Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179022836.954047.188470@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 6:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <464627b9$0$21840$db0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>> <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>>>> <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fc...@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin >>>>>>> <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They > have no >>>>>>>>> proof that it ever happened. >>>>>>>> errr HELLO! >>>>>>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not >>>>>>>> evolved) from non-life >>>>>>>> What the hell are you on about? >>>>>>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive > life came >>>>>>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing > in life? >>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >>>>>>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >>>>>>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much > easier >>>>>>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you > appear to >>>>>>> believe. >>>>>> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." >>>>>> Are you now backtracking on that statement? >>>>> Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live >>>>> evolved from non-life. >>>> Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the >>>> hell are you on man? >>>> Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating >>>> molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears >>>> and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. >>>> What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life >>>> didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>> >>> Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a >>> jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a >>> vehicle. >>> >>> Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of >>> natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was >>> designed and created. >>> >>> Do you see my point? >> Not at all. Suppose surrounding the car were various car parts and >> that these car parts could be shown to naturally appear from elements >> commonly found in the jungle. Suppose you could also find some rusted >> out car parts that look like they came from old cars that no longer >> work. Suppose that there were also smaller vehicles like scooters and >> motorcycles there and that these smaller vehicles used some of the >> same kinds of parts. Then the natural conclusion would be that the >> car could have been assembled right there in the jungle and no >> helicopter was needed to fly the car in. >> >> Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Martin, > Perhaps a better example would be a violin--no strings or plastic metal > parts. Some of the people would think that the violin came about by > natural forces but others would say that it was designed by someone. The > point is that the advocates of evolution and the advocates of creation > science can look at the same evidence and come to two different > conclusions in much the same way that those peole examining the violin > came to two separate conclusions. > jason > > Well. Yes. They come to two different conclusions. One that shows how different lifeforms developed from other lifeforms, proves it with fossils that show how the steps in between looked like, shows every day examples of that and so on. In the beginning there was this one guy that looked at different birds with different beaks. Then formulated a theory based on these observations. Then looked elsewhere to see, if it fits. Now we find fossils that show that it worked. The other starts from the assumption that "there is god" and therefor "goddidit". Fossils? "goddidit" Different bird with different beaks? "goddidit" And so on. One is a proper scientific theory, the other one explains nothing. One is based on observation, the other one on superstition. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:51:57 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <19uc43t1tjum96v3h4168ked9tlo937q65@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:26:31 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> ><snip> >> > >> > >> >> >There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >> >> >non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> >> >> >> So, why can't your God use evolution? Who are you to tell God how to do >> >> things? >> > >> >I am not telling God how to do things. The first chapters of the Bible >> >explain how God done things. He did not use evolution to create humans, >> >plants and animals. Evolution kicked in after the creation of life was >> >finished. >> >> Where in the bible does it say that? >The Bible does NOT say that evolution kicked in after the creation of life >was finished. Then upon what basis do you make your claim? >I was the person that made that statement. The Creation >story is discussed in Genesis Chapter 1 to Chapter 6. StorIES, not story. There are two distinct stories. 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 Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:47:52 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <5cuc43t8jkl86t2oe40uks3retvimo6i6i@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:31:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <l9hc4397k7375tbe40ikt1vfsrm4b9admr@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:49:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >In article <5alq3oF2oseo3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >> >> ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... >> >> >> > Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> >> >> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >>> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >> >> >> >>>> <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>>>> >news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> >>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither >perfect >> >> >> >>>>>> or >> >> >> >>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised >> >> >> >> his free >> >> >> >>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God >> >> >> >> does not >> >> >> >>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love >God". He >> >> >> >>>>>> wants >> >> >> >>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want >to love >> >> >> >>>>>> and >> >> >> >>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine >> >of free >> >> >> >>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> . >> >> >> >>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >> >> >> >>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), >there can >> >> >> >>>>>>> be >> >> >> >>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. >> >> >> >>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. >> >> >> >>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. >> >> >> >>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an >> >> >> >>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen >> >in the >> >> >> >>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of >> >> >> >>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know >> >what you >> >> >> >>>>> will do >> >> >> >> before >> >> >> >>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. >> >> >> >>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, >therefore, >> >> >> >> by your >> >> >> >>>>> own statement, there is no God. >> >> >> >>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we >have free >> >> >> >>>> will. >> >> >> >>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create >> >> >> >>> everything. Which will it be? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he >> >wants to >> >> >> >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, >> >please >> >> >> >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done >> >that the >> >> >> >> last time. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which >just is not >> >> >> > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make >your pick. >> >> >> > >> >> >> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to >pick one. >> >> >> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will >> >and an >> >> >> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. >> >> > >> >> >I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. >> >> >> >> And did god create everything? If so, then there's no free >> >> will. >> > >> >God gave us free will when he created mankind. >> >> Did god create everything? Please answer the question. > >Genesis--chapter 1-6 discusses that God created mankind, lot of plants and >lots of animals. In two different stories, mind you. Oh, don't give me the lie that it's one story. It's two stories. One is the elohist tradition and the other is the yahwist tradition. They come from different writers using different source stories (the egyptian book of the dead and the sumerian enumah elish). >God also created the earth and the solar system. It's my >opinion that after God finished creating mankind, lots of plants and lots >of animals--that evolution took over. Darwin also believed that God >created life. That's nice. But did god create everything? You realize that I'll just keep asking until you properly answer the question. So do yourself a favor and answer the question. 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 Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179021474.195725.219750@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>> >>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a > dictator but >>>>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a >>>>> wonderful dictator. >>>> That is the fear talking. >>>> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >>>> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >>>> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >>>> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >>>> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >>>> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >>>> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >>>> demon, you got there. >>>> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >>>> might do you and infinite punishment. >>>>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >>>>> trust God since God is perfect. >>>> (snip) >>>> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >>> The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. >>> I believe my choice is better. >> What if neither God nor Satan exist (which is, in fact, the case)? >> What then? >> >> Martin > > I will have lost nothing since I will eventally become dust or ashes. > However, if God and Satan does exist---you will end up in hell unless you > become a Christian. > > You will have wasted your life with crazy stuff.... Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:39:14 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Have you ever considered that you could be wrong? In this case, if you are >wrong--you could end up in heaven or hell--the choice is up to you. Have you ever considered that you could be wring? In this case, if you're wrong, you could end up in the hell of someone else's religion. You should now believe in every god JUST IN CASE. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite. 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 Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 22:30:55 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1179021357.366735.22110@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 4:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > The earth is like a test for all of us. We have free will. >> >> You keep saying this but the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly >> against this assumption: people are driven primarily by instinct. >> There is no evidence that we make capricious decisions. And your own >> theological beliefs also contracdict te notion of free will because >> you believe God already knows what we are going to do: if God already >> knows what we are going to do then we only have the illusion of free >> will because we can't make capricious decisions without God sometimes >> being wrong. >> >> Martin, > >Martin, >Christians have written books related to free will. It's a complex >doctrine. Mainly because they have to handwave away all the problems. 1. God created everything 2. God knows everything 3. Either god knew everything prior to creating everything, or co-eval with creating everything 4. In either case, we have no free will, since god's knowledge of everything is imposed in the act of him creating everything. Nothing can be changed. In fact, god doesn't even have free will. 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 Don Kresch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:20:53 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <8duc431csiubbtc9p1pms7tpko0jutn720@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:04:51 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <nghc43dkr6g440lgl6fd82t0q80on9kcm0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >> > >> >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:10:34 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Robyn, >> >> >I fully realize that atheists and members of religions other than >> >> >Chistianity such as Buddahism do good deeds. >> >> >Jason >> >> > >> >> But that contradicts the bible. Remember Psalms 14:1/53:1? >> >> >> > >> >Don, >> >I just read it. It's an interesting scripture. It's great to know that you >> >own a Bible. >> >> Don't need to; that's what the internets are for. >> >> > Check John 3:16. >> >> I know that one. >> >> Now then, will you address the fact that you believe something >> that directly contradicts what the bible teaches? > >Not a problem: Those scripture indicates that all people who don't love >God are corrupt people that have committed "abominable deeds". And not one of them does anything good. Yet you believe--contrary to Psalm 14:1/53:1, that atheists can do good deeds. Reconcile that. 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 Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 cactus wrote: > Jason wrote: >> In article <1179021474.195725.219750@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >> Martin >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On May 13, 4:32 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdn...@comcast.com>, John >>>> Popelish >>>> >>>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a >> dictator but >>>>>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and >>>>>> would be a >>>>>> wonderful dictator. >>>>> That is the fear talking. >>>>> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly >>>>> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when >>>>> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, >>>>> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been >>>>> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this >>>>> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and >>>>> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical >>>>> demon, you got there. >>>>> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it >>>>> might do you and infinite punishment. >>>>>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would >>>>>> trust God since God is perfect. >>>>> (snip) >>>>> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). >>>> The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship >>>> Satan. >>>> I believe my choice is better. >>> What if neither God nor Satan exist (which is, in fact, the case)? >>> What then? >>> >>> Martin >> >> I will have lost nothing since I will eventally become dust or ashes. >> However, if God and Satan does exist---you will end up in hell unless you >> become a Christian. >> >> > Hell is for those who believe in it. hehe.... there is this old joke about this guy dying and going to the afterlife. Since he is an atheist, he gets to choose which one he wants to go to so this big guy shows him a few behind doors. When the walk past one of them the big guy says to be silent... So they won't notice inside.... "Thats for the christians.... they think they are alone in here" There is also this other one where a christian goes to heaven and Peter welcomes him. Peter asks him if he wanted some sandwiches. So this guy looks down to hell and sees them eating all kinds of stuff. He only gets sandwiches. Day after day. Down there they eat really cool stuff. So he aks Peter, why sandwiches all the time? Answer: "I am not going to cook just for the two of us" Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5an1cgF2ngp1fU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message >> news:l9hc4397k7375tbe40ikt1vfsrm4b9admr@4ax.com... >>> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:49:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>>>>> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he >>>>>>> wants to >>>>>>> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, >>>>>>> please >>>>>>> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> last time. >>>>>> The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is >>>>>> not >>>>>> possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your >>>>>> pick. >>>>>> >>>>> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick >>>>> one. >>>>> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will >>>>> and an >>>>> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. >>>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. >>> And did god create everything? If so, then there's no free >>> will. >>> >> Let's see if I can spell this one out for him as simple as possible so he >> can follow the argument... >> >> Jason, I'd like you to answer the following questions with a "yes" or "no" >> or " don't know"... >> >> 1.Did your God create everything? > God created mankind, lots of plants and lots of animals. >> 2. Does your God know everything that has happened, is happening, or will >> happen?(omniscience) > He knows as much as he wants to know. >> 3. Can your God do anything?(omnipotence > He can do anything that he wants to do. I don't know whether or there are > things that he would never do. >> 4. Do you have free will? > yes >> 5. Does your god know exactly what you are doing right now? > If he chooses to know what I am doing right now. >> 6. Does your God know exactly what you will do tomorrow? > If he chooses to know what I will do tomorrow. >> 7. Do you have a choice as to what you do or don't do tomorrow? > yes >> 8. Are you capable of doing something tomorrow which your God does not know >> about? > God (if he wants to) would know those things. >> 9.When God created the universe, did he know everything that vwas about to >> happen? > If he chose to know--he would know. Perhaps he did not choose to know. >> 10. Is there any way at all you can change what God already knows you are >> going to do tomorrow? > I can't control God. >> 11.Do you still believe you have free will , and can change anything that >> God knew about or would know about from the start of creation? > yes, I have free will >> Hope those questions weren't too much trouble for you, I'd be interested to >> see your response. > > Oh boy... there is your contradiction again.... If god can choose not to know everything, because he is omnipotent, he is no longer omniscient. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179015339.002766.58030@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 2:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <5alq3oF2oseo...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >>> >>> <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote in message >>>> news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... >>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4p...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>>>>> <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, J...@nospam.com >>>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>>>>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >>>>>>>> <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised >>>>>> his free >>>>>>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God >>>>>> does not >>>>>>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He >>>>>>>>>> wants >>>>>>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine > of free >>>>>>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created >>>>>>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. >>>>>>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. >>>>>>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. >>>>>>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an >>>>>>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will > happen in the >>>>>>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of >>>>>>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know > what you >>>>>>>>> will do >>>>>> before >>>>>>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. >>>>>>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, >>>>>> by your >>>>>>>>> own statement, there is no God. >>>>>>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free >>>>>>>> will. >>>>>>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create >>>>>>> everything. Which will it be? >>>>>> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he > wants to >>>>>> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you > reply, please >>>>>> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done > that the >>>>>> last time. >>>>> The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not >>>>> possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. >>>> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. >>>> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free > will and an >>>> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. >> That is a contradiction. See my previous post: God would not even >> have free will if he were omniscient because he would be able to >> foresee his own actions perfectly. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Just because God could foresee his own actions perfectly--it does not mean > that God spends his time forseeing his actions perfectly. Oh, he does not have to spend time doing it. He is omniscient. he knows anyhow. One person was > concerned that God was somehow responsible for his actions. I am not "concerned". This is just what follows from that "omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent". Since this is a contradiction in terms, I don't have to worry, because it proves that these definitions invalidate this specific cosmic zombie. Just because > God is fully capable of controlling someone's life (remember the story of > Johah and the large fish)--it does not mean that he spends all of his time > controlling the life of that poster. God gave us free will and in most > cases does not intervene in our lives. There are exceptions but this is > usually true. > jason > > -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > <snip> > > >>> I understand what you are saying and once had a Christian friend who would >>> discuss these same points until it caused me to avoid him. I believe that >>> he had some sort of obsession about these issues. I don't worry about >>> these issues. >> You probably don't worry about Fermat's last theorem either but not >> worrying about an argument does not prove it false. >> >>> It's really not complicated but you are trying to make it >>> much more complex than it is. The bottom line is God is omniscient, >>> omnipotent and benevolent. >> You need to understand the difference between belief and fact. >> Beliefs may defy logic and common sense but facts never do. If I had >> to choose between what somebody else believes and what can be >> logically shown to be true then I will believe logic ten times out of >> ten. This does not make me prejudiced: on the contrary, it is >> prejudicial to believe anything and "not worry" about the logic that >> it defies. > > That makes sense. > >>> As a result, he could decide on how to create >>> the means necessary for people to get into heaven and to have a >>> relationship with him. The plan of salvation and eternal life is outlined >>> in the Bible. The summary version of the plan is that God wants us to love >>> him and obey him if we want to have fellowship with God and eventually go >>> to heaven. People have free will and choose to love God or hate God. God >>> (if he wanted to) could have done it a different way. You can't blame God >>> if you decide to turn your back on God. >> God doesn't exist. There's nothing for me to turn my back on. > > Have you ever considered that you could be wrong? In this case, if you are > wrong--you could end up in heaven or hell--the choice is up to you. Ok, start again. God created everything (apart from the fact that I would be responsible if I created a bomb, whether I use it or someone else), so he also created me with a mind capable of rational thought, logic and thinking. He then expects me to believe in him, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that he even exists. So, not really a choice. He gave me a mind capable of thinking and then expects me not to use it? So, I am an atheist. To be more exact, I am a radical atheist (DNA again) concerning this specific particularly cruel cosmic zombie, because even his "attributes" contradict themselves. I could be considered a logical agnostic towards some other "gods", though. Odin for example does not claim to be omnipotent nor omniscient and almost least of all benevolent. He does not kill innocent. Oh, he kills. In a fight. Granted, those fights end always the same, but his opponents get to go to Valhalla.... That's one god that does not condemn you for trying. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179033695.644052.208470@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, George > Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 1:30 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <1179021357.366735.22...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> >>> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On May 13, 4:22 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>> The earth is like a test for all of us. We have free will. >>>> You keep saying this but the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly >>>> against this assumption: people are driven primarily by instinct. >>>> There is no evidence that we make capricious decisions. And your own >>>> theological beliefs also contracdict te notion of free will because >>>> you believe God already knows what we are going to do: if God already >>>> knows what we are going to do then we only have the illusion of free >>>> will because we can't make capricious decisions without God sometimes >>>> being wrong. >>> Christians have written books related to free will. >> So? Have you read any? > > No, but I have heard sermons on that subject that were based on at least > one of those books. Oh goodie. But never mind. Even an atheist knows that "free will" is shaky at best. You can do what you want but you cant want what you want. > >>> It's a complex >>> doctrine. I do believe all people have free will. God and the angels also >>> have free will. God has the power to know what I will do but that does not >>> mean he will force me to change my behavior. He may take actions to cause >>> me to change my behavior. I'll tell you a true story that involved God >>> taking actions to change a person's behavior. This happened when the >>> assistant pastor of my church and his wife was traveling to another state >>> to visit relatives. The wife developed food poisoning and he had to pull >>> over at several gas stations so that she could vomit. They were about two >>> hours behind schedule. They drove past several overturned tractor trailors >>> and overturned automobiles. They turned on the radio and found out that a >>> tornado had crossed the same road they were on about two hours before they >>> arrived to that part of the freeway. She stopped having nausea after they >>> passed the overturned tractor trailors. You may say the tornado and food >>> poisoning was unrelated but that pastor and I believe that God was able to >>> see in the future and he took actions so that his servants avoided being >>> injured by that tornado. >> That is an example of how people do not have free will. In your >> opinion, God saw the future and was able to change what he saw >> happening. As you believe your god to be perfect, he can always do >> that. Thus, your god can manipulate circumstances so that things turn >> out the way he wants. And if he is perfect then everything always >> will turn out as he wants. This rules out the possibility of people >> having genuine free will. > > That's interesting. I can only state my opinion. I believe that in most > cases, God lets us live our lives making use of our free will. He rarely > intervenes in the lives of people. Occassionly, God does intervene in our > lives. I know of one lady that had Parkinson's Disease that was a > dedicated Christian. She begged God for several years to heal her. During > one day, God spoke to her and told her that he would be healing her the > following day. The following day, she asked her pastor to lay his hands on > her because this was her day to be healed. Several people were present. > God healed her that day. Yes, God can manipulate circumstances so that > things turn out the way he wants. I disagree with your last sentence. I > believe that in most cases, God allows us to live our lives exercising our > free will. He does not intervene unless he feels the need to do so. It's > like good parents to a teenage child or even an older child that is now > married. The loving father does not intervene unless he feels the need to > do so. He is more likely to intervene if the son or daughter asks him for > his intervention or help. In fact, God was called "father" by Jesus. The > Lord's Prayer begins--"Our Father". I disagree with the poster that > indicated that God controls all aspects of everyone's life. That is not > true. I have a neighbor that has Lupus. I'm sure she would love it if God > intervended in her life and healed her of Lupus. If God controlled all > aspects of everyone lives, there would not be any sick people in America. > > "If god controlled all"... he made it that way. He knew what would happen. So either he did it on purpose that way and then he is one sick bugger or he is not omniscient/omnipotent. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > <snip> > > >>> A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. >>> On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free >>> will. Neither God or people are robots. > > > >> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the >> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what >> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't >> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he would >> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot >> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions but > that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the > future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in the > above post would not be a factor. > Jason > > He does not have to see into the future. He is omniscient. That means he knows anyway. If he has the power to not know what will happen (being omnipotent, thats what he can do) then he is no longer omniscient. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <q45d431vks86e298qn47760v7sln8mhvml@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1205072128500001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>>> A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. >>>>> On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God > has free >>>>> will. Neither God or people are robots. >>> >>> >>>> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the >>>> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what >>>> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't >>>> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he would >>>> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot >>>> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> God may have the power to see in the future related to his own actions but >>> that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the >>> future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in the >>> above post would not be a factor. >> If He doesn't know, whether by choice or not, He isn't omniscient. > > Are you saying that an omiscient God has no control over it and has to > exercise it every minute of every day. That does not make sense. It's my > opinion that God has absolute control over his powers. > > No. He is not saying this. YOU are. You claim he is omniscient. So he knows. Whether he wants to or not. But then, he is not omnipotent. Or if he is omnipotent and can chose not to know, he is no longer omniscient. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179043434.738827.208140@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 4:31 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> In article <q45d431vks86e298qn47760v7sln8mh...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> >>> <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 21:28:50 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-1205072128500...@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was > programmed to do. >>>>>>> On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God >>> has free >>>>>>> will. Neither God or people are robots. >>>>>> If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the >>>>>> future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what >>>>>> he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't >>>>>> have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he would >>>>>> foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot >>>>>> have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. >>>>> God may have the power to see in the future related to his own > actions but >>>>> that does NOT mean that God does that. If he chose not to see in the >>>>> future related to his own actions--the other issues you mentioned in the >>>>> above post would not be a factor. >>>> If He doesn't know, whether by choice or not, He isn't omniscient. >>> Are you saying that an omiscient God has no control over it and has to >>> exercise it every minute of every day. That does not make sense. It's my >>> opinion that God has absolute control over his powers. >> No, it means you either know something or you don't. The whole point >> of Christians feeling guilty about their sins is the idea that God >> knows what their sins are: there's nothing in Christian mythology that >> God "chooses" to know certain things; he's supposed to just know. >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Not all Christians agree related to these issues. Perhaps some Christians > do believe God is always watching over them and is concerned about > everything they do. I don't believe that. He doesn't have to "watch over them". He knows. He is omniscient (your claim, not mine). Concerned is also your claim. Benevolent. If he is not concerned, he is not benevolent. I do believe that God listens to > our prayers. When I was in college, I asked God to help me pass tests and > exams. Why listen? He knows anyhow. He is omniscient. Look up that word. You clearly have no idea what it means. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5Tx1i.2603$UU.1613@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1179021006.214437.12380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 13, 4:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that >>>>> ridiculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics >>>>> class. >>>> Let me make one thing clear: I _never_ initiate a round of personal >>>> attacks, not even in an online debate like this. I fully admit that >>>> there are several regular atheist posters who freely use words like >>>> "moron", "idiot" and "liar". I prefer to say things like "Your >>>> argument is nonsense", "You're being ignorant" or "You are lying" >>>> which is not the same thing because I am responding to a poster's >>>> argument and not attacking them personally. Even if somebody has lied >>>> repeatedly in post after post, it does not justify calling them a >>>> liar: it could just be that you think lying is a valid debating >>>> tactic. In any case, I hope you similarly understand the difference >>>> between "This [argument] is racist" and "You are racist". >>>> >>>>> I have had other athest professors that I respected. I don't >>>>> dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't >>>>> dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. >>>> Well then you are different from other fundies who come here because >>>> most fundies who come here gleefully tell us we will "burn in Hell". >>>> There's nothing more hateful than that. >>>> >>>> On a personal note, I admit to feeling outright hatred for all Moslems >>>> after 9/11. The only way I got over that hatred was to realize that >>>> it is religions, not religious people, which are evil. It's like >>>> hating an AIDS patient rather than the virus inside of him. >>>> >>>>> I took a >>>>> debate class in college. We appeared to not like each other during the >>>>> debates but actually we were friends. I once witnessed a trial where the >>>>> lawyers appeared to hate each other and be prejudiced against each other. >>>>> During the noon break, I saw them eating lunch together in the courthouse >>>>> cafeteria. They appeared to be close friends. >>>> They were probably the best of friends. Time and time again, they >>>> would have both worked on the same cases, albiet from different >>>> sides. They may have each known nobody with whom they had more in >>>> common. >>>> >>>> You obviously forget the true purpose of debate: the purpose of debate >>>> is to arrive at the truth by attacking a question from both sides. It >>>> isn't a question of having winners and losers. Lawyers who work on >>>> opposing sides of cases are collegues, not adversaries. >>>> >>>> I admire your gift for observation. I just wish your ability to >>>> actually see the world the way it is could save you from nevertheless >>>> thinking the world is very different from what you see. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> Martin, >>> Actually, Christianity has really helped me to not fear death. I am >>> actually looking forward to it. I have had to deal with elderly people >>> that were near death. Some of them were fearful of death. We have all >>> heard stories about elderly people that have about a dozen different >>> serious medical problems and lots of surgeries. They are afraid to die and >>> are trying their hardest to hang on to life a little while longer. That >>> will never happen to me. It's my guess that many atheists will decide to >>> become Christians when they start getting old or develop a serious disease >>> that could cause them to die--just in case they were wrong and want to >>> cover all bases. >> Do you think that everyone facing death will suddenly become Christian >> because of your coercive eschatology? I've known a fair number of >> people facing death. Without exception Christianity mattered as much to >> them in their final hours as it did in their lives. >> >>> Related to one of your other points--please note that I rarely respond to >>> anyone that is disrespective to me. I believe those people are hoping to >>> impress other people in this newsgroup and don't really want a response. >> I was seriously hoping that you would respond to my comments to you >> about your utterly distorted view of what evolution is. I had sincerely >> hoped that you would provide actual evidence to prove me wrong or maybe >> even changed your views. But thus far my hopes have been in vain. >> >> I >>> once heard a professor say that when people resort to name calling or >>> profanity in a debate--it means they have lost the debate since the name >>> calling and profanity means they have run out of important points. I >>> learned in a debate class to never lose my temper. >> You appear temperate in your debating style. However, you appear to be >> uninfluenced by the responses you receive. This is one of the sterile >> aspects of scholastic debating - one is judged on presentation, so there >> is no requirement for the debater to evaluate the content of his, or his >> opponents, arguments. Discussions with you are starting to appear >> sterile and pointless - mere scholastic debate. Nothing will change. You >> cannot muster arguments to change others' views, and you have shown that >> you are impervious to information. > > And the people that respond to my posts seem to be impervious to change > their points of view. > > Not exactly. I am a rational person (I hope to be one. I know enough to know that this is not exactly possible). You claim quite a few things. I claim a few things. I am constantly rechecking my facts and my ideas. IF you can provide convincing evidence, you can bet on it I will change my mind. If you can provide evidence why evolution is wrong, I will change my mind. I am constantly looking for errors. To see if my hypothesises are wrong. I and some others here challenge you to bring it on! Show the evidence! Empirical evidence, experimental data, anything! It has to meet certain standards (so anecdotal evidence and hearsay are invalid), but apart from that, let's have it. It would be nice if you had the same courtesy. But that would be an unexpected bonus. I am not here to educate you. I am here to educate myself. I (and others I bet) don't have our opinions in concrete. We can change them. Convince us using hard data. So far, "haven't seen any". Tokay Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Martin wrote: > On May 13, 4:15 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 13, 4:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>> And the people that respond to my posts seem to be impervious to change >>> their points of view. >> That's because we know you are right whereas, for you, your beliefs >> provide you with a way to avoid the fear of death. > >> PS: Is it really a good idea to NOT fear death? If I am on the road >> then I sure as Hell hope the other drivers have a healthy fear of >> death! > > I meant to say "we know WE are right". > > Martin > I guessed as much. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:28:15 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1305070028150001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1179028878.837214.212670@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 10:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1179016435.560080.46...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On May 13, 3:09 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <f23v14$pbs$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >> > >> > > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > > > > Jason wrote: >> > >> > > <snip> >> > >> > > > > > I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God >> > created life >> > > > > > on this earth. There have been at least two books about this >subject. >> > >> > > > > What books? I can explain the theory of evolution here without much >> > > > > trouble and have done so. I can point you to evidence that fits this >> > theory. >> > >> > > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow >> > > > A thorough examination of all pre-human fossils. >> > >> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html >> > >> > > "The major theme of Bones of Contention is that the various species of >> > > hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one >> > > another in time. >> > >> > > "Firstly, he argues that a species cannot survive once it has given >> > > rise to a new species. Unlike many other creationists, he does at >> > > least attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the >> > > newer, fitter descendant species, would, because of its superiority, >> > > drive its parent species to extinction. The argument is incorrect >> > > because members of the parent species may live in a separate region >> > > from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there >> > > may be no competition because they have diverged enough to occupy >> > > different ecological niches. (Many scientists would argue that even >> > > the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.) Additionally, >> > > it is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new >> > > species is "superior", in an absolute sense, to its parent species. >> > > Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in their own >> > > niches. >> > >> > > "This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human >> > > evolution but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a >> > > species cannot split into two species. Obviously this is not the view >> > > of speciation accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that >> > > the number of living species could never increase. Nor, in fact, is it >> > > a view of speciation generally accepted by creationists, most of whom >> > > believe that many living species descended from the same biblical >> > > 'kind'. In fact, this argument is so weak that even Answers in Genesis >> > > has abandoned it; as they correctly point out, "... there's nothing in >> > > evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct." " >> > >> > > > Another interesting book: >> > > > "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Ashton >> > > > 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical >version >> > > > of creation. >> > >> > > 93% of qualified scientists don't even believe in God. >> > >> > > Have you even read these books? Why don't you present arguments from >> > > these books instead of just simply telling us they exist? Thousands, >> > > if not hundreds of thousands, of books describe evidence of evolution. >> > >> > Have you read that book? >> >> I asked you first. >> >> > I doubt it. It also discusses fossil evidence. >> >> Present some. >> >> Martin > >Martin, >I read a similar book: "Evolution--The Fossils Still Say No" by D.T. Gish. >I actually saw D.T. Gish debate a professor. Dr. Gish won that debate. Of >course, Dr. Gish was an expert debater and the professor became so >frustrated that he lost his temper. Even the college students who came to >support him stopped clapping for him about half way thru the debate. The >audience was filled with Christians. > >Did you read Gish's book or Lubenow's book--your turn Gish didn't ever win a debate though an ignorant audience might think that he had. The professor lost his temper because Gish, unapologetically continued to lie. He is famous for his fraudulent statements about science. It is clear that you are ignorant of science, if you were not, you would have been booing Gish for the false witness he bore. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > I continue to believe that Christians > that take their religion seriously are less likely to commit > crimes--including murder-- than Christians that do NOT take their religion > seriously or other people that have no regard for obeying the law. There are of course other groups. You have three. "Christians that take their religion seriously" "Christians that don't take their religion seriously" "people that have no regard for obeying the law" Within these groups, you might be correct. Statistical data shows that atheists are less likely to commit crimes than christians. That's statistic. It does not say anything about cause and effect. Some crimes only christians commit. Hardly likely for an atheist to kill doctors that do abortions. -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sun, 13 May 2007 00:56:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1305070056230001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1179027411.828594.125210@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 8:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >> >> > > >When Einstein >> > >> > > Cite please. >> > >> > Nightline had a special related to a debate between two oupspoken >> > Christians and two outspoken atheists. One of the Christians used the >> > quote from Einstein related to the watch. >> >> You mean Kirk Cameron when he said Einstein believed in God? He did >> not provide that quote. He just said "I didn't say he was >> Christian". He provided no quote to prove that Einstein believed in >> God. In fact, it is not true. >> >> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious >> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not >> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have >> expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called >> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the >> world so far as our science can reveal it." >> Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human >> Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman >> >> Martin > >Martin, >Yes, Kirk Cameron made that statement related to Einstein's watch. I hope >he did not make it up. >jason > Cameron's career depends on the "Left Behind" videos. He is not a scientist nor is he knowledgeable about these. You need to find and present the Einstein quote in context. Einstein was not a supporter of or believer in the God of Abraham. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1179041847.356500.102010@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 3:51 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>>> That neanderthals looked just like us but bigger is an ASSUMPTION and >>>>>> it would have been wrong for your college professor to make such an >>>>>> assumption. Even two human beings picked at random won't look alike. >>>>> I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps you could answer this question:; Can >>>>> scientists determine how tall a person is by measuring the length of >>>>> certain bones--such as major leg bones? I believe that Neanderthals had >>>>> bigger bones so it's my guess that they were heavier than Cro-Magnums. >>>> Your biology professor supposedly said "it would be possible to dress >>>> a Neanderthal >>>> man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that >>>> Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and most >>>> people would not pay any attention to him". There's NO way he could >>>> possibly know that. Consider the fact that skeletons of people from >>>> different races look identical and yet we can tell when people look >>>> Chinese, black, Indian, Mexican, etc. I've been in Asia for ten years >>>> and I always have little kids staring at me: they notice I am >>>> different even though I am not a neanderthal. I can only hope that >>>> your teacher was speculating (assuming this story wasn't just >>>> something you made up). >>> My professor was probably not discussing a city in Asia. He was probably >>> talking about a city like New York where it is common to see people from >>> all races on the busy streets of that city. >> Point taken. So you went to college in New York City? He still >> couldn't be absolutely certain that nobody would have taken notice. >> I, for one, might have been inclined to take him up on that if he had >> said such a thing without qualification. >> >>>>> I disagree. Many of the advocates of creation science believe that >>>>> evolution took over after God created many life forms. I read an article >>>>> in an ICR newsletter that explained how races began--it was mainly > because >>>>> of genetic changes that took place in groups of humans in various >>>>> locations of the earth. Perhaps, Neanderthals were one of those > races but >>>>> that is my assumption. >>>> There is no signifant difference between micro evolution and macro >>>> evolution: you do not walk a mile without taking individual steps. >>>>>>>>> You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and > Modern man a >>>>> Have you ever read about one of the so-called cavemen--it may have been >>>>> Piltdown man or something like that. For many years, evolutionists > were of >>>>> the opinion that that caveman was one of the steps in man's > evolution. No >>>>> bones of that caveman had been found--just one tooth. Many years > later, it >>>>> was determined that tooth came from a pig. That was not really a >>>>> manipulation of data. Instead, it involved evolutionists that wanted the >>>>> tooth to be a caveman's tooth so they made the mistake of assuming > that it >>>>> was a caveman's tooth. I call it a an evolution mind set. >>>> As opposed to a creationist mind set? >>> Do you believe that evolutionists have ever used a tooth as the only >>> evidence for a caveman and even had an artist draw a painting about what >>> that caveman looked like based on that tooth? Another evolutionist exposed >>> the error. Do you think that I am lying? >> You tell me: I said below "The difference is that it is other >> scientists who are able find and identify fraudulant data and not >> creationists." I, myself, gave you the example of the Korean >> geneticist who falsified data: it does happen. But people who have >> been found to falsify data lose all credibility as scientists: their >> career, quite literally, is over. Scientists live by a standard of >> ultimate truth that creationists, politicians and used car salesmen >> just simply aren't expected to live by. >> >>>>> An evolution >>>>> mind-set means they do everything they can to make their research > efforts >>>>> support evolution theory. The advocates of creation science do the same >>>>> thing in relation to data. Regardless of who does it--it's wrong. >>>> The difference is that it is other scientists who are able find and >>>> identify fraudulant data and not creationists. >>>> Thank you for admitting that advocates of creation "science" do >>>> "everything they can to make their research efforts support" >>>> creationism. >>> It's wrong--regardless who does it. >> And if you claim that a scientist is "manipulating data" then the onus >> is on you to show that he is, in fact, doing that. >> >> Martin > > It takes a scientist to expose a scientist. My words in a newsgroup post > or even a letter from me mean nothing. > > Not exactly. If using the scientific method makes you a scientist, then yes, it takes a scientists. But that only means you have to provide facts and data. Postings or letters without checkable reproducible facts of course do not qualify. Tokay -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. Glaser and Way Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:49:45 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1205072349460001@66-52-22-47.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >Martin, >Actually, Christianity has really helped me to not fear death. I am >actually looking forward to it. I have had to deal with elderly people >that were near death. Some of them were fearful of death. We have all >heard stories about elderly people that have about a dozen different >serious medical problems and lots of surgeries. They are afraid to die and >are trying their hardest to hang on to life a little while longer. That >will never happen to me. It's my guess that many atheists will decide to >become Christians when they start getting old or develop a serious disease >that could cause them to die--just in case they were wrong and want to >cover all bases. So life will be better for people who delude themselves? >Related to one of your other points--please note that I rarely respond to >anyone that is disrespective to me. I believe those people are hoping to >impress other people in this newsgroup and don't really want a response. I >once heard a professor say that when people resort to name calling or >profanity in a debate--it means they have lost the debate since the name >calling and profanity means they have run out of important points. I >learned in a debate class to never lose my temper. You don't show respect to those who disagree with you. Your professor was partially wrong. People also become frustrated when the person they are talking with refuses to listen or to admit that he is wrong. Your posts are the posts of a person who will never admit to being in error, no matter how obvious it is to everyone else. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:39:13 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1305070139140001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <5Tx1i.2603$UU.1613@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, >bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <1179021006.214437.12380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On May 13, 4:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >>> I had some major problems with an atheist psychology professor that >> >>> ridiculed a fellow Christian and myself related to a situational ethics >> >>> class. >> >> Let me make one thing clear: I _never_ initiate a round of personal >> >> attacks, not even in an online debate like this. I fully admit that >> >> there are several regular atheist posters who freely use words like >> >> "moron", "idiot" and "liar". I prefer to say things like "Your >> >> argument is nonsense", "You're being ignorant" or "You are lying" >> >> which is not the same thing because I am responding to a poster's >> >> argument and not attacking them personally. Even if somebody has lied >> >> repeatedly in post after post, it does not justify calling them a >> >> liar: it could just be that you think lying is a valid debating >> >> tactic. In any case, I hope you similarly understand the difference >> >> between "This [argument] is racist" and "You are racist". >> >> >> >>> I have had other athest professors that I respected. I don't >> >>> dislike evolutionists or atheists--I just disagree with them. I don't >> >>> dislike the advocates for abortion--I just disagree with them. >> >> Well then you are different from other fundies who come here because >> >> most fundies who come here gleefully tell us we will "burn in Hell". >> >> There's nothing more hateful than that. >> >> >> >> On a personal note, I admit to feeling outright hatred for all Moslems >> >> after 9/11. The only way I got over that hatred was to realize that >> >> it is religions, not religious people, which are evil. It's like >> >> hating an AIDS patient rather than the virus inside of him. >> >> >> >>> I took a >> >>> debate class in college. We appeared to not like each other during the >> >>> debates but actually we were friends. I once witnessed a trial where the >> >>> lawyers appeared to hate each other and be prejudiced against each other. >> >>> During the noon break, I saw them eating lunch together in the courthouse >> >>> cafeteria. They appeared to be close friends. >> >> They were probably the best of friends. Time and time again, they >> >> would have both worked on the same cases, albiet from different >> >> sides. They may have each known nobody with whom they had more in >> >> common. >> >> >> >> You obviously forget the true purpose of debate: the purpose of debate >> >> is to arrive at the truth by attacking a question from both sides. It >> >> isn't a question of having winners and losers. Lawyers who work on >> >> opposing sides of cases are collegues, not adversaries. >> >> >> >> I admire your gift for observation. I just wish your ability to >> >> actually see the world the way it is could save you from nevertheless >> >> thinking the world is very different from what you see. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> > Martin, >> > Actually, Christianity has really helped me to not fear death. I am >> > actually looking forward to it. I have had to deal with elderly people >> > that were near death. Some of them were fearful of death. We have all >> > heard stories about elderly people that have about a dozen different >> > serious medical problems and lots of surgeries. They are afraid to die and >> > are trying their hardest to hang on to life a little while longer. That >> > will never happen to me. It's my guess that many atheists will decide to >> > become Christians when they start getting old or develop a serious disease >> > that could cause them to die--just in case they were wrong and want to >> > cover all bases. >> >> Do you think that everyone facing death will suddenly become Christian >> because of your coercive eschatology? I've known a fair number of >> people facing death. Without exception Christianity mattered as much to >> them in their final hours as it did in their lives. >> >> > Related to one of your other points--please note that I rarely respond to >> > anyone that is disrespective to me. I believe those people are hoping to >> > impress other people in this newsgroup and don't really want a response. >> >> I was seriously hoping that you would respond to my comments to you >> about your utterly distorted view of what evolution is. I had sincerely >> hoped that you would provide actual evidence to prove me wrong or maybe >> even changed your views. But thus far my hopes have been in vain. >> >> I >> > once heard a professor say that when people resort to name calling or >> > profanity in a debate--it means they have lost the debate since the name >> > calling and profanity means they have run out of important points. I >> > learned in a debate class to never lose my temper. >> >> You appear temperate in your debating style. However, you appear to be >> uninfluenced by the responses you receive. This is one of the sterile >> aspects of scholastic debating - one is judged on presentation, so there >> is no requirement for the debater to evaluate the content of his, or his >> opponents, arguments. Discussions with you are starting to appear >> sterile and pointless - mere scholastic debate. Nothing will change. You >> cannot muster arguments to change others' views, and you have shown that >> you are impervious to information. > >And the people that respond to my posts seem to be impervious to change >their points of view. Since your posts are full of errors and repeated lies, why would anyone change their point of view based on the mistakes you have presented. The question you refuse to answer is why you present all of these false claims and why you stand by them. -- "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:45:38 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1305070145380001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1179031647.035924.274380@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, George >Chen <georgechen2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 11:38 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > It appears to me (based upon newspaper articles and television news shows) >> > that crime is more of a problem in the 2000's than it was in the 1950's >> > and 1960's >> >> and yet less of a problem than it was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, >> as born out by actual statistics. > >I subscribe to the local newspaper. There are lots of reports of crimes. >When I read the Los Angeles Times--you would be amazed at the crime rate >in that city. In my home town in Virginia, there was not hardly any crime >compared to the crimes in this small town in California. They had a jail >in my home town in Virginia but on most nights--it was empty. We have over >30 people in the county jail and they want to build a larger jail since >they are overcrowded. > The plural of anecdotes is not data. People become more aware of crime as they age. Learn to use real information when you try to present an argument, it works. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On Sun, 13 May 2007 01:48:00 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1305070148010001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1179031222.406540.262970@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 13, 11:26 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1179019540.936296.309...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > > It is racist to to equate all illegal immigrants with gang members. >> > > There have been white gangs, black gangs and even Asian gangs in >> > > America too. Most people who come to America looking for work are not >> > > only not looking for trouble but are going to avoid getting into >> > > trouble for fear of being sent back to Mexico. >> > >> > That is a true statement. Most illegal immigrants do not get involved in >> > criminal behavior. I have worked with some of those wonderful people. I >> > did not mean to offend you. >> >> I appreciate that. Under the circumstances, I think it would be >> better to snip what you said above. >> >> It is my opinion that US immigration policy is racist. Up until very >> recently, Canadians could pass into the US from Canada without even >> having to show their passports but Mexicans were held back with fences >> and were arrested if they passed into the United States. People from >> Canada and England have been able to work in the United States without >> becoming American citizens but the United States still has no guest >> worker program for Mexicans wanting to work in the US. >> (Such a program does exist in Canada: a smart, qualified Mexican would >> make the trek north. Some do.) Americans and Canadians can travel >> all over the world but people crossing into the United States from >> Mexico are arrested and deported. In Taiwan, Korea and Japan, a >> person who can find work within one month of their arrival is given >> permission to stay. >> >> When I lived in the Philippines I was unknowingly an illegal >> immigrant: in most countries in the world, being married to a local >> automatically causes one to be granted pernament resident status but >> apparently the Philippines only grants pernament resident status to >> people who apply from overseas: I could indeed have been thrown in >> jail overstaying in the Philippines but instead I found a job here in >> Taiwan and brought my family with me. I once had to wait in line >> eight hours to get a work visa to go to Korea and when I complained >> the girl at the window told me that Koreans have to wait just as long >> to get visas from the American embassy: when I told her that I was >> Canadian, not American, she apologized, but it was a bit late for >> that. I know what it is like to be an illegal immigrant and I know >> what it is like to be discriminated against so the comments you made >> before affected me quite personally. >> >> <snip> >> >> Martin > >Martin, >I have no problem with immigration--as long as people comply with the laws. > And if the laws about immigration are created because the authors of those laws are racist do you still support the law or the victims of the law? 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.