Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 On 23 Oct 2006 03:48:47 -0700, "jemsohara" <jemsohara@gmail.com> wrote: > >Bill M wrote: >> There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in >> man's imagination. >> >> >> >> Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated >> and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this >> earth? >> >> >> >> The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by >> funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the >> recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew >> they had been prayed for tended to get worse. >> >> >> >> Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for >> God's existence has yet been obtained! > >I would like to see you support your statement that there is no >OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of God's existence. If you insist on >this standard -- and I agree you should -- then you must meet this >standard yourself. I suggest you look up "Popperian falsifiability". All it would take is a single piece of evidence for a deity, to falsify his conclusion. >I do not expect a reply, as I already know that disproving God's >existence is harder than proving His existence. There's nothing to disprove. It's up to those who insist it is real to prove it. Until then the falsifiable conclusion is "no it isn't". It's exactly the same methodology even theists use for practically every other claim: "I own the Golden Gate Bridge" "No you don't, prove it" >James Quote
Guest Richo Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 jemsohara wrote: > Bill M wrote: > > There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in > > man's imagination. > > > > > > > > Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated > > and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this > > earth? > > > > > > > > The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by > > funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the > > recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew > > they had been prayed for tended to get worse. > > > > > > > > Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for > > God's existence has yet been obtained! > > I would like to see you support your statement that there is no > OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of God's existence. If you insist on > this standard -- and I agree you should -- then you must meet this > standard yourself. > So he should show you absolutely no objective verifiable evidence? Thats a rather easy challange to meet isnt it? > I do not expect a reply, as I already know that disproving God's > existence is harder than proving His existence. > They are both impossible - and one impossible thing cannot be more difficult than another impossible thing. Also - you are changing the subject - he was (stupidly in my humble opinion) talking about evidence and you are talking about prooof. You might actually be dumber than Bill. And that's sayin' somethin. Mark. Quote
Guest Richo Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 schill_dan@yahoo.com wrote: > There is no permanent underlying reality to the visual world... How do you know that? > everything is surrounded by infinite space, How do you know that? > which means that even the > biggest star known to man in the universe becomes like a grain of sand, What small, solid and hard? > that doesn't even account for the infinite nature of space. Is Space infinite? How do you know that? > Therefore, > there is an infinite universe that is unseen, and in this universe > there are unseen worlds. God operates in the unseen world(s). How do you know that? > There > is no room for God in the visual world, but there is infinite room for > God in the unseen world. I'm sorry to say it Bill M, but you suck. > You subcribed to the stupidest viewpoint ever thought of by man. > I don't see any evidence of inteligence in either of you. You both just assert stuff. > The only reason why you are on dry land right now is because I blew you > out of the water. Don't ever insult people for believing in the > supernatural. > People insult themselves by believing in the supernatural. Mark. Quote
Guest bob young Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 jemsohara wrote: > Bill M wrote: > > There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in > > man's imagination. > > > > > > > > Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated > > and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this > > earth? > > > > > > > > The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by > > funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the > > recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew > > they had been prayed for tended to get worse. > > > > > > > > Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for > > God's existence has yet been obtained! > > I would like to see you support your statement that there is no > OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of God's existence. If you insist on > this standard -- and I agree you should -- then you must meet this > standard yourself. > > I do not expect a reply, as I already know that disproving God's > existence is harder than proving His existence. ....and for a god that was supposed to have created everything we find ourselveds in the above ludicrous situation?! Grow up > > > James Quote
Guest Rusty Sites Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 jemsohara wrote: > Bill M wrote: >> There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in >> man's imagination. >> >> >> >> Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated >> and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this >> earth? >> >> >> >> The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by >> funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the >> recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew >> they had been prayed for tended to get worse. >> >> >> >> Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for >> God's existence has yet been obtained! > > I would like to see you support your statement that there is no > OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of God's existence. If you insist on > this standard -- and I agree you should -- then you must meet this > standard yourself. > > I do not expect a reply, as I already know that disproving God's > existence is harder than proving His existence. > As I see it, the issue is not really whether there is any god. It is always about a particular god which the believers say they have knowledge of. I don't say that I know there is no god, but I don't see any reason to believe there is. I certainly don't see why "knowing" god is just be a matter of wanting to and is accomplished through telepathy. What I am certain of is that the believers know nothing about any god. All they have is belief and no amount of belief adds up to any amount of knowledge. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:47:11 -0700, Rusty Sites <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote: >jemsohara wrote: >> Bill M wrote: >>> There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in >>> man's imagination. >>> >>> >>> >>> Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated >>> and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this >>> earth? >>> >>> >>> >>> The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by >>> funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the >>> recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew >>> they had been prayed for tended to get worse. >>> >>> >>> >>> Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for >>> God's existence has yet been obtained! >> >> I would like to see you support your statement that there is no >> OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of God's existence. If you insist on >> this standard -- and I agree you should -- then you must meet this >> standard yourself. >> >> I do not expect a reply, as I already know that disproving God's >> existence is harder than proving His existence. >> > >As I see it, the issue is not really whether there is any god. It is >always about a particular god which the believers say they have >knowledge of. I don't say that I know there is no god, but I don't see >any reason to believe there is. I certainly don't see why "knowing" god >is just be a matter of wanting to and is accomplished through telepathy. > What I am certain of is that the believers know nothing about any god. > All they have is belief and no amount of belief adds up to any amount >of knowledge. It's reasonable to go further, and reach a falsifiable conclusion pending their backing up their claims. Things which contribute to the conclusion are the use of fallacies, copouts, etc. Each one of which is a data point against. So far there are no data points for. Also the fact that the only reason to bring it up is as a religious presumption. There are even absolute conclusions if they have defined it in such a way that it cannot exist. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 "paolojoejingy" <Myspamingbox@gmail.com> wrote in message snip > > These people here give every indication of being anti-theists, > specifically anti-Christian/Hebrew God. They're obsessed with > theology. And they hate being called the God-haters they exemplify > because that label indicates that God does exist. Oh, shut up, you retarded whiner -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 "paolojoejingy" <Myspamingbox@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1161464096.268215.135630@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Bill M wrote: >> There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in >> man's imagination. >> >> >> >> Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has >> communicated >> and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this >> earth? >> >> >> >> The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - >> by >> funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the >> recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew >> they had been prayed for tended to get worse. >> >> >> >> Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for >> God's existence has yet been obtained! > > These people here give every indication of being anti-theists, Moron - PLONK! -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 <schill_dan@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1161465608.927915.57910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > There is no permanent underlying reality to the visual world... > everything is surrounded by infinite space, which means that even the > biggest star known to man in the universe becomes like a grain of sand, > that doesn't even account for the infinite nature of space. Therefore, > there is an infinite universe that is unseen, and in this universe > there are unseen worlds. God operates in the unseen world(s). There > is no room for God in the visual world, but there is infinite room for > God in the unseen world. What a load. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 jemsohara wrote: > Bill M wrote: > >>There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in >>man's imagination. >> >> >> >>Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated >>and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this >>earth? >> >> >> >>The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by >>funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the >>recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew >>they had been prayed for tended to get worse. >> >> >> >> Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for >>God's existence has yet been obtained! > > > I would like to see you support your statement that there is no > OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of God's existence. If you insist on > this standard -- and I agree you should -- then you must meet this > standard yourself. > > I do not expect a reply, as I already know that disproving God's > existence is harder than proving His existence. > > James ===>The correct statement is that no one has ever been able to give any objective verifiable evidence of any god existing outside the mind of a believer. -- L. Quote
Guest bob young Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Rusty Sites wrote: > jemsohara wrote: > > Bill M wrote: > >> There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in > >> man's imagination. > >> > >> > >> > >> Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated > >> and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this > >> earth? > >> > >> > >> > >> The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by > >> funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the > >> recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew > >> they had been prayed for tended to get worse. > >> > >> > >> > >> Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for > >> God's existence has yet been obtained! > > > > I would like to see you support your statement that there is no > > OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of God's existence. If you insist on > > this standard -- and I agree you should -- then you must meet this > > standard yourself. > > > > I do not expect a reply, as I already know that disproving God's > > existence is harder than proving His existence. > > > > As I see it, the issue is not really whether there is any god. It is > always about a particular god which the believers say they have > knowledge of. I don't say that I know there is no god, but I don't see > any reason to believe there is. I certainly don't see why "knowing" god > is just be a matter of wanting to and is accomplished through telepathy. > What I am certain of is that the believers know nothing about any god. > All they have is belief and no amount of belief adds up to any amount > of knowledge. I fully agree. What they think they know and believe is based entirely on what other like minded individuals have told them, and in most cases, their parents as well. The gods of black magic on any Carribean Island and man's other gods are no differewnt - they are all in the imagination And we like to call ourselves 'civilised' ! The chances are that when religionists from 'the other camp' get their nuclear devices we may well destroy most of humaninity in the name of our imaginary gods I repeat 'and we call ourselves civilised !' Maybe in a couple of million years the chimps may learn to talk and then watch out for the first chimp god looking remarkably chimplike > > > -- > Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service > ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem Quote
Guest The_Sage Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 >Reply to article by: "Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> >Date written: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:41:50 -0400 >MsgID:<b0584$453d576c$d1d894c6$29317@PRIMUS.CA> >>>There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in man's imagination. >>>Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated >>>and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this >>>earth? >> This is all so plainly obvious to anyone who can think for themselves. There >> cannot be evidence for something that never existed to begin with. >That "something" of yours above does indeed NOT exist and no one claims >it does. Wrong. I just responded to someone who did claim it does. Can't you read? >You are just spinning your wheels uselessly. That's your opinion and your opinion is useless to us. 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 Libertarius Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 It depends on what you mean by "God". Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", and I am certain you would admit THAT "God" does exist. (HINT: Spinoza's GOD=NATURE, the COSMOS, i.e. "All that is, ever was, or ever will be." [sagan]) -- L. P.S. The fact the you or I prefer NOT to call it "God" does in no way prove that "Spinoza's God" does not exist. Unlike the gods of the authors of the "holy books", it is the ONLY "God" which obviously, objectively exists. Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 paolojoejingy wrote: > Bill M wrote: > >>There is very simple yet compelling evidence that no gods exist except in >>man's imagination. >> >> >> >>Why is there NO objective verifiable evidence that ANY god has communicated >>and confirmed his existence to ANY of the sane six billion people on this >>earth? >> >> >> >>The Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by >>funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the >>recovery of heart patients. It didn't, although a control group who knew >>they had been prayed for tended to get worse. >> >> >> >> Despite such well-financed efforts, no OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for >>God's existence has yet been obtained! > > > These people here give every indication of being anti-theists, > specifically anti-Christian/Hebrew God. They're obsessed with > theology. And they hate being called the God-haters they exemplify > because that label indicates that God does exist. > I notice they exhibit no hatred of any 'gods' or adherents of religions > other than the Hebrew God either. You never hear them cursing out > the Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, Voudouins, Satanists, etc. NEVER. > They try to use the Hebrew Scriptures (a bizarre and self-contradictory > technique! ) to assert the Christian Scriptures are false. That really > doesn't make sense until you realize that the Hebrew scripture's > prophecies of God incarnating as the Saviour (which they work > diligently and ineffectively to deny) is what really freaks them out. > And the name that they try to convey themselves as - Intellectual > Honesty - is so > hypocritical. ===Caught you! You speak of "intellectual honesty", yet make totally false statements. 1. Buddhism has no "God". 2. The gods dreamed up by the authors of ALL "sacred books" are just imaginary beings. ALL od them. 3. There are absolutely NO "Hebrew scripture's prophecies of God incarnating as the Saviour." What a LIAR you are! Shame on you! -- L. Quote
Guest bob young Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 Libertarius wrote: > It depends on what you mean by "God". > > Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", and > I am certain you would admit THAT "God" does exist. > (HINT: Spinoza's GOD=NATURE, the COSMOS, > i.e. "All that is, ever was, or ever will be." [sagan]) -- L. > > P.S. The fact the you or I prefer NOT to call it "God" > does in no way prove that "Spinoza's God" does not exist. > Unlike the gods of the authors of the "holy books", > it is the ONLY "God" which obviously, objectively exists. Classic. By now you should have well and truly scraped the bottom of that barrel truly clean A myth, is a myth, is a myth, is a myth, call it whatever you like Quote
Guest The_Sage Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 >Reply to article by: Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> >Date written: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:52:34 -0600 >MsgID:<45415852.6010203@nothingbutthe.truth> >It depends on what you mean by "God". >Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", and >I am certain you would admit THAT "God" does exist. >(HINT: Spinoza's GOD=NATURE, the COSMOS, >i.e. "All that is, ever was, or ever will be." [sagan]) -- L. >P.S. The fact the you or I prefer NOT to call it "God" >does in no way prove that "Spinoza's God" does not exist. Nor does it prove God exists. Calling nature a God will not turn nature into a God anymore than calling a weed a rose will turn a weed into a rose. >Unlike the gods of the authors of the "holy books", >it is the ONLY "God" which obviously, objectively exists. Remember, that depends on what you mean by "God". Not everyone will agree with your arbitrary definition of "God", so your arbitrary definition means nothing in the pursuit of truth. 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 schill_dan@yahoo.com Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 Robibnikoff wrote: > <schill_dan@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1161465608.927915.57910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > There is no permanent underlying reality to the visual world... > > everything is surrounded by infinite space, which means that even the > > biggest star known to man in the universe becomes like a grain of sand, > > that doesn't even account for the infinite nature of space. Therefore, > > there is an infinite universe that is unseen, and in this universe > > there are unseen worlds. God operates in the unseen world(s). There > > is no room for God in the visual world, but there is infinite room for > > God in the unseen world. > > What a load. > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > #1557 Hey Robyn. Do you deny that there is no permanent reality underlying the visual world? Space is not infinite? You don't have to believe that God exists, but you can't deny that there is an infinite unseen universe. You would be denying science. You can't prove God but my argument makes it so that you can't disprove God without denying science. Then what are you left with? No argument. Just a bunch of resentment towards a group of people (W.A.S.P.s) whom you think cause every problem in this country, which is why people like you can slam on people like me (I'm not a W.A.S.P by the way), but never really argue much. Just look at the responses to my argument. They never disprove anything I say. In the end you have no reasons the can stand up to argument to believe what you do, just a bunch of memories about how stereo-types of religious people have made you feel right about your beliefs. Quote
Guest schill_dan@yahoo.com Posted October 27, 2006 Posted October 27, 2006 >Robynwitch wrote > What a load. Yeah. It came out of the new asshole I ripped you for trying to step without any game plan. When the revolution comes, you'll be compromised fo sho sucka. Quote
Guest bob young Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 schill_dan@yahoo.com wrote: > Robibnikoff wrote: > > <schill_dan@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1161465608.927915.57910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > There is no permanent underlying reality to the visual world... > > > everything is surrounded by infinite space, which means that even the > > > biggest star known to man in the universe becomes like a grain of sand, > > > that doesn't even account for the infinite nature of space. Therefore, > > > there is an infinite universe that is unseen, and in this universe > > > there are unseen worlds. God operates in the unseen world(s). There > > > is no room for God in the visual world, but there is infinite room for > > > God in the unseen world. > > > > What a load. > > -- > > Robyn > > Resident Witchypoo > > #1557 > > Hey Robyn. Do you deny that there is no permanent reality underlying > the visual world? Space is not infinite? You don't have to believe > that God exists, but you can't deny that there is an infinite unseen > universe. You would be denying science. You can't prove God but my > argument makes it so that you can't disprove God without denying > science. Then what are you left with? No argument. Just a bunch of > resentment towards a group of people (W.A.S.P.s) whom you think cause > every problem in this country, which is why people like you can slam on > people like me (I'm not a W.A.S.P by the way), but never really argue > much. Just look at the responses to my argument. They never disprove > anything I say. In the end you have no reasons the can stand up to > argument to believe what you do, just a bunch of memories about how > stereo-types of religious people have made you feel right about your > beliefs. From a 'Pro American Brit.' Kindly - what is a W.A.S.P.? Quote
Guest bob young Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 The_Sage wrote: > >Reply to article by: Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> > >Date written: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:52:34 -0600 > >MsgID:<45415852.6010203@nothingbutthe.truth> > > >It depends on what you mean by "God". > > >Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", and > >I am certain you would admit THAT "God" does exist. > >(HINT: Spinoza's GOD=NATURE, the COSMOS, > >i.e. "All that is, ever was, or ever will be." [sagan]) -- L. > > >P.S. The fact the you or I prefer NOT to call it "God" > >does in no way prove that "Spinoza's God" does not exist. > > Nor does it prove God exists. Calling nature a God will not turn nature into a > God anymore than calling a weed a rose will turn a weed into a rose. > > >Unlike the gods of the authors of the "holy books", > >it is the ONLY "God" which obviously, objectively exists. > > Remember, that depends on what you mean by "God". Not everyone will agree with > your arbitrary definition of "God", so your arbitrary definition means nothing > in the pursuit of truth. The defnition of the Christian God has changed dramatically over the past three hundred years. [no need to say more.] Cheers Bob > > > 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 The_Sage Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 >Reply to article by: bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> >Date written: 28 Oct 2006 00:05:02 -0500 >MsgID:<4542E486.BC42FCE@netvigator.com> >> >It depends on what you mean by "God". >> >Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", and >> >I am certain you would admit THAT "God" does exist. >> >(HINT: Spinoza's GOD=NATURE, the COSMOS, >> >i.e. "All that is, ever was, or ever will be." [sagan]) -- L. >> >P.S. The fact the you or I prefer NOT to call it "God" >> >does in no way prove that "Spinoza's God" does not exist. >> Nor does it prove God exists. Calling nature a God will not turn nature into a >> God anymore than calling a weed a rose will turn a weed into a rose. >> >Unlike the gods of the authors of the "holy books", >> >it is the ONLY "God" which obviously, objectively exists. >> Remember, that depends on what you mean by "God". Not everyone will agree with >> your arbitrary definition of "God", so your arbitrary definition means nothing >> in the pursuit of truth. >The defnition of the Christian God has changed dramatically over the past three >hundred years. >[no need to say more.] In other words, neither the word "Christian" or "God" have any meaning unless you pretend they have meaning. 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 Christopher A. Lee Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 On 28 Oct 2006 00:03:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote: > > >schill_dan@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Robibnikoff wrote: >> > <schill_dan@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:1161465608.927915.57910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> > > There is no permanent underlying reality to the visual world... >> > > everything is surrounded by infinite space, which means that even the >> > > biggest star known to man in the universe becomes like a grain of sand, >> > > that doesn't even account for the infinite nature of space. Therefore, >> > > there is an infinite universe that is unseen, and in this universe >> > > there are unseen worlds. God operates in the unseen world(s). There >> > > is no room for God in the visual world, but there is infinite room for >> > > God in the unseen world. >> > >> > What a load. >> > -- >> > Robyn >> > Resident Witchypoo >> > #1557 >> >> Hey Robyn. Do you deny that there is no permanent reality underlying >> the visual world? Space is not infinite? You don't have to believe >> that God exists, but you can't deny that there is an infinite unseen >> universe. You would be denying science. You can't prove God but my >> argument makes it so that you can't disprove God without denying >> science. Then what are you left with? No argument. Just a bunch of >> resentment towards a group of people (W.A.S.P.s) whom you think cause >> every problem in this country, which is why people like you can slam on >> people like me (I'm not a W.A.S.P by the way), but never really argue >> much. Just look at the responses to my argument. They never disprove >> anything I say. In the end you have no reasons the can stand up to >> argument to believe what you do, just a bunch of memories about how >> stereo-types of religious people have made you feel right about your >> beliefs. > >From a 'Pro American Brit.' > >Kindly - what is a W.A.S.P.? White Anglo Saxon Protestant Quote
Guest schill_dan@yahoo.com Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 > From a 'Pro American Brit.' > > Kindly - what is a W.A.S.P.? White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Supposedly if they didn't exist, according to some folks, all forms of oppression in the world would evaporate, the environment would never die, there would be no ethnic warfare anywhere, and people would be free to believe whatever they want without being told they're wrong. They are basically the top scapegoat for deluded, convenience-loving, relativist, anti-social morons in America. Quote
Guest schill_dan@yahoo.com Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 >How do you know that? >How do you know that? >How do you know that? Science. Math What do you believe, superstition? Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted October 28, 2006 Posted October 28, 2006 "bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message news:4542E486.BC42FCE@netvigator.com... > > > The_Sage wrote: > >> >Reply to article by: Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> >> >Date written: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:52:34 -0600 >> >MsgID:<45415852.6010203@nothingbutthe.truth> >> >> >It depends on what you mean by "God". >> >> >Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", and >> >I am certain you would admit THAT "God" does exist. >> >(HINT: Spinoza's GOD=NATURE, the COSMOS, >> >i.e. "All that is, ever was, or ever will be." [sagan]) -- L. >> >> >P.S. The fact the you or I prefer NOT to call it "God" >> >does in no way prove that "Spinoza's God" does not exist. >> >> Nor does it prove God exists. Calling nature a God will not turn nature >> into a >> God anymore than calling a weed a rose will turn a weed into a rose. >> >> >Unlike the gods of the authors of the "holy books", >> >it is the ONLY "God" which obviously, objectively exists. Then why hasn't ANYONE EVER providerd such evidence? 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.