Guest Michael Gray Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On 31 Oct 2006 16:48:27 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote: - Refer: <1162342107.396475.187580@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > >Dan Wood wrote: >> "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >> news:1162244628.653240.212340@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Dan Wood wrote: >> > > I have often thought about what kind of evidence >> > > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >> > > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers >> > > are materialist, could they possibility accept any >> > > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would >> > > constitute evidence. >> > >> > It works like this: you tell us what this thing is, then tell us what >> > the evidence for its existence is. >> > >> I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist > >That's not necessarily so, and even if true would not necessarily mean >that they couldn't be pursuaded by a purely rational argument. > > >> what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order >> to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. >> > >Just tell us what you have. That's the logical starting point. He has NOTHING. He needs to know what to fabricate for the market. -- Quote
Guest johac Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 In article <9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > I have often thought about what kind of evidence > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers > are materialist, could they possibility accept any > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would > constitute evidence. Obviously, since one cannot > rely upon the five senses to detect God. And > it is absolutely certain that one cannot dissect > God nor 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. You have just pointed out the reasons why most of us are atheists. There is no evidence for gods. If evidence were to be presented that was demonstrable, objective, and verifiable, of course we would accept the existence of a god or gods. However, I am aware of no such evidence and therefore have no reason to believe in gods. > > Dan Wood > -- John Hachmann aa #1782 "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -Voltaire Contact - Throw a .net over the .com Quote
Guest Lucifer Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Dan Wood wrote: > "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1162242361.749783.77300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > > > Azaliah wrote: > > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:30:08 -0500, while bungee jumping, > > > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> shouted thusly: > > > > > > > > > >It always amazes me when believers ask nonbelievers > > > >what it would take to convince them that some kind > > > >of 'god' exists (the believers always assume that the > > > >'god' is the one that they happen to believe in). Did > > > >it ever strike you that, if we nonbelievers knew the > > > >answer to that question, we would BE believers? > > > > > > So basically, you're upset with believers, because you > > > walk around in ignorance and then get even more > > > upset with them, when they try to educate you about it. > > > > > > Okay, gotcha. Bye now. > > > > No, we do not walk around in ignorance, we walk around with knowledge. > > Logic and reason say your god doesn't exist. To make us believe, you > > would have to convince us otherwise, we aren't atheist because we > > haven't been preached to, we are atheist because we know religion is > > not true. > > > You cannot know anything for sure _except_ death and taxes. You > will die, and you will pay taxes before and after you die! Beyond > this you can _know_ nothing! > > Dan Wood, DDS The only way knowledge is impossible is if one refuses to learn. Theists are typically such people. -- Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General Purpose Igor The Anti-Theist "Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard" > > > > -- > > > > Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and > > General Purpose Igor > > > > The Anti-Theist > > > > "Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard" > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" > > > > > > <((>< <((>< <((>< > > > > > > "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." > > > - John 17:17 > > > . > > Quote
Guest Godspeed Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:pigek2ttk0tjth2i36g71thasl4jqrjqg5@4ax.com... > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> > wrote: > > >>Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >>theory. > > What is it with you morons? Are you lying for effect, or just a > complete idiot? I suppose you think the earth is flat? Did you realise that we are able to measure that the earth is spherical - there is no doubting that. The theory of evolution is not fact. It appears likely and seems to be our best guess (most popular) at this point in time, but far from fact. Your comment can only be directed at yourself. It is not unusual that those who speak words such as yours are hiding their own failings. Please do some research before posting and please come up with something intelligent. Good luck and I hope I've helped. Peace be with you. Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:05:41 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:pigek2ttk0tjth2i36g71thasl4jqrjqg5@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >>>theory. >> >> What is it with you morons? Are you lying for effect, or just a >> complete idiot? > >I suppose you think the earth is flat? Don't be so fucking stupid. But then you're a creationist - and they are today's equivalent of flat-Earthers, in denial about reality and attacking those who understand it better than they do. > Did you realise that we are able to >measure that the earth is spherical - there is no doubting that. The theory >of evolution is not fact. It appears likely and seems to be our best guess >(most popular) at this point in time, but far from fact. More dishonesty. Evolution is a fact that won't go away no matter how many in-you-face liars like you insist otherwise. The theory of evolution is the explanation for the fact. Keep repeating that until it sinks in. >Your comment can only be directed at yourself. It is not unusual that those >who speak words such as yours are hiding their own failings. Please do some >research before posting and please come up with something intelligent. Good >luck and I hope I've helped. Peace be with you. No, liar. Creationists are like a combination of flat-Earthers and holocaust-deniers. I suggest you take your own advice. Quote
Guest Godspeed Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message news:4547D1C3.7000308@nothingbutthe.truth... > > > Godspeed wrote: >> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message >> news:4546D489.5050704@nothingbutthe.truth... >> >>> >>>Daley2005@msn.com wrote: >>> >>>>I have been reading all your different posts. I must say it is very >>>>interesting. This argument that there is no God to argue about. My >>>>argument is very simple:there is a creator God. The evidence is in >>>>your own life, just as it is in mine. Have you ever studied the human >>>>heart? I have. It is fascinating, so intricate, so detailed, so not >>>>made by chance. >>> >>>===>You are denying ewvidence for millions of years of evolution of the >>>heart. Why don't you take a course in comparativbe anatomy? >>> >>>At least read something. >>> >>>Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man >>>by NANETTE H. BISHOPRIC >>>Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami, >>>Miami, Florida 33101, USA >>> >>>"an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the >>>beginnings of life (about four billion years ago ) to the present. >>>Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning >>>energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of >>>the eukaryotes." >> >> >> Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >> theory. > > ===>You speak from ignorance. > Evolution is a FACT, otherwise you would not be here. > But there are THEORIES (plural) proposed to EXPLAIN the facts > of Evolution. And theories are NOT to pe "proven" or > "unproven". > There's a difference between theory, hypothesis, sepculation and > confabulation. > Biblical creationism is confabulation: filling in gaps in > human knowledge with fairy tales. "Intelligent Design" is > speculation. Evolutionary theories are theories. > Thanks for your response, however, your explanation is simplistic and you have categorised various ideas in a manner that you are happy with. I don't blame you wanting to make sense of these things. Good luck in your quest.... or have you stopped? All things are revealed? How simple that would be! Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:09:31 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > >"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message >news:4547D1C3.7000308@nothingbutthe.truth... >> >> >> Godspeed wrote: >>> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message >>> news:4546D489.5050704@nothingbutthe.truth... >>> >>>> >>>>Daley2005@msn.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>I have been reading all your different posts. I must say it is very >>>>>interesting. This argument that there is no God to argue about. My >>>>>argument is very simple:there is a creator God. The evidence is in >>>>>your own life, just as it is in mine. Have you ever studied the human >>>>>heart? I have. It is fascinating, so intricate, so detailed, so not >>>>>made by chance. >>>> >>>>===>You are denying ewvidence for millions of years of evolution of the >>>>heart. Why don't you take a course in comparativbe anatomy? >>>> >>>>At least read something. >>>> >>>>Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man >>>>by NANETTE H. BISHOPRIC >>>>Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami, >>>>Miami, Florida 33101, USA >>>> >>>>"an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the >>>>beginnings of life (about four billion years ago ) to the present. >>>>Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning >>>>energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of >>>>the eukaryotes." >>> >>> >>> Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >>> theory. >> >> ===>You speak from ignorance. >> Evolution is a FACT, otherwise you would not be here. >> But there are THEORIES (plural) proposed to EXPLAIN the facts >> of Evolution. And theories are NOT to pe "proven" or >> "unproven". >> There's a difference between theory, hypothesis, sepculation and >> confabulation. >> Biblical creationism is confabulation: filling in gaps in >> human knowledge with fairy tales. "Intelligent Design" is >> speculation. Evolutionary theories are theories. >> > >Thanks for your response, however, your explanation is simplistic and you >have categorised various ideas in a manner that you are happy with. I don't >blame you wanting to make sense of these things. Good luck in your quest.... >or have you stopped? All things are revealed? How simple that would be! Are you really this stupid, or just being an asshole for effect? Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 In alt.atheism On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:05:41 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> let us all know that: > >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:pigek2ttk0tjth2i36g71thasl4jqrjqg5@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >>>theory. >> >> What is it with you morons? Are you lying for effect, or just a >> complete idiot? > >I suppose you think the earth is flat? Did you realise that we are able to >measure that the earth is spherical - there is no doubting that. The theory >of evolution is not fact. It is a fact, too. Just as gravity is both theory and fact. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ql3hk2dv1luf5tnsrtfgaqsk2ep2vt6oco@4ax.com... > On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:09:31 GMT, "Godspeed" snip >>Thanks for your response, however, your explanation is simplistic and you >>have categorised various ideas in a manner that you are happy with. I >>don't >>blame you wanting to make sense of these things. Good luck in your >>quest.... >>or have you stopped? All things are revealed? How simple that would be! > > Are you really this stupid, or just being an asshole for effect? Yes! -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 Quote
Guest Lucifer Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Don Kresch wrote: > In alt.atheism On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:05:41 GMT, "Godspeed" > <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> let us all know that: > > > > >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message > >news:pigek2ttk0tjth2i36g71thasl4jqrjqg5@4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven > >>>theory. > >> > >> What is it with you morons? Are you lying for effect, or just a > >> complete idiot? > > > >I suppose you think the earth is flat? Did you realise that we are able to > >measure that the earth is spherical - there is no doubting that. The theory > >of evolution is not fact. > > It is a fact, too. Just as gravity is both theory and fact. Good analogy. Gravity uis fact, but there are theories as to the exact mechanism. Evolution is fact, but there are several theories about the minutiae. -- Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General Purpose Igor The Anti-Theist "Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard" > > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:27:10 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message >news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... >> Dan Wood wrote: >> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message >> > news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >> >>> I have often thought about what kind of evidence >> >>> would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >> >>> existence. Since virtually all disbelievers >> >>> are materialist, could they possibility accept any >> >>> evidence of a non-material being? If so what would >> >>> constitute evidence. Obviously, since one cannot >> >>> rely upon the five senses to detect God. And >> >>> it is absolutely certain that one cannot dissect >> >>> God nor 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. >> >>> >> >>> Dan Wood >> >>> >> >>> >> >> It always amazes me when believers ask nonbelievers >> >> what it would take to convince them that some kind >> >> of 'god' exists (the believers always assume that the >> >> 'god' is the one that they happen to believe in). >> >> >> > I see God as being a generic term. Perhaps, >> > it's a matter of personal opinion as to the nature >> > or essence of God. Whoever or whatever >> > created the Universe and life is God. We humans >> > have our own individual names, ideas and beliefs >> > about God. But as the creator the name is of >> > no importance. >> > >> > Did >> >> it ever strike you that, if we nonbelievers knew the >> >> answer to that question, we would BE believers? AS >> >> far as I am concerned, no acceptible evidence has >> >> ever been presented. >> >> >> > I'm sure this is true. I do not know and I doubt you know >> > what would be acceptable as evidence. >> >> I doubt that any ever will be. >> >> But...if any NEW evidence was presented, we atheists >> >> would be the first to examine it. >> >> >> > If this evidence cannot be dissected, and viewed under >> > a microscope or seen through a telescope there is no >> > way you atheist can exanine it. IOW what would >> > you recognise as evidence? >> > >> >> Let me try this tack. You seem to be claiming that you have some sort >> of ESP. You have a god detector that allows you to have some knowledge >> of the creator of the universe. You can't, however, demonstrate this >> detector in any way. Well, let's leave god out of it. You are making a >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. Why >> should I believe you? >> >I've made negative claims relating to materialism. My claim is that >no evidence susceptible to our five senses can detect the deity. >Since I cannot know your mind, I can only ask, given these >circumstances, what would would be the nature of the >evidence acceptable to you? It's a fair question! Your question would only make sense if it could be demonstrated that there exists evidence that is not material. Go ahead. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:38:20 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message >news:Q%B1h.13766$8C4.8950@tornado.socal.rr.com... >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:lLw1h.49634$vi3.3116@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> > >> > "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message >> > news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> >> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> You are making a >> >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. >Why >> >> should I believe you? >> >> >> > I've made negative claims relating to materialism. My claim is that >> > no evidence susceptible to our five senses can detect the deity. >> > Since I cannot know your mind, I can only ask, given these >> > circumstances, what would would be the nature of the >> > evidence acceptable to you? It's a fair question! >> > >> > Dan Wood, DDS >> >> What would be acceptable evidence of Quetzalcoatl >> to you? >> >Quetzalcoatl could have been an extinct bird. In South and >Central America there were huge birds that became extinct >eons ago when North and South America was bridged >by the Isthmus of Panama. >One species could have survived into recent history as a living >fossil . Bones of such a creature of recent demise would >convince me. So is that what it would take to convince you >of the one time existence of God. This bears out my original >premise that nonbelievers can accept only that which can >be examined with the five senses or the extention of these >senses. Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed "God is Dead" >on a toilet wall. >Ancient fables sometimes have a way of being rooted in fact. >The aboriginals also believed in white men with beards who >taught them would some day return. That was a long-standing >fable confirmed by the arrival of the Spaniards. You avoided the question - what a surprise! Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:57:01 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message >news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... >> Dan Wood wrote: >> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message >> > news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... >> >>> I have often thought about what kind of evidence >> >>> would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >> >>> existence. Since virtually all disbelievers >> >>> are materialist, could they possibility accept any >> >>> evidence of a non-material being? If so what would >> >>> constitute evidence. Obviously, since one cannot >> >>> rely upon the five senses to detect God. And >> >>> it is absolutely certain that one cannot dissect >> >>> God nor 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. >> >>> >> >>> Dan Wood >> >>> >> >>> >> >> It always amazes me when believers ask nonbelievers >> >> what it would take to convince them that some kind >> >> of 'god' exists (the believers always assume that the >> >> 'god' is the one that they happen to believe in). >> >> >> > I see God as being a generic term. Perhaps, >> > it's a matter of personal opinion as to the nature >> > or essence of God. Whoever or whatever >> > created the Universe and life is God. We humans >> > have our own individual names, ideas and beliefs >> > about God. But as the creator the name is of >> > no importance. >> > >> > Did >> >> it ever strike you that, if we nonbelievers knew the >> >> answer to that question, we would BE believers? AS >> >> far as I am concerned, no acceptible evidence has >> >> ever been presented. >> >> >> > I'm sure this is true. I do not know and I doubt you know >> > what would be acceptable as evidence. >> >> I doubt that any ever will be. >> >> But...if any NEW evidence was presented, we atheists >> >> would be the first to examine it. >> >> >> > If this evidence cannot be dissected, and viewed under >> > a microscope or seen through a telescope there is no >> > way you atheist can exanine it. IOW what would >> > you recognise as evidence? >> > >> >> Let me try this tack. You seem to be claiming that you have some sort >> of ESP. You have a god detector that allows you to have some knowledge >> of the creator of the universe. You can't, however, demonstrate this >> detector in any way. Well, let's leave god out of it. You are making a >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. Why >> should I believe you? >> >What I see as evidence is indirect - indirect evidence >of a creator/designer. If I see a dam, across a river >I personally have no knowledge of who or what >conceived and built this dam, but I would initially >conclude that this dam was the result of events or >a series of events, unwitnessed and unnatural. >A structure which is disrupting the natural flow >of water. IOW the very existance of the dam itself, >is _indirect_ evidence of a creator/designer. You contradict yourself in the above, since you are using observations made in the material world, and, of course, your argument assumes its conclusion. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:32:54 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >news:1162248875.698700.25110@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> >> > > It always amazes me when believers ask nonbelievers >> > > what it would take to convince them that some kind >> > > of 'god' exists (the believers always assume that the >> > > 'god' is the one that they happen to believe in). >> > > >> > I see God as being a generic term. Perhaps, >> > it's a matter of personal opinion as to the nature >> > or essence of God. Whoever or whatever >> > created the Universe and life is God. We humans >> > have our own individual names, ideas and beliefs >> > about God. >> >> Okay, tell us what yours is and what the evidence of its existence is. >> >In ten words or less!? > I will make it easier. Demonstrate that non-material evidence exists for anything. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest thomas p Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:44:36 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >news:1162244628.653240.212340@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> > I have often thought about what kind of evidence >> > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >> > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers >> > are materialist, could they possibility accept any >> > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would >> > constitute evidence. >> >> It works like this: you tell us what this thing is, then tell us what >> the evidence for its existence is. >> >I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist >what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order >to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. No, your question is both dishonest and absurd. Thomas P. "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" (Kierkegaard) Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:tjhgk29f4sev65ajp8k77q8qegbgv1c58i@4ax.com... > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:38:20 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message > >news:Q%B1h.13766$8C4.8950@tornado.socal.rr.com... > >> > >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:lLw1h.49634$vi3.3116@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > >> > > >> > "Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message > >> > news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... > >> >> Dan Wood wrote: > >> >> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message > >> >> > news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > >> > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> >> You are making a > >> >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. > >Why > >> >> should I believe you? > >> >> > >> > I've made negative claims relating to materialism. My claim is that > >> > no evidence susceptible to our five senses can detect the deity. > >> > Since I cannot know your mind, I can only ask, given these > >> > circumstances, what would would be the nature of the > >> > evidence acceptable to you? It's a fair question! > >> > > >> > Dan Wood, DDS > >> > >> What would be acceptable evidence of Quetzalcoatl > >> to you? > >> > >Quetzalcoatl could have been an extinct bird. In South and > >Central America there were huge birds that became extinct > >eons ago when North and South America was bridged > >by the Isthmus of Panama. > >One species could have survived into recent history as a living > >fossil . Bones of such a creature of recent demise would > >convince me. So is that what it would take to convince you > >of the one time existence of God. This bears out my original > >premise that nonbelievers can accept only that which can > >be examined with the five senses or the extention of these > >senses. Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed "God is Dead" > >on a toilet wall. > >Ancient fables sometimes have a way of being rooted in fact. > >The aboriginals also believed in white men with beards who > >taught them would some day return. That was a long-standing > >fable confirmed by the arrival of the Spaniards. > > You avoided the question - what a surprise! > I did not. I said bones would convince me. Dan Wood, DDS > > Thomas P. > > "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" > > (Kierkegaard) > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:heshk25tgt5rmgl1d1il7211o1b54vkg14@4ax.com... > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:57:01 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Rusty Sites" <SpamMeSucker@xemaps.com> wrote in message > >news:12kd515hcuk3fd9@news.supernews.com... > >> Dan Wood wrote: > >> > "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message > >> > news:R9adnUg6q_lR_dvYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:9nq1h.14442$Fd7.5946@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > >> >>> I have often thought about what kind of evidence > >> >>> would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's > >> >>> existence. Since virtually all disbelievers > >> >>> are materialist, could they possibility accept any > >> >>> evidence of a non-material being? If so what would > >> >>> constitute evidence. Obviously, since one cannot > >> >>> rely upon the five senses to detect God. And > >> >>> it is absolutely certain that one cannot dissect > >> >>> God nor 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. > >> >>> > >> >>> Dan Wood > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> It always amazes me when believers ask nonbelievers > >> >> what it would take to convince them that some kind > >> >> of 'god' exists (the believers always assume that the > >> >> 'god' is the one that they happen to believe in). > >> >> > >> > I see God as being a generic term. Perhaps, > >> > it's a matter of personal opinion as to the nature > >> > or essence of God. Whoever or whatever > >> > created the Universe and life is God. We humans > >> > have our own individual names, ideas and beliefs > >> > about God. But as the creator the name is of > >> > no importance. > >> > > >> > Did > >> >> it ever strike you that, if we nonbelievers knew the > >> >> answer to that question, we would BE believers? AS > >> >> far as I am concerned, no acceptible evidence has > >> >> ever been presented. > >> >> > >> > I'm sure this is true. I do not know and I doubt you know > >> > what would be acceptable as evidence. > >> >> I doubt that any ever will be. > >> >> But...if any NEW evidence was presented, we atheists > >> >> would be the first to examine it. > >> >> > >> > If this evidence cannot be dissected, and viewed under > >> > a microscope or seen through a telescope there is no > >> > way you atheist can exanine it. IOW what would > >> > you recognise as evidence? > >> > > >> > >> Let me try this tack. You seem to be claiming that you have some sort > >> of ESP. You have a god detector that allows you to have some knowledge > >> of the creator of the universe. You can't, however, demonstrate this > >> detector in any way. Well, let's leave god out of it. You are making a > >> very extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to support it. Why > >> should I believe you? > >> > > >What I see as evidence is indirect - indirect evidence > >of a creator/designer. If I see a dam, across a river > >I personally have no knowledge of who or what > >conceived and built this dam, but I would initially > >conclude that this dam was the result of events or > >a series of events, unwitnessed and unnatural. > >A structure which is disrupting the natural flow > >of water. IOW the very existance of the dam itself, > >is _indirect_ evidence of a creator/designer. > > You contradict yourself in the above, since you are using observations > made in the material world, and, of course, your argument assumes its > conclusion. > Actually, I didn't. I attempted to demonstrate that the result of some past activities could be seen as indirect evidence. A 2500 year old dam in Cambodia is _indirect_ evidence of past activities inferring a builder. Why is this such a difficult concept? > > Thomas P. > > "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" > > (Kierkegaard) > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:tqhgk21tpqnrp758lhl2qifs30saulf687@4ax.com... > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:32:54 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message > >news:1162248875.698700.25110@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> Dan Wood wrote: > >> > >> > > It always amazes me when believers ask nonbelievers > >> > > what it would take to convince them that some kind > >> > > of 'god' exists (the believers always assume that the > >> > > 'god' is the one that they happen to believe in). > >> > > > >> > I see God as being a generic term. Perhaps, > >> > it's a matter of personal opinion as to the nature > >> > or essence of God. Whoever or whatever > >> > created the Universe and life is God. We humans > >> > have our own individual names, ideas and beliefs > >> > about God. > >> > >> Okay, tell us what yours is and what the evidence of its existence is. > >> > >In ten words or less!? > > > > I will make it easier. Demonstrate that non-material evidence exists > for anything. > Would you accept indirect evidence as viable? > > Thomas P. > > "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" > > (Kierkegaard) > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 "thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:i0igk2t6tv1u3jdq4s5de1ietce3s2sqti@4ax.com... > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:44:36 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message > >news:1162244628.653240.212340@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> Dan Wood wrote: > >> > I have often thought about what kind of evidence > >> > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's > >> > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers > >> > are materialist, could they possibility accept any > >> > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would > >> > constitute evidence. > >> > >> It works like this: you tell us what this thing is, then tell us what > >> the evidence for its existence is. > >> > > >I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist > >what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order > >to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. > > No, your question is both dishonest and absurd. > No, it is not. I have no idea as to what would be acceptable to people who cannot think except in terms of materal naturalism. That which I see as evidence does not impress those who cannot get beyond the narrow channel of materalism. And it is obvious that there is no answer to my question. Dan Wood, > > Thomas P. > > "Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards" > > (Kierkegaard) > Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:27:32 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: > >"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >news:i0igk2t6tv1u3jdq4s5de1ietce3s2sqti@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:44:36 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >> >news:1162244628.653240.212340@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> Dan Wood wrote: >> >> > I have often thought about what kind of evidence >> >> > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >> >> > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers >> >> > are materialist, could they possibility accept any >> >> > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would >> >> > constitute evidence. >> >> >> >> It works like this: you tell us what this thing is, then tell us what >> >> the evidence for its existence is. >> >> >> >> >I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist >> >what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order >> >to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. >> >> No, your question is both dishonest and absurd. >> >No, it is not. I have no idea as to what would be acceptable to >people who cannot think except in terms of materal naturalism. >That which I see as evidence does not impress those who >cannot get beyond the narrow channel of materalism. And it >is obvious that there is no answer to my question. You're doing it again. Inventing falsehoods and using them as ad hominems. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:05:41 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> wrote: - Refer: <p402h.57061$rP1.7459@news-server.bigpond.net.au> > >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >news:pigek2ttk0tjth2i36g71thasl4jqrjqg5@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> >> wrote: >> >> >>>Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >>>theory. >> >> What is it with you morons? Are you lying for effect, or just a >> complete idiot? > >I suppose you think the earth is flat? Did you realise that we are able to >measure that the earth is spherical - there is no doubting that. The theory >of evolution is not fact. It appears likely and seems to be our best guess You are deliberately conflating the THEORY of evolution, with the FACT of evolution!!! WHY THE FUCK DO YOU PERSIST IN THIS FRAUD???? >(most popular) at this point in time, but far from fact. > >Your comment can only be directed at yourself. It is not unusual that those >who speak words such as yours are hiding their own failings. Please do some >research before posting and please come up with something intelligent. Good >luck and I hope I've helped. Peace be with you. -- Quote
Guest Christopher A. Lee Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:03:55 +1030, Michael Gray r<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:05:41 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> >wrote: > - Refer: <p402h.57061$rP1.7459@news-server.bigpond.net.au> >> >>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >>news:pigek2ttk0tjth2i36g71thasl4jqrjqg5@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >>>>theory. >>> >>> What is it with you morons? Are you lying for effect, or just a >>> complete idiot? >> >>I suppose you think the earth is flat? Did you realise that we are able to >>measure that the earth is spherical - there is no doubting that. The theory >>of evolution is not fact. It appears likely and seems to be our best guess > >You are deliberately conflating the THEORY of evolution, with the FACT >of evolution!!! He's been corrected several times. >WHY THE FUCK DO YOU PERSIST IN THIS FRAUD???? Because he's either an idiot or a liar. As evidenced by his refusal to be corrected and his amateur-psychologised slanders. >>(most popular) at this point in time, but far from fact. >> >>Your comment can only be directed at yourself. It is not unusual that those >>who speak words such as yours are hiding their own failings. Please do some >>research before posting and please come up with something intelligent. Good >>luck and I hope I've helped. Peace be with you. What is it about their religion, that turns them into such sanctimoniously nasty, unthinking, pig-ignorant morons they amateur-psychologise their own lies about others? Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:16:54 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote: - Refer: <rtdik2dji7bl5ekva80sfl499tj1ohuh4d@4ax.com> >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:03:55 +1030, Michael Gray >r<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:05:41 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> >>wrote: >> - Refer: <p402h.57061$rP1.7459@news-server.bigpond.net.au> >>> >>>"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >>>news:pigek2ttk0tjth2i36g71thasl4jqrjqg5@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:36:17 GMT, "Godspeed" <bl719293@bigpond.net.au> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Don't get too excited about evolution. It is still merely an unproven >>>>>theory. >>>> >>>> What is it with you morons? Are you lying for effect, or just a >>>> complete idiot? >>> >>>I suppose you think the earth is flat? Did you realise that we are able to >>>measure that the earth is spherical - there is no doubting that. The theory >>>of evolution is not fact. It appears likely and seems to be our best guess >> >>You are deliberately conflating the THEORY of evolution, with the FACT >>of evolution!!! > >He's been corrected several times. I did not know that. >>WHY THE FUCK DO YOU PERSIST IN THIS FRAUD???? > >Because he's either an idiot or a liar. As evidenced by his refusal to >be corrected and his amateur-psychologised slanders. I suspect that he has been rendered an imbecile by his theological brainwashing. >>>(most popular) at this point in time, but far from fact. >>> >>>Your comment can only be directed at yourself. It is not unusual that those >>>who speak words such as yours are hiding their own failings. Please do some >>>research before posting and please come up with something intelligent. Good >>>luck and I hope I've helped. Peace be with you. > >What is it about their religion, that turns them into such >sanctimoniously nasty, unthinking, pig-ignorant morons they >amateur-psychologise their own lies about others? The self-defence mechanism of an mind infection that sees itself about to be overwhelmed by logic and facts. I just lets loose with all the weapons that it has to hand in a desperate attempt at survival. That is the proximate logic. There is no distal logic behind it, as you have noticed. (In less desperate circumstances, the virus can put on a show of secondary logic, if it is judged to be cost effective.) -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:32:43 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote: - Refer: <v28ik2peja3qf5f23u81vnqvni18s85uff@4ax.com> >On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:27:32 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> >>"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >>news:i0igk2t6tv1u3jdq4s5de1ietce3s2sqti@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:44:36 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >>> >news:1162244628.653240.212340@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>> >> >>> >> Dan Wood wrote: >>> >> > I have often thought about what kind of evidence >>> >> > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >>> >> > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers >>> >> > are materialist, could they possibility accept any >>> >> > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would >>> >> > constitute evidence. >>> >> >>> >> It works like this: you tell us what this thing is, then tell us what >>> >> the evidence for its existence is. >>> >> >>> >>> >I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist >>> >what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order >>> >to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. >>> >>> No, your question is both dishonest and absurd. >>> >>No, it is not. I have no idea as to what would be acceptable to >>people who cannot think except in terms of materal naturalism. >>That which I see as evidence does not impress those who >>cannot get beyond the narrow channel of materalism. And it >>is obvious that there is no answer to my question. > >You're doing it again. Inventing falsehoods and using them as ad >hominems. He is floundering around, worrying about why he has ZERO evidence for his beliefs. This plainly disturbs him to the point where his sociopathy forces him to confabulate to an astounding degree, for a supposedly educated adult. -- Quote
Guest John Baker Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:45:26 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:32:43 -0500, Christopher A. Lee ><calee@optonline.net> wrote: > - Refer: <v28ik2peja3qf5f23u81vnqvni18s85uff@4ax.com> >>On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:27:32 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> >>>"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message >>>news:i0igk2t6tv1u3jdq4s5de1ietce3s2sqti@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:44:36 -0500, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > >>>> >"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message >>>> >news:1162244628.653240.212340@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>>> >> >>>> >> Dan Wood wrote: >>>> >> > I have often thought about what kind of evidence >>>> >> > would it take to convince nonbelievers of God's >>>> >> > existence. Since virtually all disbelievers >>>> >> > are materialist, could they possibility accept any >>>> >> > evidence of a non-material being? If so what would >>>> >> > constitute evidence. >>>> >> >>>> >> It works like this: you tell us what this thing is, then tell us what >>>> >> the evidence for its existence is. >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >I asked this question, given that nonbelievers are materialist >>>> >what would the nature of the evidence have to be in order >>>> >to be acceptable to them? Your question is redundant. >>>> >>>> No, your question is both dishonest and absurd. >>>> >>>No, it is not. I have no idea as to what would be acceptable to >>>people who cannot think except in terms of materal naturalism. >>>That which I see as evidence does not impress those who >>>cannot get beyond the narrow channel of materalism. And it >>>is obvious that there is no answer to my question. >> >>You're doing it again. Inventing falsehoods and using them as ad >>hominems. > >He is floundering around, worrying about why he has ZERO evidence for >his beliefs. >This plainly disturbs him to the point where his sociopathy forces him >to confabulate to an astounding degree, for a supposedly educated >adult. Dan may be an adult chronologically, but like all theists, on an emotional and intellectual level he's still a child who believes in Santa Claus. As for his being educated... he may well be, but his posting history shows little evidence of it. 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.