Guest Libertarius Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 stoney wrote: > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:26:29 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote in alt.atheism > > >>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message >>news:45513228.9050204@nothingbutthe.truth... >> >>>Depends on WHICH "GOD". >>> >> >>Why? > > > Because there are many thousand of the imaginary critters. > > >>>A gigantic, long-bearded anthropomorph being holding the universe >>>in his hand would probably satisfy most. -- L. >>> >> >>Be serious. > > > He is. ===>Of course I am. That is the image most believers create ion their minds, then turn around and worship that idol of their creation. -- L. Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lNs6h.18365$U76.14587@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Vxd6h.11513$TX.10393@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > > > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message > > news:kibil2lbo22kdtigk7dec0mpae7pmcq8ov@4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:35:34 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> wrote in alt.atheism > >> > >> > > >> >"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > >> >news:1162818225.672358.229050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > >> >> Dan Wood wrote: > >> >> > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > >> >> > news:v2ujk2l38vuhf849lcih559jdtt3pugest@4ax.com... > >> > >> [] > >> > >> >> > You initially came across as a reasonably intelligent person. > >> >> > Otherwise. I would not have wasted my time or yours. > >> >> > So, why can you not understand such a simple concept as > >> >> > seeing a dam as indirect evidence of a builder, > >> >> > >> >> I never denied that a dam is not evidence of a builder. I have also > >> >> explained why your analogy does not work using your own reasoning (you > >> >> yourself admitted you could see the dam was unnatural as one of the > >> >> reasons a builder was to be assumed). Earlier you said that there > >> >> could be no material evidence for a god, but now you are saying that > >> >> the existence of the universe is evidence - calling it "indirect > >> >> evidence" does not make it less material. > >> >> > >> >I did not see the builders, I seen no material evidence of a builder > >> >of the dam I have no physicial or material evidence of the builder > >> >to examine. So the existence of the dam itself is indirect evidence > >> >of the builders. The dam is _indirect_ evidence of a builder. > >> > >> You are a damn fool. > >> > > Have you ever heard the axiom, "if you can't discredit the man's argument > > then discredit the man?" For you information, this is similar to shooting > > the > > messenger who brings bad news. > > I've heard of it but in this case it doesn't apply.....you are a damn fool! > You are a SOB bastard! > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:2pokl2lu4dst8a3b921dbpufssjr9pmm17@4ax.com... > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:00:27 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > ><calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > >news:orckl2pfoana56nabs3chjmrfn8jm38dp6@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:02:08 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > > >[snip] > >> > >> You described yourself when you lied about me having "absolute no > >> ethics no morals and no reason to be honest or truthful". > >> > >> I'll remind you that you have been lying about atheists, to atheists > >> in every article you posted in this thread, starting way back when you > >> accused us of a bias > >> > >You certainly are biased against religion especially Christanity. You > > In your dreams, liar. > > >demonstrate in your rants and ravings against it. > > In your dreams, liar. > > >[snip additional slanderous accusations against me] > >> > >My origional question in response to the _pontificated_ statement > >"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD was, "what > >would be evidence for God?" > > And you lied about atheist bias. > > >This was a fair question, since there is no possible way to satisfy > >secularist without knowing the nature of the evidence they would > >accept. Without honestly or fairly answering my question, they > >demanded that I provide them with evidence of God's existence. > >Since I basically refused to go blind into their trap; they assulted > >me over the net. > > Only to get assholes like you to back up your ridiculous assertions, > liar. > > Keep it to yourselves and you won't be told to put up or shut up. > > And you won't need to resort to dishonesties to cop out of doing > either. > > Was that clear enough even for you? > You too are a SOB and a bastard. > > > >Dan Wood > >> >> > > >> > > > Quote
Guest The_Sage Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >Date written: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:46:03 -0500 >MsgID:<pI56h.17570$1v.13991@bignews3.bellsouth.net> >> >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence >> >for God? >> The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed entity or >> object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to repeatedly >> and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, smelled, tasted, >> or felt. >Note the header: >"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". Now note the question: So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence for God? I answered that question. >I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of >the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature >of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist >of the existence of a Deity. >I believe it was a fair question in response to the >pontificated pronouncement. I believe I gave you a fair answer to that question. Let me rephrase it for you... "The nature of the evidence that it would take to convince an secularist of the existence of a Diety is the same evidence required for the claimed existence of any entity, phenomenon, or process -- indirectly or directly be able to repeatedly and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, smelled, tasted, or felt" Which word didn't you understand? The Sage ============================================================= http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm "All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality -- history, religion, duty, social position -- all were illusions, mere opium fantasies" John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman ============================================================= Quote
stayhuman Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 The idea of a supreme being is irrational fancy, created by a bunch of primitives to provide an explanation for a universe they couldn't comprehend. Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:22:46 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >news:1163497213.608422.162120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> >> Dan Wood skrev: >> > "The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message >> > news:nkjel2lgarqc7i2plc1m9vibphk7kqvahe@4ax.com... >> > > >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> > > >Date written: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:55:22 -0500 >> > > >MsgID:<APW2h.2643$TX.1990@bignews1.bellsouth.net> >> > > >> > > >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence >> > > >for God? >> > > >> > > The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed >entity >> > or >> > > object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to >> > repeatedly >> > > and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, >smelled, >> > tasted, >> > > or felt. >> > > >> > Note the header: >> > "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". >> > I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of >> > the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature >> > of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist >> > of the existence >> > of a Deity. I believe it was a fair question in response to the >> > pontificated pronouncement. >> >> Note Dan Wood once again refusing to see that his question has been >> answered. His argument basically equals a child yelling: IS NOT! IS >> NOT! >> >You pick and choose the parts of my post that you can twist into >something you can use to insult, abuse and defame all the while >pretending me then pretend you are the one being insulted. And >of course you ignore most of my post the parts which you cannot >deal with by distortion. You are either incredibly obtuse or delibrately dishonest. I can think of no other explanation for you actually accusing others of ignoring and distorting what is written, since that is exactly what you have done in nearly every one of your posts. > >Chances are if we were to meet somewhere, in a theater or on >the street, I'll bet you would be a model of friendliness cordiality >hence an very cordial and very likable person. >But when you speak from anonymity you play to the crowd >of like minded individuals, the objective is to see who can be the >nastiest, most insulting and the most cruel to the Christers, then >glory in the recognition of being part of the cabal of those claiming >"we showed the bastards". For quite a long time I tried (as have others) to have a reasonable discussion with you sticking only to the matter under discussion and responding to what was actually said. You have absolutely refused to respond in kind. Now you have the nerve or the thick-headedness to accuse others of the very behavior you are guilty of. The evidence of your behavior is in your posts, and that behavior is the cause of the negative posts you are now getting. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 "The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message news:em8ll2l462935ap5nouc97sehqo6llhbrb@4ax.com... > >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >Date written: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:46:03 -0500 > >MsgID:<pI56h.17570$1v.13991@bignews3.bellsouth.net> > > >> >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence > >> >for God? > > >> The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed entity or > >> object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to repeatedly > >> and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, smelled, tasted, > >> or felt. > > >Note the header: > >"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". > > Now note the question: So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence > for God? I answered that question. > > >I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of > >the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature > >of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist > >of the existence of a Deity. > >I believe it was a fair question in response to the > >pontificated pronouncement. > > I believe I gave you a fair answer to that question. Let me rephrase it for > you... > > "The nature of the evidence that it would take to convince an secularist of > the existence of a Diety is the same evidence required for the claimed > existence of any entity, phenomenon, or process -- indirectly or directly be > able to repeatedly and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, > seen, smelled, tasted, or felt" > > Which word didn't you understand? > You are merely restating what I wrote earlier. These are my words, "obviously since one cannot rely upon the five senses to detect God And it is absolutely certain one cannot dissect God not examine him under a microscope or view him through a telescope. Imho, disbelievers have isolated and cut themselves off from any and all possible avenues of discovery when it comes to possible evidence of God". Chris Lee wrote: "What you did when you stupidly talked about it as though were real" I wrote: This is you® menteralist mentality speaking. If you cannot see, touch hear or feel, then in your mind it is not real." The point is, I recognized the impossibility of providing direct empirical evidence to a materialist. This opinion has been a common theme throughout my post. But now I getting my argument thrown back at me as though it was yours. (See the post dated 10-30-06) I saw the problem and pointed out the fact that the header, "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD" was a moot issue. Since there can never be an acceptable answer for materialist an response is futile, therefore, such challenges to believers are nothing more than bating for flame wars. Dan Wood > > The Sage > > ============================================================= > http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm > > "All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality > -- history, religion, duty, social position -- > all were illusions, mere opium fantasies" > John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman > ============================================================= Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1Mw6h.12271$Cv6.2596@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:2pokl2lu4dst8a3b921dbpufssjr9pmm17@4ax.com... > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:00:27 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > I sincerely apologize for the above statement. It was uncalled for and totally out of character for me. > > > > > >Dan Wood > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 > "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:lNs6h.18365$U76.14587@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:Vxd6h.11513$TX.10393@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message > > > news:kibil2lbo22kdtigk7dec0mpae7pmcq8ov@4ax.com... > > >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:35:34 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > > >> wrote in alt.atheism > > >> > > >> > > > >> >"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > > >> >news:1162818225.672358.229050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > > >> >> Dan Wood wrote: > > >> >> > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > > >> >> > news:v2ujk2l38vuhf849lcih559jdtt3pugest@4ax.com... > > >> > > >> [] > > >> > > >> >> > You initially came across as a reasonably intelligent person. > > >> >> > Otherwise. I would not have wasted my time or yours. > > >> >> > So, why can you not understand such a simple concept as > > >> >> > seeing a dam as indirect evidence of a builder, > > >> >> > > >> >> I never denied that a dam is not evidence of a builder. I have also > > >> >> explained why your analogy does not work using your own reasoning > (you > > >> >> yourself admitted you could see the dam was unnatural as one of the > > >> >> reasons a builder was to be assumed). Earlier you said that there > > >> >> could be no material evidence for a god, but now you are saying that > > >> >> the existence of the universe is evidence - calling it "indirect > > >> >> evidence" does not make it less material. > > >> >> > > >> >I did not see the builders, I seen no material evidence of a builder > > >> >of the dam I have no physicial or material evidence of the builder > > >> >to examine. So the existence of the dam itself is indirect evidence > > >> >of the builders. The dam is _indirect_ evidence of a builder. > > >> > > >> You are a damn fool. > > >> > > > Have you ever heard the axiom, "if you can't discredit the man's > argument > > > then discredit the man?" For you information, this is similar to > shooting > > > the > > > messenger who brings bad news. > > > > I've heard of it but in this case it doesn't apply.....you are a damn > fool! > > I sincerely apologize for calling you names. It out of character for me. Dan Wood > > > > Quote
Guest calee@optonline.net Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:54:57 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1Mw6h.12271$Cv6.2596@bignews4.bellsouth.net... >> >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >> news:2pokl2lu4dst8a3b921dbpufssjr9pmm17@4ax.com... >> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:00:27 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> > wrote: More demonstration of your dishinesty: here's what you sipple. You said: "You too are a SOB and a bastard." >I sincerely apologize for the above statement. It was uncalled for and >totally >out of character for me. It is perfectly in character for as you have shown yourself in this entire thread. Starting with your slanders about alleged "bias" that you used to cop out of providing this alleged evidence, through your accusations that I was totally without ethics. You are terminally dishinest and nasty. Stop whining. >> > > >> > >Dan Wood >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:1egml29sa9shvipov9mro9lbhc72tu3n0r@4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:54:57 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1Mw6h.12271$Cv6.2596@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > >> > >> <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > >> news:2pokl2lu4dst8a3b921dbpufssjr9pmm17@4ax.com... > >> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:00:27 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > > More demonstration of your dishinesty: here's what you sipple. You > said: > > "You too are a SOB and a bastard." > > >I sincerely apologize for the above statement. It was uncalled for and > >totally > >out of character for me. > > It is perfectly in character for as you have shown yourself in this > entire thread. Starting with your slanders about alleged "bias" > that you used to cop out of providing this alleged evidence, through > your accusations that I was totally without ethics. > > You are terminally dishinest and nasty. > Please explain how it is that you consider yourself unbiased against religion. If this were true you would be willing to respond respectfully listen to carry on a reasonable discourse. I summit that you are biased against all religions and Christianity in particular. Furthermore chances are you know a very little if anything about Christianity. I suspect your bias is based upon gross misinformation and ignorance of the Christian Religion. > Dan Wood > > > > >> > > > >> > >Dan Wood > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Quote
Guest Ralph Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1Mw6h.12271$Cv6.2596@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:2pokl2lu4dst8a3b921dbpufssjr9pmm17@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:00:27 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> ><calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >> >news:orckl2pfoana56nabs3chjmrfn8jm38dp6@4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:02:08 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> > >> >[snip] >> >> >> >> You described yourself when you lied about me having "absolute no >> >> ethics no morals and no reason to be honest or truthful". >> >> >> >> I'll remind you that you have been lying about atheists, to atheists >> >> in every article you posted in this thread, starting way back when you >> >> accused us of a bias >> >> >> >You certainly are biased against religion especially Christanity. You >> >> In your dreams, liar. >> >> >demonstrate in your rants and ravings against it. >> >> In your dreams, liar. >> >> >[snip additional slanderous accusations against me] >> >> >> >My origional question in response to the _pontificated_ statement >> >"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD was, "what >> >would be evidence for God?" >> >> And you lied about atheist bias. >> >> >This was a fair question, since there is no possible way to satisfy >> >secularist without knowing the nature of the evidence they would >> >accept. Without honestly or fairly answering my question, they >> >demanded that I provide them with evidence of God's existence. >> >Since I basically refused to go blind into their trap; they assulted >> >me over the net. >> >> Only to get assholes like you to back up your ridiculous assertions, >> liar. >> >> Keep it to yourselves and you won't be told to put up or shut up. >> >> And you won't need to resort to dishonesties to cop out of doing >> either. >> >> Was that clear enough even for you? >> > You too are a SOB and a bastard. So you finally admit you are both. How nice. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted November 15, 2006 Posted November 15, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7Kw6h.12269$Cv6.840@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:lNs6h.18365$U76.14587@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:Vxd6h.11513$TX.10393@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> > >> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> > news:kibil2lbo22kdtigk7dec0mpae7pmcq8ov@4ax.com... >> >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:35:34 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >> >> >news:1162818225.672358.229050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> >> >> > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:v2ujk2l38vuhf849lcih559jdtt3pugest@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> [] >> >> >> >> >> > You initially came across as a reasonably intelligent person. >> >> >> > Otherwise. I would not have wasted my time or yours. >> >> >> > So, why can you not understand such a simple concept as >> >> >> > seeing a dam as indirect evidence of a builder, >> >> >> >> >> >> I never denied that a dam is not evidence of a builder. I have >> >> >> also >> >> >> explained why your analogy does not work using your own reasoning > (you >> >> >> yourself admitted you could see the dam was unnatural as one of the >> >> >> reasons a builder was to be assumed). Earlier you said that there >> >> >> could be no material evidence for a god, but now you are saying >> >> >> that >> >> >> the existence of the universe is evidence - calling it "indirect >> >> >> evidence" does not make it less material. >> >> >> >> >> >I did not see the builders, I seen no material evidence of a builder >> >> >of the dam I have no physicial or material evidence of the builder >> >> >to examine. So the existence of the dam itself is indirect evidence >> >> >of the builders. The dam is _indirect_ evidence of a builder. >> >> >> >> You are a damn fool. >> >> >> > Have you ever heard the axiom, "if you can't discredit the man's > argument >> > then discredit the man?" For you information, this is similar to > shooting >> > the >> > messenger who brings bad news. >> >> I've heard of it but in this case it doesn't apply.....you are a damn > fool! >> > You are a SOB bastard! :-))))))))))). Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7bM6h.46$Ia2.1@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7Kw6h.12269$Cv6.840@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:lNs6h.18365$U76.14587@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > >> > >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:Vxd6h.11513$TX.10393@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > >> > > >> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message > >> > news:kibil2lbo22kdtigk7dec0mpae7pmcq8ov@4ax.com... > >> >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:35:34 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote in alt.atheism > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > >> >> >news:1162818225.672358.229050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Dan Wood wrote: > >> >> >> > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > >> >> >> > news:v2ujk2l38vuhf849lcih559jdtt3pugest@4ax.com... > >> >> > >> >> [] > >> >> > >> >> >> > You initially came across as a reasonably intelligent person. > >> >> >> > Otherwise. I would not have wasted my time or yours. > >> >> >> > So, why can you not understand such a simple concept as > >> >> >> > seeing a dam as indirect evidence of a builder, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I never denied that a dam is not evidence of a builder. I have > >> >> >> also > >> >> >> explained why your analogy does not work using your own reasoning > > (you > >> >> >> yourself admitted you could see the dam was unnatural as one of the > >> >> >> reasons a builder was to be assumed). Earlier you said that there > >> >> >> could be no material evidence for a god, but now you are saying > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> the existence of the universe is evidence - calling it "indirect > >> >> >> evidence" does not make it less material. > >> >> >> > >> >> >I did not see the builders, I seen no material evidence of a builder > >> >> >of the dam I have no physicial or material evidence of the builder > >> >> >to examine. So the existence of the dam itself is indirect evidence > >> >> >of the builders. The dam is _indirect_ evidence of a builder. > >> >> > >> >> You are a damn fool. > >> >> > >> > Have you ever heard the axiom, "if you can't discredit the man's > > argument > >> > then discredit the man?" For you information, this is similar to > > shooting > >> > the > >> > messenger who brings bad news. > >> > >> I've heard of it but in this case it doesn't apply.....you are a damn > > fool! > >> > > You are a SOB bastard! > > :-))))))))))). > I sincerely apologize, this was uncalled for. It's totally out of character for me. > Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:45:22 +0100, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote: - Refer: <blfll29apsk3v6f2qkth7co2u0nm98diu7@4ax.com> >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:22:46 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> >>"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >>news:1163497213.608422.162120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> Dan Wood skrev: >>> > "The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message >>> > news:nkjel2lgarqc7i2plc1m9vibphk7kqvahe@4ax.com... >>> > > >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >>> > > >Date written: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:55:22 -0500 >>> > > >MsgID:<APW2h.2643$TX.1990@bignews1.bellsouth.net> >>> > > >>> > > >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence >>> > > >for God? >>> > > >>> > > The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed >>entity >>> > or >>> > > object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to >>> > repeatedly >>> > > and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, >>smelled, >>> > tasted, >>> > > or felt. >>> > > >>> > Note the header: >>> > "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". >>> > I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of >>> > the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature >>> > of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist >>> > of the existence >>> > of a Deity. I believe it was a fair question in response to the >>> > pontificated pronouncement. >>> >>> Note Dan Wood once again refusing to see that his question has been >>> answered. His argument basically equals a child yelling: IS NOT! IS >>> NOT! >>> > >>You pick and choose the parts of my post that you can twist into >>something you can use to insult, abuse and defame all the while >>pretending me then pretend you are the one being insulted. And >>of course you ignore most of my post the parts which you cannot >>deal with by distortion. > >You are either incredibly obtuse or delibrately dishonest. I can >think of no other explanation for you actually accusing others of >ignoring and distorting what is written, since that is exactly what >you have done in nearly every one of your posts. : He is BOTH, and more. He is a wilfully ignorant, deliberate liar. He represents Chrisianity at it finest. -- Quote
Guest The_Sage Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >Date written: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:45:46 -0500 >MsgID:<DCG6h.29754$lY5.3012@bignews6.bellsouth.net> >> >> >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence for God? >> >> The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed entity or >> >> object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to repeatedly >> >> and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, smelled, tasted, >> >> or felt. >> >Note the header: >> >"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". >> Now note the question: So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence >> for God? I answered that question. >> >I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of >> >the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature >> >of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist >> >of the existence of a Deity. >> >I believe it was a fair question in response to the >> >pontificated pronouncement. >> I believe I gave you a fair answer to that question. Let me rephrase it for >> you... >> "The nature of the evidence that it would take to convince an secularist of >> the existence of a Diety is the same evidence required for the claimed >> existence of any entity, phenomenon, or process -- indirectly or directly be >> able to repeatedly and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, >> seen, smelled, tasted, or felt" >> Which word didn't you understand? >You are merely restating what I wrote earlier. Actually, I was merely restating what I wrote earlier. >These are my words, >"obviously since >one cannot rely upon the five senses to detect God And it is absolutely certain >one cannot dissect God not examine him under a microscope or view him >through a telescope. Imho, disbelievers have isolated and cut themselves >off from any and all possible avenues of discovery when it comes to possible >evidence of God". These also are your words: "So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence for God?" My reply is the only thing that would be acceptable. You simply do not want to accept that fact. So instead you say, what if secularists were to ignore proper logical reasoning and objetive observation -- what would be left to convince them that God exists then? And the answer then would be, ANYTHING would convince them, if they did not resort to reason and facts! No one is "isolating" or "cutting themselves off" unless you can prove they are "isolating" or "cutting themselves off" from something that exists in actual reality. >Chris Lee wrote: >"What you did when you stupidly talked about it as though were real" >I wrote: >This is you® menteralist mentality speaking. If you cannot see, touch hear >or feel, then in your mind it is not real." Which is incorrect: there are lots of things that cannot be seen, heard, or touched, that in some people's mind, is real. What is in someone's mind has nothing to do with what is in reality, but what is in someone's mind is whatever that person feels like putting in their mind. The Sage wrote: "What are the characteristics of things known to not exist? They cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, in any way, shape, or form. So what are the characterisics of God? God cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, in any way, shape, or form. God is no different from things that are known to not exist". >The point is, I recognized the impossibility of providing direct empirical >evidence to a materialist. The fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is no direct evidence and there is no indirect evidence. There are only the poorly told, scientifically inaccurate, and contradictory storytales. >This opinion has been a common theme >throughout my post. But now I getting my argument thrown back at me as >though it was yours. (See the post dated 10-30-06) Whether you like it or not, it is my argument too. There is nothing new under the Sun, including your or my arguments. Someone else thought of the same things we are talking about, long before we ever thought about them. >I saw the problem and pointed out the fact that the header, >"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD" was a moot >issue. Since there can never be an acceptable answer for materialist >an response is futile, What you really mean is that there can never be an answer that will be acceptable to YOU . Your question is a nonsense question because you are talking about something that cannot exist; something that is a logical contradiction. You are trying to say that if secularists did not think like they were actually secularists, would they be believers instead? Of course they would become blind faith believers, because to be a believer, you must blind yourself to proper logical reasoning or facts. You seem to forget that you asked what would be ACCEPTABLE evidence to a secularist, and what is acceptable to a secularist or materialist are facts, logic, and objective observation. Anything besides those are not reasonable and would be out-of-character for someone claiming to be a secularist. >therefore, such challenges to believers are >nothing more than bating for flame wars. No it isn't. Maybe the problem is in your delivery? The Sage ============================================================= http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm "All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality -- history, religion, duty, social position -- all were illusions, mere opium fantasies" John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman ============================================================= Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 >< "The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message news:jidnl2985srqisp07mfb9ku7c9lgido7a3@4ax.com... > >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >Date written: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:45:46 -0500 > >MsgID:<DCG6h.29754$lY5.3012@bignews6.bellsouth.net> > > >> >> >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence for God? > > >> >> The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed entity or > >> >> object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to repeatedly > >> >> and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, smelled, tasted, > >> >> or felt. > > >> >Note the header: > >> >"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". > > >> Now note the question: So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence > >> for God? I answered that question. > > >> >I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of > >> >the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature > >> >of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist > >> >of the existence of a Deity. > >> >I believe it was a fair question in response to the > >> >pontificated pronouncement. > > >> I believe I gave you a fair answer to that question. Let me rephrase it for > >> you... > > >> "The nature of the evidence that it would take to convince an secularist of > >> the existence of a Diety is the same evidence required for the claimed > >> existence of any entity, phenomenon, or process -- indirectly or directly be > >> able to repeatedly and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, > >> seen, smelled, tasted, or felt" > > >> Which word didn't you understand? > > >You are merely restating what I wrote earlier. > > Actually, I was merely restating what I wrote earlier. > > >These are my words, > >"obviously since > >one cannot rely upon the five senses to detect God And it is absolutely certain > >one cannot dissect God not examine him under a microscope or view him > >through a telescope. Imho, disbelievers have isolated and cut themselves > >off from any and all possible avenues of discovery when it comes to possible > >evidence of God". > > These also are your words: > > "So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence for God?" > Yes, this is true. Is it not the same, since it was addressed it to secularist? As I stated in a several prior post, I know the nature of that which convinces me: what I did not know was the nature of the evidence that convinces you. > > My reply is the only thing that would be acceptable. You simply do not want to > accept that fact. So instead you say, what if secularists were to ignore proper > logical reasoning and objetive observation -- what would be left to convince > them that God exists then? > No, that is not at all what I said or meant. I apologize if that is what came across to you. I offered a glimpse of my reasons for believing in a higher power. But I have no grounds to make any claims for secularist. Furthermore, since God is not comprised of any of the 100+ natural occurring elements, there cannot _be_ any observation. My belief is that God, if he exist, he must have existed from eternity. I know there is _no_ way to prove this belief. Especially if you do not accept the proposition that God cannot infered from evidence. I don't know much about electricity, but I remember that the existence of electrons and the flow of electrons was first discovered by scientist by observing magnets placed around a wire which in turn was connected to a layden jar (EMF), resistance coil and ground. This was not directly observing the flow of electrons, by inference from the movement of magnets. By the same token, I accept the existance of a designer through inference. > > And the answer then would be, ANYTHING would convince them, if they did not > resort to reason and facts! No one is "isolating" or "cutting themselves off" > unless you can prove they are "isolating" or "cutting themselves off" from > something that exists in actual reality. > Ok, assuming for the purpose of argument, there is a higher power, I do not see how you can ever come to this realization? > > >Chris Lee wrote: > >"What you did when you stupidly talked about it as though were real" > >I wrote: > >This is you® materialist mentality speaking. If you cannot see, touch hear > >or feel, then in your mind it is not real." > > Which is incorrect: there are lots of things that cannot be seen, heard, or > touched, that in some people's mind, is real. What is in someone's mind has > nothing to do with what is in reality, but what is in someone's mind is whatever > that person feels like putting in their mind. > > The Sage wrote: > "What are the characteristics of things known to not exist? They cannot be seen, > heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, in any way, shape, or form. So what are the > characterisics of God? God cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, in > any way, shape, or form. God is no different from things that are known to not > exist". > > >The point is, I recognized the impossibility of providing direct empirical > >evidence to a materialist. > > The fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is no direct evidence and > there is no indirect evidence. There are only the poorly told, scientifically > inaccurate, and contradictory storytales. > > >This opinion has been a common theme > >throughout my post. But now I getting my argument thrown back at me as > >though it was yours. (See the post dated 10-30-06) > > Whether you like it or not, it is my argument too. > Maybe so, it is reasonable. But I advanced the argument from as part of my basic premise from the beginning of this thread. I believe this was before you took an interest. > There is nothing new under > the Sun, including your or my arguments. Someone else thought of the same things > we are talking about, long before we ever thought about them. > > > >I saw the problem and pointed out the fact that the header, > >"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD" was a moot > >issue. Since there can never be an acceptable answer for materialist > >a response is futile, > > What you really mean is that there can never be an answer that will be > acceptable to YOU . > You cannot know this! I haven't seen anything different from _my_ initial argument. Other people including you have arrived at the same conclusion. It is not possible considering that only material evidence which is susceptible to detection by our five senses or the extensions thereof is acceptable. God is not material. Your question is a nonsense question because you are > talking about something that cannot exist; something that is a logical > contradiction. > Cannot exist? a logical contradiction? Am I supposed to just accept your opinion on this as fact without anything to justify your saying this? > You are trying to say that if secularists did not think > like they were actually secularists, would they be believers instead? Of course they > would become blind faith believers, because to be a believer, you must blind > yourself to proper logical reasoning or facts. > Again you are expressing your opinion. Don't get me wrong, I accept the fact that you are entitled to your opinions. I don't happen to share them, which is my right. > > You seem to forget that you asked what would be ACCEPTABLE evidence to a > secularist, and what is acceptable to a secularist or materialist are facts, logic, and objective observation. Anything besides those are not reasonable and would be out-of-character for someone claiming to be a secularist. > Secularist are no different than anyone else. Everyone will defend his views to the bitter end. Even scientist are no different in this regard. Many Scientist who accepted to the steady state cosmology held on in spite of the evidence to the contrary until the discovery by physicists Wilson and Penzias.made the steady state untenable. The astronomer, Fred Hoyle, one of the scientist who advocated the SSC held out hope for his theory. And there were numerous others including Einstein and Eddington who strongly disliked the Big Bang and expanding universe. The Physicist, Max Planck claimed that, "theories are never completely abandoned until their proponents die". > >therefore, such challenges to believers are > >nothing more than bating for flame wars. > > No it isn't. Maybe the problem is in your delivery? > Not so, I've seen it too many times where I had no part. All one has to do is read the post in alt religion christian and one finds these "challenges": 1-Challenge to all christians, 2-A God question 3-A religious challenge 4-A serious question on devine morality 5-Simple God question 6-Bible nonsence 7-The all loving bastard christian god 8-The child killing bastard christian god This is to name a few. In a casual reading one very often finds any christian who takes the bate, called a liar, a moron, a deceiver etc.etc. Dan Wood > > The Sage > > ============================================================= > http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm > > "All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality > -- history, religion, duty, social position -- > all were illusions, mere opium fantasies" > John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman > ============================================================= Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:dtdnl29t5okhcubufi2rvto09r9tbsrlp2@4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:45:22 +0100, thomas p > <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote: > - Refer: <blfll29apsk3v6f2qkth7co2u0nm98diu7@4ax.com> > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:22:46 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >wrote: > > > >> > >>"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > >>news:1163497213.608422.162120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >>> > >>> Dan Wood skrev: > >>> > "The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message > >>> > news:nkjel2lgarqc7i2plc1m9vibphk7kqvahe@4ax.com... > >>> > > >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >>> > > >Date written: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:55:22 -0500 > >>> > > >MsgID:<APW2h.2643$TX.1990@bignews1.bellsouth.net> > >>> > > > >>> > > >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence > >>> > > >for God? > >>> > > > >>> > > The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed > >>entity > >>> > or > >>> > > object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to > >>> > repeatedly > >>> > > and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, > >>smelled, > >>> > tasted, > >>> > > or felt. > >>> > > > >>> > Note the header: > >>> > "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". > >>> > I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of > >>> > the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature > >>> > of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist > >>> > of the existence > >>> > of a Deity. I believe it was a fair question in response to the > >>> > pontificated pronouncement. > >>> > >>> Note Dan Wood once again refusing to see that his question has been > >>> answered. His argument basically equals a child yelling: IS NOT! IS > >>> NOT! > >>> > > > >>You pick and choose the parts of my post that you can twist into > >>something you can use to insult, abuse and defame all the while > >>pretending me then pretend you are the one being insulted. And > >>of course you ignore most of my post the parts which you cannot > >>deal with by distortion. > > > >You are either incredibly obtuse or delibrately dishonest. I can > >think of no other explanation for you actually accusing others of > >ignoring and distorting what is written, since that is exactly what > >you have done in nearly every one of your posts. > : > > He is BOTH, and more. > He is a wilfully ignorant, deliberate liar. > He represents Chrisianity at it finest. > IOW kill the messenger. > -- Quote
Guest thomas p. Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Dan Wood skrev: > > "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:lNs6h.18365$U76.14587@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:Vxd6h.11513$TX.10393@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > > > > > > > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message > > > > news:kibil2lbo22kdtigk7dec0mpae7pmcq8ov@4ax.com... > > > >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:35:34 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote in alt.atheism snip > I sincerely apologize for calling you names. It out of character for me. > It is strange to think that you might actually believe what you wrote above. The rest of us have read your posts. Quote
Guest thomas p. Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Michael Gray skrev: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:45:22 +0100, thomas p > <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote: > - Refer: <blfll29apsk3v6f2qkth7co2u0nm98diu7@4ax.com> > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:22:46 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >wrote: > > > >> > >>"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > >>news:1163497213.608422.162120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >>> > >>> Dan Wood skrev: > >>> > "The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message > >>> > news:nkjel2lgarqc7i2plc1m9vibphk7kqvahe@4ax.com... > >>> > > >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >>> > > >Date written: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:55:22 -0500 > >>> > > >MsgID:<APW2h.2643$TX.1990@bignews1.bellsouth.net> > >>> > > > >>> > > >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence > >>> > > >for God? > >>> > > > >>> > > The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed > >>entity > >>> > or > >>> > > object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able to > >>> > repeatedly > >>> > > and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, > >>smelled, > >>> > tasted, > >>> > > or felt. > >>> > > > >>> > Note the header: > >>> > "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". > >>> > I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of > >>> > the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature > >>> > of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist > >>> > of the existence > >>> > of a Deity. I believe it was a fair question in response to the > >>> > pontificated pronouncement. > >>> > >>> Note Dan Wood once again refusing to see that his question has been > >>> answered. His argument basically equals a child yelling: IS NOT! IS > >>> NOT! > >>> > > > >>You pick and choose the parts of my post that you can twist into > >>something you can use to insult, abuse and defame all the while > >>pretending me then pretend you are the one being insulted. And > >>of course you ignore most of my post the parts which you cannot > >>deal with by distortion. > > > >You are either incredibly obtuse or delibrately dishonest. I can > >think of no other explanation for you actually accusing others of > >ignoring and distorting what is written, since that is exactly what > >you have done in nearly every one of your posts. > : > > He is BOTH, and more. > He is a wilfully ignorant, deliberate liar. > He represents Chrisianity at it finest. His lies and distortions are so obvious one wonders what he expects to gain, but that assumes that he is actually conscious of what he is doing. Quote
Guest thomas p. Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Dan Wood skrev: > "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message > news:dtdnl29t5okhcubufi2rvto09r9tbsrlp2@4ax.com... > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:45:22 +0100, thomas p > > <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote: > > - Refer: <blfll29apsk3v6f2qkth7co2u0nm98diu7@4ax.com> > > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:22:46 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message > > >>news:1163497213.608422.162120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > >>> > > >>> Dan Wood skrev: > > >>> > "The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message > > >>> > news:nkjel2lgarqc7i2plc1m9vibphk7kqvahe@4ax.com... > > >>> > > >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > > >>> > > >Date written: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:55:22 -0500 > > >>> > > >MsgID:<APW2h.2643$TX.1990@bignews1.bellsouth.net> > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence > > >>> > > >for God? > > >>> > > > > >>> > > The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed > > >>entity > > >>> > or > > >>> > > object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able > to > > >>> > repeatedly > > >>> > > and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, > > >>smelled, > > >>> > tasted, > > >>> > > or felt. > > >>> > > > > >>> > Note the header: > > >>> > "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". > > >>> > I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of > > >>> > the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature > > >>> > of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist > > >>> > of the existence > > >>> > of a Deity. I believe it was a fair question in response to the > > >>> > pontificated pronouncement. > > >>> > > >>> Note Dan Wood once again refusing to see that his question has been > > >>> answered. His argument basically equals a child yelling: IS NOT! IS > > >>> NOT! > > >>> > > > > > >>You pick and choose the parts of my post that you can twist into > > >>something you can use to insult, abuse and defame all the while > > >>pretending me then pretend you are the one being insulted. And > > >>of course you ignore most of my post the parts which you cannot > > >>deal with by distortion. > > > > > >You are either incredibly obtuse or delibrately dishonest. I can > > >think of no other explanation for you actually accusing others of > > >ignoring and distorting what is written, since that is exactly what > > >you have done in nearly every one of your posts. > > : > > > > He is BOTH, and more. > > He is a wilfully ignorant, deliberate liar. > > He represents Chrisianity at it finest. > > > IOW kill the messenger. And you present yet another lie. Quote
Guest calee@optonline.net Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 On 16 Nov 2006 02:56:55 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote: > >Dan Wood skrev: >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >> news:dtdnl29t5okhcubufi2rvto09r9tbsrlp2@4ax.com... >> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:45:22 +0100, thomas p >> > <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote: >> > - Refer: <blfll29apsk3v6f2qkth7co2u0nm98diu7@4ax.com> >> > >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:22:46 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> > >wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >>"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >> > >>news:1163497213.608422.162120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> > >>> >> > >>> Dan Wood skrev: >> > >>> > "The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message >> > >>> > news:nkjel2lgarqc7i2plc1m9vibphk7kqvahe@4ax.com... >> > >>> > > >Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> > >>> > > >Date written: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:55:22 -0500 >> > >>> > > >MsgID:<APW2h.2643$TX.1990@bignews1.bellsouth.net> >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence >> > >>> > > >for God? >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed >> > >>entity >> > >>> > or >> > >>> > > object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able >> to >> > >>> > repeatedly >> > >>> > > and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen, >> > >>smelled, >> > >>> > tasted, >> > >>> > > or felt. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > Note the header: >> > >>> > "NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD". >> > >>> > I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of >> > >>> > the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature >> > >>> > of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist >> > >>> > of the existence >> > >>> > of a Deity. I believe it was a fair question in response to the >> > >>> > pontificated pronouncement. >> > >>> >> > >>> Note Dan Wood once again refusing to see that his question has been >> > >>> answered. His argument basically equals a child yelling: IS NOT! IS >> > >>> NOT! >> > >>> >> > > >> > >>You pick and choose the parts of my post that you can twist into >> > >>something you can use to insult, abuse and defame all the while >> > >>pretending me then pretend you are the one being insulted. And >> > >>of course you ignore most of my post the parts which you cannot >> > >>deal with by distortion. >> > > >> > >You are either incredibly obtuse or delibrately dishonest. I can >> > >think of no other explanation for you actually accusing others of >> > >ignoring and distorting what is written, since that is exactly what >> > >you have done in nearly every one of your posts. >> > : >> > >> > He is BOTH, and more. >> > He is a wilfully ignorant, deliberate liar. >> > He represents Chrisianity at it finest. >> > >> IOW kill the messenger. > >And you present yet another lie. They think that lying in the service of God doesn't make them liars. It doesn't fit the self-image. Quote
Guest stoney Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:40:59 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >news:kibil2lbo22kdtigk7dec0mpae7pmcq8ov@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:35:34 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> > >> >"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >> >news:1162818225.672358.229050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> >> > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >> >> > news:v2ujk2l38vuhf849lcih559jdtt3pugest@4ax.com... >> >> [] >> >> >> > You initially came across as a reasonably intelligent person. >> >> > Otherwise. I would not have wasted my time or yours. >> >> > So, why can you not understand such a simple concept as >> >> > seeing a dam as indirect evidence of a builder, >> >> >> >> I never denied that a dam is not evidence of a builder. I have also >> >> explained why your analogy does not work using your own reasoning (you >> >> yourself admitted you could see the dam was unnatural as one of the >> >> reasons a builder was to be assumed). Earlier you said that there >> >> could be no material evidence for a god, but now you are saying that >> >> the existence of the universe is evidence - calling it "indirect >> >> evidence" does not make it less material. >> >> >> >I did not see the builders, I seen no material evidence of a builder >> >of the dam I have no physicial or material evidence of the builder >> >to examine. So the existence of the dam itself is indirect evidence >> >of the builders. The dam is _indirect_ evidence of a builder. >> >> You are a damn fool. >> >Have you ever heard the axiom, "if you can't discredit the man's argument >then discredit the man?" Has anyone told you, lately, you're a lying coward as well as a damn fool? Observation is not discrediting. You have no argument. > For you information, this is similar to shooting >the messenger who brings bad news. You haven't been shot, nor are you other than a 'messenger' who's only drooling babbling idiocy to disseminate. 1 Thess 5:18, oh lying slave. -- 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 November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:01:28 -0500, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:Vxd6h.11513$TX.10393@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> >> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> news:kibil2lbo22kdtigk7dec0mpae7pmcq8ov@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:35:34 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >>> wrote in alt.atheism >>> >>> > >>> >"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >>> >news:1162818225.672358.229050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >>> >> >>> >> Dan Wood wrote: >>> >> > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >>> >> > news:v2ujk2l38vuhf849lcih559jdtt3pugest@4ax.com... >>> >>> [] >>> >>> >> > You initially came across as a reasonably intelligent person. >>> >> > Otherwise. I would not have wasted my time or yours. >>> >> > So, why can you not understand such a simple concept as >>> >> > seeing a dam as indirect evidence of a builder, >>> >> >>> >> I never denied that a dam is not evidence of a builder. I have also >>> >> explained why your analogy does not work using your own reasoning (you >>> >> yourself admitted you could see the dam was unnatural as one of the >>> >> reasons a builder was to be assumed). Earlier you said that there >>> >> could be no material evidence for a god, but now you are saying that >>> >> the existence of the universe is evidence - calling it "indirect >>> >> evidence" does not make it less material. >>> >> >>> >I did not see the builders, I seen no material evidence of a builder >>> >of the dam I have no physicial or material evidence of the builder >>> >to examine. So the existence of the dam itself is indirect evidence >>> >of the builders. The dam is _indirect_ evidence of a builder. >>> >>> You are a damn fool. >>> >> Have you ever heard the axiom, "if you can't discredit the man's argument >> then discredit the man?" For you information, this is similar to shooting >> the >> messenger who brings bad news. > >I've heard of it but in this case it doesn't apply.....you are a damn fool! Thank you, Ralph. I'm glad someone else observed the same thing. -- 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 November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 On 14 Nov 2006 01:47:07 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in alt.atheism > >stoney skrev: >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:35:34 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> > >> >"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >> >news:1162818225.672358.229050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> >> > "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >> >> > news:v2ujk2l38vuhf849lcih559jdtt3pugest@4ax.com... >> >> [] >> >> >> > You initially came across as a reasonably intelligent person. >> >> > Otherwise. I would not have wasted my time or yours. >> >> > So, why can you not understand such a simple concept as >> >> > seeing a dam as indirect evidence of a builder, >> >> > >> >> I never denied that a dam is not evidence of a builder. I have also >> >> explained why your analogy does not work using your own reasoning (you >> >> yourself admitted you could see the dam was unnatural as one of the >> >> reasons a builder was to be assumed). Earlier you said that there >> >> could be no material evidence for a god, but now you are saying that >> >> the existence of the universe is evidence - calling it "indirect >> >> evidence" does not make it less material. >> >> > >> >I did not see the builders, I seen no material evidence of a builder >> >of the dam I have no physicial or material evidence of the builder >> >to examine. So the existence of the dam itself is indirect evidence >> >of the builders. The dam is _indirect_ evidence of a builder. >> >> You are a damn fool. >> > >Isn't the above amazing? I tell him very clearly that I agree that the >dam is evidence of a builder, and he responds by continuing to argue as >if I disagreed with him. I know. > It has just occurred to me that he has his >little argument memorized along with the answers he is supposed to get >according to whatever little handbook he is using, and he does not have >the intelligence or the flexibility to adjust his argument to the >answers he is actually getting. Perhaps he is so emotionally rigid >that he is not even able to see that he is not responding to our points >at all. "Dan" has deliberately blinded himself. -- 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
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.