Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071122070001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <UGwbi.623$ma.483@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1106072153560001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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. >> >> I would imagine he holds them in higher esteem than lying creationists >> that >> make him look bad :-)). > > I disagree. King Saul was a servant of God during the early years of his > life. God protected him and blessed his life. During the last several > years of his life, he turned his back on God--he became an atheist. He > even visited a witch in order to ask questions. The end result was that > God no longer protected him or blessed his life. He was killed during a > battle. > During the early years of his life, he was involved in many battles and > God kept him from being harmed or killed during those battles. Damn Jason, your post proved my point!!! Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071128330001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181649884.050718.194220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 1:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181611488.232237.92...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > <phippsmar...@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. >> > >> > 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. >> >> Are you still telling us that you would be capable of killing ten >> people a day if you didn't believe in God? What about the men who >> killed 3000 people on September 11th because they believed in their >> god? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Those people that do such things are not pleasing to God. > They may believe or think that their actions are pleasing to God--but they > are wrong. You can find many cases in history where people done terrible > things that they believed were pleasing to God--but were not pleasing to > God. > Jason Who are you to judge? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181650169.856170.34150@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 6:00 pm, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 11 Jun., 19:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> In article <1181574735.623825.62...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On 11 Jun., 05:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > In article <1181528064.340925.207...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin, > > > > > I have a question for you. Has an experiment like this been done: > > > > > > > The scientists place bacteria (and nothing else) on a lab table. They can > > > > > mix any elements or combinations of elements with the bacteria. They can > > > > > mix amino acids with the bacteria. > > > > > I mentioned the above items since they were probably present before life > > > > > forms were on this earth. > > > > > > > Have the scientists done an experiment like the one mentioned above? If > > > > > so, was the result: bacteria that evolved into an: > > > > > > > Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). > > > > > > > If so, refer me to a website that mentions the experiment. > > > > > > > I may ask a biology professor at the local state college this same questi= > > > > on.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > > > > > > I hope you do. No doubt he/she could use a laugh. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > These are two of the steps in the evolution of mankind: > > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual reproduction). > > > > > Is this speculation or is it evidence? > > > > It is your childish misrepresentation of evolution, and, since you > > have been told many times now, it is a very tedious lie. > > As cactus has already pointed out, as bacteria is alive it is correct > to talk about the (biological) evolution of bacteria into animal > cells. The ameoba is a single celled animal, for example. > > Martin Have any experiments been done that has indicated that it is possible for a single cell (bacteria) can be induced to evolve into a single animal cell (with DNA nucleus cabable of sexual reproduction)? If possible, provide a yes or no answer. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071021200001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > 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? Mathematics says it didn't. > 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). Those aren't the steps of evolution. Why do you continue to be so ignorant? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your god exists and if he does exist has he always existed and will he exist forever? Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-1206071222580001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net: > In article <5d83hcF31q6f3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1206071128330001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <1181649884.050718.194220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 12, 1:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article >> >> > <1181611488.232237.92...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > Martin >> >> > >> >> > <phippsmar...@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. >> >> > >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> Are you still telling us that you would be capable of killing ten >> >> people a day if you didn't believe in God? What about the men who >> >> killed 3000 people on September 11th because they believed in >> >> their god? >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > Martin, >> > Those people that do such things are not pleasing to God. >> > They may believe or think that their actions are pleasing to >> > God--but they are wrong. You can find many cases in history where >> > people done terrible things that they believed were pleasing to >> > God--but were not pleasing to God. >> > Jason >> >> Who are you to judge? > > It's easy to judge the actions of the men that killed 3000 people on > 9/11. > It's easy to find people who will tell us what a blasphemous infidel you are for saying that the 9/11 Jihadists were not pleasing Allah with their actions. -- 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 <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? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071036370001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181650169.856170.34150@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 6:00 pm, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > On 11 Jun., 19:44, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:> In article > <1181574735.623825.62...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, >> > >> > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > > > On 11 Jun., 05:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > > In article > <1181528064.340925.207...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > snip >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > Martin, >> > > > > I have a question for you. Has an experiment like this been done: >> > >> > > > > The scientists place bacteria (and nothing else) on a lab table. > They can >> > > > > mix any elements or combinations of elements with the bacteria. > They can >> > > > > mix amino acids with the bacteria. >> > > > > I mentioned the above items since they were probably present > before life >> > > > > forms were on this earth. >> > >> > > > > Have the scientists done an experiment like the one mentioned > above? If >> > > > > so, was the result: bacteria that evolved into an: >> > >> > > > > Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual >> > > > > reproduction). >> > >> > > > > If so, refer me to a website that mentions the experiment. >> > >> > > > > I may ask a biology professor at the local state college this > same questi= >> > > > on.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > > > > - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> > >> > > > I hope you do. No doubt he/she could use a laugh. >> > >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > > These are two of the steps in the evolution of mankind: >> > >> > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria) >> > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual > reproduction). >> > >> > > Is this speculation or is it evidence? >> > >> > It is your childish misrepresentation of evolution, and, since you >> > have been told many times now, it is a very tedious lie. >> >> As cactus has already pointed out, as bacteria is alive it is correct >> to talk about the (biological) evolution of bacteria into animal >> cells. The ameoba is a single celled animal, for example. >> >> Martin > > Have any experiments been done that has indicated that it is possible for > a single cell (bacteria) can be induced to evolve into a single animal > cell (with DNA nucleus cabable of sexual reproduction)? > > If possible, provide a yes or no answer. No one has that. I'm not even sure that it is possible. I think you might have forgotten a few steps. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071047380001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181649511.087693.129330@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 12:52 pm, 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. >> >> > It's a lie to state that I swallow every lie that my fellow Godbots >> > tell >> > me. >> >> No, it's not. You've demonstrayted time and time again that you are >> willing to believe anything you are told EXCEPT when the person who >> says it is a non believer. That is your prejudice. >> >> Don't ever accuse me of lying again. You wouldn't like me when I am >> angry. >> >> Martin > > Did I call you a liar? The answer is no. You don't have to use those exact words to call someone a liar. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181649511.087693.129330@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 12:52 pm, 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. > > > It's a lie to state that I swallow every lie that my fellow Godbots tell > > me. > > No, it's not. You've demonstrayted time and time again that you are > willing to believe anything you are told EXCEPT when the person who > says it is a non believer. That is your prejudice. > > Don't ever accuse me of lying again. You wouldn't like me when I am > angry. > > Martin Did I call you a liar? The answer is no. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news: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. I believe that evolution kicked in after the > creation process was finished. It's my opinion, after reading the last > paragraph of Darwin's book, that Darwin agrees that God created life on > this planet. 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." > Jason > Jason Not in every edition and he later apologized for doing so in the first instance. Keep grabbing at straws, Jason, your god might be there somewhere. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1006071928040001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181522031.732169.203540@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 10, 6:10 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > >> > You misunderstood. The evidence (testimony) is present but the problem >> > is >> > that atheists reject (or do not believe) the evidence since it does not >> > "fit' their belief system. >> >> I'm sure the former Miss America <chuckle> does indeed believe that >> God healed her. That doesn't mean that is what actually happened, >> though. Perhaps is was Zeus who healed her, or Vishnu, or Santa... or >> perhaps her body healed itself on its own. > > Yes, Cheryl Prewitt does indeed believe that God healed her. > >> >> > On the other hand, those same atheists accept >> > and believe that humans evolved from other life-forms without any >> > involvement of God. They have no evidence--but they believe it because >> > it >> > fits their belief system. >> >> That's a lie - there is plenty of evidence, and much of it has been >> pointed out to you already. Why do you find it necessary to tell lies >> to defend your beliefs? > > There is a theory that humans evolved from other life-forms without any > involvement from God. Can the advocates of abiogenesis tell me the exact > number of mutations that took place between the first step and the last > step? No Nope and they don't say that they can. What difference would it make to you? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1006071810420001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <PB%ai.24256$dy1.22072@bigfe9>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1006071621010001@66-52-22-36.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <29_ai.1100$R9.677@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1006071257370001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <bg8o63lsgkbuk6ioqc8gr4lcjga1roruqt@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-1006070947590001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <1181469394.462447.51330@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >Martin >> >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@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? >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> such a >> >> ridiculous story is true requires more than their oral testimony. >> > >> > That is an excellent answer. If Cheryl Prewitt produced all of her >> > medical >> > records (eg X Rays) and written statements from the medical staff that >> > were present when the doctor removed two inches of a leg bone--do you >> > believe that atheists would conceed that God healed her? >> > >> > My answer is NO--the reason--it does not fit their "belief system" to >> > believe that God healed her. They don't believe in God. They believe >> > the >> > evidence that supports their belief system and do NOT accept or believe >> > evidence that does not support their belief system. >> >> Then as you have admitted above, there is no evidence that god healed >> her. >> That's all I have been saying all along. > > You misunderstood. The evidence (testimony) is present but the problem is > that atheists reject (or do not believe) the evidence since it does not > "fit' their belief system. On the other hand, those same atheists accept > and believe that humans evolved from other life-forms without any > involvement of God. They have no evidence--but they believe it because it > fits their belief system. Why don't you produce the evidence and let's see what we believe :-). One thing I've had a bellyful of is your constant double talk. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1006071822330001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <vsduj4-umv.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:14:53 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> > A testimony is evidence in court houses in America almost every week >> > day. >> > Her testimony is evidence. >> >> Even in courts, testimony is regarded as the least reliable source, as >> people lie, forget, misremember and on and on and on. They also tend to >> say things that are simply not supported by fact. >> >> A perfect example of that last bit is you - or her - claiming her leg was >> healed by God. Yes, fine, her leg healed, we'll buy that for the nonce, >> but you haven't demonstrated that God even exists, so any testimony that >> it was healed _by God_ is simply not supported by the facts, and thus is >> discarded. >> >> Feel free to demonstrate God exists. Until you do, you have no basis to >> claim he did anything. > > And in some states, people place there hands on Bibles and swear to tell > the truth. In those states, why would anyone need to spend time proving > that God exists. If there was a court case related to this issue, Cheryl > Prewitt could produce her medical records (eg X-Rays). All of medical > staff that were present when a doctor removed two inches of a leg bone > would testify. Showing a film of the Miss America beauty contest--would > prove that she was walking gracefully and was not wearing a platform shoe > on one foot. > > If it was a rural area of a state in the Bible Belt--the jury would rule > that Cheryl was telling the truth. They would do that without a trial. Is that fair? Is that right? I would certainly hate to have someone of your intellect on a jury, to judge me if I were innocent. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071136310001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <v88t63pod2hnvrp1qs37joi09ogmqo4ner@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> 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" > > Upon your request, we will try again--do you want me to post 10 more > questions? If you had enough sense to interpret an answer I would love it. However, since you don't you can forget it. I will ask you one more time about how god has existed forever Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071131590001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181649634.232900.8560@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 1:00 pm, 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. >> >> > 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). >> >> Yes, the rational people of the world have a lot of work to do. You >> don't think we know that? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > They place Christians in prisons and mental hospitals in communist > countries. Do you want the government to do the same thing in America? > > A Christian in Viet Nam was recently murdered by prison guards. > > Jason Anecdotal stories are worthless, especially when you present them. Please provide cites for your claims. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071128330001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1181649884.050718.194220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 1:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1181611488.232237.92...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, >> > Martin >> > >> > <phippsmar...@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. >> > >> > 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. >> >> Are you still telling us that you would be capable of killing ten >> people a day if you didn't believe in God? What about the men who >> killed 3000 people on September 11th because they believed in their >> god? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Those people that do such things are not pleasing to God. > They may believe or think that their actions are pleasing to God--but they > are wrong. You can find many cases in history where people done terrible > things that they believed were pleasing to God--but were not pleasing to > God. > Jason Please answer his question, Jason. Do you need someone to read the question to you? Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181657712.278600.171750@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bramble <leopoldo.perdomo@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Bramble, I learned about operant conditioning while taking a pschology class. Yes, it is possible to manipulate behavior by the use of operant conditioning. It is also possible to manipulate behavior by they use of brain washing techniques. Let me tell you a summary version of a million dollar experiment that was performed in the local mental hospital. They used operant conditioning on child molesters to train them to no longer be child molesters. In order to graduate, they had to be able to see pictures of naked children without becoming aroused. At least a hundred child molesters graduated from that program. The end result was that when those child molesters were released--they re-offended at the same rate at those child molesters that never graduated from that million dollar program. They had to discontinue the operant conditioning program. In relation to free will, I was referring to children and adults that were NOT involved in operant conditing programs or brainwashing programs. Those people have free will. For example, the piano player can even choose to never again play a piano. This is especially true in relation to adults that no longer live in the homes of their parents. Jason Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071212240001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <7VAbi.1874$L8.1297@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1206071021200001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > 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? >> >> Mathematics says it didn't. >> >> > 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). >> >> Those aren't the steps of evolution. Why do you continue to be so >> ignorant? >> >> Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your god exists and if he does >> exist has he always existed and will he exist forever? > > Have any experiments been done which have indicated that a single cell > (bacteria) has evolved into a single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable > of sexual reproduction)? Damn boy, you have a really bad reading problem. Read my answer above you blithering idiot!! Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071213590001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <c5Bbi.1880$L8.1081@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1006071822330001@66-52-22-1.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <vsduj4-umv.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >> > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> [snips] >> >> >> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:14:53 -0700, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> > A testimony is evidence in court houses in America almost every week >> >> > day. >> >> > Her testimony is evidence. >> >> >> >> Even in courts, testimony is regarded as the least reliable source, as >> >> people lie, forget, misremember and on and on and on. They also tend >> >> to >> >> say things that are simply not supported by fact. >> >> >> >> A perfect example of that last bit is you - or her - claiming her leg >> >> was >> >> healed by God. Yes, fine, her leg healed, we'll buy that for the >> >> nonce, >> >> but you haven't demonstrated that God even exists, so any testimony >> >> that >> >> it was healed _by God_ is simply not supported by the facts, and thus >> >> is >> >> discarded. >> >> >> >> Feel free to demonstrate God exists. Until you do, you have no basis >> >> to >> >> claim he did anything. >> > >> > And in some states, people place there hands on Bibles and swear to >> > tell >> > the truth. In those states, why would anyone need to spend time proving >> > that God exists. If there was a court case related to this issue, >> > Cheryl >> > Prewitt could produce her medical records (eg X-Rays). All of medical >> > staff that were present when a doctor removed two inches of a leg bone >> > would testify. Showing a film of the Miss America beauty contest--would >> > prove that she was walking gracefully and was not wearing a platform >> > shoe >> > on one foot. >> > >> > If it was a rural area of a state in the Bible Belt--the jury would >> > rule >> > that Cheryl was telling the truth. >> >> They would do that without a trial. Is that fair? Is that right? I would >> certainly hate to have someone of your intellect on a jury, to judge me >> if I >> were innocent. > > I have been selected for jury duty and I live in California. The defense erred if they let you on a jury. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <UGwbi.623$ma.483@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1106072153560001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > 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. > > I would imagine he holds them in higher esteem than lying creationists that > make him look bad :-)). I disagree. King Saul was a servant of God during the early years of his life. God protected him and blessed his life. During the last several years of his life, he turned his back on God--he became an atheist. He even visited a witch in order to ask questions. The end result was that God no longer protected him or blessed his life. He was killed during a battle. During the early years of his life, he was involved in many battles and God kept him from being harmed or killed during those battles. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181649884.050718.194220@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:22 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1181611488.232237.92...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@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. > > > > 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. > > Are you still telling us that you would be capable of killing ten > people a day if you didn't believe in God? What about the men who > killed 3000 people on September 11th because they believed in their > god? > > Martin Martin, Those people that do such things are not pleasing to God. They may believe or think that their actions are pleasing to God--but they are wrong. You can find many cases in history where people done terrible things that they believed were pleasing to God--but were not pleasing to God. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <1181649634.232900.8560@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:00 pm, 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. > > > 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). > > Yes, the rational people of the world have a lot of work to do. You > don't think we know that? > > Martin Martin, They place Christians in prisons and mental hospitals in communist countries. Do you want the government to do the same thing in America? A Christian in Viet Nam was recently murdered by prison guards. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 In article <v88t63pod2hnvrp1qs37joi09ogmqo4ner@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > 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" Upon your request, we will try again--do you want me to post 10 more questions? Quote
Guest Ralph Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1206071219310001@66-52-22-95.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <OIAbi.1872$L8.223@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > If they don't believe in God, why do they continue to write it in their > policies? Because it has been there for years. All such acts are called 'acts of god' because ignorant Christians like you knew of nothing else to call it. I checked my homeowner's policy from USAA and there is no reference to 'acts of god'. 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.