Guest Bob Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:58:19 +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. >Please Bob!- by snipping the way you did, it makes me appear that it is a >statement I made or agree with. >I'm so embarrassed. >You could have at least included the part where I said it was a dumb >question. >But you had to go for the gag, right? ;-) I can't help it. It's what I do. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Lizz Holmans Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:15:43 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote: >> >For the past 10 years I have been in daily correspondence with real >British citizens. I read the Telegraph every morning. I participate on >British political forums like uk.politics.misc and uk.legal. I know >more about contemporary British politics than many Brits who read >those pinko commie rags. Oh, now I understand. You're a Daily Torygraph reader. No wonder you don't get a balanced view of the UKoGBaNI. > >It is clear that you do not understand Texas jargon. A "commie" is a >term used to denote someone from the ExtremeFarLeft, usually a >socialist but generally a godless collectivist. Suh, I am from Oklahoma. I understand the Texas mindset very well, as I have relatives in Texas City, Houston, and Dallas. > >My British friends vote UKIP. I'm sorry. If you're going to vote for a party that has no MPs, why don't you just join the Tories? They at least get MPs in Parliament. >ROTF. I hope your mom vacuumed afterward. > >You must like oxymorons like "rational social services". You'd prefer no cops, no sewage, no street lights, no child protection services, no schools, and medical care that you have to pay for at point of service, but health insurance is widely available? I don't talk to nutcases that have neve really experienced Great Britain. I recommend that you don't- you wouldn't want all your delusions destroyed. I'll leave you with a line from a great British writer.. Lizz 'You're pretty weird' Holmans -- Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta Quote
Guest Frank Mayhar Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:36:32 -0400, Michelle Malkin wrote: > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > news:44f1a2c7.652781@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:03:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >> wrote: >> >>>I do agree with you that you are nothing but a troll. >> >> But I am not the usual troll. > > Sure you are. You think that by boasting about > how 'unusual' you are that this makes you > someone special? It doesn't. Most trolls really > have very tiny egos and try to conceal this by > telling people how wonderful they are. All this > shows is that they need to puff themselves up > in the eyes of those they are trying to bother. > It also shows that their egos are nearly non- > existent and they know it. Such trolls are > desperate for attention. That's you. > > Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because > there is no such thing as you? Uh, you're responding to "Bob." "Free Lunch" is the guy who called him a troll. -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:36:32 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote: >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >news:44f1a2c7.652781@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:03:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >> wrote: >>>I do agree with you that you are nothing but a troll. >> But I am not the usual troll. >Sure you are. You think that by boasting about >how 'unusual' you are that this makes you >someone special? It doesn't. Most trolls really >have very tiny egos and try to conceal this by >telling people how wonderful they are. All this >shows is that they need to puff themselves up >in the eyes of those they are trying to bother. >It also shows that their egos are nearly non- >existent and they know it. Such trolls are >desperate for attention. That's you. <yawn> >Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because >there is no such thing as you? I am not "Free Lunch". You got your attributions screwed up. If you are going to post on Usenet, at least make an effort to understand how it works. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:33:04 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote: >> Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because >> there is no such thing as you? >Uh, you're responding to "Bob." "Free Lunch" is the guy who called him a >troll. Stupid slit doesn't know what the fuck she is doing. Ignore her. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Bob Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:28:35 +0100, Lizz Holmans <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Oh, now I understand. You're a Daily Torygraph reader. No wonder you >don't get a balanced view of the UKoGBaNI. You mean I am not brainwashed like most people there. >I don't talk to nutcases that have neve really experienced Great >Britain. I recommend that you don't- you wouldn't want all your >delusions destroyed. I'll leave you with a line from a great British >writer.. I would never set foot in Britain - far too many leftist queers. And you can't own guns, which makes you an unarmed wimp peasant. Britain, the Gay Capital of the World. You can have it. Did you know that 1 out of 5 people are seriously considering leaving Britain right now. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Frank Mayhar Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:48:28 +0000, Bob wrote: > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:33:04 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> > wrote: > >>> Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because >>> there is no such thing as you? > >>Uh, you're responding to "Bob." "Free Lunch" is the guy who called him a >>troll. > > Stupid slit doesn't know what the fuck she is doing. > > Ignore her. No, _you're_ the one I plan to ignore, you ignorant fuck. She's right in every single thing she said about you, she just got the attributions confused. What's _your_ excuse? Michelle at her worst is better than you at your "best." -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/ Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:36:32 -0400, in alt.atheism "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in <EoydnaJHUupoeGzZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com>: >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >news:44f1a2c7.652781@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:03:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> >> wrote: >> >>>I do agree with you that you are nothing but a troll. >> >> But I am not the usual troll. > >Sure you are. You think that by boasting about >how 'unusual' you are that this makes you >someone special? It doesn't. Most trolls really >have very tiny egos and try to conceal this by >telling people how wonderful they are. All this >shows is that they need to puff themselves up >in the eyes of those they are trying to bother. >It also shows that their egos are nearly non- >existent and they know it. Such trolls are >desperate for attention. That's you. I'll let Bob answer his own questions. >Did you choose the nym 'Free Lunch' because >there is no such thing as you? No, I used it because Laffer is a total idiot and our current President thinks that Laffer is smart. You'll note that nofreelunch.us is my domain. Too bad that the neocons don't understand that we cannot have one just because they believe. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:32:28 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >> >news:7ov0f2tdap65vrqhkdvq1h6j9hretsuofo@4ax.com... >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:01:48 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >> >> >news:piq0f2hmicdht1867n7mtuoaqhq2ldcje5@4ax.com... >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee >> >> >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just sent >me >> >> >> some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth, signed >> >> >> Dan Wood. >> >> >> >> >> >This is not true! I live in a up scale housing development where we >have >> >> >a community recreation center with in door and outdoor swimming pools >> >> >tennis courts, a electronic game room and a couple of computers, >> >> >connected to the internet. Any member has access to these computers. >> >> >> >> Here's the message, with your signature. >> >> >> >It doesn't matter what you think. >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist. >> >I'm rather new to this community. Someone set these computers up >long before I moved here. I pay my dues so I'm allowed full access >to these facilities including these computers. Yes, but you'd have to log into your account at least for email and stuff. >There are three computers >one is for kid games only. There is 200 more than households able to >use these recreational facilities. This is near Research Triangle Park in >Raleigh-Durham N.C. Two computers, non kid games, for two hundred or more households? Must be horrendously difficult to get computer time. >Dan -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest stoney Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 02:59:10 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> 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. > >You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No >consciousness, means no activity to begin with. > > >> Only the brain is constructed to support such activity. >> > >and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or >constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical. > >The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure Being >the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression of >consciousness into this reality. >Brain dead stops that expression in the >current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike the >physical body. laughter. >a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the need >for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to >re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-) > -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:9916f25gnc8922ah1j9fisua3925r7fe9d@4ax.com... > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:32:28 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > wrote in alt.atheism > > > > >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > >> >news:7ov0f2tdap65vrqhkdvq1h6j9hretsuofo@4ax.com... > >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:01:48 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > >> >> >news:piq0f2hmicdht1867n7mtuoaqhq2ldcje5@4ax.com... > >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:28:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee > >> >> >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It turns out that "DanWood" is actually R.D. Heilman. He just sent > >me > >> >> >> some slanderous email from the Heilman account at BellSouth, signed > >> >> >> Dan Wood. > >> >> >> > >> >> >This is not true! I live in a up scale housing development where we > >have > >> >> >a community recreation center with in door and outdoor swimming pools > >> >> >tennis courts, a electronic game room and a couple of computers, > >> >> >connected to the internet. Any member has access to these computers. > >> >> > >> >> Here's the message, with your signature. > >> >> > >> >It doesn't matter what you think. > >> > >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist. > >> > >I'm rather new to this community. Someone set these computers up > >long before I moved here. I pay my dues so I'm allowed full access > >to these facilities including these computers. > > Yes, but you'd have to log into your account at least for email and > stuff. > In order to actually create my own account I need information not available to me, such as passwords given by the provider (bellsouth) and a secret password i.e. mother's maiden name etc. Maybe you know a way to get around this; I do not. I was always intimidated by computers, but I always hired office personnel who had good computer skills. I never receive emails. I was always intimidated by the computer and I just never saw the need to have more than a basic familarity with them. Or maybe I'm too old to learn. I do not believe these computers were intended > > >There are three computers > >one is for kid games only. There is 200 more than households able to > >use these recreational facilities. This is near Research Triangle Park in > >Raleigh-Durham N.C. > > Two computers, non kid games, for two hundred or more households? > Must be horrendously difficult to get computer time. > These are all upscale homes, and fortunately, most of them apparently, do have computers, but I don't. And people who do come to the center usually come for swimming, laying in the sun, playing tennis, pool etc. so the computers are not overused. I'm just an old retired person, I never thought I needed a personal computer. Especially when they are so available at the office, the community center and public libraries. I really do not have need for a personal computer. Best Wishes, Dan > > >Dan > > > > > -- > Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to > shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate > at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll > be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest Charlie-Boo Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Immortalist wrote: > Bob wrote: > > One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side > > can define what they mean by God. Occam would be shocked at the lengthy definitions and discussions that I snipped. In standard CBL: P(a) , P(a)^TRUE(a) TRUE(x) God output everything and rested. TRUE is everything, defined by DEF P(a) , P(a)^TRUE(a). To output everything we TRUE(x) and to do so and then halt we TRUE(x) . So God is TRUE(x) . The prophets are: ~P/P which is the negation of CBL axiom -~P/P. Godel's 1931 1st. Incompleteness Theorem: 1. -~P/P Axiom 2. -~PR/PR SUB 1, P=PR 3. -{ ~PR/TW , PR=TW } DEF/SUB 4. -{ ~PR/TW, PR=>TW, TW=>PR } DEF 5. -{ ~PR/TW , Sound, Allknowing } 6. If unprovability is expressible then if the system is sound then it is not allknowing - there is a true sentence that is not provable. Rosser's 1936 Extension: 1. -~P/P Axiom 2. -~PR/PR SUB 1, P=PR 3. -{ DIS/PR , DIS=~PR } DEF/SUB 4. -{ DIS/PR , DIS=>~PR , ~PR=>DIS } DEF 5. -{ Refutability is representable, Consistent, Complete } 6. If refutability is representable, then if the system is consistent then it is incomplete. (Similarly for other variations concluded by Godel in passing, Smullyan's Dual Form Theorem, Turing's 1937 Unsolvability of the Halting Problem, and related theorems.) Using CBL is like playing with tinker toys. We put them together and they make an endless array of pretty structures. It is the truly primitive concepts. C-B > > Rope, Tree, Journalist - some assembly required. Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 > > thepossibilities wrote: > > Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang? what was out > > there before? > droth responded: > > 1. It seems likely. > 2. The question is nonsensical. There was no such thing as "before". > how can there not be a before? is this something from nothing then? higher logic seems like a lot of double talk you can neither totally prove or disprove all of the higher level stuff. I do believe in the fundamental sciences. especially the ones to do with health as they have helped many many people. appliances and tech stuff are pretty cool to, the only problem here is it's likely we'll invent something to use in war that will probably back fire and take us out with it. like vacuum energy perhaps. Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Christopher A. Lee wrote: > 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. > > > As well as all the other things you have stupidly and rudely invented > about us. i have to admit i never gave atheism much thought and I may not have approached it in a considerate matter from which I can learn from. however what I am curious about is what kind of code do atheists live by? common sense? as most religions help spell out right and wrong for the followers. we as a people need a common sense of purpose in this country, we are divided amongst ourselves and tearing down common citizen rights for individual rights. a nation divided shall not stand. i believe this. > > 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. i know plenty about the real world outside my religion, i know many people with many different beliefs however none have approached me with so much hostility. Quote
Guest thepossibilities Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Steve O wrote: > 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. > so educate me then, what is the latest theory on how humans came about? i haven't been hearing or reading about any others. Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 On 28 Aug 2006 15:01:21 -0700, "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> 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. >> >> As well as all the other things you have stupidly and rudely invented >> about us. > >i have to admit i never gave atheism much thought and I may not have >approached it in a considerate matter from which I can learn from. You didn't. Would you go into a black bar in Harlem, East Palo Alto, Watts etc and tell the people there what it means to them to be black? If not, why tell atheists what it means to them to be atheist? >however what I am curious about is what kind of code do atheists live >by? common sense? as most religions help spell out right and wrong >for the followers. You're projecting. Decent, considerate people don't need "a code". Unfortunately those who aren't, need a simple one-size-fits-all rule to tell them how to behave towards others. Especially those whose natural behaviour towards others has been subverted by their religion. But the kind of simpke rule that is easy to remember, doesn't always work. For example the golden rule tells you to do to others what you would like done to you. But the Marquis de Sade justified inflicting pain because he would like it done to himself. And evangelical fundamentalists imagine that if they weren't Christian they would want people to convert them - so they make a nuisance of themselves where it is neither wanted nor needed, and can't understand the negative reaction. George Bernard Shaw summed it up as "don't to to others as you would have the do unto you, their tastes might be different. In short, the golden rule puts you in the other guys shoes as yoursel - not the other guy. >we as a people need a common sense of purpose in this country, we are >divided amongst ourselves and tearing down common citizen rights for >individual rights. a nation divided shall not stand. i believe this. The "common sense of purpose" is obtained most easily by uniting against a common enemy. Which is often an unpopular minority. And encouraged or used by the government. Especially one that panders to the religious extremists. >> 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. > >i know plenty about the real world outside my religion, i know many >people with many different beliefs however none have approached me with >so much hostility. You haven't learned much about it. And we didn't "approach you", moron. You came here and were incredibly, sanctimoniously, nastily rude. Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 On 28 Aug 2006 15:13:41 -0700, "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Steve O wrote: >> 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. > >so educate me then, what is the latest theory on how humans came about? > i haven't been hearing or reading about any others. You meant to ask "what are the latest conclusions?". If you're serious, which you obviously aren't, go to your nearest Barnes & Noble and pick up a copy of the Scientific American's latest special "Becoming Human". And then if you want to ask questions, ask on talk.origins because it is (a) nothing to do with atheism or vice versa, (b) not controversial, and © where they will educate you. But if you were serious you wouldn't have asked stupid questions based on invalid premises, that were intended to make a point but instead told us you were both deliberately ignorant and uninterested it the answers. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156803221.013513.32960@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Steve O wrote: >> 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. >> > > so educate me then, what is the latest theory on how humans came about? > i haven't been hearing or reading about any others. You're not making any sense at all. Evolutionary theory IS the latest theory on how humans came about. It has been refined a little over recent years, but is essentially the latest theory. Perhaps you are confusing the question of how humans came about with the question how the universe came into existence. If, however, you're unhappy with evolutionary theory, do you have anything better to replace it? Please don't mention ID - I might laugh. -- 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 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156802042.245420.68240@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >> > thepossibilities wrote: >> > Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang? what was out >> > there before? >> droth responded: >> >> 1. It seems likely. >> 2. The question is nonsensical. There was no such thing as "before". >> > > how can there not be a before? is this something from nothing then? Yes. Your God, apparently. -- 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 Michelle Malkin Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kv5Jg.32800$j8.29027@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >> >> ><snip> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling theist. >> > I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there is something > wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ. > I could never deny him. > > Dan Why? Does he have the hots for you? -- ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1 BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ Quote
Guest Phill Adelphia Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com... > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com... > > 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. > > You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No > consciousness, means no activity to begin with. > > > > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity. > > > > and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or > constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical. > > The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure Being > the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression of > consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in the > current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike the > physical body. > > a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the need > for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to > re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-) Are you open to answering a question, sir? You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical reality" and that it does not cease with the death of the individual. Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so that anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically? Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:t6idnUMhXPETL27ZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com... > > > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > > news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com... > > > 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. > > > > You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No > > consciousness, means no activity to begin with. > > > > > > > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity. > > > > > > > and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or > > constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical. > > > > The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure > Being > > the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression of > > consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in the > > current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike the > > physical body. > > > > a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the need > > for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to > > re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-) > > Are you open to answering a question, sir? > > You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical reality" > and that it does not cease with the death of the individual. > > Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so that > anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically? > Since science deals _only_ with the natural, is it possible for science to check the unnatural or supernatural scientifically? If not, does that mean there is nothing beyond the realm of science? Dan Wood Dan Wood > > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:44f07229.66284968@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:27:12 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > >> 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). > > >You can know death and taxes! > > Not with absolute certainty. > > >Pain exist, but you cannot measure it, nevertheless pain exist. It could > >be the same with conscienceness. > > That's an epistemological (psychological) statement and therefore has > nothing to do with the real objective world. > I said as much. It is psychological, but quite real to the person experiencing it. > Dan > -- > > I just neutered the cat - now he's French. Quote
Guest Sean Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "Phill Adelphia" <p...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:t6idnUMhXPETL27ZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44f0fb4c@news.eftel.com... >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> news:44f04ce3.56742796@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> > 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. >> >> You got the chicken and egg, or cause/effect back to front. No >> consciousness, means no activity to begin with. >> >> >> > Only the brain is constructed to support such activity. >> > >> >> and a slight adjustment here would read : The Brain is created or >> constructed to support the activity of consciousness in the physical. >> >> The brain runs on physics/biology etc. while the consciousness is Pure > Being >> the power behind physical reality. A faulty brain limits the expression >> of >> consciousness into this reality. Brain dead stops that expression in the >> current form, but the consciousness continues and does not die, unlike >> the >> physical body. >> >> a nde/obe is often enough to prove that to an individual without the need >> for physical death, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to >> re-formulate your world view much larger than it currently is. ;-) > > Are you open to answering a question, sir? > > You say, "consciousness is Pure Being, the power behind physical reality" > and that it does not cease with the death of the individual. > > Can you please explain how it is that this is known to be the case so that > anyone who is skeptical might check your observations, scientifically? > Sure. You can't check my observations, they are mine alone. Neither can science, as it's outside the bounds of science. Science deals with physical reality, form, matter, physics etc. , beyond that is consciousness or awareness or spirit whatever label one wishes. However there a few research studies of NDE etc http://www.iands.org/ and http://www.oberf.org/ and other info around. some are better than others in regards to quality. This would be the best one that I am aware of :: http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf If you also want to read its accompanying Commentary, you may visit the Lancet website, register there for free, and search for the keywords "near death". The article's title is, Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands, to be cited as Lancet 2001; 358: 2039-45. Its authors, in addition to Dr. van Lommel, are Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, and Ingrid Elfferich. Of course there are those who totally rely on science to inform them as to what is real/possible and what is not, and that's ok too. Up to you basically. Hope that helps. > > > Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156802476.331932.152400@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> 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. >> > >> >> As well as all the other things you have stupidly and rudely invented >> about us. > > i have to admit i never gave atheism much thought and I may not have > approached it in a considerate matter from which I can learn from. > however what I am curious about is what kind of code do atheists live > by? Code? Nothing really. Just do my best to be a nice person, considerate of my fellow human beings, take care of the environment, be kind to animals, etc. > common sense? See above. as most religions help spell out right and wrong > for the followers. Fat lot of good it seems to to any of them. > we as a people need a common sense of purpose in this country, We do? Why? Because it's what you want? we are > divided amongst ourselves and tearing down common citizen rights for > individual rights. a nation divided shall not stand. i believe this. Oh well. >> 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. > > i know plenty about the real world outside my religion, i know many > people with many different beliefs however none have approached me with > so much hostility. Um, approached you? Hardly, it would seem that YOU approached us. I'm sorry you didn't care for your reception, but did it ever cross your mind that we've heard this all before and aren't interested? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire #1557 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.