Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> said: >Jim07D6 wrote: >> Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: >> >> > >> > >> > >> >On 12/22/06 12:01 AM, in article >> >1166774491.179371.237130@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet >> >Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Someone wrote: >> >>> On 12/20/06 12:59 PM, in article >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> I think they serve as a good starting point for a moral compass. Take >> >>> Judaism and the 10 commandments, for example, >> >> >> >> >> >> there is no such 'thing' as 'the ten commandments' in Judaism or the >> >> hebrew religion of the TaNaKh. >> >> >> > >> >The 10 Commandments are indeed part of Jewish Law (as are 603 OTHER >> >commandments). They are called the "Decalogue" (10 statements) by the >> >Greeks.. Aseret Ha-something or another in Hebrew (which also stood for "10 >> >Statements"). >> > >> >I guess you're just trying to start an argument. 'Tain't gonna happen. I'm >> >just going to ignore you when you say ignorant stuff again. >> >> It's all a matter of convention. The "ten commandments" are viewed by >> some as the foundational wellspring of all Jewish laws. > > > >they are not "commandments" they are `dvarim` >--abstractions /categories of hundreds of `mitzvot` "commandments". >"Jesus" i.e. `Iesou` `yeshua` taught these hundreds of mitzvot and >naturally obeyed them. > >the Christian revision of "ten commandments" is a revision of torah >--impossible (according to torah) and basically a complete abandonment >of the hebrew religion, which is rooted in torah which itself is a >covenant which is linked to the land `aretz` not "immortality". > > >> But Jesus's >> admonitions to love God and love thy neighbor > >is irrelevant. >but there again, there is more than one distinct "Jesus" in the New >testament, an anthology of books from different cults/religions. >take for instance the Gospel of John, where "Jesus" is (according to >p75) the only "begotten God" --contradicting Pauline theology (not >mention the other Gospels). > >call them commandments if you don't care what they are in reality. >Christianity has no commandments --it has "the law of Christ" --go try >and define that. > >any appeal to nomov in the New testament must be an appeal to torah. >so what Christianity is saying is that it can 'reduce' torah to general >principles. >but that is what the ten `dvarim` were all along --the ten principles >of the hundreds of mitzvot. > >it is as if one claims to own a cow, and produces a set of horns, but >there is no cow attached to them ! It is the case that specific situations require specific rulings, and with a specific ruling in hand, there is little use for a generality (abstraction). -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest stoney Posted December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 15:16:06 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >Chris wrote: >> The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the >> presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. You leave no room >> for the supernatural. You can't handle the idea of interjecting a >> supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow >> the rigors of science that you so love. > >Wrong. It has nothing to do with emotions like love. The reason the >supernatural is not included in science is because there is no evidence >for it. What exactly are the equations for the supernatural? > >> You also can't handle the idea of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your >man-made definition. > >The atheist defintion of god is "imaginary super being." All we are >doing is pointing out logical holes in god as defined by theists. >Perhaps you have your own definition of god, let's examine that. > >> You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why >> would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? >> Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere >> mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't >> believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of >> theories and pass it off as something more believable.. > >Man, you just string one fallacy after the other, don't you? > >> What happens? >> These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a >> bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created >> them, or anything of the sort. > >You're on a bleeding atheist newsgroup where that's exactly what we >talk about. You just don't like our answers. > >> Instead they are content to follow >> their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate >> satisfaction in life > >I know I snipped the end of your sentence, but this is the best >sentence you've written so far! Don't spoil it! > >> in something that could very well be contrary to >> the very will of God. > >Awwwww. Oh well, nice try. > >> Why? Because some brilliant scientist who >> rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the >> existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole >> truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural >> being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is >> the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his >> followers. > >Richard Dawkins has the shit scared out of you, doesn't he? Look. >Dawkins is just a regular human being. He eats, drinks, shits, and >fucks just like the rest of us. What is it with people like you who >think you can't agree with someone without becoming their sheep? It's the slave mentality. -- 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 December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 21:07:02 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism > >Chris wrote: >> Neil Kelsey wrote: >> > Chris wrote: >> > > I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed >> > > through >> > > this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... >> > >> > What fallacies? >> > >> > > The best you can >> > > do it call me a liar >> > >> > Where did I ever call you a liar? >> > >> >> I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. >> >> > > and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support >> > > your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. >> > >> > I'm sorry if you regard cracking open a book and studying as jumping >> > through hoops. >> > >> > I'm beginning to think that theism is another word for intellectuall >> > laziness. We've read your Bible, why can't you show a little >> > curiousity? >> > >> >> I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual >> people who support the view that God created the universe. > >See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to >authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed >"intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY >HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as >intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, >their claims are irrelevant. > >> I do have >> curiousity for these things. I just think you should think carefully >> about basing your eternity on something that is intellectually curious >> without substantial proof > >There is substantial proof. There is no doubt the Earth will end. It's >the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system (the Earth), >entropy (chaos) increases. That is the laws of physics, and they are >universal. The Sun WILL die out, the Earth along with it. Don't worry, >it won't happen anytime soon. > >> and have an open mind to something beyond >> your mathematical theorems which seem to be >> way out there... > >They are not way out there. They are real and true. Pick up a textbook, >learn something, the real world is much more fascinating than the make >believe one. > >> Particularly when it is conceivable that a >> supernatural being who transends the laws of physics could have created >> the universe. > >That is conceivable only in the human imagination. In the real world, >the supernatural violates the laws of physics, and the laws of physics >cannot be violated. It is also conceivable cretinous slaves like Chris will get some; backbone, education, intellect, honesty, empathy, compassion, humanity, curiosity, and generosity. Such is sheer fantasy, I'm sorry to say. -- 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 December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:36:40 -0500, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism >On 13 Dec 2006 07:23:50 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >wrote: > >> >>Chris wrote: >>> Neil Kelsey wrote: >>> > Chris wrote: >>> > > Neil Kelsey wrote: >>> > > > Chris wrote: >>> > > > > I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed >>> > > > > through >>> > > > > this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... >>> > > > >>> > > > What fallacies? >>> > > > >>> > > > > The best you can >>> > > > > do it call me a liar >>> > > > >>> > > > Where did I ever call you a liar? >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. >>> > > >>> > > > > and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support >>> > > > > your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. >>> > > > >>> > > > I'm sorry if you regard cracking open a book and studying as jumping >>> > > > through hoops. >>> > > > >>> > > > I'm beginning to think that theism is another word for intellectuall >>> > > > laziness. We've read your Bible, why can't you show a little >>> > > > curiousity? >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual >>> > > people who support the view that God created the universe. >>> > >>> > See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to >>> > authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed >>> > "intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY >>> > HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as >>> > intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, >>> > their claims are irrelevant. >>> > >>> >>> No, it is an appeal to open your mind up to other explanations to what >>> happen >>> prior to 10 ^-43 seconds after the Big Bang and find a plausible >>> theory. >> >>Not much I can do if you don't regard evidence as important. > >What these guys don't seem to understand that if _anybody_ offers >_anything_ as an explanation for the big bang, they have to justify >it. Whether they are Hawking or anybody else. And that these are >always provisional until confirmed or refuted by real world evidence, >observation, etc. > >And that nobody makes an arbitrary pick of different explanations and >decides that one of them is correct and all the others wrong. Which is >what "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> seems to imagine. > >He doesn't understand that he has to do the same instead of lying >about people not "opening up their mind". Let him provide the evidence >he refuses to give, and it will be subject to the same methods as >Hawking's would be. The cowardice, abject ignorance, and dishonesty works against what they say they're trying to do. But then mental toddlers aren't known for anything but slack-jawed drooling. >Which is probably why he refuses. It won't stand up to the least >scrutiny. > >He can't grasp that if he invokes a god he first has to prove that. A clear, concise, and coherant definition for the g-o-d letter string has to be offered before there's anything to look for or consider. -- 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 December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 13:58:54 -0800, tereshka@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism > >Chris kirjoitti: > >> Neil Kelsey wrote: >> > Chris wrote: >> > > Neil Kelsey wrote: >> > > > Chris wrote: >> > > > > I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed >> > > > > through >> > > > > this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... >> > > > >> > > > What fallacies? >> > > > >> > > > > The best you can >> > > > > do it call me a liar >> > > > >> > > > Where did I ever call you a liar? >> > > > >> > > >> > > I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. >> > > >> > > > > and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support >> > > > > your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. >> > > > >> > > > I'm sorry if you regard cracking open a book and studying as jumping >> > > > through hoops. >> > > > >> > > > I'm beginning to think that theism is another word for intellectuall >> > > > laziness. We've read your Bible, why can't you show a little >> > > > curiousity? >> > > > >> > > >> > > I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual >> > > people who support the view that God created the universe. >> > >> > See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to >> > authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed >> > "intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY >> > HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as >> > intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, >> > their claims are irrelevant. >> > >> >> No, it is an appeal to open your mind up to other explanations to what >> happen >> prior to 10 ^-43 seconds after the Big Bang and find a plausible >> theory. >> >> > > I do have >> > > curiousity for these things. I just think you should think carefully >> > > about basing your eternity on something that is intellectually curious >> > > without substantial proof >> > >> > There is substantial proof. There is no doubt the Earth will end. It's >> > the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system (the Earth), >> > entropy (chaos) increases. That is the laws of physics, and they are >> > universal. The Sun WILL die out, the Earth along with it. Don't worry, >> > it won't happen anytime soon. >> > >> >> Agree,all your laws of physics do work in this closed system. My >> contention >> is that God is outside of this system and created these laws, like the >> second >> law of thermodynamics... You contend that there is some vacuum of >> nothing >> which contains something... Come on, listen to yourself. Maybe the >> first >> step to you finding God is for you to realize that these theorems of >> yours >> won't work, so keep studying... Maybe then, you'll begin your search >> for God. Until >> then, have a good night. >> >> Chris > >Once again, no one is contending or saying that there is "some sort of >vacuum of nothing which contains something". You're misreading and >miscasting what spacetime is. Of course theorems, theories and >observation won't work in your mind when you haven't bothered >understanding what they say in the first place. Kind of like saying >that a foreign language doesn't work because you can't be bothered >learning it properly. (Hint: All speakers of a language seem to be able >to communicate with one another, even if you can't.) > >Given that you're not too interested in the implications of scientific >inquiry for your arguments, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that >you're not posting because you really want to discuss anything. Think >about this a little - how many people do you think you will convert, or >sow the seeds for theism in, by faking a discussion about science and >ignoring what they say to you? You didn't consider my points, why >should I do you the courtesy of considering yours? Chris, like the rest of his braindead and pig ignorant kind, don't have a point. All they've got is toddler level fears and droolings. Instead of playing quietly, in heavy and swift traffic, they've continually got to pester the adults. These fools need to be spanked soundly and sent to bed without supper! -- 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 December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 16:24:15 -0800, tereshka@gmail.com wrote in alt.atheism > >Chris kirjoitti: > >> The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the >> presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. > >You mean as opposed to Christians, who do not feel that they know >undeniable facts about the world? > >You leave no room >> for the supernatural. You can't handle the idea of interjecting a >> supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow >> the rigors of science that you so love. > >You do realize that per definition, something supernatural breaks the >laws of science? Perhaps you meant 'irrational'. > >Very, very few scientists (I've never met any) think that science can >answer all questions any more than political scientists believe that >politics can answer all questions, or linguists think that >understanding language will answer all questions. If you don't like >science, then perhaps you can suggest a better way of gathering >understanding about the natural world. (I'd like to remind you that the >computer you're typing on wasn't brought to you by religion.) > >You also can't handle the idea >> of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your man-made >> definition. You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why >> would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? >> Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere >> mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't >> believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of >> theories and pass it off as something more believable.. What happens? >> These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a >> bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created >> them, or anything of the sort. Instead they are content to follow >> their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate >> satisfaction in life in something that could very well be contrary to >> the very will of God. Why? Because some brilliant scientist who >> rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the >> existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole >> truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural >> being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is >> the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his >> followers. > >This is probably a stupid question, but did Dawkins write a book or >something? It isn't a stupid question. He wrote several, all which totally piss off superstitious bronze age barbarians like Chris. >Here's a less stupid question: How does one measure degree of >profoundness of truths? By the closeness of said 'truth' to Chris' ignorant sect of superstition. > How do you know which truths are more profound >than others? His are the most profund {in the stupidity catagory} because they're {gasp} his! -- 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 December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:12:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" ><jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > - Refer: <k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> >>Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >: > >Define "God", as you implicitly assume that such a thing exists. "Thou Art God."-Michael Valentine. -- 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 December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:34:16 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in alt.atheism > >"John D Newport" <johndnewport@valornet.com> wrote in message >news:b63a4$457f6da3$d861bc26$6086@ALLTEL.NET... >> >> <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1165962627.069420.36940@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> John D Newport wrote: >>>> "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk... > ><snip> > >>> >>> If God is outside the realm of human knowledge, how can She reveal >>> anything to us? Anything that She reveals to us is in the realm of >>> human knowledge, and therefore Her will is too.. which means She is as >>> well. >>> >> >> I was trying to communicate to this person with the assumption that they >> may deny spiritually provided information, including the information >> provided in the Bible. I was also focusing on the subjects that he wants >> to discuss or argue about. > >What is spiritually provided information? Swamp gas. >How is the Bible spiritually provided information? The drooler said so. >What value is spiritually provided information? Less than a thirteen dollar usd bill. -- 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 Michael Gray Posted December 23, 2006 Posted December 23, 2006 On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:27 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: - Refer: <7mvqo29h44mh2q0moke1ufjnrmtjaio4cn@4ax.com> >On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:12:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >wrote in alt.atheism > >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >><jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >> - Refer: <k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> >>>Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >>: >> >>Define "God", as you implicitly assume that such a thing exists. > >"Thou Art God."-Michael Valentine. Who was he talking to at the time? His milkman? (At least it's a far more sensible answer than I am likely to get from "josh") -- Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, stoney wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:44:35 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> > wrote in alt.atheism > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, in alt.atheism >> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in >> <Pine.NEB.4.62.0612170433190.25446@sdf.lonestar.org>: >>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote: >>>> >>>>>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I >>>>>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are >>>>>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this >>> >>> >>>>>> Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define >>>>>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that >>>>>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both >>>>>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only >>>>>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those >>>>>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room. >>>> >>>>> Correct. >>>> >>>> The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality >>>> in the same room. >>> >>> Also correct. That is why when an atheist demands objective >>> verifiable proof of the existence of God he never gets what he >>> asks for. The believers who make a foolish attempt at presenting >>> that kind of proof to an atheist always fall on their faces. >>> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a >>> simple realization. >> >> Valid proofs are a logical conception. Valid evidence is objective. >> Religions have neither to support their claims about the gods. > > Might I suggest calling 'religion' the superstition that it is? Nobody in my Religion 101 class defined religion as a superstition. On the first day of class in Religion 101 the professor will typically ask all the students to write down on a piece of notebook paper their very own definitions of what they think religion is, and not to put their names on the papers, and then to pass the papers forward. Then the professor reads the definitions to the class. The lesson learned in this classroom exercise is that every person has a different opinion of what religion is. Even students who went to different colleges together will typically tell the same tale about how went the first day of class in Religion 101. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:38:06 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:58:53 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote >in alt.atheism > >>On 13 Dec 2006 14:34:43 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>-- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your >>>research just might find God >> >>Just as soon as you post an objective observation of a god there will >>be some research. Looking for something you want to exist isn't >>research, it's religion. > >Disagree. It's superstition. Religion is merely new 'wrapping paper' >with the same old rotten fish. 'Religion' is a member of the set 'superstition'. Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Jim07D6 wrote: > "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> said: > > > >they are not "commandments" they are `dvarim` > >--abstractions /categories of hundreds of `mitzvot` "commandments". > > > >"Jesus" i.e. `Iesou` `yeshua` taught these hundreds of mitzvot and > >naturally obeyed them. > > > >the Christian revision of "ten commandments" is a revision of torah > >--impossible (according to torah) and basically a complete abandonment > >of the hebrew religion, which is rooted in torah which itself is a > >covenant which is linked to the land `aretz` not "immortality". > > > > > >call them commandments if you don't care what they are in reality. > >Christianity has no commandments --it has "the law of Christ" --go try > >and define that. > > > >any appeal to nomov in the New testament must be an appeal to torah. > >so what Christianity is saying is that it can 'reduce' torah to general > >principles. > >but that is what the ten `dvarim` were all along --the ten principles > >of the hundreds of mitzvot. > > > >it is as if one claims to own a cow, and produces a set of horns, but > >there is no cow attached to them ! > > It is the case that specific situations require specific rulings, and > with a specific ruling in hand, there is little use for a generality > (abstraction). `torah` is a unit, and explicitly defines itself as such ; it must function this way since it is a `brit` /covenant/contract ; `torah` cannot (possibly) be observed selectively ; it must be observed NON-selectively ; if it is observed selectively such violates torah --a self-abnegation, self-invalidation. as already explained, the sections of the NT concerning torah are derived from an earlier Aramaic account of the Barabbas character --a Qumran Essene attempting to stimulate divine intervention by armed/bloody cleansing of the temple. cf. Zekaryah, Daniel, and the passage concerning "he drove out the moneychangers" (with a rope). THAT character is congruent with the speaker in Matthew 5:17-18. The other character is pythagorean and uses multiple levels of interpretation to aggravate his opponents cf. John chapt.8 riddles (contradictions at a superficial level, non-sequiturs, and spirit-material contrast riddles, as well as time-space riddles and ancestry riddles etc) note the direct reference to mathetai (mathematikoi) in relation to "hearers" `akousmatikoi` in any case --there is NO SUCH THING as "ten commandments" --that is a fabrication --they don't exist. they cannot exist--they don't mean anything more than the letters a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j. Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun] wrote: > stoney wrote: > > > > > >Valid proofs are a logical conception. Valid evidence is objective. > > >Religions have neither to support their claims about the gods. > > > > Might I suggest calling 'religion' the superstition that it is? > > > > > quite a one-sided and silly view to say the least. > "religions" may and often do contain super-stitions and zoomorphic > deities. > 'religion' requires none of those. > > without a language there could be no 'religion' to provide a root > proposal. > without 'religion' we would not have human 'cult' --cultures. > > learn what 'religion' truly is, > it's the essence of all human contexts. and i would add, for anyone interested, that science and religion are at the same fundamental level and even function sym-bitoically, interdependtly ; for where is there a cult proposal that does not lay claim to `ex-perentia` and where is there an `ex-perentia` that is not concluded in a cult context. abandon these false dialectics or continue spinning in circles. Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote > stoney wrote: >> >> Might I suggest calling 'religion' the superstition that it is? > > Nobody in my Religion 101 class defined religion as a superstition. > On the first day of class in Religion 101 the professor will typically ask > all the students to write down on a piece of notebook paper their > very own definitions of what they think religion is, and not to put > their names on the papers, and then to pass the papers forward. Then > the professor reads the definitions to the class. The lesson learned > in this classroom exercise is that every person has a different opinion of > what religion is. Even students who went to different colleges > together will typically tell the same tale about how went the first day > of class in Religion 101. That's when they begin Religion 101. By the time they complete Religion 101they should have some idea of what religion really is. --Wax Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 stoney wrote: > On 12 Dec 2006 21:07:02 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote in alt.atheism > > > > >Chris wrote: > >> Neil Kelsey wrote: > >> > Chris wrote: > >> > > I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed > >> > > through > >> > > this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... > >> > > >> > What fallacies? > >> > > >> > > The best you can > >> > > do it call me a liar > >> > > >> > Where did I ever call you a liar? > >> > > >> > >> I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. > >> > >> > > and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support > >> > > your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. > >> > > >> > I'm sorry if you regard cracking open a book and studying as jumping > >> > through hoops. > >> > > >> > I'm beginning to think that theism is another word for intellectuall > >> > laziness. We've read your Bible, why can't you show a little > >> > curiousity? > >> > > >> > >> I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual > >> people who support the view that God created the universe. > > > >See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to > >authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed > >"intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY > >HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as > >intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, > >their claims are irrelevant. > > > >> I do have > >> curiousity for these things. I just think you should think carefully > >> about basing your eternity on something that is intellectually curious > >> without substantial proof > > > >There is substantial proof. There is no doubt the Earth will end. It's > >the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system (the Earth), > >entropy (chaos) increases. That is the laws of physics, and they are > >universal. The Sun WILL die out, the Earth along with it. Don't worry, > >it won't happen anytime soon. > > > >> and have an open mind to something beyond > >> your mathematical theorems which seem to be > >> way out there... > > > >They are not way out there. They are real and true. Pick up a textbook, > >learn something, the real world is much more fascinating than the make > >believe one. > > > >> Particularly when it is conceivable that a > >> supernatural being who transends the laws of physics could have created > >> the universe. > > > >That is conceivable only in the human imagination. In the real world, > >the supernatural violates the laws of physics, and the laws of physics > >cannot be violated. > > It is also conceivable cretinous slaves like Chris will get some; > backbone, education, intellect, honesty, empathy, compassion, humanity, > curiosity, and generosity. Such is sheer fantasy, I'm sorry to say. You are the ones living in the fantasy world thinking that life came out of nothing. It is amazing you could believe such a ridiculous assertion. I can only urge anyone listening to not lose hope. You'll be amazed what you can find by getting on your knees and crying out to the one true God. Sorry to say, but He isn't someone who can be proven through physical evidence (He isn't matter, but Spirit), or something you can boast in finding through your superior knowledge. He makes a level playing field to the rich and the poor, the illiterate and the educated... He will NOT show miracles but rather expects you to simply trust in Him, even without full understanding and explanation of why He does things that He does. Maybe some day you will get to this point. Don't wait too long, the more you indulge yourself in this world, the further your conscience is darkened, and you may not have that opportunity to return... The solution is far simpler than any mathematical formulas you've commited your life too... The problem is very simple, we are all condemnded in our sin and His face in turned against us beause of our evil. He has provided a way out though and it isn't through your scientific evidence, it is simply trusting in Christ to save us from this judgement and you will be reconciled back to the God. Once you do this, you'll be amazed how much things will change. Your eyes will finally be open and you will see and understand the non-sense you things we are talking about. It only comes through faith. For those who call on the Lord, the Holy Spirit will be sent to dwell in you, convict you, and keep you in Christ. This is not something the the world will see.. In fact you can join what you call the delusional... We are not delusional though, what lives and dwells in us is real. Chris > > > -- > 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 Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Chris wrote: > > > > It is also conceivable cretinous slaves like Chris will get some; > > backbone, education, intellect, honesty, empathy, compassion, humanity, > > curiosity, and generosity. Such is sheer fantasy, I'm sorry to say. > > You are the ones living in the fantasy world thinking that life came > out of nothing. It is amazing you could believe such a ridiculous > assertion. > it merely shows that your fallacies [ yours and his] are inter-dependent. > I can only urge anyone listening to not lose hope. You'll be amazed > what you can find by getting on your knees and crying out to the one > true God. Sorry to say, but He isn't someone who can be proven > through physical evidence (He isn't matter, but Spirit), or something > you can boast in finding through your superior knowledge. He makes a > level playing field to the rich and the poor, the illiterate and the > educated... He will NOT show miracles but rather expects you to simply > trust in Him, even without full understanding and explanation of why He > does things that He does. > > Maybe some day you will get to this point. Don't wait too long, the > more you indulge yourself in this world, the further your conscience is > darkened, and you may not have that opportunity to return... The > solution is far simpler than any mathematical formulas you've commited > your life too... The problem is very simple, we are all condemnded in > our sin and His face in turned against us beause of our evil. He has > provided a way out though and it isn't through your scientific > evidence, it is simply trusting in Christ to save us from this > judgement and you will be reconciled back to the God. > > Once you do this, you'll be amazed how much things will change. Your > eyes will finally be open and you will see and understand the non-sense > you things we are talking about. It only comes through faith. you see now ? in the beginning of your [above polemic/apology] you claim that physics has nothing to do with it ; but at the end of it all you lay claim to `ex-perentia` which is to say that you do indeed consider there to be [some form of] evidence based on physics, even if the reality of the electrical system in the human brain reinterpreting its existence according to english words as related third-hand from greeks who related them from aramaic texts/gossip. likewise the snot-nosed atheist is whining and accusing "religion" [he fails to define it other than "superstition", a complete embarrassment to one's intellect] of establishing constructs and ignoring much data as irrelevant --yet physicists do this very thing necessarily whenever a model is proposed. the superficial arguments about which flotsam stinks more badly in my view. of course when one is only partially informed and never consults dictionaries or source texts but learns via 'hearsay' and whatevdr was gleaned from the buxom Miss Maloney in 'Grammar' school , well that's that. Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Michael Gray wrote: > On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:27 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > - Refer: <7mvqo29h44mh2q0moke1ufjnrmtjaio4cn@4ax.com> > >On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:12:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> > >wrote in alt.atheism > > > >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > >><jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> - Refer: <k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> > >>>Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > >>: > >> > >>Define "God", as you implicitly assume that such a thing exists. > > > >"Thou Art God."-Michael Valentine. > > Who was he talking to at the time? No, Michael it was the "Global Super Organism" speaking to itself. > His milkman? yes, via the Global Super-Organism--and its intermediary manifestation "the milkman"-- he was having intercourse with his wife. Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Al Klein wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:38:06 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > > >On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:58:53 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote > >in alt.atheism > > > >>On 13 Dec 2006 14:34:43 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>-- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your > >>>research just might find God > >> > >>Just as soon as you post an objective observation of a god there will > >>be some research. Looking for something you want to exist isn't > >>research, it's religion. > > > >Disagree. It's superstition. Religion is merely new 'wrapping paper' > >with the same old rotten fish. > > 'Religion' is a member of the set 'superstition'. likewise physics: superstitious [Look up superstitious at Dictionary.com] c.1386, from O.Fr. superstitieux, from L. superstitiosus, from superstitionem (nom. superstitio) "prophecy, soothsaying, excessive fear of the gods," perhaps originally "state of religious exaltation," related to superstes (gen. superstitis) "standing over or above," also "standing by, surviving," from superstare "stand on or over, survive," from super "above" (see super-) + stare "to stand," from PIE base sta- "to stand" (see stet). There are many theories for the L. sense development, but none has yet triumphed. Superstition is attested from 1402. In Eng., originally especially of religion; sense of "unreasonable notion" is from 1794. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 On 23 Dec 2006 23:40:13 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: - Refer: <1166946013.829716.214990@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >Michael Gray wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:27 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <7mvqo29h44mh2q0moke1ufjnrmtjaio4cn@4ax.com> >> >On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:12:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >> >wrote in alt.atheism >> > >> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >> >><jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> - Refer: <k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> >> >>>Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God >> >>: >> >> >> >>Define "God", as you implicitly assume that such a thing exists. >> > >> >"Thou Art God."-Michael Valentine. >> >> Who was he talking to at the time? > > >No, Michael it was the "Global Super Organism" speaking to itself. > > >> His milkman? > >yes, via the Global Super-Organism--and its intermediary manifestation >"the milkman"-- he was having intercourse with his wife. So, it's not "GOD", but "GSO"! -- Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Michael Gray wrote: > On 23 Dec 2006 23:40:13 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: > - Refer: <1166946013.829716.214990@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > >Michael Gray wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:27 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > >> - Refer: <7mvqo29h44mh2q0moke1ufjnrmtjaio4cn@4ax.com> > >> >On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:12:09 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> > >> >wrote in alt.atheism > >> > > >> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > >> >><jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> - Refer: <k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> > >> >>>Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > >> >>: > >> >> > >> >>Define "God", as you implicitly assume that such a thing exists. > >> > > >> >"Thou Art God."-Michael Valentine. > >> > >> Who was he talking to at the time? > > > > > >No, Michael it was the "Global Super Organism" speaking to itself. > > > > > >> His milkman? > > > >yes, via the Global Super-Organism--and its intermediary manifestation > >"the milkman"-- he was having intercourse with his wife. > > So, it's not "GOD", but "GSO"! perhaps we could call it, "Meta-Organism, Brain" The "MOB" running amuck. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 On 23 Dec 2006 23:46:38 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> 'Religion' is a member of the set 'superstition'. >likewise physics: Only to the terminally superstitious, who see everything in terms of religion. There really ARE some people who don't think about religion or gods unless someone brings the subject up, even if you can't personally understand how that's possible. Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> said: >On 23 Dec 2006 23:46:38 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" ><hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: > >>Al Klein wrote: > >>> 'Religion' is a member of the set 'superstition'. > >>likewise physics: > >Only to the terminally superstitious, who see everything in terms of >religion. Amen. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest jemsohara Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 If your thinking in terms of time -- as you so clearly are -- then time has to have a beginning. If this is not God, what came before? if that is not God, we ask the same question, and so on until we get to Him. God is outside of time and outside of the universe i.e. God exists in Eternity. This means he can see the whole thing at once, and since He is omniscient, omnipresent, etc. He understands it all. I do not profess to understand Eternity, nothing we have thought of even Infinity may not be able to describe it -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity. God said it to Moses first: "I am" . I.e. God simply Is. josh wrote: > Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so > hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > attributed to him. > > I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers of > thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them? > Just daydreaming? > > It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he > sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum > somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and > memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. > > Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? If > it is a place, then it must have been created. And therefore there was a > time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. > So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come > into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > > Please argue. Quote
Guest stoney Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 On 23 Dec 2006 00:48:26 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in alt.atheism >stoney wrote: >> > >> >Valid proofs are a logical conception. Valid evidence is objective. >> >Religions have neither to support their claims about the gods. >> >> Might I suggest calling 'religion' the superstition that it is? >quite a one-sided and silly view to say the least. >"religions" may and often do contain super-stitions and zoomorphic >deities. >'religion' requires none of those. Sure, however what I was responding to involved deity constructs. >without a language there could be no 'religion' to provide a root >proposal. >without 'religion' we would not have human 'cult' --cultures. > >learn what 'religion' truly is, >it's the essence of all human contexts. Waste essence. -- 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 Christopher A.Lee Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 On 24 Dec 2006 17:57:20 -0800, "jemsohara" <jemsohara@gmail.com> wrote: >If your thinking in terms of time -- as you so clearly are -- then time >has to have a beginning. If this is not God, what came before? if >that is not God, we ask the same question, and so on until we get to >Him. > >God is outside of time and outside of the universe i.e. God exists in >Eternity. This means he can see the whole thing at once, and since He >is omniscient, omnipresent, etc. He understands it all. > >I do not profess to understand Eternity, nothing we have thought of >even Infinity may not be able to describe it -- see >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity. > >God said it to Moses first: "I am" . I.e. God simply Is. Either provide evidence outside your religion or admit it is just bullshit. 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.