Evidence of God
david judah layb
fictional critters like Leprechauns.
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
You are right in your skepticism. Reveiwing what it is that religious
people promote one must do as Archie Bunker said, have faith in things
no one in their right mind could believe.
This is not true about what scripture is actually saying, it is true
about what people say concerning things in scripture which they can
not give reasonable explanation to. That these "camels" are swallowed
by the converts and masses who call themselves christians while they
would deny simple reasonable explanation to the meaning of scripture,
straining out every little gnat, as Jesus said, in order to denigrate
the actual message... no wonder they drive people away from both
their own ridiculous interpretions but, sadly, also the ancient
scriptures.
I suggest that you re-read the book of Genesis. Where you read the
Hebrew word for "day" which is YOM, remember that it means any
extended period of time, and can mean, but not necessarily mean, a 24
hour day. Where you read the word God, Elohim in the Hebrew, a
plural,...read "Creative Force," the power of creation, or, I
suggest...The Universal Force, the biggest God possible. Not only do
we all fall down, respect, and acknowledge this Universe as our
master, not only do we worship the Laws of the Universe, applying our
science to it and our convictions that Reality is a component of
sanity, but it also very nicely substitutes for the word Elohim in
Genesis:
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning The Universal Force created the heaven and
the earth.
Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Natural Law moved upon the face of
the waters.
Gen. 1:3 And The Universal Force said, Let there be light: and there
was light.
Gen. 1:4 And The Universal Force saw the light, that it was good:
and The Universal Force divided the light from the darkness.
Gen. 1:5 And The Universal Force called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the
Azoic Era. (1)
Gen. 1:6 And The Universal Force said, Let there be a firmament in
the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen. 1:7 And The Universal Force made the firmament, and divided the
waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament: and it was so.
Gen. 1:8 And The Universal Force called the firmament Heaven. And
the evening and the morning were the Archeozoic Era. (2)
Gen. 1:9 And The Universal Force said, Let the waters under the
heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land
appear: and it was so.
Gen. 1:10 And The Universal Force called the dry land Earth; and the
gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and The Universal
Force saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:11 And The Universal Force said, Let the earth bring forth
grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after
his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,
after his kind: and The Universal Force saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the Proterozoic Era.
(3)
Gen. 1:14 And The Universal Force said, Let there be lights in the
firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them
be for symbolic references, and for the four seasons, and for (24
hour) days, and (365 day) years:
Gen. 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven
to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen. 1:16 And The Universal Force made two great lights; the greater
light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made
the stars also.
Gen. 1:17 And The Universal Force set them in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen. 1:18 And to rule over the (@12 hour) day and over the (@12
hour) night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and The
Universal Force saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the Paleozoic Era.
(4)
Gen. 1:20 And The Universal Force said, Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly
above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen. 1:21 And The Universal Force created great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:
and The Universal Force saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:22 And The Universal Force blessed them, saying, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply
in the earth.
Gen. 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the Mesozoic Era. (5)
Gen. 1:24 And The Universal Force said, Let the earth bring forth
the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and
beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen. 1:25 And The Universal Force made the beast of the earth after
his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth
upon the earth after his kind: and The Universal Force saw that it was
good.
Gen. 1:26 And The Universal Force, the macrocosmos, said, Let the
Natural Laws make man's mind a microcosmos, in our image, after our
orderly organization: and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen. 1:27 So The Universal Force created an abstract mind in his own
image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and
mathematically, so created The Universal Force him; male and female
created he them.
Gen. 1:28 And The Universal Force blessed them, and The Universal
Force said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
earth, and subdue it: and apply the spirit of Natural Law over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen. 1:29 And The Universal Force said, Behold, I have given you
every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and
every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you
it shall be for meat.
Gen. 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is
life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen. 1:31 And The Universal Force saw every thing that he had made,
and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were
the Cenozoic Era. (6)
Gen. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
host of them.
Gen. 2:2 And on the seventh Era, The Universal Force ended his work
which he had made; and he rested on the seventh Era from all his work
which he had made.
Gen. 2:3 And The Universal Force blessed this Novus Ordo Seclorum,
(7), and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all this
Annuit Coeptis which The Universal Force created and made.
Gen. 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they were created, in the day that the Natural Law of The
Universal Force made the earth and the heavens,
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>I suggest that you re-read the book of Genesis.
I suggest that you learn proper quoting.
>Where you read the
>Hebrew word for "day" which is YOM, remember that it means any
>extended period of time
Only someone who doesn't understand Hebrew could say something so
stupid.
>Where you read the word God, Elohim in the Hebrew, a
>plural,...read "Creative Force," the power of creation, or, I
>suggest...The Universal Force
They're all singular - the 'im' ending is a plain old plural ending.
Would you translate 'gods' to mean universal force?
>not only do we worship the Laws of the Universe
You may, but sane people don't worship observations.
[bible bullshit snipped]
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
David V.
>
> I suggest that you re-read the book of Genesis.
I suggest you get a brain, and a proper newsreader. Go to
Mozilla and download the one they have for free.
I also suggest that you not wast your time, and my time, by
quoting the bible to Atheists. Your bible is meaningless to
those that don't believe in your silly gods.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
stoney
ID: <51fed4e6.04012...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>There's no difference between the Christian deity construct and other
> fictional critters like Leprechauns.
>
> alt.atheism military veteran #11
> {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
>
>You are right in your skepticism. Reveiwing what it is that religious
>people promote one must do as Archie Bunker said, have faith in things
>no one in their right mind could believe.
>
>This is not true about what scripture is actually saying, it is true
>about what people say concerning things in scripture which they can
>not give reasonable explanation to.
Reason and Christianity are diametric opposites.
> That these "camels" are swallowed
>by the converts and masses who call themselves christians while they
>would deny simple reasonable explanation to the meaning of scripture,
"Scripture" is nothing more than another form of 'inkblot.'
>straining out every little gnat, as Jesus said, in order to denigrate
>the actual message... no wonder they drive people away from both
>their own ridiculous interpretions but, sadly, also the ancient
>scriptures.
The 'scriptures' are ridiculous on their own.
>I suggest that you re-read the book of Genesis.
Why should I re-read a malevolent faerie tale?
>Where you read the
>Hebrew word for "day" which is YOM, remember that it means any
>extended period of time, and can mean, but not necessarily mean, a 24
>hour day.
Irrelevant and immaterial. The various versions of the tome are said to
be the 'Word of God,' as they are. Now, if the superstition industry
were to either add a page indicating 'this is a work of fiction and
can't be taken as written' or were to recall all Bibles and issue a
corrected translation, I would have no problem with it.
> Where you read the word God, Elohim in the Hebrew, a
>plural,...read "Creative Force," the power of creation, or, I
>suggest...The Universal Force, the biggest God possible.
'God' is fiction and lunacy.
>Not only do
>we all fall down, respect, and acknowledge this Universe as our
>master, not only do we worship the Laws of the Universe, applying our
>science to it and our convictions that Reality is a component of
>sanity, but it also very nicely substitutes for the word Elohim in
Excuse me? Would you please translate the above gibberish into English?
(snip the rest of the drooling idiocy called bible verses)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
david judah layb
Kofh wrote:
Not only do
> >we all fall down, respect, and acknowledge this Universe as our
> >master, not only do we worship the Laws of the Universe, applying our
> >science to it and our convictions that Reality is a component of
> >sanity, but it also very nicely substitutes for the word Elohim in
Stoney responded:
Excuse me? Would you please translate the above gibberish into
English?
Yes, I will.
I meant to imply that you read Genesis with a psychological pre-set.
This caused you to ignor the obvious rational and indisputable sense
it makes, especially today, in this scientific age. You yourself would
write a similar explanation, if you were asked to explain the present
state of things.
In this, the Organized Religions have done a disservice in voicing an
ancient and traditional, but nevertheless, archaic interprtation of
their own.
Here is the way we today ought read these passages and in that avoid
the comments you made as if we could oppose these writings:
Laws of them.
Gen. 2:2 And upon the short few, 4 thousand millennia of years, a
Seventh Era of Geological Time begins, the Universe ended its work of
which it had made all living creatures; and it rested, seemimgly, on
this seventh Era from all its work which it had made.
Gen. 2:3 And The Universal Force blessed this Novus Ordo Seclorum,
(7), and sanctified it:because that it had rested from all the work
which the initial energy transformation converted into matter, and had
evolved a micro-cosmos in a consciousness, the human mind.
Gen. 2:4 These are the Seven Eras or generations of the heavens and
of the earth when they were created, in the day that the initial Big
Bang transformed into the material earth and the heavens
stoney
>stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:
>
>Kofh wrote:
>Not only do
>> >we all fall down, respect, and acknowledge this Universe as our
>> >master, not only do we worship the Laws of the Universe, applying our
>> >science to it and our convictions that Reality is a component of
>> >sanity, but it also very nicely substitutes for the word Elohim in
>
>Stoney responded:
>
> Excuse me? Would you please translate the above gibberish into
>English?
>
>Yes, I will.
>I meant to imply that you read Genesis with a psychological pre-set.
Sure, that words mean what they say.
>This caused you to ignor the obvious rational and indisputable sense
>it makes, especially today, in this scientific age.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Understood. Idiocy and error is "obvious rational and indisputable
sense" in your world.
>You yourself would
>write a similar explanation, if you were asked to explain the present
>state of things.
(laughter) No, I would not.
>In this, the Organized Religions have done a disservice in voicing an
>ancient and traditional, but nevertheless, archaic interprtation of
>their own.
Bullshit remains bullshit no matter how well aged. Christianity ripped
off their stuff from older and, at the time, current superstitions.
>Here is the way we today ought read these passages and in that avoid
>the comments you made as if we could oppose these writings:
>
>Gen. 1:1 In the beginning The Universal Force created the heaven and
>the earth.
(snip more drooling idiocy)
I'm sorry, but you're a prime example of the result of the piss poor
primary educational system in the U.S.. Third world nation here we
come. :\ Technological barbarism...(heavy sigh)
Gen. 1:1 In the Beginning Santa Claus broke wind and created the
heavens and the earth.
What you don't realize is anything can be placed into your original
statement and it retains the same (cough) 'validity.'
1) Objective supporting evidence the universe was manufactured?
2) Objective supporting evidence the term 'beginning' applies?
Until you fulfill the first two questions you're merely "urinating
upwind."
How sad, people with adult bodies and toddler brains (on this subject at
least). Technological barbarians.
Al Evan
David,
I don't understand what you mean when you write that the organized
religions have "done a disservice in voicing an
> ancient and traditional, but nevertheless, archaic interprtation of
> their own."
Which "traditional" and "archaic" interpretation do the organized
religions teach? Are you saying that no Christian, Jew, Hindu,
Moslim, et al, believe's that the "Big Bang" began the universe? Now,
there may be isolated sects among the major world religions that have
odd beliefs, but, as far as I've been able to glean through my
readings, those sects are just that: Oddities.
No major world religion, that I am aware of, teaches anything other
that what science understands to be fact. Where the major religions
differ with science, and between each other, is in the ethical
practices derived from accepted knowledge.
For Christians, the Bible has an important place in this
discussion--especially the New Testament. In fact, for most
Christians, the Old Testament is kind of like a Prelude, an
introduction, to the New Testament.
Roman Catholicism, for example, does not teach that a person must even
have heard the name, "Jesus-at which every knee shall bend", let alone
believe that He is God; or that they must even be Christian, in order
to be saved through His sacrifice.
Furthermore, it is not necessary that Roman Catholics, as one
Christian group, believe every word as written in the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church teaches that those writings, while from God, are
colored by the humans who wrote them-their cultural and historic (to
include scientific) limitations ( a point of view, if you will).
Those Christians who believe emphatically in everything written in the
Old Testament are a narrow part of Christianity.
Therefore, I do not understand what is the point of your argument
about the "Universal Power." Are you arguing that the universe was
created in seven, 24 hour, days-or even in 7 periods of unknown
length? I think that it's really not a necessary intellectual
exercise that you do so for most religious people.
For Christians, exactly how the universe was created, as far as humans
can determine, is up to science. The only basic belief about creation
that Christians have is that God created the universe-how it was done,
how long it took, etc. is really not that important.
If you're trying to convince atheists, who are apparently not even
sure that they don't believe in God-they just know they are not
theists, you're wasting your time. They are as judgemental a lot as
you'll ever find in the most hard-headed Fundamentalist Christian
sect--not that that makes them bad people, but, like the writers of
the Old Testament, it makes them a product of their narrow place in
human history. They, like their Christian fundamentalist brethern,
are just too blockheaded and prejudiced to see any clearer.
If you know something different please inform me where I can find this
information-so that I can educate myself.
Bob Crowley
More as a matter of interest, I thought I might throw a bit of
personal experience into this. Now I have not followed the thread for
long, but it seems we have three camps - those who believe in a
"Doctrinal" basis of some sort eg. Christians, Moslems, etc, those who
are theists without a doctrinal basis eg. animists, and straight
atheists.
To my mind the first two are closer to the truth. If there is a
creator, then all that science is going to reveal is the mechanisms of
this universe alone, since it is itself limited to this physical
limitation. One cannot measure spiritual things with material items.
Hence "spiritual things" can only be experienced, and even then only
by "gift".
Now I am a Catholic, but for the first thirteen years or so I was a
Protestant. That's a rather long story, but I came from a family with
a Catholic father, an Anglican mother, a Presbyterian son (me) and a
Methodist daughter (my sister). This was because my father lost his
Catholic faith, and rebelled by "spreading it around".
Anyway .... not long after I became a Christian I fell prey to a
particular deception called the Two Witnesses deception, in which one
is persuaded by peculiar set of "tingles", "spiritual sensations" that
you are one of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11. Now I ma not the
only one. Mind you it is a bit embarassing to admit this, but it's
the truth.
Not long afterwards I found out that a prominent leader of a
particular evangelical ministry also fell prey to exactly the same
thing. He almost wrecked the ministry, and in the end had to be asked
to leave.
While seeking counselling for this deception, one cousellor, who dealt
with street kids quite a lot, told me he had seen about six
"Witnesses" in the last month, and wondered what was going on.
Now this all took place about fifteen or more years ago. But just
four or five years ago, I was talking to a Baptist pastor in a nearby
small town, and he told me he had a young bloke going through the same
problem. By this time I figured out that most victims of this
deception have poor self esteem, and are looking for some way to hit
the limelight, and be "justified".
So I asked him if the young fellow had low self esteem. He said yes,
and that he had been abused by his father.
Yesterday I was reading a book borrowed from the local library, and on
page 63 I read in "The Bondage Breaker" by Neil T. Anderson, that he
was couselling a chap called Jay, who was being led by "spiritual
sensations" to do some silly things. Lo and behold, I find the
following quote -
"... Jay was listening to his own subjective thougths as if they were
God's voice instead of "taking every thought captive to the obedience
of Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:5). In so doing he had opened himnself
up to Satan's activity in his life, with the result that his
theological studies were being sabotaged. Those deceiving thoughts
had convinced him that God was preparing him to be one of the two
prophets mentioned in the Book of Revelation who were slain in the
streets of Jerusalem. He even tried to convince his college roommate
that he was the other prophet!"
That is interesting because in the evangelical ministry mentioned
earlier, the chap who fell victim tried to convince one of his
coworkers that he was the other prophet.
So, here I am, reading about another young chap in another continent
who has copped pretty much the same thing I and others have. But
trying telling a secular psychiatrist that there are spiritual things
and you've got Buckley's.
As a footnote, I believe that the two Witnesses will be supernatural
beings (angels) for the simple reason that no man could be trusted
with the kind of powers they will have. Angels are celestial
messangers, and sometimes cops. And they would have no interest in
misusing their powers, but would simply be doing what the Boss told
them to do. So I suspect any Christian at all who falls prey to this
particular deception is being deceived.
But even though the devil may have managed to make the victim look
silly, damaged his faith, disillusioned him dreadfully, wrecked his
ministry, the fact is that the victim is not as deceived as those who
think there is no God, no judgement, no eternal life or punishment.
They are the ones who are really deceived, and even if, in this life,
they seem to have it all together, they are in fact more deceived than
the most credulous Christian.
Bob Crowley.
Al Evan
Bob,
A very interesting history. I was raised a Roman Catholic, but was
"Saved" in the Fundamentalist sense when I was 21 years old. I was
confused, but I never left the Church completely. I, too, underwent
physcotherepy because I was insecure in my own personhood. The end
result of the therapy is that I returned to the Catholic church with a
new attitude about myself and my place in this world. Also, much of
the anger that was a part of my life, as long as I could remember, is
also gone. I still feel anger, but I control my response because I
recognize it for what it is, and why it's really there-usually nothing
at all to do with the supposed proximate cause.
So, may the God of Peace and Love shine His face on you and I as we
make our faith journey through this all too brief life.
Al Evangelista
Bob Crowley
> A very interesting history. I was raised a Roman Catholic, but was
> "Saved" in the Fundamentalist sense when I was 21 years old. I was
> confused, but I never left the Church completely. I, too, underwent
> physcotherepy because I was insecure in my own personhood. The end
> result of the therapy is that I returned to the Catholic church with a
> new attitude about myself and my place in this world. Also, much of
> the anger that was a part of my life, as long as I could remember, is
> also gone. I still feel anger, but I control my response because I
> recognize it for what it is, and why it's really there-usually nothing
> at all to do with the supposed proximate cause.
> So, may the God of Peace and Love shine His face on you and I as we
> make our faith journey through this all too brief life.
>
> Al Evangelista
Thanks for the kind thoughts. Just as a bit of additional, my first
pastor was a former Methodist, although I initially became
"Presbyterian" when I became a Christian as I had a little training
via Sunday School when I was younger. The fact he was in the
Presbyterian church at the time was that he had felt dissatisified
with the results of a merger of Methodist, Congregationalist and some
Presbyterian churches in Australia resulting as the Uniting Church.
However I think he found the Presbyterian Church had a few
shortcomings as well.
But that is neither here nor there.
The (Protestan) pastor I had for the first nine years or so of my
Christian life was an outstainding man, although a bit discouraging at
times. He predicted that I would become a Catholic, despite the fact
I had not even thought about it at the time. His attitude was that
"maybe the Lord wants you to go back to the Catholic Church" (after
being "removed" via my father's loss of faith). He did give a reason,
which I am not going to repeat here.
I'm making this point because it indicates just how much our culture
determines our religious "choice" at times. The fact I was baptised
Presbyterian meant I later met the particular pastor. The same
thought could be applied to someone born Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu,
Protestant, Catholic, Animist. If we're raised Protestant or Catholic
for example, we will probably stay Protestant or Catholic.
Therefore the problem arises of what is the best way to make the Call
of Christ effective, considering the enormous conditioning all of us
receive from our own culture?
Bob Crowley.
stoney
Message ID: <adff117.04012...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>alev...@hotmail.com (Al Evan) wrote in message news:<12a5c4a0.04012...@posting.google.com>...
(snip)
>> For Christians, exactly how the universe was created, as far as humans
>> can determine, is up to science. The only basic belief about creation
>> that Christians have is that God created the universe-how it was done,
>> how long it took, etc. is really not that important.
>>
>> If you're trying to convince atheists, who are apparently not even
>> sure that they don't believe in God-they just know they are not
>> theists, you're wasting your time. They are as judgemental a lot as
>> you'll ever find in the most hard-headed Fundamentalist Christian
>> sect--not that that makes them bad people, but, like the writers of
>> the Old Testament, it makes them a product of their narrow place in
>> human history. They, like their Christian fundamentalist brethern,
>> are just too blockheaded and prejudiced to see any clearer.
>>
>> If you know something different please inform me where I can find this
>> information-so that I can educate myself.
>
>More as a matter of interest, I thought I might throw a bit of
>personal experience into this. Now I have not followed the thread for
>long, but it seems we have three camps - those who believe in a
>"Doctrinal" basis of some sort eg. Christians, Moslems, etc, those who
>are theists without a doctrinal basis eg. animists, and straight
>atheists.
>
>To my mind the first two are closer to the truth.
Why? Christianity is a 'babe at first suck on the teat' with regard to
its elders.
> If there is a
>creator, then all that science is going to reveal is the mechanisms of
>this universe alone, since it is itself limited to this physical
>limitation. One cannot measure spiritual things with material items.
You've got the 'cart before the horse,' Bob.
If the universe requires a manufacturer then the manufaturer needs a
manufacturer. Its simple logic.
Where is the objective supporting evidence the universe was
manufactured?
"Spiritual things" is meaningless verbage signifying nothing. (shrug)
>Hence "spiritual things" can only be experienced, and even then only
>by "gift".
Check the insane asylums for all sorts of 'spiritual things.'
(snip)
stoney
ID: <12a5c4a0.04012...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>ko...@gis.net (david judah layb) wrote in message news:<51fed4e6.04012...@posting.google.com>...
>> stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:
(snip)
>If you're trying to convince atheists, who are apparently not even
>sure that they don't believe in God-they just know they are not
>theists, you're wasting your time.
Ignorance or a lie on your part. I've very positive I don't believe the
bullshit theists spew.
> They are as judgemental a lot as
>you'll ever find in the most hard-headed Fundamentalist Christian
>sect--not that that makes them bad people, but, like the writers of
>the Old Testament, it makes them a product of their narrow place in
>human history. They, like their Christian fundamentalist brethern,
>are just too blockheaded and prejudiced to see any clearer.
Now this is a blatant and unrepentant lie on your part. Are you
projecting?
>If you know something different please inform me where I can find this
>information-so that I can educate myself.
I suggest learning the difference between fact and fiction.
Bob Crowley
>
> Why? Christianity is a 'babe at first suck on the teat' with regard to
> its elders.
Actually some of them have quite a bit of experience. For example a
young bloke comes into a business straight from university and thinks
he knows it all. After he's been there a few years though, he finds
the theory was only part of the story. It is the same with
Christianity.
>
> > If there is a
> >creator, then all that science is going to reveal is the mechanisms of
> >this universe alone, since it is itself limited to this physical
> >limitation. One cannot measure spiritual things with material items.
>
> You've got the 'cart before the horse,' Bob.
>
> If the universe requires a manufacturer then the manufaturer needs a
> manufacturer. Its simple logic.
That is not so much logic as the assumed belief in Newtonian physics
for which every effect must have a preceding cause, which in turn must
have its own cause ad infinitum. This can only be traced back as far
as Ex Nihilo, since at that stage there is nothing. Beyond that the
laws of physics do not go. Hence what we call the logic of cause and
effect is limited to this universe. If the miracle of the feeding of
5000 took place then that not only goes outside the normal laws of
food production, but it also goes beyond our everyday logic.
> Where is the objective supporting evidence the universe was
> manufactured?
>
> "Spiritual things" is meaningless verbage signifying nothing. (shrug)
>
> >Hence "spiritual things" can only be experienced, and even then only
> >by "gift".
>
> Check the insane asylums for all sorts of 'spiritual things.'
In one way you're right. I remember a certain psychiatrist who
commented "there is not much VISIBLE demonic activity in the West. (
put VISIBLE in capitals to avoid arguments with Christians, not
atheists). If you want to see demonic activity, go the jails and
asylums." I might have quoted this to you before, but we had a murder
some time ago where 4 young women killed a man, almost severing his
head and drinking his blood. It was nicknamed the Vampire Murder.
While a psychiatrist was interviewing the ringleader, her voice
dropped to a basso profundo (not the usual thing for young women), and
said "I'm Big Tracey!". The psychiatrist said he was almost propelled
against the wall behind him. It was not the same psychiatrist I
mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Now she was diagnosed with schizophrenia,which may well have been
correct. But on account of my own odd experiences from time to time,
I suspect that it was a bit more than that. She had been mucking
around with witchcraft beforehand.
Spiritual beings exist all right.
Bob Crowley.
stoney
Message ID: <adff117.04013...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:<m8mi10dkh8kjsubdj...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Why? Christianity is a 'babe at first suck on the teat' with regard to
>> its elders.
>
>Actually some of them have quite a bit of experience. For example a
>young bloke comes into a business straight from university and thinks
>he knows it all. After he's been there a few years though, he finds
>the theory was only part of the story. It is the same with
>Christianity.
You're mixing "oranges with orangatang's," Bob. Christianity's concepts
came from older as well as then current superstitions.
>> > If there is a
>> >creator, then all that science is going to reveal is the mechanisms of
>> >this universe alone, since it is itself limited to this physical
>> >limitation. One cannot measure spiritual things with material items.
>>
>> You've got the 'cart before the horse,' Bob.
>>
>> If the universe requires a manufacturer then the manufaturer needs a
>> manufacturer. Its simple logic.
>
>That is not so much logic as the assumed belief in Newtonian physics
>for which every effect must have a preceding cause, which in turn must
>have its own cause ad infinitum.
It's the logic christians utilize in the statement; "Everything must
have a 'creator' (manufacturer)."
> This can only be traced back as far
>as Ex Nihilo, since at that stage there is nothing. Beyond that the
>laws of physics do not go. Hence what we call the logic of cause and
>effect is limited to this universe.
after, as I understand it, Planck Time.
> If the miracle of the feeding of
>5000 took place then that not only goes outside the normal laws of
>food production, but it also goes beyond our everyday logic.
It didn't occur.
>> Where is the objective supporting evidence the universe was
>> manufactured?
>>
>> "Spiritual things" is meaningless verbage signifying nothing. (shrug)
>>
>> >Hence "spiritual things" can only be experienced, and even then only
>> >by "gift".
>>
>> Check the insane asylums for all sorts of 'spiritual things.'
>
>In one way you're right. I remember a certain psychiatrist who
>commented "there is not much VISIBLE demonic activity in the West. (
>put VISIBLE in capitals to avoid arguments with Christians, not
>atheists). If you want to see demonic activity, go the jails and
>asylums."
as well as churches. However, I wouldn't call mental illness daemonic
activity as the word daemonic is meaningless. (shrug) Its no different
than calling illness 'activity of evil humors.'
> I might have quoted this to you before, but we had a murder
>some time ago where 4 young women killed a man, almost severing his
>head and drinking his blood. It was nicknamed the Vampire Murder.
I think this is the first you've mentioned this.
>While a psychiatrist was interviewing the ringleader, her voice
>dropped to a basso profundo (not the usual thing for young women), and
>said "I'm Big Tracey!". The psychiatrist said he was almost propelled
>against the wall behind him. It was not the same psychiatrist I
>mentioned in the previous paragraph.
So? Such is not an unexpected reaction to a hefty surprise.
>Now she was diagnosed with schizophrenia,which may well have been
>correct. But on account of my own odd experiences from time to time,
>I suspect that it was a bit more than that. She had been mucking
>around with witchcraft beforehand.
Like Christian prayer. No different and as meaningless.
>Spiritual beings exist all right.
No, they do not.
Bob Crowley
>
> You're mixing "oranges with orangatang's," Bob. Christianity's concepts
> came from older as well as then current superstitions.
>
pastor, now deceased, when he was younger was called to the deathbed
of an elderly lady in a hospital. As she was just about to die, she
suddenly sat up, looked up at an angle of about 45 degrees, reached
out to something she could see but no one else could, with her face
glowing, said "I'm coming, Jesus" and then dropped back dead on the
pillow. According to the pastor, she looked just like a young girl.
It was, he said, a bit of an eye opener for a young parson.
Of course he became quite familiar with death, as most clergy are
after a while. He used to more or less joke that he had been called
out to too many road accidents, and as far as he was concerned, if
there was someone on the road who aggressively wanted right of way,
they could have it any way they wanted it- leftways, rightways,
upways, downways. It wasn't worth the effort to end up in a crushed
car.
> after, as I understand it, Planck Time.
Ah, Maxwell Planck. Et tu, 99?
> > If the miracle of the feeding of
> >5000 took place then that not only goes outside the normal laws of
> >food production, but it also goes beyond our everyday logic.
>
> It didn't occur.
Once again faith will determine whether we believe something or not.
Your faith tells you the universe got here without God, my faith tells
me it got here with Him.
> as well as churches. However, I wouldn't call mental illness daemonic
> activity as the word daemonic is meaningless. (shrug) Its no different
> than calling illness 'activity of evil humors.'
I recall a Baptist missionary saying he saw in two weeks more demonic
acitvity in the east than in ten years in teh West. One of hte
reasons he said was that in the West, if you said "this room is full
of spirits", the other person would give a sickly smile, say "that's
nice", and go find someone else to talk to. In the East, one would
get a feeling of "well, so what?" That's like saying the sky is blue.
IN short they accept it and we don't.
>
> > I might have quoted this to you before, but we had a murder
> >some time ago where 4 young women killed a man, almost severing his
> >head and drinking his blood. It was nicknamed the Vampire Murder.
>
> I think this is the first you've mentioned this.
>
> >While a psychiatrist was interviewing the ringleader, her voice
> >dropped to a basso profundo (not the usual thing for young women), and
> >said "I'm Big Tracey!". The psychiatrist said he was almost propelled
> >against the wall behind him. It was not the same psychiatrist I
> >mentioned in the previous paragraph.
>
> So? Such is not an unexpected reaction to a hefty surprise.
I think he could have described the look on her face as well. I'd be
surprised if that eluded him.
>
> >Now she was diagnosed with schizophrenia,which may well have been
> >correct. But on account of my own odd experiences from time to time,
> >I suspect that it was a bit more than that. She had been mucking
> >around with witchcraft beforehand.
>
> Like Christian prayer. No different and as meaningless.
>
> >Spiritual beings exist all right.
>
> No, they do not.
>
In the end Christianity is a matter of experience. One of the
problems of the Western Intellectual bent is that Christianity has
become a position of theological philosophy eg. Reformed theology,
Catholic Theology, Augustinian theology, Lutheran theology, Anglican
theology etc. etc. This has been particularly acute since the
Reformation. So today we are trying to get highly educated Westerners
to become Christians on a philosophical statement that tells them "The
Bible is Infallible and Without Error". The Moslems say exactly the
same thing about the Koran, Communists say that about Marxist
economics, Capitalists about the Market ... So why should they take
any notice?
When one gets down to that sort of wordy debating, then one becomes
open to the charge of sheer philosophising. And in that case, the
whole question of God's existence becames one of debate - not real
experience.
You see when we debate Christ 2000 years later, we don't have the
visible man here doing his miracles, raising the dead. So unless
there is some sort of spiritual experience, how does one know?
Bob Crowley.
ZenIsWhen
"Bob Crowley" <bobcr...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.04020...@posting.google.com...
The evidence that does exist, for anything, does not even show a hint of a
god.
Ron Peterson
> You see when we debate Christ 2000 years later, we don't have the
> visible man here doing his miracles, raising the dead. So unless
> there is some sort of spiritual experience, how does one know?
Do you need miracles to believe in what Jesus said?
--
Ron
stoney
Message ID: <adff117.04020...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:<12ol10hcan0f599r4...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> You're mixing "oranges with orangatang's," Bob. Christianity's concepts
>> came from older as well as then current superstitions.
>>
>All right, another experience then, not mine this time.
Irrelevant to the above comment as well as my prior comment which was:
" Christianity is a 'babe at first suck on the teat' with regard to
its elders."
(snip 'just so' story)
>> after, as I understand it, Planck Time.
>
>Ah, Maxwell Planck. Et tu, 99?
( chuckling )
>> > If the miracle of the feeding of
>> >5000 took place then that not only goes outside the normal laws of
>> >food production, but it also goes beyond our everyday logic.
>>
>> It didn't occur.
>
>Once again faith will determine whether we believe something or not.
No. The only faith is on your end.
>Your faith tells you the universe got here without God, my faith tells
>me it got here with Him.
"Faith" does not apply to me.
However, lets look at your statement via a couple different methods:
Method 1:
*Christianity is a 'babe at first suck on the teat' with regard to its
elders.
*The Christian 'god' was stopped cold by primitive chariots on a level
plain (with all the operational intelligence at 100% accuracy). It was
stopped not by enemy abilities or tactics, but simply by the material
(iron) the units were manufactured from. When something fails at the
'simple addition level' there's no reason to test in 'basic algebra.'
So 'who' created 'God?' /cue the ever regressive line of
'Manufacturers.'
If "God" didn't need manufacturing then neither did the universe.
Method 2:
Objective supporting evidence the universe was manufactured is _____?
That's the first step. No 'faith' is involved.
Your statement about a specific 'manufacturer' can have the meaningless
g-o-d letter string replaced by; Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tiamat the
Dragon, Three Stooges, Bowery Boys, Al Capone, Ra, Pele, Road Runner and
the Wiley E. Coyote, to name a few, and the statement retains the same
'validity.'
>> as well as churches. However, I wouldn't call mental illness daemonic
>> activity as the word daemonic is meaningless. (shrug) Its no different
>> than calling illness 'activity of evil humors.'
/begin meaningless 'just so' story
>I recall a Baptist missionary saying he saw in two weeks more demonic
>acitvity in the east than in ten years in teh West. One of hte
>reasons he said was that in the West, if you said "this room is full
>of spirits", the other person would give a sickly smile, say "that's
>nice", and go find someone else to talk to. In the East, one would
>get a feeling of "well, so what?" That's like saying the sky is blue.
> IN short they accept it and we don't.
/end meaningless 'just so' story
And there's quite a few people in Asia who swear magicians cause their
penis's to retract into their body. They've even slaughtered the
'practictioners.'
Pick a superstition and there's myraid of folks who have the same type
story you like to reiterate. Based on your 'logic,' you've validated
every superstition in the world and every statement made by con artists.
>> > I might have quoted this to you before, but we had a murder
>> >some time ago where 4 young women killed a man, almost severing his
>> >head and drinking his blood. It was nicknamed the Vampire Murder.
>>
>> I think this is the first you've mentioned this.
>>
>> >While a psychiatrist was interviewing the ringleader, her voice
>> >dropped to a basso profundo (not the usual thing for young women), and
>> >said "I'm Big Tracey!". The psychiatrist said he was almost propelled
>> >against the wall behind him. It was not the same psychiatrist I
>> >mentioned in the previous paragraph.
>>
>> So? Such is not an unexpected reaction to a hefty surprise.
>
>I think he could have described the look on her face as well. I'd be
>surprised if that eluded him.
Doesn't matter as its just another 'just so' story.
I could make up a bunch of them if I wanted to. However, I doubt my
'testimony' would cause you to change your faith to something else.
I'm curious as to why you would think I would find a common 'just so'
story to be so 'amazing' that I would jump onto the superstition
bandwagon?
Remember, I was once where you are now.
>> >Now she was diagnosed with schizophrenia,which may well have been
>> >correct. But on account of my own odd experiences from time to time,
>> >I suspect that it was a bit more than that. She had been mucking
>> >around with witchcraft beforehand.
>>
>> Like Christian prayer. No different and as meaningless.
>>
>> >Spiritual beings exist all right.
>>
>> No, they do not.
>>
>In the end Christianity is a matter of experience.
(shrug) Subjective experiance(s) only applies to the individual.
Christianity is merely another superstition that stole its tenets from
older and then current superstitions.
> One of the
>problems of the Western Intellectual bent is that Christianity has
>become a position of theological philosophy eg. Reformed theology,
>Catholic Theology, Augustinian theology, Lutheran theology, Anglican
>theology etc. etc.
So? It's all the study of a circular fictional world. (shrug) In
effect, theism is a series of 'hamster wheels.' One is superstition A,
the next is B, and so on. Theology has the believer running until they
die inside a particular 'hamster wheel.
I'd restate your above verbage as:
One of the problems in the world is the avoidance of education, reason,
logic, and objective supporting evidence for 'the monsters under the
bed' and 'in the closet.' Things of childhood that go 'bump in the
night.'
> This has been particularly acute since the
>Reformation. So today we are trying to get highly educated Westerners
>to become Christians on a philosophical statement that tells them "The
>Bible is Infallible and Without Error". The Moslems say exactly the
>same thing about the Koran, Communists say that about Marxist
>economics, Capitalists about the Market ... So why should they take
>any notice?
>
>When one gets down to that sort of wordy debating, then one becomes
>open to the charge of sheer philosophising. And in that case, the
>whole question of God's existence becames one of debate - not real
>experience.
There is no 'debate,' Bob. You've got nothing to examine.
As I said before, check the insane asylums for 'real experiance.'
It's quite telling you ignore many points and desperately and furiously
handwave.
I suspect you've forgotten that I've never suggested you lose your
faith. The appearance is my lack of faith is something you find very
very disturbing.
>You see when we debate Christ 2000 years later, we don't have the
>visible man here doing his miracles, raising the dead. So unless
>there is some sort of spiritual experience, how does one know?
Begging questions and circular logic. (sigh)
>Bob Crowley.
David V.
> stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote
>
>> You're mixing "oranges with orangatang's," Bob.
>> Christianity's concepts came from older as well as then
>> current superstitions.
>
> All right, another experience then, not mine this
Anecdotes prove nothing but that people have big imaginations.
>>> If the miracle of the feeding of 5000 took place then
>>> that not only goes outside the normal laws of food
>>> production, but it also goes beyond our everyday
>>> logic.
>>
>> It didn't occur.
>
> Once again faith will determine whether we believe
> something or not.
"Faith" is involved only when there are no facts to go on.
The several different stories of this feeding are a good
reason not to believe any of it.
>> as well as churches. However, I wouldn't call mental
>> illness daemonic activity as the word daemonic is
>> meaningless. (shrug) Its no different than calling
>> illness 'activity of evil humors.'
>
> I recall a Baptist missionary saying he saw in two weeks
> more demonic acitvity in the east than in ten years in
> teh West....
Then all he has to do is prove it.
>>> While a psychiatrist was interviewing the ringleader,
>>> her voice dropped to a basso profundo (not the usual
>>> thing for young women), and said "I'm Big Tracey!".
>>> The psychiatrist said he was almost propelled against
>>> the wall behind him. It was not the same
>>> psychiatrist I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
>>
>> So? Such is not an unexpected reaction to a hefty
>> surprise.
>
> I think he could have described the look on her face as
> well. I'd be surprised if that eluded him.
I'd be surprised if that event even happened. Sounds more
like an urban legend, or just pure BS, to me.
>>> Spiritual beings exist all right.
>>
>> No, they do not.
>
> In the end Christianity is a matter of experience.....
More a matter of training and a dire need to be accepted by
the herd they've chosen to be with. If these "spiritual
beings" exist, it should be easy to prove it.
> When one gets down to that sort of wordy debating, then
> one becomes open to the charge of sheer philosophising.
> And in that case, the whole question of God's existence
> becames one of debate - not real experience.
Since there has never been any proof that these gods exist,
the honest debate is always a short one.
> You see when we debate Christ 2000 years later....
Again, through lack of evidence, there is nothing to debate.
Bob Crowley
>
> Anecdotes prove nothing but that people have big imaginations.
>
anyone to believe it based on your own argument, even if you know
you're telling the truth.
> >>> If the miracle of the feeding of 5000 took place then
> >>> that not only goes outside the normal laws of food
> >>> production, but it also goes beyond our everyday
> >>> logic.
> >>
> >> It didn't occur.
> >
> > Once again faith will determine whether we believe
> > something or not.
>
> "Faith" is involved only when there are no facts to go on.
> The several different stories of this feeding are a good
> reason not to believe any of it.
>
You get on an aircraft because you see it fly. You have faith in the
unseen things including the mechanical structures in the aircraft (to
a very fine tolerance), the training and good will of the pilots, the
assumption none of the passengers is carrying a bomb, the electronics
of the aircraft, the aerodynamics which you probably don't understand.
> >
> > I recall a Baptist missionary saying he saw in two weeks
> > more demonic acitvity in the east than in ten years in
> > teh West....
>
> Then all he has to do is prove it.
Actually if you really want to know, why don't you go to the East or
find a Missionary society, and ask them to tell you where to go. I
am sure they'd be happy to oblige. That's if you want to know.
>
> >
> > I think he could have described the look on her face as
> > well. I'd be surprised if that eluded him.
>
> I'd be surprised if that event even happened. Sounds more
> like an urban legend, or just pure BS, to me.
The murder happened all right, and received wide publicity. The words
of the psychiatrist were in the main local newspaper, owned by
NewsCorp.
> More a matter of training and a dire need to be accepted by
> the herd they've chosen to be with. If these "spiritual
> beings" exist, it should be easy to prove it.
Not really - being beaten to death for being a Christian in some other
countries requires a bit more than a desire to be with the herd. It
is those who aren't being beaten to death who constitute the herd.
> Since there has never been any proof that these gods exist,
> the honest debate is always a short one.
Until the Second Coming there never will be. Thomas saw Christ face
to face for several years, yet even he wanted hard evidence before
he'd believe the anecdotes of the others. If you'd been a disciple,
we probably would have Doubting Dave in the vernacular instead of
Doubting Thomas.
>
> Again, through lack of evidence, there is nothing to debate.
I suppose that depends on whether you regard the Universe as real
evidence of a Creator, or mere circumstantial evidence, that is the
circumstances of an organised universe only seem to hint at a Creator.
It must have been the Butler - all the circumstantial evidence
points to him.
Frankly you blokes remind me of the cynic who, when shown a bird dog
that walked on water, ridiculed the owner and the dog with "Huh! Can't
swim, can he!!"
Bob Crowley.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>Anecdotes prove nothing but that people have big imaginations.
>
I don't use my experiences as proof. Nice try.
>>"Faith" is involved only when there are no facts to go on.
>>The several different stories of this feeding are a good
>>reason not to believe any of it.
>
> Faith is usually an extension of things unseen based on things seen.
No, not in a religious context.
>>>I recall a Baptist missionary saying he saw in two weeks
>>>more demonic acitvity in the east than in ten years in
>>>teh West....
>>
>>Then all he has to do is prove it.
>
>
> Actually if you really want to know...
It's just a bunch of BS. There's noting there to "know".
>>>I think he could have described the look on her face as
>>>well. I'd be surprised if that eluded him.
>>
>>I'd be surprised if that event even happened. Sounds more
>>like an urban legend, or just pure BS, to me.
>
> The murder happened all right...
It may have happened, but not with all the extra BS you, and
others, added to it.
>>More a matter of training and a dire need to be accepted by
>>the herd they've chosen to be with. If these "spiritual
>>beings" exist, it should be easy to prove it.
>
> Not really - being beaten to death for being a Christian...
Is a non sequitur. The paragraph was about so called
"spiritual beings" and their existence. Since you don't, and
can't get, any evidence for their existence, you had to
dishonestly start talking about something entirely different.
>>Since there has never been any proof that these gods exist,
>>the honest debate is always a short one.
>
> Until the Second Coming there never will be.....
The "second coming" is a myth. Your whole religion is a myth.
>>Again, through lack of evidence, there is nothing to debate.
>
> I suppose that depends on whether you regard the Universe as real
> evidence of a Creator....
If that be the case you shouldn't have any trouble proving
the god exists BEFORE you make any claims as to what it created.
> Frankly you blokes remind me of the cynic who....
You remind me of a slimy worm.
Fly
I saw evidence of( goat ) Satan , who in your book had come through to
earth as a fallen angle. is depicted on a tabernacle in the basilica
of the sacre-coeur in montmarre.( A likeable image ) on its doors as
well as depicted the seven seals of the apocalypse.
stoney
Message ID: <101q89o...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Reality isn't part of the christian fantasy world. :\
Michael Gray
Well, that's converted me from atheism!
Michael Gray
wrote:
:
>Faith is usually an extension of things unseen based on things seen.
>You get on an aircraft because you see it fly. You have faith in the
>unseen things including the mechanical structures in the aircraft (to
>a very fine tolerance), the training and good will of the pilots, the
>assumption none of the passengers is carrying a bomb, the electronics
>of the aircraft, the aerodynamics which you probably don't understand.
You are confusing "Faith" with "Trust".
Are you doing so deliberately?
stoney
Message ID: <adff117.04020...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<CNKdnY_NeZn...@sti.net>...
>>
>> Anecdotes prove nothing but that people have big imaginations.
>>
>Next time you talk about an experience of your own, don;t expect
>anyone to believe it based on your own argument, even if you know
>you're telling the truth.
Really? Objective supporting evidence daemons exist? Objective
supporting evidence the universe was manufactured? Objective supporting
evidence for all sorts of theist claims is?
"Zeus" fed multitudes for 5,000 years and didn't even ask for a simple
"Thank you."
"Davy Jones" sank ships because the crews had slovenly chests and
lockers.
"Circe" walked naked on-board ships she intended to sink.
Liberace(sp) never needed a ship or a jetliner for long distance travel.
His robes provided all the lift he needed.
All other claims outside of the christian superstition are automatically
rejected, but the same silly claims with the proper label on it are
praised to the skies. :\
I have to admit sometimes I wonder if John Hattan's comment to Tichy
isn't applicabe to many/most Christians.
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement "dogshit is not peanut butter" if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers :) "
-John Hattan
Christians see Mary 'manifest' in; windows, oil, melted ice cream, wood
doors, wood posts (Australian beach for the last) and all sorts of other
things. I'm really waiting for someone to see her in a steaming pile of
horse shit and the gullible to turn that pile into a 'shrine' as well.
Now, if people made the same claims for "Thor, Mercury, Odin, to name
three" there would be a crowd laughing at them and calling for the
police to remove them from the area. But since the delusion is of the
Christian variant the reaction is entirely different.
Your comments about 'truth' are laughable. If you want to bring your
deity down to the human level, that's fine. It's then of even less
(than 0) relevance, if that's possible.
What you or the priest saw is one thing. Your interpetation of it is
something else entirely. As I've stated before (and you've ignored) is
look in the insane asylums for 'spiritual whatsits.'
If christians find John Hattan's statement to Tichy offensive, if it
were to be applied to them, then consider christians are even more
offensive concerning their abuse of logic, reason, evidence, and
education to others.
When Christians (other brands of theism) ignore points, handwave, do the
'fundy shuffle,' construct strawmen, etc., all it does is illustrate the
christian is aware s/he has nothing but false witness to offer. This in
violation of one of the Christian "Prime Directives."
(snip the rest of the uneducated and ignorant drivel)
David V.
>
> (Bob Crowley) wrote:
>
>> Faith is usually an extension of things unseen based on
>
> You are confusing "Faith" with "Trust". Are you doing so
> deliberately?
He's doing it dishonestly.
Steve Knight
snip
>Frankly you blokes remind me of the cynic who, when shown a bird dog
>that walked on water, ridiculed the owner and the dog with "Huh! Can't
>swim, can he!!"
Dogs are real and dogs can't walk on water.
It's quite telling that you would use a fantasy to excuse another.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
SMChristenson
Well -- yeah! Why do you think you should get a pass with anything less?
Extraordinary causal claims require extraordinary (repeatable) effects (in
controlled conditions). Otherwise, it's just crazy talk.
You only have to be vaguely familiar with the writings of Hume to suspect
that stories from primitive cultures long, long ago and far, far away are
less than definitive in any area of knowledge.
Bob Crowley
Faith IS Trust.
The modern concept of faith is that it is merely a belief, ie.
something we believe without proof. The difference is illustrated by
a story (I believe it is supposed to be true, since I've seen it
quoted several times).
A famous tightrope walker (I don't know the name) walked across the
Niagara Falls pushing a wheelbarrow, and back again on a tightrope.
When he got back, a reporter gushed that he believed the walker could
do anything. The artist replied "Do you believe I could push a person
across the Falls in the wheelbarrow and back?"
The reporter replied that he did.
The artist said "Then get in the wheelbarrow".
The reporter declined.
The reporter had belief, not faith. If he had firm faith, he would
have gotten into the wheelbarrow, but he didn't.
Faith sticks one's life on the line, just as you do when you get on an
aircraft. You have no absolute guarantee that you are going to get to
your destination safely, but based on past experience and a number of
other things, you will probably get on board an aircraft. After 9/11
a lot of people found their faith in flying somewhat diminished, for
example, but they still believed aircraft fly.
Bob Crowley.
Robibnikoff
Seeing a picture of a devil? Shoot, there's a picture of satan in a cathedral
in St. Mark's square in Venice whose eyes actually follow you around the room.
I thought it was a bit creepy, but it certainly didn't make me believe satan
actually exists. Why would it?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Bob Crowley
>
> Really? Objective supporting evidence daemons exist? Objective
> supporting evidence the universe was manufactured? Objective supporting
> evidence for all sorts of theist claims is?
>
If my suspicions are correct, this may well happen over the next few
years. However there have been a lot of weeping icons of Mary (and
pictures don't normally weep). Sometimes they extrude pure oil,
sometimes blood, and one icon of Christ, when the blood was analysed,
was found to be female, which is interesting as he had no earthly
father. There's been plenty of them. Want to explain them in a
naturalistic way, since quite a number of them have been subject to
expert scrutiny with no suitable explanation.
Mind you the Catholic Church is extremely wary of such things (a bit
too wary I sometimes think), probably because of past history, and the
propensity of people to invent things. Saints require a couple of
miracles as part of the process, and canonisation can take
decades,even centuries.
I am cynical of the Australian incident at the beach fence (I think
the photograph was posed), but tend to accept another incident in
Perth. The number of weeping icons has been increasing (part of a
warning process I believe), and if one ever occurs in your area, maybe
you could have a look at it, even if all you want to do is to debunk
it. I'll do likewise, but so far there has been nothing like it
around here.
If you read the accounts of Fatima, it was not just the 3 children who
say Mary. Even hard boiled journalists changed their tune when they
actually went there,and one common phenomena that seems to accompany
such things is that the sun spins and jumps all over the place, which
can probably be explained by some sort of distortion of the light.
> Liberace(sp) never needed a ship or a jetliner for long distance travel.
> His robes provided all the lift he needed.
Actually it was his bank account.
>
> All other claims outside of the christian superstition are automatically
> rejected, but the same silly claims with the proper label on it are
> praised to the skies. :\
I don't discount Aboriginal "bush telegraph" (mental awareness of an
event hundreds of miles away. For example the same pastor knew either
the farmer or the aboriginal in the following event. The aboriginal
was more or less the foreman on a farm, when he said to the farmer
"Sorry, boss, but I gotta go to the camp" (some distance away). The
farmer wasn't happy, but the aboriginal was insistent taht something
was wrong. So he had to let him go.
When he got there, the camp was in an uproar. Apparently one of the
kids had broken an arm,and as they were uneducated they were wailing
and carrying on. So he kicked a couple of backsides and restored a
bit of order,arranged to get the boy to a hospital, and then went back
to work.
But he knew without a doubt that something had happened. I also
believe that "primitive man", living close to nature and the spiritual
realm has a spirituality that modern Western man has almost annihlated
with his materialism and intellectualism.
I don't discount other "superstitions", but I'd be a bit wary about
the powers demonstrated by witches for example. They have real powers
in some cases, but it isn't God who has given it to them.
> I have to admit sometimes I wonder if John Hattan's comment to Tichy
> isn't applicabe to many/most Christians.
>
> "Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
> faculties to prove the statement "dogshit is not peanut butter" if we
> gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers :) "
> -John Hattan
I'll undergo the experiment provided you're prepared to act as control
and sample both canisters first to prove which is which.
> Christians see Mary 'manifest' in; windows, oil, melted ice cream, wood
> doors, wood posts (Australian beach for the last) and all sorts of other
> things. I'm really waiting for someone to see her in a steaming pile of
> horse shit and the gullible to turn that pile into a 'shrine' as well.
See above.
> Now, if people made the same claims for "Thor, Mercury, Odin, to name
> three" there would be a crowd laughing at them and calling for the
> police to remove them from the area. But since the delusion is of the
> Christian variant the reaction is entirely different.
One of the acts of one of the early missionaries was to cut down a
huge oak (of Wodin I think). He cut it down not because he thought it
was a joke, but because he seriously thought there was a reality about
the local spiritual beliefs.
> Your comments about 'truth' are laughable. If you want to bring your
> deity down to the human level, that's fine. It's then of even less
> (than 0) relevance, if that's possible.
>
> What you or the priest saw is one thing. Your interpetation of it is
> something else entirely. As I've stated before (and you've ignored) is
> look in the insane asylums for 'spiritual whatsits.'
> If christians find John Hattan's statement to Tichy offensive, if it
> were to be applied to them, then consider christians are even more
> offensive concerning their abuse of logic, reason, evidence, and
> education to others.
Universities owe their origin to the Church, some of the most powerful
art is in the Church, some of the greatest music was written for and
by the church, many scientists are Christians. Actually the media has
a high percentage of atheists, which means the popularisers of modern
cultural thought tend to be anti-Christian. But in most cases they
are not experts eg. if Barbara Thiering or Bishop Spong write
controversial books, they will get a lot of coverage. But try to get
a journalist to write an indepth article on Christian theology, as
portrayed by Barth or Rahner, and see how far you get.
We're not all philistines along the lines of a particular Reformed
Church in Germany which had a table for an alter, backless pews,and a
tuning fork for an instrument, as anything else smacked of idolatory.
>
> When Christians (other brands of theism) ignore points, handwave, do the
> 'fundy shuffle,' construct strawmen, etc., all it does is illustrate the
> christian is aware s/he has nothing but false witness to offer. This in
> violation of one of the Christian "Prime Directives."
>
>
> (snip the rest of the uneducated and ignorant drivel)
Aw, I dunno, I like spreading uneducated and ignorant drivel. It
makes me feel good.
Bob Crowley.
Bob Crowley
Righto, then, if there had been some atheists on the boat when Christ
walked on the water, while everybody else was looking at teh sight in
astonishment and fear, they'd have been ridiculing the whole thing.
"Huh! What's so great about that -- can't swim eh?". "Let;s see him
do 1500 freestyle faster than Thorpedo and then we'll believe him."
"Urrgh! Pass the aspirin, I'm seasick... aargh".
"Why doesn't He just stop the bloody storm instead of showing off,
hey?"
Bob Crowley.
David V.
>
> Faith IS Trust.
A religious type faith is an irrational belief.
David V.
>
> Actually it wouldn't hurt if some objective evidence were
> forthcoming, If my suspicions are correct, this may well
> happen over the next few years.
That's a belief based on an irrational faith.
> However there have been a lot of weeping icons of Mary
> (and pictures don't normally weep)....
And everyone of them has been proven to be a fraud.
> Mind you the Catholic Church is extremely wary of such
> things...
Because everyone of them has turned out to be a fraud.
> If you read the accounts of Fatima, it was not just the 3
> children who say Mary....
If you read the true accounts of Fatima, it was the girls
looking for attention.
> Universities owe their origin to the Church....
No they don't.
Libertarius
"David V." wrote:
> Bob Crowley wrote:
> >
> > Faith IS Trust.
>
> A religious type faith is an irrational belief.
===>Yes. Faith is the kind of credulous trust every con man
loves to exploit.
(Like ministers/preachers living off the earnings of the sheep). -- L.
Libertarius
"David V." wrote:
===>Actually, some do.
What what was it the were teaching ORIGNALLY?
Theological nonsense.
Michael Gray
Michael Gray
wrote:
>Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:<eqjt10d26n9b646ac...@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Feb 2004 04:36:22 -0800, bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley)
>> wrote:
>> :
>> >Faith is usually an extension of things unseen based on things seen.
>> >You get on an aircraft because you see it fly. You have faith in the
>> >unseen things including the mechanical structures in the aircraft (to
>> >a very fine tolerance), the training and good will of the pilots, the
>> >assumption none of the passengers is carrying a bomb, the electronics
>> >of the aircraft, the aerodynamics which you probably don't understand.
>> :
>> You are confusing "Faith" with "Trust".
>> Are you doing so deliberately?
>
>Faith IS Trust.
>
Wrong.
Faith is based on no evidence whatsoever.
Trust is based on past experience.
>The modern concept of faith is that it is merely a belief, ie.
>something we believe without proof. The difference is illustrated by
>a story (I believe it is supposed to be true, since I've seen it
>quoted several times).
>
>A famous tightrope walker (I don't know the name) walked across the
>Niagara Falls pushing a wheelbarrow, and back again on a tightrope.
>
>When he got back, a reporter gushed that he believed the walker could
>do anything. The artist replied "Do you believe I could push a person
>across the Falls in the wheelbarrow and back?"
>
>The reporter replied that he did.
>
>The artist said "Then get in the wheelbarrow".
>
>The reporter declined.
>
>The reporter had belief, not faith. If he had firm faith, he would
>have gotten into the wheelbarrow, but he didn't.
>
Not this old one...
This has been pointed out to be false time and time again.
The reporter has TRUST.
He had seen that the performer was competent.
He has evidence on which to base his opinion.
Please don't present this hackneyed old story again in support of the
incorrect notion that faith is the same as trust.
>Faith sticks one's life on the line, just as you do when you get on an
>aircraft. You have no absolute guarantee that you are going to get to
>your destination safely, but based on past experience and a number of
>other things, you will probably get on board an aircraft. After 9/11
>a lot of people found their faith in flying somewhat diminished, for
>example, but they still believed aircraft fly.
>
>Bob Crowley.
You've seem to have lifted these ridiculous examples directly from a
book by Tom Short:
"5 Crucial Questions about Christianity"
Let me tell you that this book's unimpressive pleadings have been
thoroughly discredited.
If you are deriving your arguments either directly or indirectly from
this source, then you have lost before you begin.
Steve Knight
wrote:
>Steve Knight <woo...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<0but105uas6aj2gav...@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Feb 2004 04:36:22 -0800, bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley)
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >Frankly you blokes remind me of the cynic who, when shown a bird dog
>> >that walked on water, ridiculed the owner and the dog with "Huh! Can't
>> >swim, can he!!"
>>
>> Dogs are real and dogs can't walk on water.
>>
>> It's quite telling that you would use a fantasy to excuse another.
snippage
>Righto, then, if there had been some atheists on the boat when Christ
>walked on the water, while everybody else was looking at teh sight in
>astonishment and fear, they'd have been ridiculing the whole thing.
No, stupid. They would conduct further experiments to see if a
hypothesis is warranted.
Example - It's a desert and the sun is shinning on a body of water
which is reflected in such a way as to form a mirage. The ignorant
witnesses, without the ability to read or write, concluded it was
magic.
How can a grown adult believe is such childish fantasies? Surely
you don't buy into the talking donkey, staff into snake, manna from
the sky, great flood or parting water?
It's 2004. Time to put the Boogie Man to rest.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
David V.
>>>
>>>> Faith is usually an extension of things unseen
>>>> based on things seen. You get on an aircraft
>>>> because you see it fly. You have faith in the
>>>> unseen things including the mechanical structures
>>>> in the aircraft (to a very fine tolerance), the
>>>> training and good will of the pilots, the
>>>> assumption none of the passengers is carrying a
>>>> bomb, the electronics of the aircraft, the
>>>> aerodynamics which you probably don't understand.
>>>
>>> You are confusing "Faith" with "Trust". Are you doing
>>> so deliberately?
>>
>> Faith IS Trust.
>
> Wrong. Faith is based on no evidence whatsoever. Trust is
> based on past experience.
He counts his halucinations as experience.
Libertarius
"David V." wrote:
===>Well, they ARE experience.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>Steve Knight <woo...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<0but105uas6aj2gav...@4ax.com>...
The Straw-man argument is not supposed to be so blatantly obvious as
to knock you out with its concocted artificiality.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:<gvjt109kspreug6hb...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Really? Objective supporting evidence daemons exist? Objective
>> supporting evidence the universe was manufactured? Objective supporting
>> evidence for all sorts of theist claims is?
>>
>Actually it wouldn't hurt if some objective evidence were forthcoming,
> If my suspicions are correct, this may well happen over the next few
>years. However there have been a lot of weeping icons of Mary (and
>pictures don't normally weep). Sometimes they extrude pure oil,
>sometimes blood, and one icon of Christ, when the blood was analysed,
>was found to be female, which is interesting as he had no earthly
>father. There's been plenty of them. Want to explain them in a
>naturalistic way, since quite a number of them have been subject to
>expert scrutiny with no suitable explanation.
Detail just ONE of these please.
It is my contention that "since quite a number of them have been
subject to expert scrutiny with no suitable explanation." is an
outright fabrication.
Condemned from his own mouth...
>Bob Crowley.
Michael Gray
Agreed.
But people who base their 'trust' on experience garnered from
hallucinations tend to wind up getting physically hurt.
Bob Crowley
> On 3 Feb 2004 05:47:58 -0800, bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley)
> wrote:
>
> >Steve Knight <woo...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<0but105uas6aj2gav...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 2 Feb 2004 04:36:22 -0800, bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley)
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> >Frankly you blokes remind me of the cynic who, when shown a bird dog
> >> >that walked on water, ridiculed the owner and the dog with "Huh! Can't
> >> >swim, can he!!"
> >>
> >> Dogs are real and dogs can't walk on water.
> >>
> >> It's quite telling that you would use a fantasy to excuse another.
>
> snippage
>
> >Righto, then, if there had been some atheists on the boat when Christ
> >walked on the water, while everybody else was looking at teh sight in
> >astonishment and fear, they'd have been ridiculing the whole thing.
>
> No, stupid. They would conduct further experiments to see if a
> hypothesis is warranted.
Eg. Test One - David V. points to Steve Knight and says, "Steve, hop
into the water and stand up". Steve hops into the water and sinks
like a stone. Christ grins. David V. points to Stoney and says
"Stoney, hop into the water and stand up". Stoney hops into the water
and sinks like a stone. Christ grins.
David V., being the last of the three, jumps into the water and sinks
like a stone. Christ grinns.
Peter asks Christ what he is grinning about. Christ says "I look like
I'm standing on the water, but actually I'm standing on top of 3
atheists."
> Example - It's a desert and the sun is shinning on a body of water
> which is reflected in such a way as to form a mirage. The ignorant
> witnesses, without the ability to read or write, concluded it was
> magic.
A reasonable assumption without prior knowledge of mirages. When the
disciples first saw Christ walking on the water, they thought it was a
ghost, as they had no prior experience of people walking on water.
> How can a grown adult believe is such childish fantasies? Surely
> you don't buy into the talking donkey, staff into snake, manna from
> the sky, great flood or parting water?
I fail to see the difference between this for example and the "sum
zero universe" tenet. For example, quoting from "The Inflationary
Universe" by Alan H. Guth, a Professor of Physics (religious beliefs
unknown), "While the standard big bank theory assumes that all the
matter in the universe was present in some form since the beginning,
the inflationary theory shows how all the mass could evolve from an
initial seed weighing only about an ounce, with a diameter more than a
million times smaller than a proton."
If you boggle at a large flood, or a handful of miracles, how is it
you can accept so easily a universe with all its ordered majesty and
life originating
from something smaller than a proton, as conjectured by science.
And if we have, in the words of Lady Julian of Norwich in "Revelations
of Divine Love", writing in the late fourteenth century, the following
vision as given during a period of illness "Our Lord shewed me sucha
little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the palm of my hand;
and it was as a round as a ball. I looked thereon with the eye of my
understanding, and thought, "What my this be?" And it was answered
generally thus, "It is all that is made". I marevelled how it might
last, for me thought it might suddenly have fallen to naught for
littleness. And I was answered in my understanding: "It lasteth and
ever shall last for that God loveth it. And so all-thing hath Being
by the love of God"
In this Little Thing I say three properties. The fist is that God
made it, the second is that God loveth it, the third is that God
keepeth it."
***************
As far as I am concerned, Mother Julian of Norwich was being shown in
a vision in the late 1300's something that scientific conjecture seems
to be advancing towards today. I suspect the vision, and the
recording of it by probably the English language's first female
writer, was given as notice to clever 21st century man he is not as
independent as he thinks he is.
I don't have any problem believing in miracles, and if you take note
of the miracles performed by Christ, they all belong within the
natural order eg. the sudden appearance of food (which happens more
slowly via growth and harvest and processing), the turning of water
into wine (which happens in the grape and the vat), the healing of the
sick (which when it all boils down is usually the body healing itself
with medical aid), the raising of the dead (simply the reversal of
normal decomposition processes), the stilling of a storm (which
happens eventually), the walking on water (slightly out of natural
context, except for surface tension insects), the abrupt killing of a
fig tree (which happens when it is ringbarked or poisoned, but more
slowly).
>
> It's 2004. Time to put the Boogie Man to rest.
>
The Boogie Man is still alive and well, thank you, and always will be.
Bob Crowley.;
m. sajid
stoney
<Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth>, Message ID:
<392d7643eeab2a81...@news.teranews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Eggzactly.
stoney
>stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:<gvjt109kspreug6hb...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Really? Objective supporting evidence daemons exist? Objective
>> supporting evidence the universe was manufactured? Objective supporting
>> evidence for all sorts of theist claims is?
>>
>Actually it wouldn't hurt if some objective evidence were forthcoming,
> If my suspicions are correct, this may well happen over the next few
>years.
It won't.
> However there have been a lot of weeping icons of Mary (and
>pictures don't normally weep). Sometimes they extrude pure oil,
>sometimes blood, and one icon of Christ, when the blood was analysed,
>was found to be female, which is interesting as he had no earthly
>father. There's been plenty of them. Want to explain them in a
>naturalistic way, since quite a number of them have been subject to
>expert scrutiny with no suitable explanation.
Oh for crying out loud, Bob! The statues are hollow and the glaze is
scratched so the fluid put in seeps out.
>Mind you the Catholic Church is extremely wary of such things (a bit
>too wary I sometimes think), probably because of past history, and the
>propensity of people to invent things. Saints require a couple of
>miracles as part of the process, and canonisation can take
>decades,even centuries.
(LAUGHTER!!!)
>I am cynical of the Australian incident at the beach fence (I think
>the photograph was posed), but tend to accept another incident in
>Perth. The number of weeping icons has been increasing (part of a
>warning process I believe), and if one ever occurs in your area, maybe
>you could have a look at it, even if all you want to do is to debunk
>it. I'll do likewise, but so far there has been nothing like it
>around here.
You're welcome to your belief. (shrug) Con artists are overpriced at a
pence per hundred thousand. Theism is the oldest con there is.
>If you read the accounts of Fatima, it was not just the 3 children who
>say Mary. Even hard boiled journalists changed their tune when they
>actually went there,and one common phenomena that seems to accompany
>such things is that the sun spins and jumps all over the place, which
>can probably be explained by some sort of distortion of the light.
If you read the account of "The Wizard of Oz" it wasn't just the Tin
Man, Scarecrow, and Cowardly Lion who saw her translocate back to
Kansas. It was the whole populace of Emerald City!
>> Liberace(sp) never needed a ship or a jetliner for long distance travel.
>> His robes provided all the lift he needed.
>
>Actually it was his bank account.
Really? The objective supporting evidence his robes *didn't* provide
all the lift he needed?
(In my examples, I'm utilizing the same 'logic' christians utilize to
illustrate a point)
>> All other claims outside of the christian superstition are automatically
>> rejected, but the same silly claims with the proper label on it are
>> praised to the skies. :\
>
>I don't discount Aboriginal "bush telegraph" (mental awareness of an
>event hundreds of miles away. For example the same pastor knew either
>the farmer or the aboriginal in the following event. The aboriginal
>was more or less the foreman on a farm, when he said to the farmer
>"Sorry, boss, but I gotta go to the camp" (some distance away). The
>farmer wasn't happy, but the aboriginal was insistent taht something
>was wrong. So he had to let him go.
>
>When he got there, the camp was in an uproar. Apparently one of the
>kids had broken an arm,and as they were uneducated they were wailing
>and carrying on. So he kicked a couple of backsides and restored a
>bit of order,arranged to get the boy to a hospital, and then went back
>to work.
>
>But he knew without a doubt that something had happened. I also
>believe that "primitive man", living close to nature and the spiritual
>realm has a spirituality that modern Western man has almost annihlated
>with his materialism and intellectualism.
Just so stories are legion. They mean nothing.
>I don't discount other "superstitions", but I'd be a bit wary about
>the powers demonstrated by witches for example. They have real powers
>in some cases, but it isn't God who has given it to them.
WHEW! (rolls eyes) Best ignore doctors and medication then since
illness is due to 'evil humors' and 'unbalanced chaka points.'
Priests and parishoners *are* witches when they cast the prayer spell.
Guess it wasn't the 'tooth faerie' who gave it to them.
>> I have to admit sometimes I wonder if John Hattan's comment to Tichy
>> isn't applicabe to many/most Christians.
>>
>> "Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
>> faculties to prove the statement "dogshit is not peanut butter" if we
>> gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers :) "
>> -John Hattan
>
>I'll undergo the experiment provided you're prepared to act as control
>and sample both canisters first to prove which is which.
I'm not a christian, Bob. I'm not one who sees daemons and other
fantasy items.
>> Christians see Mary 'manifest' in; windows, oil, melted ice cream, wood
>> doors, wood posts (Australian beach for the last) and all sorts of other
>> things. I'm really waiting for someone to see her in a steaming pile of
>> horse shit and the gullible to turn that pile into a 'shrine' as well.
>
>See above.
>
>> Now, if people made the same claims for "Thor, Mercury, Odin, to name
>> three" there would be a crowd laughing at them and calling for the
>> police to remove them from the area. But since the delusion is of the
>> Christian variant the reaction is entirely different.
>
>One of the acts of one of the early missionaries was to cut down a
>huge oak (of Wodin I think). He cut it down not because he thought it
>was a joke, but because he seriously thought there was a reality about
>the local spiritual beliefs.
So what? As I indicated, reality doesn't come into play.
>> Your comments about 'truth' are laughable. If you want to bring your
>> deity down to the human level, that's fine. It's then of even less
>> (than 0) relevance, if that's possible.
>>
>> What you or the priest saw is one thing. Your interpetation of it is
>> something else entirely. As I've stated before (and you've ignored) is
>> look in the insane asylums for 'spiritual whatsits.'
>
>> If christians find John Hattan's statement to Tichy offensive, if it
>> were to be applied to them, then consider christians are even more
>> offensive concerning their abuse of logic, reason, evidence, and
>> education to others.
>
>Universities owe their origin to the Church, some of the most powerful
>art is in the Church, some of the greatest music was written for and
>by the church, many scientists are Christians.
Do they? Gosh, Its quite amazing to learn the 'Galen texts' which were
the only approved church surgical text for humans are still being
utilized today. (The Galen texts were based on the dissection of a pig
by a local butcher.)
It's quite amazing to learn sickness is not bacteria, viral infections
and the like but are evil humors and unbalanced Chakra points. And it's
astonishing to learn pigeon blood cures Leprosy, and that taking a bath
to clean your body is evil.
My first point is-the church is anti-education.
My second point-for centuries the church was the main patrons of art and
music as they had the vast majority of the money. So, of course, music
and art was aimed at squeezing some funds from the church. Not to
mention drawing the wrong artwork of composing the wrong music had a
tendency to get you executed.
As for some scientists being christians, others are of other
superstitions, so what? They're quite free to privately consider their
findings are how their particular deity did something.
> Actually the media has
>a high percentage of atheists, which means the popularisers of modern
>cultural thought tend to be anti-Christian.
(rolling with mirth) (GASP!) Yeah, anti-christians are so plentiful
the constant droning about 'God' that I read in newspapers and hear on
the Telly is a figment of my imagination.
> But in most cases they
>are not experts eg. if Barbara Thiering or Bishop Spong write
>controversial books, they will get a lot of coverage. But try to get
>a journalist to write an indepth article on Christian theology, as
>portrayed by Barth or Rahner, and see how far you get.
(wiping tears of laughter from my eyes)
Religion has its own section in the newspapers, Bob. There is no
atheist section. Christians fight education in the U.S. tooth and nail.
>We're not all philistines along the lines of a particular Reformed
>Church in Germany which had a table for an alter, backless pews,and a
>tuning fork for an instrument, as anything else smacked of idolatory.
Really? The cross is idoltry. Prayer beads are idoltry. Praying to a
Mary or Jesus icon is idoltry. Having one of those things in your house
or in your car is idoltry. Wearing an icon of execution around your
neck is idoltry.
>> When Christians (other brands of theism) ignore points, handwave, do the
>> 'fundy shuffle,' construct strawmen, etc., all it does is illustrate the
>> christian is aware s/he has nothing but false witness to offer. This in
>> violation of one of the Christian "Prime Directives."
>> (snip the rest of the uneducated and ignorant drivel)
>
>Aw, I dunno, I like spreading uneducated and ignorant drivel. It
>makes me feel good.
Yes, pissing upwind does give you a warm feeling.
Lawrence Seib
> Steve Knight <woo...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<brg020pj49c7pkfts...@4ax.com>...
> > On 3 Feb 2004 05:47:58 -0800, bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley)
> > wrote:
> > >> snip
> > >>
> > >> >Frankly you blokes remind me of the cynic who, when shown a bird dog
> > >> >that walked on water, ridiculed the owner and the dog with "Huh! Can't
> > >> >swim, can he!!"
> > >>
> > >>Dogs are real and dogs can't walk on water.
> > >>
> > >>It's quite telling that you would use a fantasy to excuse another.
> >
> > snippage
> >
> > >Righto, then, if there had been some atheists on the boat when Christ
> > >walked on the water, while everybody else was looking at teh sight in
> > >astonishment and fear, they'd have been ridiculing the whole thing.
> >
> > No, stupid. They would conduct further experiments to see if a
> > hypothesis is warranted.
actualy I be wondering what trick he was useing to fool us.
> Eg. Test One - David V. points to Steve Knight and says, "Steve, hop
> into the water and stand up". Steve hops into the water and sinks
> like a stone. Christ grins. David V. points to Stoney and says
> "Stoney, hop into the water and stand up". Stoney hops into the water
> and sinks like a stone. Christ grins.
> David V., being the last of the three, jumps into the water and sinks
> like a stone. Christ grinns.
does the bible say Chirst loves it when people drown, or is this just your fantasy.?
> Peter asks Christ what he is grinning about. Christ says "I look like
> I'm standing on the water, but actually I'm standing on top of 3
> atheists."
>
> > Example - It's a desert and the sun is shinning on a body of water
> > which is reflected in such a way as to form a mirage. The ignorant
> > witnesses, without the ability to read or write, concluded it was
> > magic.
>
> A reasonable assumption without prior knowledge of mirages. When the
> disciples first saw Christ walking on the water, they thought it was a
> ghost, as they had no prior experience of people walking on water.
There is no evidence that christ really existed, let alone
walked on the water. Jesus Christ is the adaptation by some
jews of several religious traditions of the time, were
God sends his child to Earth to redeem mankind.
> > How can a grown adult believe is such childish fantasies? Surely
> > you don't buy into the talking donkey, staff into snake, manna from
> > the sky, great flood or parting water?
>
> I fail to see the difference between this for example and the "sum
> zero universe" tenet. For example, quoting from "The Inflationary
> Universe" by Alan H. Guth, a Professor of Physics (religious beliefs
> unknown), "While the standard big bank theory assumes that all the
> matter in the universe was present in some form since the beginning,
> the inflationary theory shows how all the mass could evolve from an
> initial seed weighing only about an ounce, with a diameter more than a
> million times smaller than a proton."
The key difference here is the word could. The prof used
some known things about physics to draw some very educated
guesses. Unlike Evolution, there are several different theories
as to how the universe began, and we will not say that
truly know until we have good evidence.
Larry
David V.
> Steve Knight <woo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> No, stupid. They would conduct further experiments to
>> see if a hypothesis is warranted.
>
> Eg. Test One - David V. points to Steve Knight and
Irrelevant, neither one of are gods.
[bullshit snipped]
David V.
> i belive to God. please give more information
You're delusional. Since your English isn't that good,
delusional means you are seeing things that aren't there.
Steve Knight
wrote:
>Steve Knight <woo...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<brg020pj49c7pkfts...@4ax.com>...
>> No, stupid. They would conduct further experiments to see if a
>> hypothesis is warranted.
>
>Eg. Test One - David V. points to Steve Knight and says, "Steve, hop
>into the water and stand up". Steve hops into the water and sinks
>like a stone. Christ grins.
>
You need to stay on the same page, Spunky. Atheists are not sheep.
They don't 'step' into water like some mindless moron believer type. A
type you are obviously used to talking to.
>A reasonable assumption without prior knowledge of mirages. When the
>disciples first saw Christ walking on the water, they thought it was a
>ghost, as they had no prior experience of people walking on water.
>
Duh.... Because people don't walk on water. Your magic pixie
is....... a magic pixie. Pixies can do anything and they don't even
have to exist.
>
>> How can a grown adult believe is such childish fantasies? Surely
>> you don't buy into the talking donkey, staff into snake, manna from
>> the sky, great flood or parting water?
>
snip boring universe is incredibly complex vomit.
(See Ockham's Razor below)
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
>And if we have, in the words of Lady Julian of Norwich in "Revelations
>of Divine Love", writing in the late fourteenth century, the following
>vision as given during a period of illness
'Illness'? She saw a 'vision' during a illness!? And you take it
seriously?
Fuck......
You're an idiot. No wonder John Edwards and Mother Theo are
millionaires. It proves what I've always said, the superstitious will
believe anything.
>I don't have any problem believing in miracles, and if you take note
>of the miracles performed by Christ,
He never existed. And you're an idiot for being so gullible. Too
bad he didn't have a red cape and a big 'J' on his chest.
Don't feel bad, Dummie. I'm not the average atheist. I can sit here
for days laughing at how stupid you christians prove yourselves to be.
It's like an endless Dumb and Dumber movie.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Libertarius
Michael Gray wrote:
===>Or go insane.
Bob Crowley
> >
> You need to stay on the same page, Spunky. Atheists are not sheep.
> They don't 'step' into water like some mindless moron believer type. A
> type you are obviously used to talking to.
>
> >A reasonable assumption without prior knowledge of mirages. When the
> >disciples first saw Christ walking on the water, they thought it was a
> >ghost, as they had no prior experience of people walking on water.
> >
> Duh.... Because people don't walk on water. Your magic pixie
> is....... a magic pixie. Pixies can do anything and they don't even
> have to exist.
>
recorded as a witness to the fear they felt, and the fact that they
had not seen a man walking on water either.
I haven't seen anyone walk on water, and the reason this unique event
is in the Bible is to point to who Christ was.
> >> How can a grown adult believe is such childish fantasies? Surely
> >> you don't buy into the talking donkey, staff into snake, manna from
> >> the sky, great flood or parting water?
> >
> snip boring universe is incredibly complex vomit.
>
> (See Ockham's Razor below)
>
> http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
>
>
> >And if we have, in the words of Lady Julian of Norwich in "Revelations
> >of Divine Love", writing in the late fourteenth century, the following
> >vision as given during a period of illness
>
> 'Illness'? She saw a 'vision' during a illness!? And you take it
> seriously?
>
> Fuck......
>
Her vocabulary was more developed than yours, so she wrote a book.
Actually there were about seventeen visions over a period of time, and
she recorded what she saw and heard. She also recovered from the
illness. She was also a mystic, used to having some experience of
God.
> You're an idiot. No wonder John Edwards and Mother Theo are
> millionaires. It proves what I've always said, the superstitious will
> believe anything.
I've had a few experiences of my own, but since you wouldn't believe
me, why bother itemising them?
> >I don't have any problem believing in miracles, and if you take note
> >of the miracles performed by Christ,
Funny, while there are a limited number of non Biblical or Church
quotes referring to Christ, the indications are that He existed. How
else do you explain a man who writes nothing, holds no high office,
and is executed as a criminal in a provincial backwater of the Roman
Empire, making the grossly egotistical claim "My words will never pass
away". Even if the disciples wrote them down, why should they have
survived?
Oddly enough they are still with us today, c. 1970 years later. Your
words and my words won't be around for long though, whether we make
the claim or not.
He never existed. And you're an idiot for being so gullible. Too
> bad he didn't have a red cape and a big 'J' on his chest.
Mary Magdalene was a reporter on the Jerusalem Times, hard living,
drinking and playing around. Doubting Thomas was probably a
journalist as well. They didn't have phone boxes, but he used to find
the area behind the Temple Curtain was usually unoccupied and got
changed in there. Then he used to leap over low buildings and stop
slow camels and fly faster than speeding arrows.
> Don't feel bad, Dummie. I'm not the average atheist. I can sit here
> for days laughing at how stupid you christians prove yourselves to be.
> It's like an endless Dumb and Dumber movie.
What is your average atheist? Until you describe one, give me a
median or mean description with something like a standard deviation, I
won't be sure what I am dealing with.
My latest shot in this war with the Warlord is that I have long
believed that this universe is a stage prop, assembled from nothing,
remaining "structured nothingness" as I remember seeing a quote from a
physicist (non Christian I believe), and will go to nothing.
For example nuclear mass density is about 2.4*10^17 kg / m^3 (the up
arrows refer to 'to the power of'), and the nuclear mass contains
almost all the mass of the atom.
I weigh about 75 kg, give or take a few (mainly give). Therefore the
dimensions of all the nucleii of all the atoms in my body if compacted
together, comes to about 3.1 * 10^-16 m^3, or about 3 * 10^-10 cubic
centimetres or 3 * 10^-7 cubic millimeters, or .0000003 cubic
millimetres. That is probably about the size of the point on a pin,
although it is more likely much smaller.
This point (that is about all you could describe it as) would contain
almost all the mass of my body. The rest of my body outline would be
almost all empty space, but given seeming solidity by a mass of
speeding electrons. By the same token, the rest of my body would be
almost weightless.
In other words we ourselves are nearly all empty space.
But we don't look like it. First appearances deceive.
Bob Crowley.
ZenIsWhen
"Bob Crowley" <bobcr...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.04020...@posting.google.com...
Which would be typical of religoin, to gain status, they must
degrade/downgrade others.
>
> > Example - It's a desert and the sun is shinning on a body of water
> > which is reflected in such a way as to form a mirage. The ignorant
> > witnesses, without the ability to read or write, concluded it was
> > magic.
>
> A reasonable assumption without prior knowledge of mirages. When the
> disciples first saw Christ walking on the water, they thought it was a
> ghost, as they had no prior experience of people walking on water.
Relating a fairy tale, as though it were accepted fact, to support other
fairy tales is mere fraud.
>
>
> > How can a grown adult believe is such childish fantasies? Surely
> > you don't buy into the talking donkey, staff into snake, manna from
> > the sky, great flood or parting water?
>
> I fail to see the difference between this for example and the "sum
> zero universe" tenet.
Of course you don't.
You obviously have a difficulty differentiating between reality, science,
scientific theories, scientific hypothesis and religiouis fairy tales.
For example, quoting from "The Inflationary
> Universe" by Alan H. Guth, a Professor of Physics (religious beliefs
> unknown), "While the standard big bank theory assumes that all the
> matter in the universe was present in some form since the beginning,
> the inflationary theory shows how all the mass could evolve from an
> initial seed weighing only about an ounce, with a diameter more than a
> million times smaller than a proton."
>
> If you boggle at a large flood, or a handful of miracles, how is it
> you can accept so easily a universe with all its ordered majesty and
> life originating
> from something smaller than a proton, as conjectured by science.
Because science has evidence atht either directly. or indirectly, points to
that logical conclusion.
That the ujniverse is expanding, is a fact.
That we can detect the backgrond noise of the "big bang" is a fact.
That these facts LEAD to the comnclusion that the universe was once very
tiny, and "sxploded" is a conclusion from those know facts.
There is ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING that supports ANY of the outrageous claims in
the bible!
There is also plenty of information that shows biblical claims to be false.
>
> And if we have, in the words of Lady Julian of Norwich in "Revelations
> of Divine Love", writing in the late fourteenth century, the following
> vision as given during a period of illness "Our Lord shewed me sucha
> little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the palm of my hand;
> and it was as a round as a ball. I looked thereon with the eye of my
> understanding, and thought, "What my this be?" And it was answered
> generally thus, "It is all that is made". I marevelled how it might
> last, for me thought it might suddenly have fallen to naught for
> littleness. And I was answered in my understanding: "It lasteth and
> ever shall last for that God loveth it. And so all-thing hath Being
> by the love of God"
>
> In this Little Thing I say three properties. The fist is that God
> made it, the second is that God loveth it, the third is that God
> keepeth it."
The babblings of one zealot mean NOTHING!
>
> ***************
>
> As far as I am concerned, Mother Julian of Norwich was being shown in
> a vision in the late 1300's something that scientific conjecture seems
> to be advancing towards today. I suspect the vision, and the
> recording of it by probably the English language's first female
> writer, was given as notice to clever 21st century man he is not as
> independent as he thinks he is.
As far as you are concerned, reality means little if it doesn't agree with
your fables, fanatsies and fairy tales!
ZenIsWhen
"Bob Crowley" <bobcr...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.04020...@posting.google.com...
news:<1a33209nbouai4duq...@4ax.com>...
> > >
> > You need to stay on the same page, Spunky. Atheists are not sheep.
> > They don't 'step' into water like some mindless moron believer type. A
> > type you are obviously used to talking to.
> >
> > >A reasonable assumption without prior knowledge of mirages. When the
> > >disciples first saw Christ walking on the water, they thought it was a
> > >ghost, as they had no prior experience of people walking on water.
> > >
> > Duh.... Because people don't walk on water. Your magic pixie
> > is....... a magic pixie. Pixies can do anything and they don't even
> > have to exist.
> >
> It seems to me the reaction of the disciples seeing a ghost is
> recorded as a witness to the fear they felt, and the fact that they
> had not seen a man walking on water either.
>
> I haven't seen anyone walk on water, and the reason this unique event
> is in the Bible is to point to who Christ was.
IOW ..... all you have to do to believe in the religon of the bible - is to
believe the bible and the fairy tales it bellows.
Bob Crowley
>
> IOW ..... all you have to do to believe in the religon of the bible - is to
> believe the bible and the fairy tales it bellows.
Well, the following rhetorical question is strictly non-Biblical and
cannot be found anywhere that I know about on ancient scrolls, yet it
still requires explanation.
Q. What is white and yellow and lies on the bottom of the Sea of
Galilee?
A. An atheist with slashed floaties.
A couple of quotes you may find interesting.
From "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder.
Page 121 in my version - "And then with no hint in the underlying
(older) fossil's, an explosion of complex animal fossils appears
bearing the basic anatomical structures of all phyla extant today. It
is waht is termed by the scientific community the Cambrian explosion
of animal life. Among those structures are eyes. The earliest eyes
arrived with stereoscopic positioning, and with lenses that by their
fossilised shape appear optically perfect for seeing in water, the
habitat of those early animals. We just struggled through the
complexity of vision, from the conversion of incoming radiation
inducing electrochemical pulses to the analysis of those pulses of
radiation by the host animal. How did all this complexity develop in
the blink of an eye?
Especially confounding is the current similarity of the genes that
regulate the initiation of eye formation among all five phyla that
have visual systems. Were there in the fossil record any hint of a
common ancestor of these five phyla that showed a nascent eye, the
similarity would be explained as having arisen in that earlier animal.
But there is no animal, let alone an animal with a primitive eye,
prior to these eye-bearing fossils. Random reactions could never have
reproduced this complex physiological gene twice over, let alone five
times over independently. Somehow it was preprogrammed. This
inexplicable complexity arises over and over again."
************
I bet you weren't told much about the lack of continuity in the fossil
record when you did biology at school or college.
8888888888888888
From "Answers to Questions" by FF Bruce - On the "Septuagint" -
"... We now have from last two or three centuries BC copies of Hebrew
Scripture repsenting both teh ancestor and also the form of text which
the Septuagint translators had before them, so that a more precise
assessment of their relative worth can be made than was formerly
possible."
So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is firmly
grounded in history.
Whether you believe the claims are another thing, but trying to write
it off as having the same historical reality as a fable is pure
uninformed prejudice, not reason.
I don't find the topic particularly exciting myself, since I am
convinced that no matter how many theologians we have, there is not
going to be a revival or renewed interest in Christianity based on the
number of Bible Colleges for example, or how much money is spent on
them.
But the fact is that the historical claims of the Bible scholars stand
scrutiny.
Bob Crowley.
ZenIsWhen
"Bob Crowley" <bobcr...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.04020...@posting.google.com...
news:<1024c7a...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > IOW ..... all you have to do to believe in the religon of the bible - is
to
> > believe the bible and the fairy tales it bellows.
>
> Well, the following rhetorical question is strictly non-Biblical and
> cannot be found anywhere that I know about on ancient scrolls, yet it
> still requires explanation.
>
> Q. What is white and yellow and lies on the bottom of the Sea of
> Galilee?
>
> A. An atheist with slashed floaties.
You're off your meds again ............ aren't you!?!?!?!
>
> A couple of quotes you may find interesting.
>
> From "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder.
>
> Page 121 in my version - "And then with no hint in the underlying
> (older) fossil's, an explosion of complex animal fossils appears
> bearing the basic anatomical structures of all phyla extant today. It
> is waht is termed by the scientific community the Cambrian explosion
> of animal life. Among those structures are eyes. The earliest eyes
> arrived with stereoscopic positioning, and with lenses that by their
> fossilised shape appear optically perfect for seeing in water, the
> habitat of those early animals. We just struggled through the
> complexity of vision, from the conversion of incoming radiation
> inducing electrochemical pulses to the analysis of those pulses of
> radiation by the host animal. How did all this complexity develop in
> the blink of an eye?
It didn't, and theire's no evidence it did.
The Cambrian "explosion" was NOT overnight .. it still lasted one hell of a
long time!
Most life forms BEFORE the Cambrian explosion were of soft tissue that
doesn't fossilize.
T%he evideence we have (which is probably rarer that fossiles themselves, is
IMPRINTS left in sandstone.and shale.
There was no discovery of totally functioning "eyes" without evidence of
"eye precursors". That's a blatant lie/distortion!
Quotes/lies from creationists are a dime a dozen ......... and worth
less!!!!
>
> Especially confounding is the current similarity of the genes that
> regulate the initiation of eye formation among all five phyla that
> have visual systems. Were there in the fossil record any hint of a
> common ancestor of these five phyla that showed a nascent eye, the
> similarity would be explained as having arisen in that earlier animal.
> But there is no animal, let alone an animal with a primitive eye,
> prior to these eye-bearing fossils. Random reactions could never have
> reproduced this complex physiological gene twice over, let alone five
> times over independently. Somehow it was preprogrammed. This
> inexplicable complexity arises over and over again."
>
> ************
>
> I bet you weren't told much about the lack of continuity in the fossil
> record when you did biology at school or college.
Because my science teacher was a real scientist, and taught REAL science -
not a fantical ignorant fraudulent creationist!
BTW ... in which peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC JOURLNAL is the above information
published?
The answer is NONE. It's a BOOK written by a creationist, with NO scientific
validity or support.
>
> From "Answers to Questions" by FF Bruce - On the "Septuagint" -
> "... We now have from last two or three centuries BC copies of Hebrew
> Scripture repsenting both teh ancestor and also the form of text which
> the Septuagint translators had before them, so that a more precise
> assessment of their relative worth can be made than was formerly
> possible."
>
> So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
> research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is firmly
> grounded in history.
Wrong agaian.
Even Hebw scholars, recently, have discovered that the Moses, and Solomon,
and David (as described in the bible, NEVER EXISTED!
The Jews were merely one of MANY ancient nomadic tribes that inhabited the
area around the eastern Mediterranian - they NEVER wee captive slaves in
Egypt.
>
> Whether you believe the claims are another thing, but trying to write
> it off as having the same historical reality as a fable is pure
> uninformed prejudice, not reason.
i write them off because I get my scientyific information from valaid
scientific sources - not idiotic creationist web sites!
>
> I don't find the topic particularly exciting myself, since I am
> convinced that no matter how many theologians we have, there is not
> going to be a revival or renewed interest in Christianity based on the
> number of Bible Colleges for example, or how much money is spent on
> them.
>
> But the fact is that the historical claims of the Bible scholars stand
> scrutiny.
No. The fact is VALID (even religious) hisorians are finding many faults
within the bible's fairy tales!
Libertarius
Bob Crowley wrote:
===>Obviously it was the work of superintelligent extraterrestrials
who must have evolved elsewhere millions of years ago.
>
>
> 8888888888888888
>
> From "Answers to Questions" by FF Bruce - On the "Septuagint" -
> "... We now have from last two or three centuries BC copies of Hebrew
> Scripture repsenting both teh ancestor and also the form of text which
> the Septuagint translators had before them, so that a more precise
> assessment of their relative worth can be made than was formerly
> possible."
>
> So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
> research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is firmly
> grounded in history.
===>Look up the word BALONEY (you might also check out
BUNKUM).
Read the book: THE BIBLE UNEARTHED:
Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel
and the Origin of Sacred Texts
[Secure Mobipocket/Microsoft
Reader/Adobe Reader 6.0.1]
by Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman
Description: Is the Bible true? For the last hundred and fifty
years a war has been waged over the historical reliability of the
Hebrew scriptures. Recent dramatic discoveries of biblical archaeology
have cast serious doubt on the familiar account of ancient Israel and
the origins of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Though the Bible credits Abraham as the first
human to realize there is only one God, we now know that there is no evidence for
monotheism for many centuries after the reported time of Abraham. Nor is there any
archaeological evidence for the Exodus, for Joshua's conquest of Canaan,
or for the vast "united monarchy" of David and
Solomon. In The Bible Unearthed two leading scholars, an archaeologist and a historian,
combine an exhilarating tour of the field of biblical archaeology with a fascinating explanation
of how and why the Bible's historical saga differs so dramatically
from the archaeological finds. They explain what the Bible says about
ancient Israel and show how it diverges sharply from
archaeological reality. They then offer a dramatic new version of the
history of ancient Israel, bringing archaeological evidence
to bear on the question of when, where, and why the Bible was first
written. What do we know about the time of the ancient
patriarchs? When did monotheism first arise? When and where did
the first Israelites appear? How did the people of Israel
first come to occupy the Promised Land? How extensive was
David and Solomon's kingdom? When and why did Jerusalem
become the capital of ancient Israel? All of these questions have
new answers. As to why the answers are so new, Finkelstein
and Silberman draw on evidence from decades of archaeological work
and dozens of digs in Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon,
and Syria, to explain that the key early books of the Bible were first
codified in the seventh century BCE, hundreds of years
after the core events of the lives of the patriarchs, the Exodus from
Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan were said to have
taken place. Yet the ultimate message of The Bible Unearthed is not
just a correction of the record. Instead, it is a unique and
fascinating explanation of the origins of the Bible. The Bible's newly
identified authors, threatened with political crisis and the
intimidation of nearby empires, crafted a brilliant document, a set of
stories and teachings that would eventually appeal to the
faithful beyond the boundaries of any particular kingdom.
The Bible Unearthed will forever change how you think about the
world's greatest book."
(http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook9494.htm)
> Whether you believe the claims are another thing, but trying to write
> it off as having the same historical reality as a fable is pure
> uninformed prejudice, not reason.
===>IGNORANT BOASTFUL ASSERTIONS!
Rejecting the conclusions of scientific inquiry is what is
"pure prejudice", what I call DOCTRINAL PREJUDICE,
which puts a mental block in your head.
> I don't find the topic particularly exciting myself, since I am
> convinced that no matter how many theologians we have, there is not
> going to be a revival or renewed interest in Christianity based on the
> number of Bible Colleges for example, or how much money is spent on
> them.
>
> But the fact is that the historical claims of the Bible scholars stand
> scrutiny.
===>And they have been SCRUTINIZED and found to be FABLES.
Libertarius
============
Libertarius
ZenIsWhen wrote:
===>FRUITFUL LIES!
Gerald Schroeder is a LIAR who makes his money by supporting
creationist ignorance. Creationists will grasp at every piece of straw in
an effort to overcome their COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, realizing
that what they BELIEVE has no connection with what is really KNOWN
to have HAPPENED.
> > Especially confounding is the current similarity of the genes that
> > regulate the initiation of eye formation among all five phyla that
> > have visual systems. Were there in the fossil record any hint of a
> > common ancestor of these five phyla that showed a nascent eye, the
> > similarity would be explained as having arisen in that earlier animal.
> > But there is no animal, let alone an animal with a primitive eye,
> > prior to these eye-bearing fossils. Random reactions could never have
> > reproduced this complex physiological gene twice over, let alone five
> > times over independently. Somehow it was preprogrammed. This
> > inexplicable complexity arises over and over again."
> >
> > ************
> >
> > I bet you weren't told much about the lack of continuity in the fossil
> > record when you did biology at school or college.
>
> Because my science teacher was a real scientist, and taught REAL science -
> not a fantical ignorant fraudulent creationist!
>
> BTW ... in which peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC JOURLNAL is the above information
> published?
> The answer is NONE. It's a BOOK written by a creationist, with NO scientific
> validity or support.
===>But ignoramuses pay him good money for his support of their
doctrinal prejudices!
> > From "Answers to Questions" by FF Bruce - On the "Septuagint" -
> > "... We now have from last two or three centuries BC copies of Hebrew
> > Scripture repsenting both teh ancestor and also the form of text which
> > the Septuagint translators had before them, so that a more precise
> > assessment of their relative worth can be made than was formerly
> > possible."
> >
> > So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
> > research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is firmly
> > grounded in history.
>
> Wrong agaian.
> Even Hebw scholars, recently, have discovered that the Moses, and Solomon,
> and David (as described in the bible, NEVER EXISTED!
> The Jews were merely one of MANY ancient nomadic tribes that inhabited the
> area around the eastern Mediterranian - they NEVER wee captive slaves in
> Egypt.
===>In part they expropriated the experiences of the HYKSOS to
themselves as if the HYKSOS -- a Semite dynasty that ruled Egypt
from about the 18th to the 16th century B.C. and kicked out
of Egypt about the time of the supposed "Exodus" --
were Israelites and their ancestors.
Read:
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED: Archaeology's New Vision of
Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
Libertarius
============
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> How did all this complexity develop in
> the blink of an eye?
It didn't.
Next!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
Steve Makohin
[snip]
> A couple of quotes you may find interesting.
>
> From "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder.
>
> Page 121 in my version - "And then with no hint in the underlying
> (older) fossil's, an explosion of complex animal fossils appears
> bearing the basic anatomical structures of all phyla extant today. It
> is waht is termed by the scientific community the Cambrian explosion
> of animal life. Among those structures are eyes. The earliest eyes
> arrived with stereoscopic positioning, and with lenses that by their
> fossilised shape appear optically perfect for seeing in water, the
> habitat of those early animals. We just struggled through the
> complexity of vision, from the conversion of incoming radiation
> inducing electrochemical pulses to the analysis of those pulses of
> radiation by the host animal. How did all this complexity develop in
> the blink of an eye?
[snip]
The short answer is, it didn't. At least, not in the blinking of a
deity's eye.
The "Cambrian explosion", as some refer to it, took many millions of
years to do its bit, as opposed to the suggested "blink of an eye"
Gerald Schroeder proposes above. Give living organism as few dozen
million years to evolve, and you'll be amazed at what turns up! It
took humans only about 3 millions years to evolve from tree-dwelling
ape-like things to what we now refer to as "modern man," and yet there
are those amongst us who can't even conceive that relatively small
change as compared to those that took place over a longer period of
time during the Cambrian period.
FYI, the Cambrian period lasted approximately 50 million years in
duration. To help people understand how incredibly slow and long that
"explosion" was, if an detonation took place in San Francisco and its
shock wave took 50 million years to reach New York City, it would be
traveling at a little under 3 1/4 inches per year. That's hardly a
hardly a "blink and you'll miss it" phenomenon.
Personal Note: I am flabbergasted how a regular guy like me, who has
never heard of the "Cambrian explosion" before today, was able to
quickly and readily get access to information from a multitude of
sources that helped me understand what the phenomenon was all about.
Well, actually, that's not all that surprising considering all readers
of this message have access to the 'Net. What *is* surprising is that
theistic *experts* don't have access to the same information, or they
have highly-developed skills at filtering out facts so as to not
contradict their own beliefs.
-Steve Makohin | Reply to wate...@interlog.com
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
Justin_Martyr2000
Why do the nations rage so furiously together?
David V.
>
> Why do the nations rage so furiously together?
Religions such as the christian one. When the christians
come up against a religion as equally arrogant as theirs,
they have to fight about it. The followers of this "god of
love" love to kill those that don't believe.
Bob Crowley
>
> You're off your meds again ............ aren't you!?!?!?!
>
establishment. However it does get depressing arguing with all these
atheists at times, who cannot accept a miracle like turning water into
wine, but who have no problem accepting that all the various forms
within the universe are the manipulation of atoms made up of 3 basic
particles, and who would probably agree with the "fact" the universe
started as "nothing" or something very small.
So maybe I'll have to increase my dose.
>
> It didn't, and theire's no evidence it did.
> The Cambrian "explosion" was NOT overnight .. it still lasted one hell of a
> long time!
> Most life forms BEFORE the Cambrian explosion were of soft tissue that
> doesn't fossilize.
> T%he evideence we have (which is probably rarer that fossiles themselves, is
> IMPRINTS left in sandstone.and shale.
> There was no discovery of totally functioning "eyes" without evidence of
> "eye precursors". That's a blatant lie/distortion!
So where is the evidence of eye precursors, and how did bone evolve,
with no predecessor in these soft tissue animals that you write about?
Where did joints come from? How did dolphins, which supposedly are
too weak by a factor of seven to achieve the speeds they do, figure
out how to get their otherwise "impossible" bursts of speed? Where
did warm and cold blood come from? Where is the link between reptiles
and mammals?
There are a lot of answers I'd require before I would totally accept
an evolutionary point of view. I accept species differentiation, and
I can accept the idea of survival of the fittest, as demonstrated by
some disease causing agents becoming resistant to drugs or chemicals
by an almost perfect parabolic curve. But what intrigues me about the
initial resistance of the first generation is that they somehow had an
inbuilt resistance prepared for something of which they had no
previous experience.
> Quotes/lies from creationists are a dime a dozen ......... and worth
> less!!!!
You can argue that with the creationists. I know of a couple who
could run you into the floor in their respective fields of scientific
qualifications. The problem comes about when non qualified
enthusiasts try to take on qualified opponents, but that is the same
in any field of endeavour.
>
> Because my science teacher was a real scientist, and taught REAL science -
> not a fantical ignorant fraudulent creationist!
Then maybe he could have been a purveryor of absolute truth, and said
"While there is abundant evidence for evolution in the fossil record,
there are significant and puzzling anomalies". But did he say that?
> BTW ... in which peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC JOURLNAL is the above information
> published?
> The answer is NONE. It's a BOOK written by a creationist, with NO scientific
> validity or support.
I don't know if it was reviewed or not. I do know that scientists
must all publish or co-publish a thesis at least before they get their
qualifications. Therefore scientists who believe in Creationism are
still scientists.
> > So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
> > research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is firmly
> > grounded in history.
>
> Wrong agaian.
> Even Hebw scholars, recently, have discovered that the Moses, and Solomon,
> and David (as described in the bible, NEVER EXISTED!
> The Jews were merely one of MANY ancient nomadic tribes that inhabited the
> area around the eastern Mediterranian - they NEVER wee captive slaves in
> Egypt.
I accept that Solomon may never have existed. I'll leave it to the
experts to argue this one out over time, but I suspect we're going to
find more discoveries yet that push the arguement the other way. This
sort of mythical background to the Bible came up in the early 19th
century also I think, but further discoveries went the way of the
Bible.
I'll wait.
If there was no house of David, where did Jerusalem's importance to
the Jews come from?
> > Whether you believe the claims are another thing, but trying to write
> > it off as having the same historical reality as a fable is pure
> > uninformed prejudice, not reason.
>
> i write them off because I get my scientyific information from valaid
> scientific sources - not idiotic creationist web sites!
>
The main claim of the Bible, the Christian Bible that is (the Jewish
Bible is basically the Old Testament), is that Christ is the New
Covenant. This single man will one day judge the lot of us. Now that
will never be proven by science.
It will depend on faith, and I can tell you that having sat on both
sides of the fence, the way you look at "science" will depend on your
spiritual mindset in the first place.
>
> No. The fact is VALID (even religious) hisorians are finding many faults
> within the bible's fairy tales!
I've had too many experiences now to accept that the Bible is fairy
tale. Being a Christian can however be very discouraging, which I
believe is in at least part due to spiritual opposition.
If I have a problem with Christianity, it is that the God of
Abraham,Isaac and Jacob can make a universe from nothing, with
creation ranging from black holes at one end, to an outstandingly
friendly environment on the earth, and man and the butterfly at the
other, yet be so weak in human affairs as to be pushed out of the
world on a cross. He allows his church to be divided from within
twice times, with violent repercussions on both occasions. His people
have been massacred and martyred down the centuries (particularly the
Jews, and particularly Christians last century), and He seems to give
His enemies a lot of power in human affairs. That is the puzzle I
have with it.
Bob Crowley.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>"ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<10279it...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>
>> You're off your meds again ............ aren't you!?!?!?!
>>
>I admit I take Prozac for depression, as recommended by the secular
>establishment. However it does get depressing arguing with all these
>atheists at times, who cannot accept a miracle like turning water into
>wine, but who have no problem accepting that all the various forms
>within the universe are the manipulation of atoms made up of 3 basic
>particles, and who would probably agree with the "fact" the universe
>started as "nothing" or something very small.
>
>So maybe I'll have to increase my dose.
>
Perhaps.
>>
>> It didn't, and theire's no evidence it did.
>> The Cambrian "explosion" was NOT overnight .. it still lasted one hell of a
>> long time!
>> Most life forms BEFORE the Cambrian explosion were of soft tissue that
>> doesn't fossilize.
>> T%he evideence we have (which is probably rarer that fossiles themselves, is
>> IMPRINTS left in sandstone.and shale.
>> There was no discovery of totally functioning "eyes" without evidence of
>> "eye precursors". That's a blatant lie/distortion!
>
>So where is the evidence of eye precursors, and how did bone evolve,
Trilobites.
>with no predecessor in these soft tissue animals that you write about?
Cartilage.
> Where did joints come from? How did dolphins, which supposedly are
What do you mean "Where did joints evolved from?"
>too weak by a factor of seven to achieve the speeds they do, figure
>out how to get their otherwise "impossible" bursts of speed? Where
>did warm and cold blood come from? Where is the link between reptiles
>and mammals?
That is such a bizzare assertion (dolphins) that I assume it is an
outright lie, either deriving from ignorance (deliberate, or
inadvertant), or deception.
>
>There are a lot of answers I'd require before I would totally accept
>an evolutionary point of view. I accept species differentiation, and
So you do accept evolution.
>I can accept the idea of survival of the fittest, as demonstrated by
>some disease causing agents becoming resistant to drugs or chemicals
>by an almost perfect parabolic curve. But what intrigues me about the
>initial resistance of the first generation is that they somehow had an
>inbuilt resistance prepared for something of which they had no
>previous experience.
That statement makes no sense.
There is no such thing as "the first generation".
It is a continuum.
>
>> Quotes/lies from creationists are a dime a dozen ......... and worth
>> less!!!!
>
>You can argue that with the creationists. I know of a couple who
>could run you into the floor in their respective fields of scientific
>qualifications. The problem comes about when non qualified
>enthusiasts try to take on qualified opponents, but that is the same
>in any field of endeavour.
List them, and their qualifications, with references.
You should already know mine.
I would welcome an open debate with them.
>>
>> Because my science teacher was a real scientist, and taught REAL science -
>> not a fantical ignorant fraudulent creationist!
>
>Then maybe he could have been a purveryor of absolute truth, and said
>"While there is abundant evidence for evolution in the fossil record,
>there are significant and puzzling anomalies". But did he say that?
>
>> BTW ... in which peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC JOURLNAL is the above information
>> published?
>> The answer is NONE. It's a BOOK written by a creationist, with NO scientific
>> validity or support.
>
>I don't know if it was reviewed or not. I do know that scientists
>must all publish or co-publish a thesis at least before they get their
>qualifications. Therefore scientists who believe in Creationism are
>still scientists.
Agreed.
Delusional scientists, just as their are crazy Teachers, loopy
doctors, etc.
Being a Scientist doesn't protect one from being infected by mind
viruses completely.
>> > So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
>> > research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is firmly
>> > grounded in history.
>>
>> Wrong agaian.
>> Even Hebw scholars, recently, have discovered that the Moses, and Solomon,
>> and David (as described in the bible, NEVER EXISTED!
>> The Jews were merely one of MANY ancient nomadic tribes that inhabited the
>> area around the eastern Mediterranian - they NEVER wee captive slaves in
>> Egypt.
>
>I accept that Solomon may never have existed. I'll leave it to the
>experts to argue this one out over time, but I suspect we're going to
>find more discoveries yet that push the arguement the other way. This
>sort of mythical background to the Bible came up in the early 19th
>century also I think, but further discoveries went the way of the
>Bible.
Argument from ignorance.
>I'll wait.
>
>If there was no house of David, where did Jerusalem's importance to
>the Jews come from?
Land values.
>> > Whether you believe the claims are another thing, but trying to write
>> > it off as having the same historical reality as a fable is pure
>> > uninformed prejudice, not reason.
>>
>> i write them off because I get my scientyific information from valaid
>> scientific sources - not idiotic creationist web sites!
>>
>The main claim of the Bible, the Christian Bible that is (the Jewish
>Bible is basically the Old Testament), is that Christ is the New
>Covenant. This single man will one day judge the lot of us. Now that
>will never be proven by science.
You are correct.
>It will depend on faith, and I can tell you that having sat on both
>sides of the fence, the way you look at "science" will depend on your
>spiritual mindset in the first place.
Faith: fervent belief directly defying evidence.
>> No. The fact is VALID (even religious) hisorians are finding many faults
>> within the bible's fairy tales!
>
>I've had too many experiences now to accept that the Bible is fairy
>tale. Being a Christian can however be very discouraging, which I
>believe is in at least part due to spiritual opposition.
>If I have a problem with Christianity, it is that the God of
>Abraham,Isaac and Jacob can make a universe from nothing, with
>creation ranging from black holes at one end, to an outstandingly
>friendly environment on the earth, and man and the butterfly at the
>other, yet be so weak in human affairs as to be pushed out of the
>world on a cross. He allows his church to be divided from within
>twice times, with violent repercussions on both occasions. His people
>have been massacred and martyred down the centuries (particularly the
>Jews, and particularly Christians last century), and He seems to give
>His enemies a lot of power in human affairs. That is the puzzle I
>have with it.
>
>Bob Crowley.
The only puzzle is why people invent these beings to torment
themselves, and others
Your puzzle would be entirely solved if you assumed the god(s) of
which you spake were imaginary.
Entirely.
Libertarius
Bob Crowley wrote:
> "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<10279it...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > You're off your meds again ............ aren't you!?!?!?!
> >
> I admit I take Prozac for depression, as recommended by the secular
> establishment. However it does get depressing arguing with all these
> atheists at times, who cannot accept a miracle like turning water into
> wine, but who have no problem accepting that all the various forms
> within the universe are the manipulation of atoms made up of 3 basic
> particles, and who would probably agree with the "fact" the universe
> started as "nothing" or something very small.
===>It is BIBLICISTS who believe the universe started with "nothing".
As did their "God", apparently.
FAITH IS A SACERDOTALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE
=============================================
Libertarius
"David V." wrote:
===>FAITH IS A SACERDOTALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE.
Elroy Willis
> FAITH IS A SACERDOTALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE
Is this your new mantra?
It sounds like one I heard before:
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
David V.
>> you!?!?!?!
>
> I admit I take Prozac for depression, as recommended by
> the secular establishment. However it does get
> depressing arguing with all these atheists at times,
Try using logic instead of bible quotes.
> who cannot accept a miracle like turning water into wine,
It never happened. The bible is a myth, not an account of
history.
> but who have no problem accepting that all the various
> forms within the universe are the manipulation of atoms
> made up of 3 basic particles, and who would probably
> agree with the "fact" the universe started as "nothing"
> or something very small.
There's evidence for all that. No evidence for some
mythological character turning water into wine.
>> It didn't, and theire's no evidence it did. The
>> Cambrian "explosion" was NOT overnight .. it still
>> lasted one hell of a long time! Most life forms BEFORE
>> the Cambrian explosion were of soft tissue that doesn't
>> fossilize. T%he evideence we have (which is probably
>> rarer that fossiles themselves, is IMPRINTS left in
>> sandstone.and shale. There was no discovery of totally
>> functioning "eyes" without evidence of "eye
>> precursors". That's a blatant lie/distortion!
>
> So where is the evidence of eye precursors....
You would find those precursors if you bothered to take a
few biology classes and actually get educated on the topic.
>> Quotes/lies from creationists are a dime a dozen
>> ......... and worth less!!!!
>
> You can argue that with the creationists. I know of a
> couple who could run you into the floor in their
> respective fields of scientific qualifications. The
> problem comes about when non qualified enthusiasts try to
> take on qualified opponents, but that is the same in any
> field of endeavour.
So, you're saying that you, obviously non qualified in the
field of biology, are trying to tell those that are
qualified in the field that they are wrong?
>> Because my science teacher was a real scientist, and
>> taught REAL science - not a fantical ignorant
>> fraudulent creationist!
>
>
> Then maybe he could have been a purveryor of absolute
> truth, and said "While there is abundant evidence for
> evolution in the fossil record, there are significant and
> puzzling anomalies". But did he say that?
That would be a lie, like your bible is a lie. If you were
qualified in the field of biology you would see exactly how
your "significant and puzzling anomalies" are a lie.
>> BTW ... in which peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC JOURLNAL is
>> the above information published? The answer is NONE.
>> It's a BOOK written by a creationist, with NO
>> scientific validity or support.
>
> I don't know if it was reviewed or not....
If it's not reviewed they can make any false claims they
want. And they have no problems making those false claims.
They even have no problem lying about their qualifications.
The majority of the "scientists" at CRI have no degrees or
degrees from non accredited schools.
>>> So what, you say? The point I am making here is that
>>> a lot of research has been done into the Bible over
>>> the years, and it is firmly grounded in history.
>>
>> Wrong agaian. Even Hebw scholars, recently, have
>> discovered that the Moses, and Solomon, and David (as
>> described in the bible, NEVER EXISTED! The Jews were
>> merely one of MANY ancient nomadic tribes that
>> inhabited the area around the eastern Mediterranian -
>> they NEVER wee captive slaves in Egypt.
>
>
> I accept that Solomon may never have existed.....
It doesn't matter what you accept. All those characters are
just part of the myth. They never existed.
> If there was no house of David, where did Jerusalem's
> importance to the Jews come from?
A mythology.
>>> Whether you believe the claims are another thing, but
>>> trying to write it off as having the same historical
>>> reality as a fable is pure uninformed prejudice, not
>>> reason.
>>
>> i write them off because I get my scientyific
>> information from valaid scientific sources - not
>> idiotic creationist web sites!
>
> The main claim of the Bible....
Is that a god exists and this loving god will punish you for
all eternity if you don't kiss it's ass.
>> No. The fact is VALID (even religious) hisorians are
>> finding many faults within the bible's fairy tales!
>
> I've had too many experiences now to accept that the
> Bible is fairy tale....
Those "experiences" are just part of your addiction.
Libertarius
Elroy Willis wrote:
> Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > FAITH IS A SACERDOTALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE
>
> Is this your new mantra?
>
> It sounds like one I heard before:
>
> "Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
===>That is also a good one. -- L.
jorge
The need to endlessly go around in circles about the existence of a creator
that caused us to exist as if we werent created when we know that tomarrow
or in the future what exists after us will be a part of what we created today
and etc. The need for the conversation probably lies in the area of social-
psychology where the game is stroke me and I will stroke you.
Justin_Martyr2000
> Justin_Martyr2000 wrote:
> >
> > Why do the nations rage so furiously together?
>
> Religions such as the christian one. When the christians
> come up against a religion as equally arrogant as theirs,
> they have to fight about it. The followers of this "god of
> love" love to kill those that don't believe.
I think that you are confusing the Koran with the Bible.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Justin_Martyr2000 wrote:
>>
>>> Why do the nations rage so furiously together?
>>
>> Religions such as the christian one. When the
>> christians come up against a religion as equally
>> arrogant as theirs, they have to fight about it. The
>> followers of this "god of love" love to kill those that
>> don't believe.
>
> I think that you are confusing the Koran with the Bible.
Then you should educate yourself on the topic before you
make that mistake again.
stoney
Message ID: <adff117.04020...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>"ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<10279it...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>
>> You're off your meds again ............ aren't you!?!?!?!
>>
>I admit I take Prozac for depression, as recommended by the secular
>establishment. However it does get depressing arguing with all these
>atheists at times, who cannot accept a miracle like turning water into
>wine,
What about you accepting Dorothy in the "Wizard of Oz" really really
*did* translocate back to Kansas by clicking her heels together thrice
and chanting an incantation?
Your 'water into wine' is no different than what Dorothy did. What
objective evidence do you utilize to accept one and not the other?
>but who have no problem accepting that all the various forms
>within the universe are the manipulation of atoms made up of 3 basic
>particles, and who would probably agree with the "fact" the universe
>started as "nothing" or something very small.
Objective supporting evidence trumps malevolent superstitions like
Christianity.
However, whether the universe came from a singularity or was a
by-product from Odin eating too many pickled eggs is immaterial.
Neither have the slightest impact on my life. That's something you are
totally unable to grasp. Let me say it again-"It does not matter."
>So maybe I'll have to increase my dose.
So you aren't a Christian then. I have no problem with that.
I haven't seen any sign of you following the below instruction:
1 Thessalonians 5 (KJV)
18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God
in Christ Jesus concerning you.
Nor have I seen any sign of you following this instruction either:
Mark 16 (kjv)
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.
(snip)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Ron Peterson
> If I have a problem with Christianity, it is that the God of
> Abraham,Isaac and Jacob can make a universe from nothing, with
> creation ranging from black holes at one end, to an outstandingly
> friendly environment on the earth, and man and the butterfly at the
> other, yet be so weak in human affairs as to be pushed out of the
> world on a cross. He allows his church to be divided from within
> twice times, with violent repercussions on both occasions. His people
> have been massacred and martyred down the centuries (particularly the
> Jews, and particularly Christians last century), and He seems to give
> His enemies a lot of power in human affairs. That is the puzzle I
> have with it.
Why do you have to believe in miracles to believe in the messages of
Jesus?
Why do you have to believe that Jesus is more than a man to believe in
the messages of Jesus?
--
Ron
Justin_Martyr2000
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Justin_Martyr2000 wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Justin_Martyr2000 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do the nations rage so furiously together?
>>>>
>>>> Religions such as the christian one. When the
>>>> christians come up against a religion as equally
>>>> arrogant as theirs, they have to fight about it.
>>>> The followers of this "god of love" love to kill
>>>> those that don't believe.
>>>
>>> I think that you are confusing the Koran with the
>>> Bible.
>>
>> Then you should educate yourself on the topic before
>> you make that mistake again.
>
> Think much?
Obviously more than you do.
ZenIsWhen
"jorge" <nutra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae493494.0402...@posting.google.com...
> bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley) wrote in message
news:<adff117.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenI...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:<10279it...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > >
> > > You're off your meds again ............ aren't you!?!?!?!
> > >
> > I admit I take Prozac for depression, as recommended by the secular
> > establishment. However it does get depressing arguing with all these
> > atheists at times,
Too bad they don't have a medication for blatant ignorance. Then you'd be
able to comprehend the FACT that science and athiesm are NOT connected!
who cannot accept a miracle like turning water into
> > wine, but who have no problem accepting that all the various forms
> > within the universe are the manipulation of atoms made up of 3 basic
> > particles,
We accept things that are based on evidence - not religious fables and fairy
tales.
and who would probably agree with the "fact" the universe
> > started as "nothing" or something very small.
Why not?
That's where the evidence leads!
> >
> > So maybe I'll have to increase my dose.
> >
> > >
> > > It didn't, and theire's no evidence it did.
> > > The Cambrian "explosion" was NOT overnight .. it still lasted one hell
of a
> > > long time!
> > > Most life forms BEFORE the Cambrian explosion were of soft tissue that
> > > doesn't fossilize.
> > > T%he evideence we have (which is probably rarer that fossiles
themselves, is
> > > IMPRINTS left in sandstone.and shale.
> > > There was no discovery of totally functioning "eyes" without evidence
of
> > > "eye precursors". That's a blatant lie/distortion!
> >
> > So where is the evidence of eye precursors, and how did bone evolve,
Go to your loccal library and find out.
I gave up on the whole concept of teaching REAL science to ignorant
creationists a long time ago!
> > with no predecessor in these soft tissue animals that you write about?
> > Where did joints come from? How did dolphins, which supposedly are
> > too weak by a factor of seven to achieve the speeds they do, figure
> > out how to get their otherwise "impossible" bursts of speed? Where
> > did warm and cold blood come from? Where is the link between reptiles
> > and mammals?
Asking questions ( whether I, or science, can, answer them or not) does NOT
defend your ignorant position and claims!
> >
> > There are a lot of answers I'd require before I would totally accept
> > an evolutionary point of view.
No one really give a flying fuck about your level of ignorance.
BTW .. why would it take so much to accept evolution, while you accept bible
fables, fantasies and fairy tales without ONE shred of evidence?
I accept species differentiation, and
> > I can accept the idea of survival of the fittest, as demonstrated by
> > some disease causing agents becoming resistant to drugs or chemicals
> > by an almost perfect parabolic curve. But what intrigues me about the
> > initial resistance of the first generation is that they somehow had an
> > inbuilt resistance prepared for something of which they had no
> > previous experience.
Prepared?
Once again you rely on standard ignorance of real science as spouted by mere
creationists fanatics.
> >
> > > Quotes/lies from creationists are a dime a dozen ......... and worth
> > > less!!!!
> >
> > You can argue that with the creationists. I know of a couple who
> > could run you into the floor in their respective fields of scientific
> > qualifications.
So what?
"Creationism" isnlt a scientific field ... and they can't even fool a
competant high school graduate in that arena.
The problem comes about when non qualified
> > enthusiasts try to take on qualified opponents, but that is the same
> > in any field of endeavour.
> >
> > >
> > > Because my science teacher was a real scientist, and taught REAL
science -
> > > not a fantical ignorant fraudulent creationist!
> >
> > Then maybe he could have been a purveryor of absolute truth, and said
> > "While there is abundant evidence for evolution in the fossil record,
> > there are significant and puzzling anomalies". But did he say that?
Because no one knows EVEERYTHING THERE POSSIBLY IS to now about evolution.
If we evger did - then it would be classified as a LAW .. and not a theory!
> >
> > > BTW ... in which peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC JOURLNAL is the above
information
> > > published?
> > > The answer is NONE. It's a BOOK written by a creationist, with NO
scientific
> > > validity or support.
> >
> > I don't know if it was reviewed or not. I do know that scientists
> > must all publish or co-publish a thesis at least before they get their
> > qualifications. Therefore scientists who believe in Creationism are
> > still scientists.
But they are not "creationist" science, because creationism ISN'T a science!
> >
> > > > So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
> > > > research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is
firmly
> > > > grounded in history.
> > >
> > > Wrong agaian.
> > > Even Hebw scholars, recently, have discovered that the Moses, and
Solomon,
> > > and David (as described in the bible, NEVER EXISTED!
> > > The Jews were merely one of MANY ancient nomadic tribes that inhabited
the
> > > area around the eastern Mediterranian - they NEVER wee captive slaves
in
> > > Egypt.
> >
> > I accept that Solomon may never have existed. I'll leave it to the
> > experts to argue this one out over time, but I suspect we're going to
> > find more discoveries yet that push the arguement the other way. This
> > sort of mythical background to the Bible came up in the early 19th
> > century also I think, but further discoveries went the way of the
> > Bible.
You will never find ANY evidence to support the religous claims in the
bible.
While you MAY find out that Soddom and Gomorrah were destroyed - you'll
never find any evidence that "goddidit"!
> >
> > I'll wait.
> >
> > If there was no house of David, where did Jerusalem's importance to
> > the Jews come from?
I have no idea why the Jews reconstructed their own history.
You'll have to ask them that!
I DO know that archaeologist (from a unicversity IN Israel) are the ones who
found evidence contradicting the very OT they follw.
> >
> >
> > > > Whether you believe the claims are another thing, but trying to
write
> > > > it off as having the same historical reality as a fable is pure
> > > > uninformed prejudice, not reason.
> > >
> > > i write them off because I get my scientyific information from valaid
> > > scientific sources - not idiotic creationist web sites!
> > >
> > The main claim of the Bible, the Christian Bible that is (the Jewish
> > Bible is basically the Old Testament), is that Christ is the New
> > Covenant. This single man will one day judge the lot of us. Now that
> > will never be proven by science.
Then there is no reason to treat it as reality!
> >
> > It will depend on faith, and I can tell you that having sat on both
> > sides of the fence, the way you look at "science" will depend on your
> > spiritual mindset in the first place.
???????????????\
My spiritual mindset accepts reality (scientific reality).
The alternative is to deny reality in favor of delusional fairy tales.
> >
> > >
> > > No. The fact is VALID (even religious) hisorians are finding many
faults
> > > within the bible's fairy tales!
> >
> > I've had too many experiences now to accept that the Bible is fairy
> > tale. Being a Christian can however be very discouraging, which I
> > believe is in at least part due to spiritual opposition.
I've had too many experiences that show the bible is nothing more than a
bunch of ancient fables and fairy tales.
My experiences are based in fact .. yours, I would guess, would be based in
preconditioned delusions and wishful thinking.
Bob Crowley
> >
>with no predecessor in these soft tissue animals that you write
about?
> Cartilage.
Did those soft tissue animals have cartilege, or were they more like
jelly fish, since all they left behind were prints in rock. And this
brings up the next thing - most animals in my observation are no
slouches when it comes to finding food, dead or alive. Why then did
so many soft bodied animals leave behind their imprints since most of
them should have been scavenged and decomposed long before they had a
chance to become fossilised?
A quote from "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" by RL Wysong
(Probably the best resource book for a beginning creationist, as it
does not rely on Biblical quotes for its material, but rather on
scientific arguments.)
He is quoting from A.H. Clark "The New Evolution:Zoogenesis" 1930 -
".... throughout the fossil record these major groups remain
essentially unchanged... No matter how far back we go in the fossil
record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any
animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups
or phyla ... Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among
the living or the fossil animals, of any intermediate types following
the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been
any such intergrading types."
> > Where did joints come from? How did dolphins, which supposedly are
> What do you mean "Where did joints evolved from?"
If a single bodied animal develops bone, how does it "know" how to
divide the bone into articulate joints, since for example the
development of even a copy the human knee requires quite a lot of
engineering expertise.
> >too weak by a factor of seven to achieve the speeds they do, figure
> >out how to get their otherwise "impossible" bursts of speed? Where
> >did warm and cold blood come from? Where is the link between reptiles
> >and mammals?
> That is such a bizzare assertion (dolphins) that I assume it is an
> outright lie, either deriving from ignorance (deliberate, or
> inadvertant), or deception.
No, I read it somewhere in an article on robots. I don't remember
where, and it took me by surprise as well. But it was there.
Obviously there must be some way that they can overcome this
deficiency, as navies around the world would like to know, since it
would mean they could theoretically build robots as maneoverable and
varying in speed and direction as dolphins.
>There are a lot of answers I'd require before I would totally accept
> >an evolutionary point of view. I accept species differentiation, and
> So you do accept evolution.
>
> >I can accept the idea of survival of the fittest, as demonstrated by
> >some disease causing agents becoming resistant to drugs or chemicals
> >by an almost perfect parabolic curve. But what intrigues me about the
> >initial resistance of the first generation is that they somehow had an
> >inbuilt resistance prepared for something of which they had no
> >previous experience.
> That statement makes no sense.
> There is no such thing as "the first generation".
> It is a continuum.
What I meant was the "first generation" of the organism exposed to a
new drug for example. Prior to that they have had no previous
experience as the drug is a man made one and therefore artificial, and
does not occur in nature. It turns out very effective against the
first generation, but by some uncanny coincidence a small percentage
have an inbuilt resistance, already "designed in" to prevent our
easily ridding ourselves of these pests.
Incidentally the fact a bacterium becomes resistant to a man made drug
does not mean it is on its inevitable evolutionary way to becoming a
human.
> Delusional scientists, just as their are crazy Teachers, loopy
> doctors, etc.
> Being a Scientist doesn't protect one from being infected by mind
> viruses completely.
Ergo, unless they agree with your particular viewpoint on this issue,
they are delusional?
> >> > So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
> >> > research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is firmly
> >> > grounded in history.
> >>
>
> >I'll wait.
> >
> >If there was no house of David, where did Jerusalem's importance to
> >the Jews come from?
> Land values
That's a modern spin on an old conundrum. Solomon and Sons Real
Estate.
> >>
> >The main claim of the Bible, the Christian Bible that is (the Jewish
> >Bible is basically the Old Testament), is that Christ is the New
> >Covenant. This single man will one day judge the lot of us. Now that
> >will never be proven by science.
> You are correct.
>
Somebody esle quoted a book on the Bible by two authors, one of whom
was Neil Silberman, I think. I have a copy of one of his books "The
Hidden Scrolls" which I have not read yet. It is about the society
behind the Dead Sea Scrolls.
To weaken my own case on the surface, I found in the index - "Jesus of
Nazareth, lack of corroborating evidence for" and looked up the
reference -
"We might be inclined to dismiss such a heretical version of the birth
of Christianity and its complete mythologisation of a person named
Jesus were it not for the fact that there is precious little external
corroborating evidence for the version conveyed in the New Testament
and the historical works of the Church Fathers. Rabbinic references
to Jesus are cryptic and largely polemical; a single paragraph in Book
XVIII of Josephus Flavius's Jewish Antiquities has been heavily edited
by Christian scribes and has long been suspected of being entirely
contrived. Archaelogical evidence is enlightening as background, but
largely circumstantial. While excavations have provided much new
information on life in Judea and the Galilee in the Hellenistic and
Roman periods, definitive contemporary evidence of only two people who
have played a significant role in the life of Jesus has ever been
found: in 1961, at the ancient port of Caesarea, an Italian team
discovered a Latin inscription bearing the name of Pontius Pilate,
Praefect of Judea, and in 1990, a staff archaeologist for the Israel
Antiquities Authority discovered a tomb in southern Jerusalem used by
the family of the notorius High Priest Caiaphas. Beyond that, all
reconstructions of the life of Jesus are based on later Christian
literature and a speculative interpretation of Judean history."
***********
So there is not much historical evidence of the existence of Jesus
Christ. How much historical evidence of most criminals survives
today, as that is how He was executed. He was a carpenter, of no great
civil account, and his body was put in a rich man's tomb. Notably,
the two baddies of the crucifixion, Pilate and Caiaphas have left
"proof" of their existence. Were it not for the Latin inscription and
the tomb, we would have no evidence of them either. Such are the
slender threads by which our personal existences are kept or lost.
In short, a criminal is put to death by crucifixion, one of a million
it has been estimated, and c1970 years later his movement spans the
globe. He makes the comment "My words will never pass away" and
confidently leaves human history, with its wars, plagues, destruction
and antagonism, to determine the truth or otherwise of that statement.
To my mind the hiddenness of Christ is part of the methodology of
God, as reflected in Paul's statement "In your weakness is My strength
made perfect."
The disciples needed Pentecost to get their courage however, since
they had already demonstrated they were not naturally courageous men,
as they had deserted Him at his crucial hour. So something caused
them to change, or we would have no Christian story.
What caused them to change?
Bob Crowley.
Bob Crowley
Because without the reality of God behind the messages, including His
own claim to be the Son of God, they are so much wishful thinking.
They may appeal to our better instincts, they may be good, they may be
thoughtful, but unless there is a reality to back them up, they are
useless.
Bob Crowley.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:<fs7c201e1ojjgfeqm...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>
>>with no predecessor in these soft tissue animals that you write
>about?
>
>> Cartilage.
>
>Did those soft tissue animals have cartilege, or were they more like
>jelly fish, since all they left behind were prints in rock. And this
>brings up the next thing - most animals in my observation are no
>slouches when it comes to finding food, dead or alive. Why then did
>so many soft bodied animals leave behind their imprints since most of
>them should have been scavenged and decomposed long before they had a
>chance to become fossilised?
My initial impression is one of amazement:
Your so-called 'experience' of animals has absolutley NO bearing
whatsoever on organisms that existed shortly before or after the
so-called "Cambrian Explosion".
>A quote from "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" by RL Wysong
>(Probably the best resource book for a beginning creationist, as it
>does not rely on Biblical quotes for its material, but rather on
>scientific arguments.)
>
>He is quoting from A.H. Clark "The New Evolution:Zoogenesis" 1930 -
>
>".... throughout the fossil record these major groups remain
>essentially unchanged... No matter how far back we go in the fossil
>record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any
>animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups
>or phyla ... Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among
>the living or the fossil animals, of any intermediate types following
>the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been
>any such intergrading types."
These stale quotations have been refuted many times over since 1930.
Can't you read them instead of getting me to regurgitate them?
>> > Where did joints come from? How did dolphins, which supposedly are
>
>> What do you mean "Where did joints evolved from?"
>
>If a single bodied animal develops bone, how does it "know" how to
>divide the bone into articulate joints, since for example the
>development of even a copy the human knee requires quite a lot of
>engineering expertise.
Do you have even a grasp of what evolution entails?
Or are you toying with me intellectually?
>> >too weak by a factor of seven to achieve the speeds they do, figure
>> >out how to get their otherwise "impossible" bursts of speed? Where
>> >did warm and cold blood come from? Where is the link between reptiles
>> >and mammals?
>
>> That is such a bizzare assertion (dolphins) that I assume it is an
>> outright lie, either deriving from ignorance (deliberate, or
>> inadvertant), or deception.
>
>No, I read it somewhere in an article on robots. I don't remember
>where, and it took me by surprise as well. But it was there.
>Obviously there must be some way that they can overcome this
>deficiency, as navies around the world would like to know, since it
>would mean they could theoretically build robots as maneoverable and
>varying in speed and direction as dolphins.
I an article bearing a striking similarity to the one you describe.
It does not suggest, or imply, or state that the dolphins' bursts of
speed are "impossible", or any of your other assertions.
If it was in any respectable journal, you could provide a direct web
link to the article.
>
> >There are a lot of answers I'd require before I would totally accept
>> >an evolutionary point of view. I accept species differentiation, and
>> So you do accept evolution.
>>
>> >I can accept the idea of survival of the fittest, as demonstrated by
>> >some disease causing agents becoming resistant to drugs or chemicals
>> >by an almost perfect parabolic curve. But what intrigues me about the
>> >initial resistance of the first generation is that they somehow had an
>> >inbuilt resistance prepared for something of which they had no
>> >previous experience.
>
>> That statement makes no sense.
>> There is no such thing as "the first generation".
>> It is a continuum.
>
>What I meant was the "first generation" of the organism exposed to a
>new drug for example. Prior to that they have had no previous
>experience as the drug is a man made one and therefore artificial, and
>does not occur in nature. It turns out very effective against the
>first generation, but by some uncanny coincidence a small percentage
>have an inbuilt resistance, already "designed in" to prevent our
>easily ridding ourselves of these pests.
By your insistence on the non-existent concept of "the first
generation" of a species, you have answered my previous question as to
whether you know what evolution entails.
The envelope please...
The Answer is NO!
>
>Incidentally the fact a bacterium becomes resistant to a man made drug
>does not mean it is on its inevitable evolutionary way to becoming a
>human.
>
Eh?
I know what you mean, but I fail to see how it contributes in any way.
No-one ever suggested that it did.
>> Delusional scientists, just as their are crazy Teachers, loopy
>> doctors, etc.
>> Being a Scientist doesn't protect one from being infected by mind
>> viruses completely.
>
>Ergo, unless they agree with your particular viewpoint on this issue,
>they are delusional?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
>> >> > So what, you say? The point I am making here is that a lot of
>> >> > research has been done into the Bible over the years, and it is firmly
>> >> > grounded in history.
>> >>
>>
>> >I'll wait.
>> >
>> >If there was no house of David, where did Jerusalem's importance to
>> >the Jews come from?
>
>
>> Land values
>
>That's a modern spin on an old conundrum. Solomon and Sons Real
>Estate.
I'm glad you put that much worth on a glib meaningless comment.
What has this got to do with evidence of evolution that you
vociferously challenged me about?
>The disciples needed Pentecost to get their courage however, since
>they had already demonstrated they were not naturally courageous men,
>as they had deserted Him at his crucial hour. So something caused
>them to change, or we would have no Christian story.
>
>What caused them to change?
Delusional thinking.
>
>Bob Crowley.
If you strive to become intellectually honest, then why not start by
doing some more reading?
Have you read any books by Richard Dawkins?
They answer every one of your questions absolutlety thoroughly.
If you have read them, and don't agree with some of his points, then
post the worked objections here.
Justin_Martyr2000
Bob Crowley
>
> What about you accepting Dorothy in the "Wizard of Oz" really really
> *did* translocate back to Kansas by clicking her heels together thrice
> and chanting an incantation?
Gee, that's a revelation. I wasn't aware you believed it yourself.
This is the first time you have tried to encourage me to accomodate
your belief system. How long have you been saying the Strawman's
Creed?
>
> Your 'water into wine' is no different than what Dorothy did. What
> objective evidence do you utilize to accept one and not the other?
>
No objective evidence, but I suspect it was the easiest miracle for
Christ to perform, since all he had to do was to rearrange the
constituent components into different compounds. After all He did ask
the servants to fill the jars with water first, rather than filling
empty jars miraculously. And it was good wine, whereas the usual
custom appeared to be to keep the plonk till last, when the guests
were too tight to care.
That it was easy suggests why it might have been His first, apart from
the fact it was His mother who asked Him to do something about it.
Although Christ Himself said He could do nothing without the Father,
and so obviously all His miracles were a team effort.
>but who have no problem accepting that all the various forms
> >within the universe are the manipulation of atoms made up of 3 basic
> >particles, and who would probably agree with the "fact" the universe
> >started as "nothing" or something very small.
>
> Objective supporting evidence trumps malevolent superstitions like
> Christianity.
Righto, how did it start, and what caused it, since you know.
> However, whether the universe came from a singularity or was a
> by-product from Odin eating too many pickled eggs is immaterial.
> Neither have the slightest impact on my life. That's something you are
> totally unable to grasp. Let me say it again-"It does not matter."
As a purely academic argument you are quite correct. We can sit here
and argue about Creationism vs. Evolutionism or whatever as long as we
like, and it won't make a bit of difference to the universe, or our
day to day living, apart from wasting time. But if Christ's claims to
judge and either pardon or condemn are correct, then the outcome is
important.
> >So maybe I'll have to increase my dose.
>
> So you aren't a Christian then. I have no problem with that.
>
> I haven't seen any sign of you following the below instruction:
>
> 1 Thessalonians 5 (KJV)
>
> 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God
> in Christ Jesus concerning you.
Granted, there are some things that I feel sour about. And I can tell
you it is not always easy to praise God, especially when you feel
unfairly treated. Yet it is a requirement. That is what the praise
songs are about, and you are hardly likely to hear Christians praising
privately.
>
> Nor have I seen any sign of you following this instruction either:
>
> Mark 16 (kjv)
>
> 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
> they cast out devils;
No, but I have spoken with a couple of people who have. For example,
one bloke I spoke to said of demons "You should see them carry on -
they don't want to go!"
But I haven't seen it personally, although I often saw demonic facial
appearances on someone who caused me a lot of problems (within my
family). Mind you I caused problems for others in due course. I mean
this, and the thing that comes through in their visage even more
strongly than the evil is the sheer blatant hatred. It's quite
obvious, and the face is demonically distorted.
they shall speak with new tongues;
Tongues are frequently spoken in Pentecostalist meetings.
> 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
> shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
> recover.
This happens from time to time, but not frequently. Some sects in the
US deliberately invite rattlesnake bites for example, which I think is
a bit stupid. Daniel may have gone into the Lion's den, but he didn't
amuse himself by pulling their tails.
I know of one Australian pastor who had his life saved twice as a
young man by divine intervention - once when he narrowly escaped death
from a collapsing tower due to a voice from nowhere telling him to run
with no prior warning, and again when he found he could not move no
matter how hard he tried when walking across a field. The reason was
that his next step, unknown to him in the long grass, would have taken
him onto a death adder.
I heard a Chinese Christian, who suffered enormously over a period of
years testify that Chinese police broke his legs with a sledge hammer
to stop him escaping again from prison. Not long after that he simply
walked out of the prison with miraculously healed legs, past guards,
the gate post, and to his astonishment found himself outside the
prison. The authorities still don't know how he got away. He now
operates from Germany. But prior to the healing he was in great pain
and could only crawl around.
These things happen, but while the Western Church has it so easy, it
is unlikely to be a common thing. In his book the above Chinese
Christian wrote "In a way you (Western citizens / Christians) don't
need God". Unfortunately we can't expect God to provide miraculously
until we are completely dependent on him, which is something most of
us don't like doing, myself included. Paul and Silas were only
miraculously released from prison when there was no other way open to
them.
And in the end, no matter how many miracles a person may perform, he
is still subject to the finality of death, and will probably suffer as
well. Christ may have performed miracles, but He died in hideous
agony. Peter, on whom He founded the Church, was crucified upside
down, and Paul suffered a great deal. Actually the Chinese Christian
mentioned above reminds me of Paul, as he has the same sort of
singlemindedness. I suspect they have similar temperaments, and have
gone through similar trials.
Bob Crowley.
Ron Peterson
If you think that the messages of Jesus are just wishful thinking, why
should anyone else take those messages seriously?
--
Ron
David V.
>
> Did those soft tissue animals have cartilege...
I'd suggest that you take a few college level courses in
biology, but I doubt you have the intelligence to meet the
entrance requirements for you local junior college.
David V.
>
>> Why do you have to believe that Jesus is more than a
>> man to believe in the messages of Jesus?
>
> Because without the reality of God behind the messages,
> including His own claim to be the Son of God, they are so
> much wishful thinking.
You're catching on. The bible and it's gods are just wishful
thinking. Well, actually non thinking, but you're getting
close.
is greg greg ?
get to the kingdom or heaven iam living in a christian home much
thinking as the christians here house non belivers also In the hope
that they might be saved as they use the term or that the seed might
be planted. as in thinking if you have biblical knowdledge on the
beggining or discovery of the Eunuchs." im not that knowledgeable in
the bible though in study sunday the subject came up in the book of
ester an im thinking that the first of these men were actually born
that way an when the kings could not find enough to satisfy there
needs they just made them.
ZenIsWhen
"Bob Crowley" <bobcr...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.04020...@posting.google.com...
> Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:<fs7c201e1ojjgfeqm...@4ax.com>...
> > >
>
> >with no predecessor in these soft tissue animals that you write
> about?
>
> > Cartilage.
>
> Did those soft tissue animals have cartilege, or were they more like
> jelly fish, since all they left behind were prints in rock. And this
> brings up the next thing - most animals in my observation are no
> slouches when it comes to finding food, dead or alive. Why then did
> so many soft bodied animals leave behind their imprints since most of
> them should have been scavenged and decomposed long before they had a
> chance to become fossilised?
Ahhhhhhh.............you have (pbviously unintentionally) come up with an
argument AGAINST the creationists who are constantly bellowing about the
LACK of (trasitional) fiossils.
Fossils are rare. Rare, for one reason, because of the scenario you
described.
But - in your own ignorance, you forget that not ALL life is disposed of in
the way you state.
The La Brea tar pits are one fine example of ancient life that ws NOT eaten,
scavenged, or decayed by natural forces.
>
> A quote from "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" by RL Wysong
> (Probably the best resource book for a beginning creationist, as it
> does not rely on Biblical quotes for its material, but rather on
> scientific arguments.)
There are no "creationist/scientific" arguments either for creationism, oor
against evolution!
There is only true science - and fraudulent creationism!
>
> He is quoting from A.H. Clark "The New Evolution:Zoogenesis" 1930 -
>
> ".... throughout the fossil record these major groups remain
> essentially unchanged... No matter how far back we go in the fossil
> record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any
> animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups
> or phyla ... Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among
> the living or the fossil animals, of any intermediate types following
> the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been
> any such intergrading types."
Obviously either an ignorant creationist, or someone inept in the field of
science.
Transitional fossils ARE THERE.
Only IDIOTS expect them to be the head of one thing, and the body of
another.
BTW .. WE ARE TRANSITUIONAL BEINGS .. between what mankind was before, and
what mankind will become!
>
>
> > > Where did joints come from? How did dolphins, which supposedly are
>
> > What do you mean "Where did joints evolved from?"
>
> If a single bodied animal develops bone, how does it "know" how to
> divide the bone into articulate joints, since for example the
> development of even a copy the human knee requires quite a lot of
> engineering expertise.
Bwahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........One would have to start with what you have -
obviously liitle more than a grade school education, and teach you everying
up to and including college biology to overcome your blatant ignorance about
science/evolution.
Bob Crowley
> >A quote from "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" by RL Wysong
> >(Probably the best resource book for a beginning creationist, as it
> >does not rely on Biblical quotes for its material, but rather on
> >scientific arguments.)
> >
> >He is quoting from A.H. Clark "The New Evolution:Zoogenesis" 1930 -
> >
> >".... throughout the fossil record these major groups remain
> >essentially unchanged... No matter how far back we go in the fossil
> >record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any
> >animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups
> >or phyla ... Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among
> >the living or the fossil animals, of any intermediate types following
> >the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been
> >any such intergrading types."
>
> These stale quotations have been refuted many times over since 1930.
> Can't you read them instead of getting me to regurgitate them?
>
Then to allay my ignorance, state some of the examples which have
apparently been discovered since 1930. If you wish to deny the
statement, then you must have proof of such intergrading types.
Please list some.
> Do you have even a grasp of what evolution entails?
> Or are you toying with me intellectually?
From "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathon Sarfati (1999)
* Fish to Amphibian - Some evolutionists believe that amphibians
evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It
wa believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the
sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed
impossible to disprove, since according to evolutionary / long age
interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about
70 million years ago. But a living coelacath (Latimeria chalumnae)
was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used
for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts
were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some
unique features - it gives birth to live young after about a years
gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a
gland that detects electrical signals. The earliest amphibian,
Ichthyostega is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and
shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the
Rhipidistians.
* Amphibian to Reptile - Seymouria is a commonly touted intermediate
between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by
evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30
million years YOUNGER than the "earliest" true reptiles Hylonomus and
Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older
than their alleged ancestors! Also there is no good reason for
thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The
jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a
number of new structures and a change in biochemistry.
* Reptile to Mammal: The "mammal-like reptiles" are commonly asserted
to be transitional. But according to a specialist on these creatures:
Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears
suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that
is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally
abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species. (by TS Kemp,
1982)
Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from the
jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recoginised that there was no
clear-cut connection between the jawbones of "mammal-like reptiles"
and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists have argued about
which bones relate to which.
THE FUNCTION OF POSSIBLE INTERMEDIATES
The inability to imagine functional intermediates is a real problem.
If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the transitional forms
would have forelimbs that were neither good legs or good wings. So
how would such things be selected. The fragile long limbs of
hypothetical halfway stages of bats and pterosaurs would seem more of
a hindrance than a help.
SOFT PART CHANGES
Of course, the soft parts of many creatures would also have needed to
change drastically, and there is little chance of preserving them in
the fossil record. For example, the development of the amniotic egg
would have required MANY different innovations, including:
. The shell
. The two new membranes - the amnion and allantois
. Excretion of water insoluble uric acid rather than urea (urea would
poison the embryo)
. Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water.
. Yolk for food.
. A change in the genital system allowing the fertilisation of the egg
before the shell hardens.
Another example is the mammals - they have many soft part differences
from reptiles, for example:
. Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood
cells without nuclei, a heart with four chambers instead of three and
one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of
blood supply to the eye.
. Mammals produce milk, to feed their young.
. Mammalian skin has two extra layers, hair and sweat glands.
. Mammals have a diaphragm, a fibrous, muscular partition between the
thorax and abdomen, which is vital for breathing. Reptiles breath in
a different way.
. Mammals keep their body temperature constant (warm bloodedness),
requiring a COMPLEX temperature control system.
. The mammalian ear has the complex organ of Corti, ABSENT from all
reptiles.
. Mammalian kidneys have a "very high filtration rate of the blood".
This means the heart must be able to produce the required high blood
pressure. Mammalian kidneys excrete urea instead of uric acid, which
requires different chemistry. They are also finely regulated to
maintain constant levels of substances in the blood, which requires a
complex endocrine system.
****************
Now, when you can show me the mechanisms by which random chance
processes have developed all these differences, and when you can show
me the missing links between different major groups of vertebrates
(without considering other phyla), then I'll believe there is absolute
proof on your side, and no element of faith.
As far as I'm concerned, you are prepared to swallow a camel, and spit
out a gnat.
Bob Crowley.
Bob Crowley
I said they were wishful thinking if there was no God to back them up.
I happen to believe there is. Otherwise they simply become moral
maxims, along the lines of similar moral maxims preached by good
moralists over the centuries. But in the 20th century and this one,
after centuries of such moralists, we had two world wars, nuclear
weaponry, concentration camps and gulags, refugees en masse, murder is
common, theft is common, bribery and corruption are common, abortion
is common, there is huge economic equality, we are wasteful with
resources, damage the environment without considering the
consequences, and chase after rubbish a lot of the time, wars are
common, the arms race is still on, ...
What difference then would one more moralist make?
It just happens that I also believe Christ's transcendent claims.
As for anyone taking the messages seriously, Christ's claim was that
(John 6:44) "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws
him to me; adn I will raise him to life on teh last day."
So unless the Father calls a person, that person cannot come.
On the other hand, we are told to spread the news. And unless someone
has at least some exposure to the news, then it is difficult for God
to call him or her, since he or she must first be aware of the option.
It is a bit like a football game - unless it is at least advertised,
the ticket sellers are going to have a hard time calling for buyers.
No doubt some would find out via the grape vine about this otherwise
secret game, but most wouldn't.
Bob Crowley.
Bob Crowley
>
> ===>Obviously it was the work of superintelligent extraterrestrials
> who must have evolved elsewhere millions of years ago.
>
I'm not sure if you put this comment in as a joke or seriously.
Assuming it was serious, all that does is push the problem onto
another planet, which is a discrete event on its own, and which has
nothing to do with evolution on this planet.
Assuming the other planet/s where evolution allegedly took place are
subject to the same physical laws as we are, you simply have the same
equations and probabilities all over again.
Bob Crowley
ZenIsWhen
> Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:<u1re20p6rkguofkti...@4ax.com>...
> > >A quote from "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" by RL Wysong
> > >(Probably the best resource book for a beginning creationist, as it
> > >does not rely on Biblical quotes for its material, but rather on
> > >scientific arguments.)
> > >
> > >He is quoting from A.H. Clark "The New Evolution:Zoogenesis" 1930 -
> > >
> > >".... throughout the fossil record these major groups remain
> > >essentially unchanged... No matter how far back we go in the fossil
> > >record of previous animal life upon the earth, we find no trace of any
> > >animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups
> > >or phyla ... Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among
> > >the living or the fossil animals, of any intermediate types following
> > >the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been
> > >any such intergrading types."
> >
> > These stale quotations have been refuted many times over since 1930.
> > Can't you read them instead of getting me to regurgitate them?
> >
>
> Then to allay my ignorance, state some of the examples which have
> apparently been discovered since 1930. If you wish to deny the
> statement, then you must have proof of such intergrading types.
> Please list some.
Bull!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just because some fanatical creationist bellows something ignorant - it is
NOT the job of scientists to counter any and ALL of those insane claims!
The vast majority of those claims have already been debunked - and all that
ever did was cause the creationists to invent more, and more outrageous,
claims.
All that is happening is a corrupt "we can invent more lies, and more
frequently, than oyu can possibly debunk all the lies we invent". That does
not make the lies, or the liars, right!
>
> > Do you have even a grasp of what evolution entails?
> > Or are you toying with me intellectually?
>
> From "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathon Sarfati (1999)
Books ... not scientifically investigated or peer reviewed scientific
papers - writen by creationist mean NOTHING. It is merely a way of spreading
those lies!
Can you show anything SCIENTIFICD - VALID - peer reviewed - by a scientist
IN HIS FIELD OF EXPERTISE that makes claims like these
or do you only have creatinoist comic books to present.
BTW .. I'm wriging a book that "tells the truth" about you being a baby
killer ... a baby eater ........ a pedophile ....and that you cheat at
solitare.
When it comes out, I expect YOU to debunk ALL of my assertions.
In the mean time ...I'll be sitting here inventing more.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> But if Christ's claims to
> judge and either pardon or condemn are correct, then the outcome is
> important.
Paging Pascal, paging Pascal!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
Robibnikoff
says...
>
>And so upon Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:30:56 -0800 didst Bob Crowley speak
>thusly:
>
>> But if Christ's claims to
>> judge and either pardon or condemn are correct, then the outcome is
>> important.
>
>Paging Pascal, paging Pascal!
"Paging Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard!"
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
David V.
>
> Then to allay my ignorance, state some of the examples
> which have apparently been discovered since 1930. If you
> wish to deny the statement, then you must have proof of
> such intergrading types. Please list some.
Who the hell are you to demand proof from anyone when you
refuse, or fail, to provide any proof of your gods?
>> Do you have even a grasp of what evolution entails? Or
>> are you toying with me intellectually?
>
> From "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathon Sarfati (1999)
>
> * Fish to Amphibian - Some evolutionists believe that
> amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something
> like the coelacanth....
That's the first lie.
> the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago.
> But a living coelacath (Latimeria chalumnae) was
> discovered in 1938.....
The second lie. I snipped the rest because it would just
contain more lies. Is that the best you can do? Post lies
about something you know nothing about?
David V.
> Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote
>
>> In talk.philosophy.humanism Bob Crowley
>>
>>> Because without the reality of God behind the
>>> messages, including His own claim to be the Son of
>>> God, they are so much wishful thinking. They may
>>> appeal to our better instincts, they may be good,
>>> they may be thoughtful, but unless there is a reality
>>> to back them up, they are useless.
>>
>> If you think that the messages of Jesus are just
>> wishful thinking, why should anyone else take those
>> messages seriously?
>
> I said they were wishful thinking if there was no God to
> back them up.
Since there is no god to back them up, they are wishful
thinking, and lies.
stoney
>stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote in message news:<sqld20ltjp2r31iev...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> What about you accepting Dorothy in the "Wizard of Oz" really really
>> *did* translocate back to Kansas by clicking her heels together thrice
>> and chanting an incantation?
>
>Gee, that's a revelation. I wasn't aware you believed it yourself.
>This is the first time you have tried to encourage me to accomodate
>your belief system. How long have you been saying the Strawman's
>Creed?
Congradulations on demonstrating you're a bloody idiot.
>> Your 'water into wine' is no different than what Dorothy did. What
>> objective evidence do you utilize to accept one and not the other?
>>
>No objective evidence, but I suspect it was the easiest miracle for
>Christ to perform, since all he had to do was to rearrange the
>constituent components into different compounds. After all He did ask
>the servants to fill the jars with water first, rather than filling
>empty jars miraculously. And it was good wine, whereas the usual
>custom appeared to be to keep the plonk till last, when the guests
>were too tight to care.
Using your 'verbage.'
No objective evidence, but I suspect it was the easiest miracle for
Dorothy to perform, since all she had to do was to rearrange the
constituent components into different locations. After all, 'Glinda the
Good(tm)' told Dorothy all she needed was a little faith in herself to
get home.
>That it was easy suggests why it might have been His first, apart from
>the fact it was His mother who asked Him to do something about it.
That it was easy suggests why it might have been her first, apart from
the fact it was 'Glinda the Good(tm)' who told Dorothy 'The Way(tm).'
>Although Christ Himself said He could do nothing without the Father,
>and so obviously all His miracles were a team effort.
And 'Atom Ant(tm)' really really did all those things in his cartoon
series.
> >but who have no problem accepting that all the various forms
>> >within the universe are the manipulation of atoms made up of 3 basic
>> >particles, and who would probably agree with the "fact" the universe
>> >started as "nothing" or something very small.
>>
>> Objective supporting evidence trumps malevolent superstitions like
>> Christianity.
>
>Righto, how did it start, and what caused it, since you know.
You really are a deceitful, and dishonest person, Bob. In short, you're
the perfect christian-pure sphincter.
However, based on your enjoyment of throwing straw around its quite
clear you agreed with my prior statement. If you didn't, then your
response would have had something to do with the text you are supposedly
responding to.
>> However, whether the universe came from a singularity or was a
>> by-product from Odin eating too many pickled eggs is immaterial.
>> Neither have the slightest impact on my life. That's something you are
>> totally unable to grasp. Let me say it again-"It does not matter."
>
>As a purely academic argument you are quite correct. We can sit here
>and argue about Creationism vs. Evolutionism or whatever as long as we
>like, and it won't make a bit of difference to the universe, or our
>day to day living, apart from wasting time.
There is no 'Evolutionism,' oh uneducated and bearer of false witness.
> But if Christ's claims to
>judge and either pardon or condemn are correct, then the outcome is
>important.
/mocking you
But if Dorothy's claims are correct then keeping her happy would be very
important to you.
/aside
Its quite telling you're so demented that you accept the christian
faerie tale, and ignored its seniors.
/mocking you
Only the terminally uneducated and dishonest put forth Pascal's stupid
Wager. /contempt
>> >So maybe I'll have to increase my dose.
>>
>> So you aren't a Christian then. I have no problem with that.
>>
>> I haven't seen any sign of you following the below instruction:
>>
>> 1 Thessalonians 5 (KJV)
>>
>> 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God
>> in Christ Jesus concerning you.
>
>Granted, there are some things that I feel sour about. And I can tell
>you it is not always easy to praise God, especially when you feel
>unfairly treated. Yet it is a requirement. That is what the praise
>songs are about, and you are hardly likely to hear Christians praising
>privately.
/contempt mode off
You've got some hefty problems, Bob (based on your brand of theism).
1) You've indicated "God" isn't always good.
2) You've indicated "God" isn't always righteous.
3) You've indicated "God" isn't always loving.
4) You've indicated "God" isn't always just.
You've indicated Christians are mere 'Pharisees' which is something
"Jesus" warned you against and said (paraphrase) "They've had their
reward (i.e. none)."
>> Nor have I seen any sign of you following this instruction either:
>>
>> Mark 16 (kjv)
>>
>> 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
>> they cast out devils;
>
>No, but I have spoken with a couple of people who have. For example,
>one bloke I spoke to said of demons "You should see them carry on -
>they don't want to go!"
And I could make the statement that I can translocate at a moment's
notice or some other thing. Would you accept my word as truth? If not,
then you have even less reason to believe them.
I've also suggested several times you visit the local 'lock-down mental
hospital' for evidence of 'spiritual things.' As far as I recall,
you've not responded to any of these suggestions.
>But I haven't seen it personally, although I often saw demonic facial
>appearances on someone who caused me a lot of problems (within my
>family). Mind you I caused problems for others in due course. I mean
>this, and the thing that comes through in their visage even more
>strongly than the evil is the sheer blatant hatred. It's quite
>obvious, and the face is demonically distorted.
That's your 'god,' Bob.
(snip the rest of the drivel)
Michael Gray
Crowley) wrote:
<snip distractions and pathetic attempts to shift the burden>
>> Do you have even a grasp of what evolution entails?
>> Or are you toying with me intellectually?
>
>From "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathon Sarfati (1999)
<snip>
I have attempted to converse with Sarfati on many occasions, but to no
avail.
He comes across as being anable to answer even my simplest questions
rationally.
My opinion of his work is shared by most real scientists that I know.
His work comes across as of those of someone with severe mental
problems.
Kest you should mistakenly take that as an ad hominem attack, it is an
attack on his supposedly scientific writing.
This is an almost universal opinion amongst real scientists.
>Now, when you can show me the mechanisms by which random chance
>processes have developed all these differences, and when you can show
>me the missing links between different major groups of vertebrates
>(without considering other phyla), then I'll believe there is absolute
>proof on your side, and no element of faith.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, you are prepared to swallow a camel, and spit
>out a gnat.
>
>Bob Crowley.
Because of your reasonably adult literary style I had, in the past,
assumed that were a normal adult.
But your tedious repetition of points that have been soundly refuted,
continual resorts to false arguments, shifting the burden of proof,
evading direct questions, changing the subject, etc etc, makes me
assume that you are living in some sort of intellectual "groundhog
day", destined to repeat the tired delusions over and over, ad
nauseum.
But urge you to carry on please.
You can only serve the interests of atheists by being a continual
embarrassment to theists around the globe.