Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <5eqdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:32:33 -0700, Jason wrote: > > >> Let's try this again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > >> If a man told me that space aliens gave him a ride in their spaceship, it > >> would require a hell of a lot more evidence than his 'testimony'! > > > > good point--however--if he had evidence---such an implanted computer chip > > made out of an element not found on the earth--would you be more likely to > > believe him? > > Somewhat, as he is, in fact, providing evidence of something unusual going > on... and the only particularly implausible aspects of his story are that > these beings have broken the lightspeed barrier and they picked him... > though the latter isn't all that much of a deal, as they would, > presumably, pick someone and there's a limited selection pool. > > Meanwhile, we know that intelligent life exists in the universe - we're > here. Fundies excepted, of course, but the point remains that we already > know there are intelligences in the universe; to posit another is hardly a > significant stretch, meaning the only really difficult part of the story > is that they got here at all. > > > In this case, the evidence is a normal leg that is the same > > size of the other leg bone--despite an operation that caused two inches > > of leg bone to be removed. > > Which, of course, would be presumed to be simply evidence of fakery of > some sort unless demonstrated otherwise, and if it is demonstrated to be > legit, then... > > Well, then what? We do not have any evidence that any gods exist, so > it's not like we're saying "Hey, we have one already, why not another?"; > rather it is introducing an entirely new, complex and otherwise > unevidenced form of existence based solely on a rather feeble foundation > of a leg bone. > > It's far too much conclusion from far too little data and it doesn't even > fit your alien analogy. I now understand the reason atheists do not believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt's leg bone. It's related to their belief system and the fact that they don't believe in God. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <n2qdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:26:03 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Let's try again: > > A woman's husband is observed by 8 witnesses going inside their apartment > > with a gun in his hand and shouting, "I am going to kill that woman." The > > witnesses hear a gunshot and see the man running from the building. The > > husband had watched over a hundred episodes of CSI and followed his plan: > > He was able to get rid of all physical evidence--including the gun. The > > only evidence at the murder trial is the testimony of the witnesses. The > > body of the woman is found. > > > > If you was on the jury, would you find him guilty? I would > > A week later, you find someone has confessed to the murder, and the > husband, whatever his intentions, didn't do it - he stumbled in on a > murder in progress, was threatened at gunpoint by the killer and ran off > to get help, but in a panic ran out of the building instead of to a > neighbor's apartment. > > And the testimony? What did it amount to? We heard a threat, we saw him > go in, we heard a gunshot, we saw him running. Nobody saw him do it, > nobody was in the apartment. In the end, their testimony meant nothing as > it was wrong and they couldn't actually testify to the crime in the first > place. > > You, of course, would find him guilty, despite the fact you haven't got a > shred of a reason to do so, because you can't tell the difference between > "could be" and "is". I would find him guilty. If it happened the way you say, he would be released when the new evidence was revealed. Any inmate that is now in prison can get a new trial if new evidence becomes available. Lots of inmates have been released as a result of DNA evidence that indicated they were not guilty. That means those juries made the wrong judgements. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:19:30 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071519300001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <2di873lbeeshm9r2u5i2dp4c1q3cv5padi@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> > >> >No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for >> >Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had >> >already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was >> >probably her life story--including details about the car accident and >> >healing. >> >> So you don't know if she presents any evidence in the book, for her >> claims. > >No--I did not buy the book or read the book. As someone pointed out to me, >even if the physical evidence proved that the bone grew two inches--it >would not prove that God healed her. Of course, Cheryl and most of the >Christians that heard her testimony and have read her book believe that >God healed her leg. > Have you finally acknowledged that belief is not evidence? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <18e8739jjt2qgp1v3shki02bc5t0nms4r8@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >In article <lo9873ta0bhvef6s89ul3msqrs9rkdsfba@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> >I stated that I could not produce evidence (such as X-rays) but it's > >> >possible that Cheryl Prewitt could produce evidence (such as X-rays and > >> >medical records). I have not seen that evidence. I believe you and I > >> >believe Cheryl so have no need to see physical evidence. > >> > >> I would believe she recovered, on the testimony of a licensed > >> physician specializing in her case, but I do not believe in miracles. > >> If you read David Hume's "On Miracles" you will see why. > >> > >> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html > >> > >> "...The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our > >> attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, > >> unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be > >> more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' > >> When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I > >> immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that > >> this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, > >> which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle > >> against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, > >> I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. ..." > > > >David Hume is entitled to his opinion. David Hume is free to contact > >Cheryl Prewitt and request permission to examine her medical records. > > I don't believe he is quite that free, these days, being dead and all. > > But in any event, the lesser miracle would be that the medical records > are fraudulent. Cheryl's audience is not people like you. Her audience is fellow Christians. She is not on trial before a court and I do not have to be on her jury. If so, I would want to see the medical records and hear the testimony of her doctors and nurses. Instead, my only role was to set in back of a church and listen to her testimony and listen to her sing her songs. I had no reason to not believe her testimony. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <rie873hq5dfce3p3ia4dtebdmidapsqetq@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > >In article <je8873pjs52mgi113uqmgk7v7uidq6tvbm@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> <...> > >> >Whether or not > >> >atheists believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt and William Kent is > >> >probably not important to Cheryl Prewitt or William Kent. > >> > >> On the day that Christians like Prewitt and Kent do not care about the > >> beliefs of those whose beliefs differ from theirs, pigs will fly and > >> bones will grow. > >> > >> Kent speaks: > >> > >> http://www.christian-faith.com/testimonies/miraclehealingtestimony.html > >> > >> "In the meantime be blessed and relax in the Spirit of the Lord and I > >> am looking forward to God blessing the masses through the blessing > >> that He has bestowed upon me as I follow His directive to go forth and > >> spread the Word and demonstrate the awesome power of the Lord as He > >> has provided in me." > >> > >> Prewitt wrote a book on her alleged miracle. > > > >Good point. Do you think the people that buy her book will be Christians > >or atheists? Would you buy a copy of her book? > > > >Now that you mention it, I do recall that there was a book table near the > >entrance. I should have waited for the service to be over. I could have > >purchased a copy of her book and had it signed by Cheryl Prewitt. > > > >Jason > > > Have you read it? No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was probably her life story--including details about the car accident and healing. Jason Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <c5tdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:44:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > No, I don't think that Christians or yourself needs medication. Perhaps, > > some of the advocates of evolution do need medication since they seem to > > get really angry when someone attacks their precious theory. > > Which theory? Punk Eek? Saltation? > > > It's my > > opinion that some of the advocates of evolution treat evolution as more of > > a religion than as a theory. > > You did not just call evolution a theory . You couldn't > have. After all this time, you still haven't learned the simplest, most > basic facts of the matter, despite endless repetition of it? > > > You have in fact just demonstrated you are absolutely ineducable. You are > constitutionally incapable of learning or of actual thought. You are, in > short, an ambulatory Jell-O, and I for once have already had my dessert. > > I wash my hands of this moron; may the rest of you fare as well. I'll > stick to more profitable things than trying to educate him... teaching > rocks to sing, perhaps. Evolution is a theory. I just looked up the word evolution and it states: "Evolution: A theory first proposed in 19th century by Carles Darwin...." Meanwhile, California continues its southward slide as predicted by the theory of plate tectonics. The Earth continues to orbit the Earth, as dictated by heliocentric theory... Over the weekend, please write a letter to your college and/or high school informing them that their science education program is apparently not teaching basic concepts such as scientific vocabulary. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <lkodk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:10:25 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > Christians have very little power in America. > > Really? Funny; gay marriage has faced an uphill battle due, primarily, to > religious bigotry, most of it from Christians. Try putting anything > remotely risque on prime time TV, see how far you get. The narrow-minded > Christian mentality dominates the country, your gum-flapping > notwithstanding. I disagree. Christians had much more power in the 1700's, 1800's and early 1900's. Back in those days, teachers led elementary school children in the Lord's prayer each day. Creation science was taught in high school biology classes. I could give other examples. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <vfsdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:59:20 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > In article <5dg7koF34ssfaU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > >> > >> snip > >> > > >> > In the case of Cheryl Prewitt, the main witness would be Cheryl Prewitt. I > >> > believed the testimony of Cheryl Prewitt. > >> > >> Why? > > > > After hearing her entire testimony, I found no reason to not believe > > her. > > Wrong approach. The question is what reason did you have to believe > her? Did she provide evidence of her claims? No. Do you know there > was no trickery going on? No. > > The simplest explanation is that the whole thing was manufactured as a > stunt; this is certainly a more likely explanation than to posit some > invisible magic sky pixie with mysterious healing powers who, for no > apparent reason, decided to come down today of all days and heal this one > particular person. > > Maybe you don't have any reason not to believe her... but you've given no > reason to believe her, either, yet you swallow the whole story, hook > line and sinker, without a second's thought. One point that you have NOT considered is that I was NOT setting on a jury judging her case. If I had been on her jury--I would have the thought pattern mentioned in your post. I would have examined all of the physical evidence--including medical records and X-rays. I would listen to the testimony of doctors and nurses. Instead, I attended a church service and listened to her testimony and listened to her sing her songs. I had no reason to judge her. Do you see my point--I doubt it. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <MmXci.1001$nQ5.416@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1606071345400001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > In article <NdWci.635$W9.404@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-1606071048390001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > In article <f50ost$p7b$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Free Lunch wrote: > >> >> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > <Jason-1506071503110001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> >> I doubt that is true. Who makes them sign the pledge? > >> >> > > >> >> > Ask the ICR, CRS and AIG. > >> >> > > >> >> > The ICR tells us that they won't let something as silly as facts get > >> >> > in > >> >> > the way of their teaching of doctrine: <http://icr.org/home/faq/> > >> >> > and > >> >> > scroll down a bit. > >> > > >> > I visited that site and saw no evidence indicating that people have to > >> > sign that list of their beliefs. Perhaps the employees of ICR MAY have > >> > to > >> > sign such a pledge but I saw no evidence at that site indicating that > >> > people that have Ph.D degrees that are advocates of creation science > >> > have > >> > to sign a pledge. > >> > >> Unless AIG and the ICR have changed in the last two years they do. Here > >> is > >> the ICR statement: > >> (A) PRIORITIES > >> 1.. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary > >> in > >> importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. > >> 2.. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced > >> from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. > >> (B) BASICS > >> 1.. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is > >> divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually > >> true > >> in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything > >> it > >> teaches. > >> 2.. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture > >> itself. > >> 3.. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual > >> presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework > >> for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of > >> life, > >> mankind, the Earth and the universe. > >> 4.. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were > >> made > >> by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the > >> original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species > >> today, > >> reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited > >> biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred > >> naturally within each kind since Creation. > >> 5.. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide > >> (global) in its extent and effect. > >> 6.. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first > >> woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the > >> necessity > >> of salvation for mankind. > >> 7.. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this > >> world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <lnh873pld6ilv4s6h3smc6pad8v48lcd9n@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:33:16 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1506072333160001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <mc1ck4-7cg.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > ><kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> [snips] > >> > >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:56:49 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >> > I can't speak for any religions except for Christianity. I do believe that > >> > testimony is evidence. > >> > >> You have the statements - testimony - of several people here that you're > >> an idiot. Are you going to now do the honest thing and agree, based on > >> the testimony, that you are, in fact, an idiot? > >> > >> Somehow I think you'll disagree... but wait, you can't , as you yourself > >> say that testimony is evidence, and therefore you have overwhelming > >> evidence that you are, in fact, an idiot. > >> > >> So which is it? Are you an idiot? Or do you finally realize that this > >> "testimony is evidence" line of yours is complete and utter tripe? > > > >I served on jury duty and have testified in court. Testimony is evidence. > >It's up to the jury members and/or a judge to determine which testimony to > >accept and which testimony to reject. In the case of the testimony of > >people that called me childest names--I reject that testimony. > > > Jason, once again you have proven that you ignored anything that would > help you understand reality better. Testimony is allowed in court as > evidence under certain limited circumstances. Testimony can never be > allowed to make a claim that is contrary to physical evidence. Under no > circumstance would it be admissible testimony to make any claim about > what any god did, though one could refer to a religious story to see > what the story said. > > Science, of course, does not accept testimony as evidence. > > You are just telling us some hearsay, which, as you must have learned in > jury class, is not acceptible under all but rare circumstances. Yes, in our jury training, we were told by the judge about the rules of evidence. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <c5tdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > [snips] > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:44:27 -0700, Jason wrote: > > > No, I don't think that Christians or yourself needs medication. Perhaps, > > some of the advocates of evolution do need medication since they seem to > > get really angry when someone attacks their precious theory. > > Which theory? Punk Eek? Saltation? > > > It's my > > opinion that some of the advocates of evolution treat evolution as more of > > a religion than as a theory. > > You did not just call evolution a theory . You couldn't > have. After all this time, you still haven't learned the simplest, most > basic facts of the matter, despite endless repetition of it? > > > You have in fact just demonstrated you are absolutely ineducable. You are > constitutionally incapable of learning or of actual thought. You are, in > short, an ambulatory Jell-O, and I for once have already had my dessert. > > I wash my hands of this moron; may the rest of you fare as well. I'll > stick to more profitable things than trying to educate him... teaching > rocks to sing, perhaps. Evolution is a theory. I just looked up the word evolution and it states: "Evolution: A theory first proposed in 19th century by Carles Darwin...." Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <6kh873l6vd2dijsc4nfa7g46mf7kj89k6l@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:05:07 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1506072305070001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <hpk6731d9jbq59bsjeffaplv04tqotjdb3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:59:20 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1506071859200001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1v3673dt5lsaeeelj2sevnbsmorev24hhu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:34 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-1506071540340001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <1wCci.267$P8.79@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:Jason-1506071200360001@66-52-22-34.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> ... > >> >> >> > We don't know. We are hoping that it will be soon. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Well read the damn verses Jason, they say it will be soon. Just > >for your > >> >> >> information, two thousand years isn't 'soon'. Before you go into a > >> >'we don't > >> >> >> know how soon it is in god's time' defense, read the verses and tell > >> >me when > >> >> >> you think Jesus said he would come. Just one more of literally > >> >thousands of > >> >> >> reasons to conclude that your god doesn't exist. > >> >> > > >> >> >Some of the prophecies related to the last days did not come true until > >> >> >the past 10 to 20 years. Here is one of them: > >> >> >2 Tim 4:3-5 > >> >> > > >> >> >For the time will come when [Christians] will not endure sound doctrine; > >> >> >but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers [and > >> >> >preachers]. Those [preachers] will teach them not what the truth is but > >> >> >instead what they want to hear > >> >> > > >> >> >My comment: That prophecy has come true in my life time. There is one > >> >> >church in California called Unity Fellowship. The preachers are more like > >> >> >psychologists than real preachers. There is a television show that is > >> >> >broadcast on Sunday morning called the "Hour of Power". The preacher never > >> >> >discusses Bible doctrines. He teaches messages related to psychology and > >> >> >sociology. I have never heard him preach messages from the Bible. > >> >> >Jason > >> >> > >> >> Jason, Christians have been claiming that they were in the last days > >> >> ever since Christianity began. Your ignorance of history betrays you and > >> >> gives you the foolish idea that only recently have these 'signs' been > >> >> fulfilled. Once again I have to wonder if you are really a Christian. > >> > > >> >My father (in the 1950's) believed that he was living in the last days. > >> > >> Which is one example of your claim being wrong. > >> > >> >According to the Bible, the deciples of Jesus hoped Jesus would return > >> >during their life times. > >> > >> Another example. I see that you don't have the integrity to acknowledge > >> your error or tell us that you will make an effort to not make this > >> mistake again. > >> > >> >I have never claimed to be a Bible scholar. > >> > >> Yet you accept the claims of people you believe are Bible scholars, even > >> when they are wrong. > >> > >> >I learn new things every time I listen to another sermon. > >> > >> No, I don't think you do. > >> > >> You would learn something if you followed up on the references that you > >> have ignored here. Your ignorance would not be so breathtaking if you > >> didn't insist on having opinions on so many subjects that you don't > >> understand and refuse to learn about. > > > >Yes, prior generations believed they were living in the last days. They > >were wrong. We could be right. I believe the rapture will happen in this > >generation. > > Do you know that the overwhelming majority of Christians belong to > churches that reject rapture doctrines? Of course those churches that > believe in rapture can't agree on anything anyway. > > It's a silly doctrine, quite well suited to you. That means those Christians don't believe the Bible since the Rapture is discussed in detail in 1 Thes. 4:13-18. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <2di873lbeeshm9r2u5i2dp4c1q3cv5padi@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > > > >No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for > >Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had > >already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was > >probably her life story--including details about the car accident and > >healing. > > So you don't know if she presents any evidence in the book, for her > claims. No--I did not buy the book or read the book. As someone pointed out to me, even if the physical evidence proved that the bone grew two inches--it would not prove that God healed her. Of course, Cheryl and most of the Christians that heard her testimony and have read her book believe that God healed her leg. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:25:35 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > >> No--not really. I now avoid going to the beach. It was easier in the old >> days when women wore 1 piece bathing suits. Have you been to a beach or >> swimming pool in recent years? > > Are you turned off by women's bodies? Only the 400-pound ones wrapped in lime-green spandex pants and bright orange tops... but that's more a question of signal overload than anything to do with her. -- “I was once a Christoholic. I had a Bible at work, and one at home, and another one in the bathroom. I had a ten-chapter-a-day habit. I used to sneak in a verse or two while riding the bus to work. Ahh, I was a mess! But I’m much better now.” -- Jonny Vee Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In article <v2l873582f7e4uacs5tc1jtbvc074da6d4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:19:30 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1606071519300001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <2di873lbeeshm9r2u5i2dp4c1q3cv5padi@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 > ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > >> > >> > > >> >No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for > >> >Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had > >> >already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was > >> >probably her life story--including details about the car accident and > >> >healing. > >> > >> So you don't know if she presents any evidence in the book, for her > >> claims. > > > >No--I did not buy the book or read the book. As someone pointed out to me, > >even if the physical evidence proved that the bone grew two inches--it > >would not prove that God healed her. Of course, Cheryl and most of the > >Christians that heard her testimony and have read her book believe that > >God healed her leg. > > > Have you finally acknowledged that belief is not evidence? Testimony is evidence but testimony can be accepted or rejected. In this case, belief is not evidence. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >In article <2di873lbeeshm9r2u5i2dp4c1q3cv5padi@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> > >> >No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for >> >Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had >> >already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was >> >probably her life story--including details about the car accident and >> >healing. >> >> So you don't know if she presents any evidence in the book, for her >> claims. > >No--I did not buy the book or read the book. As someone pointed out to me, >even if the physical evidence proved that the bone grew two inches--it >would not prove that God healed her. Of course, Cheryl and most of the >Christians that heard her testimony and have read her book believe that >God healed her leg. > Being Christians, they would. Even if she had the two inches added by the injection of growth hormone, or gene therapy, or whatever would activate the growth lines in her femur -- some could believe that that's how Goddidit. In my own case, the growth lines in my lower right femur were inactivated by driving staples into them, clamping them off, so that my right leg ended up the same length as my left leg. I could say this was God-directed, no? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:44:24 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1606071644240001@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <v2l873582f7e4uacs5tc1jtbvc074da6d4@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:19:30 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1606071519300001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <2di873lbeeshm9r2u5i2dp4c1q3cv5padi@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 >> ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >No, there was a crowd of people gathered around the table waiting for >> >> >Cheryl to show up and sign the books for them. I did not buy a copy. I had >> >> >already heard her testimony so saw no reason to read the book. It was >> >> >probably her life story--including details about the car accident and >> >> >healing. >> >> >> >> So you don't know if she presents any evidence in the book, for her >> >> claims. >> > >> >No--I did not buy the book or read the book. As someone pointed out to me, >> >even if the physical evidence proved that the bone grew two inches--it >> >would not prove that God healed her. Of course, Cheryl and most of the >> >Christians that heard her testimony and have read her book believe that >> >God healed her leg. >> > >> Have you finally acknowledged that belief is not evidence? > >Testimony is evidence but testimony can be accepted or rejected. In this >case, belief is not evidence. Not all proposed testimony will be allowed to be presented as evidence. This is not a question for the jury to decide. The rules of procedure tell the judges what kinds of testimony they may allow and the kinds they must forbid. As you note, the jury is free to accept or reject any piece of testimony because testimony is so unreliable compared with other legal evidence. Belief is _never_ evidence under any circumstance. Do you comprehend that simple fact? Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason wrote: > I now understand the primary reason that atheists refuse to > believe that God healed Cheryl Prewitt. It related to their > belief system and the fact that they don't believe in God. You're catching on. Now, when you realize why you don't believe in Zeus, Thor, or any other god of mythology, you'll realize why we don't believe in your god. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Jason wrote: > In order for lower life forms (living cells) to evolve into higher life > forms (mammals)--major mutations would have been required. No, it would not. > example: Hyracotherium evolving into Equus Which is why a hyracotherium did not evolve into an equus. Evolution doesn't work that way.... and you know it. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1606071456080001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <MmXci.1001$nQ5.416@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1606071345400001@66-52-22-19.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <NdWci.635$W9.404@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1606071048390001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <f50ost$p7b$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Free Lunch wrote: >> >> >> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:03:10 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> > <Jason-1506071503110001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I doubt that is true. Who makes them sign the pledge? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Ask the ICR, CRS and AIG. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The ICR tells us that they won't let something as silly as facts >> >> >> > get >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > the way of their teaching of doctrine: <http://icr.org/home/faq/> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > scroll down a bit. >> >> > >> >> > I visited that site and saw no evidence indicating that people have >> >> > to >> >> > sign that list of their beliefs. Perhaps the employees of ICR MAY >> >> > have >> >> > to >> >> > sign such a pledge but I saw no evidence at that site indicating >> >> > that >> >> > people that have Ph.D degrees that are advocates of creation science >> >> > have >> >> > to sign a pledge. >> >> >> >> Unless AIG and the ICR have changed in the last two years they do. >> >> Here >> >> is >> >> the ICR statement: >> >> (A) PRIORITIES >> >> 1.. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are >> >> secondary >> >> in >> >> importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. >> >> 2.. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be >> >> divorced >> >> from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. >> >> (B) BASICS >> >> 1.. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible >> >> is >> >> divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are >> >> factually >> >> true >> >> in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in >> >> everything >> >> it >> >> teaches. >> >> 2.. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture >> >> itself. >> >> 3.. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but >> >> factual >> >> presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable >> >> framework >> >> for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of >> >> life, >> >> mankind, the Earth and the universe. >> >> 4.. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were >> >> made >> >> by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the >> >> original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species >> >> today, >> >> reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only >> >> limited >> >> biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred >> >> naturally within each kind since Creation. >> >> 5.. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, >> >> worldwide >> >> (global) in its extent and effect. >> >> 6.. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first >> >> woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the >> >> necessity >> >> of salvation for mankind. >> >> 7.. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into >> >> this >> >> world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:30:35 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <r85dk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >[snips] > >On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:07:44 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> Martin, >> Is this a natural law: >> The total energy of an isolated system can not change. >> >> If it is a natural law, it seems to be in conflict with this statement >> that you made: >> "It is possible to get something from nothing". > >Both are correct. Since the universe is thought to be a zero-energy >system, it is perfectly legitimate to have a surplus of "positive" energy >- heat, matter and the like - as long as there is sufficient "negative" >energy - eg gravity - to balance the equation. > >The net result remains zero, but you can still get energy and matter - >something from nothing - as long as the equation is balanced. Where's the >problem? Here is the problem: Reality is a severe challenge to Jason's infantile delusions. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:11:32 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: - Refer: <rsg873deb7ns7vt5to5ovn7r89apcpclia@4ax.com> >On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:01:09 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in ><lkodk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>: >>[snips] >> >>On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:10:25 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >>> Christians have very little power in America. >> >>Really? Funny; gay marriage has faced an uphill battle due, primarily, to >>religious bigotry, most of it from Christians. Try putting anything >>remotely risque on prime time TV, see how far you get. The narrow-minded >>Christian mentality dominates the country, your gum-flapping >>notwithstanding. > >Christians are repeating a falsehood when they tell us that they are >powerless in America, but they are so completely out of touch with what >is happening that they don't realize how fundamentally dishonest that >claim is. Integrity and fair analysis are not encourged in many >religions. And positively outlawed in the Abrhamic ones. Under threat of eternal torture. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:14:06 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <etsdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >[snips] > >On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:27:12 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>> Historically then El (the creator of the universe) >>> and Yahweh (the creator of mankind) were not the same >>> god. Judeo-Christian tradition combines the two gods >>> into one. It would appear as though Genesis chapter >>> one originally spoke about El and Genesis chapter two >>> originally spoke about Yahweh. >> >> In what Bible verse is El mentioned? > >You know something funny? You're the staunch defender of Christianity, >yet it's the blinkin' atheists who know the Bible. Those who actually bother to read the pornographic tome all the way through, usually wind up as atheists. Jason cannot read a single paragraph with the comprehension of a squashed cockroach, so a tome the size of the babble would be out of the question for his feeble attention span. -- Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:12:11 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <rpsdk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> >[snips] > >On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:55:39 +0930, Michael Gray wrote: > >>>When Moses asked (Exodus 3:14), the reply was not a name. >> >> In Hebrew it was "hayah hayah". >> "I am that I am". > >"And that's all that I am." Hmm... God is Popeye. Yes, that occurs top me every time that I read it! "Im YHWH the slaughter-man. Toot toot!" -- Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:31:32 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <bra873tuptej1b6nio0c4q9amov1e7lc57@4ax.com>, Jim07D7 ><Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote: > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: >> >> <...> >> > >> >I disagree. In my scenario, there was NO physical evidence. However, there >> >were 8 witnesses that heard him say, "I'm going to kill that woman." They >> >observed him take a gun in the apartment and heard a gunshot. They found >> >the man's dead wife. I would have believed the testimony of the witnesses. >> >I would have found him guilty. >> > >> I recommend the movie "12 Angry Men". > >Juries make mistakes. I believe O.J's jury made a major mistake. I would >have found O.J. guilty. The jury didn't find Simpson not guilty because they actually believed he was not guilty. They did so because it was discovered during the trial that a racist cop named Mark Fuhrman had tampered with the evidence. Several members of the jury later stated in interviews that under the circumstances, they felt they really had no other choice. > >Dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of convicts have been released from prison as >a direct result of DNA tests that confirmed they were not guilty. That >means that lots of juries made incorrect decisions. Yes they have. And it really isn't their fault. It's because the deck is stacked against the accused from the start, especially if he or she is poor and/or non-white. Prosecutors routinely petition judges to disallow evidence they feel could hurt their case, and court-appointed defense attorneys more often than not don't protest because they just don't give a damn. It might interest you to know that several years ago, legislation was proposed in Congress that would have made DNA testing mandatory in all felony cases where such testing was possible (i.e. where DNA evidence existed). By far the majority of prosecutors opposed the measure, citing the high cost of DNA testing as the reason for their opposition. Oddly enough, I don't hear those same prosecutors complaining about the cost when they think DNA testing will establish guilt. And why do you suppose that is? Simple. Most prosecutors don't really care about seeing justice done. They just want to put a warm body in a prison cell so they can stamp the case file closed. The reason for that is no secret. Prosecutors who don't secure high conviction rates don't keep their jobs. It's all politics. It has nothing to do with justice. > >When I serve on jury duty, my concern is justice for the victim. That is >the reason I would find the husband guilty. Well, try this on for size. Every person who goes to prison for a crime he/she didn't commit is also a victim. > 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.