A few things you all need to realize

[Jope]

It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
Time is an artificial concept.
God exists outside of time.
Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
years old at creation.
There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
beyong the historical era.
All of recorded history and all the important human developments
happened only during the last few thousand years.
God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
ultimate physical cause.
God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
soul,the real you.
Once you die your consciousness still lives.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<b15d06de-3334-4bf1...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,

Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

Where's your evidence that consciousness survives death?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b15d06de-3334-4bf1...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...


> It did not take God ...


What's a "God"?


...

> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong the historical era.

And there is no way of confirming any of your twaddle.


...

> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

So what?



Regards,

Josef


The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain
everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of
everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to
chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window.

--Stephen King

[hypatiab7]

How can znything that exists 'outside' of time do anything?

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

OK.No way to check this, but I'll take it as read that you believe
this.

> Time is an artificial concept.

How so? It is measurable, it has direction (recent studies of sub-
atomic particles show that there is an 'arrow of time' at that scale,
and that it points in the same direction as that seen on the macro
scale), and it is accounted for in scientific investigations.

> God exists outside of time.
> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.

Again, I don't doubt that you believe this.

> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong  the historical era.

Not so. At minimum, we have tree ring dates going back over 12,000
years, and they exactly confirm radiometric dating methods applicable
at that scale.

In addition, we have ice core data going back at least 100,000 years,
and that tracks exactly with radiometric dating.

Further, no means of changing the rate of decay of radioactive
elements has been discovered or even proposed that would describe the
universe as we see it, both today, and looking backward in time via
astronomy.

> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last  few thousand years.

Depends on what you mean by 'the last few thousand years'. If you mean
3-5,000 years, you are wrong.

Pre-human hominids made tools at least 2 million years ago.

The use of fire goes back almost as far.

Dogs have been domesticated for no less than 30-50,000 years, and
probably longer.

Plants have been domesticated, pretty much all over the world,
starting about 10-12,000 years ago.

Large settlements of people have existed for at least 10,000 years.

Textiles and pottery go back at least 10,000 years, and probably
farther.

The first cities arose about 3500 years BC, or more than 5,000 years
ago.

Writing, which means recorded information (if not history) goes back
about 3100 years BC, or about 5,000 years ago.

Which of these do you think is not an important human development?

> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.

OK.

> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

OK.

> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
science in the physical realm.

> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.

There are hypotheses, many of them. There is a vast amount of
scientific work done, and being done, on human consciousness. I'm not
sure any of them rise to the level of a scientific theory, though some
seem pretty close.

That said, you cannot say, 'we don't know how human consciousness
arose or how it works in detail, therefore GOD'. At least not with any
intellectual integrity.

> Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.

Explicate, please.

> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

What evidence, scientific evidence, do you have for this assertion?
I'm curious.

[Ken]

Wadda load of mindless B U L L C R A P!

[FreeThink]

On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

Seems like a lot of wishful thinking as motivation to perpetuate a
bronze age myth. Maybe you should examine your need for an invisible
sky daddy?

[Olrik]

Le 2012-11-21 21:35, Jope a écrit :
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> Time is an artificial concept.
> God exists outside of time.

Good to know that your «god» exists outside an artificial concept.

For your information, «Harry Potter» is an artificial concept, and I
exist outside of «Harry Potter». What does that make me?

;-)

[Adam]

Good point, but it was probably over the heads of the many atheists
here, who can't count much higher than 10. You have a better chance of
getting a stone to realize that it can't think than to teach a bratty
atheist to realize that she/he doesn't.

--
Adam & Eve

[Jope]

Actually, the tree ring method uses carbon dating to go beyond 6000
years, making the process rather circular.Considering how huge the
margin of error is for radiometric dating,I would not consider it to
be an exact science.Furthemore it is very unlikely that the decay
process continues on a straight line over long period of
times.Whenever you have a margin of error of thousands of years,it is
reasonable to dismiss the dating results.
Besides,one can showcase the many mistakes that have been made while
trying to carbon dating the so called missing links.
Now,if you believe that eternity exists ,time cannot exist at the
same time.If you consider for instance a huge amount of time ,let's
say a trillion years;as you keep increasing time ,that trillion will
eventually be equal to zero.Eternity and time are mutually
exclusive.Time is the measure of
an internal process.If you stop that process,the perception of time
is gone.
History before writing is pure speculation.Anyone with a good
imagination can create amazing historical events with those scanty
clues that scientists are working with.
Anyway ,what atheists are unable or unwilling to grasp is that with
have a transcendal nature capable of reaching beyond the range of our
senses.
We are more than mere matter.You will surely find out on the day of
your death,then it will be too late.
There plenty of evidence for the supernatural,be it good or be it
evil ,but you people are so dismissive that no one breach that
firewall that you have created.

[hypatiab7]

Yep. Don't you just love it when people make a bunch of assertions
that they can't back up. They just assume that everyone will agree
with them. And, they are so shocked when no one does. I wonder if
he's one of the ones who gets nasty or if he's just another Zachy nym.
That UTC-# is on all his messages.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Either way, it's just another stupid moron.

I think it's not Zachy though - I seem to recognose the name.

But what's rong with these morons?

[Jope]

There are plenty of evidence for the supernatural,be it good or be it
evil ,but you people are so dismissive that no one can breach that

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:33:26 AM UTC-5, Adam wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 09:35 PM, Jope wrote:
>
> > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> > distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> > Time is an artificial concept.
> > God exists outside of time.
> > Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> > years old at creation.
> > There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating

> > beyond the historical era.

> > All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> > happened only during the last few thousand years.

> > God is not the ultimate physical cause, He is the creator of the

> > ultimate physical cause.
>
> > God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
> > The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
> > Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> > understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> > basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> > soul,the real you.
> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> Good point, but it was probably over the heads of the many atheists
> here, who can't count much higher than 10. You have a better chance of
> getting a stone to realize that it can't think than to teach a bratty
> atheist to realize that she/he doesn't.
>

> Adam & Eve

Talking to yourself again? That shows desperation.

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:39:34 AM UTC-5, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:37:25 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
>
> <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:09:18 PM UTC-5, Ken wrote:
>

> >> On Nov 21, 6:35�pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
>
> >>
>
> >> > distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Time is an artificial concept.
>
> >>
>
> >> > God exists outside of time.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
>
> >>
>
> >> > years old at creation.
>
> >>
>
> >> > There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
>
> >>
>

> >> > beyong �the historical era.

>
> >>
>
> >> > All of recorded history and all the important human developments
>
> >>
>

> >> > happened only during the last �few thousand years.

>
> >>
>
> >> > God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
>
> >>
>
> >> > ultimate physical cause.
>
> >>
>
> >> > God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
>
> >>
>
> >> > The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
>
> >>
>
> >> > understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
>
> >>
>
> >> > basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
>
> >>
>
> >> > soul,the real you.
>
> >>
>
> >> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Wadda load of mindless B U L L C R A P!
>
> >
>
> >Yep. Don't you just love it when people make a bunch of assertions
>
> >that they can't back up. They just assume that everyone will agree
>
> >with them. And, they are so shocked when no one does. I wonder if
>
> >he's one of the ones who gets nasty or if he's just another Zachy nym.
>
> >That UTC-# is on all his messages.
>
>
>
> Either way, it's just another stupid moron.
>
>
>
> I think it's not Zachy though - I seem to recognose the name.
>
>
>
> But what's rong with these morons?

Zachy and his nyms all have UTC- and a # in their address. And, he
isn't posting much under his common name.

[Virgil]

> > On 11/21/2012 09:35 PM, Jope wrote:
> >
> > > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> > > distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> > > Time is an artificial concept.
> > > God exists outside of time.

And equally outside of space.

In other words entirely outside this, or any other, universe.
--

[walksalone]

hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in news:aaf570a7-dd66-4cde-a66c-
4da9c1...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:09:18 PM UTC-5, Ken wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God

snip mindless blathering.

>>
>> > soul,the real you.
>>
>> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wadda load of mindless B U L L C R A P!
>
> Yep. Don't you just love it when people make a bunch of assertions
> that they can't back up. They just assume that everyone will agree
> with them. And, they are so shocked when no one does. I wonder if
> he's one of the ones who gets nasty or if he's just another Zachy nym.
> That UTC-# is on all his messages.

Unless he is using one of his original posting hosts,
2001:558:6027:6e:55ce:2200:f597:9484, no. But content, well that has
only missing one thing for all practical purposes.

Serious question, how can you tell the trolls apart when their arguments
parall each other?

walksalone who has found, sometimes it is simply better to let Thanatos
have his way & kick them into the abyss.


An anyomous sig for what should be a nonexistent poster.

Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.

[Tom McDonald]

Actually, it isn't circular at all. Dendrochronology is a well-
understood science, and does not depend on radiocarbon dating at all.
In fact, radiocarbon dating is, in part, confirmed and adjusted by
reference to tree ring dating.

> Considering how huge the
> margin of error is for radiometric dating,I would not consider it to
> be an exact science.

The error bars for radiocarbon dating can be as small as a decade or
less. Of course, radiocarbon dating isn't the only type of radiometric
dating. Other methods, which are used for dating more than the
50-60,000 years for which radiocarbon (14C) is effective, often do
have error bars in the thousands or tens of thousands of years. But
since they generally are used for things that are millions or billions
of years old, the error bars are relatively quite small.

You may be interested to know that all measurement has error bars, not
just radiometric measurements. It is simply a fact of nature. It says
nothing about the utility of measurement within the scope of the
technique used, except that real scientists acknowledge their level of
confidence in their experimental measurements. That's part of how
science works. And it does work very well.

> Furthemore it is very unlikely that the decay
> process continues on a straight line over long period of
> times.

And you know this, how? What mechanism would you propose that would
allow the observed decay processes to speed up or slow down? Remember,
in order to do this, you have to propose significant changes in the
speed of light over time, something that is not observed.

> Whenever you have a margin of error of thousands of years,it is
> reasonable to dismiss the dating results.

Why? If you are talking about error bars in the thousands of years for
radiocarbon dates (remember, radiocarbon dating isn't used for time
deeper than about 60,000 years), you might be right. But we don't see
that in modern radiocarbon dates.

We do see such error bars in some other techniques; but they are
measuring things in the hundreds of thousands, millions and billions
of years old. The absolute range may be in the thousands of years, but
the percentage of error is rather small at those ranges.

> Besides,one can showcase the many mistakes that have been made while
> trying to carbon dating the so called missing links.

The so-called 'missing links' are not dated by carbon decay methods,
since we are now talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of
years. Radiocarbon won't work at those time depths, and scientists
know that. You, apparently, don't.

I'd be fascinated to know what some of those many mistakes you mention
are. Be as specific as you can.

>  Now,if you believe that eternity exists ,time cannot exist at the
> same time.If you consider for instance a huge amount of time ,let's
> say a trillion years;
>  as you keep  increasing  time  ,that trillion will eventually be
> equal to zero.

Wow. No. That trillion years would never be equal to zero. Look up
stochastic sometime.

> Eternity and time are mutually exclusive.Time is the
> measure of
>  an internal process.If you stop that process,the perception of time
> is gone.

OK, if that's what you believe, I will accept that you believe it.

> History before writing is pure speculation.Anyone with a good
> imagination can create amazing historical events with those scanty
> clues that scientists are working with.

I've got several years of study of archaeology at the graduate level,
and know that you are not very well versed in how archaeology works.
Or science in general, for that matter.

It is true that archaeologists, in common with all scientists, develop
hypotheses based on what we know, and then develop means to test those
hypotheses. It's a very useful and productive process. In that
process, sometimes we find that we are wrong in our initial thinking.
When that happens, we discard that which doesn't work, and develop
better hypotheses based on our new knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is always partial, contingent, and open to new
data. But we know it works to become better aware of what actually
happened in the past (in the case of archaeology). What we know isn't
useful is to accept a story and never change that story no matter what
we learn. That's religion, not science.

> Anyway ,what atheists are unable or unwilling to grasp is that with
> have a transcendal nature capable of reaching beyond the range of our
> senses.
> We are more than mere matter.You will surely find out on the day of
> your death,then it will be too late.

Interesting. So you know the state of my salvation, or damnation, on
the basis of our short Usenet acquaintance? It might surprise you to
know that I'm a Christian.

> There are plenty of evidence for the supernatural,be it good or be it
> evil ,but you people are so dismissive that no one can breach that
> firewall that you have created.

I've looked at a great deal of that evidence, and found it in every
case to be either false or misinterpreted. My faith as a Christian
might agree with you; but when you make statements about matters which
can be known, and especially when you bash science with every evidence
of not having read or understood the relevant science, then you are
speaking from faith, not scientific knowledge. If you'd simply
acknowledge that, I'd have little trouble with your statements.

As it is, when you make such elementary errors as thinking that
radiocarbon dating is used for the remains of living things more than
ca. 60,000 years old, ISTM that your religious agenda has taken over,
and you are not thinking clearly (or perhaps honestly) about your
pronouncements about reality.

[Galen Hekhuis]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:44:07 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

>...

>Actually, it isn't circular at all. Dendrochronology is a well-
>understood science, and does not depend on radiocarbon dating at all.
>In fact, radiocarbon dating is, in part, confirmed and adjusted by
>reference to tree ring dating.

>...

Just as a useless data point, scientists have found that some
stalactites (formations that hang from the ceiling in caves) have
rings too, such that they can pretty accurately tell things like
seasonal rainfall, not just the quantity of years, in areas that don't
even have trees.

[Syd M.]

On Nov 21, 9:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,

Because 'god' has never been shown to exist.

<snip rest of empty rant>

PDW

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 22, 9:11 am, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:44:07 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
>

I didn't know that. That's interesting. ISTM that that technique could
be very useful in looking at things like the great, decades-long
droughts at the end of the Classic Maya period. Especially in areas
where deforestation and rot might make it difficult to recover wood to
use for dendrochronology.

[Ken]

Jope spewed this load of BS, expecting us to blindly believe, accept
based on his word alone

It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

Time is an artificial concept.

God exists outside of time.
Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
years old at creation.

There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
beyong the historical era.

All of recorded history and all the important human developments
happened only during the last few thousand years.

God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
ultimate physical cause.

God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very

basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
soul,the real you.

Once you die your consciousness still lives.

Then on Nov 21, 10:39 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> incorrectly stated
this sentence, so I had to fix it for him...yur welcome

There are plenty of evidence for evolution, but you people are so

[Galen Hekhuis]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 07:28:02 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 22, 9:11 am, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:44:07 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
>>
>> <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >...
>> >Actually, it isn't circular at all. Dendrochronology is a well-
>> >understood science, and does not depend on radiocarbon dating at all.
>> >In fact, radiocarbon dating is, in part, confirmed and adjusted by
>> >reference to tree ring dating.
>> >...
>>
>> Just as a useless data point, scientists have found that some
>> stalactites (formations that hang from the ceiling in caves) have
>> rings too, such that they can pretty accurately tell things like
>> seasonal rainfall, not just the quantity of years, in areas that don't
>> even have trees.
>
>I didn't know that. That's interesting. ISTM that that technique could
>be very useful in looking at things like the great, decades-long
>droughts at the end of the Classic Maya period.

I think that is exactly the context that I heard about it. Cave
divers (the caves in that area are now mostly underwater) have been
using that very technique to date things, like the drought to which
you refer.

>Especially in areas
>where deforestation and rot might make it difficult to recover wood to
>use for dendrochronology.

We are just begriming to see real results like this. Speleology is a
relatively young science, and many of its facets have yet to be
revealed. I've been fussing around caves for about 45 years now, and
I don't think I've ever met a caver who doesn't think the earth must
be extremely old.

[Jope]

> When that happens, we discard that which ...
>
> read more »

Scientists do not just count the rings,they have to use other
techniques in conjunction with that method ,because ring-counting has
shown to be unreliable.

"The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not
unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence
from a new piece of wood matches well (note that even two trees
growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring
patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not
unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in
favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be
‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14
‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is
acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and
the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is
dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2

The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of
the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the
publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring
chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology
from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with
the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also,
the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was
abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the
authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until
the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is
not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant
claims of some of its advocates.

Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/
calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated
dates, as has been claimed."Don Batten, Ph.D.

[Ken]

On Nov 22, 8:58 am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> CCPer more BS that's not
worth repeating as usual

There are plenty of evidence for evolution, but you people are so
dismissive that no one can breach that firewall that you have
created. .

[L.Roberts]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:35:37 PM UTC-5, Jope wrote:

Obviously you mean 'God' of the 'Bible'. Read the fucking thing with a critical (as opposed to 'gullible') mind and you will see the whole fucking thing unravel from what idiots proclaim is truth into the just so much bullshit that it is.

[Fred^44]

Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It did not take God

Woops! Have any evidence for these "god" things of yours? Any at all?

Right. Once you find evidence for the existance of your gods, then you
may start providing evidence that they take things.

Bye now.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>
> It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
> cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
> investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
> science in the physical realm.

I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant
refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen. I've copied it and
added it to my quotes file. Well done, Tom.

--
__ _ | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
(_ |_) | -- Motto of the Royal Society
__)|_) |

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 22, 12:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

Gorsh! Thanks. I try.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 22 Nov, 02:35, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> Time is an artificial concept.
> God exists outside of time.
> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.
> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong  the historical era.
> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last  few thousand years.
> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.
> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.
> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

Nonsensical waffle.

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:35:37 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
>distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

Which version of the two creation stories does this apply to?
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[Jope]

On Nov 22, 1:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

The world existed before human science.
What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
before,something that you cannot possibly know.Man is not the measure
of all things.You are commiting the basic error that brought evil into
the world ,proudly thinking that all knowlege must transit trough your
limited senses.The spiritual realm is accessed through spiritual
means.
Human science can not even define life,even though it is a constant
experience.Human science does not even know that man has a soul.
You are placing your trust into something that will prove utterly
useless ,when the terrors of death come upon you.

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:636ca39e-c068-4d83...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...


...

> The world existed before human science.
> What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
> before,something that you cannot possibly know.

yaaaawwwwwnnnnn Were you there when your deity supposedly created the
universe?



I didn't think so.



Regards,

Josef


Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no
intelligent design.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:03:10 -0500, "Josef Balluch"
<josef....@sympatico.can> wrote:

>
>"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:636ca39e-c068-4d83...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>

>> The world existed before human science.
>> What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
>> before,something that you cannot possibly know.

Apart from leaving footprints that were investigated.

>yaaaawwwwwnnnnn Were you there when your deity supposedly created the
>universe?

They're too stupid to realise their double standard - their brains
switch off when it comes to their religion.

>I didn't think so.

They don't think, so?

> Regards,
>
> Josef
>
>Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no
>intelligent design.

Good one.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 22, 1:10ï¿œpm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>>
>> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
>> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
>> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
>> > science in the physical realm.
>>
>> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant

>> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen. ï¿œI've copied it and
>> added it to my quotes file. ï¿œWell done, Tom.
>>
>> --
>> ￜ__ _ ￜ| Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
>> (_ |_) | ￜ -- Motto of the Royal Society

>> __)|_) |
>
> The world existed before human science.

Yes. The world also existed before humans.

> What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
> before,something that you cannot possibly know.

No, we can possibly know it:

1) We assume uniformitarianism; that the laws of nature today behave as they
did before. Why can we assume this? Well, two reasons; there's no evidence to
suggest they didn't, and there's no current model to explain how they could do
so otherwise.
2) We can look into the past through the lens of archeology and geology.

> Man is not the measure
> of all things.

Man is currently the measurer of all things, as there's no current indication
of any other sufficiently advanced intellegence here or anywhere else.

> You are commiting the basic error that brought evil into
> the world ,proudly thinking that all knowlege must transit trough your
> limited senses.

How else do you propose I obtain knowledge, if not through my senses.

> The spiritual realm is accessed through spiritual
> means.

1) Please provide some evidence that the spiritual realm exists.
2) Please provide some idea what these "spiritual means" are.
3) Please provide a definition for "spiritual" and "spirit".

> Human science can not even define life,even though it is a constant
> experience.

Well, that's because "life" is a process, not a "thing". What does that have
to do with anything?

> Human science does not even know that man has a soul.

Correct. Because there's no evidence he has.

> You are placing your trust into something that will prove utterly
> useless ,when the terrors of death come upon you.

I spent 14 billion years not existing, and it didn't incommode me at all. I
don't think I'll have any problem not existing again; I won't have any sensory
input, as I'll be dead. What "terrors" I go through in the transition between
"life" and "death" are inconsequential, and will soon be over.

Read some Epicurus, and be enlightened.

--
__ _ | Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be
(_ |_) | driven into practice with courageous impatience.
__)|_) | -- Admiral Hyman Rickover

[Les]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:35:37 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 22, 1:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>>
>> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
>> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
>> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
>> > science in the physical realm.
>>
>> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant
>> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen.  I've copied it and
>> added it to my quotes file.  Well done, Tom.
>>
>> --
>>  __ _  | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
>> (_ |_) |   -- Motto of the Royal Society
>> __)|_) |
>
>The world existed before human science.

Rather obviously yes

>What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
>before,something that you cannot possibly know.

Are you sure about that? We cannot know competely of coursem we do
not even know our present times completley, but there are many clues
left behind which gives us some insights.

Was this the excuse you needed to invent gods to explain it?

> Man is not the measure
>of all things.You are commiting the basic error that brought evil into
>the world ,proudly thinking that all knowlege must transit trough your
>limited senses.The spiritual realm is accessed through spiritual
>means.

Spiritual realm? Wot the eck is one of those?

If we cannot reach it through our senses than please explain how you
can claim to know know there is such a thing in a way we can check and
verify for ourselves

>Human science can not even define life,even though it is a constant
>experience.

Indeed our knowledge is still limited but we are learning much all the
time and already know a great deal. We have even started to get some
valuable insight into how our brain works

> Human science does not even know that man has a soul.

That depends on how you define what you call a soul and upon
which evidence you do the defining

If we have not the means to detect one nobody will know will they?

Hardly grounds for claiming there is such a things is it?

>You are placing your trust into something that will prove utterly
>useless ,when the terrors of death come upon you.

Am I?



Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

[Jope]

On Nov 22, 12:52 pm, repo...@scientology.org (Fred^44) wrote:

"So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after
Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us."
Acts 17v27
It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that
you should seek and find him.
God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
consciousness that are manifest in the world.
To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see the
driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
intelligent driving force.
That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
universe.
As for purpose,even the preposterous theory of evolution finds it
necessary to use natural selection as a purpose.
Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
conscious .
If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard to
think that it possesses what it bestows.
And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
consciousness in the universe?
You trust what you see.But how can you trust the observation if you
don't know the nature of the observer.
The real you,the one inside,the soul, is the one that matters.It is
the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to your
creator.

[Wombat]

IIRC, that method was also used to confirm the drought that brought
the Egyptian Old Kingdom down.

[Don Martin]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:35:37 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 22, 1:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>>
>> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
>> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
>> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
>> > science in the physical realm.
>>
>> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant
>> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen.  I've copied it and
>> added it to my quotes file.  Well done, Tom.
>>
>> --
>>  __ _  | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
>> (_ |_) |   -- Motto of the Royal Society
>> __)|_) |
>
>The world existed before human science.

No shit, Sherlock! What news next? That water is wet and idiots such
as yourself are even wetter?

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Jope]

On Nov 22, 3:23 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> In alt.atheism Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 1:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>
> >> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
> >> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
> >> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
> >> > science in the physical realm.
>
> >> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant

> >> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen.  I've copied it and
> >> added it to my quotes file.  Well done, Tom.
>
> >> --

> >>  __ _  | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
> >> (_ |_) |   -- Motto of the Royal Society

You used the word "assume",meaning that you don't really know.You are
basically saying that unless you can see or touch ,you will dismiss
whatever knowledge that is presented to you;therein lies the basic
conflict.Unless you can find in yourself the motivation to priviledge
your transcendal nature and reach beyond your mere senses ,your soul
will perish.You have to believe first and there are no two ways about
it.

[Galen Hekhuis]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:50:29 -0800 (PST), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
wrote:

For more than you ever wanted to know about this kind of stuff:
http://www.speleogenesis.info/

[Tom McDonald]

Was that by studying caves in Egypt, or by looking at stalactites in
the limestone pyramids?

[Tom McDonald]

We all make assumptions. So do you wrt your spiritual/religious
realm.

The difference is that the most basic assumptions used by science
(e.g. that there is something rather than nothing; that there is
something outside of ourselves; that it has rules and laws; and that
we can learn about it using our senses and intelligence) work, and are
repeatable by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Religion/spirituality, OTOH, is not universal. Do you think Hindus and
those of the Shinto religion use the same spiritual/religious
assumptions that you do? And religion has the limitation that, if one
is satisfied with the answers it gives regarding the world around us,
technological and scientific progress is not possible. As you have
shown in this thread, when you claim that science doesn't know
everything, therefore God.

The fact is you are probably using the 'God of the Gaps' argument,
especially to the extent that you use modern medicine instead of
religious incantations and demon-exorcisms. And, since you use a
computer, you trust science to carry messages to, for example, this
newsgroup, instead of praying for a miracle to have God make your
messages appear here.

If I'm wrong about that last, PLEASE let me know. It would save so
much on my ISP and electic bill payments. :-)

[Tom McDonald]

Thanks. Found this on that site:

"Sannur Cave: A Crescent shaped cave developed in Alabaster formation
in Eastern Desert, Egypt"

http://www.speleogenesis.info/directory/karstbase/publication.php?id=8518

Or;

http://tinyurl.com/adst265

From the abstract, a tease about the issue Galen brought up:

"In addition to surveying the cave, based on the geologic, structural
and morphologic observation inside and outside the cave some
interpretations on the paleoenvironment an the origin of the cave."

I wonder whether the full paper discusses the paleoenvironmental issue
of either dating or climatological investigation using stalactites.
Anyone have access to this article? Or to some other work on the topic?

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's called inductive reasoning. Read some Hume. You don't "know" you're
going to live one second longer, but I bet you already made plans for dinner,
didn't you? Why? Because you have no evidence to assume you're not going to
be eating pot roast in another hour or two.

We have no evidence, and no reason, to think that the laws of the universe
haven't *always* been this way.

> You are
> basically saying that unless you can see or touch ,you will dismiss
> whatever knowledge that is presented to you;

Depends on what the knowledge is, and how it's presented. If you want to tell
me a funny story about elves, under the condition that we both agree it's just
a story about elves, then that's fine, I'll experience the story, and if it's a
good one, tell it to my kids. If you tell me a story about elves and insist
that elves are REAL, well, that's a different kettle of fish.

> therein lies the basic
> conflict.Unless you can find in yourself the motivation to priviledge
> your transcendal nature

WHAT transcendal nature? First you've got to establish I have one.

> and reach beyond your mere senses

What evidence do you have that there is something beyond my senses?

> ,your soul
> will perish.

What evidence do you have that we have souls?

> You have to believe first and there are no two ways about
> it.

Sorry, I don't believe in things that nobody's demonstrated existence of.

Tell me, do you believe in Zeus? Apollo? If not, why not?

--
__ _ | You may my glories and my state dispose,
(_ |_) | But not my griefs; still am I king of those.
__)|_) | -- William Shakespeare, "Richard II"

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:fcee87e9-cc4b-468a...@p18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...


...

> God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
> consciousness that are manifest in the world.

Naturalistic Fallacy.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/92d69151e481a211

> To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
> traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
> turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see the
> driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
> intelligent driving force.

< chuckle! >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

> That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
> universe.

ROTFL !!


...

> Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
> conscious . If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard
> to
> think that it possesses what it bestows.

yaaawwwnnn

Read up on the subjects of self organizing complexity and emergent
properties.

> And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
> consciousness in the universe?

It is all too easy to do it, as can be seen by the number of theists on the
planet. It is also an unnecessary assumption which explains nothing.


...

> It is the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to
> your
> creator.

Thanks for the threat. It appears that threats are all you have. What a
useless world view.


Regards,

Josef

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 18:26:14 -0500, "Josef Balluch"
<josef....@sympatico.can> wrote:

>"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fcee87e9-cc4b-468a...@p18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>

>> God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
>> consciousness that are manifest in the world.
>
>Naturalistic Fallacy.
>
>https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/92d69151e481a211

Not just that.

It is also a non-sequitur as well as assuming "facts" not in
evidence.

These idiots doen't seem to realise just how much of a presumption it
is.

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:27f68a60-5506-447c...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com....


...

> You have to believe first and there are no two ways about it.

I believe you are mistaken. That should settle the matter.


Regards,

Josef


Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any
simpler.

-- Albert Einstein

[Smiler]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:40:38 -0800, Jope wrote:

> On Nov 22, 12:52�pm, repo...@scientology.org (Fred^44) wrote:
>> Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >It did not take God
>>
>> Woops! Have any evidence for these "god" things of yours? Any at all?
>>
>> Right. Once you find evidence for the existance of your gods, then you
>> may start providing evidence that they take things.
>>
>> Bye now.
>
> "So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after Him
> and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us." Acts 17v27

"So that they should seek leprechauns, in the hope that they might feel
after them and find them, although they are not far from each one of us."
Facts 17v27
Makes just as much sense as your biblecrap....none whatsoever.

> It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that you
> should seek and find him.

It is not the will of the fairies that you see them physically but
rather that you should seek and find them. (Makes just as much sense as
your godcrap)

> God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
> consciousness that are manifest in the world.

Leprechauns are revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
consciousness that are manifest in the world. (Makes just as much sense as
your godcrap)

> To illustrate intelligence

You've illustrated that you clearly have no intelligence.

<Snip godcrap>

No evidence there, skippy.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Wombat]

Thank you. I have bookmarked it and will peruse it later.

[Wombat]

I seem to recall it was caves just outside Egypt. The cave study may
have been ref 5 in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event referring to Soreq
Cave, Israel.
For more info, though not including the caves, look at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml#four

[Tom McDonald]

> have been ref 5 inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_eventreferring to Soreq
> Cave, Israel.
> For more info, though not including the caves, look athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.sh...

Thank you. Those are interesting pages.

[Freedom Man]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b15d06de-3334-4bf1...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

> Time is an artificial concept.
> God exists outside of time.
> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.
> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong the historical era.
> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last few thousand years.
> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.
> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.
> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

AMAZING how brainwashed fanatics can rationalize their beliefs - but they
can NEVER offer any scientific proof!

See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?

Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.

"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind
intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell." --- Karl Popper

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig

Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he
is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and
wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.

"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen

"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." - Mark
Twain

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins

"Cult today, religion tomorrow."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org

[duke]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:20:39 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:35:37 PM UTC-5, Jope wrote:
>> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
>>
>> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
>>
>> Time is an artificial concept.
>>
>> God exists outside of time.
>>
>> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
>>
>> years old at creation.
>>
>> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
>>
>> beyong the historical era.
>>
>> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
>>
>> happened only during the last few thousand years.
>>
>> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
>>
>> ultimate physical cause.
>>
>> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
>>
>> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>>
>> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
>>
>> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
>>
>> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
>>
>> soul,the real you.
>>
>> Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>

>How can znything that exists 'outside' of time do anything?

It's not material, mm.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Smiler]

If it's immaterial, we can ignore it.

>
> The dukester, Wannabe-Christian
> *********** You can't puke's fix stupid.

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 21, 9:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> Time is an artificial concept.
> God exists outside of time.
> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.
> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong  the historical era.
> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last  few thousand years.
> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.
> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.
> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
thing Monday morning.

[Ken]

On Nov 23, 5:04 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote
about some fool named Jope

> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
> thing Monday morning.

Haven't you heard...His shrink moved and changed his phone #.

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:24:52 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com>
wrote:

Better to build a new practice in a strange town than endure trenchant
idiocy from a stalker.

[Wombat]

On Nov 23, 7:57 pm, "Freedom Man" <freespe...@4eva.com> wrote:
> "Jope" <jope...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:b15d06de-3334-4bf1...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> > distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> > Time is an artificial concept.
> > God exists outside of time.
> > Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> > years old at creation.
> > There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> > beyong  the historical era.
> > All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> > happened only during the last  few thousand years.
> > God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> > ultimate physical cause.
> > God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
> > The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
> > Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> > understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> > basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> > soul,the real you.
> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> AMAZING how brainwashed fanatics can rationalize their beliefs - but they
> can NEVER offer any scientific proof!

Delete spam

[linuxgal]

Father Haskell wrote:
> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
> thing Monday morning.

Litium will no longer be available on credit.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Jope]

Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .You should try to refute
 instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.
Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
rejecting wisdom of eternity.
Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
consciousness?
 You cannot answer none of those questions ,yet you consider your
feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.
 What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
fire.Really?

[Ken]

On Nov 24, 8:07 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> Father Haskell wrote:
> > Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
> > thing Monday morning.
>
> Litium will no longer be available on credit.
>

A few self-administered EST jolts might help instead....

[Jope]

Except for some rare instances,scientific theories usually follow
scientific discoveries.Therefore human inventions are not the products
of some deep knowledge of the world ,rather result from some deep
tinkering with pre-existing properties.You are making the mistake of
considering your narrow perceptions to be the complete reality.
According to Einstein 's theory of realtivity ,the nature of reality
varies with the position of the observer.As an observer what is your
position in the universe?How can you ascertain the value of your
experience?You all need to acknowledge your limitations and pay heed
to repeated warnings.Because , a nasty surprise lies at the
end.Believe it or not.

[Ken]

Maybe a Hot Lead Enema?

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 24, 2:09 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .

Neither does lucidity for the xian loony.

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 2:09 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eternal torments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
rejecting the wisdom of eternity.
Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years ago?What

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8dd3872a-f10a-49bb...@l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...


...

> Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .

Eternal life does not await brain dead theists.

> You should try to refute instead of scornfully reject what is presented to
> you.

Your twaddle has been repeatedly refuted in this news group.



> Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path , ...


Not that you can demonstrate.



> Let us reason: ...


Oh boy!! This oughta be good.

> What do you think existed one Centillion years away?

Away from what, Einstein? If you are referring to a time in the past then
the answer is "nothing". The universe is not that old.



> What is man ?


Many things.

> what is his position in the universe?

Right here and now.



> What is life?


A manifestation of the Second Law of Thermo.



> What is consciousness?


(Self) awareness.



> You cannot answer none of those questions , ...


Speak for yourself, Shakespeare.

> What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of fire.

Still haven't got anything but threats? Wadda lamer.



Regards,

Josef


If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope
for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

-- Albert Einstein

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
>> thing Monday morning.
>Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .You should try to refute
> instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.
>Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
>rejecting wisdom of eternity.
>Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
>is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
>consciousness?
> You cannot answer none of those questions ,yet you consider your
>feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.
> What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
>fire.Really?

Why didn't you save your fingers the effort and just say
"I, Jope am a fucking moron"?

[Christopher A. Lee]

He's insane.

Not because he believes this silliness, but because he imagines we
should too.

[Les]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 23, 8:04�pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 9:35�pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
>> > distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
>> > Time is an artificial concept.
>> > God exists outside of time.
>> > Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
>> > years old at creation.
>> > There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
>> > beyong �the historical era.
>> > All of recorded history and all the important human developments
>> > happened only during the last �few thousand years.
>> > God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
>> > ultimate physical cause.
>> > God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
>> > The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>> > Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
>> > understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
>> > basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
>> > soul,the real you.
>> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>>
>> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
>> thing Monday morning.


>Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .

It waits for no living thing.

So what?

>You should try to refute
>�instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.

What's to reject?

Other than a claim you expect us to accept just on your say-so
that is.

>Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
>rejecting wisdom of eternity.

Did you want us to accept this just on your say-so?

>Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
>is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
>consciousness?
>�You cannot answer none of those questions

"You cannot answer any..." Your version was a double negative

Can you answer any of these questions yourself without needing to
expect us to accept what you say just on your say-so?

> ,yet you consider your
>feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.

Really

Ae you another of these theist who thinks he can read peoples
minds?

There seems to be rash of then just lately in this frenzy of
iditic theist posts. Is it the full moon that has brought you
all out or summat?

Please keep em coming I am enjoying this turkey shoot :-)

Hmm that is the second time I have seen that phrase used. Do
you know what it means or did not you just cut and paste it
because you thought it looked impressive?



>�What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
>fire.Really?

What lake of fire?

Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 4:30 pm, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

The gospel has been preached with supernatural miracles and
demonstration of God presence.
You are putting your trust in your own ablities to understand   the
universe.
Consciousness is the soul.Like somebody with a small magnifying
glass ,to whom is being described a microscopic world:
where is it? I cannot see it ,therefore it cannot possibly exist.
You do not even know that you have a soul.Your ignorance is
bottomless.Repent now ,while you still can.

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 4:30 pm, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

Concerning the existence of God ,let me repeat my earlier post.Maybe
some of you atheists will end up getting it.

"So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after
Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us."
Acts 17v27

It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that
you should seek and find him.

God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
consciousness that are manifest in the world.

To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see
the
driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
intelligent driving force.
That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
universe.
As for purpose,even the preposterous theory of evolution finds it
necessary to use natural selection as a purpose.
Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
conscious .
If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard to
think that it possesses what it bestows.
And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
consciousness in the universe?
You trust what you see.But how can you trust the observation if you
don't know the nature of the observer.
The real you,the one inside,the soul, is the one that matters.It is
the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to your
creator.

[Ken]

And it's NOT cope, rope, hope, or nope!

[linuxgal]

Ken wrote:
> And it's NOT cope, rope, hope, or nope!

Pope?

[Father Haskell]

"Scornful rejection?" Fuck you. That was derisive mockery.

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 24, 7:15 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > And it's NOT cope, rope, hope, or nope!
>
> Pope?

Soap? Cantaloupe?

[Don Martin]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:15:55 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>Ken wrote:
>> And it's NOT cope, rope, hope, or nope!
>
>Pope?

Grope is a favorite here . . . .

[Ken]

Close, but no cigar!

[Budikka666]

On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world

Nope, ti took only six according to the "inerrant word of god"!

> ,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

Nope. Six.

> Time is an artificial concept.

No, it really exists. it's been demosntrated scientifically.

> God exists outside of time.

Your evidence for this is where?

> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.

Nope. The Bible expliclty states six 24 hour days as identified by
the words "evening and morning" used to delineate each day. Arbitrary
time periods do not have "evening and morning". A thousand years does
not have "evening and morning". An epoch doesn't have "evening and
morning". Only a 24 hour day has evening and morning and that's what
the hebrew word means, taken form a root meaning 'heat of the day'.
Indeed, in israel, they *still* today class their day as starting at
sunset and ending the following day at sunset, thereby having an
evening and a morning in that order.

> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong  the historical era.

That's an outright lie. Go do some reading:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last  few thousand years.

Lie.

> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.

And your objective independent evidence for this is where?

> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

And your objective independent authority for this is what?

> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

Lie. if your god interacts with reality, then that interaction must
leave traces in reality, which in turn can be analyzed and measured
scientifically. A global flood as depicted in fiction in Genesis
would have left global traces and none have been found. Therefore the
miraculous/supernatural global flood was tested and found to be
false. In short, the Bible lied.

> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.

Lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

> Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.

And your objective independent authority for this is what?

A few things *you* need to know:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/14/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-it/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/23/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-it-pt-ii-the-supremacy-of-vision/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/08/08/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-pt-iii-memory-communication-and-perception/

> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

And your objective independent authority for this is what?

We posted several threads on the soul some time ago and not a single
theist on Usenet was able to intellgiently or comeptently answer the
questions those threads posed, much less support their answers.
Here's one of them:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2295fa89be33ae07

Budikka

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:d185cd7a-d782-4416...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...


...

> Concerning the existence of God ,let me repeat my earlier post.

< chuckle! >

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

-- Albert Einstein

[Budikka666]

On Nov 21, 11:33 pm, Adam <adam7days6000years...@creation.org> wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 09:35 PM, Jope wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God

> > distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

> > Time is an artificial concept.

> > God exists outside of time.

> > Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> > years old at creation.

> > There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> > beyong  the historical era.

> > All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> > happened only during the last  few thousand years.

> > God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> > ultimate physical cause.

> > God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

> > The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

> > Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> > understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very

> > basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> > soul,the real you.

> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>

> Good point, but it was probably over the heads of the many atheists
> here, who can't count much higher than 10.  You have a better chance of
> getting a stone to realize that it can't think than to teach a bratty
> atheist to realize that she/he doesn't.
>
> --
> Adam & Eve

"Adam" RAN when challenged thereby proving he has ZERO faith in his
supposedly omnipotent, but undoubtedly fictional god! lol! Adam is
nothing but another in a never-ending line of Christian hypocrites.

Budikka

[linuxgal]

Budikka666 wrote:
> "Adam" RAN when challenged thereby proving he has ZERO faith in his
> supposedly omnipotent, but undoubtedly fictional god!

Adam used to tip back a cold one with God nights. Why would he need
faith in someone he used to chill with?

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:d034d388-61c8-462c...@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...


...

> The gospel has been preached with supernatural miracles and
> demonstration of God presence.

The Quran is filled with miracles and demonstrations of God's presence. Ask
any Muslim.

> You are putting your trust in your own ablities to understand the
> universe.

You are putting your gullibility on display for the whole world to see.



> Consciousness is the soul.


Pure speculation.


Regards,

Josef


Beware of the man of one book.

-- Thomas Aquinas

[Smiler]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:34:26 -0800, Jope wrote:

> On Nov 22, 4:24 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2:56 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 22, 3:23 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

<snip>

Nope. See John 3:16 which tells me that, as an unbeliever, I won't get
eternal life in either your supposed hell or your supposed heaven.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[sbalneav]

All available evidence suggests it does. It also awaits the most fervent
theist.

> You should try to refute
>  instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.

Here's the refutation: you've provided zero evidence for what you're claiming.
Without that, we have no reason to believe you.

> Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
> rejecting wisdom of eternity.

Ah, yes. The threat of eternal torment from the kind and loving God.

> Let us reason:

All right.

> What do you think existed one Centillion years away

Well, depending on your definition of "Centillion", that could either be 10^303
or 10^600. Since you're using "existed", one assumes that "years away" means
"in the past". If this is the case, your question is nonsensical. Our
universe is only about 14 billion years old. Current hypotheses would indicate
that time started at the moment of the big bang. Your number is larger than 14
billion years. Therefore, since time appears to have stared 14 billion years
ago, it makes no sense to talk about older time frames.

> What
> is man ?

One of the great apes. Biped hominid. Our full family tree is:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

> what is his position in the universe?

We're on a small rocky planet orbiting an unremarkable main-sequence star, in
an otherwise undistingushed galaxy.

Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not.
In either case the idea is quite staggering.
-- Arthur C. Clarke

> What is life?

Hard to exactly pin down, but here on earth, tends to have DNA in it.

> What is
> consciousness?

Current thinking is that it's an emergent property of our brains.

>  You cannot answer none of those questions

I answered all of them. For some, the current answer is a little fuzzy, but
that's ok, we'll learn more as time goes on.

> ,yet you consider your
> feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.

And yet, the hubris of the theist is never more on display when he asserts "God
did it" with no evidence whatsoever to presume that this God exists!

>  What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
> fire.Really?

Well, I tend not to go spelunking in calderas so unless a volcano opens up
under my house, I'm not too worried about it. I do, however, often face fire
frequently. I usually handle that by throwing on another log, and grabbing
some marshmallows, graham crackers, and chocolate.

--
__ _ | Books are lighthouses erected in the great sea of time.
(_ |_) | -- Edwin P. Whipple
__)|_) |

[Jope]

> Lie.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

>
> > Because, human conciousness is the
> > soul,the real you.
>
> And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>

> A few things *you* need to know:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-a...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/14/why-di...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/23/why-di...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/08/08/why-di...

>
> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>
> We posted several threads on the soul some time ago and not a single
> theist on Usenet was able to intellgiently or comeptently answer the
> questions those threads posed, much less support their answers.
> Here's one of them:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2295fa89be33ae07
>
> Budikka

"No, it really exists.  it's been demosntrated scientifically. "

Actually time is the perception of internal process ,if you stop that
process ,the feeling of time is gone.That has happened to quite a few
people.The problem you have is that our range of thinking is too
narrow.Instead of thinking in terms of billions ,why not septillion
and even centillion.
As the amount of time  increases the actual value eventually reaches
zero,making time anf eternity mutually exclusive.




 The soul,the real you.

"And your objective independent authority for this is what? "

Peope have had out of body experiences ,where they saw things that
they could not possible have seen from their locations.
In one instance somebody  managed to show himself semi-visible to
another person while in the OBE state.
Now,as a christian I strongly advise against experimenting in OBE as
you will fall against the influence of demons ,presenting themselves
as spirit guides.Besides,practicing the occult is against the law of
God and leads to perdition.
Still, there is large body of evidence if you are inclined to
investigate.

There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
 beyong  the historical era.




"That's an outright lie.  Go do some reading"

Radiometric dating has huge margin of errors making  it unreliable at
the outset.
There have been a lot of glaring mistakes ,when scientists tried to
date the so called missing links.
When you throw a piece of rock into the water ,the waves keep on
decreasing in strengh over greater surface,
That pattern reflects the general behavior of nature .Therefore it is
preposterous to think that aging would occur in straight line over
long period of times.
Somebody mentioned the tree ring method as a way of corroborating the
acuuracy of carbon dating.You should know that merely counting the
number of rings do not yield accurate results,scientists have to use
other methods ,making it a rather circular process.




Some people in this group are content to just throw rocks .At least
you tried to reason.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "For the  assertion that ???There is no God??? is just as much a claim to
>> knowledge as  is the assertion that ???There is a God.???  Therefore, the

>> former assertion  requires justification just as the latter does. "
>> - William Lane Craig,  "Reasonable Faith"
>
> Concerning the existence of God ,let me repeat my earlier post.Maybe
> some of you atheists will end up getting it.

Unlikely, since we have functional brains.

> "So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after
> Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us."
> Acts 17v27

Ahh, always start off with a bible quote from a book we've already rejected as
fairy tale. THAT will convince us.

> It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that
> you should seek and find him.

Well, of course. If the bible actually made the claim that he would APPEAR,
it would have been debunked 2000 years ago. Much better to say he wants you to
look for him. That way, the self-deluded will find what they're looking for.
Those that don't? Oh, the bible talks about those 'unbelievers' too.

> God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
> consciousness that are manifest in the world.

Like what? A design for humans that has our breathing tube and food tube share
the same hole, so if we can't swallow something, we choke? A design that makes
a nerve that control something in our head take a detour around our heart
before it gets to the brain? A design that puts a little pocket in our
intestines that gets plugged with rotting food and kills us? This "design" is
"intelligent"?

> To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
> traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
> turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see
> the
> driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
> intelligent driving force.

Self driving cars.

> That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
> universe.

Please provide an example of something naturalistic that displays this
intelligent behaviour.

> As for purpose,even the preposterous theory of evolution finds it
> necessary to use natural selection as a purpose.

Natural selection through reproductive success, yes. You'll notice a lot of
animals either die immediately after, or go into decline after their breeding
lifetime. Consider the mayfly, with no working mouth or digestive system.
After living most of it's life as a nymph, it turns into an adult, mates, and
dies of starvation.

Humans, traditionally, become fecund in their teens, and for hundreds of years,
didn't live much past their thirties. Just long enough to usher the next
generation into fecundity.

> Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
> conscious .

Read some current studies on neuroscience.

> If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard to
> think that it possesses what it bestows.

Argumentum ad ignoratum. Just because YOU find it hard to imagine, doesn't
mean those of us who paid attention in science class do.

> And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
> consciousness in the universe?

Yes. How would this consciousness work, without a brain? How does a being
that transcends this universe affect anything in it? Where did it come from?
It raises far more questions than it answers.

> You trust what you see.

No, I don't. I *know* my senses are fallable. I am reminded of this every
time I watch a Magician. What I *do* trust, however, is a rational
investigation of phenomenon. We have a name for that: science. So far, while
not being perfect, it's had a damn sight better track record than religion for
telling us how the universe works.

> But how can you trust the observation if you
> don't know the nature of the observer.
> The real you,the one inside,the soul,

Where's the evidence I have one?

> is the one that matters.It is
> the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to your
> creator.

No evidence that this is the case.

--
__ _ | I think we can put our differences behind us...
(_ |_) | for science. You monster.
__)|_) | -- GLaDOS, Portal 2

[Josef Balluch]

"Josef Balluch" <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:k8k58d$1ja$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:b15d06de-3334-4bf1...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> It did not take God ...
>
>
> What's a "God"?


No response, Joke?

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 8:37 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

Interesting! so you do not believe in the concept of eternity.Then
what is time?What is your best definition?

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 8:56 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

That request is simply unbelievable.Just look around.Anywhere.

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 8:11 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

> Lie.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

>
> > Because, human conciousness is the
> > soul,the real you.
>
> And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>

> A few things *you* need to know:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-a...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/14/why-di...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/23/why-di...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/08/08/why-di...

>
> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>
> We posted several threads on the soul some time ago and not a single
> theist on Usenet was able to intellgiently or comeptently answer the
> questions those threads posed, much less support their answers.
> Here's one of them:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2295fa89be33ae07
>
> Budikka

"The Bible expliclty states six 24 hour days as identified by
the words "evening and morning" used to delineate each day.
Arbitrary
time periods do not have "evening and morning". A thousand years
does
not have "evening and morning". An epoch doesn't have "evening and
morning". Only a 24 hour day has evening and morning and that's what
the hebrew word means, taken form a root meaning 'heat of the day'.
Indeed, in israel, they *still* today class their day as starting at
sunset and ending the following day at sunset, thereby having an
evening and a morning in that order. "

The problem here has to do with your definition of time.If you accept
the Einsteinian definition of time
as number of events,then it would be possible to complete the whole
of creation in a few seconds simply through acceleration.
But why having such a small anthropomorphic image of God anyway.You
need to try to think outside the box.
No wonder you are still trapped into atheism.
God is by his very definition beyond your abilities to grasp.If I
mention the world spiritual ,your answer will be :Where is it?Where
can i see ? How much does it weigh?.Again,try to think outside the box.

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:d2d15804-b858-4a72...@r4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 24, 8:56 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

...

>> "Please provide an example of something naturalistic that displays this
>> intelligent behaviour. "


> That request is simply unbelievable.Just look around.Anywhere.

< chuckle! > A stone.

TIA for your explanation.

[Josef Balluch]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:08a411fe-19e6-4bcb...@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...


...

> God is by his very definition beyond your abilities to grasp.

< chuckle! > How very odd, then, that theists keep on trying. How do you
explain that, Joke? Are you simply insane?


Regards,

Josef


Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.

-- Ambrose Bierce

[Olrik]

Le 2012-11-24 14:09, Jope a �crit :

> On Nov 23, 8:04 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Nov 21, 9:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God

>>> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

>>> Time is an artificial concept.

>>> God exists outside of time.

>>> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
>>> years old at creation.

>>> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
>>> beyong the historical era.

>>> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
>>> happened only during the last few thousand years.

>>> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
>>> ultimate physical cause.

>>> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

>>> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

>>> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
>>> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very

>>> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
>>> soul,the real you.

>>> Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>>

>> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
>> thing Monday morning.

> Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .You should try to refute

> instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.

> Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
> rejecting wisdom of eternity.

> Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
> is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
> consciousness?

> You cannot answer none of those questions ,yet you consider your

> feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.

> What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
> fire.Really?
>

MEDIC!

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 25, 12:42 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Too late. Call animal control.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:01:52 -0500, "Josef Balluch"
<josef....@sympatico.can> wrote:

>
>"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:08a411fe-19e6-4bcb...@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

>

>> God is by his very definition beyond your abilities to grasp.

What God?

The one these idiots talk about as if it were real outside their
religion but never show it actually is?

>< chuckle! > How very odd, then, that theists keep on trying. How do you
>explain that, Joke? Are you simply insane?

Yes.

They know we don't believe it because it is not substantively
different from all the hundreds of other god beliefs out there, yet
they still rudely and stupidly talk at (not with) us as if it were
objectively real.

[Les]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:28:08 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Nov 24, 4:30�pm, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> >Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .
>>
>> It waits for no living thing.
>>
>> So what?
>>

>> >You should try to refute
>> >�instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.
>>

>> What's to reject?
>>
>> Other than a claim you expect us to accept just on your say-so
>> that is.
>>

>> >Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
>> >rejecting wisdom of eternity.
>>

>> Did you want us to accept this just on your say-so?
>>

Well

Yes or no?

>> >Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
>> >is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
>> >consciousness?
>> >�You cannot answer none of those questions
>>

>> "You cannot answer any..." �Your version was a double negative
>>
>> Can you answer any of these questions yourself without needing to
>> expect us to accept what you say just on your say-so?

Well?

>>
>> > ,yet you consider your
>> >feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.
>>

>> Really
>>
>> Ae you another of these theist who thinks he can read peoples
>> minds?

Well?

>>
>> There seems to be rash of then just lately in this frenzy of
>> iditic theist posts. Is it the full moon that has brought you
>> all out or summat?
>>
>> Please keep em coming I am enjoying this turkey shoot :-)
>>
>> Hmm that is the second time I have seen that phrase used. Do
>> you know what it means or did not you just cut and paste it
>> because you thought it looked impressive?
>>

>> >�What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
>> >fire.Really?
>>
>> What lake of fire?

>The gospel has been preached with supernatural miracles and
>demonstration of God presence.

Has it?

Do you wish me to accept this extraordinary claim just on your say so?

>You are putting your trust in your own ablities to understand � the
>universe.

Am I?

Claiming to read my mind are you?

I will have to start wearing a some kind of shield on my head
to block your mind probes.

Hmm what works best I wonder? Steel gauze, a woolly hat.
or perhaps common sense which is telling me you are lying.

>Consciousness is the soul.Like somebody with a small magnifying
>glass ,to whom is being described a microscopic world:

Very poetic

Nowt wrong with that I love poetry

>where is it? I cannot see it ,therefore it cannot possibly exist.

Really?

>You do not even know that you have a soul.

Tin hats everybody he is reading our minds again.

> Your ignorance is
>bottomless.Repent now ,while you still can.

Well I checked the Pent roof of my shed last week
it still looks quite sound so I do not think it needs repenting
just yet.

Boom boom

The old jokes are still the best don't you think?

And they do not come much older that Christaniy

LOL

Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the

[Les]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:33:37 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>

>> >Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
>> >is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
>> >consciousness?
>> > You cannot answer none of those questions
>>
>> "You cannot answer any..."  Your version was a double negative
>>
>> Can you answer any of these questions yourself without needing to
>> expect us to accept what you say just on your say-so?
>>

>> > ,yet you consider your
>> >feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.
>>
>> Really
>>
>> Ae you another of these theist who thinks he can read peoples
>> minds?
>>

>> There seems to be rash of then just lately in this frenzy of
>> iditic theist posts. Is it the full moon that has brought you
>> all out or summat?
>>
>> Please keep em coming I am enjoying this turkey shoot :-)
>>
>> Hmm that is the second time I have seen that phrase used. Do
>> you know what it means or did not you just cut and paste it
>> because you thought it looked impressive?
>>
>> > What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
>> >fire.Really?
>>
>> What lake of fire?
>>

>> Les Hellawell
>> Greeting from:
>> YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
>>
>> "For the  assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
>> knowledge as  is the assertion that “There is a God.”  Therefore, the
>> former assertion  requires justification just as the latter does. "
>> - William Lane Craig,  "Reasonable Faith"
>

>Concerning the existence of God ,let me repeat my earlier post.Maybe
>some of you atheists will end up getting it.

Sorry don't do repeats especially when we know the repeat was a
waste of time the first ime round.

>
>"So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after
>Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us."
>Acts 17v27

>It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that
>you should seek and find him.

>God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
>consciousness that are manifest in the world.

>To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
>traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
>turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see
>the
>driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
>intelligent driving force.

You theists just love these simplistic but oeverlong analagies don't
you? It is the second time this week I have seen one and there never
seems to be any real point to them

I guess it is an attempt to associate reality with fantasy in the
hope we will not notice the obvious difference.

>That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
>universe.

>As for purpose,even the preposterous theory of evolution finds it
>necessary to use natural selection as a purpose.

>Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
>conscious .

>If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard to
>think that it possesses what it bestows.

>And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
>consciousness in the universe?

>You trust what you see.But how can you trust the observation if you

>don't know the nature of the observer.

>The real you,the one inside,the soul, is the one that matters.

Well to me and my loved ones certainly. Less so to others.

Ah at last. after all this long ramble with nothing in particular we
finally get to the point:

> It is
>the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to your
>creator.

Did you wish me to accept this just on your say-so?

And what has all this go to do with autopilots in cars, your
attempt to deny evolution takes place and goodness knows
what else.

You are clearly have just been asting my time

Try not to crosspost into our newsgroup again OK so
as not to waste any more of our time

Have a nice day.

[Les]

Something for which religion seems to have been pefectly designed for.

Humans are usually not all the good at designing perfection but then
making themselves mockable is not what they had in mind when they
invented religion

[Les]

Better not ask him how he know then