Guest Free Lunch Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:33:26 GMT, in alt.atheism spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in <44eeedfa.145039390@news-server.houston.rr.com>: >On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:31:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >wrote: > >>>if you consider heaven to be dreadful then you should read up on it a >>>little. > >Please define what you mean by "heaven". I don't know what he meant. >>What is there to read up on? I'm not aware of any evidence that heaven >>exists. > >Please define what you mean by "heaven". I mean a place for an afterlife. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote: > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > > news:44eee5f4.142985437@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however, > >> >have none of this assurance. > >> > >> Neither do some theists. > >> > >> Our existence as creatures is ephemeral - like the existence of a > >> snowflake. It comes into being, exists briefly, and then no longer > >> exists. > >> > >> There is no rational argument to support "life after death". There is > >> sufficient scientific evidence that once the brain stops function > >> permanently, a person's conscious awareness is no longer possible. > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > > exclusively in the brain? > > No one knows for certain. > > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy Then Septic must be declaring to know for certain where consciousness dwells. Where does yours dwell, Septic? Or do you not have any at all? Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-4C642B.19130825082006@news.usenetmonster.com... > In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote: > >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:eTDHg.9993$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 > > Then Septic must be declaring to know for certain where consciousness > dwells. > > Where does yours dwell, Septic? Or do you not have any at all? If he knows, he ought to get on the phone and give the information to at least one major university. The search for the neurological correlate of consciousness is considered one of the modern holy grails of science. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 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. It's a comforting lie. -- 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 Steve O Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:44eee99b.143920140@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:23:26 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> > wrote: > >>> 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. > >>Surely the best response so far! >>I snorted beer out of my nostrils reading this. >>Thanks a bunch, Chris. > > Aw shit! Here come the fucking sock puppets. ??? Why would you think that? -- 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 just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 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? This is about the dumbest question anyone could ever ask concerning evolutionary theory. It is a variatiopn of the old "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still around? " question. To ask this question is to display a profound ignorance on the subject. Please stop. You are simply making a fool of yourself, yet you seem completely unaware of it. First of all, it is highly unlikely that monkeys would ever evolve into humans. Evolution has no foresight - there is no attainable goal, and it is arrogant and presumptious of you to think that human beings are the pinnacle of evolution. There are other animals far more suitably adapted to their environment. The only thing that monkeys could ever evolve into, for your information - is more sophisticated monkeys. >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? I have just realised I am trying to hold a conversation with an idiot. Goodbye. -- 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 Steve O Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156526355.302224.321410@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > 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. > Okay, thanks, so run this by me again. Your claim is that your friend ran amok, bit a girl on the chest, floated above the ground whilst chasing after you and crossed a large field in an impossible amount of time. I'm interested in the levitation part. Could you see that your friend's feet were actually off the ground when he was chasing you? Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4l9mkeFrldmU1@individual.net... > > "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. > > It's a comforting lie. > Is it: do you have evidence to back up your claim? Dan Wood, DDS > > > -- > 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 Virgil Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 In article <5pCdne9vPaiC8XLZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <tutor@nospam.com> wrote: > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:eTDHg.9993$L6.816@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > >> > > Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? > > No one knows for certain. > > That is argument _ad ignorantiam_ The only reason that Septic attacks such a simple question is that Septic does not have any consciousness anywhere, and is jealous. Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:fifue2ldat8h6bj3akhddmnkvgcbbhv6td@4ax.com... > 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. > > ------------------------ As if you avoid doing that very same thing yourself to anyone who believes even slightly different with your own views. You discourteous inconsiderate little lying cretin. > And in this real world, your religious alligance to atheism is merely > one of hundreds if not thousands each with its own beliefs, its own myths > and legends > etc. All of which are irrelevant and ignored to everybody else outside > of your tiny small minded little world . > You need to learn that there is a real world outside your atheism , in > which your doctrines, including those about reality and the people in > it, simply don't apply. Maybe a time will come where you can actually practice what you preach. I say maybe, as I don't believe in miracles. But do you have to be so fucking stupid, for so fucking long? Cop that braveheart!!! LOL ----------------------------------- Insert usual irrational blathering, insults, and lies here >>>> Quote
Guest Steve O Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:o9OHg.22298$j8.13315@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > news:4l9mkeFrldmU1@individual.net... >> >> "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. >> >> It's a comforting lie. >> > Is it: do you have evidence to back up your claim? > Stop shifting the burden of proof. It's a dishonest tactic, one which we often see from theists. -- 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 Christopher A. Lee Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:52:56 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >"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. I "presume" nothing, liar. This is the real world, not your religion - where you have to back up claims instead of resorting to slanders about those who ask the questions you beg. >You call it telling me facts, I was, liar. > I call what you are doing pontificting. And you were lying rather than address what you were told.. But that's the dishonest Dan Wood we've come to know. >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. Yet another lie from the ignoramus who has no understanding of wither the real world nor logic, and resorts to slanders instead of acknowledging his fallacies. >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? Of course it is, liar - but that's a standard lie used by religious fanatics like who imagine that not being for you is being against you. But once again, this is the real world where Christianity is merely one of hundreds of different religions, that only its believers take seriously. You have to be a total idiot to imagine that this is "biased against Christianity". >Is it a lie to say you are pontificating instead on presenting an >honest, reasoned response? Of course it is, brainwashed moron. >> >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. What "personal insults", lying hypocrite? I'll remind you that it was you who resorted to slanders like "moral depravity" as a dishonest excuse to ignore what you are told. And how is calling you a liar for things like that, "personal insult"? If you had had the honesty to acknowledge and address the fallacies in your initial remarks (your begging the question, your circular argument and your argument from insult, instead of lying about "moral depravity", "pontificating", etc, you would not have demonstrated the hypocrisy that continues in your every response. >> >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. Where do I do that, liar? With every post you demonstrate your nastiness, dishonesty and wilful ignorance. >> >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. Like I said, a deliberately nasty, dishonest liar. But an all-too typical dishonest Christian. >> 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. They're descriptions of you, based on your own actions, liar. >> 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. I'm describing your own actions, liar. Just as I was describing the real world earlier, about which you are remarkably ignorant, hiding behind your religion where it is inappropriate and irrelevant. >> 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. Was it some other "DanWood" who lied about "moral depravity" as an excuse to ignore the fallacies that were pointed out in what he claimed? Some other Dan Wood who doesn't know what argument from ignorance, circular argument, and begging the questions are when he claimed "God did it" was a conclusion? >> >> Why do you keep repeating this lie, liar? >> >> Well, liar? >> >Back up you charges or keep them to yourself! Was it some other "DanWood" who lied about "moral depravity" as an excuse to ignore the fallacies that were pointed out in what he claimed? Some other Dan Wood who doesn't know what argument from ignorance, circular argument, and begging the questions are when he claimed "God did it" was a conclusion? >> >> 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. Where was the "pontification", liar? Was it some other "DanWood" who lied about "moral depravity" as an excuse to ignore the fallacies that were pointed out in what he claimed? Some other Dan Wood who doesn't know what argument from ignorance, circular argument, and begging the questions are when he claimed "God did it" was a conclusion? >> >> 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. I did no such thing, liar. You said "the laws of science break down". They don't. Our knowledge breaks down. >> Address it this time instead of being dishonest. >> >> >> Why do I have to keep repeating this, liar? >> >> Well,liar? >> >Unjustified and unwarrented personal attack. Was it some other "DanWood" who lied about "moral depravity" as an excuse to ignore the fallacies that were pointed out in what he claimed? Some other Dan Wood who doesn't know what argument from ignorance, circular argument, and begging the questions are when he claimed "God did it" was a conclusion? >> >> 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. Was it some other "DanWood" who lied about "moral depravity" as an excuse to ignore the fallacies that were pointed out in what he claimed? Some other Dan Wood who doesn't know what argument from ignorance, circular argument, and begging the questions are when he claimed "God did it" was a conclusion? >> >> 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. No pontification, liar. Was it some other "DanWood" who lied about "moral depravity" as an excuse to ignore the fallacies that were pointed out in what he claimed? Some other Dan Wood who doesn't know what argument from ignorance, circular argument, and begging the questions are when he claimed "God did it" was a conclusion? >> >> 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. Was it some other "DanWood" who lied about "moral depravity" as an excuse to ignore the fallacies that were pointed out in what he claimed? Some other Dan Wood who doesn't know what argument from ignorance, circular argument, and begging the questions are when he claimed "God did it" was a conclusion? >> >> >> 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. Stop lying yet again, liar. Was it some other "DanWood" who dismisses leading edge science as speculation, guess etc even after it has been explained that what he dismissed, breaks no known laws and is admitted to be avenues for investigation? And some other "DanWood" who demands certainties where there aren't any yet, because of his own unjustified certainty that something called "God" did it in spite of the fact that his "reasoning" is invalid because it begs the question, is circular, and is the argument from ignorance. >> >> 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. I'm pretending nothing, liar. And what "authority" does it take to ask the questions you beg and resort to slanders instead of answering? >> >> 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. Was it some other "DanWood" who lied about "moral depravity" as an excuse to ignore the fallacies that were pointed out in what he claimed? Some other Dan Wood who doesn't know what argument from ignorance, circular argument, and begging the questions are when he claimed "God did it" was a conclusion? >> >> 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? Then don't make baseless claims in an area where they have to be backed up. >> >> >I have nothing to prove to you, you otoh are a crusader for atheism. >> >> Which was another of your personal lies 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. Where do I do that, liar? Let alone for the paranoid "reasons" you invent? I don't care what your religion is, what your faith is, that is your business. It is irrelevant to your making baseless claims that don't stand up in the real world, and your inability to cope with their debunking. Or to your slanders about those who react to you personally due to your own dishonesty and nastiness. Stop pretending you can't grasp the difference. >> >> 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. Liar. Keep your beliefs to yourself and they won't get debunked. >> >> 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! I demonstrated the problems with your baseless claims, liar. The fact that you accused me of "moral depravity" when I did so, shows that you could not deal with it, and now you project that in yet more lies. >Dan Wood > Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:34:00 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote: >Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? Yes, based on the preponderance of the evidence. No other organ, no other location, shows the connection with consciousness. >No one knows for certain. There is only one thing you can be certain about and that is your knowledge that you exist. Everything else is based on assumptions (called axioms in formal logic systems). So I am not concerned with the fact that no one knows for certain. But I do know that the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that the brain alone is the source of consciousness. -- I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:44:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote: >I agree that there's no reason for consciousness to have evolved >confined exclusively inside the brain Actually there is a very good reason. Consciousness is a result of electromagnetic activity in the brain. Only the brain is constructed to support such activity. -- I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 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. That's not our problem, brainwashed moron - this is the real world where you have to back up your claims or have them ignored. Are you really unable to understand that it's merely somebody else's (yours) religious belief that nobody would be bothered with if you (a) didn't push it where it is not appropriate, not wanted and not needed, (b) didn't invent positions we don't have to the point of lying about us © didn't slander us Once you understand how you see/treat/etc Zeus. Odin, Osiris, Shiva and all the others you should grasp how we see your equivalent. Start thinking for a change. Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:10:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>Please define what you mean by "heaven". >I mean a place for an afterlife. Is that not circular? Q: Where do you go when you die? A: Heaven. Q: What is Heaven? A: The place for afterlife. Q: Isn't that the same as where you go when you die? A: Yep. The place you go when you die is the place for afterlife, which is the place you go when you die. -- I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On 25 Aug 2006 06:36:49 -0700, "Paul Holbach" <paulholbachDELETETHENAME@freenet.de> wrote: >> Blissful refers to my feelings NOW, not when I am dead. >> Of course, I cannot experience bliss when I am dead. DUH! >You should've written: >"The prospect of nonexistence is blissful." What else is bliss but the condition where you have no cares whatsoever. Because we are necessarily finite creatures, we will never be able to rid ourselves of concerns, no matter how well taken care of we are. As long as we have free will, we will have to face making decisions, and that means we will have to care about the situation we are confronting. That is the antithesis of bliss. Although I think Existentialism is overdone, there is something to the concept of Existential Dread. We have the capacity to rationalize away the fact that we do not understand our own existence, but that can go only so far. Each person who is rational to begin with (which leaves out people who voted for Gore and Kerry), has to face Existential Dread at sometime in their life, unless they are perpetually stoned. -- I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On 25 Aug 2006 08:54:46 -0700, "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote: >question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still >evolving into humans? They are. Who do you think voted fro Gore and Kerry? Certainly no rational person would do anthing that idiotic. -- I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest DanWood Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4lao82F11b41U1@individual.net... > > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:o9OHg.22298$j8.13315@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > > news:4l9mkeFrldmU1@individual.net... > >> > >> "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. > >> > >> It's a comforting lie. > >> > > Is it: do you have evidence to back up your claim? > > > > Stop shifting the burden of proof. > It's a dishonest tactic, one which we often see from theists. > You made a claim. The only thing I said was, "so, whether it's real or not it is comforting, at such times that's all that matters." > > -- > 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 Bob Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:50:20 GMT, droth <drothnine@shaw.ca> wrote: >2. Space is really big. You bet it is, sparky. It even has billions and billions of stars in it. -- I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:25:04 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote: >There was no before. Our dinky little universe is just a very small part of the Universe, which is the totality of the material world. While our universe did begin in time, the Universe did not. The Universe has existed for eternity, because it is a Mode of Being, that is, a manifestation of certain characteristics of God. It has always existed just like God has always existed. >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 Big Bang is not even a theory, because it has so many problems. The latest notion from superstring theory is that our universe was created from a black hole in the Universe. Read Brian Greene's books to see how that happens. -- I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:43:26 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote: >"If we evolved from monkeys, then why are monkeys still around? " We need someone to vote for the Demoncraps. -- I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:12:15 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote: > >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:fifue2ldat8h6bj3akhddmnkvgcbbhv6td@4ax.com... >> 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. >> >> >------------------------ > >As if you avoid doing that very same thing yourself to anyone who believes >even slightly different with your own views. You discourteous inconsiderate >little lying cretin. Except that you know perfectly well I'm deoing no such thing. Why do lying theists pretend that t is "anyone who believes differently" instead of what it actually is, treating individual idiots as idiots and individual liars as liars? >> And in this real world, your religious alligance to atheism is merely >> one of hundreds if not thousands each with its own beliefs, its own myths >> and legends >> etc. All of which are irrelevant and ignored to everybody else outside >> of your tiny small minded little world . The dishonest liar makes unmarked changes to what I wrote. There is no "religious alligiance (sic) to atheism" outside his deliberate ignorance, >> You need to learn that there is a real world outside your atheism , in >> which your doctrines, including those about reality and the people in >> it, simply don't apply. And the dishonest liar does it again. In the real world, atheism isn't even an -ism because it's merely the demographic label for people who aren;t any kind of theist. There are no "doctrines about the real world" - there is just the real world. >Maybe a time will come where you can actually practice what you preach. I I'm "preaching" nothing, liar. And there is nothing to practice. Keep your religion to yourself, don't make real world claims you can't back up, and don't lie about those who don't share your religion. >say maybe, as I don't believe in miracles. But do you have to be so fucking >stupid, for so fucking long? The only stupidity here is yours. There is no symmetry between theist and atheist. >Cop that braveheart!!! LOL Fuck off and die. >----------------------------------- > >Insert usual irrational blathering, insults, and lies here >>>> > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:38:13 GMT, in alt.atheism spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in <44f04dcf.56978125@news-server.houston.rr.com>: >On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:10:18 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >wrote: > >>>Please define what you mean by "heaven". > >>I mean a place for an afterlife. > >Is that not circular? > >Q: Where do you go when you die? >A: Heaven. > >Q: What is Heaven? >A: The place for afterlife. > >Q: Isn't that the same as where you go when you die? >A: Yep. The place you go when you die is the place for afterlife, >which is the place you go when you die. I'm trying the most general reasonable definition. I don't want the pro-afterlife advocates to claim that I'm using some artificially narrow definition to defend my point that no evidence whatsoever supports their hypothesis that a heaven exists, that there is no evidence whatsoever that any sort of afterlife exists. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:02:11 GMT, in alt.atheism spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in <44f05371.58420484@news-server.houston.rr.com>: >On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:25:04 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >wrote: > >>There was no before. > >Our dinky little universe is just a very small part of the Universe, >which is the totality of the material world. While our universe did >begin in time, the Universe did not. The Universe has existed for >eternity, because it is a Mode of Being, that is, a manifestation of >certain characteristics of God. It has always existed just like God >has always existed. Thanks Humpty Dumpty for your complete redefinitions of words into an incomprehensible mess. >>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 Big Bang is not even a theory, because it has so many problems. Nonsense. >The latest notion from superstring theory is that our universe was >created from a black hole in the Universe. Read Brian Greene's books >to see how that happens. Why do you think this affects the Big Bang? 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.