAUSE NOBODY APART FROM YOU, CLAIMS ANY > >> KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO 10^-43 SECONDS AFTER THE BIG BANG, SO THAT IS ALL > >> THERE CAN BE, BUT THAT (A) THESE ARE AVENUES FOR INVESTIGATION, AND > >> (B) THEY BREAK NO KNOWN LAWS - UNLIKE YOUR UNJUSTIFIED CERTAINTY. > > Which would not have been repeated or shouted if you have taken any > notice - but in standard dishonest Christian fashion you ignore it and > when it ie repeated you use its repetition as another dishonest excuse > to ignore it. > You totally misrepresented my position. If laws of physics, as we know them today, break down at Planck time, as I claimed, how can anyone know anything about the epoch between the Big bang and 10^-43 secs afterwards. Note, I believe some _unknown_ physics did come into play at the big bang. > > Address it this time instead of being dishonest. > > >> Why do I have to keep repeating this, liar? > > Well,liar? > Unjustified and unwarrented personal attack. > > >> Acknowledge this instead of lying that it was never said. > > Well,liar? > > >> You imagine that your argument from ignorance, which is also circular, > >> is "evidence pointing to a creator". > > Well, liar? > Prove your accusation or else admit that all you have is unjustified charges against me of arguments from ignorance and circular reasoning. > >> > >> BECAUSE YOUR "ARGUMENTS" ARE THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, > >> AND CIRCULAR. > > Well, liar? > You continue pontificating, instead of trying to make your case against me. > > >> We are miles apart, because you have no grasp of logic and repeatedly > >> ignore what you are told. > >> > >> Including that the laws of physics merely describe our knowledge. > > Well, liar? > Just another unwarrented slander. > > >> >> We're honest about that - unlike you. > >> >> > >> > >> So why do you, deliberately nasty, hypocritical liar? > > Well? > You cannot deal with my arguments, so you are reduced to pontificating and making false charges. > >> > >> Get that frikking beam out of your own eye, hypocrite. > > Well? > > >> AND ADDRESS THE EXPLANATIONS OF YOUR LOGIC ERRORS INSTEAD OF RESORTING > >> TO EVEN MORE PERSONAL LIES. > > Which you snipped yet again, sanctimonious hypocrite. I'll remind you > that instead of addressing what you were told, you accused me of all > sorts of things including "moral depravity". > You only pretend to define logical errors. You have no authority. > >> >> > >> Another of your lies. It failed because of your logic errors - > >> fallacies like circular argument, argument from ignorance and > >> non-sequitur. > > Well? > You keep making the same unwarrented charges against me without a shread of proof. > >> > >> Hardly, liar. > >> > >> >> Your dismissal of them merely demonstrates your ignorance of the real > >> >> world outside your religion. > >> >> > >> Lying again? > >> > >> >> As does your refusal to back up your "God" claims IN AN AREA WHERE > >> >> EVERY CLAIM HAS TO BE BACKED UP. AGAIN, OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION. > > Well? > Why do you presume I have anything to prove to you? > > >> >I have nothing to prove to you, you otoh are a crusader for atheism. > > Which was another of your personal Lois used as an "Excuse" go ignore > points made. > > >> Liar. I am no such thing. > > > Well? > Why then do you verbally assault Christians and the Christian Religion if you are not trying to undermine and destroy faith? When you succeed you leave them with nothing. > > >> Like most religious fanatics you fail to grasp just how irrelevant > >> your deity-belief is in the real world outside your religion. > > Well? > You are engaged in persecution. > > >> Or that in the real world outside it you have to use real world > >> evidence, methods etc. > > Well? > When you do not wish to, or cannot deal with something all you have to do is call the poster a liar and that's the end of it. It's an escape for you! Dan Wood Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans? why aren't humans evolving into aliens or something? probably gonna take a million billion years i would guess at which point the sun will go super nova and wipe everything in the solar system out anyway and you all will be in Bliss but won't even be aware of it because your dead and there is no God. Also i hear scientists have traced our genetics back to one man and one women. But you all probably would deny it anyway or maybe it was the two monkeys that evolved into a man and women? why haven't we been contacted by other worlds? Are we alone in the universe? Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang? what was out there before? The possibility of evolution is like a tornado going through a junk yard and putting together a 747 jet, but science can reach can't it. Yet science is not exact and never will be, it is constantly changing. Out with the old misguided belief and in with the new miguided belief. Also I consider the Bible to be a history book but apparently it's one you all easily dismiss which is fine with me because I don't care. I wonder what the suicide rate is for atheists? Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:s23ue29tmvo756hji9e7mcd5jtb1ute0k3@4ax.com... > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:41:21 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > > >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:genre2ttjlsfegkq27vidfso7h2lsouho3@4ax.com... > >> 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. > >> > >Do you speak for Christians? > >> > > Dan, I don't have to be the Christians designated spokesperson to > comment on my observations. You guys repeatedly prove to all > non-biased observers that you really don't believe what you say you > believe. > You are painting with a _very_broad_ brush. I do not deny that there are times when many perhaps most Christians have times of doubt and disbelief. Certainly, I do. Dan Wood, DDS > ------------------ > > Gospel Bretts > a.a. Atheist #2262 > Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Christopher A. Lee wrote: >etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them. > > And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple > and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and > invents positions we don't have. this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right? Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be right. Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Steve O wrote: > >> > >> What makes you think atheists "believe in nothing"? We just don't > >> believe > >> in god(s). > > > > explain a little of what you believe in so I better understand > > > > I'll take a chance here and assume for a moment that you are someone who is > genuinely interested in what an atheist thinks. > Atheists believe in many different things. > I personally believe in honesty, loyalty , family and a whole host of other > things. > There are even some things I believe in that other people find difficult to > believe. > I'll give you an example - I believe in the Allen Carr method of quitting > smoking- which postulates that you can quit smoking completely in a matter > of hours. > Some people have difficulty in believing that. > I don't , because I used the method and went from 40 a day to nothing in a > matter of hours, without any side effects or suffering withdrawal symptoms > What I do not believe in, in common with all other atheists, is a god or > gods. > There is nothing to particularly understand- that's all there is to it. > It's very simple. > You probably don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. > I would completely accept your position on that, and I wouldn't try to tell > you how long the Tooth Fairy story has existed, or how many people actually > believe in the Tooth Fairy, or give examples of people who have actually > found cash underneath their pillow following a tooth loss, or try to offer > those facts as evidence of the existence of the Tooth Fairy. > To put it simply, and to paraphrase a well known atheist expression - I > simply believe in one less God than you do. > When you understand why you dismiss all other possible Gods, you will > understand why I dismiss yours. > I hope that explains things for you. > > > -- > 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?" i really appreciate this explaination, it was what I was looking for. I hope all atheists have similar principals in honesty, loyalty and family. i do not wish to change anyone's beliefs here, i only wanted to explain an experience i had that compells me to believe the way i do. Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 On 25 Aug 2006 09:02:36 -0700, "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them. >> >> And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple >> and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and >> invents positions we don't have. > >this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God >doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right? >Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be >right. Don't be so fucking stupid. Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1o5ue2lpilb9hcfmlb3o5758hs65nvfhes@4ax.com... > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > > >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > >news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >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 some theists. > >> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer > >> exists. > >> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. > >> > >That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > >exclusively in the brain? > >No one knows for certain. > >> > > I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved > confined exclusively inside the brain, although we strongly suspect > that it can't exist without the brain. > > You said that "no one knows for certain", but the subject is amenable > to experimentation. First, though, you'd have to define what is > "consciousness". > > In any case, consciousness is certainly confined within the body, even > if not wholly inside the brain (i.e. there is no "soul" that wafts on > up to the sky when you die). > Whether this is true of not when a young person faces certain death, he/she as well as believing parents and friends have a real and genuine assurance which is all that counts. My friend and a colleague lost his 5 year old child to a deadly an incurable disease last year.There was nothing the medical profession could do to cure this child or prolong the life his life. I would not under any circumstances take whatever peace of mind their faith provided for them after their loss. So, whether it's real or not it is comforting, at at such times that's all that really matters. Regards, Dan > > ------------------ > > Gospel Bretts > a.a. Atheist #2262 > Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Steve O wrote: > >> Don't worry yourself, deary. I don't believe a word of it. > > > > good for you, it's your right. you wasn't there so what do you care. > > found it interesting how many people don't believe it but hey we all > > have our own mind. i would probably find it hard to believe myself if > > I hadn't ever experienced it and heard the story. > > Okay, let's run with this for the moment. > I'm going to assume that what you saw is true. > Please bear in mind that I never doubted that you have had experience which > spooked you - it is simply your interpretation of that experience I am > questioning. > So perhaps you could give a little more detail, like, as in, how long ago > was it, where did it happen, how old were you at the time, how many people > were involved, did they witness the sane thing you saw or do their accounts > differ significantly, what were the weather conditions like, were any > hallucinogenic drugs or alcohol involved, did you, or any of the > participants involved suffer from mental disorder, is there any photographic > evidence, was this incident reported to the police, are there any police or > press records in relation to the incident, are there any existing witnesses > who could verify your story, was it perhaps some kind of prank to which you > were exposed, over what sort of time period did this incident occur, and > could your memory of this incident have been affected by time or repeated > retelling of the story? happened in Washington near Spokane out in the woods. people in involved where Linda, Jake, Chris, Brian L, Donavan, Jeff and myself. no alcohol or drugs were involved that I am aware of. i know for a fact that the 2 of my closest friends where not induced by anything along with myself. All witnesses are still living, and it was not a prank. as a matter of fact all of us have told the story to different people and it ends up the same story. the incident was reported to the police that night and they came out and arrested Jeff and he was committed. i would be curious to read the report but it's probably not public. time period was maybe 1 hour. anything is possible with my memory however this is the kind of experience that scares the hell out of you so you don't forget it or remember the strange parts incorrectly. experiencing this has changed my life a great deal, i no longer appreciated scarey movies especially when they deal in the Satanic realm. Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On 25 Aug 2006 09:02:36 -0700, "thepossibilities" > <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Christopher A. Lee wrote: > >>etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them. > >> > >> And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple > >> and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and > >> invents positions we don't have. > > > >this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God > >doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right? > >Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be > >right. > > Don't be so fucking stupid. i don't dillute myself in thinking I am an expert, I am just a little pissed off that I am being attacked for what I believe in. however I do understand now, that I realized I stumbled onto this board, what the big rub is, i am guessing the sci.logic board is not very welcoming of theists. Quote
Guest droth Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 thepossibilities wrote: > question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still > evolving into humans? Why would they evolve into humans? We are simply one "solution" to our environmental stresses, there could be any number of others. > why aren't humans evolving into aliens or > something? probably gonna take a million billion years i would guess > at which point the sun will go super nova and wipe everything in the > solar system out anyway and you all will be in Bliss but won't even be > aware of it because your dead and there is no God. I think, definitionally, we can't evolve into aliens. > Also i hear > scientists have traced our genetics back to one man and one women. But > you all probably would deny it anyway or maybe it was the two monkeys > that evolved into a man and women? why haven't we been contacted by > other worlds? Are we alone in the universe? 1. Could have been, but it seems unlikely, 2. Space is really big. 3. Who knows. > Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang? what was out > there before? 1. It seems likely. 2. The question is nonsensical. There was no such thing as "before". > The possibility of evolution is like a tornado going through a junk > yard and putting together a 747 jet, but science can reach can't it. That is not how evolution works. There are many sources on the Internet which will readily explain it to laymen. > Yet science is not exact and never will be, it is constantly changing. > Out with the old misguided belief and in with the new miguided belief. Perhaps. However, using the scientific process seems to be very successful. You simply have to look at the technological results around you to see how successful such methods are. > Also I consider the Bible to be a history book but apparently it's one > you all easily dismiss which is fine with me because I don't care. I > wonder what the suicide rate is for atheists? The Bible IS fairly easy to dismiss as a history book. It makes many claims about history/prehistory which are false. I wonder what the suicide rate is as well. Something tells me it's likely no different from that of theists. Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 On 25 Aug 2006 10:29:09 -0700, "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> On 25 Aug 2006 09:02:36 -0700, "thepossibilities" >> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> >>etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them. >> >> >> >> And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple >> >> and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and >> >> invents positions we don't have. >> > >> >this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God >> >doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right? >> >Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be >> >right. >> >> Don't be so fucking stupid. > >i don't dillute myself in thinking I am an expert, I am just a little >pissed off that I am being attacked for what I believe in. however I >do understand now, that I realized I stumbled onto this board, what the >big rub is, i am guessing the sci.logic board is not very welcoming of >theists. Nobody is attacking you for being theist, moron, but for inventing strawman beliefs for everybody else, like your smugly stupid "if you want to believe you live out your life on earth and then it's over and done with and you can be happy with this then so be it". As well as all the other things you have stupidly and rudely invented about us. You need to learn that there is a real world outside your religion, in which your doctrines, including those about reality and the people in it, simply don't apply. And in this real world, your religion is merely one of hundreds if not thousands each with its own deity-beliefs, its own myths and legends etc. All of which are irrelevant and ignored to everybody else outside it. Including yours. Start thinking for a change, and showing courtesy and consideration for those outside your religion instead of repeating its lies about them to their faces, and instead of insulting their intelligence by telling them its fairy tales trump reality. Quote
Guest Gospel Bretts Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:26:37 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1o5ue2lpilb9hcfmlb3o5758hs65nvfhes@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> >news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >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 some theists. >> >> >> >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a >> >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer >> >> exists. >> >> >> >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is >> >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function >> >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. >> >> >> >That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell >> >exclusively in the brain? >> >No one knows for certain. >> >> >> >> I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved >> confined exclusively inside the brain, although we strongly suspect >> that it can't exist without the brain. >> >> You said that "no one knows for certain", but the subject is amenable >> to experimentation. First, though, you'd have to define what is >> "consciousness". >> >> In any case, consciousness is certainly confined within the body, even >> if not wholly inside the brain (i.e. there is no "soul" that wafts on >> up to the sky when you die). >> >Whether this is true of not when a young person faces certain death, >he/she as well as believing parents and friends have a real and genuine >assurance which is all that counts. > >My friend and a colleague lost his 5 year old child to a deadly >an incurable disease last year.There was nothing the medical >profession could do to cure this child or prolong the life his >life. > >I would not under any circumstances take whatever peace >of mind their faith provided for them after their loss. I certainly wouldn't have taken the 5 year old's hope away from him. I would have lied to him right up until he died, telling him that he was going to be alright, that God was watching over him, etc. > So,whether it's real or not it is comforting, at at such times that's >all that really matters. > The one who died has been dealt the ultimate loss. The survivors have no right to adopt fantasies in order to make themselves feel better. That's so contemptible it's sickening. (and don't accuse me of lacking first-hand experience!) ------------------ Gospel Bretts a.a. Atheist #2262 Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:p9eue2ds3eupugud4750qk3amm0q8guvei@4ax.com... > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:26:37 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > > >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1o5ue2lpilb9hcfmlb3o5758hs65nvfhes@4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > >> >news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >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 some theists. > >> >> > >> >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a > >> >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer > >> >> exists. > >> >> > >> >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is > >> >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function > >> >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. > >> >> > >> >That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > >> >exclusively in the brain? > >> >No one knows for certain. > >> >> > >> > >> I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved > >> confined exclusively inside the brain, although we strongly suspect > >> that it can't exist without the brain. > >> > >> You said that "no one knows for certain", but the subject is amenable > >> to experimentation. First, though, you'd have to define what is > >> "consciousness". > >> > >> In any case, consciousness is certainly confined within the body, even > >> if not wholly inside the brain (i.e. there is no "soul" that wafts on > >> up to the sky when you die). > >> > >Whether this is true of not when a young person faces certain death, > >he/she as well as believing parents and friends have a real and genuine > >assurance which is all that counts. > > > >My friend and a colleague lost his 5 year old child to a deadly > >an incurable disease last year.There was nothing the medical > >profession could do to cure this child or prolong the life his > >life. > > > >I would not under any circumstances take whatever peace > >of mind their faith provided for them after their loss. > > I certainly wouldn't have taken the 5 year old's hope away from him. I > would have lied to him right up until he died, telling him that he was > going to be alright, that God was watching over him, etc. > > > So,whether it's real or not it is comforting, at at such times that's > >all that really matters. > > > > The one who died has been dealt the ultimate loss. > > The survivors have no right to adopt fantasies in order to make > themselves feel better. > Why?? Surely, one who suffers such a horrific loss is entitled to believe whatever provides some modicum of confort. < That's so contemptible it's sickening. > Ok why does it sicken you when another person finds faith a confort in times of great loss. I'm sorry, but I am not so heartless. > > (and don't accuse me of lacking first-hand experience!) > I'm not accusing you of anything. Dan > > ------------------ > > Gospel Bretts > a.a. Atheist #2262 > Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest Gospel Bretts Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:38:23 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:p9eue2ds3eupugud4750qk3amm0q8guvei@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:26:37 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:1o5ue2lpilb9hcfmlb3o5758hs65nvfhes@4ax.com... >> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> >> >news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >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 some theists. >> >> >> >> >> >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a >> >> >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer >> >> >> exists. >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There >is >> >> >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function >> >> >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. >> >> >> >> >> >That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell >> >> >exclusively in the brain? >> >> >No one knows for certain. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved >> >> confined exclusively inside the brain, although we strongly suspect >> >> that it can't exist without the brain. >> >> >> >> You said that "no one knows for certain", but the subject is amenable >> >> to experimentation. First, though, you'd have to define what is >> >> "consciousness". >> >> >> >> In any case, consciousness is certainly confined within the body, even >> >> if not wholly inside the brain (i.e. there is no "soul" that wafts on >> >> up to the sky when you die). >> >> >> >Whether this is true of not when a young person faces certain death, >> >he/she as well as believing parents and friends have a real and genuine >> >assurance which is all that counts. >> > >> >My friend and a colleague lost his 5 year old child to a deadly >> >an incurable disease last year.There was nothing the medical >> >profession could do to cure this child or prolong the life his >> >life. >> > >> >I would not under any circumstances take whatever peace >> >of mind their faith provided for them after their loss. >> >> I certainly wouldn't have taken the 5 year old's hope away from him. I >> would have lied to him right up until he died, telling him that he was >> going to be alright, that God was watching over him, etc. >> >> > So,whether it's real or not it is comforting, at at such times that's >> >all that really matters. >> > >> >> The one who died has been dealt the ultimate loss. >> >> The survivors have no right to adopt fantasies in order to make >> themselves feel better. >> >Why?? Surely, one who suffers such a horrific loss is entitled to >believe whatever provides some modicum of confort. >< >That's so contemptible it's sickening. >> >Ok why does it sicken you when another person finds faith >a confort in times of great loss. I'm sorry, but I am not so >heartless. Because I've witnessed the slow deaths of my most dearest, Dan. The ones who died lost everything. The survivors have no right to minimize the loss suffered by those who actually died by pretending that they've wafted on up to heaven and now everything is hunky-dory. They fucking died. That's what the world is really like. Get it? (You don't get it.) ------------------ Gospel Bretts a.a. Atheist #2262 Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e1hue2lb8qc0joch5436cv81o69rv8rk1b@4ax.com... > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:38:23 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > > >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:p9eue2ds3eupugud4750qk3amm0q8guvei@4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:26:37 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> >news:1o5ue2lpilb9hcfmlb3o5758hs65nvfhes@4ax.com... > >> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > >> >> >news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >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 some theists. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a > >> >> >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer > >> >> >> exists. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There > >is > >> >> >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function > >> >> >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. > >> >> >> > >> >> >That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > >> >> >exclusively in the brain? > >> >> >No one knows for certain. > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved > >> >> confined exclusively inside the brain, although we strongly suspect > >> >> that it can't exist without the brain. > >> >> > >> >> You said that "no one knows for certain", but the subject is amenable > >> >> to experimentation. First, though, you'd have to define what is > >> >> "consciousness". > >> >> > >> >> In any case, consciousness is certainly confined within the body, even > >> >> if not wholly inside the brain (i.e. there is no "soul" that wafts on > >> >> up to the sky when you die). > >> >> > >> >Whether this is true of not when a young person faces certain death, > >> >he/she as well as believing parents and friends have a real and genuine > >> >assurance which is all that counts. > >> > > >> >My friend and a colleague lost his 5 year old child to a deadly > >> >an incurable disease last year.There was nothing the medical > >> >profession could do to cure this child or prolong the life his > >> >life. > >> > > >> >I would not under any circumstances take whatever peace > >> >of mind their faith provided for them after their loss. > >> > >> I certainly wouldn't have taken the 5 year old's hope away from him. I > >> would have lied to him right up until he died, telling him that he was > >> going to be alright, that God was watching over him, etc. > >> > >> > So,whether it's real or not it is comforting, at at such times that's > >> >all that really matters. > >> > > >> > >> The one who died has been dealt the ultimate loss. > >> > >> The survivors have no right to adopt fantasies in order to make > >> themselves feel better. > >> > >Why?? Surely, one who suffers such a horrific loss is entitled to > >believe whatever provides some modicum of confort. > >< > >That's so contemptible it's sickening. > >> > >Ok why does it sicken you when another person finds faith > >a confort in times of great loss. I'm sorry, but I am not so > >heartless. > > Because I've witnessed the slow deaths of my most dearest, Dan. > I'm terribly sorry for your loss. > > The ones who died lost everything. The survivors have no right to minimize > the loss suffered by those who actually died by pretending that > they've wafted on up to heaven and now everything is hunky-dory. > > They fucking died. That's what the world is really like. Get it? > (You don't get it.) > They are certainly dead to those of us left behind. Dan > ------------------ > > Gospel Bretts > a.a. Atheist #2262 > Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest Gospel Bretts Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:00:50 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:e1hue2lb8qc0joch5436cv81o69rv8rk1b@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:38:23 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:p9eue2ds3eupugud4750qk3amm0q8guvei@4ax.com... >> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:26:37 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:1o5ue2lpilb9hcfmlb3o5758hs65nvfhes@4ax.com... >> >> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> >> >> >news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" ><drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >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 some theists. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a >> >> >> >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no >longer >> >> >> >> exists. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". >There >> >is >> >> >> >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function >> >> >> >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer >possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell >> >> >> >exclusively in the brain? >> >> >> >No one knows for certain. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved >> >> >> confined exclusively inside the brain, although we strongly suspect >> >> >> that it can't exist without the brain. >> >> >> >> >> >> You said that "no one knows for certain", but the subject is >amenable >> >> >> to experimentation. First, though, you'd have to define what is >> >> >> "consciousness". >> >> >> >> >> >> In any case, consciousness is certainly confined within the body, >even >> >> >> if not wholly inside the brain (i.e. there is no "soul" that wafts >on >> >> >> up to the sky when you die). >> >> >> >> >> >Whether this is true of not when a young person faces certain death, >> >> >he/she as well as believing parents and friends have a real and >genuine >> >> >assurance which is all that counts. >> >> > >> >> >My friend and a colleague lost his 5 year old child to a deadly >> >> >an incurable disease last year.There was nothing the medical >> >> >profession could do to cure this child or prolong the life his >> >> >life. >> >> > >> >> >I would not under any circumstances take whatever peace >> >> >of mind their faith provided for them after their loss. >> >> >> >> I certainly wouldn't have taken the 5 year old's hope away from him. I >> >> would have lied to him right up until he died, telling him that he was >> >> going to be alright, that God was watching over him, etc. >> >> >> >> > So,whether it's real or not it is comforting, at at such times that's >> >> >all that really matters. >> >> > >> >> >> >> The one who died has been dealt the ultimate loss. >> >> >> >> The survivors have no right to adopt fantasies in order to make >> >> themselves feel better. >> >> >> >Why?? Surely, one who suffers such a horrific loss is entitled to >> >believe whatever provides some modicum of confort. >> >< >> >That's so contemptible it's sickening. >> >> >> >Ok why does it sicken you when another person finds faith >> >a confort in times of great loss. I'm sorry, but I am not so >> >heartless. >> >> Because I've witnessed the slow deaths of my most dearest, Dan. >> >I'm terribly sorry for your loss. Thanks Dan. It happens to a lot of us, though. Life sux. >> >> The ones who died lost everything. The survivors have no right to minimize >> the loss suffered by those who actually died by pretending that >> they've wafted on up to heaven and now everything is hunky-dory. >> >> They fucking died. That's what the world is really like. Get it? >> (You don't get it.) >> >They are certainly dead to those of us left behind. > You're a cool guy, Dan -- not like many of the other Christians we get in here. ------------------ Gospel Bretts a.a. Atheist #2262 Fundy Xian Atheist Quote
Guest roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Robibnikoff wrote: > > not to mention writings from others about Jesus's existence > > Such as? Got a cite for that? BTW, Josephus doesn't count as that's a proven > forgery By whom? Modern scholars think otherwise. Produce your evidence for your position, or else apologise for it. All the best, Roger Pearse Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156521286.505446.325350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still > evolving into humans? Oh jeeze. Go back to science class, hon. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire #1557 Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156521286.505446.325350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still > evolving into humans? why aren't humans evolving into aliens or > something? probably gonna take a million billion years i would guess > at which point the sun will go super nova and wipe everything in the > solar system out anyway and you all will be in Bliss but won't even be > aware of it because your dead and there is no God. Also i hear > scientists have traced our genetics back to one man and one women. But > you all probably would deny it anyway or maybe it was the two monkeys > that evolved into a man and women? why haven't we been contacted by > other worlds? Are we alone in the universe? > No one knows. But since life exist on earth, there must be life elsewhere regardless of whether you believe life was created or was brought about by natural forces. > > Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang? what was out > there before? > There was no before. The big bang was the beginning. It was the beginning of space time, the laws of physics and ultimately the beginning of life on at least one planet. > > The possibility of evolution is like a tornado going through a junk > yard and putting together a 747 jet, but science can reach can't it. > This was the argument of Fred Hoyle. He was one of the 3 scientist who hypothesis the steady state universe. He is the person who sarcastily labeled the hypothesis the big Bang > > Yet science is not exact and never will be, it is constantly changing. > Out with the old misguided belief and in with the new miguided belief. > You are really going out on a limb. You are right the sciences are changing. This is called progress. Some theories are falsified and changed or just fall by the way. As new observations occur new hypothesis are offered to explain them. Predictions based upon these theories are offered and tested. This is how science works. Science is in a state of flux, no amount of testing, no matter of how many times it confirms the theory it is never proven. A single conflicting observation can falsify a theory so that it must be either modified or discarded. > > Also I consider the Bible to be a history book but apparently it's one > you all easily dismiss which is fine with me because I don't care. I > wonder what the suicide rate is for atheists? > Maybe as a history of the Jews it has some value, but as a scientist text it has no value. It should not be used as an argument against science neither can it be used to support a purported scientific claim. Dan Wood, DDS Quote
Guest Bryan Olson Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 DanWood wrote: [...] > When one doesn't know from which group the writer is posting and if one > wished to respond to a given message, would it not be defeating the purpose > of responding to delete any existing newsgroup? The writer possibility > would never see the response. In responses, you can use the "Followup-to" header, with an appropriate list of groups. Tradition is to add a note in the message body that you've set followups. -- --Bryan Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> >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 some theists. >> >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer >> exists. >> >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > exclusively in the brain? > No one knows for certain. That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains: <quote> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false! </quote> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117) [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >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 some theists. > >> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer > >> exists. > >> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > > exclusively in the brain? > > No one knows for certain. > > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are > famous, as Copi explains: > Your logic aside, do you absolutely _know_ for an indisputable fact that conscience is confined strictly to the corporeal mind? > Dan Wood, DDS > > <quote> > Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in > criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the > mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. > Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect > sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against > Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the > moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities > are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, > which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove > false! > </quote> > (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117) > > [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be' > imagining with no basis in fact.] > Quote
Guest Nosterill Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 thepossibilities wrote: > Christopher A. Lee wrote: > >etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them. > > > > And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple > > and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and > > invents positions we don't have. > > this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God > doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right? > Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be > right. Would you care to prove that those green gibbons don't exist then? I certainly couldn't do it, but that is no justification for believing in them. 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.