Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106072206250001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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. You're so brainwashed that you have become clueless. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106071825520001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181604194.743582.114060@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 1:39 am, 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. >> > 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. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports > their belief system. > Jason Projecting again Jason? You only say that because you don't understand the word evidence. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1106072355010001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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 Martin Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On Jun 12, 9:02 pm, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1106072206250001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > > > > > > In article > > <DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > >> In article > >> <Jason-1106071747150...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >> J...@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. > > You're so brainwashed that you have become clueless. He's admitting that he will accept any lie he is told as long as the person telling it is a Christian: if the person talking to him is Christian then he requires no evidence. Such prejudice, especially from someone who lies so freely himself! Martin Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:24:17 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >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. >> >You want to try again. You want to actually respond to my answers? Or do you want to continue to be a coward? 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" Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:55:01 -0700, Jason wrote: > Several people have pointed that out to me. I do believe the "belief > system" of a person determines whether they accept or reject evidence. Do > you agree? Absolutely. If you're a gullible sort who will swallow any sort of unfounded, unsubstantiated bullshit, you'll tend to believe crap like invisible magic sky pixies. If you're a rational sort who won't accept a significant claim without supporting evidence, you won't believe crap like invisible magic sky pixies. So, are you a rational sort, or a gullible sort? Oh, wait, you believe in invisible magic sky pixies. Never mind, question answered. -- Your face reminds me of a crate of squashed assholes! Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:00:31 -0700, Jason wrote: >> 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). It has been, and continues to be, a long, slow, uphill battle to actually educate the masses such as yourself. You and your anti-reason cohorts have, of course, fought this every step of the way for millennia. This does not stop the process, it merely makes it difficult, but if religion let the masses be educated, the religions would be devoid of followers - and broke. The least productive industry in history would have to figure out how to pay its own way, rather than having endless millions flow in from those who aren't smart enough to realize they're being taken. -- Evolution to D. Gish: “Look, I’m very upset the way you turned out...” Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 06:52, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181614348.455145.11...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 07:00, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181614412.939840.97...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 07:06, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article > <DipthotDipthot-9E058D.18284311062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > > In article > > <Jason-1106071747150...@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > J...@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. Gosh are you still telling that lie? Seriously, what is the point of lying to the people you are lying about? What do you think you accomplish. I am really curious about that. >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. And we have no logical reason to believe you, especially since you lie nearly every time you post. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 07:10, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181613813.848759.320...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest bramble Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 jun, 01:31, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1181601324.493083.251...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ok, OK The freewill exists to a certain point that is mostly a banal decision. Just consider a child or an adolescent that is well tamed to learn piano playing. he is doing the piano playing everyday, not because of he has any freewill, but because he was dressed or, in scientific jargon, because he was conditioned to learn piano playing. If everything runs as before, he will be continuing doing the learning of piano playing for many years in the future, untill he becomes a virtuoso pianist. So, in all this, there is not involved any free- will, as the philosphers use to posit, but a process of operant conditioning. If the process of conditioned is terminated when the child is 12, or 14 or so, this endeavor will evaporate in a year or so. The adolescent will continue playing the piano a little bit, now an there. And probably he will end playing the piano in night clubs, bars and restaurants, because he has not finished his career. To be a very good pianist it is needed a lot of training. Something in the range of 10 to 12 thousand hours of enthusiastic work. I said, the piano, but I could have said to achieve a superior doctorate in Maths, Engineering, Electronics, or any other. If there is not tilling, there is not harvest. So to achieve a life of dedicated work, more or less intense, more or less glorious, there is the need of a set of conditions. That set of conditions is called "operant conditioning". If there is not a good conditioning there is not a commendable behavior. The same is valid for ordinary, middle of the road behavior. If the operant conditioning exerted over the child and young people is something that can be called "average", that will result in average behaviour. If the operant conditioning is plagued by grave errors, the boy in question will become in a few years a common criminal. If you would know something about "operant conditioning" you will be not talking about free will. Free will is the kingdom of people that do nothing of value in question of behaviour. Just look at a boy that is all day zapping channels on the television, or just drifting around the streets doing nothing. Well, at first sight, this looks like real "free-will" but it is not. As an animal, he has to do something. He cannot be laying all day over a mattress, because he eventually get tired of it and bored. So he has to wake up and go out drifting, for he was watching five or six hours of TV. So he is tired of being lying in the couch, and is fed up of watching TV. So if he decides to get out and drift on the mall, he is not exercizing any free well, but changing behavior repertoire. So the behavior of someone that has not been tamed into doing some useful conduct, is aimless and look a little random. This doing nothing is neither an example to prove there is a freewill. We had invented the term freewill, because we needed to cage criminals out of our way, to stop the damages and the troubles they are causing to society. It is not the first time that someone pointed the theory that these criminals cannot change their behavoir. that is sort of compulsive. That is true, but is not in the least a strong reason for not putting them in prison. Even if psychologists were able to change the behavior of criminals, we would have not enough money to achieve that enormous task. On the other hand, even if it is not any easy to change the mind, or the behavior of an adolescent that mishave, it is a lot more difficult to change the mind, the behavior, of an adult criminal. Well, I have given you some stuff to argue about. Bramble > > --------------------- > > > > > Your God accepts the repsonsibity for all the evil in the world look > to Amos > > > > 3:6 for instance. > > > > 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. > > > Yes, Jason. If there were a god, he is responsable for all the evil > > in this world. Unless, there would be many gods fighting each other, > > and making a mess of this world. > > > But as there is not a god, all the people that had became criminal > > because of their particular lives, we put them in prison, or kill > > them, because we have not means to change their behavior. Not they > > are responsable, or they ar guilty or any other thing. It is just > > because we have not means to change their behavior. > > Think for a moment that we were intelligent enough to prevent the > > future criminal career of any child or adolescent. If we were that > > intelligent, we would act upon this child or this adolescent, to > > prevent their bent to crime. > > So, in a way, the responsible for the crimes of all human beings is > > our ignorance. > > So, if there were an omniscient god, a god the were truly benevolent, > > he would act upon the children that would act as criminals in the > > future. > > That is so simple, that I cannot understand why you do not realize it, > > dear Jason. > > Criminals, act their evil ways, because they had been conditioned by > > other humans to behave this way. If parents of these children were > > intelligent enough to understand "operant conditioning" they would be > > acting in a way as to keep the kids away from disobedience, laziness > > and aggression. They would drive their lives on the proper track and > > working hard in the pursuit of commendable endeavors. > > So our lack of power to predict and to change the behavior of so many > > kids is the real culprit of all the evils of this world. So, the > > straightforward solution is to keep the criminals caged in prisons, > > and in some criminal countries to kill them in the electic chair, a > > letal injection, or just hanging, or beheading them with a sword. > > Dear, Jason. Do you want to chat a little more about this? > > Bramble > > 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? > > Jason Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 07:24, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <omsr63lbc8asb8qs5gghasksvaqesja...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > > > > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > In alt.atheism On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:23:39 -0700, gudl...@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.- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 On 12 Jun., 08:12, 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. What utter nonsense! The parents are not all-powerful. They cannot possibly be responsible for everything the child does. 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. Your analogy is transparently invalid. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:05:19 -0700, Jason wrote: > The reason that people die of various diseases is a direct result of the > sin of Adam and Eve. What sin would that be, hmm? Eating the forbidden fruit? Let's assume for the moment this is what you're talking about, and let's see if we can't get your thinking cap to work for a minute. Adam's big sin was to eat from the tree. What tree? The tree of knowledge of good and evil. At which point he stops and says "Oh, shit, I'm naked, someone gimme a leaf." Hmm. That implies he did not know good and evil beforehand. However, if he doesn't know evil - or good - he also doesn't know consequences. If he's unaware of the very actions which go into doing evil, he cannot be aware of the consequences of performing those actions, either... which means that, innocent as a baby, he has absolutely no reason not to eat the fruit; he hasn't got any concept of the bad things that could happen - that is, in fact, the whole point to the event, that he didn't know, until after he ate the fruit. So he has absolutely no reason - based on his experience - to not eat the fruit. Yeah, sure, God said don't, but if breaking promises is classifiable as "evil", Adam didn't - couldn't - know it was wrong to do so. (Nor could he know it was _good_ to keep promises; this works both ways). Meanwhile, God creates man with - apparently - certain inquisitive instincts; the desire to go and see what's out there in the world. To see if that mountain really can be climbed, that river swum. Then God plunks this forbidden tree, with nice, juicy, ready-to-eat fruit right smack bang in the middle of Adam's garden, and says "don't touch". So, let's recap. God put the tree right in their faces. God created them (presumably) with typical human curiosity. They had no idea of consequences - as they had no idea of evil. The ending is obvious, as the game is rigged, by the most dishonest bit of con jobbery anyone has every written. Put that in a perspective you might understand. Take a dog. Bring it into the family. Train it, play with it, etc, etc, etc. Give it a nice life. Then, one day, take a nice juicy steak out, put it on the floor right by the dog's dish. Tell the dog in nice, soft, quite tones, "No, don't eat that" - then walk away for a couple of hours. When you come back, if the dog has eaten the steak, shoot the dog, because it broke the rules. Never mind that it didn't know any better; the whole point to the story is that they didn't know better. Never mind that shooting the dog is cruel; condemning the entire future of man and woman based on two peoples' actions is cruel. Never mind that shooting the dog would be a completely insane way to teach it a lesson; the entire story about those folks is insane. I'm quite certain you wouldn't treat a dog this way - but you're perfectly willing to worship a deity who treats humans this way, at least if you buy the story. One has to wonder how you theists can justify the completely pointless cruelty of every significant aspect of your religious stories. They are evil, through and through, and anyone who follows them is likewise evil, as far as I'm concerned. -- Look, Chickie. It’s your Bible, your rules; YOU go to hell. - Marty Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:pq0t63hbnndsqa44u7gdbg1lgfhe984n32@4ax.com... > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:41:51 -0400, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > - Refer: <5d74idF31s8h5U1@mid.individual.net> >> >>"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. > > Jason is adult in body alone. I must agree. I mean, nearly everyone I know is xtian, but maybe one of them believes that baloney Jason wrote - and even then probably wouldn't admit to it. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > Martin, > Dr. Gish, Dr. Morris and Cheryl Prewitt are preaching to the choir. 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. She would not enjoy > giving her testimony to people that took turns calling her a liar. > Jason Gee, really? What a profound revelation -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > Martin, > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? > Jason Of course not. Most importantly, you'd have to prove that your god exists and does anything. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > Martin, > An atheists swallow everything the scientists tell them if it supports > their belief system. Why are you lying? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-1206071042260001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <1181643770.817395.36870@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 11 Jun., 21:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <0de0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > [snips] >> > >> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:46:46 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > >> > > >> You really ought to stop digging yourself in deeper; you just >> > > >> look m= >> ore >> > > >> foolish with every attempt. >> > >> > > > I am not digging myself in deeper. I attended a murder trial. >> > > > They did have physical evidence but most of the time was spent >> > > > interviewing al= >> l of >> > > > witnesses. >> > >> > > Indeed. And did any of them claim that the Ha-ne-go-ate-geh >> > > swooped in, resplendent in his invisibility, to kill the >> > > victim(s), leaving behind = >> not >> > > a single trace of evidence? >> > >> > > No. So, they're testifying about events which are already known >> > > to have occurred, using purely natural explanations for purely >> > > natural occurren= >> ces. >> > >> > > See, we know this. The question is why aren't you smart enough >> > > to figu= >> re >> > > out that this has nothing at all to do with establishing gods? >> > >> > > Besides, your entire use of "testimony" is fundamentally flawed. >> > > We do= >> n't >> > > take your word that God exists just because you say so. Why do >> > > you think we'd take her word? You haven't offered anything more >> > > than two people now making the same unfounded claim. >> > >> > > Why you think showing us more people without a shred of evidence >> > > makes = >> for >> > > a compelling case isn't clear, but it doesn't; it just shows more >> > > gulli= >> ble >> > > people. >> > >> > > Got any evidence of gods? Nope, didn't think so. >> > >> > The evidence that they were healed is evidence for God. If you >> > google miracle healings you will see even more evidence of God by >> > reading about those healings that were done by God.- Skjul tekst i >> > anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> A person that has been healed is evidence that he was healed. It is >> not evidence of a god. > > Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated > that her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it > happened? > You provide the evidence first, and we'll let you know. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181646992.799917.21600@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 12 Jun., 02:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181601347.999940.35...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <Jason-1006071559590...@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > > > > > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > She has > > > > > witnessed to thousands of people. > > > > > Wow. She's lied to a lot of people then. I find that completely and > > > utterly morally reprehensible. It is also typical Godbot behaviour. > > > > > Martin > > > > the alternative is "she told the truth to a lot of people then." > > For which you have absolutely no objective evidence. You have even > pretty well made it clear that you believe it because you want to. If > one is a rational being, objective evidence is something that has to > be accepted, whether we like what it supports or not; but you believe > because you want to and, supposedly, reject evidence that does not > support what you like. This makes you irrational and dishonest. Do you have objective evidence that time and physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang? Do you have objective evidence that these are two of the steps involved in the evolution of mankind: STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181649738.152697.71080@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181613813.848759.320...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@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. > > > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 > > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? > > How can I believe in the existnace of something that you yourself have > demonstrated not top exist? Do you also believe in Zeus, Allah and > Amun Ra? > > Martin Martin, Is your answer yes or no? If your answer is no, why should I waste time trying to find out if any physical evidence re: Cheryl is mentioned on the web? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <5d7uaoF331s2lU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in > > snip > > > > Martin, > > If I provided physical evidence that indicates that her leg bone grew 2 > > inches, would you believe that God healed her leg? > > Jason > > Of course not. Most importantly, you'd have to prove that your god exists > and does anything. That's the reason that I did not try to find the information on the web. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071042260001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181643770.817395.36870@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 11 Jun., 21:54, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <0de0k4-blk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > [snips] >> > >> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:46:46 -0700, Jason wrote: >> > >> > > >> You really ought to stop digging yourself in deeper; you just look >> > > >> m= >> ore >> > > >> foolish with every attempt. >> > >> > > > I am not digging myself in deeper. I attended a murder trial. They >> > > > did >> > > > have physical evidence but most of the time was spent interviewing >> > > > al= >> l of >> > > > witnesses. >> > >> > > Indeed. And did any of them claim that the Ha-ne-go-ate-geh swooped >> > > in, >> > > resplendent in his invisibility, to kill the victim(s), leaving >> > > behind = >> not >> > > a single trace of evidence? >> > >> > > No. So, they're testifying about events which are already known to >> > > have >> > > occurred, using purely natural explanations for purely natural >> > > occurren= >> ces. >> > >> > > See, we know this. The question is why aren't you smart enough to >> > > figu= >> re >> > > out that this has nothing at all to do with establishing gods? >> > >> > > Besides, your entire use of "testimony" is fundamentally flawed. We >> > > do= >> n't >> > > take your word that God exists just because you say so. Why do you >> > > think we'd take her word? You haven't offered anything more than >> > > two >> > > people now making the same unfounded claim. >> > >> > > Why you think showing us more people without a shred of evidence >> > > makes = >> for >> > > a compelling case isn't clear, but it doesn't; it just shows more >> > > gulli= >> ble >> > > people. >> > >> > > Got any evidence of gods? Nope, didn't think so. >> > >> > The evidence that they were healed is evidence for God. If you google >> > miracle healings you will see even more evidence of God by reading >> > about >> > those healings that were done by God.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> A person that has been healed is evidence that he was healed. It is >> not evidence of a god. > > Yes, that is true. If I provided physical evidence which indicated that > her leg bone grew 2 inches--how would you explain how it happened? We'll cross that bridge when you present the evidence. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071030510001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181644398.763698.134870@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 12 Jun., 02:37, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181603881.651499.322...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 12, 1:05 am, 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. >> > >> > > > > 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 you're not claiming the parents to be omniscient or ominipotent. >> > > Nor have you established that anybody has free will to go beyond what >> > > their instincts and memories would have them do. All you've done is >> > > assert that the murderer was guilty and the parents had no direct >> > > responsibility. >> > >> > > Martin >> > >> > As a result of free will, people can do good or do evil. God is >> > indirectly >> > responsible since he created mankind. >> >> God is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing; that makes him >> responsible for everything period. >> >> > >> > If God had never created mankind, people would not do evil things. On >> > the >> > other hand, people would not be able to do wonderful things. >> >> He would still be responsible. >> >> >> > >> > Free will explains many things--howwever, most people--even >> > Christians--do >> > not understand free will. >> >> We have a hard time with square circles too. >> >> >> > >> > Insurance companies blame God for all natural disasters. Perhaps there >> > reasoning is that God is responsible since those natural disasters >> > would >> > not have happened if God had not created the world. >> >> Gosh, do you think that might be it? > > One of the positive things about it is the insurance companies (unlike > yourself) are acknowledging that God created the earth. Why don't you poll their shareholders to see if your assertion is true. 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.