What is it atheists are really saying when they claim, "I lack belief in a god"

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
commitment or non-action concerning belief.

In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see,
if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
remain atheists.

The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. If the
majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There
is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be
known and atheism will become extinct.

(by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")

[Budikka666]

On Sep 3, 6:08 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

It's not a "common position", it's *the* defintion of atheism -
lacking belief in gods. You're seriously out of your depth if you
think it's just a "common position".

But before you can attack atheism, you need to estbalish your own
position, because atheism is the default position until and unless
there is solid evdience suggesting that there actually are gods. Got
that?

So why don't you and I formally debate your position that this god or
gods exist(s)?

Why don't you post your best five "evidences" for this creator god of
yours: either positive scientific evidence demonstrating that such a
being exists, or independent objective evidence demonstrating the
same?

Because if you can't do that all you have is hot air and that's not
going to convince anyone who has functional brain cells.

So go ahead, post your evidences, and let's you and me formally debate
them right here. I'll be more than happy to defend my atheistic
position. Can you defend your theistic one?

Let's see.

Budikka

[Davej]

On Sep 3, 6:08 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.  In other words, they have
> no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
> on the matter concerning God.  To them it is a non-issue.

Typical small children worry at bedtime about the imaginary monsters
that might be hiding in their closets or under their beds. Their
parents comfort them and assure them that there are no such monsters
anywhere about and the children eventually grow up to dismiss such
things. Now consider the parents who taunt their children and tell
them the invisible monsters really are hiding here and there. These
children may never grow up -- they may remain emotionally damaged for
their entire lives and continue to fear the imaginary -- or they
eventually accept the fact that their parents were abusive liars.

[Calvin Ramsey]

Is that what happened to you?

Your parents *are* cruel if they told you "monsters are hiding here and
there".

It's no wonder you turned out to be such an aberrant miscreant.

<smirk>

[Andy W]

On Sep 3, 12:08 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

I should think it is. It is the only thing that makes one an atheist.

[Budikka666]

On Sep 3, 6:08 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

It's not a "common position", it's *the* defintion of atheism -
lacking belief in gods. You're seriously out of your depth if you
think it's just a "common position".

But before you can attack atheism, you need to estbalish your own
position, because atheism is the default position until and unless
there is solid evdience suggesting that there actually are gods. Got
that?

So why don't you and I formally debate your position that this god or
gods exist(s)?

Why don't you post your best five "evidences" for this creator god of
yours: either positive scientific evidence demonstrating that such a
being exists, or independent objective evidence demonstrating the
same?

Because if you can't do that all you have is hot air and that's not
going to convince anyone who has functional brain cells.

So go ahead, post your evidences, and let's you and me formally debate
them right here. I'll be more than happy to defend my atheistic
position. Can you defend your theistic one?

Let's see. Or you can keep on dishonestly pretending that you haven't
seen this message and thereby prove what a god-denying chicken you
truly are.

Budikka

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<d141c7d3-b057-408e...@a19g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Sounds exactly like Jason. Sadly, he never went with the 2nd option.

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief

[Budikka666]

On Sep 3, 6:08 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

It's not a "common position", it's *the* defintion of atheism -
lacking belief in gods. You're seriously out of your depth if you
think it's just a "common position".

But before you can attack atheism, you need to estbalish your own
position, because atheism is the default position until and unless
there is solid evdience suggesting that there actually are gods. Got
that?

So why don't you and I formally debate your position that this god or
gods exist(s)?

Why don't you post your best five "evidences" for this creator god of
yours: either positive scientific evidence demonstrating that such a
being exists, or independent objective evidence demonstrating the
same?

Because if you can't do that all you have is hot air and that's not
going to convince anyone who has functional brain cells.

So go ahead, post your evidences, and let's you and me formally debate
them right here. I'll be more than happy to defend my atheistic
position. Can you defend your theistic one?

Let's see. Or you can keep on dishonestly pretending that you haven't
seen this message and thereby prove what a god-denying chicken you
truly are.

That was the challenge, but you RAN. Now we can all see what a
pathetic little coward for Christ you are. You have DENIED CHRIST
Twice and RAN. That's all anyone needs to know about you.

Budikka

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

[Mitchell Holman]

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k29tfc$pl3$2@dont-
email.me:

> In the end, the truth will be
> known and atheism will become extinct.

Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it
will never become extinct.

[Malcolm McMahon]

No, I think infants believe in a God, they learn to call her "Mum".

When, later in life, they realise she's human many of them look for a substitute.

[Calvin Ramsey]

Well, as usual, you're both wrong.

"Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's
Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a
predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that
everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been
taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "

(quoted from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html)

But you can believe whatever it is you are predestined to believe.
I won't try and stop you.

<smirk>

[Les]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:32:42 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/6/2012 8:52 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> On Thursday, 6 September 2012 13:42:27 UTC+1, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k29tfc$pl3$2@dont-
>>>
>>> email.me:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In the end, the truth will be
>>>
>>>> known and atheism will become extinct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it
>>>
>>> will never become extinct.
>>
>> No, I think infants believe in a God, they learn to call her "Mum".
>>
>> When, later in life, they realise she's human many of them look for a substitute.
>
>
>Well, as usual, you're both wrong.
>
>"Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's
>Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a
>predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that
>everything in the world was created with a purpose.

'Claims' says it all.




Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/6/2012 1:08 PM, Les wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:32:42 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2012 8:52 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 6 September 2012 13:42:27 UTC+1, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k29tfc$pl3$2@dont-
>>>>
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In the end, the truth will be
>>>>
>>>>> known and atheism will become extinct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it
>>>>
>>>> will never become extinct.
>>>
>>> No, I think infants believe in a God, they learn to call her "Mum".
>>>
>>> When, later in life, they realise she's human many of them look for a substitute.
>>
>>
>> Well, as usual, you're both wrong.
>>
>> "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's
>> Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a
>> predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that
>> everything in the world was created with a purpose.
>
> 'Claims' says it all.
>

Actually, you not reading more to find out why Dr. Barrett makes that
claim says it all.

I call it the "Ostrich Syndrome".

<smirk>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon
<malcol...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 6 September 2012 13:42:27 UTC+1, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k29tfc$pl3$2@dont-
>>
>> email.me:
>>
>> > In the end, the truth will be
>>
>> > known and atheism will become extinct.
>>
>> Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it
>>
>> will never become extinct.
>
>No, I think infants believe in a God, they learn to call her "Mum".

No.

They don't even have the god concept.

They learn what Mum and Dad are from their own experience.

Later when the god concept is introduced, it is explained along the
lines of a mega-father who can do even more than their own dad.

>When, later in life, they realise she's human many of them look for a substitute.

No. Those who weren't taught gods don't look for them.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:08:56 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:32:42 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9/6/2012 8:52 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 6 September 2012 13:42:27 UTC+1, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k29tfc$pl3$2@dont-
>>>>
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> In the end, the truth will be
>>>>
>>>>> known and atheism will become extinct.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it
>>>>
>>>> will never become extinct.
>>>
>>> No, I think infants believe in a God, they learn to call her "Mum".
>>>
>>> When, later in life, they realise she's human many of them look for a substitute.
>>
>>Well, as usual, you're both wrong.

There goes anotehr irony meter.

>>"Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's
>>Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a
>>predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that
>>everything in the world was created with a purpose.
>
>'Claims' says it all.

They don't "asume" that.

They simply absorb programming from their parents.

I remember getting some simple sleight of hand "magic" tricks for a
friend's young kids.

I had to show them how to do them, and the little girl picked them up
quickly - she thought it was a huge joke that the little boy didn't
and thought it was real magic.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/6/2012 1:41 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:08:56 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:32:42 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2012 8:52 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 6 September 2012 13:42:27 UTC+1, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k29tfc$pl3$2@dont-
>>>>>
>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the end, the truth will be
>>>>>
>>>>>> known and atheism will become extinct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it
>>>>>
>>>>> will never become extinct.
>>>>
>>>> No, I think infants believe in a God, they learn to call her "Mum".
>>>>
>>>> When, later in life, they realise she's human many of them look for a substitute.
>>>
>>> Well, as usual, you're both wrong.
>
> There goes anotehr irony meter.
>
>>> "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's
>>> Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a
>>> predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that
>>> everything in the world was created with a purpose.
>>
>> 'Claims' says it all.
>
> They don't "asume" that.
>
> They simply absorb programming from their parents.

I notice you both ignored the last sentence of the quote.

"He says that young children have faith even when they have not been
taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "

I guess that's because it blows holes through both of your highly-biased
opinions, huh?

<smirk>

[Father Haskell]

On Sep 6, 2:59 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:

> "He says that young children have faith even when they have not been
> taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
> raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "

So I guess neither people nor "god" needs missionaries.

[Calvin Ramsey]

Belief that God exists, and personal trust in the blood of Jesus for the
forgiveness of sins, are two very different ideas, worlds apart.

The first one is grouped under Ontology, the second under Soteriology.

[Father Haskell]

The first one is ignorance, the second is psychosis.

[Calvin Ramsey]

And because you've obviously been predestined by God to believe that, I
will not even think of trying to change your mind, since that would be
impossible.

Even *you* cannot change your mind.

[Les]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:59:16 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

And of course in your magic world saying something makes it so
Mr Calvin 'the assertor' Ramsey, right?

Pit you missed we were not talking about young children.

>I guess that's because it blows holes through both of your highly-biased
>opinions, huh?

NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
never even heard ithem claimed.

Still smirking :-)

[Mitchell Holman]

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in

news:k2arq7$q1m$1...@dont-email.me:

If that were the case then animism and polytheism
would never have existed because everyone would grow
up believing in monotheism.

Opps - Facts one, Christian blather zero.

[Budikka666]

On Sep 3, 6:08 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

That;s your THURD deniel of Christ. Thanks for prtoving to everyone
on usenet that oyu are a vacuous smpammign coward who openly admits
his suppsoedly omnipoent god can offer him nothing.
Denial #1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e789f4adad4e8fad?scoring=d&
Denial #2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/5ddc9354493b62b3?scoring=d&
Denial #3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/5cfb83a18dbc7442?scoring=d&

Keep running you chicken theists because every single time you run,
you admit that your god is as worthless as we've maintained all along.

Budikka

[Calvin Ramsey]

They are not my words.

Can you not remember one post back?

They are Dr. Justin Barrett's words.

I think I'm beginning to see what your problem might actually be.

Dimensia.

> Pit you missed we were not talking about young children.

That's even worse.

Now you're talking about something that you have no way of knowing
anything, one way or another, about, which as it turns out, corresponds
perfectly with what this thread is all about.

Neo- (New) atheists will always find the one thing that cannot be proven
yes or no, to establish one of their main tenants around.

They're low-life cowards is what they are.

It's no wonder the Freethinkers of the Secular Humanist movement want
nothing to do with them.

>> I guess that's because it blows holes through both of your highly-biased
>> opinions, huh?
>
> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
> never even heard ithem claimed.

Cite please?

<smirk>

[linuxgal]

Calvin Ramsey wrote:

> Belief that God exists, and personal trust in the blood of Jesus for the
> forgiveness of sins, are two very different ideas, worlds apart.
>
> The first one is grouped under Ontology, the second under Soteriology.

Most Christians say you have to believe in their god, their way, or you
go to hell. So Ontology and Soteriology are linked.


--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu
(Reformed)

http://www.cleanposts.com

[Olrik]

Le 2012-09-06 19:41, Calvin Ramsey a �crit :

> I think I'm beginning to see what your problem might actually be.
>
> Dimensia.

LOL!

Nice one, troll!

[Christopher A. Lee]

He can't stop lying, can he?

>>"He says that young children have faith even when they have not been
>>taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
>>raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "

He's wrong.

As evidenced by the many atheists here who were raised in a
theism-free and religion-free environment.

And the third of the world's population who were raised in
non-theistic Eastern religions.

>And of course in your magic world saying something makes it so
>Mr Calvin 'the assertor' Ramsey, right?

He's just another stupid theist who imagines the rest of the world
revolves around his particular deity-belief.

>Pit you missed we were not talking about young children.
>
>>I guess that's because it blows holes through both of your highly-biased
>>opinions, huh?

He can't stop lying, can he?

>NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>never even heard ithem claimed.
>
>Still smirking :-)

Don't expect any honesty or intelligence from this in-your-face moron.

[Les]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:41:15 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/6/2012 5:06 PM, Les wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:59:16 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2012 1:41 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:08:56 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:32:42 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/6/2012 8:52 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 6 September 2012 13:42:27 UTC+1, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k29tfc$pl3$2@dont-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the end, the truth will be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> known and atheism will become extinct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> will never become extinct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I think infants believe in a God, they learn to call her "Mum".

Others have claimed Calvin 'the assertor' Ramsey is not capable of
debate and indeed I have noticed that when he goes beyond quoting
what others say he soon starts foundering.

Here he clearly does not understand that the debate is about NEW BORN
BABIES not older babies and especially infants

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When, later in life, they realise she's human many of them look for a substitute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, as usual, you're both wrong.
>>>>
>>>> There goes anotehr irony meter.

The error gets worse, now he diverts back into his comfort
zone by quoting stuff about 'young people' that is totally
irrevant to a discussion about new born babies.

So that is one example of his inability to debate

>>>>
>>>>>> "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's
>>>>>> Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a
>>>>>> predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that
>>>>>> everything in the world was created with a purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Claims' says it all.
>>>>
>>>> They don't "asume" that.
>>>>
>>>> They simply absorb programming from their parents.
>>>
>>> I notice you both ignored the last sentence of the quote.
>>>
>>> "He says that young children have faith even when they have not been
>>> taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
>>> raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "
>>
>>
>> And of course in your magic world saying something makes it so
>> Mr Calvin 'the assertor' Ramsey, right?
>
>They are not my words.

When I did I say you did?

Another exaple of Calvins ability to understand debate. He confuses
my discussion of 'the magic world' (of Cristianity) with him
personally

He did once tell me that if I quote something I
am associating myself with what was quoted.

So Mr Ramsey, please clarify, Do you associate yourself with the
above quote and think that what he says makes what what he says so?

>
>Can you not remember one post back?
>
>They are Dr. Justin Barrett's words.

Quite

>
>I think I'm beginning to see what your problem might actually be.
>
>Dimensia.
>

Half a pound of twopenny rice..

The third example of Mr. Ramseys inability to debate. Personal
insults are a clear sign he is foundering and needs to divert
attention from the fact he is foundering strugghling to keep up

>
>> Pit you missed we were not talking about young children.

>That's even worse.

>
>Now you're talking about something that you have no way of knowing
>anything, one way or another, about, which as it turns out, corresponds
>perfectly with what this thread is all about.

Please explain how how a new born baby will be aware that gods
are claimed to exists the one claimed by you specifically?

>Neo- (New) atheists will always find the one thing that cannot be proven
>yes or no, to establish one of their main tenants around.
>
>They're low-life cowards is what they are.

Half a pound of treacle...

>It's no wonder the Freethinkers of the Secular Humanist movement want
>nothing to do with the

That is the way the money goes

>
>
>>> I guess that's because it blows holes through both of your highly-biased
>>> opinions, huh?

Pop goes the weasle!

>>
>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>
>Cite please?

Cites? It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
specifically.

Please explain how they can even be aware of the concept 'god'
the moment they are born. I strongly suspect that a new born baby
would have other things on its mind.

[Les]

You have no worries there Christopher. :-)

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thursday, 6 September 2012 17:32:43 UTC+1, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 8:52 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 6 September 2012 13:42:27 UTC+1, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> >> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k29tfc$pl3$2@dont-
>
> >>
>
> >> email.me:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> In the end, the truth will be
>
> >>
>
> >>> known and atheism will become extinct.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Everyone is born an atheist, therefore it
>
> >>
>
> >> will never become extinct.
>
> >
>
> > No, I think infants believe in a God, they learn to call her "Mum".
>
> >
>
> > When, later in life, they realise she's human many of them look for a substitute.
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, as usual, you're both wrong.
>
>
>
> "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's
>
> Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a
>
> predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that
>
> everything in the world was created with a purpose.
>
>
>
> He says that young children have faith even when they have not been
>
> taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
>
> raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "
>
>

Actually I've put similar arguments over on aam. (Mostly arguing with Christopher).

It's based on a theory of the way the brain evolved, using wiring to understand the world that initially evolved to understand one another. We have, I believe, an inherent tendency to ascribe happenstance to conscious agency.

I believe our tendency to believe in gods is a combination of this, with our psychological neoteny, our desire to cling to the safety of parents.

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be

known and atheism will become extinct.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:

> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
> never even heard ithem claimed.

Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.

It's easy to see they are low-life cowards.

Their belief system states that babies will remain atheists as long as
they are not "indoctrinated" by their parents or some other adult into
believing a religion. Dr. Justin Barrett has shown that to be a false
belief.

"Young children have faith even when they have not been

taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God."

<smirk>

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/7/2012 1:40 AM, The Automaton spaketh:

You know, I personally am glad you are unable to have a rational
discussion with Christians.

By saying (or writing) the same phrase, or ad hominem, in the same post,
over and over again, it doesn't take long for someone new, reading your
post for the first time, to realize that you have nothing really
meaningful to say, and so there's no point in reading anything you post
after that.

But, I'll bet that if you took a good healthy dose of some stool
softener, we'd be seeing a brand New Automaton in our midst.

<smirk>

.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Friday, 7 September 2012 11:13:02 UTC+1, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>
>
>
> > NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>
> > never even heard ithem claimed.
>
>
>
> Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>
> true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.
>
>
>
> It's easy to see they are low-life cowards.
>
>
>
> Their belief system states that babies will remain atheists as long as
>
> they are not "indoctrinated" by their parents or some other adult into
>
> believing a religion. Dr. Justin Barrett has shown that to be a false
>
> belief.
>

But the thing is, it's perfectly possible to believe, as I do, that the human mind has an innate tendency to religion, but that that has no bearing on whether there is actually a God or not.

In fact it rather weakens the argument for god actually existing, because the shear numbers of believers is often advanced as an argument that "there must be some truth in it". If the mind has evolved, in several aspects, in a way that creates fertile ground for the seeds of religion that is more than adequate to explain the wide spread of religion in itself, without the need for god.

I can see very good reasons why the human brain might evolve that way, without there actually being a god to make that choice.

Christopher and I can have (and have had) protracted arguments about the "nature vs. nurture" question re religion, without either of us believing in the religion itself.

It's no kind of moral cowardice to examine the evidence and say, in the end, "I don't know". That's the scientific approach.

[citizen...@rocketmail.com]

Very interesting. What you just did is called creating a "straw man". You redefined an argument to something silly so you could break it down easily, instead of addressing the real argument. That's a dirty, dishonest trick and I hope I wasn't the only one to spot it. If so, I'm going to call you out on it. Here's the straw man:

"The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue."

For Atheists in the United States and recently in Great Britian, it is an issue of great importance. We have laws which force Theism upon us.

The comparison between God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a comparison between two unknowable, unprovable things - not between two things that don't matter. You can't "in other words" it unless you stay on topic. The action of going from belief to unbelief - from believing to no longer believing - is purely intellectual. My fellow Atheists I speak to lost their belief because they actually started caring whether or not what they believed was true. Once they began to care, they discovered that there was no reason to believe - and therefore stopped believing.

Your dirty trick at trying to redefine the Atheist position of just not caring or being intellectually lazy is dishonest and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/7/2012 7:16 AM, citizen...@rocketmail.com wrote:

> The comparison between God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a comparison between two unknowable, unprovable things.

God is unknowable and unprovable if you're one of the non-elect: not
chosen for salvation, and not predestined for Heaven.

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
--2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (ESV)

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for
they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because
they are spiritually discerned."
--1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not
hear them is that you are not of God."
--John 8:47 (ESV)

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who
can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
--Romans 9:18-21 (ESV)

[Les]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:


>On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>
>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>
>Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.

It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
specifically.

Please explain how they can even be aware of the concept 'god'
the moment they are born. I strongly suspect that a new born baby
would have other things on its mind.

>It's easy to see they are low-life cowards.

Half a pound of tuppney rice...

>Their belief system states that babies will remain atheists as long as
>they are not "indoctrinated" by their parents or some other adult into
>believing a religion. Dr. Justin Barrett has shown that to be a false
>belief.

Note just how this:
:

>"Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's
>Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a
>predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that
>everything in the world was created with a purpose.

becomes 'has shown that to be a false belief'.

I think I will go with my personal experience and that of
others who post here rather with something claimed (by a theist with a
built in bias)

"Young children have faith even when they have not been
taught about it by family or at school,

Faith in what?

That they can trust their parents and teachers not to lie
to them or mislead them to further their own agendas?

"and argues that even those
raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God."

Believe what *in* god and which one, thousands have
been claimed none of which our lone desert island
dwellers has heard of.

And how would he atriculate the belief to himself when
he has not learned a language tpo think with?

[linuxgal]

Calvin Ramsey wrote:

> Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
> true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.

Socrates was executed for being an atheist vis a vis Athena. It's not
atheism that's new, its the gods who are new.

[Les]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 04:16:15 -0700 (PDT), citizen...@rocketmail.com
wrote:

>For Atheists in the United States and recently in Great Britian, it is an issue of great importance. We have laws which force Theism upon us.

Which UK laws are those?

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:32:19 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/7/2012 7:16 AM, citizen...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
>> The comparison between God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a comparison between two unknowable, unprovable things.
>
>God is unknowable and unprovable if you're one of the non-elect: not
>chosen for salvation, and not predestined for Heaven.

Nice monster you have there. What do you feed it.. your brains?

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 04:16:15 -0700 (PDT), citizen...@rocketmail.com
wrote:

>Very interesting. What you just did is called creating a "straw man".

Who is this mysterious "you" to whom you refer? Atheists are held to
higher standards around here, and that includes making clear in each
post what and whom you are addressing. If you cannot manage that,
please be so good as to change your nym to "citizentheist" so we won't
expect so much from you.

--

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

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:03:44 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>>
>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>>
>>Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>>true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.
>
> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
>aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
>specifically.
>
>Please explain how they can even be aware of the concept 'god'
>the moment they are born. I strongly suspect that a new born baby
>would have other things on its mind.

Like nipples. Whether or not the word for them is there. For many,
this is the beginning of a life-long quest. As the American ads say,
"you never outgrow your need for milk."

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/7/2012 8:03 AM, Les wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>>
>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>>
>> Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>> true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.
>
> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
> aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
> specifically.

I see. So, what you're really saying is you can believe something
without any evidence, or proof, but we Christians aren't allowed to. How
contradictory and hypocritical of you, Les. <smirk>

But here's something you didn't know. We Christians do have evidence
that babies are aware of God, in ways science will never understand. And
because it's in the Bible, some, including myself, consider it to be
proof. So you can spare me with your indecorous persiflage. I will not
read it.


�Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.�
--Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)


�In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to
a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted
Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and
she exclaimed with a loud cry, �Blessed are you among women, and blessed
is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother
of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your
greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And
blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what
was spoken to her from the Lord.�
--Luke 1:39-45 (ESV)

[Les]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:34:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/7/2012 8:03 AM, Les wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>>>
>>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>>>
>>> Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>>> true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.
>>
>> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
>> aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
>> specifically.
>
>
>I see. So, what you're really saying is you can believe something
>without any evidence, or proof, but we Christians aren't allowed to. How
>contradictory and hypocritical of you, Les. <smirk>

You can smirk all you like at your straw representation of me. It
does not concern me one little bit since it does not represent the
real me.

>But here's something you didn't know. We Christians do have evidence
>that babies are aware of God, in ways science will never understand.

>And
>because it's in the Bible, some, including myself, consider it to be
>proof. So you can spare me with your indecorous persiflage. I will not
>read it.

>�Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

>and before you were born I consecrated you;

>I appointed you a prophet to the nations.�
> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)

That does not say the baby is aware of that does it?

In this instance the story tells it is being told that after it was
born.

Even the author knew babies are not born knowing gods
are claimed.


>�In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to

>a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted
>Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
>leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and

>she exclaimed with a loud cry, �Blessed are you among women, and blessed

>is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother
>of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your
>greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And
>blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what

>was spoken to her from the Lord.�
> --Luke 1:39-45 (ESV)

The baby kicks in the womb for some unknown reason (babies near
to birth do that all the time) and the religion soaked idots
imaginations take flights of fancy and others like Calvin believe it
unqestioned.

Again this is not evidence that new born babies are aware gods
are claimed and believes the claim.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:57:44 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:34:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9/7/2012 8:03 AM, Les wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>>>>
>>>> Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>>>> true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.

Lie noted, but hey - it's what we expect from Calvin.

>>> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
>>> aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
>>> specifically.
>>
>>
>>I see. So, what you're really saying is you can believe something
>>without any evidence, or proof, but we Christians aren't allowed to. How
>>contradictory and hypocritical of you, Les. <smirk>

Lies noted, but hey - it's what we expect from Calvin.

>You can smirk all you like at your straw representation of me. It
>does not concern me one little bit since it does not represent the
>real me.
>
>>But here's something you didn't know. We Christians do have evidence
>>that babies are aware of God, in ways science will never understand.

Lie noted, but hey - it's what we expect from Calvin.

>>And
>>because it's in the Bible, some, including myself, consider it to be
>>proof. So you can spare me with your indecorous persiflage. I will not
>>read it.

He's certifiably insane.

>>“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

>>and before you were born I consecrated you;
>>I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
>> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)

What the fuck has his got to do with the liar claiming babies believe
in his pretend friend?

>That does not say the baby is aware of that does it?
>
>In this instance the story tells it is being told that after it was
>born.
>
>Even the author knew babies are not born knowing gods
>are claimed.
>
>
>>“In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to
>>a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted
>>Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
>>leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and
>>she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed
>>is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother
>>of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your
>>greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And
>>blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what
>>was spoken to her from the Lord.”
>> --Luke 1:39-45 (ESV)

What the fuck has his got to do with the liar claiming babies believe
in his pretend friend?

>The baby kicks in the womb for some unknown reason (babies near
>to birth do that all the time) and the religion soaked idots
>imaginations take flights of fancy and others like Calvin believe it
>unqestioned.
>
>Again this is not evidence that new born babies are aware gods
>are claimed and believes the claim.

He's stark, raving bonkers.

[RedDog]

On Sep 3, 11:08 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>   In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.  In other words, they have
> no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief

> on the matter concerning God.  To them it is a non-issue.  Though this
> may sound sensible to some,

Perhaps not so much sensible as idealistic, Calvin. We recognize that
your belief in god carries exactly as much weight as a belief in
invisible pink unicorns. There's an important difference, however, and
that is, that invisible pink unicorns can't generally do much for us
humans, whereas "god", if he exists, can do a great deal.

>the problem is that once you are introduced
> to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it.  You invariably make a
> judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you.  You can
> brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
> it, or do something in between.  But you cannot return to a lack of
> belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
> commitment or non-action concerning belief.
>

Y'know, I pretty much agree with you there, Calvin.

> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.  You see,
> if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
> position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
> remain atheists.
>
> The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
> serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
> are exposing them.  Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
> world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
> Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position.  If the
> majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
> examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
> their position.  This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
> more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There
> is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
> measures are being taken on both sides.  In the end, the truth will be
> known and atheism will become extinct.
>

No. Yes, the Truth will be known, and the Truth is that human beings
have evolved to believe in a god or gods who can make sense to them
what nobody or nothing else is capable of doing. But as science
progresses, we will come to understand so much more about the human
psyche that we will fully understand the reason why we seem to need
religion and god. As that happens, the influence of you
superstitionists will be diminished in direct proportion to our
understanding of the human mind.

I must apologize to you here, Calvin, for labeling you a
"superstitionist". You're not, really, any different from the rest of
humanity, including us atheists. We all want pretty much desire the
same things, ultimately, and when we do have a more complete
understanding of what makes us human (within the next 100 or 200
years), then we'll still be the same homo sapiens, and we'll still
want the same things as we do now, but we won't have nearly the same
need to believe in a mythical "god", because we'll also better
understand our place in the universe and the reasons we've evolved our
psychological propensities.

> (by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")

My hat's off to Matt Slick. He hit the nail on the head, but
unfortunately he's driving it into the wrong board.

[Andy W]

On Sep 7, 10:52 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

... blah blah blah...

Still, I'm glad to see you have at last dropped the absurd pretense
that you are here for any reason other than trolling. Finally realised
the whole "elect lurker" thing was never going to fly, eh?

Andy

[Virgil]

On Sep 3, 11:08�am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.comwrote:

>In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to
>avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.
>�You see, if they say they have no position by saying they lack
>belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination,
>and they can quietly remain atheists.

Lack of belief that something exists something can only be attacked by
reliable evidence that the thing in question exists.
And you don't have any, at least not any objective physical evidence.

>
>The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under
>more serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its
>problems and are exposing them.




> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. �You see,
> if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
> position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
> remain atheists.

We are hardly quiet about it, though are, on the whole, a good deal less
noisy than you lot.

> If the majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but
>the increase in examination of atheism has made it more difficult for
>atheists to defend their position.

We need not defend what there is no objective physical evidence against.
�

> This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming more
> aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There
> is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and
> offensive measures are being taken on both sides. �In the end, the
> truth will be known and atheism will become extinct.

Atheism was around long before any version of theism, and will be around
long after all present theisms have died out.

> The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
> serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
> are exposing them.

Atheism was under far greater attack when the unholy Holy Office made it
a death sentence.

Nowadays, especially in the more advanced nations, it is growing faster
than ever before.

Note that over 90% of the members of the British Royal Society and of
the American Academy of Science, the worlds top scientists, are
non-theist (non-believers)

> In the end, the truth will be
> known and atheism will become extinct.

At the rate that atheism is growing in the more advanced nations, it
won't be al that long until theism only exists in backwards nations.
--

[John Wiser]

"Virgil" <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote in message
news:virgil-D8487D....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...

Are you have trouble finding work?

JDW

[Brad Guth]

Usenet/newsgroup Atheists act/react exactly like Semites and oligarchs.

[John Wiser]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15d4f9d1-88d1-4c1f...@j10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 7, 2:36 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>> [drone drone drone snip snip snip]

> Usenet/newsgroup Atheists act/react exactly like Semites and oligarchs.

For cough, you lot.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/7/2012 3:57 PM, Les wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:34:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2012 8:03 AM, Les wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>>>>
>>>> Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>>>> true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.
>>>
>>> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
>>> aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
>>> specifically.
>>
>>
>> I see. So, what you're really saying is you can believe something
>> without any evidence, or proof, but we Christians aren't allowed to. How
>> contradictory and hypocritical of you, Les. <smirk>
>
>
> You can smirk all you like at your straw representation of me. It
> does not concern me one little bit since it does not represent the
> real me.

And you can deny it all you want, but your very words proclaim it to be
true.

<smirk>

[tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> writes:

197> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.support.boy-
lovers,rec.music.classical,alt.astronomy

197> Usenet/newsgroup Atheists act/react exactly like Semites and
oligarchs.

What does your observation have to do with OS/2, Guth?

[tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu]

Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> writes:

1> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.support.boy-
lovers,rec.music.classical,alt.astronomy

1> Lack of belief that something exists something can only be attacked
by
1> reliable evidence that the thing in question exists.
1> And you don't have any, at least not any objective physical
evidence.

1> We are hardly quiet about it, though are, on the whole, a good deal
less
1> noisy than you lot.

1> We need not defend what there is no objective physical evidence
against.

1> Atheism was around long before any version of theism, and will be
around
1> long after all present theisms have died out.

1> Atheism was under far greater attack when the unholy Holy Office
made it
1> a death sentence.

1> Nowadays, especially in the more advanced nations, it is growing
faster
1> than ever before.

1> Note that over 90% of the members of the British Royal Society and
of
1> the American Academy of Science, the worlds top scientists, are
1> non-theist (non-believers)

1> At the rate that atheism is growing in the more advanced nations,
it
1> won't be al that long until theism only exists in backwards
nations.

What does your prediction have to do with OS/2, Virgil?

2> Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.religion,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.astronomy

2> None at all, thank you.

What does the ease with which you find work have to do with OS/2,
Virgil?

[tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu]

"John Wiser" <cee...@gmail.com> writes:

41> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.astronomy

41> Are you have trouble finding work?

What does your question of Virgil have to do with OS/2, Wiser?

42> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.support.boy-
lovers

42> For cough, you lot.

Who is "you lot", Wiser? There is nobody in this newsgroup using
that alias.

[tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu]

RedDog <reddo...@budweiser.com> writes:

88> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.astronomy

88> Perhaps not so much sensible as idealistic, Calvin. We recognize
that
88> your belief in god carries exactly as much weight as a belief in
88> invisible pink unicorns. There's an important difference, however,
and
88> that is, that invisible pink unicorns can't generally do much for
us
88> humans, whereas "god", if he exists, can do a great deal.

88> Y'know, I pretty much agree with you there, Calvin.

88> No. Yes, the Truth will be known, and the Truth is that human
beings
88> have evolved to believe in a god or gods who can make sense to
them
88> what nobody or nothing else is capable of doing. But as science
88> progresses, we will come to understand so much more about the
human
88> psyche that we will fully understand the reason why we seem to
need
88> religion and god. As that happens, the influence of you
88> superstitionists will be diminished in direct proportion to our
88> understanding of the human mind.

88> I must apologize to you here, Calvin, for labeling you a
88> "superstitionist". You're not, really, any different from the rest
of
88> humanity, including us atheists. We all want pretty much desire
the
88> same things, ultimately, and when we do have a more complete
88> understanding of what makes us human (within the next 100 or 200
88> years), then we'll still be the same homo sapiens, and we'll still
88> want the same things as we do now, but we won't have nearly the
same
88> need to believe in a mythical "god", because we'll also better
88> understand our place in the universe and the reasons we've evolved
our
88> psychological propensities.

88> My hat's off to Matt Slick. He hit the nail on the head, but
88> unfortunately he's driving it into the wrong board.

What does your atheism have to do with OS/2, RedDog?

[Les]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:22:55 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/7/2012 3:57 PM, Les wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:34:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2012 8:03 AM, Les wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>>>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>>>>> true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.
>>>>
>>>> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
>>>> aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
>>>> specifically.

Since Calvin clearly does not understand I will expand a little
for him.

It 'aught to be obvious' is not a belief since there is NO WAY a baby
can be aware that gods are claimed, and of course there are thousand
of them. That is an awful lot of gods for a baby at birth to to be
aware of, let alone beleivng in the existence of. Such a claim is
not credible.

The next thing he will be telling us that within minutes of being
born it will be desperate for a game of golf!

Calvins so called evidence that we are aware turned out not
to be evidence of this at all indeed one quote (from the Babble)


>“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

>and before you were born I consecrated you;
>I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)

actually implied the opposite. Plus of course it was entirely
the beliefs of whoever wrote that part of the babble

I am sure a babies thoughts are far more interested
in its immediate curcumstances that stupid relgion (or
golf).

These relgious people must think that everybody is obessed
with stupid religion and claimed god morning noon and night just as
they are.
.

The moment I finish amusing myself with the rubbish the
relgious dream up (this barely credible 'serious attack' he
quotes) my thoughts of religion will cease altogether
and just go right out of my mind.

I fact I am more interested in learning what my new Ipad, (delivered
yesterday) cando and am looking for and downloading some good apps.

Thus far, I have learned it great for browing the Internet, good for
books, a couple of addictive card games, Google Earth and so on

I am trying to find out if I can take it on trips with me,
dump my phographs in it, transer them to memory sticks
(as duplicates) and then transfer them to my computer when I
get home.

Has Any Ipad users got an thoughts on the matter. I have
ordered aa Apple adapter which will read my SD cards so
presumably they can be transferred into othe IPad.

>>>
>>> I see. So, what you're really saying is you can believe something
>>> without any evidence, or proof, but we Christians aren't allowed to. How
>>> contradictory and hypocritical of you, Les. <smirk>

NO that is not 'what I am really saying'. What i am really saying is
what I really said!

Any other interpretation is entirely yours and a strawman
rperesentation

>>
>>
>> You can smirk all you like at your straw representation of me. It
>> does not concern me one little bit since it does not represent the
>> real me.
>
>
>And you can deny it all you want, but your very words proclaim it to be
>true.

I can deny your mischievous 'interpretation of what I said, espdcially
when it was based on reason not mere worthless belief.
>
><smirk>

This is yet another example of this weasels speciality, the 'what you
are saying' deceit only this time he is even more dishonest in that
he says 'what I am really saying'. What I am really saying is what I
really said.

Pop went the weasel.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/8/2012 10:09 AM, Les wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:22:55 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2012 3:57 PM, Les wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:34:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2012 8:03 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:13:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Les wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>>>>> never even heard ithem claimed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neo- (New) atheists will always find something that cannot be proven
>>>>>> true or false to establish as a main tenant of their belief system.
>>>>>
>>>>> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
>>>>> aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
>>>>> specifically.

>>>> I see. So, what you're really saying is you can believe something
>>>> without any evidence, or proof, but we Christians aren't allowed to. How
>>>> contradictory and hypocritical of you, Les. <smirk>
>
> NO that is not 'what I am really saying'. What i am really saying is
> what I really said!

And what you really said was that you can make up some new "Law of
Nature" that has always been around, and you don't have to show any
evidence for it, you don't have to cite any scientific data for it, you
don't have to do anything except just say those five magic words, "it
aught to be obvious", and it somehow miraculously becomes a new fact of
life, and I'm supposed to accept it, with no questions.

But, we all know that's not the way it works, Les.

You're going to have to give a cite, or show some evidence.

And you're going to have to do it now.

Otherwise, I got a few things I think "aught to be obvious", that I'd
like to make into new Laws of Nature, too.

> Any other interpretation is entirely yours and a strawman
> rperesentation

But you're wrong, Les. I'm not making any strawman argument.
I'm taking you at your word. Those are your words, not mine.
It's your problem, not mine, Les.

I'm just making sure that you see it, Les.

<smirk>

[Mitchell Holman]

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in
news:k2foop$u89$1...@dont-email.me:

Ain't it grand to see religionists demanding
"scientific data" from others?

> you don't have to do anything except just say those five magic words,
> "it aught to be obvious",

How is that worse than "You just have to have faith"?

[tho...@ifa.hawaii.edu]

RedDog <reddo...@budweiser.com> writes:

91> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy

91> It's just as incredible to witness superstition in the 21st
century as
91> it is to find out that some fucktards still advocate using OS/2.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

91> Get the connection now, tholen?

The connection between you and your classic erroneous presuppositions
was gotten a long time ago, RedDog. Along with your dishonesty.

91> (You still don't get it, I know.)

What does your hallucination have to do with OS/2, RedDog?

[Les]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:38:14 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

Nope never mentioned new laws of nature.

> you don't have to show any
>evidence for it, you don't have to cite any scientific data for it, you
>don't have to do anything except just say those five magic words, "it
>aught to be obvious", and it somehow miraculously becomes a new fact of
>life, and I'm supposed to accept it, with no questions.

If you disagree with what I said, and you a perfectly entitled to do
so without all this false-mongering and strawmen constructs then
please explain how new born babies can be aware that gods are claimed
to exists.

If you are going to claim babies are aware then that will need
evidence to be aceptable since that is a most extraodinary claim to
make

>But, we all know that's not the way it works, Les.

The evidence is there, how can a new born babies be aware
that gods are claimed to exists when *we know* the babies has
*no language skills* which it needs before the facts that gods
are claimed can be told to it and that is not possible at birth
as it takes time for a baby to reach that level of understanding.

Or are you wanting to change the laws of nature by telling
us that it can learn about these claims *before* it is
even born.

>


>You're going to have to give a cite, or show some evidence.

Why?

You are the one who seems to thim babies are born aware
that gods are claimed to exists.

A claim like requires a lot of evidence before this claim even
become credible let alone acceptable

I would sayit is just about one of the most stupid claims
i have ever heard (apart from the one that says there is
a god and some people are its 'elect')

>
>And you're going to have to do it now.
>

Already done.

Babies do not have language skills since their brain is
not suffciently developed.

Ask any expert on the subject and he will be able to
confirm it

>Otherwise, I got a few things I think "aught to be obvious", that I'd
>like to make into new Laws of Nature, too.

Well that seems tp what you already do in this magical god
world that you inhabit.

>
>> Any other interpretation is entirely yours and a strawman
>> rperesentation
>
>But you're wrong, Les. I'm not making any strawman argument.

"What you are really saying.."

And do not call me 'Les' that name is for my friends, to
you I am Mr. Hellawell.

>I'm taking you at your word. Those are your words, not mine.
>It's your problem, not mine, Les.

I do not like using the word ' lie' but there is no other way
to describe what Calvin just wrote.

What followed 'what you are saying' was what you made
up. What I was saying was what I ACTUALLY said. I am not
responsible for you reinterpretation to make it what you would
like people think I said

This is an old trick that you and others use, the 'what you
are saying ploy which says nothing of the sort

Again The weasel Calvin 'the sssertor' Ramsey popped as he always
does showing beyond doubt that he is incapable of
reasoned debate as he always tries to set up elaborate
ways to tie up people in rancous and empty accusations and

All he really has done is try to deny what I said based
on reasone thought. He just does no like the fact that
nobody is born accepting the claim there is a god. It
flies in the face of his ridiculous certainty system.

>I'm just making sure that you see it, Les.
>
><smirk>
>

Oh I see it all right , you are falsemongering again
like the weasel you are.

[Calvin Ramsey]

You claim that "NO baby is *born* believing a god exists".

The onus is on *you*, Les.

>> But, we all know that's not the way it works, Les.
>
> The evidence is there, how can a new born babies be aware
> that gods are claimed to exists when *we know* the babies has
> *no language skills* which it needs before the facts that gods
> are claimed can be told to it and that is not possible at birth
> as it takes time for a baby to reach that level of understanding.

That 's not what you claimed.

You're starting to lie, Les.

> Or are you wanting to change the laws of nature by telling
> us that it can learn about these claims *before* it is
> even born.

I just want you to show some scientific evidence for your assertion, Les.

Have you forgotten how to do that?

>> You're going to have to give a cite, or show some evidence.
>
> Why?

Because that's what you do when you make the assertion "NO baby is
*born* believing a god exists".

Unless you don't really believe it yourself.

You do believe it, don't you, Les?

>> And you're going to have to do it now.
>>
>
> Already done.
>
> Babies do not have language skills since their brain is
> not suffciently developed.

That's not what you said, Les.

Are you trying to lie your way out of the corner you've backed yourself
into?

>> Otherwise, I got a few things I think "aught to be obvious", that I'd
>> like to make into new Laws of Nature, too.
>
> Well that seems tp what you already do in this magical god
> world that you inhabit.
>
>
>>
>>> Any other interpretation is entirely yours and a strawman
>>> rperesentation
>>
>> But you're wrong, Les. I'm not making any strawman argument.
>
> "What you are really saying.."
>
> And do not call me 'Les' that name is for my friends, to
> you I am Mr. Hellawell.
>
>> I'm taking you at your word. Those are your words, not mine.
>> It's your problem, not mine, Les.
>
> I do not like using the word ' lie' but there is no other way
> to describe what Calvin just wrote.

Now, Les, that's an even bigger lie.

I've got proof you're lying, in writing.

You wanted to make an assertion without giving any evidence for it,
simply because you felt "it aught to be obvious". Anybody can go back
and read it for themselves, Les.

And you're a liar if you're saying you didn't do that.

So now you're saying that you can lie, even when there's proof that
you're lying, and still get away with it, Les?

You must not have any self-esteem at all, Les.

<smirk>

[Les]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:25:29 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

Here is what I actually said:

>>>>>>>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>>>>>>> never even heard ithem claimed.

Name any god that has not been claimed to exist.

That excludes the god you claim to exist.

Nobody grows up believing in the existence of your claimed
god until they are told about the claim. The evidence of this
is clear. Children of Hindu parents if they are not told about it. No
buddhist children, None of the Greeks until they heard
about it from the Jews nor the Romans.

The Christian god was entirely unknown in the Americas before
the first vistors from Europe the same is true for Austrialia
and New Zealand. Nor people in Europe before the missionaries
arrived.

>The onus is on *you*, Les.

Indeed any body who makes a claim has the onus to prove
it to others should they wish others to accept it.

I know you would not even if i proved what i said was true
which I have done above through reasoned argument.

No new born baby can possbile believe a claimed god
exists when it has never heard the claim and there is
no reaslon to believe there any other kind. Correct
me if I am wrong but as far as you are concerned there
is only one god and that is the one you claim

Which means that you do not believe there any other
unclaimed gods either. I said 'especially' the claimed
god' since I am not claiming there are no gods.

>
>
>>> But, we all know that's not the way it works, Les.
>>
>> The evidence is there, how can a new born babies be aware
>> that gods are claimed to exists when *we know* the babies has
>> *no language skills* which it needs before the facts that gods
>> are claimed can be told to it and that is not possible at birth
>> as it takes time for a baby to reach that level of understanding.
>
>That 's not what you claimed.
>

Here is exactly what I stated again for you:

>>>>>>>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>>>>>>> never even heard ithem claimed.

>You're starting to lie, Les.

This is exactly what I wrote.

Not what you keep claiming I wrote (in this instance by snipping
part of it and not staing you had. That is what is known as
dishonest.)

Again name any god that has not been claimed and explain
how a new born baby can be aware gods that are claimed
such as the one you claim

>> Or are you wanting to change the laws of nature by telling
>> us that it can learn about these claims *before* it is
>> even born.
>
>I just want you to show some scientific evidence for your assertion, Les.

Go on then, show me some scientific evidence

Thys far all we have had is something said to be claimed
by a scientist and some worthless quotes of what
people tell us they belived in the Bible

>
>Have you forgotten how to do that?

That question is bit rich coming from you a relgious
believer of something you cannot show to be other than
just a claim

>>> You're going to have to give a cite, or show some evidence.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because that's what you do when you make the assertion "NO baby is
>*born* believing a god exists".
>
>Unless you don't really believe it yourself.
>
>You do believe it, don't you, Les?

I am certain that

>
>
>>> And you're going to have to do it now.
>>>
>>
>> Already done.
>>
>> Babies do not have language skills since their brain is
>> not suffciently developed.
>
>That's not what you said, Les.

No since you seem not to have grasped 'what is obvious'
I think I must have overestimated your intelligence and ability
to reason but that is my bad judgement knowing you are mired
in religion where according to Luther

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to
the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not -
struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that
emanates from God”

I know you just love quoting his other tripe

It aught to be obvious even to those who think reasoning
is the enemy of faith that everybody needs language skills in order
for the concept 'god ' to be passed to him and undersatnd as well as
knowledge that gods are claimed to exist. It aught to be obvious that
new born babies with still undeveloped brains and without language
could not even understand the concept or even be the slightest
interest in such thoughts. Even more than you Calvin new born babies
are only aware of self, its pain, it confusions , it needs and nothing
else whatsover. It soon starts to explore beyond itself but not
at the instance of birth. All this aught to be obvious to anybody
with ability to reason but with reason being the nemy of faith...

>Are you trying to lie your way out of the corner you've backed yourself
>into?

I stand by what I ACTUALLY said.

Let me repeat it again for you

>>>>>>>>> NO baby is *born* believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>>>>>>> never even heard ithem claimed.

And again ask you to name a god that has not been claimed.

No baby can possibly beware that gods are claimed to exists
and without that knowldge cannot possibly be believing they exists.

Your claimed god falls into that category so even if it did
bleive a god exists it is not the same god as the one you claim

Some say the baby thinks its mother is a god but I am sure new born
babies are really not capable of that kind of thinking since their
brains are not fully developed. As I say thinking very much depends
on having a language to think with so I think I can be fairly
certain that no child beleives there is some, as yet unclaimed
god, and certainly not the one claimed by you

>
>
>>> Otherwise, I got a few things I think "aught to be obvious", that I'd
>>> like to make into new Laws of Nature, too.
>>
>> Well that seems tp what you already do in this magical god
>> world that you inhabit.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Any other interpretation is entirely yours and a strawman
>>>> rperesentation
>>>
>>> But you're wrong, Les. I'm not making any strawman argument.
>>
>> "What you are really saying.."
>>
>> And do not call me 'Les' that name is for my friends, to
>> you I am Mr. Hellawell.
>>
>>> I'm taking you at your word. Those are your words, not mine.
>>> It's your problem, not mine, Les.

My words are not what you were saying they were and that was your
strawman. Not what i actually said

>> I do not like using the word ' lie' but there is no other way
>> to describe what Calvin just wrote.
>
>Now, Les, that's an even bigger lie.
>
>I've got proof you're lying, in writing.

Then lets see this alleged proof, what I actually said
IN FULL as written.

Something you have failed to do thus far.

>You wanted to make an assertion without giving any evidence for it,
>simply because you felt "it aught to be obvious". Anybody can go back
>and read it for themselves, Les.

Good that is important

And my name is not Les not to you.

>
>And you're a liar if you're saying you didn't do that.

Well we know all about your 'you are saying' don't we?

>
>So now you're saying that you can lie, even when there's proof that
>you're lying, and still get away with it, Les?

See waht i mean :-)

>
>You must not have any self-esteem at all, Les.

Really :-)

[Calvin Ramsey]

That doesn't solve your problem, Les.

The onus is still on you to *prove* your assertion is true.

[snip you trying to get the focus of attention off of youself having to
show some evidence]

>>>> Otherwise, I got a few things I think "aught to be obvious", that I'd
>>>> like to make into new Laws of Nature, too.
>>>
>>> Well that seems tp what you already do in this magical god
>>> world that you inhabit.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Any other interpretation is entirely yours and a strawman
>>>>> rperesentation
>>>>
>>>> But you're wrong, Les. I'm not making any strawman argument.
>>>
>>> "What you are really saying.."
>>>
>>> And do not call me 'Les' that name is for my friends, to
>>> you I am Mr. Hellawell.
>>>
>>>> I'm taking you at your word. Those are your words, not mine.
>>>> It's your problem, not mine, Les.
>
> My words are not what you were saying they were and that was your
> strawman. Not what i actually said

In essence, you're saying that you can make an assertion without having
to show some evidence to support the assertion.

That's when your assertion becomes nothing more than your own personal
subjective opinion, Les.

>>> I do not like using the word ' lie' but there is no other way
>>> to describe what Calvin just wrote.
>>
>> Now, Les, that's an even bigger lie.
>>
>> I've got proof you're lying, in writing.
>

>> You wanted to make an assertion without giving any evidence for it,
>> simply because you felt "it aught to be obvious". Anybody can go back
>> and read it for themselves, Les.
>
> Good that is important

Yes, it is, Les. That way others can see that you're lying.

> And my name is not Les not to you.

What makes you think I care, Les?

You better get used to me calling you Les, Les.

<smirk>

[Les]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 16:08:26 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

It was not an assertion and I have just proved it to be true (in the
post you herewith quote) to my satisfaction beyond reasonable
doubt. Whether you are satisfied is nothing I need be concerned
about. Your relgion is failing my absence of relgion is getting
more popular day-by-day at an increasing rate as our view
prevail and your do not.

My concern is not to convince you since I doubt you can be
be but to destroy your claims and quotes as credible
and in that endeavour I my firends have succeeded.

Here is a summary based on reason and logic
as well as known facts about babies that you can
research for your self.

No new baby can possibly be born aware that gods are claimed to
exist let alone have the mental ability to believe it.

As I have already said the reason aught to be obvious.

What more proof do you want that that that?

Well I did offer more though I fail to see why I should,
you have the right to be thought to be stupid if what is obvious
to every body else is not to you.

So here it is, more evidence for you:

The problem of the absence of language
skills which we use to think with.

The fact the the babies brain is not yet fully formed

That fact that the moment of birth it has other thngs on
its mind

All these facts added together is all the proof you
eeed to make the statement that babies are not born
believing in the existence of the claimed gods.

If you think otherwise then you are more than welcome
to try and climb this hill.

Thus far all you have offered is a se t of beliefs claimed
about children not new born babies and Bible verses one of which
indicates the author agrees.

(since you regardthe Bible as evidence then this should e
considered as evidence by you if nobody else)

{Dr Justin Barrett]
>"He says that young children have faith even when they have not been
>taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
>raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "

Note that last line: ".. would come to believe in God."

IE they did not start beleiving there is a god (at birth) but that the
beleif came later when they became young children. Sady he
does not say which of the thousands of claimed gods they beleive
*in*

It seems "Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of
Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind,"
Agres with me.

Since you presented this (longer) wuote as evidence will you now
accept this as evidence new born babies are not believing in the
existence of the claimed god.

but wait there is yet more:

As mentioned my experience is different, I never started that belief
but then I was not indoctrinated by my parents. And no they did not
teach me 'atheism' either (whatever that is supposed to be according
to theists). Religion just never came up at home during my childhood
to my recollection so I am also evidence that babies are not born
believing there is a claimed god and I know a few others on this
newsgroup with similar experiences and we were not born on desert
islands!

<there be snips>

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/9/2012 6:18 PM, Les wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 Calvin Ramsey wrote:

>> That doesn't solve your problem, Les.
>>
>> The onus is still on you to *prove* your assertion is true.
>
> It was not an assertion and I have just proved it to be true (in the
> post you herewith quote) to my satisfaction beyond reasonable
> doubt.

I would ask what is it that you have *proven*, if not an assertion, but
I'll put that on a back burner for sometime in the future, if that's
alright with you, Les.

You think you have "proved" something, Les, but unless you can show some
evidence for whatever it is you "proved", then it remains just your own
personal subjective opinion, and that's all. Proofs require evidence, Les.

> No new baby can possibly be born aware that gods are claimed to
> exist let alone have the mental ability to believe it.

> As I have already said the reason aught to be obvious.
>
> What more proof do you want that that that?

All "that that that" *proves*, Les, is that it's just your subjective,
highly emotional, opinion, and nothing more than "that that that", Les.

And you are still no closer in providing any evidence for your *opinion*
that "NO baby is born believing a god exists especially when they have

never even heard ithem claimed."

It would be a big step forward on your part, Les, if you could show
where believing that God exists depends *solely* upon the baby's
*hearing* about him, and not through a direct revelation from God himself.

It also might soothe your nerves enough so that you would be able to
spell words correctly, if I told you that I don't think *every* baby is
born believing (knowing) that God exists. I believe only those he has
chosen for salvation later in life are given the special knowledge that
he exists.

Those predestined for Hell, of course, are never aware of God at any
time in their life. I'm sure you would agree with me on that point,
wouldn't you, Les?

But you seem adamant in expressing the opinion that *no* baby is born
believing God exists.

But since you have no evidence to support that opinion of yours, Les, it
will remain nothing more than that, just your own personal subjective
opinion.

And I don't have a problem with that, Les.

<smirk>

[Les]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:13:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/9/2012 6:18 PM, Les wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>>> That doesn't solve your problem, Les.
>>>
>>> The onus is still on you to *prove* your assertion is true.
>>
>> It was not an assertion and I have just proved it to be true (in the
>> post you herewith quote) to my satisfaction beyond reasonable
>> doubt.
>
>I would ask what is it that you have *proven*, if not an assertion, but
>I'll put that on a back burner for sometime in the future, if that's
>alright with you, Les.
>
>You think you have "proved" something, Les, but unless you can show some
>evidence for whatever it is you "proved", then it remains just your own
>personal subjective opinion, and that's all. Proofs require evidence, Les.

Evidence beyoond reasonable doubt is proof. This is required if
somebody wishes me to be convince beyond doubt there is a god.
If somebody wishes me to believe there may be a god a lesser
standard is required. All that is required in this case is sufficent
evidence to justify belef

If somebody asserts something and wishes others to accept
it then their burden is to convince their others the degree of
evidence depending on what is wanted.

This is why I sometimes ask the asserters whether they wish me to
accept their asssertion just on their say-so. If they do not then fine
I can just dismiss their assertions without further thought if I feel
that is the right thing to do. If they want me to acept their
assertion then it is up to them to volunteer the evidence, not for me
to ask for it, otherwise the assertion is dismissed until they do

So no I never ask for proof and no longer ask for evidence.

Since I could not care less what you do or not beleive I have
no interest in conving you of anything so as far as you are
concerned I have no burden,

As mentioned I do not regard what I said to be an assertion nor do
I consider it to be mere opinion but si reasoned arguement
which I did supprot with evidence of what we know about
the abilites of new born babies,

I do not g ive a damn whether you embrace ti with joy and
realise an obvious truth or utterly reject. I am not attempting
this becasue with you it would be just a waste of time. You
are too mired in your relgion to see sense and reason


My interest is in destroying the arguments that you present
and expect everybody else to accept.

>> No new baby can possibly be born aware that gods are claimed to
>> exist let alone have the mental ability to believe it.
>
>> As I have already said the reason aught to be obvious.
>>
>> What more proof do you want that that that?
>
>All "that that that" *proves*, Les, is that it's just your subjective,
>highly emotional, opinion, and nothing more than "that that that", Les.

If you say so, others may have different opinion. I consider it to
be reasoned argument not just mere opinion other may judge.

>And you are still no closer in providing any evidence for your *opinion*
>that "NO baby is born believing a god exists especially when they have
>never even heard ithem claimed."

If you say so, others may think differently

>
>It would be a big step forward on your part, Les, if you could show
>where believing that God exists depends *solely* upon the baby's
>*hearing* about him, and not through a direct revelation from God himself.

I specifically ruled out that option since I have no reason to believe
there is a god to make such 'relevations'

>“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
>and before you were born I consecrated you;
>I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)

This would seem to indicate that whoever wrote this realised
that such relevations could not be understood by the baby since
it had to be told about it later in life.

>It also might soothe your nerves enough so that you would be able to
>spell words correctly, if I told you that I don't think *every* baby is
>born believing (knowing) that God exists. I believe only those he has
>chosen for salvation later in life are given the special knowledge that
>he exists.

Oh yes of course your elect nonesense. I might have known.

I see you are now being careful to make clear this is just your
belief rather than just asserting it is so.

>
>Those predestined for Hell, of course, are never aware of God at any
>time in their life. I'm sure you would agree with me on that point,
>wouldn't you, Les?

Les is for my friends not for you.

It seems you care has not lasted not to have lasted long as you are
back to asserting your truth again Do you wish me to accept that I am
predestined for hell just on your say so Mr "asserter" Ramsey?

>But you seem adamant in expressing the opinion that *no* baby is born
>believing God exists.

What I actually wrote:

"NO baby is born believing a god exists especially when they have
never even heard ithem claimed."

Know of any gods that have not been claimed?

Obviously not the one you claim :-)

If you think babies are born believing gods exists then if you wish
others to accept that then the onus is on you to convince these others
by providing evidence that there is a god, that the god can
communicate with babies, and that the baby can understand this
communication bearing in mid that when born its brain is not
fully formed and functioning

This passage from the Babble would seem to indicate that the
person who wrote it was aware that the baby did not understand
what it was told and had to be told laterin life when it could
understand.

>“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
>and before you were born I consecrated you;
>I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)

>But since you have no evidence to support that opinion of yours, Les, it
>will remain nothing more than that, just your own personal subjective
>opinion.

To you but what about others?

They may think otherwise and that the burden is yours should
you wish to convince then

As mentioned you will need to convince them there is a god and
you will need evidence for that, you will need to convince them
this god could communicate with a pre-born baby (so it was born
beleiving it existed) and that it had the slightest interest in
communicating with us, you will need to convince them the
baby was capalbe of understanding this communication
such that it could start believing it exists.

That is a big moutain to clims so good luck you are going
to need it but luck will not be enough since you will need
to be able to put together a coherent, logical and rationaly
argument that can concinve people of what you claim

I think my 'opinion (since you reject it as evidence) and arguments
along with those of my friends here (who are far better than I)
is far more convincing than your assertion there is what you call god.

I have already mentioned the long term decline in relgious
beleif which the recent survey by Gallop indicates is starting
to increase at a faster rate.

So it is clear whose views are prevailing.

>And I don't have a problem with that, Les.
>
><smirk>

I never expected you would accept that we are not born believing gods
exist as claimed.

As I say it is not you who my posts address. I am addressing the
many lurkers out there (if there are any) who may be starting to have
doubts whether their relgious beliefs are justified and want to
see the arguments both ways so their decision can be better
informed. This desire and hunger for knowledge is clear judging by
the interest people are showing towards those who explain
why relgion is nonesense.

I hope they find our arguments more convincing that yours. As
indicate above it seems they are.

I am enouraged by the collapse of religion and the rise of people
with no relgious beliefs.

Now that does give me good reason to not only smirk but
give you a nice big happy smile since it is always good to
see ignorance and superstion diminish

[Calvin Ramsey]

Just as you are mired in your "relgion", Les.

Now calm down, Les. Look how the number of your misspelled words
increase as you get more and more emotionally charged.

> My interest is in destroying the arguments that you present
> and expect everybody else to accept.

But you have not, and you can not, destroy anything I say with just your
unsubstantiated opinions alone, Les.

In this world, and in this life, it is just my opinion against yours, Les.
Just as it always has been, and always will be.

It is God who gives the evidence to those whom he has chosen to believe,
and he withholds the evidence from those whom he as rejected.

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not
hear them is that you are not of God."
--John 8:47 (ESV)

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for
they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because
they are spiritually discerned."
--1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
--2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (ESV)

>>> No new baby can possibly be born aware that gods are claimed to
>>> exist let alone have the mental ability to believe it.
>>
>>> As I have already said the reason aught to be obvious.
>>>
>>> What more proof do you want that that that?
>>
>> All "that that that" *proves*, Les, is that it's just your subjective,
>> highly emotional, opinion, and nothing more than "that that that", Les.
>
> If you say so, others may have different opinion. I consider it to
> be reasoned argument not just mere opinion other may judge.

Of course you do, Les. Everybody believes their opinion is a reasonable
opinion. Otherwise, they wouldn't keep that opinion for very long, would
they, Les?

It just so happens, I believe my opinion is more reasonable than yours.
Otherwise, I'd ditch my opinion and accept yours. See how that works, Les?

>> And you are still no closer in providing any evidence for your *opinion*
>> that "NO baby is born believing a god exists especially when they have
>> never even heard ithem claimed."
>

> If you say so, others may think differently.

Exactly, Les. According to their eternal predestined destinies.

>>
>> It would be a big step forward on your part, Les, if you could show
>> where believing that God exists depends *solely* upon the baby's
>> *hearing* about him, and not through a direct revelation from God himself.
>
> I specifically ruled out that option since I have no reason to believe
> there is a god to make such 'relevations'
>
>> “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
>> and before you were born I consecrated you;
>> I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
>> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
>
> This would seem to indicate that whoever wrote this realised
> that such relevations could not be understood by the baby since
> it had to be told about it later in life.

That's your highly-opinionated, not to mention, highly-biased
misinterpretation. Nothing is said, one way or the other, as to whether
Jeremiah knew then that God had appointed him to be a prophet, or not.
Your assumption that he didn't know speaks volumes of how mired you are
in your "relgion", Les. <smirk>

But I notice you have nothing to say about the passage from Luke, Les,
where an as yet unborn baby experiences joy upon hearing just the
greeting from the mother of the as yet unborn baby Jesus.

>> It also might soothe your nerves enough so that you would be able to
>> spell words correctly, if I told you that I don't think *every* baby is
>> born believing (knowing) that God exists. I believe only those he has
>> chosen for salvation later in life are given the special knowledge that
>> he exists.
>
> Oh yes of course your elect nonesense. I might have known.

Of course, Les. God is both the Author and the Finisher of my faith
(Hebrews 12:2).

> I see you are now being careful to make clear this is just your
> belief rather than just asserting it is so.

So, you're saying that I should not have made that clear, Les?

>> Those predestined for Hell, of course, are never aware of God at any
>> time in their life. I'm sure you would agree with me on that point,
>> wouldn't you, Les?
>
>
> Les is for my friends not for you.

Yeah, well, that's too bad.

Get used to it, Les.

There's no way I'll stop calling you Les, Les, now that I know it's a
weakness of yours.

<smirk>

> It seems you care has not lasted not to have lasted long as you are
> back to asserting your truth again

But that sentence was a continuation from the previous sentence, as
anyone who knows anything about proper English grammar can tell you, Les.

> Do you wish me to accept that I am
> predestined for hell just on your say so Mr "asserter" Ramsey?

You will believe whatever you are predestined to believe, Les.

> This passage from the Babble would seem to indicate that the
> person who wrote it was aware that the baby did not understand
> what it was told and had to be told laterin life when it could
> understand.
>
>> “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
>> and before you were born I consecrated you;
>> I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
>> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)

Once again, that's your highly-opinionated, not to mention,
highly-biased misinterpretation of Holy Scripture. Nothing is said, one
way or the other, as to whether Jeremiah knew then that God had
appointed him to be a prophet, or not. Your assumption that he didn't
know speaks volumes of how mired you are in your "relgion", Les. <smirk>

You have nothing to substantiate that blind misinterpretation other than
your own highly-biased opinion, Les, as you seem to be aware of, but not
willing to openly admit, by the use of the open-ended, non-committal
phrase "would seem to indicate".

> I never expected you would accept that we are not born believing gods
> exist as claimed.

But I do accept it that those like yourself, the non-elect, are born,
and live out their entire lives, never once believing that God exists.

That's the way God wants it.

God has rejected you, Les

The Bible makes that point very clear.

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who
can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
--Romans 9:18-21 (ESV)

> As I say it is not you who my posts address. I am addressing the
> many lurkers out there (if there are any) who may be starting to have
> doubts whether their relgious beliefs are justified and want to
> see the arguments both ways so their decision can be better
> informed. This desire and hunger for knowledge is clear judging by
> the interest people are showing towards those who explain
> why relgion is nonesense.

Just as they have been predestined to do, Les.

“You will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will
fall away and betray one another and hate one another. ....And because
lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. ....And
this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world
as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
--Matthew 24:9-14 (ESV)

"But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short."
--Matthew 24:22 (ESV)

> I hope they find our arguments more convincing that yours. As
> indicate above it seems they are.

The ungodly non-elect will do just as they have always done, Les

"We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from
God does not listen to us."
--1 John 4:6 (ESV)

> I am enouraged by the collapse of religion and the rise of people
> with no relgious beliefs.

So am I, Les.

That's a sure sign that we are drawing close to the end of this age, and
the start of the next one.

"And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another."
--Matthew 24:10 (ESV)

So am I, Les. <smirk>

> Now that does give me good reason to not only smirk but
> give you a nice big happy smile since it is always good to
> see ignorance and superstion diminish

Just as those who have not be chosen by God for salvation have acted and
reacted all down throughout history, Les. You're not doing anything
that hasn't already been done a countless number of times before.

And the Church is actually growing, Les.

You're going by the number of those attending worship services in church
buildings.

But, Les, home-churches are growing ever more popular.
That's where you're count is going wrong.


http://www.barna.org/topics/organic-church

http://www.simplediscipleship-wordpress.com/2010/07/28/the-rise-of-the-house-church-is-god-getting-us-ready/

http://housechurch.org/miscellaneous/ny_times_house_church.html

http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/01/home_churches_o.html



You can't win, Les. You're not going to win. It just looks like you are.
But that's where God has you, and every other non-elect, deluded into
thinking you are winning.


"Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe
what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe
the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
--2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (ESV)



<A BIG IN-YOUR-FACE SMIRK>

[Les]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:23:33 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

That is for others to decide.

>
>In this world, and in this life, it is just my opinion against yours, Les.
>Just as it always has been, and always will be.

Not when you can offer no evidence or reason or logical argument
to back your view and I offered several.

Such as a baby not knowing gods are claimed to exists at the
instance of birth or being able understand such things at a
time when its brain is only poartially formed and tis mind
is focussed on more immediate things (such as the trauma of
being born)

>
>It is God who gives the evidence to those whom he has chosen to believe,
>and he withholds the evidence from those whom he as rejected.
>
>"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not
>hear them is that you are not of God."
> --John 8:47 (ESV)
>

You might accept this assertion just on the say of the asserters who
is alleged to have said that but I do not. I think I may have
mentioned before it looks to me like an angry outburst by Jesus at
being laughed at by the crowd (something his apologist would not
want to mention - We only know what they wanted their readersHeck they
do not ever bother to tell ushow they know)

>"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for
>they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because
>they are spiritually discerned."
> --1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)

Why are up quoting these assertions Mr Calvin the assertor Ramsey?
Are you perhaps assuming we will accept these assertions just on
the say-so of those that made them because you endorse them?

Hmm it looks like Calvin is trying to retreat back into his quoting
comfort zone again since he is clearly floudnering outside it
like a caught fish on dry land.

>
>"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
>perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
>the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
>glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
> --2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (ESV)
>
>>>> No new baby can possibly be born aware that gods are claimed to
>>>> exist let alone have the mental ability to believe it.
>>>
>>>> As I have already said the reason aught to be obvious.
>>>>
>>>> What more proof do you want that that that?
>>>
>>> All "that that that" *proves*, Les, is that it's just your subjective,
>>> highly emotional, opinion, and nothing more than "that that that", Les.
>>
>> If you say so, others may have different opinion. I consider it to
>> be reasoned argument not just mere opinion other may judge.
>
>Of course you do, Les. Everybody believes their opinion is a reasonable
>opinion. Otherwise, they wouldn't keep that opinion for very long, would
>they, Les?

As i say it is for other to judge. I hace said my piece uing logial
argument and evidence and Calvinhas tried all his weasling tricks to
undermine what i said and to distract attention from it to slagging
me off

>It just so happens, I believe my opinion is more reasonable than yours.
>Otherwise, I'd ditch my opinion and accept yours. See how that works, Les?

Of course you do, others will form their own judgement.

>
>>> And you are still no closer in providing any evidence for your *opinion*
>>> that "NO baby is born believing a god exists especially when they have
>>> never even heard ithem claimed."
>>
>> If you say so, others may think differently.
>
>Exactly, Les. According to their eternal predestined destinies.

If you say so Mr. asserter Ramsey

>
>>>
>>> It would be a big step forward on your part, Les, if you could show
>>> where believing that God exists depends *solely* upon the baby's
>>> *hearing* about him, and not through a direct revelation from God himself.
>>
>> I specifically ruled out that option since I have no reason to believe
>> there is a god to make such 'relevations'
>>
>>> �Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
>>> and before you were born I consecrated you;
>>> I appointed you a prophet to the nations.�
>>> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
>>
>> This would seem to indicate that whoever wrote this realised
>> that such relevations could not be understood by the baby since
>> it had to be told about it later in life.
>
>That's your highly-opinionated, not to mention, highly-biased
>misinterpretation.

Saying something is so does not make it so. What you just
said is only to be expected from the likes of you desperate
to undermine my arguments and evidence

>Nothing is said, one way or the other, as to whether
>Jeremiah knew then that God had appointed him to be a prophet, or not.

>Your assumption that he didn't know speaks volumes of how mired you are
>in your "relgion", Les. <smirk>

Again it seems i overestimated you ability to understand what the
Bible actually says rplacng it with your usual 'what it is really
saying' tendancy. I will eamine it in more detail below for you.

>But I notice you have nothing to say about the passage from Luke, Les,
>where an as yet unborn baby experiences joy upon hearing just the
>greeting from the mother of the as yet unborn baby Jesus.

I did say something about it a few posts above.

>
>>> It also might soothe your nerves enough so that you would be able to
>>> spell words correctly, if I told you that I don't think *every* baby is
>>> born believing (knowing) that God exists. I believe only those he has
>>> chosen for salvation later in life are given the special knowledge that
>>> he exists.
>>
>> Oh yes of course your elect nonesense. I might have known.

Another quoted assetion to dismiss :-)

>
>Of course, Les. God is both the Author and the Finisher of my faith
>(Hebrews 12:2).

>
>> I see you are now being careful to make clear this is just your
>> belief rather than just asserting it is so.
>
>So, you're saying that I should not have made that clear, Les?

I am saying what I said.

T e Bile is also saying what its translator say it is saying

>
>>> Those predestined for Hell, of course, are never aware of God at any
>>> time in their life. I'm sure you would agree with me on that point,
>>> wouldn't you, Les?
>>
>>
>> Les is for my friends not for you.
>
>Yeah, well, that's too bad.

>Get used to it, Les.
>
>There's no way I'll stop calling you Les, Les, now that I know it's a
>weakness of yours.
>
><smirk>

>
>> It seems you care has not lasted not to have lasted long as you are
>> back to asserting your truth again
>
>But that sentence was a continuation from the previous sentence, as
>anyone who knows anything about proper English grammar can tell you, Les.


>> Do you wish me to accept that I am
>> predestined for hell just on your say so Mr "asserter" Ramsey?
>
> You will believe whatever you are predestined to believe, Les.

That is no what I asked

>> This passage from the Babble would seem to indicate that the
>> person who wrote it was aware that the baby did not understand
>> what it was told and had to be told laterin life when it could
>> understand.
>>
>>> �Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
>>> and before you were born I consecrated you;
>>> I appointed you a prophet to the nations.�
>>> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
>
>
>Once again, that's your highly-opinionated, not to mention,
>highly-biased misinterpretation of Holy Scripture.

Saying something is so does not make it so no matter how
highly coloured it is.

> Nothing is said, one
>way or the other, as to whether Jeremiah knew then that God had
>appointed him to be a prophet, or not. Your assumption that he didn't
>know speaks volumes of how mired you are in your "relgion", Les. <smirk>

A conclusion based on the fact that he told the child what he did at
a later time (Why did it need to do that if the child already knew)
that what he did was 'to know the child to 'consecrated it' what
ever that is supposed to mean in Bible babble) and to appoint
it to someghing but nowhere in this fairy story does it tells
us it told the baby this and it understood these declarations


Maybe it is your assumption based on a 'what is is really
sayiing' misintrepreation that it did?

So thsi passage, being ambiguous and being indistinquishable
from a faity story ( with nothing presented to show it really
happened) proves nothing but does indicate that the the author
realised a baby could not possile understand

>You have nothing to substantiate that blind misinterpretation other than
>your own highly-biased opinion, Les, as you seem to be aware of, but not
>willing to openly admit, by the use of the open-ended, non-committal
>phrase "would seem to indicate".

You are, of course free to think whatever you like, I have just
offered my substatiation. You had only to ask.

If

>> I never expected you would accept that we are not born believing gods
>> exist as claimed.
>
>But I do accept it that those like yourself, the non-elect, are born,
>and live out their entire lives, never once believing that God exists.
>
>That's the way God wants it.
>
>God has rejected you, Les

Wow a torrent of assertions, but then you did tell me once you were
proud
to be considered an assertor and would wear the badge with pride.

>
>The Bible makes that point very clear.
>
>"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
>wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who
>can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
>Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'
>Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
>vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
> --Romans 9:18-21 (ESV)

Ha ha Calivn is clearly retreating back into his comfort zone of
quotes and assertions.

He has failed to show that babies are aware that gods are
claimed (asserted) to exist and that it is capable of understanding
such claims

He has failed to establish it was communicated with by this god
before it was born. Even the above passage from the Bible does
not show this

He has failed to explain how pre-bon bably with only a partialy
formed brain could possible understand such communications and
beleive a god exists

The Poor chap is still standing at the base of the mountain he
needs to climb

So my statement that no new born baby can possibly be believing
gods exists when it is not even aware they are claimed to exist
and would not be capable of understanding such claims and start
beleivng one of them

Oh yes of course. Even we are not capable of distinquishing
between the thousand of god claims since we have been given
no eidence to work with so what chance a baby which has
never even heard any othe claims?

>> As I say it is not you who my posts address. I am addressing the
>> many lurkers out there (if there are any) who may be starting to have
>> doubts whether their relgious beliefs are justified and want to
>> see the arguments both ways so their decision can be better
>> informed. This desire and hunger for knowledge is clear judging by
>> the interest people are showing towards those who explain
>> why relgion is nonesense.
>
>Just as they have been predestined to do, Les.

Every time you assert this I just smply dismiss it.

More quotes:
>
>�You will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will

>fall away and betray one another and hate one another. ....And because
>lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. ....And
>this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world
>as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
> --Matthew 24:9-14 (ESV)
>
>"But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short."
> --Matthew 24:22 (ESV)
>
>
>> I hope they find our arguments more convincing that yours. As
>> indicate above it seems they are.

More assertions:

>
>The ungodly non-elect will do just as they have always done, Les

Again dismissed.

More quotes to supporth assetions that are in themselves
assertions by earlier religous beleivers

>
>"We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from
>God does not listen to us."
> --1 John 4:6 (ESV)

I am losing account of the number of assertion Ramsey has made
ad quoted in this post alone..

Is this all he has, is there nothing more?

How disappointing :-)

>
>
>> I am enouraged by the collapse of religion and the rise of people
>> with no relgious beliefs.
>
>So am I, Les.
>
>That's a sure sign that we are drawing close to the end of this age, and
>the start of the next one

Absolutely

It seems Ramseys retreat into his comfort zone is almost
complete:

More meaningless assertions to dismiss:

>
>"And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another."
> --Matthew 24:10 (ESV)
>
>So am I, Les. <smirk>
>
>> Now that does give me good reason to not only smirk but
>> give you a nice big happy smile since it is always good to
>> see ignorance and superstion diminish

Six moreassertions

>
>Just as those who have not be chosen by God for salvation have acted and
>reacted all down throughout history, Les. You're not doing anything
>that hasn't already been done a countless number of times before.
>
>And the Church is actually growing, Les.

>You're going by the number of those attending worship services in church
>buildings.

>But, Les, home-churches are growing ever more popular.
>That's where you're count is going wrong

>You can't win, Les. You're not going to win. It just looks like you are.
>But that's where God has you, and every other non-elect, deluded into
>thinking you are winning.

and a final quoted set of assertions

>
>"Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe
>what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe
>the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
> --2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (ESV)


><A BIG IN-YOUR-FACE SMIRK>

I applaud your bravado.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/10/2012 7:07 PM, Les wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:23:33 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2012 9:19 AM, Les wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:13:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/9/2012 6:18 PM, Les wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't solve your problem, Les.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The onus is still on you to *prove* your assertion is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was not an assertion and I have just proved it to be true (in the
>>>>> post you herewith quote) to my satisfaction beyond reasonable
>>>>> doubt.
>>>>
>>>> I would ask what is it that you have *proven*, if not an assertion, but
>>>> I'll put that on a back burner for sometime in the future, if that's
>>>> alright with you, Les.
>>>>
>>>> You think you have "proved" something, Les, but unless you can show some
>>>> evidence for whatever it is you "proved", then it remains just your own
>>>> personal subjective opinion, and that's all. Proofs require evidence, Les.
>>>

>>> I do not g ive(sic) a damn whether you embrace ti(sic) with joy and
>>> realise(sic) an obvious truth or utterly reject. I am not attempting
>>> this becasue(sic) with you it would be just a waste of time. You
>>> are too mired in your relgion(sic) to see sense and reason
>>
>> Just as you are mired in your "relgion", Les. <smirk>

>>
>> Now calm down, Les. Look how the number of your misspelled words
>> increase as you get more and more emotionally charged.
>>
>>> My interest is in destroying the arguments that you present
>>> and expect everybody else to accept.
>>
>> But you have not, and you can not, destroy anything I say with just your
>> unsubstantiated opinions alone, Les.
>
> That is for others to decide.

You can hope for a miracle, because that's all you can do.

>> In this world, and in this life, it is just my opinion against yours, Les.
>> Just as it always has been, and always will be.
>
> Not when you can offer no evidence or reason or logical argument
> to back your view and I offered several.

You've only offered your subjective personal opinion, and nothing more.

>> It is God who gives the evidence to those whom he has chosen to believe,
>> and he withholds the evidence from those whom he as rejected.
>>
>> "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not
>> hear them is that you are not of God."
>> --John 8:47 (ESV)
>>
>
> You might accept this assertion just on the say of the asserters who
> is alleged to have said that but I do not. I think I may have
> mentioned before it looks to me like an angry outburst by Jesus at
> being laughed at by the crowd (something his apologist would not
> want to mention - We only know what they wanted their readersHeck they
> do not ever bother to tell ushow they know)

But, Les, there is no mention of anyone laughing at Jesus in chapter 8
of John.

Again, you have misinterpreted Holy Scripture to suit your agenda.

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's
desires."
--John 8:44 (ESV)

>> "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for
>> they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because
>> they are spiritually discerned."
>> --1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)
>

> Why are up quoting these assertions Mr Calvin the assertor(sic) Ramsey?

> Are you perhaps assuming we will accept these assertions just on
> the say-so of those that made them because you endorse them?

Is that what you really think, Les?

> Hmm it looks like Calvin is trying to retreat back into his quoting

> comfort zone again since he is clearly floudnering(sic) outside it

> like a caught fish on dry land.

You don't like my quoting the Bible, because the Bible is
self-authenticating, and you know it condemns you.

"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to
hear my word."
--John 8:43 (ESV)

>> "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
>> perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
>> the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
>> glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
>> --2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (ESV)

>>>>> No new baby can possibly be born aware that gods are claimed to
>>>>> exist let alone have the mental ability to believe it.
>>>>
>>>>> As I have already said the reason aught to be obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> What more proof do you want that that that?
>>>>
>>>> All "that that that" *proves*, Les, is that it's just your subjective,
>>>> highly emotional, opinion, and nothing more than "that that that", Les.
>>>
>>> If you say so, others may have different opinion. I consider it to
>>> be reasoned argument not just mere opinion other may judge.
>>
>> Of course you do, Les. Everybody believes their opinion is a reasonable
>> opinion. Otherwise, they wouldn't keep that opinion for very long, would
>> they, Les?
>

> As i say it is for other to judge. I hace(sic) said my piece uing(sic) logial(sic)
> argument and evidence and Calvinhas(sic) tried all his weasling(sic) tricks to

> undermine what i said and to distract attention from it to slagging
> me off

I can tell by your misspellings and horrific grammar that you don't
really believe that, Les.
It's easy to see you just had to make something up in a hurry.

>> It just so happens, I believe my opinion is more reasonable than yours.
>> Otherwise, I'd ditch my opinion and accept yours. See how that works, Les?
>
> Of course you do, others will form their own judgement.

Why would anyone think anything differently, Les?

No one has an opinion they don't believe is true, Les.

>>>> And you are still no closer in providing any evidence for your *opinion*
>>>> that "NO baby is born believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>> never even heard ithem claimed."
>>>
>>> If you say so, others may think differently.
>>
>> Exactly, Les. According to their eternal predestined destinies.
>
> If you say so Mr. asserter Ramsey

Running out of meaningful things to say, Les?

Falling back on the old tried-and true ad hominems, Les?

>>>> It would be a big step forward on your part, Les, if you could show
>>>> where believing that God exists depends *solely* upon the baby's
>>>> *hearing* about him, and not through a direct revelation from God himself.
>>>
>>> I specifically ruled out that option since I have no reason to believe

>>> there is a god to make such 'relevations(sic)'

Then you must show some evidence where believing that God exists depends
*solely* upon the baby's audio nerve.

>>>> �Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

>>>> and before you were born I consecrated you;

>>>> I appointed you a prophet to the nations.�
>>>> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
>>>
>>> This would seem to indicate that whoever wrote this realised(sic)
>>> that such relevations(sic) could not be understood by the baby since

>>> it had to be told about it later in life.
>>
>> That's your highly-opinionated, not to mention, highly-biased
>> misinterpretation.
>
> Saying something is so does not make it so. What you just
> said is only to be expected from the likes of you desperate
> to undermine my arguments and evidence

Anyone who has taken Bible Hermeneutics 101 will tell you the same
thing, Les.

But if you want to be wrong, go right ahead.

>> Nothing is said, one way or the other, as to whether
>> Jeremiah knew then that God had appointed him to be a prophet, or not.
>
>> Your assumption that he didn't know speaks volumes of how mired you are
>> in your "relgion", Les. <smirk>
>
> Again it seems i overestimated you ability to understand what the

> Bible actually says rplacng(sic) it with your usual 'what it is really
> saying' tendancy(sic). I will eamine(sic) it in more detail below for you.

Don't expect me to attach too much credibility to what you have to say, Les.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for
they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because
they are spiritually discerned."
--1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)

>> But I notice you have nothing to say about the passage from Luke, Les,
>> where an as yet unborn baby experiences joy upon hearing just the
>> greeting from the mother of the as yet unborn baby Jesus.
>
> I did say something about it a few posts above.

Actually, Les, you had nothing really important to say, as per usual.
<smirk>

>>>> It also might soothe your nerves enough so that you would be able to
>>>> spell words correctly, if I told you that I don't think *every* baby is
>>>> born believing (knowing) that God exists. I believe only those he has
>>>> chosen for salvation later in life are given the special knowledge that
>>>> he exists.
>>>

>>> Oh yes of course your elect nonesense(sic). I might have known.

>>
>> Of course, Les. God is both the Author and the Finisher of my faith
>> (Hebrews 12:2).
>
>>
>>> I see you are now being careful to make clear this is just your
>>> belief rather than just asserting it is so.
>>
>> So, you're saying that I should not have made that clear, Les?
>
> I am saying what I said.

So, you're saying you had no reason for saying it in the first place?

>>>> Those predestined for Hell, of course, are never aware of God at any
>>>> time in their life. I'm sure you would agree with me on that point,
>>>> wouldn't you, Les?
>>>

>>> Do you wish me to accept that I am

>>> predestined for hell just on your say so Mr "asserter(sic)" Ramsey?

>>
>> You will believe whatever you are predestined to believe, Les.
>
> That is no what I asked

So what?

What makes you think I'm here to answer your questions, Les?

>>> This passage from the Babble would seem to indicate that the
>>> person who wrote it was aware that the baby did not understand
>>> what it was told and had to be told laterin life when it could
>>> understand.
>>>

>>>> �Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

>>>> and before you were born I consecrated you;

>>>> I appointed you a prophet to the nations.�

>>>> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)
>>
>> Once again, that's your highly-opinionated, not to mention,
>> highly-biased misinterpretation of Holy Scripture.
>
> Saying something is so does not make it so no matter how
> highly coloured it is.

Anyone who has taken Bible Hermeneutics 101 will tell you the same
thing, Les.

>> Nothing is said, one
>> way or the other, as to whether Jeremiah knew then that God had
>> appointed him to be a prophet, or not. Your assumption that he didn't
>> know speaks volumes of how mired you are in your "relgion", Les. <smirk>
>
> A conclusion based on the fact that he told the child what he did at
> a later time (Why did it need to do that if the child already knew)

You're really not giving this very much thought, are you, Les?

Show me where it says the child already knew that he had been
consecrated *before* he was born.

[snip Les' unintelligent babbling]

>> You have nothing to substantiate that blind misinterpretation other than
>> your own highly-biased opinion, Les, as you seem to be aware of, but not
>> willing to openly admit, by the use of the open-ended, non-committal
>> phrase "would seem to indicate".
>
> You are, of course free to think whatever you like, I have just
> offered my substatiation. You had only to ask.

Good. I'm glad that's all you got. You're sure making my life easy, Les.
<smirk>

>>> I never expected you would accept that we are not born believing gods
>>> exist as claimed.
>>
>> But I do accept it that those like yourself, the non-elect, are born,
>> and live out their entire lives, never once believing that God exists.
>>
>> That's the way God wants it.
>>
>> God has rejected you, Les
>

>> The Bible makes that point very clear.
>>
>> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
>> wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who
>> can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
>> Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'
>> Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
>> vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
>> --Romans 9:18-21 (ESV)
>

> He has failed to show that babies are aware that gods are
> claimed (asserted) to exist and that it is capable of understanding
> such claims

The onus is still on you, Les.

You're the one making the assertion that's really not an assertion but
just your opinion.
<smirk>

>>> I am enouraged by the collapse of religion and the rise of people
>>> with no relgious beliefs.
>>
>> So am I, Les.
>>
>> That's a sure sign that we are drawing close to the end of this age, and

>> the start of the next one.

>>
>> "And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another."
>> --Matthew 24:10 (ESV)
>>
>> So am I, Les. <smirk>
>>
>>> Now that does give me good reason to not only smirk but
>>> give you a nice big happy smile since it is always good to

>>> see ignorance and superstion(sic) diminish

Just as those who have not be chosen by God for salvation have acted and
reacted all down throughout history, Les. You're not doing anything
that hasn't already been done a countless number of times before.

And the Church is actually growing, Les.

You're going by the number of those attending worship services in church
buildings.

But, Les, home-churches are growing ever more popular.

That's where you're count has gone wrong.

http://www.barna.org/topics/organic-church

http://www.simplediscipleship-wordpress.com/2010/07/28/the-rise-of-the-house-church-is-god-getting-us-ready/

http://housechurch.org/miscellaneous/ny_times_house_church.html

http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/01/home_churches_o.html

You can't win, Les. You're not going to win. It just looks like you are.
But that's where God has you, and every other non-elect, deluded into
thinking you are winning.

[Les]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:35:59 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/10/2012 7:07 PM, Les wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:23:33 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2012 9:19 AM, Les wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:13:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>

<snip previous dscussion>
<snip personal comment, snide remarks, insults and other dross>
<dross (some of it mine)>

<snip worthless Calvin assertion>

Asserted Bible babble I should have snipped:

>>> "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not
>>> hear them is that you are not of God."
>>> --John 8:47 (ESV)
>>>
>>
>> You might accept this assertion just on the say of the asserters who
>> is alleged to have said that but I do not. I think I may have
>> mentioned before it looks to me like an angry outburst by Jesus at
>> being laughed at by the crowd (something his apologist would not
>> want to mention - We only know what they wanted their readersHeck they
>> do not ever bother to tell ushow they know)
>
>
>But, Les, there is no mention of anyone laughing at Jesus in chapter 8
>of John.

As i said giving the reason why.

(Just as an aside since it was not relevant to a discussion
about whether a new born baby believes in the existence of
one of the claimed gods)

<dross>

<bible babble>

>> Why are up quoting these assertions Mr Calvin the assertor(sic) Ramsey?
>> Are you perhaps assuming we will accept these assertions just on
>> the say-so of those that made them because you endorse them?
>
>Is that what you really think, Les?

Since you failed to answer my question I shall ignore yours

It is not relevant to the discussion anyway about new born babies
anyway.

>> Hmm it looks like Calvin is trying to retreat back into his quoting
>> comfort zone again since he is clearly floudnering(sic) outside it
>> like a caught fish on dry land.

<dross>
<Bible babble and worthless bible assertions>
<previous discussion>
<dross>

>>>>> And you are still no closer in providing any evidence for your *opinion*
>>>>> that "NO baby is born believing a god exists especially when they have
>>>>> never even heard ithem claimed."

<dross>

>
>>>>> It would be a big step forward on your part, Les, if you could show
>>>>> where believing that God exists depends *solely* upon the baby's
>>>>> *hearing* about him, and not through a direct revelation from God himself.
>>>>
>>>> I specifically ruled out that option since I have no reason to believe
>>>> there is a god to make such 'relevations(sic)'
>
>Then you must show some evidence where believing that God exists depends
>*solely* upon the baby's audio nerve.

I never mentioned 'audio nerves' nor did I rely on a 'solely' but
mentioned several factors


<Bible babble I should have snipped as worthless before
snipped now since it is discussed below>


<dross>

<snip comment no longer relevant>

<dross>


<dross>
<worthless assertion from Bible snipped >

>>> But I notice you have nothing to say about the passage from Luke, Les,
>>> where an as yet unborn baby experiences joy upon hearing just the
>>> greeting from the mother of the as yet unborn baby Jesus.
>>
>> I did say something about it a few posts above.
>
>Actually, Les, you had nothing really important to say, as per usual.

Well you would say that. I shall let others decide.

<dross>

<dross>

<Bible babble and dross>

<dross>

>>>> This passage from the Babble would seem to indicate that the
>>>> person who wrote it was aware that the baby did not understand
>>>> what it was told and had to be told laterin life when it could
>>>> understand.
>>>>

>>>>> �Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

>>>>> and before you were born I consecrated you;

>>>>> I appointed you a prophet to the nations.�
>>>>> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)

<dross>

>>> Nothing is said, one
>>> way or the other, as to whether Jeremiah knew then that God had
>>> appointed him to be a prophet, or not.

<dross>

<dross>

This needs to be put back into the original context (in previous
posts)

I wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------

>> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
>> aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
>> specifically.

---------------------------------------------------------------

This is the responce to that:

----------------------quote----------------------------------------
>But here's something you didn't know. We Christians do have evidence
>that babies are aware of God, in ways science will never understand.

>And
>because it's in the Bible, some, including myself, consider it to be
>proof. So you can spare me with your indecorous persiflage. I will not
>read it.


>�Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

>and before you were born I consecrated you;

>I appointed you a prophet to the nations.�
> --Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV)

That does not say the baby is aware of that does it?

In this instance the story tells it is being told that after it was
born.
----------------------end quote--------------------------------------

>Show me where it says the child already knew that he had been
>consecrated *before* he was born.

Excactly so this passage is not 'proof' as you claim that I was wrong
to state:

----------------------------------------------------------

>> It aught to be obvious that no baby can possibly be born
>> aware that gods are claimed to exists the one claimed by you
>> specifically.

---------------------------------------------------------------

You have failed to show it is otherwise since you still have
made absolutely no attempt to show there even is a god
to tell the baby let alone the god that you claim to exists.

<dross>

<previous discussion>


<assertion dismissed>

Assertion not snipped:

>And the Church is actually growing, Les.
>

<assertion dismissed>
>

Bravado and worthelss assertion not snipped:

>You can't win, Les. You're not going to win. It just looks like you are.
>But that's where God has you, and every other non-elect, deluded into
>thinking you are winning.

<Bible babble>
<dross>

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/11/2012 4:28 AM, Les wrote:


[snip Les' failed attempt to shift the burden of proof]

The onus is still on you, Les.

You made the assertion about *no* baby being aware of God's existence,
whether you think it's an assertion or not, therefore the burden of
proof is on you.

If you refuse to prove your assertion to be true, then your assertion is
nothing more than your own personal subjective opinion.



[Reinserting relevant snipped material that Les obviously doesn't like
to read]

And the Church is actually growing, Les.

Home-churches are growing ever more popular.

http://www.barna.org/topics/organic-church

http://www.simplediscipleship-wordpress.com/2010/07/28/the-rise-of-the-house-church-is-god-getting-us-ready/

http://housechurch.org/miscellaneous/ny_times_house_church.html

http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/01/home_churches_o.html

You can't win, Les. You're not going to win. It just looks like you are.
But that's where God has you, and every other non-elect, deluded into
thinking you are winning.

[Les]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:37:08 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/11/2012 4:28 AM, Les wrote:
>
>
>[snip Les' failed attempt to shift the burden of proof]

This is what you snipped

======================================

==========================================

>
>The onus is still on you, Les.

Was Calvin, was, since I have already shown I am right
more than once now.

>You made the assertion about *no* baby being aware of God's existence,
>whether you think it's an assertion or not, therefore the burden of
>proof is on you.

You have now snipped several times the list of known factors that
should make my statement obvious and which you have failed
to refute.

I have made my case, others have read it, I am not going to
waste more time with you by repeating it all again just for you.

What you think does not matters since you have an agenda to
defend that makes little sense in the real world an flies
in the face of knowledge reason and logic.

>If you refuse to prove your assertion to be true, then your assertion is
>nothing more than your own personal subjective opinion.
>

I refuse to do it over and over again just for you especially since
I could not care less what you think.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/11/2012 6:29 AM, Les wrote:


Please try and remember, Les, that I'm only expressing my own beliefs
and opinions, which require no proof whatsoever, since I'm in no way
trying to get you, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in them as
I do. Got it, Les?
<smirk>

But you, on the other hand, you do have to prove that your assertion is
true, otherwise it's merely something you believe, Les, like an opinion,
and can be very easily dismissed with a shrug and a smirk.

See how that works, Les?

<smirk>


[Reinserting very relevant snipped material that Les obviously doesn't

like to read]

And the Church is actually growing, Les.

Home-churches are becoming ever more popular.

[Les]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:35:10 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/11/2012 6:29 AM, Les wrote:
>
>
>Please try and remember, Les, that I'm only expressing my own beliefs
>and opinions, which require no proof whatsoever, since I'm in no way
>trying to get you, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in them as
>I do. Got it, Les?

A few post ago you unleashed a torrent of assertions not once
telling me they were merely what you believe. I got the distinct
impression you were expecting me to accept them just on your say-so

When I asked you if I was right you failed to answer.

Is the above now your answer?

I can remember you making one of your assertions a little while
ago and not only demanding people 'get it' or 'see how it works' but
that they read it over and over again until they do. You did not say
it was just your belief back then.

I shall watch out to see if your tendancy to assert things without
also telling people they are merely your beleifs returns.

<Dross>

>But you, on the other hand, you do have to prove that your assertion is
>true, otherwise it's merely something you believe, Les, like an opinion,
>and can be very easily dismissed with a shrug and a smirk.
>

<dross>

As already mentioned, if I wished you to accept what I said beyond
all reasonable doubt then it would be up to me to prove it to
you to your satisfaction. Since I have already made it clear I could
not care less whether you accept it or not so not I have assumed no
such burden as far as you are concerned.

Proof is too high a demand to make on a general discussion group
and I do not usually demand it but instead dismiss un argued
assertions.

Reasoned argument with evidence, if needed, is usually sifficent
to convince a reasonable person.

I leave it to others to make up their minds whether my argument is
more acceptable than your failed attempt to refute it with what
you claimed to be proof.

So demand all you like, I do not answer to you.



<snip same dross>

[Olrik]

Le 2012-09-11 08:18, Les a �crit :

You've destroyed Calvin's arguments from the get-go. Reason will always
win against mentally debilitating blind-faith.

Congrats on your patience, though. A lot of us killfiled the moron ages ago.

[Calvin Ramsey]

>> Please try and remember, Les, that I'm only expressing my own beliefs
>> and opinions, which require no proof whatsoever, since I'm in no way
>> trying to get you, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in them as
>> I do. Got it, Les?
>
> A few post ago you unleashed a torrent of assertions not once
> telling me they were merely what you believe. I got the distinct
> impression you were expecting me to accept them just on your say-so
>
> When I asked you if I was right you failed to answer.
>
> Is the above now your answer?

You can believe whatever you are predestined to believe, Les.

It doesn't matter one way or the other to me, Les.

You got that, Les?

Don't ever forget that, Les.

<snip tripe>

>> But you, on the other hand, you do have to prove that your assertion is
>> true, otherwise it's merely something you believe, Les, like an opinion,
>> and can be very easily dismissed with a shrug and a smirk.

<snip blather>

> So demand all you like, I do not answer to you.

You do not answer because you cannot answer.

Anybody with any common sense, and who's being the least bit honest with
himself, can see that, Les. You're not fooling anyone, Les.

<shrug><smirk>


[Reinserting a very important point, that explains everything taking
place here]

God has rejected you, Les

The Bible makes that point very clear.

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who
can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
--Romans 9:18-21 (ESV)

[Reinserting very relevant material that Les has revealed to be a weak
spot, and so obviously doesn't like to read it <smirk>]

And the Church is actually growing, Les.

Home-churches are becoming ever more popular.


http://www.barna.org/topics/organic-church

http://www.simplediscipleship-wordpress.com/2010/07/28/the-rise-of-the-house-church-is-god-getting-us-ready/

http://housechurch.org/miscellaneous/ny_times_house_church.html

http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/01/home_churches_o.html

So when you're out for a Sunday morning ride, and you go past a house
with about 8 to 12 cars in front, you'll know what's taking place inside.

You can't win, Les. You're not going to win. It just looks like you

are. But that's because God has you, and every other reprobate non-elect

[Les]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>
>>> Please try and remember, Les, that I'm only expressing my own beliefs
>>> and opinions, which require no proof whatsoever, since I'm in no way
>>> trying to get you, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in them as
>>> I do. Got it, Les?
>>
>> A few post ago you unleashed a torrent of assertions not once
>> telling me they were merely what you believe. I got the distinct
>> impression you were expecting me to accept them just on your say-so
>>
>> When I asked you if I was right you failed to answer.
>>
>> Is the above now your answer?
>
>You can believe whatever you are predestined to believe, Les.
>
>It doesn't matter one way or the other to me, Les.
>
>You got that, Les?
>

I knew long ago that you do not give an damn for anybody but yourself
and you obsession. What ever a Chrisian is supposed to be you are
not.

>Don't ever forget that, Les.

When i shut down Agent in few minutes you will cease to exist. You
are just words on a page which goes on every purge purge.

><snip tripe>
>
>>> But you, on the other hand, you do have to prove that your assertion is
>>> true, otherwise it's merely something you believe, Les, like an opinion,
>>> and can be very easily dismissed with a shrug and a smirk.
>
><snip blather>
>
>> So demand all you like, I do not answer to you.
>
>You do not answer because you cannot answer.

Readers are advised to note what was snipped.

(I suspect that Calvins relgious obsession forces him to
snip stuff that it does not want to see>

It explains why my evidence and logical arguments keep
disappearing. Calvin probaby genuinely thinks they were never
there :-)

<smirk>

>
>Anybody with any common sense, and who's being the least bit honest with
>himself, can see that, Les. You're not fooling anyone, Les.

You aught to know by know Ramsey I am not interested in your worthless
beliefs


>
<dross>

<Assertions and miscellanous rubbish>

>
>
>So when you're out for a Sunday morning ride, and you go past a house
>with about 8 to 12 cars in front, you'll know what's taking place inside.

Yer it will be some asian family having a get together to celebrate
some family event. They are very big on family.

Home churching I suspect is just a US thing. Claiming it
involves more people than used to be involved when people
attended churches is I suspect just wishful thinking or just
bravado. Well whatever who cares how many you. I suspect
your total numbers are less that those who have n relgious beliefs
over there.

A recent report tells us that he Calvinist methodist of Wales
are closing one chapel a week due to attendances being quite
low. The handful that did still attendant would just about
fit in a small house. How long before they will be able
to meet in a red Post Office Telephone box?

<assertions snipped>

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/11/2012 5:59 PM, Les wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:

>>> So demand all you like, I do not answer to you.
>>
>> You do not answer because you cannot answer.
>
> Readers are advised to note what was snipped.

I snipped your endless stream of subjective opinions, Les.

> (I suspect that Calvins relgious obsession forces him to
> snip stuff that it does not want to see>

Or maybe I don't particularly care to read your same opinion over again
and again and again and again and again.....

You need to provide *proof*, Les, not opinions.

> It explains why my evidence and logical arguments keep
> disappearing. Calvin probaby genuinely thinks they were never
> there :-)

The only "evidence" you gave is "it aught to be obvious".

You still have not proven that *no* baby is born believing God exists,
no matter how they may learn about God.

All you did was give your personal opinions as to why you *think* that
should be true.

But you never once gave any *proof*, Les.

You need to give some *proof*. Forget about your opinions, Les.

Nobody but you care about your opinions.

Got it, Les?

<smirk>


>> Anybody with any common sense, and who's being the least bit honest with
>> himself, can see that, Les. You're not fooling anyone, Les.
>
> You aught to know by know Ramsey I am not interested in your worthless
> beliefs

I don't believe you, Les. I think you're lying.

>> So when you're out for a Sunday morning ride, and you go past a house
>> with about 8 to 12 cars in front, you'll know what's taking place inside.
>
> Yer it will be some asian family having a get together to celebrate
> some family event. They are very big on family.
>
> Home churching I suspect is just a US thing. Claiming it
> involves more people than used to be involved when people
> attended churches is I suspect just wishful thinking or just
> bravado. Well whatever who cares how many you. I suspect
> your total numbers are less that those who have n relgious beliefs
> over there.

Is English your First Language, Les?

> A recent report tells us that he Calvinist methodist of Wales
> are closing one chapel a week due to attendances being quite
> low.

Attendance is low in the chapels, Les, because they are meeting in home
churches.

I can't believe you're that stupid, Les.

And the Church is actually growing, Les.

Home-churches are growing ever more popular.

http://www.barna.org/topics/organic-church

http://www.simplediscipleship-wordpress.com/2010/07/28/the-rise-of-the-house-church-is-god-getting-us-ready/

http://housechurch.org/miscellaneous/ny_times_house_church.html

http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/01/home_churches_o.html

[Reinserting a very important point, that explains why you hate God so
much, Les]

God has rejected you, Les

The Bible makes that point very clear.

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who
can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
--Romans 9:18-21 (ESV)

Got it, Les?

You're welcome.

<smirk>

[Les]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/11/2012 5:59 PM, Les wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>>>> So demand all you like, I do not answer to you.
>>>
>>> You do not answer because you cannot answer.
>>
>> Readers are advised to note what was snipped.
>
>I snipped your endless stream of subjective opinions, Les.

I am enjoying this :-)

>
>> (I suspect that Calvins relgious obsession forces him to
>> snip stuff that it does not want to see>
>
>Or maybe I don't particularly care to read your same opinion over again
>and again and again and again and again.....
>
>You need to provide *proof*, Les, not opinions.

Nope you are the one who needs to provide a heck of a lot
of extraoridnary evidence if you wish to convince people that the
obvious default is that babies are not born theist (atheist) and
believe in the existence aof claimed gods.

Before you said you had evidence and proof the default was false
now you admit it is just mere belief having spectacularly shown
you do not even understand you own precious quotes from the
Babble.

>And the Church is actually growing, Les.

Pure liquid bravado!

Hmm Calvins claim to only believe soon becomes asserted truths
again. Pussy cats cannot change their colour :-)

So others can better assess the veracity of Ramseys claim for
themselves here are some facts from Gallop surveys of what people
think:

twww.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

Q: What is your religious preference?

year 2010 Protestant = 42% - None = 13%
year 2000 Protestant = 52% - None = 8%
year 1980 Protestant = 61% - None = 7%

Change in trend:
from 1980 to 2000 protestants down 9% - None up 1%
from 2000 to 2010 protestants down 10% - None up 5%

from 1980 to 2010 protestants down 19% in just 20 years
and the rate of decline is increasing.

I rest my case and leave Ramsey to continue to
desperately try to undermine the default position we
are born with and that more and more people are realising
their deviancy from this norm is no longer justifed.

Since the only 'weapons' he has to accomplish this task
he has set himself are assertions (mostly quoted) and
mere religious beleif he cannot justify. I think I need
not worry especially when he undermines his ability
to convince others with smarmy sarcasm giving
the impresiion that he thinks he is superior to others.
Nobody likes a person who project that, so he is
his own worst enemy and has lost his argument
before he even begins.

[Les]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/11/2012 5:59 PM, Les wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:

<snip>

BTW Les does not hate that which he has no reason to believe
exists. Les does not offer opinions about that which he does
not believe exists but notes the Bible describes a somewhat nasty god
and that Calvin believes that it creates people soley so it
can see them endure torture and pain forever.

When asked if he regards himself as one of thse selected (to endure
forever knowing that countless others are eduring this pain) he
declines to answer.

I should image it would take one very sick individual who
would relish knowing that billions are enduring his torture
soley for his gods pleasure and is looking forward to seeing
it actually happen.

>But you never once gave any *proof*, Les.

I never tried since I do not answer to you, nor do I care what you
believe, and that it was not necessary anyway as it is obvious to
anybody with a modicum of reason that it would take
extraordinary evidence to convince people it is otherwise. Being
born without relgious belief (that everyody - even the Christians,
knows) needs to be taught . It is why they think it all impoortant
to catch children when still young and easiliy impressionable




could possibly be born believing one of the claimed gods exista. It
would be such an extraordinary claim for anybody with the ability to
reason things for themselves. It was them I was addressing
not you.

I note you are still not mentioning the factors that I discussed
that make it obvious (to all but you of course) that the claim
children are born believing in the existence claimed gods is plain
stupid and makes no sense.

To claim we are born believing in the existence of claimed gods
is such a ridiculous and extraordinary claim that it would take
some strong evidence to convince a sensible and reasonable person
that it was so. The default that we are not born theist (atheist) is
so obvious that only those who have abandoned all reason and
knowledge would deny it.

There is nothing to prove!

Relgious belief like language is acquired knowledge or
belief that comes from others.

Ramsey, at first said this:

>But here's something you didn't know. We Christians do have evidence
>that babies are aware of God, in ways science will never understand.

Now,since he did not provide ths evidence he admits (temporarily)
it is jst his belief

>And
>because it's in the Bible, some, including myself, consider it to be
>proof. So you can spare me with your indecorous persiflage. I will not
>read it.

A beleif he cannot offer evidence for even from his great fountain
of all knowledge <smirk> the Bible.

The default therefore remains is that nobody is born believing in the
claimed gods and are therefore not theist (atheist).

If he thinks it is otherwise he is going to need far more than mere
belief if he wishes to convince others. There is even evidence
(preseted below) that people are, at an increasing rate are
realising that is so.

>
>You need to give some *proof*. Forget about your opinions, Les.

Nope

>
>Nobody but you care about your opinions.
>

Where nobody = you LOL

>Got it, Les?

Yep nobody = you

>
<dross>

>
>
>>> Anybody with any common sense, and who's being the least bit honest with
>>> himself, can see that, Les. You're not fooling anyone, Les.

Where anybody = you

I seems nobody and anybody is Calvin depending on the

>> You aught to know by know Ramsey I am not interested in your worthless
>> beliefs
>
>I don't believe you, Les. I think you're lying.
>
>>> So when you're out for a Sunday morning ride, and you go past a house
>>> with about 8 to 12 cars in front, you'll know what's taking place inside.
>>
>> Yer it will be some asian family having a get together to celebrate
>> some family event. They are very big on family.
>>
>> Home churching I suspect is just a US thing. Claiming it
>> involves more people than used to be involved when people
>> attended churches is I suspect just wishful thinking or just
>> bravado. Well whatever who cares how many you. I suspect
>> your total numbers are less that those who have n relgious beliefs
>> over there.
>

<dross>

>
>> A recent report tells us that he Calvinist methodist of Wales
>> are closing one chapel a week due to attendances being quite
>> low.
>
>Attendance is low in the chapels, Les, because they are meeting in home
>churches.

I am not interested in your beliefs Ramsey

I suggest you keep reading that over and over again until you get-it.

<dross>

>
>And the Church is actually growing, Les.

Yer you said. That you keep repeating it and yet tell me
you could not care less what I think it sounds like you are
not so much trying to convince me as trying to convince
yourself it is so.

So o hers can better assess Ramseys claim for themselves

here are some facts from Gallop surveys of what people
think:

ttp://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

Q: What is your religious preference?

year 2010 Protestant = 42% None =13%
year 2000 Protestant = 52% None = 8%
year 1980 Protestant = 61% None = 7%


Change in trend
from 1980 to 2000 protestants down 9% None up 1%
from 2000 to 2010 protestants down 10% None up 5%

from 1980 to 2010 protestants down 19% in just 20 years

and te rate of decline is increasing




<snip>

[Les]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:05:59 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

Correction to error below:

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9/11/2012 5:59 PM, Les wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>
>>>>> So demand all you like, I do not answer to you.
>>>>
>>>> You do not answer because you cannot answer.
>>>
>>> Readers are advised to note what was snipped.
>>
>>I snipped your endless stream of subjective opinions, Les.
>
>I am enjoying this :-)
>
>>
>>> (I suspect that Calvins relgious obsession forces him to
>>> snip stuff that it does not want to see>
>>
>>Or maybe I don't particularly care to read your same opinion over again
>>and again and again and again and again.....
>>
>>You need to provide *proof*, Les, not opinions.

------------corrected sentence ---------------

>Nope you are the one who needs to provide a heck of a lot
>of extraoridnary evidence if you wish to convince people that the

>obvious default that babies are not born theist (atheist)
IS FALSE
>and
start to
>believe in the existence of
your
>claimed gods

--------------------------------------------------

Sorry about that.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/12/2012 6:05 AM, Les wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/2012 5:59 PM, Les wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>
>>>>> So demand all you like, I do not answer to you.
>>>>
>>>> You do not answer because you cannot answer.
>>>
>>> Readers are advised to note what was snipped.
>>
>> I snipped your endless stream of subjective opinions, Les.
>>

>>> (I suspect that Calvins relgious obsession forces him to
>>> snip stuff that it does not want to see>
>>
>> Or maybe I don't particularly care to read your same opinion over again
>> and again and again and again and again.....
>>
>> You need to provide *proof*, Les, not opinions.
>
> Nope you are the one who needs to provide a heck of a lot
> of extraoridnary evidence if you wish to convince people that the
> obvious default is that babies are not born theist (atheist) and
> believe in the existence aof claimed gods.

I see you're already making up lies to cover the inadequacy of evidence
for your assertion, Les. That's typical behavior from one defeated in
battle as you begin making your strategic retreat.

Unfortunately for you Les, I was anticipating you would do exactly that.
That is why, just yesterday, I wrote what completely invalidates that
feeble accusation of yours, and leaves you looking decrepit and
spavined, with nowhere to go.

So, I'll take that as your admission of defeat, and your inability to
provide support for your very own assertion that (and I quote): "NO baby

is born believing a god exists especially when they have never even

heard ithem(sic) claimed."

Which, as it turns out, is precisely as I expected you would do, Les.
<smirk>

> Before you said you had evidence and proof the default was false
> now you admit it is just mere belief having spectacularly shown
> you do not even understand you own precious quotes from the
> Babble.

And, as history also shows, you are now reduced to shouting lies over
your shoulder about your opponent, as you flee from the field of battle.

I'll take that as your humiliating confession of failure of having any
proof, or even any evidence, for your lame assertion, and also as your
failure for not being able to restrain yourself from taking my words
completely out of context.

You have now been reduced to the lowest levels of complete and utter
worthlessness and petty insignificance.

You should have listened to what I told you days ago. If you had, you
wouldn't be running away now with your tail stuck between your legs,
showing everyone just what a coward you are, Les.

[Reinserting a very important point, that explains why you hate God so

much, Little Les]

God has rejected you, Little Les

The Bible makes that point very clear.

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who
can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
--Romans 9:18-21 (ESV)

Got it, Little Les?

And, as always, you're more than welcome.

The pleasure has been all mine, Little Les.

<smirk>


--

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/12/2012 6:06 AM, Les wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/2012 5:59 PM, Les wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> BTW Les does not hate that which he has no reason to believe
> exists. Les does not offer opinions about that which he does
> not believe exists but notes the Bible describes a somewhat nasty god
> and that Calvin believes that it creates people soley so it
> can see them endure torture and pain forever.

Lies. Totally embellished, and taken completely out of context.

I do, however, find it fascinating that you are now reduced to referring
to yourself in the third person. It's like you know you have nothing to
support you. It's like you're not really there.

> When asked if he regards himself as one of thse selected (to endure
> forever knowing that countless others are eduring this pain) he
> declines to answer.

Another lie, from someone who has now been reduced to only telling lies
about his opponent.

> I should image it would take one very sick individual who
> would relish knowing that billions are enduring his torture
> soley for his gods pleasure and is looking forward to seeing
> it actually happen.

More lies. Totally embellished, and taken completely out of context.

>> But you never once gave any *proof*, Les.
>

> I never tried since I do not answer to you [snip]

You do not answer because you cannot answer, Little Les.

Your "assertion" is actually nothing more than an opinion.

It's your opinion against my opinion. Period.

It will never be more than that, Little Les..

Get used to it.

It's not going to change just because you think "it aught to", Little Les.

<smirk>

> I note you are still not mentioning the factors that I discussed
> that make it obvious (to all but you of course) that the claim
> children are born believing in the existence claimed gods is plain
> stupid and makes no sense.

Which is a strawman version of what I said, and like I've been saying,
nothing more than your own personal subjective opinion, Little Les.

That's all you have. No evidence. No proof. Just lies and
opinions from Little Les.

What you don't see is, anybody can do that, Little Les.

You're nobody special.

Anybody can tell lies and express opinions, Little Les, and probably do
it much better than you.

<blink><blink>


> To claim we are born believing in the existence of claimed gods ... [snip]

Lie. That is not what I said, and you know it, since you've already
commented on what I actually did say.

You've been caught in another lie, Little Les. Here in front of the
whole world.

How humiliating that must be for you.

<blink><g>

> Ramsey, at first said this:
>
>> But here's something you didn't know. We Christians do have evidence
>> that babies are aware of God, in ways science will never understand.
>
> Now,since he did not provide ths evidence he admits (temporarily)
> it is jst his belief

But I did. You've even commented on that as well, Little Les.

There you go again, caught in another lie.

It's just one lie after another with you, isn't it, Little Les?

<smirk>

>> And
>> because it's in the Bible, some, including myself, consider it to be
>> proof. So you can spare me with your indecorous persiflage. I will not
>> read it.
>
> A beleif he cannot offer evidence for even from his great fountain
> of all knowledge <smirk> the Bible.

There you go again, caught in another lie.

You commented on the evidence I presented for my belief just yesterday.

Have you already forgotten about that, Little Les? Already?

>> You need to give some *proof*. Forget about your opinions, Les.
>>

>> Nobody but you care about your opinions.
>>

>> Got it, Les?

>>
>>
>>
>> And the Church is actually growing, Les.
>
> Yer you said. That you keep repeating it and yet tell me
> you could not care less what I think it sounds like you are
> not so much trying to convince me as trying to convince
> yourself it is so.

As always, you're wrong, Little Les.

Just like a narcissist, you keep thinking this is all about you.

I've said it many times, in other threads, that I use posts from New
Atheists as a springboard to get the gospel message out to those who may
be lurking (i.e. not posting, only reading) who, unbeknownst to them,
God has already chosen for salvation.

So it has entirely nothing at all to do with you, Little Les.

Try and get over yourself, Little Les.

Say, that reminds me: How many New Atheists does it take to screw in a
light-bulb?

Only one, and he just stands there, while the rest of the world revolves
around him.

<blink><blink>

<smirk>

--

[Les]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:53:46 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/12/2012 6:05 AM, Les wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/11/2012 5:59 PM, Les wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So demand all you like, I do not answer to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do not answer because you cannot answer.
>>>>
>>>> Readers are advised to note what was snipped.
>>>
>>> I snipped your endless stream of subjective opinions, Les.
>>>
>>>> (I suspect that Calvins relgious obsession forces him to
>>>> snip stuff that it does not want to see>
>>>
>>> Or maybe I don't particularly care to read your same opinion over again
>>> and again and again and again and again.....
>>>
>>> You need to provide *proof*, Les, not opinions.
>>
>> Nope you are the one who needs to provide a heck of a lot
>> of extraoridnary evidence if you wish to convince people that the
>> obvious default is that babies are not born theist (atheist) and
>> believe in the existence aof claimed gods.
>

<dross>

<dross>.

>
>So, I'll take that as your admission of defeat, and your inability to
>provide support for your very own assertion that (and I quote): "NO baby
>is born believing a god exists especially when they have never even
>heard ithem(sic) claimed."
>

<dross>

>
>
>> Before you said you had evidence and proof the default was false
>> now you admit it is just mere belief having spectacularly shown
>> you do not even understand you own precious quotes from the
>> Babble.
>

<dross>

>I'll take that as your humiliating confession of failure of having any
>proof, or even any evidence, for your lame assertion, and also as your
>failure for not being able to restrain yourself from taking my words
>completely out of context.
>

<dross>

>
>You should have listened to what I told you days ago. If you had, you
>wouldn't be running away now with your tail stuck between your legs,
>showing everyone just what a coward you are, Les.
>
>

<dross and repeated rubbish>


smirk

[Les]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:58:06 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

<calvin...@live.com> wrote:

>On 9/12/2012 6:06 AM, Les wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/11/2012 5:59 PM, Les wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:15:17 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> BTW Les does not hate that which he has no reason to believe
>> exists. Les does not offer opinions about that which he does
>> not believe exists but notes the Bible describes a somewhat nasty god
>> and that Calvin believes that it creates people soley so it
>> can see them endure torture and pain forever.
>

<dross>
>
<dross>

>
>> When asked if he regards himself as one of thse selected (to endure
>> forever knowing that countless others are eduring this pain) he
>> declines to answer.

<dross>

>
>> I should image it would take one very sick individual who
>> would relish knowing that billions are enduring his torture
>> soley for his gods pleasure and is looking forward to seeing
>> it actually happen.
>

<dross>

>
>>> But you never once gave any *proof*, Les.
>>
>> I never tried since I do not answer to you [snip]
>
>You do not answer because you cannot answer, Little Les.
>
>Your "assertion" is actually nothing more than an opinion.
>
>It's your opinion against my opinion. Period.
>
>It will never be more than that, Little Les..
>
>Get used to it.
>

>It's not going to change just because you think "it aught to", <dross>
>
<dross>

>
>
>> I note you are still not mentioning the factors that I discussed
>> that make it obvious (to all but you of course) that the claim
>> children are born believing in the existence claimed gods is plain
>> stupid and makes no sense.
>
>Which is a strawman version of what I said, and like I've been saying,
>nothing more than your own personal subjective opinion, Little Les.
>
>That's all you have. No evidence. No proof. Just lies and
>opinions from Little Les.
>
>What you don't see is, anybody can do that, Little Les.
>
>You're nobody special.

Last line correct

Thanks for calling me 'little' Les :-)



<dross>

>> To claim we are born believing in the existence of claimed gods ... [snip]
>

<dross>

>
>> Ramsey, at first said this:
>>
>>> But here's something you didn't know. We Christians do have evidence
>>> that babies are aware of God, in ways science will never understand.
>>
>> Now,since he did not provide ths evidence he admits (temporarily)
>> it is jst his belief
>
>But I did. You've even commented on that as well, Little Les.
>

<dross>

>>> And
>>> because it's in the Bible, some, including myself, consider it to be
>>> proof. So you can spare me with your indecorous persiflage. I will not
>>> read it.
>>
>> A beleif he cannot offer evidence for even from his great fountain
>> of all knowledge <smirk> the Bible.
>

<dross>

>>> And the Church is actually growing, Les.
>>
>> Yer you said. That you keep repeating it and yet tell me
>> you could not care less what I think it sounds like you are
>> not so much trying to convince me as trying to convince
>> yourself it is so.
>

<dross>
>
<dross>

>
>I've said it many times, in other threads, that I use posts from New
>Atheists as a springboard to get the gospel message out to those who may
>be lurking (i.e. not posting, only reading) who, unbeknownst to them,
>God has already chosen for salvation.
>

<dross>

>
>Try and get over yourself, Little Les.

Again thanks for calling me little, it is much appreciated :-)

<dross>

Thanks for tis tirade of dross it was most interesting :-)

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/12/2012 11:26 AM, Little Les wrote:

<nothing at all>


<sound of crickets>




<blink><blink>

<smirk>

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/12/2012 11:32 AM, Little Les wrote:


<nothing at all>


<sound of crickets>

[Les]

Right. now you think you have demolished the messenger
wich a torrent of accusations of lies, elaborate strawmen, attempts to
bellitle, sarcasm, and other dross I shall ask everybody what they
think of the messages


Having passed over this and other attempts to divert attention

There are three messages left here

There is a god.

Some babies are born believing one of the claimed
gods because they are elect.

No baby could possbily be born believing the
existence of claimed gods simply because it does
not have the ability to and cannot have heard of the claims.

Which of these is the most plausible?

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/12/2012 12:57 PM, Les wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:36:07 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2012 11:26 AM, Little Les wrote:
>>
>> <nothing at all>
>>
>>
>> <sound of crickets>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <blink><blink>
>>
>> <smirk>
>
> Right. now you think you have demolished the messenger
> wich a torrent of accusations of lies, elaborate strawmen, attempts to
> bellitle, sarcasm, and other dross I shall ask everybody what they
> think of the messages
>
>
> Having passed over this and other attempts to divert attention
>
> There are three messages left here
>
> There is a god.
>
> Some babies are born believing one of the claimed
> gods because they are elect.
>
> No baby could possbily be born believing the
> existence of claimed gods simply because it does
> not have the ability to and cannot have heard of the claims.
>
> Which of these is the most plausible?

Which, after all is said and done, is exactly the same as asking the
question "What is your opinion on the matter?"

That's all it will ever be, Little Les, your opinion against mine.

Get used to it. It's not going to change just because you think "it

aught to", Little Les.

<blink><blink>

[Les]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:14:14 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

It is amazing just how easy to get you to admit something
if you do it indirectly.

When the conversation began Ramsey simply asserted his 'truth'
and expected eveybody to get it.

(the nonesense about being elected and so on and
of course his claim to have proof that his claimed god
announces himself to babies who immediately believe
it exists)

Then he came down to it being mere beliefs

Now he admit it just his opinion against mine there is a god and it
persuades pre-borns to merely believe it exists.

>Get used to it. It's not going to change just because you think "it
>aught to", Little Les.

What he just said (about it just being my opinion against his)
applies to him too. It will not change becasue he thinks it aught to
either.

But was it just my opinion, as he asserts, or a statement of an
obvious fact about the ability of babies that he has not
even attempted to refute?

Well I have rested my case so it is now for others to decide
for themselves

[Calvin Ramsey]

No, you're lying, and you're wrong.

>> Get used to it. It's not going to change just because you think "it
>> aught to", Little Les.
>

> But was it just my opinion, as he asserts, or a statement of an
> obvious fact about the ability of babies that he has not
> even attempted to refute?

Unless you can provide proof of your opinion, it will forever remain
just that, your opinion, and nothing more.

That's all it will ever be, Little Les, your opinion against mine.

Get used to it. It's not going to change just because you think "it
aught to", Little Les.

<blink><blink>
<smirk>

> Well I have rested my case so it is now for others to decide
> for themselves

How many more times are you going to say that, Little Les?

[Les]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:21:40 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

I shall keep you guessing.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/12/2012 4:46 PM, Little Les wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 Calvin Ramsey wrote:

>> How many more times are you going to say that, Little Les?
>
> I shall keep you guessing.

Not anymore.

I forced you, using psychological warfare, to tell me.

And you just told me all I wanted to know, Little Les.

[Father Haskell]

On Sep 6, 4:35 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 4:17 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 4:15 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/6/2012 4:06 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 6, 2:59 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "He says that young children have faith even when they have not been
> >>>> taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those
> >>>> raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. "
>
> >>> So I guess neither people nor "god" needs missionaries.
>
> >> Belief that God exists, and personal trust in the blood of Jesus for the
> >> forgiveness of sins, are two very different ideas, worlds apart.
>
> >> The first one is grouped under Ontology, the second under Soteriology.
>
> > The first one is ignorance, the second is psychosis.
>
> And because you've obviously been predestined by God to believe that, I
> will not even think of trying to change your mind, since that would be
> impossible.
>
> Even *you* cannot change your mind.

If it's god's will, then god is going to Hell, not me.

[Father Haskell]

On Sep 6, 7:41 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
>
> I think I'm beginning to see what your problem might actually be.
>
> Dimensia.

He has two minds?