Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 9:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181604561.388652.148...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 12, 1:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > Please explain what the researchers mean when they discuss "another > > > universe with space-time geometry similar to our own...." Did this > > > universe exist prior the Big Bang and would it have been possible to > > > measure time in that universe? > > > We've been through this, Jason. I long ago said "It is reasonable to > > suppose that something happened before the big bang that led to the > > big bang". Just because it is reasonable to suppose, though, doesn't > > mean it is true: all the evidence suggests that the universe began > > with the big bang. If anything happened "before" then, yes, we would > > be talking about another universe. Why do you keep bringing this up > > as though it were new information? > I was trying to resolve conflicting information. You told me long ago that > a universe may have existed prior to the Big Bang and other people told me > that time and physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang. That was a > conflict that I was trying to resolve. It appears that some experts (such > as the ones that I mentioned) do believe that another universe existed > prior to the Big Bang. However, the consensus is that time and physics did > not exist prior to the Big Bang. Do I now have it right? You're confusing theory and belief. What a scientist believes is irrelevent: the only thing that matters is what he can find evidence for. What actual evidence is there for a time before the big bang or for other universes? That's the question. It may be that no evidence will ever exist but it is still reasonable to suppose that the big bang wasn't a "first cause" in that there might have been existing preconditions that made it possible. It's an interesting question and a difficult one to resolve, the problem being that we ourselves are part of the system being studied (ie the universe). Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181604194.743582.114...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 12, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to believe. > > > That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians. > > > Assertion. We know you swallow every lie that your fellow Godbots > > tell you. We don't. We rely on actual evidence. That's all there is > > to it and none of your lies will change the actual truth. > An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports > their belief system. When your assertions have been corrected and yet you repeat them anyway they can now be fairly called lies. You know better than to say atheists believe ANYTHING and yet you continue to repeat that lie. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 9:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1106071731380...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > ... > > >Bramble, > > >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he > > >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do > > >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great > > >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit > > >criminal acts. > > > >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and > > >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison > > >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his > > >or her free will. > > > >Do you see my point? > > > Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence shows > > us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that > > fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call > > your God a liar. > > > Why? > > The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God You keep talking about your imaginary friend as if he were real. You need to be commited for psychiatric observation. Martin Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1181566794.910552.107450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 10 Jun., 23:36, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:Jason-1006071257370001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1ror...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>>> <Jason-1006070947590...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>>> In article <1181469394.462447.51...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 10, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>>>> Since testimony is considered as evidence in court, I also consid= >> er >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> testimony of Cheryl Prewitt as evidence. If you do not consider h= >> er >>>>>>>> testimony as evidence, that is your choice. Have you provided in >>>>>>>> evidence >>>>>>>> that indicates that it is possible for bacteria to naturally evol= >> ve >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> an animal cell? >>>>>>> Physical evidence trumps testimony, Jason. It's the only thing that >>>>>>> can be double checked and verified. >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>> That is true but would you acknowledge that testimony is also evidenc= >> e? >>>>> Made up stories are not evidence. >>>> Is a testimony evidence? >>> I'm sure as savvy as you are you have heard the old adage, extraordinary >>> claims require extraordinary evidence. No Jason, for someone to claim suc= >> h a >>> ridiculous story is true requires more than their oral testimony.- Skjul = >> tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> In all seriousness I think his position is that people just choose to >> believe whatever they want, so testimony is evidence for any claim; if >> one wants to believe the claim - but not if one does not want to >> believe it. That provides the reason atheists do not believe it, i.e. >> they don't want to believe it; so they accept other evidence which is >> (in Jason's opinion) no better than his, after all they can both be >> called "evidence". Jason does not seem to accept the existence of a >> physical reality separate from and regardless of what he believes. >> Not all dogmatic theists come across quite as insane as he does, but, >> at least in the compartment of their mind in which they keep their >> dogma, they are all quite mad. > > I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to believe. > That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians. One athiest > actually told me that even if I produced the physical evidence (eg > X-Rays), it would NOT cause him to believe that God healed her since he > did not believe in God. Do you believe there is evidence that a single > cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a single animal cell (with DNA > nucleus capable of sexual reproduction)? Is it speculation or evidence? > Jason > > Congratulations Jason, you are speaking of evolution properly. Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1181558587.524968.174930@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 10 Jun., 15:56, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On 10 Jun., 02:03, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> Since God created the world and all life forms--God is indirectly >>>>> responsible for everything that happens--even if it is evil. Does that >>>>> mean that a murderer can blame God for the murder--I don't think so. >>> Jason will change his mind if he ever snaps and kills ten people in >>> one day as he's threatened to do. >>> >>> Martin >> It is amazing that he (and so many others) can serenely contradict >> themselves, apparently without it bothering them in the least. He >> tells us that god is responsible for everything, but he is not >> responsible for any crimes committed. He will, no doubt, attempt to >> justify it by mentioning free will, which, of course, also contradicts >> god being responsible for everything. A whirling dervish has nothing >> on Jason. > > There is no contradiction. I will simplify it for you by giving you an > example. Parents have a son that commits a murder when he is 30 years old. > Will the son or the parents be sent to prison? The answer is that the son > will be sent to prison since he was guilty of the murder. Yes, the parents > were indirectly responsible since the murder would not have been committed > if the parents had not had that son. But the parents are not responsible for the behavior of an adult competent child. They may regret have given birth to that child, but they are not legally responsible for his actions after attaining majority. They may have raised him in a way that led him to commit his crimes, but that is a psychological issue rather than a legal one. It might be a moral issue, depending on how they raised him. > Jason > > Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181614348.455145.11330@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 9:25 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181604194.743582.114...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 1:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to believe. > > > > That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians. > > > > > Assertion. We know you swallow every lie that your fellow Godbots > > > tell you. We don't. We rely on actual evidence. That's all there is > > > to it and none of your lies will change the actual truth. > > > An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports > > their belief system. > > When your assertions have been corrected and yet you repeat them > anyway they can now be fairly called lies. You know better than to > say atheists believe ANYTHING and yet you continue to repeat that lie. > > Martin It's a lie to state that I swallow every lie that my fellow Godbots tell me. There is one television preacher that I no longer lister to since I do not agree with various things that he has stated about his beliefs. I had a mormon friend and I found out that I do not agree with many of the teachings of the mormon church. When preachers lie about what the Bible states, I do not believe their lies. It's up to you to decide whether you told a lie in your Assertion. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <utqr63he40hh9n29rh2c80f0p1v05gj976@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:39:16 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1106071839160001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9kv7@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-1106071731380001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > >> ... > >> >Bramble, > >> >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he > >> >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do > >> >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great > >> >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit > >> >criminal acts. > >> > > >> >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and > >> >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison > >> >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his > >> >or her free will. > >> > > >> >Do you see my point? > >> > >> Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence shows > >> us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that > >> fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call > >> your God a liar. > >> > >> Why? > > > > > > > >The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God created mankind, > >some plants and some animals. > > So what? You know there's no evidence that the Bible came from God or is > scientifically accurate. You also know that there is evidence that many > of the stories in Genesis are scientifically in error. > > > I believe that evolution kicked in after the > >creation process was finished. > > I don't care. You have already demonstrated that your opinion in this > area is worthless. > > >It's my opinion, after reading the last > >paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on > >this planet. > > Even if he did, he does not agree with your false doctrine. > > >I read the last chapter of his book which was posted on a > >website and Darwin used the term CREATOR at least once in that chapter. In > >other words, the founder of evolution theory agrees that an intelligent > >designer was involved and actually "breathed [life] into a few forms or > >into one." > > He had very little evidence to go on, so there was no reason for him to > speculate about what happened. We have far more, so it is foolish to > continue to refer to the God of the Gaps. > > If God exists, He must hate you for telling so many lies about what He > did. Imagine how God feels about atheists. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181614412.939840.97340@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 9:39 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-1106071731380...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > ... > > > >Bramble, > > > >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he > > > >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do > > > >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great > > > >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit > > > >criminal acts. > > > > > >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and > > > >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison > > > >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his > > > >or her free will. > > > > > >Do you see my point? > > > > > Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence shows > > > us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that > > > fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call > > > your God a liar. > > > > > Why? > > > > The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God > > You keep talking about your imaginary friend as if he were real. You > need to be commited for psychiatric observation. > > Martin Martin, They will have to build a lot of mental hospitals. According to the 2005 Time Almanac, there are 1.9 billion Christians in the world. (page 359). Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > In article > <Jason-1106071747150001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." > > If that were the case, reliable corroborating evidence would be > plentiful. > > You, being so determined to demonstrate the veracity of this little > story, should be able to provide same. > > You cannot; ergo, there's no reason to believe you. Several have told me they would not believe that she was healed by God--regardless of the physical evidence. So--why should I waste my time finding physical evidence. I already know that she was healed by God so I don't need to find physical evidence. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181613813.848759.320390@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 8:55 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181601575.339680.162...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 2:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Cheryl Prewitt could provide a mountain of physical evidence and you still > > > > would not believe that God healed her. > > > > > Presumably. But she didn't. It's called "preaching to the choir". > > > If there was really some cover up to hide the evidence that she had > > > been cured then surely she would have called for an investigation by > > > now. In the meantime, all we have is the word of a Godbot. And that > > > is worth the same as a bucket of shit. You prove that lately with > > > every other post you make here. > > > Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris and Cheryl Prewitt are preaching to the choir. > > It's a sign of progress that you can recognize this. > > > She > > does not need to carry her medial records and X rays with her when she > > gives her testimony. We believed her when she gave her testimony and > > enjoyed hearing her sing various songs. Perhaps she does carry the medical > > records with her in case she speaks to a group that includes skeptics but > > I doubt that she speaks to such groups of people. > > No, of course not. Which is precisely why rational people would not > believe her. Why wouldn't she want to convince people who don't > believe? We _are_ calling her a liar, after all. > > > She would not enjoy > > giving her testimony to people that took turns calling her a liar. > > Tough. That's what people do in science. Scientists do not accept > anything without evidence. That's just the way it is. My high school > math teacher, for one, would be terribly offended by your willingness > to believe what people say without evidence, let alone proof. You > Godbots don't seem to be willing to accept that, let alone be able to > deal with it. > > Martin Martin, If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? Jason Quote
Guest cactus Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Jason wrote: >>>> He is saying that she has no idea who or how are leg was healed. >>> Let's look at her actual statement to determine whether or not she has an >>> idea who or how her leg was healed: >>> >>>>>>> After a car accident at age 11, Cheryl Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181614192.762386.102230@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 9:12 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181604561.388652.148...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 1:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > Please explain what the researchers mean when they discuss "another > > > > universe with space-time geometry similar to our own...." Did this > > > > universe exist prior the Big Bang and would it have been possible to > > > > measure time in that universe? > > > > > We've been through this, Jason. I long ago said "It is reasonable to > > > suppose that something happened before the big bang that led to the > > > big bang". Just because it is reasonable to suppose, though, doesn't > > > mean it is true: all the evidence suggests that the universe began > > > with the big bang. If anything happened "before" then, yes, we would > > > be talking about another universe. Why do you keep bringing this up > > > as though it were new information? > > > I was trying to resolve conflicting information. You told me long ago that > > a universe may have existed prior to the Big Bang and other people told me > > that time and physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang. That was a > > conflict that I was trying to resolve. It appears that some experts (such > > as the ones that I mentioned) do believe that another universe existed > > prior to the Big Bang. However, the consensus is that time and physics did > > not exist prior to the Big Bang. Do I now have it right? > > You're confusing theory and belief. What a scientist believes is > irrelevent: the only thing that matters is what he can find evidence > for. What actual evidence is there for a time before the big bang or > for other universes? That's the question. It may be that no evidence > will ever exist but it is still reasonable to suppose that the big > bang wasn't a "first cause" in that there might have been existing > preconditions that made it possible. It's an interesting question and > a difficult one to resolve, the problem being that we ourselves are > part of the system being studied (ie the universe). > > Martin Martin, Thank--that was helpful. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181611488.232237.92830@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 8:31 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > God > > God doesn't exist. > > created mankind, he > > gave us free will. > > Free will doesn't exist. > > You're 0 for 2. > > Martin I disagree--Free Will does exist. Once a person understands free will, many Bible doctrines and even issues related to life; sociological and psychological issues--make sense. For example, I now understand why some people do wonderful thing such as doctors that spend a month each year in third world countries. I also understand why some people do terrible things such as becoming murderers or rapists. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <omsr63lbc8asb8qs5gghasksvaqesjamfi@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:23:39 -0700, gudloos@yahoo.com > let us all know that: > > >On 11 Jun., 15:38, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:28:00 -0700, J...@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> >12 percent agree with you related to one aspect of evolution theory. > >> >88 percent agree with me related to that same aspect of evolution theory. > >> > >> Wrong. > >> > >> Now then: what about my responses to the 20 questions? I'll > >> keep asking until you give me something more substantive than "thank > >> you for answering". > > > > > >How many years do you intend to dedicate? > > Until he gives up and leaves. > > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" You want to try again. I'll find 10 or 20 more questions for you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <zypbi.18372$C96.5117@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1181566794.910552.107450@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 10 Jun., 23:36, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >>> > >>> news:Jason-1006071257370001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1ror...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>> <Jason-1006070947590...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>> In article <1181469394.462447.51...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>> Martin > >>>>>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 10, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>>>> Since testimony is considered as evidence in court, I also consid= > >> er > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> testimony of Cheryl Prewitt as evidence. If you do not consider h= > >> er > >>>>>>>> testimony as evidence, that is your choice. Have you provided in > >>>>>>>> evidence > >>>>>>>> that indicates that it is possible for bacteria to naturally evol= > >> ve > >>>>>>>> into > >>>>>>>> an animal cell? > >>>>>>> Physical evidence trumps testimony, Jason. It's the only thing that > >>>>>>> can be double checked and verified. > >>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>> That is true but would you acknowledge that testimony is also evidenc= > >> e? > >>>>> Made up stories are not evidence. > >>>> Is a testimony evidence? > >>> I'm sure as savvy as you are you have heard the old adage, extraordinary > >>> claims require extraordinary evidence. No Jason, for someone to claim suc= > >> h a > >>> ridiculous story is true requires more than their oral testimony.- Skjul = > >> tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >>> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> In all seriousness I think his position is that people just choose to > >> believe whatever they want, so testimony is evidence for any claim; if > >> one wants to believe the claim - but not if one does not want to > >> believe it. That provides the reason atheists do not believe it, i.e. > >> they don't want to believe it; so they accept other evidence which is > >> (in Jason's opinion) no better than his, after all they can both be > >> called "evidence". Jason does not seem to accept the existence of a > >> physical reality separate from and regardless of what he believes. > >> Not all dogmatic theists come across quite as insane as he does, but, > >> at least in the compartment of their mind in which they keep their > >> dogma, they are all quite mad. > > > > I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to believe. > > That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians. One athiest > > actually told me that even if I produced the physical evidence (eg > > X-Rays), it would NOT cause him to believe that God healed her since he > > did not believe in God. Do you believe there is evidence that a single > > cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a single animal cell (with DNA > > nucleus capable of sexual reproduction)? Is it speculation or evidence? > > Jason > > > > > Congratulations Jason, you are speaking of evolution properly. cactus, thanks, jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <4Bpbi.18373$C96.17471@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1181558587.524968.174930@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 10 Jun., 15:56, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On 10 Jun., 02:03, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> Since God created the world and all life forms--God is indirectly > >>>>> responsible for everything that happens--even if it is evil. Does that > >>>>> mean that a murderer can blame God for the murder--I don't think so. > >>> Jason will change his mind if he ever snaps and kills ten people in > >>> one day as he's threatened to do. > >>> > >>> Martin > >> It is amazing that he (and so many others) can serenely contradict > >> themselves, apparently without it bothering them in the least. He > >> tells us that god is responsible for everything, but he is not > >> responsible for any crimes committed. He will, no doubt, attempt to > >> justify it by mentioning free will, which, of course, also contradicts > >> god being responsible for everything. A whirling dervish has nothing > >> on Jason. > > > > There is no contradiction. I will simplify it for you by giving you an > > example. Parents have a son that commits a murder when he is 30 years old. > > Will the son or the parents be sent to prison? The answer is that the son > > will be sent to prison since he was guilty of the murder. Yes, the parents > > were indirectly responsible since the murder would not have been committed > > if the parents had not had that son. > > But the parents are not responsible for the behavior of an adult > competent child. They may regret have given birth to that child, but > they are not legally responsible for his actions after attaining > majority. They may have raised him in a way that led him to commit his > crimes, but that is a psychological issue rather than a legal one. It > might be a moral issue, depending on how they raised him. > > > Jason > > > > cactus, My point was that God is like the parents. In much the same way the parents were indirectly responsible for the murder since the murder would not have happened if the son had never been born--God is indirectly responsible for evil, since evil would never have happened if God had not created the solar system and life. Jasn Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 12:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <utqr63he40hh9n29rh2c80f0p1v05gj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:39:16 -0700, in alt.atheism > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > <Jason-1106071839160...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> <Jason-1106071731380...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> ... > > >> >Bramble, > > >> >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he > > >> >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do > > >> >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great > > >> >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit > > >> >criminal acts. > > > >> >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and > > >> >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison > > >> >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his > > >> >or her free will. > > > >> >Do you see my point? > > > >> Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence shows > > >> us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that > > >> fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call > > >> your God a liar. > > > >> Why? > > > >The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God created mankind, > > >some plants and some animals. > > > So what? You know there's no evidence that the Bible came from God or is > > scientifically accurate. You also know that there is evidence that many > > of the stories in Genesis are scientifically in error. > > > > I believe that evolution kicked in after the > > >creation process was finished. > > > I don't care. You have already demonstrated that your opinion in this > > area is worthless. > > > >It's my opinion, after reading the last > > >paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on > > >this planet. > > > Even if he did, he does not agree with your false doctrine. > > > >I read the last chapter of his book which was posted on a > > >website and Darwin used the term CREATOR at least once in that chapter. In > > >other words, the founder of evolution theory agrees that an intelligent > > >designer was involved and actually "breathed [life] into a few forms or > > >into one." > > > He had very little evidence to go on, so there was no reason for him to > > speculate about what happened. We have far more, so it is foolish to > > continue to refer to the God of the Gaps. > > > If God exists, He must hate you for telling so many lies about what He > > did. > > Imagine how God feels about atheists.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When you say that "Imagine how god feels....", why do you state things for your god? Can't you own god say how he feels directly? By this inferance, aren't religious people like you always state opinion on behalf of someone else! On the other hand, wouldn't it the wish of your god for people like us to correct your mistake? Quote
Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 2:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <4Bpbi.18373$C96.17...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > > > > > > b...@nonespam.com wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1181558587.524968.174...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 10 Jun., 15:56, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>> On 10 Jun., 02:03, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >>>>> Since God created the world and all life forms--God is indirectly > > >>>>> responsible for everything that happens--even if it is evil. Does that > > >>>>> mean that a murderer can blame God for the murder--I don't think so. > > >>> Jason will change his mind if he ever snaps and kills ten people in > > >>> one day as he's threatened to do. > > > >>> Martin > > >> It is amazing that he (and so many others) can serenely contradict > > >> themselves, apparently without it bothering them in the least. He > > >> tells us that god is responsible for everything, but he is not > > >> responsible for any crimes committed. He will, no doubt, attempt to > > >> justify it by mentioning free will, which, of course, also contradicts > > >> god being responsible for everything. A whirling dervish has nothing > > >> on Jason. > > > > There is no contradiction. I will simplify it for you by giving you an > > > example. Parents have a son that commits a murder when he is 30 years old. > > > Will the son or the parents be sent to prison? The answer is that the son > > > will be sent to prison since he was guilty of the murder. Yes, the parents > > > were indirectly responsible since the murder would not have been committed > > > if the parents had not had that son. > > > But the parents are not responsible for the behavior of an adult > > competent child. They may regret have given birth to that child, but > > they are not legally responsible for his actions after attaining > > majority. They may have raised him in a way that led him to commit his > > crimes, but that is a psychological issue rather than a legal one. It > > might be a moral issue, depending on how they raised him. > > > > Jason > > cactus, > My point was that God is like the parents. In much the same way the > parents were indirectly responsible for the murder since the murder would > not have happened if the son had never been born--God is indirectly > responsible for evil, since evil would never have happened if God had not > created the solar system and life. > Jasn- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So, Jason, how come your god created "evil" in the first place? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <6Wpbi.18377$C96.10078@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > >>>> He is saying that she has no idea who or how are leg was healed. > >>> Let's look at her actual statement to determine whether or not she has an > >>> idea who or how her leg was healed: > >>> > >>>>>>> After a car accident at age 11, Cheryl Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181630554.483544.317420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, hhyapster@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 12, 12:53 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <utqr63he40hh9n29rh2c80f0p1v05gj...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > > > > > > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:39:16 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > <Jason-1106071839160...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >In article <kkor63tinbmus479tfljt5ib6lmn7o9...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:31:38 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-1106071731380...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > >> ... > > > >> >Bramble, > > > >> >I agree with many of the points you made. When God created mankind, he > > > >> >gave us free will. He did not create robots that were programmed to do > > > >> >only good things. As a result of free will, people can decide to do great > > > >> >and wonderful things or can use their free will to decide to commit > > > >> >criminal acts. > > > > > >> >God is indirectly responsible since he created the solar system and > > > >> >created life--including mankind. However, when people end up in prison > > > >> >it's not God's fault. It's the fault of the person that was exercising his > > > >> >or her free will. > > > > > >> >Do you see my point? > > > > > >> Man came about as a result of evolution. That is what the evidence shows > > > >> us. If God created man, He used evolution. You refuse to accept that > > > >> fact. You prefer lies to the truth, ignorance to knowledge. You call > > > >> your God a liar. > > > > > >> Why? > > > > > >The first chapter of the book of Genesis states that God created mankind, > > > >some plants and some animals. > > > > > So what? You know there's no evidence that the Bible came from God or is > > > scientifically accurate. You also know that there is evidence that many > > > of the stories in Genesis are scientifically in error. > > > > > > I believe that evolution kicked in after the > > > >creation process was finished. > > > > > I don't care. You have already demonstrated that your opinion in this > > > area is worthless. > > > > > >It's my opinion, after reading the last > > > >paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on > > > >this planet. > > > > > Even if he did, he does not agree with your false doctrine. > > > > > >I read the last chapter of his book which was posted on a > > > >website and Darwin used the term CREATOR at least once in that chapter. In > > > >other words, the founder of evolution theory agrees that an intelligent > > > >designer was involved and actually "breathed [life] into a few forms or > > > >into one." > > > > > He had very little evidence to go on, so there was no reason for him to > > > speculate about what happened. We have far more, so it is foolish to > > > continue to refer to the God of the Gaps. > > > > > If God exists, He must hate you for telling so many lies about what He > > > did. > > > > Imagine how God feels about atheists.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > When you say that "Imagine how god feels....", why do you state things > for your god? > Can't you own god say how he feels directly? Yes > By this inferance, aren't religious people like you always state > opinion on behalf of someone else! No--I rarely state opinions on behalf of someone else. > On the other hand, wouldn't it the wish of your god for people like us > to correct your mistake? I don't know. Has God told you to correct my mistake? Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:51:59 -0400, Al Klein wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:29:29 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:57:59 -0400, Al Klein wrote: > >>> And how can he argue with common descent? He didn't descend from >>> his parents? > >>Well, there's that, but I was thinking more like this: if you take common >>descent out of the picture, WTF is left? > > That we've all been here since the beginning? Even fundies don't > reject the notion of reproduction. What's left of evolution theory if you take out common descent? That we _didn't_ develop from earlier ancestors? That we were never born, or we're all clones? Even if you stick to just in-species adaptation, even their holy books suggest a single pair from which the rest adapted - but that would be ruled out, too. -- Butting heads with fundies is best left to Goats – Styx Allum Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > God makes decisions in relation to what actions to take. His ways and > thoughts are not our ways and thoughts so it's not usually possible to > determine whether various things that happen are or are not the result of > God's intervention. In some cases, it is possible such as when a dramatic > healing takes place. I mentioned the dramatic healing of Cheryl > Prewitt--former Miss America. Her leg bone grew two inches in size. Her > legs are now the same size. > > The reason that people die of various diseases is a direct result of the > sin of Adam and Eve. LOL! I honestly can't believe an adult believes this crap. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 19:05, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181558587.524968.174...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 10 Jun., 15:56, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On 10 Jun., 02:03, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > Since God created the world and all life forms--God is indirectly > > > > > responsible for everything that happens--even if it is evil. Does that > > > > > mean that a murderer can blame God for the murder--I don't think so. > > > > Jason will change his mind if he ever snaps and kills ten people in > > > one day as he's threatened to do. > > > > Martin > > > It is amazing that he (and so many others) can serenely contradict > > themselves, apparently without it bothering them in the least. He > > tells us that god is responsible for everything, but he is not > > responsible for any crimes committed. He will, no doubt, attempt to > > justify it by mentioning free will, which, of course, also contradicts > > god being responsible for everything. A whirling dervish has nothing > > on Jason. > > There is no contradiction. I will simplify it for you by giving you an > example. Parents have a son that commits a murder when he is 30 years old. > Will the son or the parents be sent to prison? The answer is that the son > will be sent to prison since he was guilty of the murder. Yes, the parents > were indirectly responsible since the murder would not have been committed > if the parents had not had that son. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 19:29, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <cIbbi.3947$Da.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > > > > > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1006072104110001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > In article <1181528337.630645.326...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 11, 4:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> > In article <smjo63luhj802uvt69su43het7vi2b1...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:57:36 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> > > <Jason-1006071257370...@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> > > >In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1ror...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > >> > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> > > >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism > > >> > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > >> > > >> <Jason-1006070947590...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > >> > > >> >In article > > > <1181469394.462447.51...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > >> > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > > >> >> On Jun 10, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >> > > >> >> > Since testimony is considered as evidence in court, I also > > >> > consider the > > >> > > >> >> > testimony of Cheryl Prewitt as evidence. If you do not > > > consider her > > >> > > >> >> > testimony as evidence, that is your choice. Have you provided > > >> > > >> >> > in > > >> > evidence > > >> > > >> >> > that indicates that it is possible for bacteria to naturally > > >> > evolve into > > >> > > >> >> > an animal cell? > > > >> > > >> >> Physical evidence trumps testimony, Jason. It's the only thing > > >> > > >> >> that > > >> > > >> >> can be double checked and verified. > > > >> > > >> >> Martin > > > >> > > >> >That is true but would you acknowledge that testimony is also > > > evidence? > > > >> > > >> Made up stories are not evidence. > > > >> > > >Is a testimony evidence? > > > >> > > Once again, your question demands a misleading answer. > > > >> > > People are not always allowed to testify in court about what they > > >> > > want > > >> > > to testify about. Ms. Prewitt's opinion about how her leg got longer, > > >> > > if > > >> > > in fact it did, is one such claim that would not be allowed in court. > > > >> > > Actual, corroborated, eyewitness testimony is allowed, but physical > > >> > > evidence will override claims of personal experience. > > > >> > > Science, of course, does not use testimony as evidence. > > > >> > Cheryl Prewitt could probably produce the physical evidence such as the > > >> > X-Rays that were done in relation to accident and surgery. For example, > > >> > a > > >> > leg bone may have been crushed. The doctor probably removed about two > > >> > inches of bone. > > > >> Amazing. You are now admitting you don't know the details of the > > >> case. > > > >> If nothing was removed then nothing grew back. I hurt my hand a few > > >> years ago. I got better. I feel down and hurt my side a year or so > > >> ago. I got better. My wife broke her arm while she was cleaning. > > >> She got better. Cheryl Prewitt got hurt in a car accident. She got > > >> better. And yet you are talking as though this is some great mystery. > > > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > > I heard her testimony but as you know--my memory is bad--statin related > > > memory problems. I can no longer spell words that I once could easily > > > spell. I do remember that she said that her leg was damaged in a car > > > accident. The doctors had to remove a portion of the leg bone which was > > > the reason one leg was two inches shorter than the other leg. In the case > > > of your injuries and the injury of your wife--sections of bone did not > > > have to be removed--unless you left something out of your story. You are > > > intelligent enough to know that all broken bones are not the same--if the > > > bone is crushed--the bad section of bone is removed and the remaining two > > > sections are put back together with pins. In her case, about 2 inches of > > > leg bone was removed. My friend lost about 5 inches of leg bone as a > > > result of an injury. He wears a platform shoe on one foot and walks with a > > > limp. > > > jason > > > If you she said is true and what you believe is true there should be > > physical evidence of this event. Has she presented any evidence whatsoever? > > You know Jason. like x-ray's before and after. This would be such a simple > > thing to present at her many 'testimonies'. > > I don't know whether or not she has personal copies of her X-Rays and > medical records. She did not mention the medical records when she gave her > testimony at our church and medical records were not mentioned when I > found a summary version of her testimony on the internet. One of the other > members of this newsgroup googled Cheryl Prewitt and found out that her > name is mentioned in over 700 websites. Perhaps, you could find them by > conducting a google search for "Cheryl Prewitt medical records" or "Cheryl > Prewitt X-Rays". I already know that even if I found a site that actully > showed the X-Rays and Medical evidence--that many of the members of this > newsgroup would deny that God healed her since they don't believe in God. In other words you have no evidence. > At least one person claimed that the leg bone may have naturally grew two > inches--I laughed when I read that post. I have a friend that lost 4 > inches of leg bone as a result of an accident and his leg bone did not > natually grow 4 inches. He wears a platform shoe on one foot. > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 11 Jun., 19:39, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181566794.910552.107...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 10 Jun., 23:36, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > >news:Jason-1006071257370001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1ror...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > > > > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > > >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism > > > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > > > >> <Jason-1006070947590...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > >> >In article <1181469394.462447.51...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> >Martin > > > >> >Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> On Jun 10, 1:55 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >> >> > Since testimony is considered as evidence in court, I also consid= > > er > > > >> >> > the > > > >> >> > testimony of Cheryl Prewitt as evidence. If you do not consider h= > > er > > > >> >> > testimony as evidence, that is your choice. Have you provided in > > > >> >> > evidence > > > >> >> > that indicates that it is possible for bacteria to naturally evol= > > ve > > > >> >> > into > > > >> >> > an animal cell? > > > > >> >> Physical evidence trumps testimony, Jason. It's the only thing that > > > >> >> can be double checked and verified. > > > > >> >> Martin > > > > >> >That is true but would you acknowledge that testimony is also evidenc= > > e? > > > > >> Made up stories are not evidence. > > > > > Is a testimony evidence? > > > > I'm sure as savvy as you are you have heard the old adage, extraordinary > > > claims require extraordinary evidence. No Jason, for someone to claim suc= > > h a > > > ridiculous story is true requires more than their oral testimony.- Skjul = > > tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > In all seriousness I think his position is that people just choose to > > believe whatever they want, so testimony is evidence for any claim; if > > one wants to believe the claim - but not if one does not want to > > believe it. That provides the reason atheists do not believe it, i.e. > > they don't want to believe it; so they accept other evidence which is > > (in Jason's opinion) no better than his, after all they can both be > > called "evidence". Jason does not seem to accept the existence of a > > physical reality separate from and regardless of what he believes. > > Not all dogmatic theists come across quite as insane as he does, but, > > at least in the compartment of their mind in which they keep their > > dogma, they are all quite mad. > > I agree that people just choose to believe whatever they want to believe. Not if they are sane, logical and honest. > That is true for atheists and is also true for Christians. One athiest > actually told me that even if I produced the physical evidence (eg > X-Rays), it would NOT cause him to believe that God healed her since he > did not believe in God. Do you believe there is evidence that a single > cell (example: bacteria) evolved into a single animal cell (with DNA > nucleus capable of sexual reproduction)? Is it speculation or evidence? > Jason- Skjul tekst i anf 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.