Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> said: >Jim07D6 wrote: >> "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" >> >indeed i assumed your approach to be scientific but you have been >> >evidencing unfounded super-stitions, or at least condoning them. >> >i hope you can clear that up for me. >> >> All I meant by "Amen" was "it is so" as >> at dictionary.com > >here is the restored exchange: >AK:'Religion' is a member of the set 'superstition'. > >HS: 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. > >AK: 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. > >9AGF4: Amen. > > > >> >physics cannot escape a cult context nor can religion escape >> >ex-perentia. >> >they are a unit. >> > >> >for example, >> >observations of pre-cambrian fossils and the assumption that a >> >prokaryotic heterotroph floating on the frothy oceans 'accidentally' >> >ingested an autotroph and then 'decided' that this would be >> >'beneficial' and thus embarked on the first 'symbiotic' relationship >> >for "mutual" benefit. >> >the seminal story of men and women in a sense. >> >> I've never seen such a text. > > >do you not subscribe to the notion that humans are descended from >unicellular prokaryotes ...? do you not subscribe to the notion that >sexual reproduction is derived from asexual reproduction ...? Show me a text that says a ph decided anything. If there were one, I'd interpret the term metaphorically. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest rbwinn3@juno.com Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 Christopher A.Lee wrote: > 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. I want to be watching when you say this to Jesus Christ. Robert B. Winn Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 On 24 Dec 2006 19:39:33 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> 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. > > >Translation: "I am superstitious about the nomenclature 'religion' and >don't wish to understand it; it disgusts me , it even frightens me, >because i have confused it with the manifestations of 'religion' viz. >"religions [and their superstitions (when applicable)]." A liar as well as an idiot. >you erased the most significant aspect of the etymology, >the 'stit' attached to the 'super' Liar. >> 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. > >i know such to be not only possible but a general condition among more >educated persons since that is the very structure of the false dialect >itself. Liar. >in which you are presently entangled. although you obviously are >frightened of ghosts. Liar. Quote
Guest Bear Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 "Christopher A.Lee" wrote : "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" wrote: : >Al Klein wrote: : >> "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" 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. : > : > : >Translation: "I am superstitious about the nomenclature 'religion' and : >don't wish to understand it; it disgusts me , it even frightens me, : >because i have confused it with the manifestations of 'religion' viz. : >"religions [and their superstitions (when applicable)]." : : A liar as well as an idiot. Isn't that being a bit harsh? : >you erased the most significant aspect of the etymology, : >the 'stit' attached to the 'super' : : Liar. Are you sure that's a lie? : >> 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. : > : >i know such to be not only possible but a general condition among more : >educated persons since that is the very structure of the false dialect : >itself. : : Liar. Because he said that he isn't amomg the more educated people? : >in which you are presently entangled. although you obviously are : >frightened of ghosts. : : Liar. That would seem to be a baseless presumption. I think presuming is a general condition of those who mistakenly see themselves as more educated. Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:28:34 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote: >"Christopher A.Lee" wrote >: "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" wrote: >: >Al Klein wrote: >: >> "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" 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. >: > >: > >: >Translation: "I am superstitious about the nomenclature 'religion' and >: >don't wish to understand it; it disgusts me , it even frightens me, >: >because i have confused it with the manifestations of 'religion' viz. >: >"religions [and their superstitions (when applicable)]." >: >: A liar as well as an idiot. > >Isn't that being a bit harsh? No. He said physics was a superstition and followed it up by putting words in my mouth and lying about me, to me. Quote
Guest Bear Posted December 26, 2006 Posted December 26, 2006 "Christopher A.Lee" wrote : "Bear" wrote: : >"Christopher A.Lee" wrote : >: "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" wrote: : >: >Al Klein wrote: : >: >> "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" 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. : >: > : >: > : >: >Translation: "I am superstitious about the nomenclature 'religion' and : >: >don't wish to understand it; it disgusts me , it even frightens me, : >: >because i have confused it with the manifestations of 'religion' viz. : >: >"religions [and their superstitions (when applicable)]." : >: : >: A liar as well as an idiot. : > : >Isn't that being a bit harsh? : : No. He said physics was a superstition and followed it up by putting : words in my mouth and lying about me, to me. Yeah, he's put words in my mouth before. That's why he is in my killfile. Quote
Guest stoney Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 On 24 Dec 2006 20:02:19 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in alt.atheism >stoney wrote: >> 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. >> > >but you do not make a distinction, >and seem to believe they are equivalent. I write posts not treatises. Invariably, I'm working utilizing the verbage in the paragraph being responded to as part of the context. I have no problem with providing further explaination when necessary. >> >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. >then you are wallowing in waste. We all are, based on the planetary rapine. I see you deliberately miss my point. That is your perogative and doesn't bother me at all. -- 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 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 On 24 Dec 2006 20:06:13 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in alt.atheism >stoney wrote: >> On 23 Dec 2006 00:50:04 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" >> <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >stoney wrote: >> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:24:55 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in >> >> alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: >> >> > >> >> >>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote: >> >> >> >> [] >> >> >> >> >>Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for >> >> >>one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God. >> >> > >> >> >It seems to be an appropriate response to "Scientifically prove God" >> >> >to say "Science is silent on God." But whether the existence of God is >> >> >independent of mind, is another question. >> >> >> >> Until there's a concise and coherant definition for the g-o-d letter >> >> string there isn't a question. >> > >> >yes, and the dilemma is defining must/is bound to occur within a >> >cultural stream. >> >> of waste. >> > >not a very scientific approach you are taking, is it. >if you were rational you would seek clarification. Projection noted. I've inquired myraid times with nothing but a stream of handwaving excrement as replies. I also note the lack of clairification from you. {observation only} A cultural stream of waste is, imo, an apt example. /cue a child's responses to Santa Claus and the like, reason doesn't come into play. Same thing with deity(ies). {shrug} >as i suspected, you are as snookered as any snake handling pentecostal. >perhaps more so. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHH >at least the snake handling pentecostal attempts to validate a proposal >with sensory experience. >he is more of a scientist than yourself. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHH. >then again, you claim that the 'bronze age' is 'primitive' This is the 'space age,' so, yes, the bronze age is indeed primitive. -- 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 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:59:49 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On 12/24/06 6:49 PM, in article qtcuo29rsu6il4e0c138dpb8u7sqv4tkdj@4ax.com, >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:27:44 -0800, Someone >> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote in alt.atheism >>> On 12/23/06 7:35 AM, in article ieiqo2hpomtur949fgbtti9t15lnasnnp3@4ax.com, >>> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:09:39 -0800, Someone >>>> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote in alt.atheism >>>> >>>> >>>> Note: It is very rude to top post. >>>> >>>>> I've tried that philosophy too, once upon a time, when I was a younger age. >>>>> And now, in the twilight of my life, I'm finding it harder and harder to >>>>> believe that life was meaningless. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not espousing, by the way, any particular faith (or un-faith). But >>>>> here >>>>> are some thoughts... >>>>> >>>>> If our consciousness ends when we die (e.g., all our ability to observe, >>>>> feel, witness, etc. vanishes when we close our eyes that final time), then >>>>> what is the point of planning for being responsible for anything during our >>>>> lives? If we DO the responsible thing (i.e., take care of the environment, >>>>> feed the poor, etc.) and we die, we wouldn't be able to feel the elation of >>>>> a life well-lived, would we? >>>> >>>> Why not? >>> Well, because your consciousness ceases to exist. Without consciousness, >>> there can be no elation or remorse, right? In fact, without you being >>> conscious of the fact, it would be the same as if you never existed. >> >> My mistake, I forgot about the words 'and {after} we die.' Sorry about >> that. Without conciousness there can be no elation or remorse. I >> disagree with your last sentence above. There are the changes which >> result due to our interactions with others which remain. >But once your consciousness ends, how do you know anything remains? The 'you' no longer exists so the question has no meaning. I do caution you that you're very very close to solipism. >Barbour's paper (I'll try to find the reference) talked about the >non-existence of time. Then you have stasis. >Each possible outcome in the universe already exists >like a frame in a movie film. But not with an omni charater involved. With such a scenario there is only one outcome per instant of time. > Only "consciousness" brings meaning (sad to >say, Barbour never tried to define consciousness other than hint that >perhaps our brains held a state that remembered the last frame). Certainly consciousness brings individual meaning. Our brains cannot have a state which remembers anything. The synapses which once fired are not only inert but swiftly turn to goo. >If our consciousness ends, then, in essence, the universe ends (it becomes >what it appears to be--just a mishmash of quantum probabilities). Weird, >huh? From the deceaseds 'viewpoint,' yes. >>> Everything else in needs to make scientific sense (e.g., evolution, >>> creation, the cause of zits)--but consciousness and the reason of life >>> doesn't need to make scientific sense? >> >> Everything needs to make scientific sense? Says who and with what >> objective supporting evidence? >> >> I'm not sure where you're going with consciousness. I'm not going to >> attempt to extrapolate since there's not enough data to do so. >> >> What 'reason of life'? Not all questions are valid. >Congratulations, I think you now understand how the religious people think. >They've been holding that not everything (in their case, God) needs to make >scientific sense. I assure you I'm quite familiar with the GIGO principle; theists demonstrate it ad nauseum. >I obviously don't agree with that--I have this need to reconcile everything >into my understanding of the universe. I lose sleep if I don't. You've piqued my curiosity here and you're quite free to choose not to answer [if you do take that route please say so]. There's lots of stuff on myraid subjects we have the barest glimmerings of as well as other things which, at this time, exist in isolation. How are you able to reconcile such? >>> Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe that life is a way to "prove one's >>> worthiness" to live eternally with God. >> >> With an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipowerful imaginary buddy >> there's nothing to 'prove.' The results of every interaction was known >> in advance before the critter shat the universe into being. >> >>> Christians' simplified the rules so >>> that one is deemed worthy if one accepts Christ. >> >> The 'amoeba' hasn't the authority or understanding to 'simplify the >> rules.' >> >>> Buddhists and Hindu (the >>> latter I only vaguely understand) believe one's actions determines what one >>> will be in the next life. So each of these religions attribute meaning to >>> this current life in terms of what happens after. >> >> They attribute all sorts of fantasies and call it 'meaning.' Such is >> meaningless to reality. >To them, it isn't fantasy. Sadly enough. To toddlers items like; the tooth faerie, the monster under the bed/in the closet, the easter bunny, santa claus and such aren't fantasy. Adults are well aware they are. Concerning their 'universe spanning imaginary buddy' theists are mental toddlers. Such is their business when such is kept the precious private matter, imo, it should be. It is an entirely different matter when such is brought forth into the real world. Theists are mental toddlers but physical adults nattering about the tooth faerie, the monster under the bed/in the closet/in the confessional, the easter bunny, santa claus, and other items of fantasy to mental and physical adults. If fantasy is promoted as reality then it is subject to the tools theists hopefully utilize in all other aspects of their lives. If they don't like it the solution is a simple one; cease to put it forth as objective reality. Sadly, so many insist on demonstrating their delusions to others as well as showing their terminal contempt, disdain, and hubris towards others. Of course reactions toward the boor often isn't a polite one! That said, people will often, for myraid reasons, work within the parameters of a fictional scenario. >Everyone builds their understanding of their >universe based on their own postulates. Disagree. Brand/sect of Abrahamic theism is merely drivel the individual considers reality based on fear. >For some, one postulate is "God >exists" for others, it is "God does not exist." That brings us right back to the problem of the g-o-d letter string being effectively undefined. There's no reason to treat the g-o-d letter string differently from oaretnarg;'paeoiea or odfio;atlaekljsd. >Within their own "universes" everything they experience is consistent. Yep. A walking tour through any insane asylum will show that. >Some people can't help but ridicule those who don't believe in the same postulates. It's sad, >really. Evangelical theists are really sad. They're often violent as well as bigoted, prejudiced, cowardly, and pig ignorant. I don't have a problem with fundamentalists who consider their religion to be a personal and private matter. >>> But if nothing happens after, and one truly believes it, then what kind of >>> life doctrines can that person follow considering he KNOWS he isn't being >>> graded, paid, or rewarded in any way? Answer: any doctrine he feels like, >>> it doesn't matter. >> >> Well, there can be some hefty ramifications and reprecussions to any >> such doctrine. >But all ramifications and repercussions cease (and, for all intent and >purposes, never existed) when the observer dies. No argument. I must confess I've lost track of what this portion was about. >>> My final conclusion about death belief systems (which include religions and >>> atheism) is that since death is the ultimate personal experience, >> >> Atheism is neither a belief or a system. It is merely the lack of the >> theism 'facet.' >> > >Atheism is not a religion. But it is a belief system founded on the belief >that their are no deities. Once again it is not a belief nor is it a system. Again, there's nothing to look for or consider. Theism has established its of far far far less validity than considering gravity might reverse tomorrow. I have no reason to consider gravity's reversal. >I am using the word "belief" as in "something >one holds as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction." Understood. However, its just a slight shift to the utilization of the word in the theist manner The world is not all binary. Utilization of binary logic in non-binary situations can make one look very silly or dead. -- 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 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:58:32 GMT, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in alt.atheism > >"Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote > >> >> But once your consciousness ends, how do you know anything >> remains? Barbour's paper (I'll try to find the reference) talked about >> the non-existence of time. Each possible outcome in the universe >> already exists like a frame in a movie film. Only "consciousness" >> brings meaning (sad to say, Barbour never tried to define >> consciousness other than hint that perhaps our brains held a state >> that remembered the last frame). >> >> If our consciousness ends, then, in essence, the universe ends (it >> becomes what it appears to be--just a mishmash of quantum >> probabilities). Weird, huh? > >What if Barbour is wrong? It appears to me that Barbour is fully buying >into the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum theory including the multiple >universe scenerio, and basing his speculations upon it. > >Quantum theory has been extremely successful in its ability to accurately >predict experimental results, but there is another theory which has proven >to be even more accurate than Quantum theory: That is the General Theory of >Relativity, including Special Relativity. > >Einstein's success is based upon his ability to remove the observer from the >equations. Once the observer is removed, time becomes another demension of >space. Motion and rest became indistinquishable from each other, and we >see that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. > >On the other hand, Quantum theory depends upon the viewpoint of the >observer. The theory yeilds only probabilities, a particle can be >anywhere, that is until measured by an observer. Why sould our >intervention determine the state of the particle? This problem has led to >fanciful speculations of multiple universes, a revival of the anthropic >principle, and the idea that when we die "the universe ends." Untestable >speculations are not science. In its present state, Quantum Theory is >incomplete until it is able to remove the observer from the equations. > >< CLIP > >> >> Atheism is not a religion. But it is a belief system founded on the >> belief >> that their are no deities. I am using the word "belief" as in "something >> one holds as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction." > >Atheism is not even a belief system. It is merely the belief that there is >no god. Nothing else is required. Correction. It is the lack of belief in the unsupported theistic postulate. The reason I indicate this is because dishonest theists will shove their putrid superstition into the linguistic crack. -- 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 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 08:27:45 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On 12/25/06 7:58 AM, in article >IySjh.273789$Fi1.101339@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Weatherwax" ><Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: [] >Of course Barbour might be wrong. Einstein might be wrong. Pope >Constantine might've been wrong. The point of the matter is that none of us >knows what happens to us after we close our eyes the last time. Sorry, but we do. It is observed all synapse functions cease and the brain matter turns to goo. >For this >reason, I can allow that there might be a God somewhere. What's a g-o-d? > I can also allow >that there might not be a God. An inconsistency? No, just an >acknowledgement that I don't know the answer. The effective lack of definition for the g-o-d letter string as well as the lack of objective supporting evidence, begged questions and broken logic is an answer. Does the person have the courage to face the answer is a question only they can answer in the privacy of their own mind. >The choice that people make >regarding a deity are entirely theirs to make--there is no evidence "right" >answer. Disagree times two. There is a right answer as has been demonstrated several times in this thread. Secondly, there is no 'choice.' I can no more believe in universe spanning fantasy figures than I can physically flap my arms and fly from New York City to London, England. >>> Atheism is not a religion. But it is a belief system founded on the >>> belief >>> that their are no deities. I am using the word "belief" as in "something >>> one holds as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction." >> >> Atheism is not even a belief system. It is merely the belief that there is >> no god. Nothing else is required. >> >> --Wax >> >> > >Hmmm, I had to think about that (since I agree with your implication that a >"system" must have more than one part). Atheists build a belief system from >that original postulate... Something like this: (1) there is no God and >(2) Man was evolved, not created. Lack of belief system when it comes to theism. Myraid objective supporting evidence from myraid tracks indicates man, and nature, continues to evolve. That people have a problem with one, or both, facts is their personal problem. >I concur that each atheist can have a >different belief system, Of course. Such has zip to do with theism though. >although in my short participation in these groups, >I haven't found a single one that doesn't believe these two (and I almost >added a third: "(3) Theists are idiots" ... But there are some more >even-handed atheists out there that think more like me). The vast majority of theists who invade this group (not you) are idiots. Such gets demonstrated ad nauseum. That said, there are theists who meander in that are fine human beings and have fun discussing all sorts of things. There are theists who are brilliant and highly respected. Wayne Delia's indicated many times his great respect for a brilliant theist named Glenn Knickerbocker, iirc his name is. >Although there is a commonality suppose, strictly speaking, you're right. >When someone says "atheist" the only belief espoused by that word is (1)... Nope. People in aa learn very quickly to be quite precise with their language especially with the words 'belief' and 'faith.' Dishonest and cowardly theists have generated that response. These fools just love the 'bait and switch' game. People do relax once the theist they're talking to becomes known, if warranted. >Although (2) is belief also generally accepted by atheists. (2) is a fact. It is not a belief. There's a vast chasm between facts and belief. Christianity flat indicates they have zero facts and yet people spout the rubbish as fact. Go figure. -- 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 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:59:03 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:51:21 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: > - Refer: <p3fuo2pj84pahkilt3c974oaluspbqoah9@4ax.com> >>On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:52:27 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >>wrote in alt.atheism >> >>>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? >> >>Gillian, at one point in time, Jubal Harshaw, Ann the Fair Witness, >>myraid others. > >I do not recall having met any of those characters. Its in the same tome as the quote came from. Stranger in a strange land. -- 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 Martin Phipps Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 duke wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > >could exist, and that was the universe. > > Then what created the universe? The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance of matter, ie the universe. You did ask. It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". After all, if God created the universe then who created God? Martin Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > duke wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>> could exist, and that was the universe. >> >> Then what created the universe? > > The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more > matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance > of matter, ie the universe. > > You did ask. > > It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". > After all, if God created the universe then who created God? Irrelevant question because God has always existed. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > > > duke wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > >> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > >>> could exist, and that was the universe. > >> > >> Then what created the universe? > > > > The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more > > matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance > > of matter, ie the universe. > > > > You did ask. > > > > It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". > > After all, if God created the universe then who created God? > > Irrelevant question because God has always existed. So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely nothing for God to do? Does that really make sense to you? We're not talking about a proposition that is beyond the scope of human understanding. We're talking about a proposition that is mind numbingly stupid, just like the person above who proposed it! Martin Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 On Sun, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >> >>> duke wrote: >>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >>>> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>>>> could exist, and that was the universe. >>>> >>>> Then what created the universe? >>> >>> The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more >>> matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance >>> of matter, ie the universe. >>> >>> You did ask. >>> >>> It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". >>> After all, if God created the universe then who created God? >> >> Irrelevant question because God has always existed. > > So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of > time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely > nothing for God to do? Well, maybe He was very busy creating other universes out in the middle of nowhere and very far away from the place where he would later create the universe where we live. That is just my speculation. I did not ask Him what He was doing before He showed up around here and I did not ask Him where He came from. I am very happy that He decided to create a universe around here because I cannot think of a better location for a universe than right around here in our neck of the woods. > Does that really make sense to you? > > We're not talking about a proposition that is beyond the scope of human > understanding. We're talking about a proposition that is mind > numbingly stupid, just like the person above who proposed it! > > Martin Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sun, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > > > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > >> > >>> duke wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > >>>> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > >>>>> could exist, and that was the universe. > >>>> > >>>> Then what created the universe? > >>> > >>> The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more > >>> matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance > >>> of matter, ie the universe. > >>> > >>> You did ask. > >>> > >>> It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". > >>> After all, if God created the universe then who created God? > >> > >> Irrelevant question because God has always existed. > > > > So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of > > time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely > > nothing for God to do? > > Well, maybe He was very busy creating other universes Why speculate about other universes? We know God doesn't exist so we don't have to speculate about other universes. Isn't that convenient? Martin Quote
Guest Don Martin Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 On 30 Dec 2006 23:20:21 -0800, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >> >> > duke wrote: >> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >> >> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >> >>> could exist, and that was the universe. >> >> >> >> Then what created the universe? >> > >> > The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more >> > matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance >> > of matter, ie the universe. >> > >> > You did ask. >> > >> > It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". >> > After all, if God created the universe then who created God? >> >> Irrelevant question because God has always existed. > >So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of >time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely >nothing for God to do? Ample time for his first great invention: masturbation. This one continues to occupy the minds and time of the faithful. .. Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view. The Squeeky Wheel http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/ Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >> >>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >>>> >>>>> duke wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >>>>>> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>>>>>> could exist, and that was the universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then what created the universe? >>>>> >>>>> The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more >>>>> matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance >>>>> of matter, ie the universe. >>>>> >>>>> You did ask. >>>>> >>>>> It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". >>>>> After all, if God created the universe then who created God? >>>> >>>> Irrelevant question because God has always existed. >>> >>> So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of >>> time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely >>> nothing for God to do? >> >> Well, maybe He was very busy creating other universes > > Why speculate about other universes? We know God doesn't exist so we > don't have to speculate about other universes. Isn't that convenient? No, it is not at all convenient and it definitely isn't cool to not speculate about other universes. The only people who do not speculate about other universes are those with a very limited mind and a limited imagination, such as for example, all atheists and perhaps even a few theists. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > > > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > >> > >>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> duke wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > >>>>>> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > >>>>>>> could exist, and that was the universe. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Then what created the universe? > >>>>> > >>>>> The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more > >>>>> matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance > >>>>> of matter, ie the universe. > >>>>> > >>>>> You did ask. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". > >>>>> After all, if God created the universe then who created God? > >>>> > >>>> Irrelevant question because God has always existed. > >>> > >>> So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of > >>> time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely > >>> nothing for God to do? > >> > >> Well, maybe He was very busy creating other universes > > > > Why speculate about other universes? We know God doesn't exist so we > > don't have to speculate about other universes. Isn't that convenient? > > No, it is not at all convenient and it definitely isn't cool to not > speculate about other universes. The only people who do not speculate > about other universes are those with a very limited mind and a limited > imagination, such as for example, all atheists and perhaps even a few > theists. My you find your fantasies as pleasant as we find reality. Martin Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: <...> >> So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of >> time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely >> nothing for God to do? > >Well, maybe He was very busy creating other universes out in the middle >of nowhere and very far away from the place where he would later create >the universe where we live. That is just my speculation. I did not ask >Him what He was doing before He showed up around here and I did not ask >Him where He came from. I am very happy that He decided to create a >universe around here because I cannot think of a better location for >a universe than right around here in our neck of the woods. You demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the implications of "actual infinity". I suggest that you keep it that way if you want to get into heaven. ;-) <...> -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: > >> duke wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >>> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in >>>> which he >>>> could exist, and that was the universe. >>> >>> >>> Then what created the universe? >> >> >> The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more >> matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance >> of matter, ie the universe. >> >> You did ask. >> >> It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". >> After all, if God created the universe then who created God? > > > Irrelevant question because God has always existed. ===>Irrelevant answer, because the "universe", the substance of all existence, has always existed. "Creators" are just a recent invention of Homo Sapiens. -- L. Quote
Guest Libertarius Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 Martin Phipps wrote: > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > >>On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >> >> >>>duke wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >>>><jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>>>>could exist, and that was the universe. >>>> >>>>Then what created the universe? >>> >>>The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more >>>matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance >>>of matter, ie the universe. >>> >>>You did ask. >>> >>>It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". >>>After all, if God created the universe then who created God? >> >>Irrelevant question because God has always existed. > > > So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of > time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely > nothing for God to do? > > Does that really make sense to you? > > We're not talking about a proposition that is beyond the scope of human > understanding. We're talking about a proposition that is mind > numbingly stupid, just like the person above who proposed it! ===>At least the Egyptians thought it over and concluded that god was masturbating before the universe exieted. When he finally ejaculated, VOILA, the substance of the "universe" was ready for creating all sorts of things. -- L. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted January 1, 2007 Posted January 1, 2007 On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:14:01 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: - Refer: <sjsdp2h13i3ucu2u9m2p9o9v6df5n57ir0@4ax.com> >On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:59:03 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >wrote in alt.atheism > >>On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:51:21 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: >> - Refer: <p3fuo2pj84pahkilt3c974oaluspbqoah9@4ax.com> >>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:52:27 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> >>>wrote in alt.atheism >>> >>>>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? >>> >>>Gillian, at one point in time, Jubal Harshaw, Ann the Fair Witness, >>>myraid others. >> >>I do not recall having met any of those characters. > >Its in the same tome as the quote came from. >Stranger in a strange land. Ah, more fiction to add to the bible babble! -- Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 2, 2007 Posted January 2, 2007 On 31 Dec 2006 02:59:13 -0800, "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >> >> > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Martin Phipps wrote: >> >> >> >>> duke wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >> >>>> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >> >>>>> could exist, and that was the universe. >> >>>> >> >>>> Then what created the universe? >> >>> >> >>> The heat of the big bang caused an asymmetry which resulted in more >> >>> matter than antimatter existing which then resulted in a net existance >> >>> of matter, ie the universe. >> >>> >> >>> You did ask. >> >>> >> >>> It's a much better explanation than saying "God created the universe". >> >>> After all, if God created the universe then who created God? >> >> >> >> Irrelevant question because God has always existed. >> > >> > So before the existance of the universe we have an infinite amount of >> > time in which the universe didn't exist and there was absolutely >> > nothing for God to do? >> >> Well, maybe He was very busy creating other universes > > We know God doesn't exist There is no sensible reason to either make or agree with this statement. The very best anyone can say is "given our five physical senses and the information we can glean with them, we don't have enough information to form a sensible opinion on the matter". Padraic >Martin -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com 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.