Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > >> > >>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ > >>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an > > abortion > >>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. > >>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > >>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. > >> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something > >> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and even you > >> can't remember it well. > >> > >> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. > >> > >> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd > >> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, > >> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: "over a > >> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it cost me > >> my house, my car and most of my possessions." > >> > >> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't > >> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your > >> conviction. > > > > It was about $300 to $400. > > I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even > paid for her food for 4 months. I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505071121190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546djr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505070039150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> <1179804830.804769.229380@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Martin, >> >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that >divided the >> >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each >group had >> >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted >each group >> >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so that >> >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to share. A >> >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard >since we >> >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the >logical thing >> >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the term >> >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young >Christian man >> >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, >the other >> >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the same way >> >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of >> >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. >> >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are incapable >> >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard and you >> >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that causes >> >> >> all to die. >> >> > >> >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is >> >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. >> >> > >> >> >Martin >> >> >> >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the >> >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to >> >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his >> >> willingness to kill everyone. >> > >> >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live >> >several extra days? I would not do that. >> > >> I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice >> yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because >> you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational >> decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. >> >> For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower >> billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we >> allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care >> for them. > >The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. So you are saying that it is a sin to dive onto a grenade to protect your buddies in battle? You are absurdly selfish. Nothing from Jesus's teachings have gotten through to you. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote snip > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing > yourself. So? That doesn't apply to those outside your religion. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:43:22 +0200, in alt.atheism Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in <f37423$cr6$02$1@news.t-online.com>: >Jason wrote: >> In article <1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >>>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a >>>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now >>>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came >>>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be >>>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she would >>>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. >>>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when >>>>>> I was a child. >>>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then to >>>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. >>>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the >>>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. >>> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since >>> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question >>> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. >>> >>> Martin >> >> Martin, >> If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. >> Jason >> >> > >Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I >understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error >of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). >And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we >can do anything about it, should we? We will have to do something about it, one way or another. I think the question is whether trying to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is likely to be successful or whether we would be better off by spending our time and money trying to prepare for the changes in climate that will occur. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546djr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505070039150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> <1179804830.804769.229380@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: > >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> ... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Martin, > >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that divided the > >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each group had > >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted each group > >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so that > >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to share. A > >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard since we > >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the logical thing > >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the term > >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young Christian man > >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, the other > >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the same way > >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of > >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > >> >> >Jason > >> >> > >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are incapable > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard and you > >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that causes > >> >> all to die. > >> > > >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. > >> > > >> >Martin > >> > >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the > >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to > >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > >> willingness to kill everyone. > > > >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live > >several extra days? I would not do that. > > > I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice > yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because > you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational > decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. > > For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower > billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we > allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care > for them. The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. So if you were on flight 93 (the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA where the passengers knew was was going to happen if they didn't do anything) you would have simply stood to one side and let the hijackers do what they wanted to do? That figures. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3761f$t99$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason >>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ >>>>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an >>>>> abortion >>>>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. >>>>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? >>>>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. >>>>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something >>>>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and even you >>>>>> can't remember it well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. >>>>>> >>>>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd >>>>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, >>>>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: > "over a >>>>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it > cost me >>>>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." >>>>>> >>>>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't >>>>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your >>>>>> conviction. >>>>> It was about $300 to $400. >>>> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even >>>> paid for her food for 4 months. >>> I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the >>> people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. >> I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. > > I failed to take into consideration the medical expenses and perhaps other > expenses such as utility bills. I paid the amount that the ministry > requested. I did not even consider these issues until someone mentioned > medical expenses in a post. I also stated that I did not remember the > exact amount that I donated to the ministry--I was guessing that it was > about $300-$400. It may have been more. As I said, you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. Instead, you paid what they asked for as a donation. Lies seem to be par for the course for you. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <f3761f$t99$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ > >>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an > >>> abortion > >>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. > >>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > >>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. > >>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something > >>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and even you > >>>> can't remember it well. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. > >>>> > >>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd > >>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, > >>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: "over a > >>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it cost me > >>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." > >>>> > >>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't > >>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your > >>>> conviction. > >>> It was about $300 to $400. > >> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even > >> paid for her food for 4 months. > > > > I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the > > people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. > > I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. I failed to take into consideration the medical expenses and perhaps other expenses such as utility bills. I paid the amount that the ministry requested. I did not even consider these issues until someone mentioned medical expenses in a post. I also stated that I did not remember the exact amount that I donated to the ministry--I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It may have been more. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <f37423$cr6$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > > innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > >>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a > >>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now > >>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came > >>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be > >>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she would > >>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. > >>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when > >>>>> I was a child. > >>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then to > >>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > >>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > >>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > >> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > >> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > >> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > >> > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. > > Jason > > > > > > Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I > understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error > of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). > And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we > can do anything about it, should we? > > Tokay Yes, but even if Americans stopped ALL use of fossil fuels, it would not have an effect on the fossil fuels used in other countries. Many of those countries such as China have huge factories that have no pollution control equipment in those factories. Regardless, if it's a natural cycle, regardless of what actions we take--global warming will continue until a cooling cycle begins. jason Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:38:41 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505071238410001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <pm9e53lj991i3lk1ul3etn5u6km7ibcpt3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505071121190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546djr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2505070039150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> <1179804830.804769.229380@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Martin, >> >> >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that >> >divided the >> >> >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each >> >group had >> >> >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted >> >each group >> >> >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard >so that >> >> >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to >share. A >> >> >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard >> >since we >> >> >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the >> >logical thing >> >> >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use >the term >> >> >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young >> >Christian man >> >> >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, >> >the other >> >> >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the >same way >> >> >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of >> >> >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. >> >> >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are >incapable >> >> >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard >and you >> >> >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness >that causes >> >> >> >> all to die. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is >> >> >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the >> >> >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to >> >> >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his >> >> >> willingness to kill everyone. >> >> > >> >> >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live >> >> >several extra days? I would not do that. >> >> > >> >> I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice >> >> yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because >> >> you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational >> >> decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. >> >> >> >> For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower >> >> billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we >> >> allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care >> >> for them. >> > >> >The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. >> >> So you are saying that it is a sin to dive onto a grenade to protect >> your buddies in battle? >> >> You are absurdly selfish. Nothing from Jesus's teachings have gotten >> through to you. > >You are changing the goal post. In the hand grenade scenario, it is >certain that people would die if nothing was done. Related to the life >boat scenario, it is NOT certain that people would die. Bull. The scenario is the same. That was the point of the scenario, but you refuse to admit it. You are doing nothing but justifying your selfishness. >It's possible they >would have been rescued one hour after the elderly sick man was murdered. No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:38:41 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505071238410001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <pm9e53lj991i3lk1ul3etn5u6km7ibcpt3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2505071121190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546djr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-2505070039150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> >> Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> <1179804830.804769.229380@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Martin, >> >> >> >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that >> >> >divided the >> >> >> >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each >> >> >group had >> >> >> >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted >> >> >each group >> >> >> >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard >> >so that >> >> >> >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to >> >share. A >> >> >> >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard >> >> >since we >> >> >> >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the >> >> >logical thing >> >> >> >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use >> >the term >> >> >> >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young >> >> >Christian man >> >> >> >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, >> >> >the other >> >> >> >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the >> >same way >> >> >> >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of >> >> >> >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. >> >> >> >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are >> >incapable >> >> >> >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard >> >and you >> >> >> >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness >> >that causes >> >> >> >> >> all to die. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is >> >> >> >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the >> >> >> >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if >I have to >> >> >> >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his >> >> >> >> willingness to kill everyone. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order >to live >> >> >> >several extra days? I would not do that. >> >> >> > >> >> >> I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice >> >> >> yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because >> >> >> you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational >> >> >> decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. >> >> >> >> >> >> For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower >> >> >> billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we >> >> >> allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care >> >> >> for them. >> >> > >> >> >The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing >yourself. >> >> >> >> So you are saying that it is a sin to dive onto a grenade to protect >> >> your buddies in battle? >> >> >> >> You are absurdly selfish. Nothing from Jesus's teachings have gotten >> >> through to you. >> > >> >You are changing the goal post. In the hand grenade scenario, it is >> >certain that people would die if nothing was done. Related to the life >> >boat scenario, it is NOT certain that people would die. >> >> Bull. The scenario is the same. That was the point of the scenario, but >> you refuse to admit it. You are doing nothing but justifying your >> selfishness. >> >> >It's possible they >> >would have been rescued one hour after the elderly sick man was murdered. >> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. > >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >different. > You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:14:01 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505071314010001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <r3ae53hfo3rg3ouklqhcrl71tuql18q3b8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:43:22 +0200, in alt.atheism >> Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in >> <f37423$cr6$02$1@news.t-online.com>: >> >Jason wrote: >> >> In article <1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >>>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a >> >>>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now >> >>>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came >> >>>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be >> >>>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she would >> >>>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. >> >>>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when >> >>>>>> I was a child. >> >>>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then to >> >>>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. >> >>>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the >> >>>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. >> >>> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since >> >>> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question >> >>> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. >> >>> >> >>> Martin >> >> >> >> Martin, >> >> If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I >> >understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error >> >of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). >> >And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we >> >can do anything about it, should we? >> >> We will have to do something about it, one way or another. I think the >> question is whether trying to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in >> the atmosphere is likely to be successful or whether we would be better >> off by spending our time and money trying to prepare for the changes in >> climate that will occur. > >The state and federal government will use this issue to raise our taxes >and the taxes of companies that produce lots of pollution. I live in >Calfornia and the democrats in the state gov't want to charge some sort of >special pollution tax to everyone that buys a huge SUV. I seem to recall >that the proposed tax is about $2000 per vehicle. If they over >tax--factories that make paper, steel, etc--the end result is that the >owners of those factories will close them down and fire all of the >American workers. They will build new factories in another country that >does not have over-tax them. Those efforts will not have an effect on >reducing the use of fossil fuels. >Jason So you think that businesses need to be subsidized and allowed to destroy the environment. Why? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <pm9e53lj991i3lk1ul3etn5u6km7ibcpt3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505071121190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546djr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505070039150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> <1179804830.804769.229380@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: > >> >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Martin, > >> >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that > >divided the > >> >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each > >group had > >> >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted > >each group > >> >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so that > >> >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to share. A > >> >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard > >since we > >> >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the > >logical thing > >> >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the term > >> >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young > >Christian man > >> >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, > >the other > >> >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the same way > >> >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of > >> >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > >> >> >> >Jason > >> >> >> > >> >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are incapable > >> >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard and you > >> >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that causes > >> >> >> all to die. > >> >> > > >> >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > >> >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. > >> >> > > >> >> >Martin > >> >> > >> >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the > >> >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to > >> >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > >> >> willingness to kill everyone. > >> > > >> >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live > >> >several extra days? I would not do that. > >> > > >> I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice > >> yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because > >> you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational > >> decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. > >> > >> For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower > >> billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we > >> allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care > >> for them. > > > >The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. > > So you are saying that it is a sin to dive onto a grenade to protect > your buddies in battle? > > You are absurdly selfish. Nothing from Jesus's teachings have gotten > through to you. You are changing the goal post. In the hand grenade scenario, it is certain that people would die if nothing was done. Related to the life boat scenario, it is NOT certain that people would die. It's possible they would have been rescued one hour after the elderly sick man was murdered. Jason Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> said: To Jason: >You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? Yeah, Jason, jump overboard, having trust in your invisible friend. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <f379j6$1fr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. > > So if you were on flight 93 (the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA where the > passengers knew was was going to happen if they didn't do anything) you > would have simply stood to one side and let the hijackers do what they > wanted to do? > > That figures. You are changing the goal post. I was referring to the life boat scenario. Each scenario is different. I would have taken actions to save the lives of those people if I had been on that plane. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <f379n7$1fr$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3761f$t99$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ > >>>>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an > >>>>> abortion > >>>>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. > >>>>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > >>>>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. > >>>>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did something > >>>>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and even you > >>>>>> can't remember it well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for your side. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, if you'd > >>>>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to do this, > >>>>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: > > "over a > >>>>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it > > cost me > >>>>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little you don't > >>>>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your > >>>>>> conviction. > >>>>> It was about $300 to $400. > >>>> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even > >>>> paid for her food for 4 months. > >>> I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the > >>> people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. > >> I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. > > > > I failed to take into consideration the medical expenses and perhaps other > > expenses such as utility bills. I paid the amount that the ministry > > requested. I did not even consider these issues until someone mentioned > > medical expenses in a post. I also stated that I did not remember the > > exact amount that I donated to the ministry--I was guessing that it was > > about $300-$400. It may have been more. > > As I said, you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. Instead, > you paid what they asked for as a donation. Lies seem to be par for the > course for you. It was actully a mis-statement. It was not an intentional lie. However, if it makes you feel better about yourself, you can continue to believe that I intentionally lied. The truth is that I paid the exact amount that the ministry requested. They had room for about 12 unwed mothers in that "home for unwed mothers". Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <r3ae53hfo3rg3ouklqhcrl71tuql18q3b8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:43:22 +0200, in alt.atheism > Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in > <f37423$cr6$02$1@news.t-online.com>: > >Jason wrote: > >> In article <1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > >>>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a > >>>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now > >>>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came > >>>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be > >>>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she would > >>>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. > >>>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when > >>>>>> I was a child. > >>>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then to > >>>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > >>>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > >>>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > >>> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > >>> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > >>> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > >>> > >>> Martin > >> > >> Martin, > >> If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. > >> Jason > >> > >> > > > >Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I > >understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error > >of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). > >And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we > >can do anything about it, should we? > > We will have to do something about it, one way or another. I think the > question is whether trying to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in > the atmosphere is likely to be successful or whether we would be better > off by spending our time and money trying to prepare for the changes in > climate that will occur. The state and federal government will use this issue to raise our taxes and the taxes of companies that produce lots of pollution. I live in Calfornia and the democrats in the state gov't want to charge some sort of special pollution tax to everyone that buys a huge SUV. I seem to recall that the proposed tax is about $2000 per vehicle. If they over tax--factories that make paper, steel, etc--the end result is that the owners of those factories will close them down and fire all of the American workers. They will build new factories in another country that does not have over-tax them. Those efforts will not have an effect on reducing the use of fossil fuels. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:38:41 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505071238410001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <pm9e53lj991i3lk1ul3etn5u6km7ibcpt3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505071121190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546djr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-2505070039150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> >> <1179804830.804769.229380@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: > >> >> >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Martin, > >> >> >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that > >> >divided the > >> >> >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each > >> >group had > >> >> >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted > >> >each group > >> >> >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard > >so that > >> >> >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to > >share. A > >> >> >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard > >> >since we > >> >> >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the > >> >logical thing > >> >> >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use > >the term > >> >> >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young > >> >Christian man > >> >> >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, > >> >the other > >> >> >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the > >same way > >> >> >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of > >> >> >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > >> >> >> >> >Jason > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are > >incapable > >> >> >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard > >and you > >> >> >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness > >that causes > >> >> >> >> all to die. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > >> >> >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Martin > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the > >> >> >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I have to > >> >> >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > >> >> >> willingness to kill everyone. > >> >> > > >> >> >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to live > >> >> >several extra days? I would not do that. > >> >> > > >> >> I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice > >> >> yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because > >> >> you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational > >> >> decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. > >> >> > >> >> For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower > >> >> billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we > >> >> allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care > >> >> for them. > >> > > >> >The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourself. > >> > >> So you are saying that it is a sin to dive onto a grenade to protect > >> your buddies in battle? > >> > >> You are absurdly selfish. Nothing from Jesus's teachings have gotten > >> through to you. > > > >You are changing the goal post. In the hand grenade scenario, it is > >certain that people would die if nothing was done. Related to the life > >boat scenario, it is NOT certain that people would die. > > Bull. The scenario is the same. That was the point of the scenario, but > you refuse to admit it. You are doing nothing but justifying your > selfishness. > > >It's possible they > >would have been rescued one hour after the elderly sick man was murdered. > > No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are different. Quote
Guest Elijahovah Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On May 6, 5:54 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > On 6 May 2007 02:59:44 -0700, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> > wrote: > - Refer: <1178445584.494705.53...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> > > >On May 6, 12:56 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > : > > >> > Haskell Esque > > >I'll be delighted to examine any alternative you may have to the > >Theory of Evolution right here in these world-wide public fora. What > >positive scientific evidence do you have favoring an alternative to > >the Theory of Evolution? > > >Failing that, what scientific evidence do you have which overturns > >the Theory of Evolution? > > >Failing that, why are you making claims which you cannot support? > > Because he is a clueless, uneducated, ignorant moron. > (As is the cretin that he is supporting, in a theistic knee jerk > reaction.) > I am still waiting for Haskell to upgrade my understanding of quantum > physics. > I think that I shall be waiting for at least two eternities. > The bozo has no idea of reality whatsoever. > > Good luck in your futile quest to try and extract some reason from > this annoying imbecile. You dont overturn a lie by futily examining the lie. The truth overthrows it. If you have two cans of paint, yellow and blue, and a ball that is green. And you know the man who painted it. And you argue with your friend that he used the two cans to paint it green. So you take the yello and you mix it with the blue and you say see it is green. Your friend says its not the same green, so you mix this ratio and that ratio and you get close enough. and he still doesnt wish to see that its the way it was painted. The man who painted the ball comes along and says whats the issue and you say your friend cannot see the fact that you mixed both paints here to get the green on the ball. The man says no i didnt, i been away for a while carrying this can of green paint so i could paint other things. Why should i mix the two cans i left here. Duh. And you were ready to kill your brother your friend because he said he knew the two cans were not used. You expected him to prove to you that you wont get green from the two cans yellow and blue. You expected him to refute your theory, overthrow the math and measure of mixing two colors to prove that isnt the way the master painted it green. His trying to prove it to you by mixing paints with you would be a waste of time because Master came along and said he had his can of green paint with him. Hmmmmm AND YOU WILL STILL ARGUE THIS ANAOLOGY WONT YOU Quote
Guest Elijahovah Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 > If your theories were true, that means that life should have evolved on > the moon and on Mars. Perhaps our well equipped astranauts could live on > the Moon or on Mars but it would be impossible for mass numbers of people > to live on the moon or on mars. Many Christians believe that God was > responsible for making sure the Earth was the perfect distance from the > sun and that the orbit would not cause any great harm to the people or > life forms on earth. Dont call the earth perfect, if perfect to God means he can change it by global Flood. Those who wish to saythe earth is as God created it will insist that the Sahara was here, and the polar caps were here, etc.Those are all changes from the water canopy collapsing, and dont argue the depth of that canopy because i alreay know it had to be below 3 atmospheres (under 72 pounds). And further people have argued that Venus and Mars were exatly in the same stage processes as earth was. Sort of like three planets in a litter to make sure one of them suvives or makes it to live. God does now as he has done back then, and back then as he does now. Further, man has altered the caps and the Sahara, perhaps worse, but it was God's Flood thatcreated them. So dont speak of perfect earth if we are comparing the earth before the Flood to the earth after the Flood, there is yet another earth to come after Armageddon next year. Hope you can survive that one too. Quote
Guest Jim07D7 Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 Elijahovah <rschiller@wi.rr.com> said: >there is yet >another earth >to come after Armageddon next year. Hope you can survive that one too. Finally, somebody makes a falsifiable claim. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:38:41 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505071238410001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <pm9e53lj991i3lk1ul3etn5u6km7ibcpt3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:21:19 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-2505071121190001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546djr@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> <Jason-2505070039150001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5e66@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> >> Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> >> >> <1179804830.804769.229380@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: > >> >> >> >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> >> >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Martin, > >> >> >> >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that > >> >> >divided the > >> >> >> >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each > >> >> >group had > >> >> >> >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted > >> >> >each group > >> >> >> >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard > >> >so that > >> >> >> >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to > >> >share. A > >> >> >> >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard > >> >> >since we > >> >> >> >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the > >> >> >logical thing > >> >> >> >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use > >> >the term > >> >> >> >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young > >> >> >Christian man > >> >> >> >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, > >> >> >the other > >> >> >> >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the > >> >same way > >> >> >> >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of > >> >> >> >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > >> >> >> >> >> >Jason > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are > >> >incapable > >> >> >> >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard > >> >and you > >> >> >> >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness > >> >that causes > >> >> >> >> >> all to die. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > >> >> >> >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Martin > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the > >> >> >> >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if > >I have to > >> >> >> >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > >> >> >> >> willingness to kill everyone. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order > >to live > >> >> >> >several extra days? I would not do that. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice > >> >> >> yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because > >> >> >> you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational > >> >> >> decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower > >> >> >> billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we > >> >> >> allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care > >> >> >> for them. > >> >> > > >> >> >The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing > >yourself. > >> >> > >> >> So you are saying that it is a sin to dive onto a grenade to protect > >> >> your buddies in battle? > >> >> > >> >> You are absurdly selfish. Nothing from Jesus's teachings have gotten > >> >> through to you. > >> > > >> >You are changing the goal post. In the hand grenade scenario, it is > >> >certain that people would die if nothing was done. Related to the life > >> >boat scenario, it is NOT certain that people would die. > >> > >> Bull. The scenario is the same. That was the point of the scenario, but > >> you refuse to admit it. You are doing nothing but justifying your > >> selfishness. > >> > >> >It's possible they > >> >would have been rescued one hour after the elderly sick man was murdered. > >> > >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. > > > >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you > >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are > >different. > > > You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the > lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling > to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the grenade exploded. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:10:01 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505071510020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: .... >> >> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. >> > >> >If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you >> >cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >> >different. >> > >> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > >Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In >relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the >grenade exploded. You are very dishonest in recasting what the problem was. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 In article <5iee53p601b4aaik43kujnddjol2ngdf7t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:14:01 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2505071314010001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <r3ae53hfo3rg3ouklqhcrl71tuql18q3b8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:43:22 +0200, in alt.atheism > >> Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in > >> <f37423$cr6$02$1@news.t-online.com>: > >> >Jason wrote: > >> >> In article <1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > >> >>>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >>>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a > >> >>>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now > >> >>>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came > >> >>>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be > >> >>>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that she would > >> >>>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. > >> >>>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when > >> >>>>>> I was a child. > >> >>>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then to > >> >>>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > >> >>>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > >> >>>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > >> >>> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > >> >>> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > >> >>> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > >> >>> > >> >>> Martin > >> >> > >> >> Martin, > >> >> If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow it down. > >> >> Jason > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I > >> >understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error > >> >of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). > >> >And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we > >> >can do anything about it, should we? > >> > >> We will have to do something about it, one way or another. I think the > >> question is whether trying to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in > >> the atmosphere is likely to be successful or whether we would be better > >> off by spending our time and money trying to prepare for the changes in > >> climate that will occur. > > > >The state and federal government will use this issue to raise our taxes > >and the taxes of companies that produce lots of pollution. I live in > >Calfornia and the democrats in the state gov't want to charge some sort of > >special pollution tax to everyone that buys a huge SUV. I seem to recall > >that the proposed tax is about $2000 per vehicle. If they over > >tax--factories that make paper, steel, etc--the end result is that the > >owners of those factories will close them down and fire all of the > >American workers. They will build new factories in another country that > >does not have over-tax them. Those efforts will not have an effect on > >reducing the use of fossil fuels. > >Jason > > So you think that businesses need to be subsidized and allowed to > destroy the environment. Why? They should not be run out of business by huge pollution taxes. Thousands of American factories have closed down in the past 100 years. One of the reasons is because of the huge amounts of taxes the owners of those factories had to pay. The end result was that thousands of American workers have lost their jobs. The end result is that thousands of new factories have been built in China and various other countries. They don't use pollution controls on many of those factories in foreign countries. If we use global warming as an escuse to charge even higher taxes on American businesses, it will mean that even more businesses will relocate to foreign countries and even more American workers will lose their jobs. Is this what you want to happen? Don't you care about the thousands of workers that will lose their jobs? Don't you care about the pollution that is produced by factories in China and various other foreign countries? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 25, 2007 Posted May 25, 2007 On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:22:02 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2505071522020001@66-52-22-14.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <5iee53p601b4aaik43kujnddjol2ngdf7t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:14:01 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505071314010001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <r3ae53hfo3rg3ouklqhcrl71tuql18q3b8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:43:22 +0200, in alt.atheism >> >> Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in >> >> <f37423$cr6$02$1@news.t-online.com>: >> >> >Jason wrote: >> >> >> In article ><1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >>>>> On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >>>>>> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with a >> >> >>>>>> question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are now >> >> >>>>>> showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those students came >> >> >>>>>> home from school and was crying. She said that the planet would be >> >> >>>>>> destroyed by the time she was an adult and was worried that >she would >> >> >>>>>> not be able to have a normal life. This real world is a crazy world. >> >> >>>>>> We were worried about Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when >> >> >>>>>> I was a child. >> >> >>>>> I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back >then to >> >> >>>>> care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. >> >> >>>> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the >> >> >>>> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. >> >> >>> The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since >> >> >>> the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question >> >> >>> is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin, >> >> >> If it's a natural cycle, there is nothing that we can do to slow >it down. >> >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Well, actually we can. The questions that are unanswered (as far as I >> >> >understand it) are: Is this warming anthropogenic? (Don't make the error >> >> >of mixing up "statistical correlation" with "cause and effect"). >> >> >And, apart from that: No matter if it is anthropogenic, and provided we >> >> >can do anything about it, should we? >> >> >> >> We will have to do something about it, one way or another. I think the >> >> question is whether trying to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in >> >> the atmosphere is likely to be successful or whether we would be better >> >> off by spending our time and money trying to prepare for the changes in >> >> climate that will occur. >> > >> >The state and federal government will use this issue to raise our taxes >> >and the taxes of companies that produce lots of pollution. I live in >> >Calfornia and the democrats in the state gov't want to charge some sort of >> >special pollution tax to everyone that buys a huge SUV. I seem to recall >> >that the proposed tax is about $2000 per vehicle. If they over >> >tax--factories that make paper, steel, etc--the end result is that the >> >owners of those factories will close them down and fire all of the >> >American workers. They will build new factories in another country that >> >does not have over-tax them. Those efforts will not have an effect on >> >reducing the use of fossil fuels. >> >Jason >> >> So you think that businesses need to be subsidized and allowed to >> destroy the environment. Why? > >They should not be run out of business by huge pollution taxes. Why do you think businesses should have the right to steal clean air and clean water from everyone else? >Thousands of American factories have closed down in the past 100 years. Yes, but they closed because they were not competitive or not useful any more. >One of the reasons is because of the huge amounts of taxes the owners of those >factories had to pay. Businesses that are making money pay taxes. The ones that are going out of business are seldom paying income taxes and often don't pay the taxes they have withheld on behalf of their employees. >The end result was that thousands of American >workers have lost their jobs. The workers lost their jobs because the company managers screwed up. >The end result is that thousands of new >factories have been built in China and various other countries. Many have been built. It appears to me that you don't care if factories kill people. >They don't >use pollution controls on many of those factories in foreign countries. Then maybe we shouldn't import products from countries that allow their businesses to steal clean air and clean water from the people living there. >If we use global warming as an escuse to charge even higher taxes on American >businesses, it will mean that even more businesses will relocate to >foreign countries and even more American workers will lose their jobs. Or we might have more jobs in the US because we were cooperating with the rest of the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. >Is this what you want to happen? Don't you care about the thousands of >workers that will lose their jobs? Don't you care about the pollution that >is produced by factories in China and various other foreign countries? We don't have to import goods from China if China doesn't trade fairly. We don't have to buy goods that were made by killing people. 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.