Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On 8 Jan 2007 22:14:25 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > > >Al Klein wrote: > >> On 8 Jan 2007 03:26:21 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > >> > >> >but he who presumes that 'religion' is > >> >equivalent to 'supersitition' any more than physics ? > >> > >> He who so presumes is merely demonstrating intelligence > > >how intelligent is it to use a word and not understand its meaning ? > >and then to erase the definition twice when one is corrected ? > > How intelligent is it to claim to correct people by posting a > definition how else can one correct your ignorance of the word "superstition" ? to claim that 'religion' (which you obviously conflate with "religions") is 'super-standing' any more than physics merely perpetuates a fallacy. stop pretending to be a "sophisticated" and "scientific" atheist like your friend "stoney", the pair of you are on a very superficial level and have yet to even define your cartoon like puppet theatre enemies of "god" and "religion" ---you're ignorant. > > >all science occurs in a cultural context, it is inescapable. > >no science could be possible external to a culture. > > Proof? you are the "proof" (or, demonstration, or validation, rather), for example. your cult has defined nomenclature which you presume at the outset even prior to collecting data. so much for `ex perentia` `in pura` Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 On 10 Jan 2007 01:05:34 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" <hasatan@grex.cyberspace.org> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On 8 Jan 2007 22:14:25 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" >> >> >Al Klein wrote: >> >> On 8 Jan 2007 03:26:21 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" >> >> >> >> >but he who presumes that 'religion' is >> >> >equivalent to 'supersitition' any more than physics ? >> >> >> >> He who so presumes is merely demonstrating intelligence >> >> >how intelligent is it to use a word and not understand its meaning ? >> >and then to erase the definition twice when one is corrected ? >> >> How intelligent is it to claim to correct people by posting a >> definition that's incorrect? >how else can one correct your ignorance of the word "superstition" ? By posting a CORRECT definition. Something of which you're incapable. <plonk> Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 snip > > > > >Your first statement: "I do think that the universe itself and the > > > > > order of everything in it is sufficient evidence." > > > > >If every closed system in the universe breaks down due to entropy, then > > > > > the universe is one half order and one half chaos. Your statement is > > > > > blind. You are ignoring the natural tendency of everything to decay > > > > And? > > > And decay is the opposite of order. Everything decays. Decay is > > > disorder. And you said the universe itself and the ORDER OF EVERYTHING > > > is sufficient evidence (of god). You can pretend you don't understand > > > how you are incorrect once again. You do not have evidence for god > > And decay is the opposite of order. Everything decays. Decay is > > disorder. And you said the universe itself and the ORDER OF EVERYTHING > > is sufficient evidence (of god). You can pretend you don't understand > > how you are incorrect once again. > > If decay is "disorder" to you, then I can see how you misunderstood > me. I've decided to call in some experts, they are all physicists..Hopefully one or some will be so good as to comment. The rest of your comments make me shudder. I don't come across people very often that give me the creeps, but you've managed to do that. Just because I think belief in god is delusional doesn't mean you have to fabricate a way to show that I'm delusional too. Your tacticts are obvious. My girlfriend is laughing her ass off at you, by the way. Especially at the "gold digger" part. Actually, she was raised as a Joho and feels the same way I do about religion, and has actually experienced firsthand the damage that mass delusion can cause. > >> >because you are so bent on believing your god exists in the order. > >> > >> Don't put words in my mouth -- I didn't say God "exists in the order". > >> The order that exists in the universe, including entropy, are present > >> because the universe exists. > > > >No you didn't, you said "I do think that the universe itself and the > >order of everything in it is sufficient evidence." > > Good. You got it straight, now. > > >> >It > >> >doesn't. Offer some other evidence, because that isn't good enough. > >> > >> Speaking of offering "some other evidence", let's hear your evidence > >> that supports the actual claim we're discussing. Let me remind you: > >> "We know that God does not exist." You have yet to address this claim, > >> persuing my belief in stead. Let's stick to the topic for a bit. > > > >My statement is you have no evidence for god, you have no evidence for > >the supernatural, in the meantime other people have presented me with > >plausible and convincing evidence for an alternative (scientific) > >explanation for existence that doesn't involve god. I'm going with > >them. I trust them and I don't trust you. You're too evasive. > > You haven't offered a single piece of evidence to back up the claim. > Talk about evasive! On the contrary, I haven't evaded you when asked > for what I account evidence for a Creator. We disagree on the > sufficiency of that evidence. That's fine, it's not my job to convert > you or convince you. What I _am_ doing is asking you to provide > evidence to support your claim. You have provided absolutely ZERO > evidence. In stead, you cite my supposed "lack of evidence" and other > people's "lack of evidence" and still other people's "plausible > explanations". Rubbish. You're avoiding the issue, and THAT is > evasive. > > >> Let's now return to the original claim, then, which has not yet been > >> touched. Let me hear your evidence that supports the claim "We know > >> God does not exist" -- here we are after a very long subthread and > >> much discussion and yet all you've addressed is my particular belief. > >> Time to get back to the question at hand. > > > >I've already said several times what I think the evidence is. > > You haven't offered even one little piece of evidence. Try again. > > >> The Creator can't violate what he is not subject to. > > > >You have not demonstrated that anything exists outside of this > >universe. > > Not to your satisfaction, no. We've been through this and I conceded > the point to you long ago. Let's get back to the claim at hand, now. > > >> >Complex super evolved life forms do not spring into existence fully > >> >formed, despite your previously avoiding the issue ("I did not say god > >> >sprang into existence," to paraphrase you; > >> > >> It's not avoiding the issue to say God didn't spring into existence. > >> We have no idea what the circumstances are surrounding God's existence > >> outside this universe, for the Creator is not a part of the creation. > > > >You have no evidence there is a creator. > > I have given you ample evidence. You disagree with it. That's fine -- > I quite frankly don't care whether you agree with my position or not. > I am not looking for you to convert. > > I am patiently waiting for you to offer some actual evidence that > supports your claim that "we KNOW God does not exist". This indicates > that you have some real knowledge and some real hard evidence to back > up the claim. Saying that "the other guys are all deluded and lack > evidence IS my evidence" is just plain lazy. > > >> I have elsewhere (not in this discussion) speculated that he may well > >> be a member of a very advanced race that is capable of creating > >> universes in controlled circumstances. > > > >Now you're getting weird. > > Weird? Just a little speculation. Nothing weirder than you'll find in > any sci-fi magazine or anthology written in the last 75 years or so. > > >You don't know much about this proposed deity, yet you buy into it > >whole hog. It's simply bizarre to me. > > And YOU are now the expert on any deity? You are making a whole lot of > assumptions about what I believe. > > >As I've said numerous times, I do offer evidence that contradicts the > >bible, you're just ignoring that I said it. One word: evolution. > > BS. _I_ can offer plenty of evidence that contradicts the Bible. It's > a load of myth and wisdom literature and (classical) history. So what > if you can offer something that contradicts the Bible? > > You're a fake. I'm just going to assume you can't back up your claim > and leave it at that. I've given you plenty of opportunities and > you've failed to come through on every single one. > > >> >I have lots of room for love and trust. > >> > >> Well, no you don't. > > > >Well, you're awfully mean sprited. You say that about me without > >knowing anything about me. > > Oh, poor feckin babe! Truly, bleedeth mine heart! > > >> >Those things are not dependent > >> >upon religious belief. > >> > >> The "love" you think your wife (if you have one -- doesn't matter if > >> you don't, the principle is the same) has for you is delusional. > > > >That's a hideous statement. You ought to be embarrassed. > > You think so? You're the one who has no time for any kind of nonsense > that you can't prove with good hard facts. Don't try to pin > "hideousness" on me, sir! > > >> She's just a gold-digging female out to secure her own needs and desires. > > > >And here is the Christian love rearing it's ugly head. > > Well, look who's crying now! You decry the "delusions" of other people > who believe in things they have no evidence for, and then when you're > shown to be similarly deluded, you bawl. > > >All I'm getting from you is contempt. > > You reap what you sow, mister. > > >Been there enough times, had you ignore my answer enough times. > > Too bad you never actually offered an answer I could either ignore or > address. > > Too bad, really. I still look forward to being convinced. > > Padraic > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 On 10 Jan 2007 10:09:35 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > snip >The rest of your comments make me shudder. Good. Maybe you'll reevaluate your understanding of what belief in things without evidence is all about. >I don't come across people >very often that give me the creeps, but you've managed to do that. Just >because I think belief in god is delusional doesn't mean you have to >fabricate a way to show that I'm delusional too. No fabrication was necessary. You said everything for me; all I had to do was point out that you are no different at all from those who believe in gods. >Your tacticts are obvious. >My girlfriend is laughing her ass off at you, by the way. Fine. The "obvious tactics" did get you to stop and think, which is what was important. Things like love and faith and trust -- belief in something other than what we can directly grasp with our senses and something larger than our selves -- are vital to human beings. "God" per se isn't isn't so important -- it's the need to trust and believe in something greater that is. So central that psychology has enshrined them as basic human needs. My previous crude comments aside, I am sure your girlfriend loves you very much. What you are doing when you accept that as a fact is exactly the same thing a believer does when he accepts the reality of God as a fact. Neither you nor he has any actual evidence. The believer can look in the Bible -- but written records can be altered. You can ask your girlfriend -- but she can have ulterior motives. In stead, you choose to put your faith in each other -- in something for which you have no evidence and no rational reason to believe is true. Just something for you think about next time you'd like to call the believer "deluded" or whatever other name you can think of! Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On 10 Jan 2007 01:05:34 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > > >Al Klein wrote: > >> On 8 Jan 2007 22:14:25 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > >> > >> >Al Klein wrote: > >> >> On 8 Jan 2007 03:26:21 -0800, "Ha SATAN [sin Tet Nun]" > >> >> > >> >> >but he who presumes that 'religion' is > >> >> >equivalent to 'supersitition' any more than physics ? > >> >> > >> >> He who so presumes is merely demonstrating intelligence > >> > >> >how intelligent is it to use a word and not understand its meaning ? > >> >and then to erase the definition twice when one is corrected ? > >> > >> How intelligent is it to claim to correct people by posting a > >> definition > > >how else can one correct your ignorance of the word "superstition" ? > > By posting a CORRECT definition. Something of which you're incapable. > i posted the correct definition three times, you are simply snookered. why didn't you change your tune and ask for more clarification ? here's some in any case, free of charge: from super "above" (see super-) + stare "to stand," from PIE base sta- "to stand" (see stet). 1755, from L. stet "let it stand," third person singular present subjunctive of stare "to stand, stand upright, be stiff," from PIE base sta- "to stand, set down, make or be firm" (cf. Skt. tisthati "stands;" Avestan histaiti "to stand;" Pers. -stan "country," lit. "where one stands;" Gk. histemi "put, place, weigh," stasis "a standing still," statos "placed," stater "a weight, coin," stylos "pillar;" L. sistere "stand still, stop, make stand, place, produce in court," status "manner, position, condition, attitude," statio "station, post;" Lith. stojus "place myself," statau "place;" O.C.S. staja "place myself," stanu "position," staru "old," lit. "long-standing;" Goth. standan, O.E. standan "to stand," O.N. stei "anvil," O.E. stede "place;" O.Ir. sessam "the act of standing"). ANY human construct is to some degree "super-standing" above the raw reality. physics is simply one of those constructs. > <plonk> if this means "killfile" i surely hope so. you are generally destructive --not 'de-constructive' /enlightening Quote
Guest stoney Posted January 11, 2007 Posted January 11, 2007 On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:37:46 -0500, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism >On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> croaked: > >>Grow the fuck up. > >Wow. You sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! Fuck off you cowardly and dishonest sack of christian dogshit. -- 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 January 12, 2007 Posted January 12, 2007 On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:53:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote: - Refer: <uufdq213njvfhqqnlad2g8jiumd3q1ufcu@4ax.com> >On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:37:46 -0500, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> >wrote in alt.atheism > >>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:40:25 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> croaked: >> >>>Grow the fuck up. >> >>Wow. You sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! > >Fuck off you cowardly and dishonest sack of christian dogshit. Pediatric Brown-nose is proving to be a very real ignorant yet sanctimonious lying arsehole. In other words: a well trained Christian. At least jerks like her turn vastly more fence-sitters away from Christianity that ever I could. (Even shit has it's purpose) -- 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.