Atheism is bad for you
Jahnu
On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
> books) said they were true. I require evidence. I don't want to bash
> Hinduism because I respect Hinduism (as well as the Hindus who were
> slaughtered by Muslims) and Buddhism but yeah I just need evidence.
See, you are doing it again - moaning and whining about all these
religions. Krishna says, that if you call out to Him, He'll be there
for you, immediately. Who gives a shit about what idiots do in the
name of religion? How is the fact that religion is misused by
fanatics
and idiots, evidence that religion is bad?
Krishna says:
If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of
conditioned life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such
consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be
lost. (Bg. 18.58)
Test that..
Virgil
<18e2320e-44cb-4ab1...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
> > books) said they were true. I require evidence. I don't want to bash
> > Hinduism because I respect Hinduism (as well as the Hindus who were
> > slaughtered by Muslims) and Buddhism but yeah I just need evidence.
>
> See, you are doing it again - moaning and whining about all these
> religions.
If any religion were true, shouldn't it be the only one?
So one is quite justified in moaning about there being so many of them.
Olrik
> In article
> <18e2320e-44cb-4ab1...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Jahnu<jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson"<seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
>>> books) said they were true. I require evidence. I don't want to bash
>>> Hinduism because I respect Hinduism (as well as the Hindus who were
>>> slaughtered by Muslims) and Buddhism but yeah I just need evidence.
>>
>> See, you are doing it again - moaning and whining about all these
>> religions.
>
> If any religion were true, shouldn't it be the only one?
As a teenager, when I started questioning religion, that's the very
first question that hit me : there are too many religions!
Then you start digging in history and you learn that whole people and
countries slaughtered each other about the finer points of *the same
religion*!
Religion fries your brains, kids. Don't do it!
fasgnadh
> In article
> <18e2320e-44cb-4ab1...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
>>> books)
Deck the halls with boughs of Holy, eh you atheist nitwit?? B^D
>>> said they were true.
Most people TEST a hypothesis.. the worlds religions have inspired
great and enduring civilisations, Science, Mathematics, Art, Music,
progress ... and EVERY atheist state has been a totalitarian tyranny...
Religion and atheism have both been tested, both have some problems
associated with the limitations of their followers, but the evidence is
in, rational humans have made their choices, religion has inspired,
built and sustained the most progressive societies all throughout history:
"At the beginning of the 20th Century a half of the world's
population identified itself as having a religious belief.
After one hundred years of secular national
identity that has risen to 2/3 of the world's population."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
>>> I require evidence.
That's hilarious.. given your past, but I just gave you some.
No doubt you will miss the point, again.
"I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
"Yes Atheists have beliefs" - Seon
Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
This is Seon, the Atheist convert, who can't keep his story straight,
claims he's happy believing in God, has no evidence for God, admits
he's irrational for believing in something he has no evidence for,
and wants someone else to provide evidence for HIS irrational (PRETEND)
beliefs..
That is Seon, in a nutshell.. where any atheist nut belongs!
"I didn't snip anything" - Seon
"I snip them" - Seon, in the SAME sentence, unable to keep his lies
straight.
_______________________
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Religion is a lie
# Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:38:42 +1000
# Message-ID: <xLSdnev2YsbGbo_R...@westnet.com.au>
#
# My only regret is most people here have plonked me,
# if only I had realized that before making an arse of myself.
____________________________
Seon declares I have converted him to atheism:
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
# Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
# Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
# Message-ID: <49652ef0$0$28522$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> recruits a convert
# >
# >
# > Should you decide to "deconvert", we'd be glad to have you. <G>
# >
# >
# >
# > Yep and you can thank fundamentalists like fags for the new convert.
# >
Seon the Atheist subsequently claims he believes in God: B^p
#From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops - OF A CHURCH!
BWAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA
# Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:09:05 +1000
# Message-ID: <49f79aa8$0$12595$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
#
# I am happy believing in God
Seon the atheist has no evidence for his belief in God
and asks himself why he believes without evidence:
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
# Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
# Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
# Message-ID: <49652ef0$0$28522$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# I have had experiences that have taught me life after
# death is true (but it wouldn't be evidence to you) but no
# evidence of God I'm afraid.
#
# as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?
Getting no sensible answer from himself, Seon the Atheist
decides to ask someone more sensible than himself;
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Is atheism becoming a religion?
# Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:09:04 +1000
# Message-ID: <49f45cf5$0$12614$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists
Seon is told to stop being such a gormless prat, but being a gormless
prat Seon continues to ask others to explain his beliefs to himself!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA
>>> I don't want to bash
>>> Hinduism because I respect Hinduism (as well as the Hindus who were
>>> slaughtered by Muslims) and Buddhism but yeah I just need evidence.
>> See, you are doing it again - moaning and whining about all these
>> religions.
>
> If any religion were true, shouldn't it be the only one?
Hey Virgil, If any gender was true, wouldn't there be just one?
What about species?
Seems all this ecological diversity in plants mean all but one is
'wrong', according to your monolithic fascism! B^D
You stupid atheist git!
> So one is quite justified in moaning about there being so many of them.
So you hate diversity.. no surprises there.. every atheist regime
tried to WIPE IT OUT!
8^o
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity
Actually not. I have often denied belief in monotheistic theology, but
that is as close as I have ever come to even understanding
"monolithic homogeneity"
WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING
by Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman
explains it all!
See http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html
Jahnu
<bla bla>
Here is why people like you will never surrender to the Truth -
Krishna says:
Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among
mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the
atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me. (Bg. 7.15)
Seon Ferguson
"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hvhfip$ir8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Le 2010-06-18 23:38, Virgil a �crit :
I'll probably be crucified again for this but oh well, what if that shows
there is truth in all religions? What if the reasons all these religions
fight is because humans have tried to interpret them and create this one
true religion dogma?
Seon Ferguson
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kFYSn.3466$Ls1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>> In article
>> <18e2320e-44cb-4ab1...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
>>>> books)
>
> Deck the halls with boughs of Holy, eh you atheist nitwit?? B^D
>
> >>> said they were true.
>
> Most people TEST a hypothesis.. the worlds religions have inspired great
> and enduring civilisations, Science, Mathematics, Art, Music,
> progress ... and EVERY atheist state has been a totalitarian tyranny...
>
They have also inspired dark and evil periods in human history.
> Religion and atheism have both been tested, both have some problems
> associated with the limitations of their followers, but the evidence is
> in, rational humans have made their choices, religion has inspired, built
> and sustained the most progressive societies all throughout history:
>
Just because something inspires you, how do you know it's true? People have
been inspired by what they thought was love but was actually crushes. It's
faith that inspires people.
> "At the beginning of the 20th Century a half of the world's
> population identified itself as having a religious belief.
> After one hundred years of secular national
> identity that has risen to 2/3 of the world's population."
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
>
>>>> I require evidence.
>
> That's hilarious.. given your past, but I just gave you some.
>
> No doubt you will miss the point, again.
>
>
No I get it I said I believe in God one day and say I need evidence the
next. The trouble was my faith was lacking. I was hoping someone would give
me evidence.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>
complying,like everything else, with the laws of relativity. 1 for = 1
against.
You obviously wish to convince others to your belief, so I have a
suggestion which in fact eminates from your own 'divine writings'.
You will have to prove your faith on a couple fronts.One being your
willingness to participate, and the other, to show no anxiety at the
potential outcome.
You have three choices, and they involve a 'fiery furnace', a 'lions
den' or a very large fish. Not sure how the third fits, but two out of
three aint bad.
I think the cliche 'put up or shut up' fits the bill.
Just for the record, Im not recommending either.
BOfL
Chazwin
> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>
> > In article
> > Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
> >>> books)
>
> Deck the halls with boughs of Holy, eh you atheist nitwit?? B^D
>
> >>> said they were true.
>
> Most people TEST a hypothesis.. the worlds religions have inspired
> great and enduring civilisations, Science, Mathematics, Art, Music,
> progress ... and EVERY atheist state has been a totalitarian tyranny...
All states where religion is in control have ALWAYS been totalitarian.
States that are totalitarian such as Stalin's Russia or N Vietnam
MIMIC religious states.
It is only states that have reduced the power of religion such as the
UK and the USA that have managed to avoid totalitarianism.
Don Martin
>Le 2010-06-18 23:38, Virgil a écrit :
>> In article
>> <18e2320e-44cb-4ab1...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jahnu<jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson"<seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
>>>> books) said they were true. I require evidence. I don't want to bash
>>>> Hinduism because I respect Hinduism (as well as the Hindus who were
>>>> slaughtered by Muslims) and Buddhism but yeah I just need evidence.
>>>
>>> See, you are doing it again - moaning and whining about all these
>>> religions.
>>
>> If any religion were true, shouldn't it be the only one?
>
>As a teenager, when I started questioning religion, that's the very
>first question that hit me : there are too many religions!
Might I offer a counter example? Gresham's Law: Bad money drives out the good.
This is illustrated by the fact that probably no American has received a
_silver_ quarter in pocket change for decades. When a cheap substitute (bad
money = DuPont sandwich metal quarters) appears, people stop spending the
silver, and hoard it; the good money very quickly goes out of circulation.
The same principle _could_ apply to divinities. A real god is possible (if
hitherto undemonstrated) but could be driven into obscurity by the cheap gods
with better marketing departments. Mormonism has enjoyed a remarkable success
over the past century and a half, owing largely to good marketing techniques. It
isn't neck and neck with the catholics yet, but it has passed some older
established protestant brands, I think.
>Then you start digging in history and you learn that whole people and
>countries slaughtered each other about the finer points of *the same
>religion*!
Of course: we always hate heretics more than we do infidels.
>Religion fries your brains, kids. Don't do it!
You are talking to the same kids who eagerly embrace methamphetamines?
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
omprem
wrote:
Religion is not a belief system as Atheism is. Religion is a
collection of non-empirical methods for accessing God directly and
maintaining that connection. Religion is not belief but rather
irrefutable experience.
Your other major mistake is to read the Bible literally. Scripture
cannot be read literally, and is instead presented as figurative
language (metaphor, parable, allegory, etc) because literalness
depends on the illusion of difference and God is One.
omprem
> On Jun 19, 6:34 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>
> > > In article
> > > <18e2320e-44cb-4ab1-84ae-24ce08584...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
> > >>> books)
>
> > Deck the halls with boughs of Holy, eh you atheist nitwit?? B^D
>
> > >>> said they were true.
>
> > Most people TEST a hypothesis.. the worlds religions have inspired
> > great and enduring civilisations, Science, Mathematics, Art, Music,
> > progress ... and EVERY atheist state has been a totalitarian tyranny...
>
> All states where religion is in control have ALWAYS been totalitarian.
Chaz: States that are totalitarian such as Stalin's Russia or N
Vietnam MIMIC religious states.
Omprem: Oh please. Those examples you cite are of avowedly Atheist
states and philosophies. You can add in the China of Chairman Mao and
the Cambodia of Pol Pot to complete the Atheist Horsemen of the
Apocalypse -war, pestilence, famine and death - that resulted in the
murders of untold tens of millions of people, many more times the
number of deaths than can attributed to so-called religious wars.
Fortunately, the universe abhors a vacuum and the vacuum of Atheism
soon gives way to the light of God.
Chaz: It is only states that have reduced the power of religion such
as the UK and the USA that have managed to avoid totalitarianism.
Omprem: You have just named two of the most totalitarian/imperial
states in world history in referring to the U.K. and the U.S.A. The
U.S. is a right wing totalitarian state that has waged war (and
lost) in its bid for world supremacy. The only war that the U.S. has
won in the last couple of centuries was Grenada. It lost in Canada,
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, many South American countries, and is
losing in Iraq. The U.K. follows the U.S. into many of these
adventures in a futile effort to recapture the nostalgia of its own
failed attempts at empire.
omprem
> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>
> > In article
> #
> # My only regret is most people here have plonked me,
> # if only I had realized that before making an arse of myself.
>
> ____________________________
>
> Seon declares I have converted him to atheism:
>
> # From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> # Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
> # Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
> # Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
> #
> # "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> recruits a convert
> # >
> # >
> # > Should you decide to "deconvert", we'd be glad to have you. <G>
> # >
> # >
> # >
> # > Yep and you can thank fundamentalists like fags for the new convert.
> # >
>
> Seon the Atheist subsequently claims he believes in God: B^p
>
> #From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> # Subject: Re: More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops - OF A CHURCH!
> BWAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA
> # Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:09:05 +1000
> #
> #
> # I am happy believing in God
>
> Seon the atheist has no evidence for his belief in God
> and asks himself why he believes without evidence:
>
> # From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> # Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
> # Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
> # Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
> #
> # I have had experiences that have taught me life after
> # death is true (but it wouldn't be evidence to you) but no
> # evidence of God I'm afraid.
> #
> # as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?
>
> Getting no sensible answer from himself, Seon the Atheist
> decides to ask someone more sensible than himself;
>
> # From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> # Subject: Re: Is atheism becoming a religion?
> # Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:09:04 +1000
> #
> # Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists
>
> Seon is told to stop being such a gormless prat, but being a gormless
> prat Seon continues to ask others to explain his beliefs to himself!
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA
>
> >>> I don't want to bash
> >>> Hinduism because I respect Hinduism (as well as the Hindus who were
> >>> slaughtered by Muslims) and Buddhism but yeah I just need evidence.
> >> See, you are doing it again - moaning and whining about all these
> >> religions.
>
> > If any religion were true, shouldn't it be the only one?
>
> Hey Virgil, If any gender was true, wouldn't there be just one?
>
> What about species?
>
> Seems all this ecological diversity in plants mean all but one is
> 'wrong', according to your monolithic fascism! B^D
>
> You stupid atheist git!
>
> > So one is quite justified in moaning about there being so many of them.
>
> So you hate diversity.. no surprises there.. every atheist regime
> tried to WIPE IT OUT!
>
> 8^o
>
> --
>
> alt.atheism FAQ:
>
> http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
>
>
> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> "We must combat religion"
> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> �Down with religion and long live atheism;
> the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
>
> "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
> - Lenin
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
>
> http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
>
Virgil wants empirical evidence of the non-empirical and never once
ponders the illogic in his request as his bias, fear and negativity
mire him deeper and deeper in nonsense.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:hvhfip$ir8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Le 2010-06-18 23:38, Virgil a écrit :
>>> In article
>>> <18e2320e-44cb-4ab1...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Jahnu<jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson"<seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
>>>>> books) said they were true. I require evidence. I don't want to bash
>>>>> Hinduism because I respect Hinduism (as well as the Hindus who were
>>>>> slaughtered by Muslims) and Buddhism but yeah I just need evidence.
>>>>
>>>> See, you are doing it again - moaning and whining about all these
>>>> religions.
>>>
>>> If any religion were true, shouldn't it be the only one?
>>
>> As a teenager, when I started questioning religion, that's the very first
>> question that hit me : there are too many religions!
>>
>> Then you start digging in history and you learn that whole people and
>> countries slaughtered each other about the finer points of *the same
>> religion*!
>>
>> Religion fries your brains, kids. Don't do it!
>>
>I'll probably be crucified again for this but oh well, what if that shows
>there is truth in all religions?
What if your granny had wheels instead of legs? Would that make her a
streetcar?
> What if the reasons all these religions
>fight is because humans have tried to interpret them and create this one
>true religion dogma?
So demonstrate there is.
Using the real world mening of "truth".
Virgil
<e5a28b31-8af0-4869...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> blithered:
>
> <bla bla>
>
> Here is why people like you will never surrender
For one thing, we would not know which version of claimed godliness to
surrender to, though it would certainly not be any proposed by Jahnu.
Virgil
<c01a1b51-cf4d-44f1...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:42�am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 1:34�pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:> Virgil
> > expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
> >
> > And you counter with another belief. Thats how beliefs perpetuate,
> > complying,like everything else, with the laws of relativity. 1 for = 1
> > against.
> >
> > You obviously wish to convince others to your belief, so I have a
> > suggestion which in fact eminates from your own 'divine writings'.
> >
> > You will have to prove your faith on a couple fronts.One being your
> > willingness to participate, and the other, to show no anxiety at the
> > potential outcome.
> >
> > You have three choices, and they involve a 'fiery furnace', a 'lions
> > den' or a very large fish. Not sure how the third fits, but two out of
> > three aint bad.
> >
> > I think the cliche 'put up or shut up' fits the bill.
> >
> > Just for the record, Im not recommending either.
> >
> > BOfL
>
> Religion is not a belief system as Atheism is.
"Atheism" as defined by OMPREM, is a figment of his own imagination and
does not exist outside it.
There is an atheism or non-theism which actually exists, but merely
fails to believe what the religious believe about religion.
And many people who believe in religion publicly acknowledge theirs to
be a belief system.
Virgil
<9713feb2-50c5-4c26...@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Virgil wants empirical evidence of the non-empirical
Not exactly.
I just see no reason to accept your assurances that the world is as YOU
see it when I see it quite differently.
Virgil
> Religion is not belief but rather
> irrefutable experience.
Not to those who have not had such experiences.
And such 'experiences' can be quite deceiving, particularly when one is
all hyped up, as one would necessarily be.
Smiler.
> On Jun 19, 1:34 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>>
<snip falsenads' rubbish>
>
> Virgil wants empirical evidence of the non-empirical
If it's non-empirical then it cannot be shown to exist.
Almost as if it didn't exist at all and is just a figment of your
imagination.
> and never once
> ponders the illogic
Projection appears to be your forte.
> in his request as his bias, fear and negativity
> mire him deeper and deeper in nonsense.
There goes another Irony Meter.
--
Smiler
The godless one.
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly
fit the prejudices of their believers.
Jahnu
> For one thing, we would not know which version of claimed godliness to
> surrender to, though it would certainly not be any proposed by Jahnu.
Of course. You'd never surrender to anything intelligent. It has to be
stupid.
Here is why you feel like that - Krishna says:
Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic
views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their
fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.
(Bg. 9.12)
Jahnu
> Not exactly.
>
> I just see no reason to accept your assurances that the world is as YOU
> see it when I see it quite differently.
Henrik V Blunck
I see your language is just as poor in English.
Who's the loser? A person chanting Hare Hare umpteen times, or someone
who *thinks* for himself?
Even when you disagree, you could still do so using proper language
instead of calling all non-members of the Krishna-cult losers.
--
Sincerely,
Henrik Blunck - Denmark
Are You In a Cult? => http://hubpages.com/hub/Are-You-In-A-Cult
Cults - 5 Keys to Surviving the Cult Experience - http://bit.ly/bJTug2
Immortalist
> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>
> > In article
> > Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
> >>> books)
>
> Deck the halls with boughs of Holy, eh you atheist nitwit?? B^D
>
> >>> said they were true.
>
> Most people TEST a hypothesis.. the worlds religions have inspired
> great and enduring civilisations, Science, Mathematics, Art, Music,
> progress ... and EVERY atheist state has been a totalitarian tyranny...
>
> Religion and atheism have both been tested, both have some problems
> associated with the limitations of their followers, but the evidence is
> in, rational humans have made their choices, religion has inspired,
> built and sustained the most progressive societies all throughout history:
>
> "At the beginning of the 20th Century a half of the world's
> population identified itself as having a religious belief.
> After one hundred years of secular national
> identity that has risen to 2/3 of the world's population."
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
Religion and atheism or humanism are "social philosophies" or social
ways of being. None of them are "sufficient" to meet the condition of
"enduring civilizations" even if these social phenomenon are necessary
conditions.
A handy tool in the search for precise definitions is the
specification of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for the
application of a term, the use of a concept, or the occurrence of some
phenomenon or event. For example, without water and oxygen, there
would be no human life; hence these things are necessary conditions
for the existence of human beings. Cockneys, according to the
traditional definition, are all and only those born within the sound
of the Bow Bells. Hence birth within the specified area is both a
necessary and a sufficient condition for being a Cockney.
Like other fundamental concepts, the concepts of necessary and
sufficient conditions cannot be readily specified in other terms. This
article shows how elusive the quest is for a definition of the terms
"necessary" and "sufficient", indicating the existence of systematic
ambiguity in the concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions. It
also shows the connection between puzzles over this issue and
troublesome issues surrounding the word "if" and its use in
conditional sentences.
1. Philosophy and Conditions
2. The Standard Theory: Truth-functions and Symmetry
3. Further Problems for the Standard Theory
4. Inferences, Reasons for Thinking and Reasons Why
5. Modest Conclusion
Immortalist
> On 20-06-2010 Jahnu wrote 17:07CET:
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:50 am, Virgil<Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> Not exactly.
> >> I just see no reason to accept your assurances that the world is as YOU
> >> see it when I see it quite differently.
>
> > Here God explains why you are such a loser - Krishna says:
> > Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic
> > views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their
> > fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.
> > (Bg. 9.12)
>
> I see your language is just as poor in English.
>
> Who's the loser? A person chanting Hare Hare umpteen times, or someone
> who *thinks* for himself?
>
Some evolutionists believe that religious instincts evolved merely to
keep order in society. As people became more libertarian and socialist
and anti-leader, there arose a need for a policing force.
Were Primitve Hunter/Gatherers Instinctually Socialists &
Egalitarians?
...To judge by the living hunter gatherer societies studied by
anthropologists, the social order would have been fiercely
egalitarian. Hunter gatherers have no headmen or chiefs, and no one is
willing to give or take orders. Men like power and will seize it if
they can. But if they can't rule, their next preference is that no one
rule over them.
The egalitarianism of hunter gatherers is not a passive preference but
a system that is aggressively maintained because it is under constant
challenge. From time to time strong individuals emerge and try to
dominate a group. But their efforts invariably provoke a coalition
against them. Others in the group will mock them or ignore their
orders. If they persist, they will be shunned or even evicted from the
group. If they are too intimidating, they will be killed. To avoid
blood feuds, the group that has decided to eliminate a domineering
leader will often assign one of his own relatives to kill him.
A perennial threat to the egalitarianism of the hunter gatherer band
was a skillful hunter who might try to dominate the band through his
success. So hunter gatherers impose a rule that all meat must be
distributed. Bragging and stinginess are the two social errors that
bring instant disapproval. The !Kung decree that an animal belongs to
the owner of the arrow that brought it down, who is usually not the
hunter. The owner then distributes the meat while the hunter makes
light of his achievement.
Primitive farmers too will take steps to kill those who disrupt social
harmony. Behavior judged as disruptive can consist of merely causing
envy through success or just being hard to get along with. Among the
Tsembaga, slash-and-burn farmers of central New Guinea, a man whose
pigs and gardens do conspicuously better than those of his neighbors
may be betrayed to the enemy so that through sorcery they will be able
to kill him in the next battle.
Making too many enemies in one's own village is a bad idea if one is a
Tsembaga. "Widespread antagonism toward a member of the group is
likely to lead to general agreement that he is a witch," writes the
anthropologist Roy Rappaport, "and when such agreement exists,
betrayal to the enemy is unnecessary; a man's own clan brothers may
kill him." Inquiring about the personalities of the people killed
recently for witchcraft, Kappaport learned that the victims were
"likely to be bad-tempered, argumentative, and assertive."
The egalitarian approach "appears to be universal for foragers who
live in small bands that remain nomadic, suggesting considerable
antiquity for political egalitarianism," writes the anthropologist
Christopher l'kehm, who has studied the transition from hierarchy to a
society of social equals.
A critical question in human evolution is how the hierarchy typical of
ape societies was transformed into its opposite, the egalitarianism of
hunter gatherers. Human brain size started to expand dramatically from
the split with chimps. One consequence of this increased cognitive
capacity was the invention of weapons such as wooden spears. Weapons
were the great equalizers, and would have had the effect of flattening
out the hierarchy of a still apelike society, Boehm suggests. Another
leveler would have been the cognitive ability of the weak to form
coalitions against tyrannical leaders...
...as egalitarianism slowly evolved in the human lineage, it would
have exposed a critical weakness in the social structure: with the
power of the alpha males eclipsed, how was order to be kept? If no one
were willing to defer to anyone else, who would determine the
interests of the group? Who would take the personal risk of punishing
deviant and antisocial behavior?
The threat of freeloading and anarchy would have become increasingly
serious as human cognitive abilities increased. Individuals would have
figured out new and better ways to take advantage of the group's
protection without contributing anything in return. Nothing is more
corrosive to a group's cohesion than free riders. If they go
unpunished, the advantage of social living quickly diminishes; others
will contribute less, and the group will disintegrate or crumble under
challenge from neighbors. Free riders would have gained new power with
the advent of language, a perfect instrument with which to deceive,
prevaricate and manipulate. Those who were not pulling their full
weight had a new means of cloaking their selfishness...
The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and
Why It Endures - Nicholas Wade
http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Instinct-Religion-Evolved-Endures/dp/B003B3NVZY/
Virgil
<77300b49-e084-46e2...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 1:12 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > For one thing, we would not know which version of claimed godliness to
> > surrender to, though it would certainly not be any proposed by Jahnu.
>
> Of course. You'd never surrender to anything intelligent. It has to be
> stupid.
That form of stupidity is one Jahnu has already surrendered to.
Virgil
<c9606510-479f-4027...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 1:50 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > Not exactly.
> >
> > I just see no reason to accept your assurances that the world is as YOU
> > see it when I see it quite differently.
>
> Here God explains
You god speaks so softly that no one is hears him/her/it except when
self hypnotized.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Jun 19, 7:42 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Religion is not a belief system as Atheism is. Religion is a
> collection of non-empirical methods for accessing God directly and
> maintaining that connection.
> Religion is not belief but rather
> irrefutable experience.
All subjective experiences are irrefutable. You could have well
described an atheist or non atheist violinist.
Both have similar experiences, both have different beliefs of what the
experience is.
>
> Your other major mistake is to read the Bible literally.
This applies to everybodies interaction with life as a whole (no
mistatkes). Every experience and observation is subject to the
interpretation of the observer. I see ref. to sowing and reaping as
reference to karma, and 'the sins of the father etc' as a ref to the
reincarnation process.
Many see a warning, not to mis behave.
> Scripture
> cannot be read literally,...
Canot be? Most religions have a huge componant of literal
interpretors. Not 'cannot be', ..rather 'can be' and 'is'(alway
depending on the stage of the observer).
BOfL
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sulfate
> On Jun 20, 1:12 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > For one thing, we would not know which version of claimed godliness to
> > surrender to, though it would certainly not be any proposed by Jahnu.
>
> Of course. You'd never surrender to anything intelligent. It has to be
> stupid.
You use circular reasoning to prove your point. Perhaps you haven't
noticed this (which means you're stupid), or perhaps you see this and
don't care. (Which also makes you stupid.)
Your variation on totem-shaking is different than every other totem-
shaking... how, exactly?
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
On Jun 20, 12:07 am, omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:42 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Religion is not a belief system as Atheism is. Religion is a
> collection of non-empirical methods for accessing God directly and
> maintaining that connection.
> Religion is not belief but rather
> irrefutable experience.
***** Step 1 - redefine religion, so it can fit your delusions better than
the reality that is religon.
Religion is a belief; since there is absolutely NO facts or evidence to
support5 it - it ONLY has "belief" as support.
There is NO "accessing god" if you have no EVIDENCE for that god. Anything
you say about that god, is totally meaningless. ***********
"Irrefutable experiences" mean absolutely nothing. It is the chore of the
CLAIMINT to support the validity of the experience, not anyone elses to
prove it false.
Me, having a simple nightmare, is totally "Irrefutable". That doesn't mean
anything IN my nightmare is evidentary or factual.
All subjective experiences are irrefutable. You could have well
described an atheist or non atheist violinist.
Both have similar experiences, both have different beliefs of what the
experience is.
>
> Your other major mistake is to read the Bible literally.
********Oh? We're SUPPOSED to read it with our minds shut off, and our eyes
covered"?
All problems created by taking the bible literally are caused by BELIEVERS -
not atheists.
This applies to everybodies interaction with life as a whole (no
mistatkes). Every experience and observation is subject to the
interpretation of the observer. I see ref. to sowing and reaping as
reference to karma, and 'the sins of the father etc' as a ref to the
reincarnation process.
Many see a warning, not to mis behave.
> Scripture
> cannot be read literally,...
Canot be? Most religions have a huge componant of literal
interpretors. Not 'cannot be', ..rather 'can be' and 'is'(alway
depending on the stage of the observer).
BOfL
******I got it ..... you put the bible in the middle of an Ouija board - and
use the planchette to "guess" what in the bible.
Jahnu
> Not to those who have not had such experiences.
Only animals are barred from religious experiences.
> And such 'experiences' can be quite deceiving, particularly when one is
> all hyped up, as one would necessarily be.
Speaking about hyped up, you seem completely hyped by science and the
modern consumer culture.
Virgil
<68b6e5dd-83b6-45fd...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 1:54 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > Not to those who have not had such experiences.
>
> Only animals are barred from religious experiences.
If there are such things, how do you know animals ARE barred?
>
> > And such 'experiences' can be quite deceiving, particularly when one is
> > all hyped up, as one would necessarily be.
>
> Speaking about hyped up, you seem completely hyped by science and the
> modern consumer culture.
Not so much that but the ability of some nations to create an
environment in which religions are no longer essential.
God was the Master when thinking of sins
to trouble his poor devotees
but Hell has no fury that even begins
to match the delights of disease.
There's Cholera, Typhoid, Gas Gangrene and Yaws
Bubonic Plague, Lockjaw and Gout
Rickets, TB and inherited flaws
like Colons that grow inside out.
It's stark, raving madness that Syphilis brings
and AIDS is a terrible ill
Muscular Dystrophy loosens our strings
and Leprosy's not a great thrill.
There's no end in sight to the misery brought
by God's love of sickness and pain
for each time He looks at the horrors He wrought
He chortles a merry refrain.
The Lord leaves few clues to his sadist's delight
but , rarely, his caution may fail
so, when you catch Smallpox in just the right light
The lumps spell "Jehova" in Braille.
Now, Christians may think that my verses are rude
to a Deity kindly of mind
but they know , in their hearts, that my doggerel's imbued
with truth of a most piercing kind.
The truth is that God either doesn't exist
of if he exists he's not nice
And, really, let's face it, He'd never be missed
You can all free yourselves in a trice.
The problem for Christians denying God's name
the problem that stings sharp as salt
is just that, without Him, there's no-one to blame
without Him it's all your own fault.
John Wright
Jahnu
<bla bla>
Virgil
<b64d653f-7513-4299...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
And that "<bla bla>" of Jahnu's is as articulate as Jahnu ever gets.
Jahnu
> And that "<bla bla>" of Jahnu's is as articulate as Jahnu ever gets.
Look, you are predicted in the Bhagavad Gita - Krishna says:
Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among
mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the
atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me. (Bg. 7.15)
Virgil
<f1aee8f6-b733-420b...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 6:31 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> blithered:
>
> > And that "<bla bla>" of Jahnu's is as articulate as Jahnu ever gets.
>
> Look, you are predicted in the Bhagavad Gita
Look, you are predicted in MAD magazine.
Jahnu
> Look, you are predicted in MAD magazine.
Virgil
<e35cc5e5-3a1f-43bd...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 8:43 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> whimpered:
>
> > Look, you are predicted in MAD magazine.
>
> Here is why
Because it predicts only idiocies.
Jahnu
> Because it predicts only idiocies.
Virgil
<c65a06f7-050c-48fb...@y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2:05 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> whined:
>
> > Jahnu predicts only idiocies.
>
> Here is why
He has an idiotic god.
Jahnu
> He has an idiotic god.
Here is why you'd say something so incredibly stupid. It's all
predicted in the Bhagavad Gita - Krishna says:
Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My
transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be. (Bg. 9.11)
Virgil
<ca0aca56-d182-4521...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:11�am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > Jahnu has an idiotic god.
>
> Here is why
No one knows why.
Jahnu
> No one knows why.
Virgil
<7f9422f3-96e4-4985...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 10:09 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > No one knows why.
>
> I know why
Jahnu only thinks he knows.
As Mark Twain once said,
"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you, its what you know for
certain that just ain't so!"
And on that basis, Jahnu is hurting badly.
Jahnu
> And on that basis, Jahnu is hurting badly.
You wish...
Jahnu
> And on that basis, Jahnu is hurting badly.
You wish...
Virgil
<2b24cee8-9508-4567...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 10:11 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > And on that basis, Jahnu is hurting badly.
>
> You wish...
Not so! I wouldn't wish pain on anyone, but some, like Janhnu, manage
bring it on themselves.
Virgil
<9379c560-82a4-4740...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 10:11 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > And on that basis, Jahnu is hurting badly.
>
> You wish...
Why wold I wish pain on anyone?
But when Jahnu chooses to bring it onto himself, I have no power to stop
him.
Jahnu
> But when Jahnu chooses to bring it onto himself, I have no power to stop
> him.
You have no power to do anything. The only thing you have to look
forward to is getting sick, growing old and dying a miserable death.
That's what atheism does for you.
Virgil
<75fc6f4f-c3e7-4194...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 7:01 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > But when Jahnu chooses to bring it onto himself, I have no power to stop
> > him.
>
> You have no power to do anything.
I seem to have the power to make you post your idiocies over and over
again.
Olrik
:-D
Jahnu
> I seem to have the power to make you post your idiocies over and over
> again.
The only one posting his idiocies over and over again is you. I'm only
posting these quotes to give you a chance to hear Krishna's name
repeatedly. One day you'll thank me for it. Besides, it's the only way
to deal with a total moron. Just smash him with the words of God. It
irks him no end.
Krishna says:
From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all
are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But
one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again.
(Bg. 8.16)
Virgil
<0f286c81-1424-434d...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:54 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > I seem to have the power to make you post your idiocies over and over
> > again.
>
> I'm only
> posting these quotes to give you a chance to hear Krishna's name
> repeatedly.
As I never read your posts aloud, it doesn't happen.
Jahnu
> As I never read your posts aloud, it doesn't happen.
You hear it in your mind. Of course, a dull headed person like you
won't get such a simple self-evident point. That's why atheism is bad
for you. It makes you stupid.
omprem
> omprem wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 1:34 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>
> <snip falsenads' rubbish>
>
>
>
> > Virgil wants empirical evidence of the non-empirical
Smiler: If it's non-empirical then it cannot be shown to exist.
Almost as if it didn't exist at all and is just a figment of your
imagination.
Omprem: Your mistake is one of overgeneralization plus ignorance of
learning styles. There are other learning styles besides the linear
mathematical/logical one that you support. Intra-personal intelligence
and body/kinesthetic intelligence are just two of them.
> > and never once
> > ponders the illogic
>
> Projection appears to be your forte.
>
> > in his request as his bias, fear and negativity
> > mire him deeper and deeper in nonsense.
>
> There goes another Irony Meter.
>
> --
> Smiler
> The godless one.
> a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly
> fit the prejudices of their believers.
omprem
> On 20-06-2010 Jahnu wrote 17:07CET:
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:50 am, Virgil<Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> Not exactly.
> >> I just see no reason to accept your assurances that the world is as YOU
> >> see it when I see it quite differently.
>
> > Here God explains why you are such a loser - Krishna says:
> > Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic
> > views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their
> > fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.
> > (Bg. 9.12)
>
Henrik: Who's the loser? A person chanting Hare Hare umpteen times,
or someone who *thinks* for himself?
Omprem: Mantra repetition is a method of accessing other means of
knowing besides the linear mathematical/logical that you try to
employ. Atheists attempt to disguise their bias, fear, negativity and
addictions as rationality but the giveaway is the tag line, 'thinks
for oneself' which clearly refers to wishful/magical thinking
especially given the ease with which each and every Atheist statement
can be shown to be false logically or factually.
> Even when you disagree, you could still do so using proper language
> instead of calling all non-members of the Krishna-cult losers.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Henrik Blunck - Denmark
> Are You In a Cult? =>http://hubpages.com/hub/Are-You-In-A-Cult
> Cults - 5 Keys to Surviving the Cult Experience -http://bit.ly/bJTug2
omprem
> On Jun 18, 10:34 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>
> > > <18e2320e-44cb-4ab1-84ae-24ce08584...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Jun 13, 5:39 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Yeah I can't accept things as true just because a holly book (or holly
> > >>> books)
>
> > Deck the halls with boughs of Holy, eh you atheist nitwit?? B^D
>
> > >>> said they were true.
>
> > Most people TEST a hypothesis.. the worlds religions have inspired
> > great and enduring civilisations, Science, Mathematics, Art, Music,
> > progress ... and EVERY atheist state has been a totalitarian tyranny...
>
> > Religion and atheism have both been tested, both have some problems
> > associated with the limitations of their followers, but the evidence is
> > in, rational humans have made their choices, religion has inspired,
> > built and sustained the most progressive societies all throughout history:
>
> > "At the beginning of the 20th Century a half of the world's
> > population identified itself as having a religious belief.
> > After one hundred years of secular national
> > identity that has risen to 2/3 of the world's population."
>
> > http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
>
> Religion and atheism or humanism are "social philosophies" or social
> ways of being. None of them are "sufficient" to meet the condition of
> "enduring civilizations" even if these social phenomenon are necessary
> conditions.
>
> A handy tool in the search for precise definitions is the
> specification of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for the
> application of a term, the use of a concept, or the occurrence of some
> phenomenon or event. For example, without water and oxygen, there
> would be no human life; hence these things are necessary conditions
> for the existence of human beings. Cockneys, according to the
> traditional definition, are all and only those born within the sound
> of the Bow Bells. Hence birth within the specified area is both a
> necessary and a sufficient condition for being a Cockney.
>
> Like other fundamental concepts, the concepts of necessary and
> sufficient conditions cannot be readily specified in other terms. This
> article shows how elusive the quest is for a definition of the terms
> "necessary" and "sufficient", indicating the existence of systematic
> ambiguity in the concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions. It
> also shows the connection between puzzles over this issue and
> troublesome issues surrounding the word "if" and its use in
> conditional sentences.
>
> 1. Philosophy and Conditions
> 2. The Standard Theory: Truth-functions and Symmetry
> 3. Further Problems for the Standard Theory
> 4. Inferences, Reasons for Thinking and Reasons Why
> 5. Modest Conclusion
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/
The central problem in your theory is your insistence of definition.
Definition entails individuated existence in space/time. God is
everywhere all the time and so is not individuated and is not amenable
to definition.
Your attempt to cover up this deficiency with the red herring of
necessary and sufficient is noted.
Oh yes, religion is not a social philosophy. Religion is a collection
of methods for accessing one's innate divinity and recognizing that
divinity is also the divinity that created, sustains, and will
eventually collapse the universes.
omprem
> On Jun 20, 8:30 am, Henrik V Blunck <hen...@blunck.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20-06-2010 Jahnu wrote 17:07CET:
>
> > > On Jun 20, 1:50 am, Virgil<Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > >> Not exactly.
> > >> I just see no reason to accept your assurances that the world is as YOU
> > >> see it when I see it quite differently.
>
> > > Here God explains why you are such a loser - Krishna says:
> > > Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic
> > > views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their
> > > fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.
> > > (Bg. 9.12)
>
> > I see your language is just as poor in English.
>
> > who *thinks* for himself?
>
> keep order in society. As people became more libertarian and socialist
> and anti-leader, there arose a need for a policing force.
>
> Were Primitve Hunter/Gatherers Instinctually Socialists &
> Egalitarians?
>
> ...To judge by the living hunter gatherer societies studied by
> anthropologists, the social order would have been fiercely
> egalitarian. Hunter gatherers have no headmen or chiefs, and no one is
> willing to give or take orders. Men like power and will seize it if
> they can. But if they can't rule, their next preference is that no one
> rule over them.
>
> The egalitarianism of hunter gatherers is not a passive preference but
> a system that is aggressively maintained because it is under constant
> challenge. From time to time strong individuals emerge and try to
> dominate a group. But their efforts invariably provoke a coalition
> against them. Others in the group will mock them or ignore their
> orders. If they persist, they will be shunned or even evicted from the
> group. If they are too intimidating, they will be killed. To avoid
> blood feuds, the group that has decided to eliminate a domineering
> leader will often assign one of his own relatives to kill him.
>
> A perennial threat to the egalitarianism of the hunter gatherer band
> was a skillful hunter who might try to dominate the band through his
> success. So hunter gatherers impose a rule that all meat must be
> distributed. Bragging and stinginess are the two social errors that
> bring instant disapproval. The !Kung decree that an animal belongs to
> the owner of the arrow that brought it down, who is usually not the
> hunter. The owner then distributes the meat while the hunter makes
> light of his achievement.
>
> Primitive farmers too will take steps to kill those who disrupt social
> harmony. Behavior judged as disruptive can consist of merely causing
> envy through success or just being hard to get along with. Among the
> Tsembaga, slash-and-burn farmers of central New Guinea, a man whose
> pigs and gardens do conspicuously better than those of his neighbors
> may be betrayed to the enemy so that through sorcery they will be able
> to kill him in the next battle.
>
> Making too many enemies in one's own village is a bad idea if one is a
> Tsembaga. "Widespread antagonism toward a member of the group is
> likely to lead to general agreement that he is a witch," writes the
> anthropologist Roy Rappaport, "and when such agreement exists,
> betrayal to the enemy is unnecessary; a man's own clan brothers may
> kill him." Inquiring about the personalities of the people killed
> recently for witchcraft, Kappaport learned that the victims were
> "likely to be bad-tempered, argumentative, and assertive."
>
> The egalitarian approach "appears to be universal for foragers who
> live in small bands that remain nomadic, suggesting considerable
> antiquity for political egalitarianism," writes the anthropologist
> Christopher l'kehm, who has studied the transition from hierarchy to a
> society of social equals.
>
> A critical question in human evolution is how the hierarchy typical of
> ape societies was transformed into its opposite, the egalitarianism of
> hunter gatherers. Human brain size started to expand dramatically from
> the split with chimps. One consequence of this increased cognitive
> capacity was the invention of weapons such as wooden spears. Weapons
> were the great equalizers, and would have had the effect of flattening
> out the hierarchy of a still apelike society, Boehm suggests. Another
> leveler would have been the cognitive ability of the weak to form
> coalitions against tyrannical leaders...
>
> ...as egalitarianism slowly evolved in the human lineage, it would
> have exposed a critical weakness in the social structure: with the
> power of the alpha males eclipsed, how was order to be kept? If no one
> were willing to defer to anyone else, who would determine the
> interests of the group? Who would take the personal risk of punishing
> deviant and antisocial behavior?
>
> The threat of freeloading and anarchy would have become increasingly
> serious as human cognitive abilities increased. Individuals would have
> figured out new and better ways to take advantage of the group's
> protection without contributing anything in return. Nothing is more
> corrosive to a group's cohesion than free riders. If they go
> unpunished, the advantage of social living quickly diminishes; others
> will contribute less, and the group will disintegrate or crumble under
> challenge from neighbors. Free riders would have gained new power with
> the advent of language, a perfect instrument with which to deceive,
> prevaricate and manipulate. Those who were not pulling their full
> weight had a new means of cloaking their selfishness...
>
> The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and
> Why It Endures - Nicholas Wadehttp://www.amazon.com/Faith-Instinct-Religion-Evolved-Endures/dp/B003...
>
> > Even when you disagree, you could still do so using proper language
> > instead of calling all non-members of the Krishna-cult losers.
>
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> > Henrik Blunck - Denmark
> > Are You In a Cult? =>http://hubpages.com/hub/Are-You-In-A-Cult
> > Cults - 5 Keys to Surviving the Cult Experience -http://bit.ly/bJTug2
Oh the perils of your attempting to become an instant internet
expert.
All you have done is to repeat another Atheist's wishful thinking. In
doing so, you have committed the logical error, aptly known as the
argumentum ad nauseum, whereby you believe that the more times an
false piece of wishful thinking is repeated, the more likely it is to
magically become true. It does not.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
What a neat trick you tried to use there. Did you confuse yourself when
you defined God but claimed that God could not be defined?
Jahnu
> What a neat trick you tried to use there. Did you confuse yourself when
> you defined God but claimed that God could not be defined?
Krishna says:
Now hear, O son of Pritha, how by practicing yoga in full
consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in
full, free from doubt. (Bg. 7.1)
Virgil
<a35f6626-ea61-4cf7...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 4:04 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > What a neat trick you tried to use there. Did you confuse yourself when
> > you defined God but claimed that God could not be defined?
>
> Krishna says
Jahnu has no answer of his own but has to crib an answer!
Virgil
<40871f99-b511-49df...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Smiler: If it's non-empirical then it cannot be shown to exist.
> Almost as if it didn't exist at all and is just a figment of your
> imagination.
>
> Omprem: Your mistake
OMPREM's mistake is posting here.
Virgil
<c0c583a6-0201-4ddd...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Henrik: Who's the loser? A person chanting Hare Hare umpteen times,
> or someone who *thinks* for himself?
>
> Omprem: Mantra repetition is a method of accessing other means of
> knowing besides the linear mathematical/logical that you try to
> employ.
It is also a method used to induce self-hypnosis, in which state one can
convince ones self of anything at all, however idiotic.
Virgil
<7e418317-1738-4a71...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The central problem in your theory is your insistence of definition.
> Definition entails individuated existence in space/time. God is
> everywhere all the time and so is not individuated and is not amenable
> to definition.
Then there is no point in ever talking about any "God" as there is no
way to know what one is talking about!
Atheism is all about effing the ineffable.
Virgil
<5c8e7c2f-2c37-4a57...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Far better than to repeat OMPREM's wishful thinking that his attacks on
reason have any effect.
OMPREM's preaching never reaches past his choir.
Virgil
<f36d1771-d90e-410e...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 8:36 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > As I never read your posts aloud, it doesn't happen.
>
> You hear it in your mind. Of course
As Jahnu's foolish fallacies come through mostly as static noises, They
get automatically damped out.
Smiler.
Even in your turds?
> and so is not individuated and is not amenable
> to definition.
>
That which cannot be defined, cannot exist.
<snip bullshit>
Jahnu
> That which cannot be defined, cannot exist.
The Vaishnava-religion gives a perfect definition of the Supreme. Do
you want to hear it?
Virgil
<ef6c259a-384f-4861...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:19 am, "Smiler." <Smi...@Jo.king.com> wrote:
>
> > That which cannot be defined, cannot exist.
>
> The Vaishnava-religion gives a perfect definition of the Supreme. Do
> you want to hear it?
A lot of things that CAN be defined also don't exist. Consider unicorns.
Jahnu
> > The Vaishnava-religion gives a perfect definition of the Supreme. Do
> > you want to hear it?
>
> A lot of things that CAN be defined also don't exist. Consider unicorns.
That was not the point, bozo. Your tendency to blather the most
ridiculous, self-evident, boring statements as if they were rare,
sublime truths proves that atheism is bad for you.
Krishna says:
If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of
conditioned life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such
consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be
lost. (Bg. 18.58)
Virgil
<60c076ba-7f6c-4353...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 6:53 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > > The Vaishnava-religion gives a perfect definition of the Supreme. Do
> > > you want to hear it?
> >
> > A lot of things that CAN be defined also don't exist. Consider unicorns.
>
> That was not the point, bozo.
It is my point!
Jahnu
> It is my point!
omprem
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 01:49:27 -0700 (PDT), omprem <omprem...@gmail.com>
You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension. The point was
that God could not be 'defined' by empiricism because empiricism
depends on boundaries and limits and God is without boundaries or
limits. Do you get it now?
Jahnu
> You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension. The point was
> that God could not be 'defined' by empiricism because empiricism
> depends on boundaries and limits and God is without boundaries or
> limits. Do you get it now?- Hide quoted text -
Yes, I get that. Still God can be defined by empiricism. Of course He
can't be defined in His totally, for He is a spiritual (anti-material)
being, but still He can be defined approximately.
In the Vedic philosophy God is defined as follows by Brahma, the god
of creation:
isvarah paramah krsnah / sac-chid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir ädir govindah / sarva-karana-karanam
TRANSLATION
Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an
eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no
other origin than Himself. He is the prime cause of all causes.
-Brahma Samhita 5.1
Besides that, Krishna is also defined as the Supreme Enjoyer and
Controller. And in the Bhagavad Gita, God suggests that we meditate on
the following definition:
One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows
everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is
smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is
beyond all material conception, who is inconceivable, and who is
always a person. He is luminous like the sun, and He is
transcendental, beyond this material nature.
(Bg. 8.9)
omprem
> In article
> <a35f6626-ea61-4cf7-98eb-9ccea50ee...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 4:04 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > What a neat trick you tried to use there. Did you confuse yourself when
> > > you defined God but claimed that God could not be defined?
>
> > Krishna says
>
> Jahnu has no answer of his own but has to crib an answer!
If he had said what he said on his own you would have asked for proof.
He cited an authority and a method for accessing God/Parabrahman and
you ask for his personal view. Are you capable of knowing what it is
you want?
omprem
> In article
>
> omprem <omprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Henrik: Who's the loser? A person chanting Hare Hare umpteen times,
> > or someone who *thinks* for himself?
>
> > Omprem: Mantra repetition is a method of accessing other means of
> > knowing besides the linear mathematical/logical that you try to
> > employ.
>
> It is also a method used to induce self-hypnosis, in which state one can
> convince ones self of anything at all, however idiotic.
Actually meditation is a method of rising above the addiction to sense
impression and ego.
omprem
smiler: That which cannot be defined, cannot exist.
Omprem: Yours are the logical errors of overgeneralization in
attempting to apply empiricism to that which is beyond its limits and
flaws and of equivocation on the word 'exist' by assuming only one
meaning for it.
omprem
Amen Brother.
Asato Ma Sat Gamaya
Tamaso Ma Jyotir-Gamaya
Mriytor-Ma Amritam Gamaya
Om Purnamadah Purnamidam
Purnat Purnamudachyate
Purnasya Purnamadaya
Purnamevavasisyate
Virgil
<6dcf2114-3ce3-416a...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, Omprem is arguing in circles again! He again tries to define what
he declares is incapable of being defined.
Virgil
<737c285f-1578-4f53...@a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Anything one can talk about one can define well enough to talk about.
So if Omprem declares "God" is incapable of being defined at all, then
whatever Omprem means by that non-word cannot be talked about because no
one can know what is being talked about.
So all of Omprem's talk about "God" is nonsense.
Virgil
<595cda1a-55b6-4703...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
omprem <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:12 am, Jahnu <jahnud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 3:19 am, "Smiler." <Smi...@Jo.king.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That which cannot be defined, cannot exist.
> >
> > The Vaishnava-religion gives a perfect definition of the Supreme. Do
> > you want to hear it?
Omprem says otherwise, he says "it" can't be defined.
You two nuts should get your acts together.
> Amen Brother.
>
Virgil
<1c4ac0d2-50d0-431d...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 10:13�am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> whimpered:
>
> > It is my point!
>
> Look, you are predicted in the Bhagavad Gita
Then it is the only thing that it got right!
Smiler.
No answer, Omprem?
>>
>>> and so is not individuated and is not amenable
>>> to definition.
>
> smiler: That which cannot be defined, cannot exist.
>
> Omprem: Yours are the logical errors of overgeneralization in
> attempting to apply empiricism to that which is beyond its limits and
> flaws and of equivocation on the word 'exist' by assuming only one
> meaning for it.
>
Then give us your definition of the word 'exist'.
Smiler.
No answer, Omprem?
>>
>>> and so is not individuated and is not amenable
>>> to definition.
>
> smiler: That which cannot be defined, cannot exist.
>
> Omprem: Yours are the logical errors of overgeneralization in
> attempting to apply empiricism to that which is beyond its limits and
> flaws and of equivocation on the word 'exist' by assuming only one
> meaning for it.
>
Then give us your definition of the word 'exist'.
--
Smiler.
The words 'about "God"' are redundant.
Apostate
We're betting on a Humpty Dumpty definition.
Omprem show a distinctly cracked-eggy posting style, don't you find?
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Being Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
. -- Doc Smartass
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
You define God by claiming that He is without borders or limits.
Your argument is self-defeating.
Jahnu
> You define God by claiming that He is without borders or limits.
>
> Your argument is self-defeating.- Hide quoted text -
Nope. But you are lucked up in a materialistic mindset judging
everything according to that limited understanding. God is
transcendental. Transcendental means above the laws that govern
matter.
Krishna says:
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything
emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My
devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts. (Bg. 10.8)
omprem
> >> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>
>
>
>
> > Virgil wants empirical evidence of the non-empirical
Smiler: If it's non-empirical then it cannot be shown to exist.
Almost as if it didn't exist at all and is just a figment of your
imagination.
Omprem: Wrong again. The Atheist brand of empiricism is narrow,
incurious and unsubtle. Their senses are constrained in a self-imposed
framework. Change the framework.
> > and never once
> > ponders the illogic
Smiler: Projection appears to be your forte.
Omprem: Your saying so doesn't make it so. My 'forte' is exposing the
many factual and logical errors upon which Atheism rests.
Omprem: in his request as his bias, fear and negativity mire him
deeper and deeper in nonsense.
Smiler: There goes another Irony Meter.
Omprem: You have just committed the logical error of tu quoque. Your
post once again proves my point that every statement by an Atheist
about or in support of Atheism depends on a logical or factual error
or both. It is curious, is it not, that Atheists profess to value
logic and reason and yet are utterly incapable of applying logic or
dealing with facts.
Jahnu
> Then give us your definition of the word 'exist'.
Do you doubt that you exist? Well, wait till you get the bad karmic
reactions for all the animal slaughter you support by your sub-human
eating-habbits, then you'll know the difinition of suffering - one of
the ways to define "exist."
Here is why you can't see God - Krishna says:
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible. (Bg. 7.25)
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"omprem" <ompr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dcf2114-3ce3-416a...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
****** There is no evidence, in ANY way, shape or form, that supports your -
or ANY OTHER god - claimed through history.
God cannot be defined, because no one has provided any valid evidence that
god even exists.
In the same reasoning, Casper the Friendly Ghost" cannot be defined.
With a basis of this undeniable, unprovable, invisible, sky pixie - there
seem to be one hell of a lot of people ACTING like THEY know what god is,
what god wants, what god thinks, and that "god is on our side".
That takes one hell of a lot of ignorance based arrogance.
Jahnu
wrote:
<bla bla>
> That takes one hell of a lot of ignorance based arrogance.- Hide quoted text -
Actually it takes a whole lot of ignorance based arrogance to deny the
obvious, ie. an intelligent creator, and instead posit that the whole
world just created itself out of dead matter for no good reason at all
- and with not an inkling of evidence even to back up such a foolish
claim. That's arrogant... and ignorant. And that's why the obvious
Virgil
<8539ac8a-7847-4357...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 5:00 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > You define God by claiming that He is without borders or limits.
> >
> > Your argument is self-defeating.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Nope. But you are lucked up in a materialistic mindset judging
> everything according to that limited understanding. God is
> transcendental. Transcendental means above the laws that govern
> matter.
Since we, and the universe around us ARE matter, what is
"transcendental" doesn't matter.
Virgil
<b4f61e28-fd70-4a9b...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 4:04 am, "Smiler." <Smi...@Jo.king.com> wrote:
>
> > Then give us your definition of the word 'exist'.
>
> Do you doubt that you exist?
That is not at all a definition.
Virgil
<4e1b0913-debb-451d...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Jahnu <jahn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 6:00 pm, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> <bla bla>
>
> > That takes one hell of a lot of ignorance based arrogance.- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> Actually it takes a whole lot of ignorance based arrogance to deny the
> obvious, ie. an intelligent creator, and instead posit that the whole
> world just created itself out of dead matter for no good reason at all
> - and with not an inkling of evidence even to back up such a foolish
Jahnu, as usual, misses the point by so much that he must be trying to
miss it.
There is no solid evidence that the universe was created at all.
And even less that it was created by anything intelligent.
Look at all the poor design in the human body, for example, as evidence
that no intelligent designer was involved.
So that Jahnu's theory is no more than a hypothesis based on wishful
thinking.
Jahnu
> Since we, and the universe around us ARE matter, what is
> "transcendental" doesn't matter.
Of course it doesn't matter to a materialist like you. That's why you
are considered stupid.
Krishna says:
If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of
conditioned life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such
consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be
lost.(Bg. 18.58)
Smiler.
> On Jun 19, 9:05 pm, "Smiler." <Smi...@Jo.king.com> wrote:
>> omprem wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 1:34 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Virgil expressed his belief in monolithic homogeneity:
>>
>> <snip falsenads' rubbish>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Virgil wants empirical evidence of the non-empirical
>
> Smiler: If it's non-empirical then it cannot be shown to exist.
> Almost as if it didn't exist at all and is just a figment of your
> imagination.
>
> Omprem: Wrong again. The Atheist brand of empiricism is narrow,
> incurious and unsubtle. Their senses are constrained in a self-imposed
> framework. Change the framework.
>
I use the framework that everyone else, apart from you, uses.
I don't take orders from you.
>
>
>>> and never once
>>> ponders the illogic
>
> Smiler: Projection appears to be your forte.
>
> Omprem: Your saying so doesn't make it so. My 'forte' is exposing the
> many factual and logical errors upon which Atheism rests.
>
Lying again.
>
> Omprem: in his request as his bias, fear and negativity mire him
> deeper and deeper in nonsense.
>
> Smiler: There goes another Irony Meter.
>
> Omprem: You have just committed the logical error of tu quoque. Your
> post once again proves my point that every statement by an Atheist
> about or in support of Atheism depends on a logical or factual error
> or both.
Project much?
It is curious, is it not, that Atheists profess to value
> logic and reason and yet are utterly incapable of applying logic or
> dealing with facts.
"It is curious, is it not, that you profess to value logic and reason and
Smiler.
His mind is scrambled, that's for sure.
Smiler.
Only a moron, like Jahnu, would doubt their own existence.
Virgil
> On Jun 29, 5:00 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > You define God by claiming that He is without borders or limits.
> >
> > Your argument is self-defeating.
> Nope.
Yup!