Evolving Evolution... the " Big Bang " theory is a Catholic priests invention ( believe it, or not )
old man joe
until Darwin and his kind came along few have historical mention of
dabbling in what science calls Evolution. though biological evolution
existed in ancient times, Charles Darwin gets the credit for his
publications dealing with the subject since he made the whole thing
plausible by his theory of natural selection.
with many since Darwin's time coming along and adding to this
theory and polishing it up through modern technology, the whole system
goes well beyond Darwin's wildest dreams all the way back to how it
all began... the " Big Bang " theory.
the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
priest turned scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
the poison of Evolution now has a ' plausible ' beginning... life
started from nothing alive driven by the engine of
' natural selection '.
the circle is complete. God is removed as the hand behind His
marvelous work of creation by none other than a Catholic priest.
there is no need to address personal responsibility toward God for He
doesn't exist... it all happened by chance.
the is no need for Jesus Christ... He doesn't exist... He did not
frame the universe since it all came about by chance through the
Big Bang. life has no meaning. no purpose. no God.
the poison of this doctrine of a Godless world came from a
Papist. the teaching is part and parcel of every school book in
America and is feed to little children without the counter explanation
of Creationism.
regardless of whatever religious background a child is being
brought up in by his parents, be it Islamic, Catholic, or Protestant,
the child is being feed the Catholic doctrine of the Big Bang.
the child is being educated in Catholicism in secular school
curriculums. he is being prepared for servitude to the Antichrist.
even if the child is of Atheists parents devoted to bringing up the
child as an Atheist, the child is feed Catholicism in school by the
Catholic theory of the Big Bang.
because the source of the Big Bang theory is a Papist priest the
Big Bang theory is a religious idea. it follow's right along with
other religious ideas of praying to statues, praying to Mary as
Co-Redeemer, forgiveness of sins through payment of money, succession
of Apostleship and every sort of blasphemy stemming from a Godless
religion.
the Big Bang theory is an attempt to remove the truth of the Lord
God from all human though. it makes science the Bible and the only
rule of faithlessness and practice.
" The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek
[Him.] All his thoughts are, "There is no God." Ps 10:4
Samuel W. Heywood
<snip>
> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
>
> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
> priest turned scientist.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
>
> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
from the one told in Genesis.
> the poison of Evolution now has a ' plausible ' beginning... life
> started from nothing alive driven by the engine of
> ' natural selection '.
Really? I have never heard the theory that natural selection got
started even before life began.
<snip>
> the circle is complete. God is removed as the hand behind His
> marvelous work of creation by none other than a Catholic priest.
> there is no need to address personal responsibility toward God for He
> doesn't exist... it all happened by chance.
>
> the is no need for Jesus Christ... He doesn't exist... He did not
> frame the universe since it all came about by chance through the
> Big Bang. life has no meaning. no purpose. no God.
>
> the poison of this doctrine of a Godless world came from a
> Papist. the teaching is part and parcel of every school book in
> America and is feed to little children without the counter explanation
> of Creationism.
The non-belief in God comes from atheists, not from Papists. It is
not a doctrine. It is just a non-belief. There are no Papists who are
atheists. The belief that the Big Bang happened and the knowledge that
evolution happens are not incompatible with believing in God.
> regardless of whatever religious background a child is being
> brought up in by his parents, be it Islamic, Catholic, or Protestant,
> the child is being feed the Catholic doctrine of the Big Bang.
It is not a Catholic doctrine. It is a scientific theory. It is
a scientific theory to which Catholics and some Islamics and some
Protestants are not opposed. They are not opposed to this
scientific theory because it does not conflict with nor pose a
challenge to their religious beliefs.
> the child is being educated in Catholicism in secular school
> curriculums.
Neither the Big Bang theory nor the theories of evolution are Catholic
doctrines. They are just some scientific theories. The Catholic
Church has looked into and thoroughly investigated them and has
declared them as not ungodly and non-heretical, and that there is
nothing in those theories for Christians to get upset and disturbed
about.
> he is being prepared for servitude to the Antichrist.
Says who? Your church?
> even if the child is of Atheists parents devoted to bringing up the
> child as an Atheist, the child is feed Catholicism in school by the
> Catholic theory of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is not a Catholic theory. It is a scientific theory.
Scientific theories are not tenets of the articles of faith for any
religion. Only religious beliefs are tenets of the articles of faith.
> because the source of the Big Bang theory is a Papist priest the
> Big Bang theory is a religious idea.
That's kinda like saying that because some of the best known and
best studied theories of physics are religious ideas because the
person who proposed those theories, Sir Isaac Newton, was a very
devout member of the Church of England.
> it follow's right along with
> other religious ideas of praying to statues, praying to Mary as
> Co-Redeemer, forgiveness of sins through payment of money, succession
> of Apostleship and every sort of blasphemy stemming from a Godless
> religion.
Catholics do not pray to statues. They venerate statues of Mary and
statues of saints. They do not believe that sins are forgiven by
payment of money. They believe that sins are forgiven through Christ's
suffering on the cross. They believe in continuing the tradition of
Apostolic Succession because, according to their reading of the Bible,
Jesus told them to do it.
> the Big Bang theory is an attempt to remove the truth of the Lord
> God from all human though. it makes science the Bible and the only
> rule of faithlessness and practice.
The Big Bang theory has been proposed so that it might help us to
discover the truth. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that would
suggest to a believer that God might not exist, and there is nothing in
it that promotes or supresses atheism.
> " The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek
> [Him.] All his thoughts are, "There is no God." Ps 10:4
The non-seeking of God is not a sin, and neither is the non-belief in
his existence. Many of those who claim to be atheists do not say that
there is no God. They say that they have no belief in the existence
of God.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
ca...@optonline.net
<shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, old man joe wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
>>
>> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
>> priest turned scientist.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
>>
>> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
>> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
>> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
>
>How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
And what "his work of cration"?
>The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
>from the one told in Genesis.
Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
Come back when you have learned t he difference.
Samuel W. Heywood
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:30:17 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
> <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, old man joe wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
>>>
>>> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
>>> priest turned scientist.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
>>>
>>> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
>>> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
>>> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
>>
>> How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
>
> What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
The real world is everywhere, just like God.
> And what "his work of cration"?
Maybe the Big Bang is one of them.
>> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
>> from the one told in Genesis.
>
> Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
And what is wrong with doing that?
> Come back when you have learned t he difference.
I know the difference. Do you?
ca...@optonline.net
<shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:30:17 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
>> <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, old man joe wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
>>>>
>>>> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
>>>> priest turned scientist.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
>>>>
>>>> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
>>>> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
>>>> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
>>>
>>> How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
>>
>> What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
>
>The real world is everywhere, just like God.
Prove your God exists anywhere outside your religion, unlike the real
world.
And when you realise you can't, keep your fantasies to yourself.
>> And what "his work of cration"?
>
>Maybe the Big Bang is one of them.
Prove it exists outside your masturbatory fantasies or stop begging
the question.
>>> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
>>> from the one told in Genesis.
>>
>> Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
>
>And what is wrong with doing that?
Are you really this stupid?
>> Come back when you have learned t he difference.
>
>I know the difference. Do you?
If you did you wouldn't talk as though your myths described reality,
outside your religion.
Samuel W. Heywood
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:19:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
> <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:30:17 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
>>> <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, old man joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
>>>>>
>>>>> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
>>>>> priest turned scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
>>>>>
>>>>> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
>>>>> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
>>>>> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
>>>>
>>>> How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
>>>
>>> What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
>>
>> The real world is everywhere, just like God.
>
> Prove your God exists anywhere outside your religion, unlike the real
> world.
Prove that your non-belief exists anywhere outside your non-belief,
unlike the real world.
> And when you realise you can't, keep your fantasies to yourself.
And when you realize that you can't keep your non-beleif to yourself.
>>> And what "his work of cration"?
>>
>> Maybe the Big Bang is one of them.
>
> Prove it exists outside your masturbatory fantasies or stop begging
> the question.
Hmmm.....It seems that you are feeling annoyed at me, but for whatever
reason I cannot guess.
>>>> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
>>>> from the one told in Genesis.
>>>
>>> Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
>>
>> And what is wrong with doing that?
>
> Are you really this stupid?
OK, so I am not as smart as most of the authors of the world's
greatest works of literature, because, unlike them, I am not
among the best when it comes to the literary art of conflating
fact with mythology.
>>> Come back when you have learned t he difference.
>>
>> I know the difference. Do you?
>
> If you did you wouldn't talk as though your myths described reality,
> outside your religion.
All of the most ancient and most enduring myths allude to the all
pervading and forever manifesting and immensely growing reality.
Don't those words just send shivers up your spine?
If not, please let me know, and I will study some more from my handbook
on mastering the art of poetic expression.
ca...@optonline.net
<shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:19:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
>> <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:30:17 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
>>>> <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, old man joe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
>>>>>> priest turned scientist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
>>>>>> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
>>>>>> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
>>>>
>>>> What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
>>>
>>> The real world is everywhere, just like God.
>>
>> Prove your God exists anywhere outside your religion, unlike the real
>> world.
>
>Prove that your non-belief exists anywhere outside your non-belief,
>unlike the real world.
Don't be so fucking stupid.
>> And when you realise you can't, keep your fantasies to yourself.
>
>And when you realize that you can't keep your non-beleif to yourself.
A liar as well as as an idiot.
>>>> And what "his work of cration"?
>>>
>>> Maybe the Big Bang is one of them.
>>
>> Prove it exists outside your masturbatory fantasies or stop begging
>> the question.
>
>Hmmm.....It seems that you are feeling annoyed at me, but for whatever
>reason I cannot guess.
No, moron - justtreating an in-your-face brainwashed idiot like an
in-your-face brainwashed idiot.
>>>>> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
>>>>> from the one told in Genesis.
>>>>
>>>> Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
>>>
>>> And what is wrong with doing that?
>>
>> Are you really this stupid?
>
>OK, so I am not as smart as most of the authors of the world's
>greatest works of literature, because, unlike them, I am not
>among the best when it comes to the literary art of conflating
>fact with mythology.
Idiot.
>>>> Come back when you have learned t he difference.
>>>
>>> I know the difference. Do you?
>>
>> If you did you wouldn't talk as though your myths described reality,
>> outside your religion.
>
>All of the most ancient and most enduring myths allude to the all
>pervading and forever manifesting and immensely growing reality.
A liar as well as an idiot.
>Don't those words just send shivers up your spine?
Dont be so fucking stupid.
>If not, please let me know, and I will study some more from my handbook
>on mastering the art of poetic expression.
Idiot.
Free Lunch
old man joe <n...@home.com> wrote in
<9p48m2dlbvhiv20sh...@4ax.com>:
>
> until Darwin and his kind came along few have historical mention of
>dabbling in what science calls Evolution. though biological evolution
>existed in ancient times, Charles Darwin gets the credit for his
>publications dealing with the subject since he made the whole thing
>plausible by his theory of natural selection.
>
> with many since Darwin's time coming along and adding to this
>theory and polishing it up through modern technology, the whole system
>goes well beyond Darwin's wildest dreams all the way back to how it
>all began... the " Big Bang " theory.
The Big Bank is totally unrelated to evolution. Feel free to learn a
little about science before pontificating about it.
>
> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
>
> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
>priest turned scientist.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
>
> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
>work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
>nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
I don't see how it does, though it does provide a valid explanation for
the observations we have about the universe.
> the poison of Evolution now has a ' plausible ' beginning... life
>started from nothing alive driven by the engine of
>' natural selection '.
You appear to be confused here.
> the circle is complete. God is removed as the hand behind His
>marvelous work of creation by none other than a Catholic priest.
>there is no need to address personal responsibility toward God for He
>doesn't exist... it all happened by chance.
Some religious folks are honest when they meet evidence. I still don't
see how your claims about any gods matter.
> the is no need for Jesus Christ... He doesn't exist... He did not
>frame the universe since it all came about by chance through the
>Big Bang. life has no meaning. no purpose. no God.
Could you explain this unsupported assertion? Does this mean that you
are now an active enemy of religiosity?
> the poison of this doctrine of a Godless world came from a
>Papist. the teaching is part and parcel of every school book in
>America and is feed to little children without the counter explanation
>of Creationism.
What? More nonsense.
> regardless of whatever religious background a child is being
>brought up in by his parents, be it Islamic, Catholic, or Protestant,
>the child is being feed the Catholic doctrine of the Big Bang.
You are truly off the rails here. Catholicism has nothing to do with it.
> the child is being educated in Catholicism in secular school
>curriculums. he is being prepared for servitude to the Antichrist.
>even if the child is of Atheists parents devoted to bringing up the
>child as an Atheist, the child is feed Catholicism in school by the
>Catholic theory of the Big Bang.
How often will you repeat this lie? How much bigotry do you have to
share with us? Is your god really so pitiful that you have to lie about
science and attack another religion? What other lies does your god need
told on his puny and weak behalf.
> because the source of the Big Bang theory is a Papist priest the
>Big Bang theory is a religious idea. it follow's right along with
>other religious ideas of praying to statues, praying to Mary as
>Co-Redeemer, forgiveness of sins through payment of money, succession
>of Apostleship and every sort of blasphemy stemming from a Godless
>religion.
Wow. You are truly morally corrupt.
> the Big Bang theory is an attempt to remove the truth of the Lord
>God from all human though. it makes science the Bible and the only
>rule of faithlessness and practice.
More lies from you.
> " The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek
>[Him.] All his thoughts are, "There is no God." Ps 10:4
With your lies, you mock the god you claim to worship.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Samuel W. Heywood
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:25:37 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
> old man joe <n...@home.com> wrote in
> <9p48m2dlbvhiv20sh...@4ax.com>:
>> the is no need for Jesus Christ... He doesn't exist... He did not
>> frame the universe since it all came about by chance through the
>> Big Bang. life has no meaning. no purpose. no God.
>
> Could you explain this unsupported assertion? Does this mean that you
> are now an active enemy of religiosity?
That is not old man joe's position. It is the position of his
strawman. old man joe himself is into very zealous Biblical
creationist pro-religiousity. In his opening post where he
started this thread old man joe built a strawman and then he
had a dialog with it.
In your reply to old man joe you seem to have confused old man
joe's position with the point of view of his strawman.
Reverend Dave
news:9p48m2dlbvhiv20sh...@4ax.com:
>
> until Darwin and his kind came along few have historical mention of
> dabbling in what science calls Evolution. though biological evolution
> existed in ancient times, Charles Darwin gets the credit for his
> publications dealing with the subject since he made the whole thing
> plausible by his theory of natural selection.
>
> with many since Darwin's time coming along and adding to this
> theory and polishing it up through modern technology, the whole system
> goes well beyond Darwin's wildest dreams all the way back to how it
> all began... the " Big Bang " theory.
As several of us have pointed out before Big Bang Cosmology and Evolution
are two completely independent fields. The evidence from the one does not
necessarily support the evidence from the other. Taken as a whole however
they do go quite a long way in refuting the young earth beliefs of Bible
literalists and those who support ID.
>
> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
>
> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
> priest turned scientist.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
Actually he was a scientist turned Catholic priest - he obtained his
doctorate in physics in 1920 and entered the priesthood in 1923.
>
> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
It's also nothing more than a Bramhaless existence in a Bramhaless
universe and so on and so forth, etcera, etcetera...
>
> the poison of Evolution now has a ' plausible ' beginning... life
> started from nothing alive driven by the engine of
> ' natural selection '.
>
> the circle is complete. God is removed as the hand behind His
> marvelous work of creation by none other than a Catholic priest.
> there is no need to address personal responsibility toward God for He
> doesn't exist... it all happened by chance.
Sure, sure, blame it all on the poor Catholic priest. Why not blame it on
the Jews as well? Friedman had a hand in it too ya know. Mind you there
were others like did Robertson and Walker. Then of course there was
Hubble who made observations that validated the findings and Gamow and
Hawking and a raft of others but let's blame it all on the priest.
>
> the is no need for Jesus Christ... He doesn't exist... He did not
> frame the universe since it all came about by chance through the
> Big Bang. life has no meaning. no purpose. no God.
Just because the Bible isn't true doesn't mean that life has no meaning.
The purpose of the Bible was in part to unify a group of Bronze Age
nomads. Surely in this electronic age we are capable of moving beyond
their level of thinking in order to find a more perfect understanding of
the truth and on the way aquire a new meaning of life and new purpose.
>
> the poison of this doctrine of a Godless world came from a
> Papist. the teaching is part and parcel of every school book in
> America and is feed to little children without the counter explanation
> of Creationism.
>
> regardless of whatever religious background a child is being
> brought up in by his parents, be it Islamic, Catholic, or Protestant,
> the child is being feed the Catholic doctrine of the Big Bang.
>
> the child is being educated in Catholicism in secular school
> curriculums. he is being prepared for servitude to the Antichrist.
> even if the child is of Atheists parents devoted to bringing up the
> child as an Atheist, the child is feed Catholicism in school by the
> Catholic theory of the Big Bang.
>
> because the source of the Big Bang theory is a Papist priest the
> Big Bang theory is a religious idea. it follow's right along with
> other religious ideas of praying to statues, praying to Mary as
> Co-Redeemer, forgiveness of sins through payment of money, succession
> of Apostleship and every sort of blasphemy stemming from a Godless
> religion.
>
> the Big Bang theory is an attempt to remove the truth of the Lord
> God from all human though. it makes science the Bible and the only
> rule of faithlessness and practice.
Nice strawman.
>
>
> " The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek
> [Him.] All his thoughts are, "There is no God." Ps 10:4
>
>
--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein
Remove pants to email me.
http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Reverend Dave
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.06...@sdf.lonestar.org:
Virtually everything that Joe posts contains a strawman.
HiEv
> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> > Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> >> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> >>> What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
> >>
> >> The real world is everywhere, just like God.
> >
> > Prove your God exists anywhere outside your religion, unlike the real
> > world.
>
> Prove that your non-belief exists anywhere outside your non-belief,
> unlike the real world.
As much as I hate to agree with the tactless and rude calee, your
request makes no sense at all. One might be able to prove the existence
of something like a God, but how can one prove a non-belief? What kind
of evidence would one give of a real non-belief? I mean, you must have
some nonbeliefs yourself, such as a nonbelief in the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, but how could you prove that the way you asked the question?
Your question is not valid, his/hers is.
You may sound more rational than calee, but you're not actually being
more rational than him/her.
> > And when you realise you can't, keep your fantasies to yourself.
>
> And when you realize that you can't keep your non-beleif to yourself.
If people would not propose fantasies as reality, then nobody would have
any problems keeping their nonbeliefs to themselves because there would
be no reason to bring them up.
[snip]
> >>>> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
> >>>> from the one told in Genesis.
> >>>
> >>> Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
> >>
> >> And what is wrong with doing that?
> >
> > Are you really this stupid?
>
> OK, so I am not as smart as most of the authors of the world's
> greatest works of literature, because, unlike them, I am not
> among the best when it comes to the literary art of conflating
> fact with mythology.
The problem is that you apparently see the big bang as no different than
any other creation story, however there is a huge difference. The idea
that the world was created in six days or cracked out of an egg is
unsupported fantasy, but there is an abundance of objective evidence
suggesting that it expanded from a singularity billions of years ago.
Mythology passed down from generation to generation is quite different
from a well supported scientific observation. In other words, the big
bang theory is far above being "just another creation story," as you put
it.
> >>> Come back when you have learned t he difference.
> >>
> >> I know the difference. Do you?
> >
> > If you did you wouldn't talk as though your myths described reality,
> > outside your religion.
>
> All of the most ancient and most enduring myths allude to the all
> pervading and forever manifesting and immensely growing reality.
>
> Don't those words just send shivers up your spine?
>
> If not, please let me know, and I will study some more from my handbook
> on mastering the art of poetic expression.
Nope, not even a twitch. Frankly, "all pervading and forever
manifesting and immensely growing reality" isn't even a phrase that
makes much sense. Reality is reality, it can't "grow." The rest is
simply part of the definition of reality and not particularly "poetic"
at all.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Samuel W. Heywood
> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>>>> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>>>>> What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
>>>>
>>>> The real world is everywhere, just like God.
>>>
>>> Prove your God exists anywhere outside your religion, unlike the real
>>> world.
>>
>> Prove that your non-belief exists anywhere outside your non-belief,
>> unlike the real world.
>
> As much as I hate to agree with the tactless and rude calee, your
> request makes no sense at all. One might be able to prove the existence
> of something like a God, but how can one prove a non-belief? What kind
> of evidence would one give of a real non-belief? I mean, you must have
> some nonbeliefs yourself, such as a nonbelief in the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, but how could you prove that the way you asked the question?
> Your question is not valid, his/hers is.
>
> You may sound more rational than calee, but you're not actually being
> more rational than him/her.
You don't get it. I'm just pointing out that I also can challenge
somebody to prove an assertion that I know cannot be proven, just like
callee can challenge people to prove an assertion that s/he knows
cannot be proven.
>>> And when you realise you can't, keep your fantasies to yourself.
>>
>> And when you realize that you can't keep your non-beleif to yourself.
>
> If people would not propose fantasies as reality, then nobody would have
> any problems keeping their nonbeliefs to themselves because there would
> be no reason to bring them up.
>
> [snip]
>>>>>> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
>>>>>> from the one told in Genesis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
>>>>
>>>> And what is wrong with doing that?
>>>
>>> Are you really this stupid?
>>
>> OK, so I am not as smart as most of the authors of the world's
>> greatest works of literature, because, unlike them, I am not
>> among the best when it comes to the literary art of conflating
>> fact with mythology.
>
> The problem is that you apparently see the big bang as no different than
> any other creation story, however there is a huge difference. The idea
> that the world was created in six days or cracked out of an egg is
> unsupported fantasy, but there is an abundance of objective evidence
> suggesting that it expanded from a singularity billions of years ago.
> Mythology passed down from generation to generation is quite different
> from a well supported scientific observation. In other words, the big
> bang theory is far above being "just another creation story," as you put
> it.
They are both creation stories and I am of course aware that the Big
Bang theory is one that is supported by scientific evidence. A story
is a story is a story, whether true or not, a story is a story.
>>>>> Come back when you have learned t he difference.
>>>>
>>>> I know the difference. Do you?
>>>
>>> If you did you wouldn't talk as though your myths described reality,
>>> outside your religion.
>>
>> All of the most ancient and most enduring myths allude to the all
>> pervading and forever manifesting and immensely growing reality.
>>
>> Don't those words just send shivers up your spine?
>>
>> If not, please let me know, and I will study some more from my handbook
>> on mastering the art of poetic expression.
>
> Nope, not even a twitch. Frankly, "all pervading and forever
> manifesting and immensely growing reality" isn't even a phrase that
> makes much sense.
Reality is reality, it can't "grow."
Have you ever tried sprinkling onto it some entropy expansion dust?
> The rest is
> simply part of the definition of reality and not particularly "poetic"
> at all.
Yep, it looks like I will have to get back into my handbook on mastering
HiEv
> HiEv wrote:
> > Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> >> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> >>> Prove your God exists anywhere outside your religion, unlike the real
> >>> world.
> >>
> >> Prove that your non-belief exists anywhere outside your non-belief,
> >> unlike the real world.
> >
> > As much as I hate to agree with the tactless and rude calee, your
> > request makes no sense at all. One might be able to prove the existence
> > of something like a God, but how can one prove a non-belief? What kind
> > of evidence would one give of a real non-belief? I mean, you must have
> > some nonbeliefs yourself, such as a nonbelief in the Flying Spaghetti
> > Monster, but how could you prove that the way you asked the question?
> > Your question is not valid, his/hers is.
> >
> > You may sound more rational than calee, but you're not actually being
> > more rational than him/her.
>
> You don't get it. I'm just pointing out that I also can challenge
> somebody to prove an assertion that I know cannot be proven, just like
> callee can challenge people to prove an assertion that s/he knows
> cannot be proven.
The problem is, you are making a positive claim, that your God exists,
thus the burden of proof lies on you if you want others to accept your
claim. On the other hand, calee is simply saying s/he doesn't believe
you, or anyone else who claims gods exist. S/he is not making any
assertions other than that they don't believe. This is why his/her
question is rational, and yours is not.
[snip]
> > The problem is that you apparently see the big bang as no different than
> > any other creation story, however there is a huge difference. The idea
> > that the world was created in six days or cracked out of an egg is
> > unsupported fantasy, but there is an abundance of objective evidence
> > suggesting that it expanded from a singularity billions of years ago.
> >
> > Mythology passed down from generation to generation is quite different
> > from a well supported scientific observation. In other words, the big
> > bang theory is far above being "just another creation story," as you put
> > it.
>
> They are both creation stories and I am of course aware that the Big
> Bang theory is one that is supported by scientific evidence. A story
> is a story is a story, whether true or not, a story is a story.
Great. However, one is a story, and one is not. The Big Bang theory is
a scientifically backed theory that has withstood rigorous examination
by many scientists in the field. Genesis is no such thing, it is merely
a story.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said you falsely treated
the Big Bang theory the same as your creation myth. I see you are
continuing to do so despite what I wrote.
> >> All of the most ancient and most enduring myths allude to the all
> >> pervading and forever manifesting and immensely growing reality.
> >>
> >> Don't those words just send shivers up your spine?
> >>
> >> If not, please let me know, and I will study some more from my handbook
> >> on mastering the art of poetic expression.
> >
> > Nope, not even a twitch. Frankly, "all pervading and forever
> > manifesting and immensely growing reality" isn't even a phrase that
> > makes much sense.
>
> Reality is reality, it can't "grow."
[snip]
I agree, however you wrote that it did. Is it any wonder that what you
wrote served more to confuse than anything else?
Martin Phipps
> Idiot.
> A liar as well as an idiot.
What the HELL did this guy say to deserve all THAT?! Jesus Christ,
pal, lighten up! Religious people deserve our pity: they do not
deserve to be put through this sort of punishment! How on earth can we
convince anybody that God doesn't exist when we behave this badly?!
They're going to think atheists are arrogant and mean spirited... and
most of them probably already do! Let's not give them reason to think
so! Let us not forget that we are the enlightened ones, the open
minded ones, the ones that need to show the theists the way! We need
to set a better example than this!
Just in case you are wondering, the above paragraph is NOT a parody. I
can only assume calee had a really bad day and is taking out his
frustrations on a random theist who happened to wander into
alt.atheism. At least he could have found somebody who was trying to
impose their views on us and wasn't just simply stating his own opinion
just like we all are allowed to do in a free society!
Martin
Martin Phipps
*Cough* Inflationary theory *Cough*
Anyway, Carl Sagan said it best. He thought that creation myths had
almost universal appeal because it reminds people of how they were
born: one moment they were in dankness and *whoosh* there was light.
By funny coincidence the evidence actually points to the universe
actually starting in a "big bang" or -even better- a "big whoosh". No,
really: inflationary theory suggests that the universe started from
something the size of a football to something millions of light years
across in virtually a blink of an eye. Well, maybe not that fast but
pretty darn fast. Then the rate of expansion was supposed to have
slowed down to a relatively slow crawl which "recently" (for whatever
reason) *appears* to be picking up speed. I don't believe in God. I'm
100% certain that God doesn't exist. But, gosh, creationists have just
got to LOVE the big bang theory, especially the inflationary version.
And what's wrong with that? I mean if it makes them happy just for a
while? :)
Martin
Wombat
Martin Phipps wrote:
> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> > Don't be so fucking stupid.
> > A liar as well as as an idiot.
> > No, moron
> > Idiot.
> > A liar as well as an idiot.
> > Dont be so fucking stupid.
> > Idiot.
>
> What the HELL did this guy say to deserve all THAT?! Jesus Christ,
> pal, lighten up! Religious people deserve our pity: they do not
> deserve to be put through this sort of punishment! How on earth can we
> convince anybody that God doesn't exist when we behave this badly?!
> They're going to think atheists are arrogant and mean spirited... and
> most of them probably already do! Let's not give them reason to think
> so! Let us not forget that we are the enlightened ones, the open
> minded ones, the ones that need to show the theists the way! We need
> to set a better example than this!
>
> Just in case you are wondering, the above paragraph is NOT a parody. I
> can only assume calee had a really bad day and is taking out his
> frustrations on a random theist who happened to wander into
> alt.atheism.
Just for the record this thread is also cross-posted to
alt.religion.christian, alt.talk.creationism and
alt.religion.christian.catholic. OMJ seems to like that combination.
Wombat
thomas p.
Samuel W. Heywood skrev:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, old man joe wrote:
>
snip
> How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
>
> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
> from the one told in Genesis.
The Big Bang theory has evidence to support it, otherwise it would not
be a theory of science. Furthermore the theory does not meantion in
any way any kind of creation. In other words it is in no way a story
or a creation story.
snip
thomas p.
Samuel W. Heywood skrev:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:30:17 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
> > <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, old man joe wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
> >>>
> >>> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
> >>> priest turned scientist.
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
> >>>
> >>> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
> >>> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
> >>> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
> >>
> >> How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
> >
> > What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
>
> The real world is everywhere, just like God.
No, we objectively experience the world. It is not just like any god.
>
> > And what "his work of cration"?
>
> Maybe the Big Bang is one of them.
It may be, but the theory does not mention any kind of creation nor
does it require any kind of creation.
>
> >> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
> >> from the one told in Genesis.
> >
> > Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
>
> And what is wrong with doing that?
It is irrational and misleading.
>
> > Come back when you have learned t he difference.
>
> I know the difference. Do you?
If you really know the difference your position is not merely
irrational.
thomas p.
Samuel W. Heywood skrev:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:19:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
> > <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:30:17 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"
> >>> <shey...@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, old man joe wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>> the Big Bang theory came about in the last century.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the credit for forming the Big Bang theory goes to a Catholic
> >>>>> priest turned scientist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the Big Bang theory completely eliminates the Lord God from His
> >>>>> work of creation and assigns His creation and all things with it as
> >>>>> nothing more than an a Godless existence in a Godless universe.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does the Big Bang theory eliminate God from his work of creation?
> >>>
> >>> What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
> >>
> >> The real world is everywhere, just like God.
> >
> > Prove your God exists anywhere outside your religion, unlike the real
> > world.
>
> Prove that your non-belief exists anywhere outside your non-belief,
> unlike the real world.
We exist, therefore our non-belief exists. You have already admitted
it.
>
> > And when you realise you can't, keep your fantasies to yourself.
>
> And when you realize that you can't keep your non-beleif to yourself.
Once again you admit that our non-belief exists.
>
> >>> And what "his work of cration"?
> >>
> >> Maybe the Big Bang is one of them.
> >
> > Prove it exists outside your masturbatory fantasies or stop begging
> > the question.
>
> Hmmm.....It seems that you are feeling annoyed at me, but for whatever
> reason I cannot guess.
Perhaps it is your attempt to put myth and/or religious beliefs on an
equal footing with scientific theories.
>
> >>>> The Big Bang theory is just another creation story that is different
> >>>> from the one told in Genesis.
> >>>
> >>> Hardly. You are conflating fact with mythology.
> >>
> >> And what is wrong with doing that?
Surely you know what is wrong with that.
>
> > Are you really this stupid?
>
> OK, so I am not as smart as most of the authors of the world's
> greatest works of literature, because, unlike them, I am not
> among the best when it comes to the literary art of conflating
> fact with mythology.
>
> >>> Come back when you have learned t he difference.
> >>
> >> I know the difference. Do you?
If you know the difference you have no excuse for pretending they are
the same.
Bill Carver
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> The Big Bang theory has evidence to support it, otherwise it would not
> be a theory of science. Furthermore the theory does not meantion in
> any way any kind of creation. In other words it is in no way a story
> or a creation story.
so were did big bang matter come from. You cannot create matter from
nothing. Science proves that.
Bill Carver
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Religious people deserve our pity: they do not
> deserve to be put through this sort of punishment! How on earth can we
> convince anybody that God doesn't exist when we behave this badly?!
> They're going to think atheists are arrogant and mean spirited... and
> most of them probably already do! Let's not give them reason to think
> so! Let us not forget that we are the enlightened ones, the open
> minded ones, the ones that need to show the theists the way! We need
> to set a better example than this!
Why must you convince us that there is no God. What's your problem.
What do you fear. There is a certain amount of arrogance to athiesm.
"I am my own supreme being"
It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
Christ and the Love of God. What do you offer Christians and other
religious people. Literally nothing.
John Baker
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ca...@optonline.net wrote:
>> Don't be so fucking stupid.
>> A liar as well as as an idiot.
>> No, moron
>> Idiot.
>> A liar as well as an idiot.
>> Dont be so fucking stupid.
>> Idiot.
>
>What the HELL did this guy say to deserve all THAT?! Jesus Christ,
>pal, lighten up! Religious people deserve our pity: they do not
>deserve to be put through this sort of punishment! How on earth can we
>convince anybody that God doesn't exist when we behave this badly?!
>They're going to think atheists are arrogant and mean spirited... and
>most of them probably already do! Let's not give them reason to think
>so! Let us not forget that we are the enlightened ones, the open
>minded ones, the ones that need to show the theists the way! We need
>to set a better example than this!
>
>Just in case you are wondering, the above paragraph is NOT a parody. I
>can only assume calee had a really bad day and is taking out his
>frustrations on a random theist who happened to wander into
>alt.atheism.
Nope. Unfortunately, that's pretty much Chris's standard response to
theists.
Chris is a good guy, he really is, but his tendency to jump in with
both feet without testing the water first often makes me cringe.
John Baker
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Update. I didn't realize at first who Chris was responding to.
Although I'm still of the opinion that Chris often seems to launch
into his "standard response to theists" mode without actually reading
the post he's responding to (and let's be honest, most of the rest of
us are guilty of that from time to time as well), the idiotic troll
'old man joe' generally more than earns the abuse he receives.
SeppoP
Looks like a YASI (Yet Another Science Illiterate) -yahoo bounced up from the backwoods...
You need some education, Bill. OTOH, it requires you to go to a well equipped library or get really interested in
science and *not* suck up to your (willingly) pig-ignorant preachers. Tough job, but you've just gotta take it...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Mike
Matter is just a form of potential energy, i.e. E=mc^2. Sound
familiar? Energy and mass transform into each other all the time. The
initial singularity (if it was a singularity) contained an enormous
amount of energy which became matter (mostly hydrogen) very early in
the history of the universe. Doubtless you are going to claim that a
ghost in heaven was the source if the initial energy.
Mike
No reason at all to convince you there is no God. Some of my
atheist brethren like to crosspost to Christian discussion groups so as
to needle the Christers. I never bother to do that. But if a Xian
gets involved in a conversation and argues for the existence of God,
naturally the atheists respond by disagreeing. If some people want to
live their lives believing in sprits like ignorant jungle savages it is
fine with me.
By the way, the fact that you think the love of God is good news
is laughingly irrelevant to the question of whether it is true or a is
a delusion induced by emotional debility and uncritical credulity.
Bill Carver
"Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
So by this you mean that 78% of the world lives in Jungles? And what is
so bad about living in Jungles anyway. Lots of shade. Good food and
you don't live there:)
see this page:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Bill Carver
SeppoP <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
> Looks like a YASI (Yet Another Science Illiterate) -yahoo bounced up from the
> backwoods...
>
> You need some education, Bill. OTOH, it requires you to go to a well equipped
> library or get really interested in
> science and *not* suck up to your (willingly) pig-ignorant preachers. Tough
> job, but you've just gotta take it...
Of course you must know that insults are the weapon of those that have
run out of valid arguments. But if declaring me a backwoods idiot makes
you feel better, I'll wear that title for you.
John Baker
<wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote:
>In article <1167736203....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Religious people deserve our pity: they do not
>> deserve to be put through this sort of punishment! How on earth can we
>> convince anybody that God doesn't exist when we behave this badly?!
>> They're going to think atheists are arrogant and mean spirited... and
>> most of them probably already do! Let's not give them reason to think
>> so! Let us not forget that we are the enlightened ones, the open
>> minded ones, the ones that need to show the theists the way! We need
>> to set a better example than this!
>
>Why must you convince us that there is no God.
I have no need to convince you of anything. I really don't care what
you believe as long as you don't try to force me to live my life in
accordance with your beliefs.
>What's your problem.
Ignorant, self-righteous creationist idiots who don't know shit from
shoe polish, but think they know more than all the scientists in the
world put together, for starters......
>What do you fear.
From your imaginary friend? Nothing. From Bible-banging fundamentalist
loons who want to force us all back to the Middle Ages.. plenty.
>There is a certain amount of arrogance to athiesm.
>"I am my own supreme being"
You believe that the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe
takes a personal interest in you, and you have the gall to say
atheists are arrogant? Give me a break.
>
>It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
>Christ and the Love of God. What do you offer Christians and other
>religious people. Literally nothing.
We never claimed to offer you anything. And we want nothing from you,
other than you stop trying to serve your myths up to us as fact.
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
>In article <1167736203....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
I don't think that "share" is the right word when you try to force these beliefs
on people.
ben
thomas p.
Samuel W. Heywood skrev:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, HiEv wrote:
>
> > Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> >> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> >>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> >>>> ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> >>>>> What's "God" in the real world outside your religion?
> >>>>
> >>>> The real world is everywhere, just like God.
> >>>
> >>> Prove your God exists anywhere outside your religion, unlike the real
> >>> world.
> >>
> >> Prove that your non-belief exists anywhere outside your non-belief,
> >> unlike the real world.
> >
> > As much as I hate to agree with the tactless and rude calee, your
> > request makes no sense at all. One might be able to prove the existence
> > of something like a God, but how can one prove a non-belief? What kind
> > of evidence would one give of a real non-belief? I mean, you must have
> > some nonbeliefs yourself, such as a nonbelief in the Flying Spaghetti
> > Monster, but how could you prove that the way you asked the question?
> > Your question is not valid, his/hers is.
> >
> > You may sound more rational than calee, but you're not actually being
> > more rational than him/her.
>
> You don't get it. I'm just pointing out that I also can challenge
> somebody to prove an assertion that I know cannot be proven, just like
> callee can challenge people to prove an assertion that s/he knows
> cannot be proven.
If a god actually existed it would be possible to demonstrate its
existence with objective evidence. What you asked is proof that
non-belief exists, but you have also admitted it exists; i.e. your
question is not analogous to showing that a god exists.
A creation story is a story that tells about a creation. The Big Bang
theory does not do this. Furthermore the fact that one has evidence
and the other does not makes any attempt to present them as just two
stories a transparent word game.
snip
thomas p.
Bill Carver skrev:
I do not know where the matter came from. That does not mean that the
Big Bang provides evidence for any particular answer to that question.
There is objective evidence for the event called Big Bang not for any
god or for any particular cause or for a cause. Saying that it must
have been god is a claim not supported by anything in the theory.
thomas p.
Bill Carver skrev:
> In article <1167752795....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > Bill Carver wrote:
> > > In article <1167736203....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why must you convince us that there is no God. What's your problem.
> > > What do you fear. There is a certain amount of arrogance to athiesm.
> > > "I am my own supreme being"
> > >
> > > It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> > > Christ and the Love of God. What do you offer Christians and other
> > > religious people. Literally nothing.
> >
> > No reason at all to convince you there is no God. Some of my
> > atheist brethren like to crosspost to Christian discussion groups so as
> > to needle the Christers. I never bother to do that. But if a Xian
> > gets involved in a conversation and argues for the existence of God,
> > naturally the atheists respond by disagreeing. If some people want to
> > live their lives believing in sprits like ignorant jungle savages it is
> > fine with me.
> >
> > By the way, the fact that you think the love of God is good news
> > is laughingly irrelevant to the question of whether it is true or a is
> > a delusion induced by emotional debility and uncritical credulity.
>
> So by this you mean that 78% of the world lives in Jungles?
How did you possibly get that meaning?
And what is
> so bad about living in Jungles anyway. Lots of shade. Good food and
> you don't live there:)
First a non sequitur and now a personal insult - great argument you
have.
Denis Loubet
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
news:wgcarverns-D9E51...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <1167736203....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Religious people deserve our pity: they do not
>> deserve to be put through this sort of punishment! How on earth can we
>> convince anybody that God doesn't exist when we behave this badly?!
>> They're going to think atheists are arrogant and mean spirited... and
>> most of them probably already do! Let's not give them reason to think
>> so! Let us not forget that we are the enlightened ones, the open
>> minded ones, the ones that need to show the theists the way! We need
>> to set a better example than this!
>
> Why must you convince us that there is no God. What's your problem.
> What do you fear.
Believers. The kind of people that fly airplanes into buildings.
> There is a certain amount of arrogance to athiesm.
> "I am my own supreme being"
Atheists acknowledge no supreme being.
> It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> Christ and the Love of God.
And as history has shown, if you have your way, you offer this good news at
the point of a sword.
> What do you offer Christians and other
> religious people. Literally nothing.
Freedom. You call freedom nothing. Why do you hate freedom so much?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Ralph
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
Oh my, the standard creationist reply. I will give you a valid argument when
you give me a valid subject.
Martin Phipps
> so were did big bang matter come from. You cannot create matter from
> nothing. Science proves that.
You can create matter from energy. Einstein proved that.
Martin
Martin Phipps
> In article <1167736203....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Religious people deserve our pity: they do not
> > deserve to be put through this sort of punishment! How on earth can we
> > convince anybody that God doesn't exist when we behave this badly?!
> > They're going to think atheists are arrogant and mean spirited... and
> > most of them probably already do! Let's not give them reason to think
> > so! Let us not forget that we are the enlightened ones, the open
> > minded ones, the ones that need to show the theists the way! We need
> > to set a better example than this!
>
> Why must you convince us that there is no God.
I don't _have to_. I'd like to but I don't _have to_. Ultimately you
have to take that final step and open your mind to the fact that there
is more than one religion and unless you believe *all* religions then
why is there any reason to believe any *one* religion.
> What's your problem[?]
Why do you assume I have a problem. As far as I am concerned, _you_
have a problem and I _am_ willing to help you if you are willing to
listen.
> What do you fear[?]
Death. Not just in general but specifically if I were to get on an
airplane would some theist terrorists take over the plane and sacrafice
it in the name of their god.
> There is a certain amount of arrogance to athiesm.
There is a certain amount of arrogance to theism. Again, do you
believe *all* religions? Why do you not believe in the other
religions? And on top of that, you believe that your religion is
right. How is that less arrogant than atheism?
> "I am my own supreme being"
Good for you. :)
> It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> Christ and the Love of God.
I have good news to you too. You don't have to worry about going to
Hell. You don't have to worry about getting up early every Sunday
morning to go to church. The bad news is that when you die... that's
it. But knowing this you will value life more, your life and the lives
of others. And you will value the Earth more too because it is our
only home.
> What do you offer Christians and other
> religious people[?]
Everything. The whole universe. Once you understand how the universe
works, you don't have to explain everything away by saying "God did
that". By dispelling the myth of theism, you free your mind and are
able to embrace reality. What could be more wonderful than that?
> Literally nothing.
I'm sorry but I feel that opening your mind to truth is very rewarding
in itself. You should try it. :)
Martin
Bill Carver
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
> Believers. The kind of people that fly airplanes into buildings.
I know of no Christian that has done that for the intention of killing
anyone other than themselves. In fact, I remember only two occasions
that it has happened and the pilot M A Y have been Christian. Their
religious affiliation was not reported.
> Atheists acknowledge no supreme being.
Thereby making themselves their own supreme being. Sort of a glass
ceiling type of thing.
>
> > It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> > Christ and the Love of God.
>
> And as history has shown, if you have your way, you offer this good news at
> the point of a sword.
Me personally or Christianity
>
> > What do you offer Christians and other
> > religious people. Literally nothing.
>
> Freedom. You call freedom nothing. Why do you hate freedom so much?
I love freedom. In fact, I'd like the freedom to pray before a city
council meeting, To allow public prayer in a school so long as it is
condoned by a majority of parents. I want there to be freedom for
teachers to share their faith or at least the teachings of their faith
with students without fear of losing their jobs. I want the freedom to
display a menora, nativity scene, or crescent or other religious symbol
on public land during a national holiday season. Just as you may place
a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
you're your own god. I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
beliefs.
All mankind has the right to speak under our first amendment. Also under
our first amendment we have freedom of religion. However we don't have
freedom from religion. Which means that you may choose whatever
religion you wish or you may choose no religion. However the first
amendment that affirms both of us these rights also prevents us from
taking that right from others. (or at least it should be.)
I believe that religious belief of all kinds can and should be taught in
public schools. However, in a secular social studies kind of way so as
to learn of other people and cultures and beliefs. Choosing not to do
so is choosing not to teach. And of course your opinion should be
shared as one of those choices.
Finally, you are free. Free from God. I see no shackles. I see no one
preventing you from having this conversation. I see no one at your door
threatening your life and I have freely listened to you. We don't
agree, but I will fight to the death to save your right to do so.
Bill Carver
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> How did you possibly get that meaning?
>
> And what is
> > so bad about living in Jungles anyway. Lots of shade. Good food and
> > you don't live there:)
>
> First a non sequitur and now a personal insult - great argument you
> have.
78% of the world's known population believes in the existence of a God
or supreme being according to "The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1997"
Do we the majority of the world all live in Jungles?
The personal insult is folowed by one of these things.. :) I'm
smiling. Don't have such thin skin. Laugh a little. C'mon. It was
funny:)
Bill Carver
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
So you would agree that under the same test of the validity that Darwin
had which was "This theory is true unless proven otherwise" could apply
to the creation of matter that had exploded in the beginning no?
Bill Carver
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> A creation story is a story that tells about a creation. The Big Bang
> theory does not do this. Furthermore the fact that one has evidence
> and the other does not makes any attempt to present them as just two
> stories a transparent word game.
Trust me.. To the 78% of the world that believes in God, there is proof.
In the case of my faith, if the story were made up, why would people
have chosen something so unbelievable. It would be so much easier if it
were not for some of the dying on the cross and yet living to tell about
it thing. However, that is what happened and there is historial records
of all kinds of miracles performed not only in Jesus' time on earth, but
even to this day.
Bill Carver
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I don't think that "share" is the right word when you try to force these
> beliefs
> on people.
>
> ben
What force have I used. You have the power to ignore me. I promise
not to bite if you. The force you feel is guilt. And it's put there,
not by any Christian, or even other religions, but rather an empty hole
in your being looking to be filled with something. However you don't
know what, so you are both proud and angry. Proud that you don't "need"
to fill the void, and angry that you somehow cannot.
Martin Phipps
> So by this you mean that 78% of the world lives in Jungles? And what is
> so bad about living in Jungles anyway. Lots of shade. Good food and
> you don't live there:)
If you are making the analogy between living in jungles and not
believing in God then this is a falacy. Atheism, not believing in God,
is progress. We have all of the advances in science and technology
today because people stopped believing that everything in the universe
happened because of God.
Martin
Martin Phipps
Forgive him. He obviously didn't know the answer to your question
either or he would have given you an answer. :)
Martin
Bill Carver
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You can create matter from energy. Einstein proved that.
so then, who created energy
Bill Carver
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why must you convince us that there is no God.
>
> I don't _have to_. I'd like to but I don't _have to_. Ultimately you
> have to take that final step and open your mind to the fact that there
> is more than one religion and unless you believe *all* religions then
> why is there any reason to believe any *one* religion.
Of course I believe that all religions exist. It would be insane not
to. However, God has invited me to Christianity through the Catholic
Church. I believe Christianity (all of it) is the one true religion and
i'll share that news with whomever I can as I have shared with you.
Whether you accept or reject the news is really not up to me and
certainly not consequential to my own salvation unless I have not
shared. Mission accomplished. I'm of course eager to answer questions
and continue conversing for as long as you like.
>
> > What's your problem[?]
>
> Why do you assume I have a problem. As far as I am concerned, _you_
> have a problem and I _am_ willing to help you if you are willing to
> listen.
I've seen athiests get all upset and want to stop people from even
expressing the word God in all places. Yet have no trouble with other
words expressed best in the 70's by George Carlin. the ACLU has issues
with the ten commandments (or even eight of the 10) being displayed in a
public building, but sees no issue with the number one killer of black
americans, abortion.
> > What do you fear[?]
>
> Death. Not just in general but specifically if I were to get on an
> airplane would some theist terrorists take over the plane and sacrafice
> it in the name of their god.
I do not fear death. Death in God's time is my passage home to Him. I
do not want to die any time soon however. Life is valuable and it is
only up to God when my time may come. I have a mission here on earth as
do all Christians. When that mission is complete, I will go home as all
before me have. If you don't believe in eternal life, you truly have to
get all your selfish pleasures in now. I take pleasure in helping
others live better, for my reward will be eternal for whatever suffering
I endure now and at the hour of my death. Better hurry... the clock is
ticking my friend.
>
> > There is a certain amount of arrogance to athiesm.
>
> There is a certain amount of arrogance to theism. Again, do you
> believe *all* religions? Why do you not believe in the other
> religions? And on top of that, you believe that your religion is
> right. How is that less arrogant than atheism?
>
> > "I am my own supreme being"
>
> Good for you. :)
Note. that's in quotes. I'm not saying that I'm my own supreme being,
but rather a creative quote of athiesm. "If there is no god, then their
is no being superior to me."
>
> > It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> > Christ and the Love of God.
>
> I have good news to you too. You don't have to worry about going to
> Hell. You don't have to worry about getting up early every Sunday
> morning to go to church. The bad news is that when you die... that's
> it. But knowing this you will value life more, your life and the lives
> of others. And you will value the Earth more too because it is our
> only home.
>
I don't worry about going to hell. So much so that I refuse to
capitalize it:) I love getting up early and going to church. I can
give my creator, my redeemer and my mentor the praise he's due. When I
die, I can do it finally, full time.
>
> > What do you offer Christians and other
> > religious people[?]
>
> Everything. The whole universe. Once you understand how the universe
> works, you don't have to explain everything away by saying "God did
> that". By dispelling the myth of theism, you free your mind and are
> able to embrace reality. What could be more wonderful than that?
My believing God creating the universe only augments the beauty of the
universe about me. You are surrounded by a miracle that even if you
understand the building blocks, you are just awed by the creation.
Let me know when you've been able to create your own physical universe.
(Even if it exists only on a cat's color aka MIB.) Then maybe I'll take
your word a bit more. Until then, I'll believe the one who has. YHWH
Martin Phipps
> In article <ufCdnZ2wu5lBPQfY...@io.com>,
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > Believers. The kind of people that fly airplanes into buildings.
>
> I know of no Christian that has done that for the intention of killing
> anyone other than themselves.
Well, no, but we've had planes for only a hundred or so years and
Christians for almost 2000. I'm sure it didn't matter to the victims
of the crusades how they were being killed.
> In fact, I remember only two occasions
> that it has happened and the pilot M A Y have been Christian. Their
> religious affiliation was not reported.
Atheists don't deliberately crash planes and the distinction is between
atheists and believers.
> > Atheists acknowledge no supreme being.
>
> Thereby making themselves their own supreme being. Sort of a glass
> ceiling type of thing.
I'm sorry but how am I a supreme being if I don't believe in God?
Maybe you should stop believing in God and then you can be a supreme
being too!
> Sort of a glass ceiling type of thing.
Theists believe that Heaven is above us... but what is beyond Heaven?
Atheists can marvel at the wonder of the entire universe!
> > > It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> > > Christ and the Love of God.
> >
> > And as history has shown, if you have your way, you offer this good news at
> > the point of a sword.
>
> Me personally or Christianity.
Christianity. And Islam. These religions don't historically owe their
popularity to willing converts.
> > > What do you offer Christians and other
> > > religious people. Literally nothing.
> >
> > Freedom. You call freedom nothing. Why do you hate freedom so much?
>
> I love freedom. In fact, I'd like the freedom to pray before a city
> council meeting, to allow public prayer in a school so long as it is
> condoned by a majority of parents.
You are free to pray in school in your own time. Atheists also pay
taxes and don't want them or their kids to stand around doing nothing
while other people and kids are praying.
> I want there to be freedom for
> teachers to share their faith or at least the teachings of their faith
> with students without fear of losing their jobs.
They can tell students what they like in their own time but they'd be
lying to students if they presented creationism as science. You have
church for that. Again, atheists pay taxes too and they want their
kids to be properly educated.
> I want the freedom to
> display a menora, nativity scene, or crescent or other religious symbol
> on public land during a national holiday season.
Public land? You mean like a school or a park? Again, you shouldn't
consider schools as theism recruiting areas. It should be up to
parents to decide if they want to burden their children with theism.
> Just as you may place
> a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
> you're your own god.
A better analogy would be the picture of Mao in Tiananmen square or the
pictures of Kim Il Sung in Korea. Such pictures were put up not just
to honour the people in the pictures but to remind people who is boss.
> I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
> death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
> beliefs.
Um, Mainland China ordains its own Priests. Where did you hear that
Priests were getting killed in China? Maybe they'd like to persecute
Christians but they are busy with the Fa Long Gong right now. I would
think if they were actively persecuting Christians already then we
would have heard about it.
In any case, most of us atheists don't want to see *anybody* persecuted
for their beliefs. (Chris obviously likes to persecute people but
that's his problem.) If theists get persecuted then it is usually by
other theists with a different set of beliefs.
> All mankind has the right to speak under our first amendment. Also under
> our first amendment we have freedom of religion.
We also have the separation of the church and state in the United
States. Nobody is being stopped from speaking but the government does
have the obligation under the law not to endorse any religion.
> However we don't have
> freedom from religion.
Certainly not in the United States from what I hear! And this is
despite the fact that such freedom is supposed to be constitutionally
guaranteed. Surely freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion.
People are free to be atheists too.
> Which means that you may choose whatever
> religion you wish or you may choose no religion.
Yes. You are making progress. Now embrace your inner atheist. :)
> However the first
> amendment that affirms both of us these rights also prevents us from
> taking that right from others.
Again, you don't have atheists going door to door and imposing their
lack of religion on you.
> I believe that religious belief of all kinds can and should be taught in
> public schools. However, in a secular social studies kind of way so as
> to learn of other people and cultures and beliefs.
You can have a comparative religion class in public school if you want.
It's not a bad idea actually: the more they learn about religion in
absense of the need to believe it, the more atheists we will have. I
actually did learn about Greek, Roman and Norse mythology when I was in
school, for example.
> Choosing not to do
> so is choosing not to teach.
I agree with you to a point. Basic math, English, science and history
should take precident: social science (including comparative religion)
is more of a high school level course. Children need not be burdened
with the distinctions between Allah and the Christian God any more than
they need to be burdened with the distinction between fascism and
communism.
One thing that bothers me is that I didn't learn enough about other
cultures in school when I was a kid. How I would have liked to have
learned about China or Africa in addition to learning about America and
Europe! Why can't history teachers pick a year in history and then go
around the world and tell students what was happening in different
parts of the world at that time? It could dispell a lot of myths.
Mind you, with the diverse make up of students in schools today, it
wouldn't surprise me if some teachers weren't actually doing this now.
> And of course your opinion should be
> shared as one of those choices.
There are limits. Teachers would get fired if they started saying that
Hitler was right or that the holocaust didn't happen. A teacher would
probably not get fired for telling his students they should believe in
God but, given that students have the constitutional right not to be
indoctrinated into religion in a public school, he really should.
Really.
> Finally, you are free. Free from God. I see no shackles. I see no one
> preventing you from having this conversation.
Nor do I. You are making progress: by admitting that you can't see
God, you are one step away from realising that He doesn't exist! I am
so proud of you! :)
> I see no one at your door
> threatening your life and I have freely listened to you.
Let's hope we are making a lasting impression. :)
> We don't
> agree, but I will fight to the death to save your right to do so.
But that would require you to fight against other theists. There is no
need: simply join us and by your example we can turn more and more
people over to atheism.
I sincerely hope my words have not been lost on you.
Have a nice day.
Martin
..andnothingbut
>
> Bill Carver wrote:
>> In article <1167736203....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why must you convince us that there is no God. What's your problem.
>> What do you fear. There is a certain amount of arrogance to athiesm.
>> "I am my own supreme being"
>>
>> It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
>> Christ and the Love of God. What do you offer Christians and other
>> religious people. Literally nothing.
You have something to share, alright ignorance, idol worship, arrogance,
inquizitions, witch trials, torture, murder, etc..
What atheists have to offer is SELF RESPONSIBILITY!
Your claim suggests I have no honor, integrity, honesty or even social
worth unless I believe in something that ancient sheepherders invented.
"There is no "supreme being" is NOT the same as "I am my own supreme
being".
Shove your arrogance!!!
Martin Phipps
>
> 78% of the world's known population believes in the existence of a God
> or supreme being according to "The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1997"
That means that 22% of the world is completely atheist. Yay!
Progress!
> Do we the majority of the world all live in Jungles?
>
> The personal insult is folowed by one of these things.. :) I'm
> smiling. Don't have such thin skin. Laugh a little. C'mon. It was
> funny:)
The irony is that the analogy between believing in God and living in a
jungle is something that an atheist is more likely to make, so it was a
bit confusing coming from you.:)
Martin
Martin Phipps
> In article <1167759105.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
> "thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
> > A creation story is a story that tells about a creation. The Big Bang
> > theory does not do this. Furthermore the fact that one has evidence
> > and the other does not makes any attempt to present them as just two
> > stories a transparent word game.
>
> Trust me.. To the 78% of the world that believes in God, there is proof.
Not necessarily. Whatever happened to blind faith? (Emphasis on
blind. :))
> In the case of my faith, if the story were made up, why would people
> have chosen something so unbelievable.
Is it really so unbelievable? Don't people want to believe that there
is somebody out there protecting them, somebody who will look after
them even after death?
You are really making progress, you know? Of course, the myth of God
is "unbelievable".:)
> It would be so much easier if it
> were not for some of the dying on the cross and yet living to tell about
> it thing.
I'm sorry but your sentence structure is a bit awkward here. Are you
saying tha because people believe in the resurrection of Christ then it
must be true? So that means Mohammed must also be the one true prophet
of God because plenty of people believe that too. Do you see what I
mean?
> However, that is what happened and there is historial records
> of all kinds of miracles performed not only in Jesus' time on earth, but
> even to this day.
There have also been ghost and UFO sightings to this day. People
perform "magic" tricks in public every day and people are fooled into
thinking it is real. We can't believe everything that people tell us,
not just because it is unbelievable but also because it is often
contradictory.
Don't forget that in order for people to be canonized as saints in the
Catholic church there have to be records of them performing miracles.
Oddly enough these records only surface after the person is dead. You
don't see people coming on Jerry Springer talking about the miracles
they have performed. So, yes, a lot of these "records" are made up.
Martin
Mike
Bill Carver wrote:
> In article <1167752795....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > No reason at all to convince you there is no God. Some of my
> > atheist brethren like to crosspost to Christian discussion groups so as
> > to needle the Christers. I never bother to do that. But if a Xian
> > gets involved in a conversation and argues for the existence of God,
> > naturally the atheists respond by disagreeing. If some people want to
> > live their lives believing in sprits like ignorant jungle savages it is
> > fine with me.
> >
> > By the way, the fact that you think the love of God is good news
> > is laughingly irrelevant to the question of whether it is true or a is
> > a delusion induced by emotional debility and uncritical credulity.
>
> So by this you mean that 78% of the world lives in Jungles? And what is
> so bad about living in Jungles anyway. Lots of shade. Good food and
> you don't live there:)
Nothing wrong with living in jungles per se. But there is something
psychologically wrong with an educated person born after say 1700 who
believes in ghosts and spirits and demons and magic. As for your
figure 78% I would point out that 78% of the worlds people used to
think that the world was flat and that their neighbors were practicing
witchcraft.
Martin Phipps
> In article <io4lp21o1gs6h4ne8...@4ax.com>,
> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that "share" is the right word when you try to force these
> > beliefs
> > on people.
>
Maybe not you personally, but crusaders, jihadists and Spanish
inquisitioners have certainly used force in the past in an effort to
propogate their beliefs. And to this day there are Christians who
would condemn people for being homosexual, for example. Here it isn't
even a question of belief: homosexual is what they are. And yet they
are persecuted. You choose to believe in God. Do you also believe
people choose to be gay? Even if they did, do you believe that they
deserve to be persecuted for their sexual preference?
> You have the power to ignore me.
And the constitutional right in the United States to not have your
religion imposed either.
> I promise
> not to bite if you [don't].
I'm sorry but you misunderstand. I have sympathy for homosexuals but I
don't swing that way. Thanks for the offer though.:)
> The force you feel is guilt.
Eh? To be honest, I feel guilty for not coming to alt.atheism before.
I just assumed that my fellow atheists could argue in a civilized
manner when faced with a civilized theist. Now I have a mission to
spread atheism. :)
> And it's put there,
> not by any Christian, or even other religions, but rather an empty hole
> in your being looking to be filled with something.
Once again, I'm sorry, but I don't swing that way.:)
> However you don't
> know what, so you are both proud and angry.
I think if you spent time in alt.atheism then you would get angry too.
Most of the theists who try to convert us are no where near as polite
as you. :)
> Proud that you don't "need"
> to fill the void,
Okay, enough of the gay jokes. I am proud to be atheist. You have no
idea how much joy I feel being able to publicly state that I am
atheist. I can see the looks of scorn on the faces of theists when I
say that I don't believe in God. I have tried in vain to explain
agnosticism to them but... you know what?... I don't just not believe
in God or not know if God exists or not: I sincerely feel convinced
that God does not exist. And I _am_ proud to say that!
> and angry that you somehow cannot.
Do I sound angry to you? Maybe Ben is angry. I _know_ Chris is angry.
(He's not exactly the shining poster child for atheism.) But really,
what most of us feel is more akin to pity, pity along with fear for the
future, fear of how much damage theists will do to our environment,
fear of how many wars will be fought in the name of religion. Yes, I
was angry, particularly at Islamics, after 9/11. But when I realised
that the problem is belief, that fundamentalist belief, not just
Islamic fundamentalist belief or even just theist fundamentalist belief
but any fundamentalist belief, will lead to violence is when I was able
to check my own anger. You see violence occurs when people believe so
strongly in their beliefs that they just can't accept other people not
sharing their beliefs. Theist on theist violence goes back thousands
of years and continues to this day. If everyone would let go of their
beliefs and embrace atheism then we would finally have peace on Earth.
Imagine.
Martin
Martin Phipps
If your answer is "God" then who created God?
Martin
Fun Tyme
Denis Loubet
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
> In article <ufCdnZ2wu5lBPQfY...@io.com>,
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> Believers. The kind of people that fly airplanes into buildings.
>
> I know of no Christian that has done that for the intention of killing
> anyone other than themselves. In fact, I remember only two occasions
> that it has happened and the pilot M A Y have been Christian. Their
> religious affiliation was not reported.
But believers in god did that on 9/11/01. Did you forget that? And it was
pretty clear they did it for religious reasons.
You asked why we want to convince you that there is no god. 9/11 is a fairly
good example of what faith can do. It's irrelevant to me whether your god is
named Allah or Jehova.
>> Atheists acknowledge no supreme being.
>
> Thereby making themselves their own supreme being. Sort of a glass
> ceiling type of thing.
No. I know of no atheist that considers himself a supreme being. You'll just
have to create another straw man.
>> > It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
>> > Christ and the Love of God.
>>
>> And as history has shown, if you have your way, you offer this good news
>> at
>> the point of a sword.
>
> Me personally or Christianity
You've already created the strawmen -- about atheists thinking they're
supreme beings -- to slander atheists with accusations of arrogance. A
slander that Christianity has pursued for 2000 years. Forgive me if that
makes it difficult for me to separate you from the evils that Christianity
in general engenders. You seem to be going out of your way to be part of the
problem.
>> > What do you offer Christians and other
>> > religious people. Literally nothing.
>>
>> Freedom. You call freedom nothing. Why do you hate freedom so much?
>
> I love freedom. In fact, I'd like the freedom to pray before a city
> council meeting,
And you're free to do that. Quietly.
> To allow public prayer in a school so long as it is
> condoned by a majority of parents.
And fuck the children and parents who don't condone it. How freedom loving
is that?
It's starting to look like it's you who think you're the supreme being.
> I want there to be freedom for
> teachers to share their faith or at least the teachings of their faith
> with students without fear of losing their jobs.
And fuck the parents and children who don't want to be preached at. I can
see where this is going.
> I want the freedom to
> display a menora, nativity scene, or crescent or other religious symbol
> on public land during a national holiday season.
Satanists too? If you're willing to tolerate all religious symbols displayed
with equality, I'll be willing to try such an experiment.
But I don't want my tax dollars paying for it, it's gonna be expensive.
> Just as you may place
> a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
> you're your own god.
There you go again, lying for your cause.
> I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
> death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
> beliefs.
You mean for breaking the laws of a soverign nation? I would prefer they not
go over there for the purpose of breaking them.
> All mankind has the right to speak under our first amendment.
No, that only applies to American soil. You seem very confused.
> Also under
> our first amendment we have freedom of religion.
Yet you seem to want the government to favor one religion over another.
> However we don't have
> freedom from religion. Which means that you may choose whatever
> religion you wish or you may choose no religion. However the first
> amendment that affirms both of us these rights also prevents us from
> taking that right from others. (or at least it should be.)
And no one is taking the right away from you.
> I believe that religious belief of all kinds can and should be taught in
> public schools. However, in a secular social studies kind of way so as
> to learn of other people and cultures and beliefs. Choosing not to do
> so is choosing not to teach. And of course your opinion should be
> shared as one of those choices.
And this is different from the way things are now how?
> Finally, you are free. Free from God. I see no shackles.
I do. Name the highest government official you can think of who's an avowed
atheist.
> I see no one
> preventing you from having this conversation. I see no one at your door
> threatening your life and I have freely listened to you. We don't
> agree, but I will fight to the death to save your right to do so.
But you'll lie about me to keep me distrusted. How fucking kind of you.
thomas p.
Bill Carver skrev:
> In article <ufCdnZ2wu5lBPQfY...@io.com>,
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > Believers. The kind of people that fly airplanes into buildings.
>
> I know of no Christian that has done that for the intention of killing
> anyone other than themselves. In fact, I remember only two occasions
> that it has happened and the pilot M A Y have been Christian. Their
> religious affiliation was not reported.
>
The particular method is hardly important. Terrorism justified by
religion is not confined to Moslems or to non-Christians.
> > Atheists acknowledge no supreme being.
>
> Thereby making themselves their own supreme being. Sort of a glass
> ceiling type of thing.
The above is a rather obvious non sequitur. Not believing in a supreme
being does not mean considering oneself one's own supreme being.
>
> >
> > > It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> > > Christ and the Love of God.
> >
> > And as history has shown, if you have your way, you offer this good news at
> > the point of a sword.
>
> Me personally or Christianity
Christians used and justified force as a way of spreading and
maintaining Christianity for most of its history. The very idea of
toleration for other opinions was considered sinful. Christianity is
not unique in this; it is an inevitable feature of any religion or
belief that thinks it has "The Truth".
>
> >
> > > What do you offer Christians and other
> > > religious people. Literally nothing.
> >
> > Freedom. You call freedom nothing. Why do you hate freedom so much?
>
> I love freedom. In fact, I'd like the freedom to pray before a city
> council meeting,
You have it.
>To allow public prayer in a school so long as it is
> condoned by a majority of parents.
That would mean that the religious freedom guaranteed to all would not
exist. Prayer is allowed in public school now, just as long as it is a
private matter including prayer in on-campus religious clubs. It is
misleading to say that prayer is banned in public schools.
>I want there to be freedom for
> teachers to share their faith or at least the teachings of their faith
> with students without fear of losing their jobs.
In other words you want the state to pay for the teaching of religion,
and I somehow doubt you would apply that freedom to any faith.
I want the freedom to
> display a menora, nativity scene, or crescent or other religious symbol
> on public land during a national holiday season. Just as you may place
> a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
> you're your own god.
You must know that that is both silly and insulting.
>I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
> death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
> beliefs.
So do I. The very best way to protect religious freedom for all is to
keep government out of it.
thomas p.
Bill Carver skrev:
> In article <1167759765.9...@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
> > How did you possibly get that meaning?
> >
> > And what is
> > > so bad about living in Jungles anyway. Lots of shade. Good food and
> > > you don't live there:)
> >
> > First a non sequitur and now a personal insult - great argument you
> > have.
>
> 78% of the world's known population believes in the existence of a God
> or supreme being according to "The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1997"
>
> Do we the majority of the world all live in Jungles?
Did anybody say they did except you?
>
> The personal insult is folowed by one of these things.. :) I'm
> smiling. Don't have such thin skin. Laugh a little. C'mon. It was
> funny:)
It was still an insult, and your jungle response was silly.
thomas p.
Bill Carver skrev:
The difference being that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution
but there is none for any creation. In other words there is no
scientific theory of creation; a theory requires evidence. All you
have offered is the fact that we do not know everything, but ignorance
is not evidence.
thomas p.
Bill Carver skrev:
> In article <1167759105.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
> "thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
> > A creation story is a story that tells about a creation. The Big Bang
> > theory does not do this. Furthermore the fact that one has evidence
> > and the other does not makes any attempt to present them as just two
> > stories a transparent word game.
>
> Trust me.. To the 78% of the world that believes in God, there is proof.
Believing something does not make it true. If there was evidence in
the same way there is evidence for evolution or "the big bang" it could
be presented and tested.
> In the case of my faith, if the story were made up, why would people
> have chosen something so unbelievable.
Why wouldn't they? People believe in a great many things that are
absurd. No doubt you would agree with me about some of the beliefs,
but you excuse your beliefs from the standards you apply to others.
>It would be so much easier if it
> were not for some of the dying on the cross and yet living to tell about
> it thing.
That is a religious belief not a demonstrated fact. Do you believe all
the other religions' scriptures that talk about holy men rising from
the dead?
>However, that is what happened and there is historial records
> of all kinds of miracles performed not only in Jesus' time on earth, but
> even to this day.
Your belief in miracles is not evidence. There are no miracles that
have been verified by objective testing. There are only stories about
them. It is no accident that most of the stories date from a time in
which there was little understanding of natural processes nor that most
of them reported today supposedly take place in isolated parts of the
world making them practically impossible to verify objectively.
thomas p.
Bill Carver skrev:
So then, who created god?
Mark K. Bilbo
> if the story were made up, why would people
> have chosen something so unbelievable.
Don't look now but you just validated every religious belief that's ever
existed...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation
by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging
rational inquiry." - Richard Dawkins
thomas p.
Mark K. Bilbo skrev:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:14:43 -0500, Bill Carver wrote:
>
> > if the story were made up, why would people
> > have chosen something so unbelievable.
>
> Don't look now but you just validated every religious belief that's ever
> existed...
Now Mark you know perfectly well that that argument is only valid for
Christianity. All other religions must be judged rationally and
objectively.
Mike Henry
news:1167836533.3...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry. I don't see how Xianity is somehow specially exempt from
scrutiny.
--
Geo. Michael Henry
"And one of the hot topics for me is the number of Christian atheists who
are fully committed to living
according to the teachings of Jesus, but unwilling to accept the idea of
God."
Mark K. Bilbo
<smacks forehead>
I keep *forgetting...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"This is what the LORD says:
'Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by
signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them.
For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree
out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with
hammer and nails so it will not totter.'"
- Jeremiah 10:2-4
So much for Christmas trees...
Robibnikoff
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
> In article <1167759765.9...@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>> How did you possibly get that meaning?
>>
>> And what is
>> > so bad about living in Jungles anyway. Lots of shade. Good food and
>> > you don't live there:)
>>
>> First a non sequitur and now a personal insult - great argument you
>> have.
>
> 78% of the world's known population believes in the existence of a God
> or supreme being according to "The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1997"
So?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Robibnikoff
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
> In article <1167800491.4...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Why must you convince us that there is no God.
>>
>> I don't _have to_. I'd like to but I don't _have to_. Ultimately you
>> have to take that final step and open your mind to the fact that there
>> is more than one religion and unless you believe *all* religions then
>> why is there any reason to believe any *one* religion.
>
> Of course I believe that all religions exist. It would be insane not
> to. However, God has invited me to Christianity through the Catholic
> Church.
Really? Did he speak to you personally? Did you hear voices?
I believe Christianity (all of it) is the one true religion and
> i'll share that news with whomever I can as I have shared with you.
Why? Why do you think what another person believes is any of your business?
> Whether you accept or reject the news is really not up to me and
> certainly not consequential to my own salvation unless I have not
> shared. Mission accomplished. I'm of course eager to answer questions
> and continue conversing for as long as you like.
BTW, on what particular evidence is your belief is god based?
Robibnikoff
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
> In article <1167759105.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
> "thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>> A creation story is a story that tells about a creation. The Big Bang
>> theory does not do this. Furthermore the fact that one has evidence
>> and the other does not makes any attempt to present them as just two
>> stories a transparent word game.
>
> Trust me.. To the 78% of the world that believes in God, there is proof.
Such as?
Heywood Jablomi
> In article <1167800491.4...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why must you convince us that there is no God.
> >
> > I don't _have to_. I'd like to but I don't _have to_. Ultimately you
> > have to take that final step and open your mind to the fact that there
> > is more than one religion and unless you believe *all* religions then
> > why is there any reason to believe any *one* religion.
>
> Of course I believe that all religions exist. It would be insane not
> to. However, God has invited me to Christianity through the Catholic
> Church. I believe Christianity (all of it) is the one true religion and
> i'll share that news with whomever I can as I have shared with you.
> Whether you accept or reject the news is really not up to me and
> certainly not consequential to my own salvation unless I have not
> shared. Mission accomplished. I'm of course eager to answer questions
> and continue conversing for as long as you like.
Actually, if that was true, you'd be the first Christian that is really willing
to answer questions and converse as long as the other person wants. What
happens in real life is that you guys always give up as soon as the first
really tough question is asked, no matter how civil and polite the questioner
might be. I suspect that this is why people like SheBlewHim just give up on
civil discourse and treat you guys as if you are scum right off the bat.
Anyway, if you really are interested in civil debate then here is a question
I've never seen any Christian answer straightforwardly: If you had the ability
to stop the rape, torture and murder of a child, would you do it? If so, then
you've shown that your morals do not derive from God, since he obviously lets
them happen sometimes. If not, then you are a psychopath, lacking compassion
for a fellow human being.
It's a simple question, yet it is essentially unanswered by every Christian
that I've ever asked.
> >
> > > What's your problem[?]
> >
> > Why do you assume I have a problem. As far as I am concerned, _you_
> > have a problem and I _am_ willing to help you if you are willing to
> > listen.
>
> I've seen athiests get all upset and want to stop people from even
> expressing the word God in all places.
That's an admirable goal, but it isn't going to happen. Christians will
continue to insinuate their mythology into all walks of life.
Yet have no trouble with other
> words expressed best in the 70's by George Carlin. the ACLU has issues
> with the ten commandments (or even eight of the 10) being displayed in a
> public building,
No, not a public building, a government building. The fact that you screwed
this up indicates to me that you do not understand the argument the ACLU puts
forward, which is simply an issue of separation of church and state. But then,
I have come to expect that Christians will get this wrong, as some of their
leaders clearly try to obfuscate the issue every chance they get.
but sees no issue with the number one killer of black
> americans, abortion.
Abortion is the number one killer of all humans, by a huge margin. The only
thing is that most of these abortions are natural/spontaneous and occur often
before the mother even knows she is pregnant, without any human intervention.
>
>
> > > What do you fear[?]
> >
> > Death. Not just in general but specifically if I were to get on an
> > airplane would some theist terrorists take over the plane and sacrafice
> > it in the name of their god.
>
> I do not fear death. Death in God's time is my passage home to Him. I
> do not want to die any time soon however.
If you had complete bliss waiting on the other side, the only rational desire
would be to die as soon as possible.
> Life is valuable and it is
> only up to God when my time may come.
But what does the value of life have to do with when you physically die? Is
life in the after-life not as valuable?
I have a mission here on earth as
> do all Christians. When that mission is complete, I will go home as all
> before me have.
It is hard to see what mission a Christian can have if he is killed right after
his conversion. Many Christians die without being able to do any witnessing, or
anything much at all. Christians like to talk about a ""mission" or "calling",
but the fact of the matter is that many of these so-called "callings" are
nothing but unmitigated disasters. I've known Christians that thought they were
heeding God's call, only to see their lives destroyed by a cruel fate and
nobody converted to Christianity.
> If you don't believe in eternal life, you truly have to
> get all your selfish pleasures in now.
Well, true happiness is quite different than mere "selfish pleasures". I don't
believe in any afterlife or anything supernatural, but I know that if I were to
simply pursue my narrowly defined selfish interests that I would soon be
unhappy and dissatisfied. The alternative to theism is not the mindless
hedonism that you Christians keep decrying.
I take pleasure in helping
> others live better, for my reward will be eternal for whatever suffering
> I endure now and at the hour of my death.
That's not true kindness, but a type of selfishness then. Rewards are
irrelevant to the truly selfless.
Better hurry... the clock is
> ticking my friend.
> >
> > > There is a certain amount of arrogance to athiesm.
> >
> > There is a certain amount of arrogance to theism. Again, do you
> > believe *all* religions? Why do you not believe in the other
> > religions? And on top of that, you believe that your religion is
> > right. How is that less arrogant than atheism?
> >
> > > "I am my own supreme being"
> >
> > Good for you. :)
>
> Note. that's in quotes. I'm not saying that I'm my own supreme being,
> but rather a creative quote of athiesm. "If there is no god, then their
> is no being superior to me."
Atheism does not imply that at all. There may be plenty of beings that are
superior to oneself that are nevertheless not gods in any meaningful sense of
the word. Personally I think there are a lot on this planet. Humpback whales,
Nobel Prize winning scientists, etc. And there are probably unknown aliens on
other planets with intellects superior to any human intellect.
> >
> > > It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> > > Christ and the Love of God.
> >
> > I have good news to you too. You don't have to worry about going to
> > Hell. You don't have to worry about getting up early every Sunday
> > morning to go to church. The bad news is that when you die... that's
> > it. But knowing this you will value life more, your life and the lives
> > of others. And you will value the Earth more too because it is our
> > only home.
> >
> I don't worry about going to hell. So much so that I refuse to
> capitalize it:) I love getting up early and going to church. I can
> give my creator, my redeemer and my mentor the praise he's due. When I
> die, I can do it finally, full time.
Why should he care what you think of him? Do you think he is an egomaniac? Do
you think you are important?
> >
> > > What do you offer Christians and other
> > > religious people[?]
> >
> > Everything. The whole universe. Once you understand how the universe
> > works, you don't have to explain everything away by saying "God did
> > that". By dispelling the myth of theism, you free your mind and are
> > able to embrace reality. What could be more wonderful than that?
>
> My believing God creating the universe only augments the beauty of the
> universe about me.
It must be that beauty that makes people puke when they see the insides of the
human body. "Wow, that is such an excellent design I think I'll hurl!"
> You are surrounded by a miracle that even if you
> understand the building blocks, you are just awed by the creation.
So, you stand in awe at your own excrement and urine? At the Ebola virus? At
the necrotizing bacteria that eat live flesh? At the birth defects caused by
the Rubella virus? At the anencephalous babies that lack a brain? You are awed
by Down's Syndrome, babies born with their hearts outside the chest cavity,
Spina Bifida, the worms that burrow into human flesh, Alzheimer's, meningitis,
ticks, Schizophrenia, etc.? Those are all part of this universe, and if it is
created, they are part of creation as well and made by the creator.
>
> Let me know when you've been able to create your own physical universe.
> (Even if it exists only on a cat's color aka MIB.) Then maybe I'll take
> your word a bit more. Until then, I'll believe the one who has. YHWH
But he hasn't written anything or said anything. All we have are people who
say, or write, that he has talked to him. None of the human authors of the
Bible created a physical universe did they? Yet you believe them. It seems your
demands are inconsistently applied.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist
[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
Heywood Jablomi
> What force have I used. You have the power to ignore me. I promise
> not to bite if you. The force you feel is guilt. And it's put there,
> know what, so you are both proud and angry. Proud that you don't "need"
> to fill the void, and angry that you somehow cannot.
I always have to laugh at this theory that there is a god-sized hole in
everyone. I've been happier and more deeply satisfied since I jettisoned belief
in a deity, than I ever was as a believer.
Christians ought to know that there is not darkness and emptiness on the other
side of the bridge to unbelief. Instead there is the deep satisfaction that
only real independence and freedom can bring, two things that Christians talk
about all the time, but never really understand.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3161
[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
Heywood Jablomi
> Trust me.. To the 78% of the world that believes in God, there is proof.
You can ask that same question about all the other religions too. Christianity
is not the most unbelievable anyway, since it simply aggregated several other
pre-existing religions.
People have chosen all sorts of made-up things in which to believe, many of
which are just mind-bogglingly illogical. For example, there was a cult in
Indonesia a few years ago that worshipped a giant wood and papier mache teapot.
The teapot was roughly twenty stories tall, until the government there burned
down their teapot and dispersed the cult.
It would be so much easier if it
> were not for some of the dying on the cross and yet living to tell about
> it thing.
Well, we don't have that. What we do have are supposed reports written several
decades after the alleged event, by partisans. We have no independent
corroboration, no other historical records at all. None of this would ever hold
up in a court of law as evidence of anything. It is rumor of hearsay.
However, that is what happened and there is historial records
> of all kinds of miracles performed not only in Jesus' time on earth, but
> even to this day.
No, actually there are not. If you think otherwise, I think you ought to
produce these records then.
In any event, for several years now, James Randi has been offering $1 million
to anyone that can provide evidence of the supernatural (including miracles).
So far, despite many attempts, nobody has ever won the prize.
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist
[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]
Bill Carver
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
Prayers answered. Miracles happening. In my case seeing Jesus
personally just before I was baptized in 1997.
If anyone wants to hear about that one, just ask. It was one very
interesting lenten season.
Heywood Jablomi
> I love freedom. In fact, I'd like the freedom to pray before a city
What about the rights of the minority?
I want there to be freedom for
> teachers to share their faith or at least the teachings of their faith
> with students without fear of losing their jobs.
So if a teacher told his students that there is no god, you'd be OK with that?
What about if a Muslim teacher decided to pray to Allah for the first five
minutes of every class and encouraged all the students to do the same? What
about if a Satanist teacher wanted to perform a satanic ritual for his
students, or on his students?
I want the freedom to
> display a menora, nativity scene, or crescent or other religious symbol
> on public land during a national holiday season.
What about a picture of Jesus with a red X over it?
> Just as you may place
> a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
> you're your own god. I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
> death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
> beliefs.
They have to hide because they are trying to infect that society with
Christianity, which has no place there.
>
> All mankind has the right to speak under our first amendment. Also under
> our first amendment we have freedom of religion. However we don't have
> freedom from religion.
We don't need freedom from religion as long as the government follows the law
and does nothing to favor one religion over another. The trouble with
Christians is that they think "religious freedom" means they get to run the
show and don't have to accommodate other religions. An example is the crap
about being free to pray in public schools. Students in public schools ARE free
to pray all they want. What Christians mean though is that they want the right
to have Christian prayers be in the main events, activities etc. They want
there to be Christian prayers in football games, but not Muslim, Jewish,
Buddhist, etc. Their idea of religious freedom is really religious domination.
This is easy to demonstrate by asking them point blank if they would support
the prayers of all the major religions (and pseudo-religions like "Satanism")
being recited at every major school event, including a member of the
RationalResponders Squad getting up in front of the school and saying loudly,
"I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, and you should too, and I am not
afraid". They would say that of course they do not want THAT.
> Which means that you may choose whatever
> religion you wish or you may choose no religion. However the first
> amendment that affirms both of us these rights also prevents us from
> taking that right from others. (or at least it should be.)
How long would every public activity be if it included prayers and/or
statements from every religion that exists in America?
>
> I believe that religious belief of all kinds can and should be taught in
> public schools. However, in a secular social studies kind of way so as
> to learn of other people and cultures and beliefs. Choosing not to do
> so is choosing not to teach. And of course your opinion should be
> shared as one of those choices.
Which stacks the deck in an illegal way. The anti-establishment clause
expressly forbids the state from establishing any religion.
>
> Finally, you are free. Free from God. I see no shackles. I see no one
> preventing you from having this conversation. I see no one at your door
> threatening your life and I have freely listened to you. We don't
> agree, but I will fight to the death to save your right to do so.
But Christianity does wield the implicit threat of real physical torture in the
form of Hell. Decisions and choices made under threat of pain and suffering are
not free.
Heywood Jablomi
> It's interesting that we have something to share. The good news of
> Christ and the Love of God.
That is nothing particularly interesting. It is just a set of religious beliefs
like all the rest, it just so happens that you picked it instead of another
religion. There is nothing unique or noteworthy about Christianity. Everything
in Christianity is found in other religions, most of them far older than
Christianity.
It is a mildly interesting conceit of Christians for them to believe that their
beliefs are uniquely interesting. But an honest open observer will note that
your statement above can be easily adapted to any of the major (and a lot of
minor) religions too. Hindus could say that they have something interesting to
share, namely the good news of Krishna and the love of god, for example. Do you
say they are wrong and you are right? How is that different than an atheist
saying that you are wrong and they are right?
--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist
Bill Carver
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> "Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
> >
> > Of course I believe that all religions exist. It would be insane not
> > to. However, God has invited me to Christianity through the Catholic
> > Church.
>
> Really? Did he speak to you personally? Did you hear voices?
Yes. He speaks to all Christians at all times. We just know how to
listen. And I've actually seen Him as well.
>
> I believe Christianity (all of it) is the one true religion and
> > i'll share that news with whomever I can as I have shared with you.
>
> Why? Why do you think what another person believes is any of your business?
All religion aside, if you had seen a stranger climbing a mountain you
had just climbed and you knew where the dangers of avalanche were,
would you tell him?
Have you ever told something about product, a movie, or somethimg much
more important and good in their life and how to achieve it? that's why
I share with you.
Jesus is my salvation, my key to eternal life and he's the foundation of
my life. He is a foundation that cannot be moved because of me, no evil
will stand against Him or any that believe in Him.
>
> > Whether you accept or reject the news is really not up to me and
> > certainly not consequential to my own salvation unless I have not
> > shared. Mission accomplished. I'm of course eager to answer questions
> > and continue conversing for as long as you like.
>
> BTW, on what particular evidence is your belief is god based?
Faith. I have seen in the people of Christ something larger at work. I
have seen God at work in my life, not only now, but when I was sitting
in your position. I've only been a Christian since 1997. Before that,
I was more of an athiest myself. My eyes were opened, but they were
opened by God, and not by man. It had been revealed to me divinly that
God is not only in my life now, or in 1997, but God was in my life all
my life. As the Bible says, He knew me before I was formed in the womb.
And he knows you as well. You just have to be humble enough to hear His
quiet invitation. You're looking for big signs, miracles and wonders.
they've been with you all along. And they've been far to many to
attribute to luck.
May God reveal His presence to you in His time.
Bill Carver
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:14:43 -0500, Bill Carver wrote:
>
> > if the story were made up, why would people
> > have chosen something so unbelievable.
>
> Don't look now but you just validated every religious belief that's ever
> existed...
Mark. You the same bilbo that used to be on Genie in the apple ][ Group?
Bill Carver
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Open page 1 of the Bible and you'll find the answer.
Free Lunch
>In article <502hvkF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Of course I believe that all religions exist. It would be insane not
>> > to. However, God has invited me to Christianity through the Catholic
>> > Church.
>>
>> Really? Did he speak to you personally? Did you hear voices?
>
>Yes. He speaks to all Christians at all times. We just know how to
>listen. And I've actually seen Him as well.
Who else saw Him at the time?
>> I believe Christianity (all of it) is the one true religion and
>> > i'll share that news with whomever I can as I have shared with you.
>>
>> Why? Why do you think what another person believes is any of your business?
>
>All religion aside, if you had seen a stranger climbing a mountain you
>had just climbed and you knew where the dangers of avalanche were,
>would you tell him?
Yes.
>Have you ever told something about product, a movie, or somethimg much
>more important and good in their life and how to achieve it? that's why
>I share with you.
The difference is that your 'product' doesn't have any evidence that it
exists.
>Jesus is my salvation, my key to eternal life and he's the foundation of
>my life. He is a foundation that cannot be moved because of me, no evil
>will stand against Him or any that believe in Him.
There is no evidence that you or anyone else will have an eternal life.
Bill Carver
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
there is only evidence of evolution because you have faith in the
religion of science. You believe that because some plants and animals
have similar structure that they somehow turned one to the other. While
the progression is there, not one living being has seen a tadpole turn
into a lion. Just frogs. No lions have turned to birds as I know. It
takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creation.
I personally find evolution unimportant in the argument. Evolution if
it exists does not disprove the existence of God anyway. You just
think it does.
Bill Carver
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Then I apologize for offending you that way. And yes, the jungle
response was silly. It did get your attention though.
Free Lunch
>In article <1167826790.7...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>> Bill Carver skrev:
>> > In article <1167759433.7...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > so were did big bang matter come from. You cannot create matter from
>> > > > nothing. Science proves that.
>> > >
>> > > I do not know where the matter came from. That does not mean that the
>> > > Big Bang provides evidence for any particular answer to that question.
>> > > There is objective evidence for the event called Big Bang not for any
>> > > god or for any particular cause or for a cause. Saying that it must
>> > > have been god is a claim not supported by anything in the theory.
>> >
>> > So you would agree that under the same test of the validity that Darwin
>> > had which was "This theory is true unless proven otherwise" could apply
>> > to the creation of matter that had exploded in the beginning no?
>>
>> The difference being that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution
>> but there is none for any creation. In other words there is no
>> scientific theory of creation; a theory requires evidence. All you
>> have offered is the fact that we do not know everything, but ignorance
>> is not evidence.
>
>there is only evidence of evolution because you have faith in the
>religion of science.
What a whopper. What religion teaches you to lie?
>You believe that because some plants and animals
>have similar structure that they somehow turned one to the other.
Not only do you lie, but you don't even know what you are lying about.
Plants and animals share a common heritage from single-celled organisms
that are neither plants nor animals.
>While
>the progression is there, not one living being has seen a tadpole turn
>into a lion. Just frogs. No lions have turned to birds as I know. It
>takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creation.
What a remarkably ignorant criticism. It's almost as if you are
intentionally acting stupid.
>I personally find evolution unimportant in the argument. Evolution if
>it exists does not disprove the existence of God anyway. You just
>think it does.
Then why is it necessary for you to lie about evolution?
Most Christians belong to denominations that have no problem with
evolution. What is your problem?
Bill Carver
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> Christians used and justified force as a way of spreading and
> maintaining Christianity for most of its history. The very idea of
> toleration for other opinions was considered sinful. Christianity is
> not unique in this; it is an inevitable feature of any religion or
> belief that thinks it has "The Truth".
My white european ancestors in this nation held slaves. Does that make
me a racist. Have I held slaves? Does Christianity at this date and
time kill to convert without provicatio. Please don't being up Bush
here. You may not agree with his reasons, but we did have a little
terrorist problem recently. And there are plenty of people in the
Muslim world that are happy we're there. We haven't conquored other
nations for the sake of religion. At worst, it was blood for oil as
liberals say, at best it was freeing a nation from a tyrannical
dictatorship for the sake of our own national security.
> That would mean that the religious freedom guaranteed to all would not
> exist. Prayer is allowed in public school now, just as long as it is a
> private matter including prayer in on-campus religious clubs. It is
> misleading to say that prayer is banned in public schools.
It has been banned many times around this nation during graduation
ceremonies and other venues. I'm just waiting for the day the ACLU
comes after military chaplains.
> >I want there to be freedom for
> > teachers to share their faith or at least the teachings of their faith
> > with students without fear of losing their jobs.
>
> In other words you want the state to pay for the teaching of religion,
> and I somehow doubt you would apply that freedom to any faith.
Not necessarily. I want the state not to omit in it's social teaching
the religious beliefs of many cultures. Too often in curriculum current
religious teachings of all religions are censored. Any reference to
christianity in social studies class is forbidden except for the
crusades which you elude to earlier. Judiasm is also not allowed.
However we do have Islamic tolerance classes, and plenty of teachings of
what buddists believe. I could literally see a class at the high school
level that would be entitled something like spirituality and man and
Man's beliefs. And of course include belief that no God exists. I just
don't want the cultures of man in social studies classes to be
purposfully not taught.
> I want the freedom to
> > display a menora, nativity scene, or crescent or other religious symbol
> > on public land during a national holiday season. Just as you may place
> > a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
> > you're your own god.
>
> You must know that that is both silly and insulting.
I'm sure you'll get over it.
>
> >I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
> > death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
> > beliefs.
>
> So do I. The very best way to protect religious freedom for all is to
> keep government out of it.
that's just our point. In these modern times, Our government is trying
to prevent religious people from expressing their beliefs in fear of
lawsuits from people who are somehow offended by people talking to no
one (at least how an athiest would see it)
Bill Carver
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
> But believers in god did that on 9/11/01. Did you forget that? And it was
> pretty clear they did it for religious reasons.
I'm sure this answer will light a fire under some people's posteriors,
but the God of Islam which the terrorists invoked is not God.
>
> No. I know of no atheist that considers himself a supreme being. You'll just
> have to create another straw man.
Let me ask it plainly then. Is there any being superior to man?
>
> You've already created the strawmen -- about atheists thinking they're
> supreme beings -- to slander atheists with accusations of arrogance. A
> slander that Christianity has pursued for 2000 years. Forgive me if that
> makes it difficult for me to separate you from the evils that Christianity
> in general engenders. You seem to be going out of your way to be part of the
> problem.
I don't think so. You're just having difficulty digesting a
philosophical statement. by "you" in the sentence of "you being your
own god", I should have said "man" being his own god. Sorry if i
confused the issue and made it personal there.
> And you're free to do that. Quietly.
>
> > To allow public prayer in a school so long as it is
> > condoned by a majority of parents.
>
> And fuck the children and parents who don't condone it. How freedom loving
> is that?
they can use that time to read, do homework or whatever else they choose
to do at that time. Use the time to "meditate" if they choose.
I'd ask that since you don't want me to pray before a city council
meeting, that you also use that other word "quietly"
> Satanists too? If you're willing to tolerate all religious symbols displayed
> with equality, I'll be willing to try such an experiment.
Certainly. It's offensive to me, but I don't have the right to ban such
expression so long as the display is considered "decent" in the eyes of
the community. by that I mean no things like Christ in a bottle of
urine etc...
> But I don't want my tax dollars paying for it, it's gonna be expensive.
>
> > Just as you may place
> > a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
> > you're your own god.
>
> There you go again, lying for your cause.
Wow! You learned something from the great Ronaldus Maximus. (Reagan) :)
>
> > I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
> > death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
> > beliefs.
>
> You mean for breaking the laws of a soverign nation? I would prefer they not
> go over there for the purpose of breaking them.
Unjust laws should be broken. Study Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and
countless other great civil rights leaders of the past.
>
> > All mankind has the right to speak under our first amendment.
> No, that only applies to American soil. You seem very confused.
Our founding fathers believed that the rights we have to life, liberty
and the persuit of happiness which is the foundation of your government
today did not come from the constitution, but were endowed by the
creator. If you don't believe in a creator, then think of the belief as
a natural law of humanity. It knows no borders. It's because of people
that are not willing to let people suffer tyranny that places like
Czechoslovakia (yes check my spelling everyone it's right) Yugoslavia,
Poland, East Germany and other eastern bloc countries are free to this
day. It started with one Polish Pope and Lech Walesa. You should read
their biographies. Both are very inspiring.
> > Finally, you are free. Free from God. I see no shackles.
>
> I do. Name the highest government official you can think of who's an avowed
> atheist.
I'm sure there are plenty, however since the vast majority of this
country believes in a higher power of some sort, I can probably bet it's
a problem of relationship and common belief. But heck... form an
athiest party if you'd like. You're free in this nation to do that.
But I doubt anyone would be elected.
>
> > I see no one
> > preventing you from having this conversation. I see no one at your door
> > threatening your life and I have freely listened to you. We don't
> > agree, but I will fight to the death to save your right to do so.
>
> But you'll lie about me to keep me distrusted. How fucking kind of you.
People only language like that only when they don't have the words to
say what is really on their mind.
Malcom X.
Dennis, I can say with certainty that I have probably been the most
civil person here on this board talking to you. What motivation have I
to lie about you. I know that somewhere behind all these bits on the
screen which is the only way I can have a conversation is a Man created
by a God who's lost. May you find Him in your lifetime.
Free Lunch
>In article <1167821944.9...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>
>
>> Christians used and justified force as a way of spreading and
>> maintaining Christianity for most of its history. The very idea of
>> toleration for other opinions was considered sinful. Christianity is
>> not unique in this; it is an inevitable feature of any religion or
>> belief that thinks it has "The Truth".
>
>My white european ancestors in this nation held slaves. Does that make
>me a racist. Have I held slaves? Does Christianity at this date and
>time kill to convert without provicatio. Please don't being up Bush
>here. You may not agree with his reasons, but we did have a little
>terrorist problem recently.
What did the terrorism problem have to do with Iraq. Saddam was evil,
but he was hardly a supporter of mindless religious zealotry. That was
the role of Arabia and Pakistan, the folks who are major contributors to
this terrorism problem.
>And there are plenty of people in the
>Muslim world that are happy we're there. We haven't conquored other
>nations for the sake of religion. At worst, it was blood for oil as
>liberals say, at best it was freeing a nation from a tyrannical
>dictatorship for the sake of our own national security.
A job that Bush fouled up beyond all recognition. Laudable goals are not
enough. You actually need to know what you are doing. Bush did not.
>> That would mean that the religious freedom guaranteed to all would not
>> exist. Prayer is allowed in public school now, just as long as it is a
>> private matter including prayer in on-campus religious clubs. It is
>> misleading to say that prayer is banned in public schools.
>
>It has been banned many times around this nation during graduation
>ceremonies and other venues. I'm just waiting for the day the ACLU
>comes after military chaplains.
Public prayers, forced on students by school officials has been banned.
Private prayers have not. Is anyone forced to participate in a service
held by an army chaplain?
>> >I want there to be freedom for
>> > teachers to share their faith or at least the teachings of their faith
>> > with students without fear of losing their jobs.
>>
>> In other words you want the state to pay for the teaching of religion,
>> and I somehow doubt you would apply that freedom to any faith.
>
>Not necessarily. I want the state not to omit in it's social teaching
>the religious beliefs of many cultures. Too often in curriculum current
>religious teachings of all religions are censored. Any reference to
>christianity in social studies class is forbidden except for the
>crusades which you elude to earlier.
I'm not convinced that your assertions are supported by any evidence. Do
you have some. It certainly isn't consistent with what I have learned
about the education system.
>Judiasm is also not allowed.
>However we do have Islamic tolerance classes, and plenty of teachings of
>what buddists believe. I could literally see a class at the high school
>level that would be entitled something like spirituality and man and
>Man's beliefs. And of course include belief that no God exists. I just
>don't want the cultures of man in social studies classes to be
>purposfully not taught.
Objective teachings about religious doctrines tends to annoy those whose
religion is being taught about.
>> I want the freedom to
>> > display a menora, nativity scene, or crescent or other religious symbol
>> > on public land during a national holiday season. Just as you may place
>> > a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
>> > you're your own god.
>>
>> You must know that that is both silly and insulting.
>
>I'm sure you'll get over it.
It's pretty clear that you worship yourself far more than anyone else in
this thread.
>> >I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
>> > death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
>> > beliefs.
>>
>> So do I. The very best way to protect religious freedom for all is to
>> keep government out of it.
>
>that's just our point. In these modern times, Our government is trying
>to prevent religious people from expressing their beliefs in fear of
>lawsuits from people who are somehow offended by people talking to no
>one (at least how an athiest would see it)
More nonsense. Just because a religious person cannot use the
instrumentalities of the state to force their teachings on others, that
does not mean that they are prohibited from expressing their beliefs.
Bill O'Reilly has really managed to con you with his multitude of lies.
Bill Carver
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe not you personally, but crusaders, jihadists and Spanish
> inquisitioners have certainly used force in the past in an effort to
> propogate their beliefs. And to this day there are Christians who
> would condemn people for being homosexual, for example. Here it isn't
> even a question of belief: homosexual is what they are. And yet they
> are persecuted. You choose to believe in God. Do you also believe
> people choose to be gay? Even if they did, do you believe that they
> deserve to be persecuted for their sexual preference?
I don't believe that people always choose homosexuality. I do think of
it as a type of rebellious mental illness. It is a sin in the eyes of
My God, but scripture does tell Christians to hate the sin, but love the
sinner. Jesus tought this by example by hanging out with Mary
Magdaline, Matthew and others.
> > You have the power to ignore me.
>
> And the constitutional right in the United States to not have your
> religion imposed either.
>
> > I promise
> > not to bite if you [don't].
>
> I'm sorry but you misunderstand. I have sympathy for homosexuals but I
> don't swing that way. Thanks for the offer though.:)
ROTFL
> > The force you feel is guilt.
>
> Eh? To be honest, I feel guilty for not coming to alt.atheism before.
> I just assumed that my fellow atheists could argue in a civilized
> manner when faced with a civilized theist. Now I have a mission to
> spread atheism. :)
>
> > And it's put there,
> > not by any Christian, or even other religions, but rather an empty hole
> > in your being looking to be filled with something.
>
> Once again, I'm sorry, but I don't swing that way.:)
>
> > However you don't
> > know what, so you are both proud and angry.
>
> I think if you spent time in alt.atheism then you would get angry too.
> Most of the theists who try to convert us are no where near as polite
> as you. :)
Thank you for the compliment. Do remember that while we Christians are
called to be civil to others, we are also human and imperfect. Do find
it in your heart forgiveness for those posts and overlook the emotional
aspect and just have the discussion. While we don't agree on this
subject, I do enjoy our conversation.
>
> > Proud that you don't "need"
> > to fill the void,
>
> Okay, enough of the gay jokes. I am proud to be atheist. You have no
> idea how much joy I feel being able to publicly state that I am
> atheist. I can see the looks of scorn on the faces of theists when I
> say that I don't believe in God. I have tried in vain to explain
> agnosticism to them but... you know what?... I don't just not believe
> in God or not know if God exists or not: I sincerely feel convinced
> that God does not exist. And I _am_ proud to say that!
I can help you there. If you proudly believe that there is no god then
you are indeed an athiest and not agnostic. Agnosticism according to
dictionary.com:
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition -
Cite This Source
agnosticism [(ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm)]
A denial of knowledge about whether there is or is not a God. An
agnostic insists that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and
impossible to prove that there is one. (Compare atheism.)
>
> > and angry that you somehow cannot.
>
> Do I sound angry to you?
yup... you did
Maybe Ben is angry. I _know_ Chris is angry.
> (He's not exactly the shining poster child for atheism.) But really,
> what most of us feel is more akin to pity, pity along with fear for the
> future, fear of how much damage theists will do to our environment,
> fear of how many wars will be fought in the name of religion. Yes, I
> was angry, particularly at Islamics, after 9/11. But when I realised
> that the problem is belief, that fundamentalist belief, not just
> Islamic fundamentalist belief or even just theist fundamentalist belief
> but any fundamentalist belief, will lead to violence is when I was able
> to check my own anger. You see violence occurs when people believe so
> strongly in their beliefs that they just can't accept other people not
> sharing their beliefs. Theist on theist violence goes back thousands
> of years and continues to this day. If everyone would let go of their
> beliefs and embrace atheism then we would finally have peace on Earth.
> Imagine.
>
> Martin
I suggest that you objectively read the teachings of Christ. One of
which we know as the beatitudes.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Not too scary there. You don't have to believe in Christianity to learn
from Christ as a teacher. I will say that the more you learn, the more
you will start to believe. Be not afraid to look though.
Frank Mayhar
Go for it. Just be sure you have objective evidence, because
hallucinations don't count.
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
Ralph
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
There is no god. Get used to it!
Ralph
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
Just so stories about prayer carry the same weight as the babblings of a
lunatic.
Ralph
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
I don't think the evolution argument is as important as the great ages of
the earth and universe.
Ralph
"Bill Carver" <wgcar...@macno.spamcom> wrote in message
Been there many times and I didn't see a story about who created god.
Bill Carver
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Trust me.. To the 78% of the world that believes in God, there is proof.
>
> Not necessarily. Whatever happened to blind faith? (Emphasis on
> blind. :))
Blind faith is jumping out of an airplane without checking your chute.
Religious faith is based on seeing.
> > In the case of my faith, if the story were made up, why would people
> > have chosen something so unbelievable.
>
> Is it really so unbelievable? Don't people want to believe that there
> is somebody out there protecting them, somebody who will look after
> them even after death?
>
> You are really making progress, you know? Of course, the myth of God
> is "unbelievable".:)
>
> > It would be so much easier if it
> > were not for some of the dying on the cross and yet living to tell about
> > it thing.
>
> I'm sorry but your sentence structure is a bit awkward here. Are you
> saying tha because people believe in the resurrection of Christ then it
> must be true? So that means Mohammed must also be the one true prophet
> of God because plenty of people believe that too. Do you see what I
> mean?
There are first hand accounts of the resurrections traceable in both
scripture and history.
Mohammed is Allah's prophet, but Allah is not God.
> > However, that is what happened and there is historial records
> > of all kinds of miracles performed not only in Jesus' time on earth, but
> > even to this day.
>
> There have also been ghost and UFO sightings to this day. People
> perform "magic" tricks in public every day and people are fooled into
> thinking it is real. We can't believe everything that people tell us,
> not just because it is unbelievable but also because it is often
> contradictory.
> Don't forget that in order for people to be canonized as saints in the
> Catholic church there have to be records of them performing miracles.
> Oddly enough these records only surface after the person is dead. You
> don't see people coming on Jerry Springer talking about the miracles
> they have performed. So, yes, a lot of these "records" are made up.
>
> Martin
You need to read about miracles, saints and scripture. When you see the
magnitude of the miracles. Restored sight to the blind. An insane man
instantly cured. Chronic bleeding stopped by touching the hem of His
garment etc that you will understand that Jesus miracles were not magic
tricks, but the real thing.
You also should pick a saint or two and just read about what the
miracles were. Saints don't brag in life about miracles performed.
Glory belongs to God. Saints in the Catholic Church are simply people
held up as examples of the Christ-Like life we are to lead.
One of St. Francis of Assissi's miracles happened all the time as he was
teaching. Birds and animals would stop making noise while he spoke.
Bill Carver
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The irony is that the analogy between believing in God and living in a
> jungle is something that an atheist is more likely to make, so it was a
> bit confusing coming from you.:)
Someone had said in an earlier post while belittling religious people
like myself that we are backwoods jungle people. I simply used that
somewhat sarchastically to illustrate my point in the reply.
Bill Carver
"..andnothingbut" <thetruth@xohelpme..> wrote:
>
> You have something to share, alright ignorance, idol worship, arrogance,
> inquizitions, witch trials, torture, murder, etc..
>
> What atheists have to offer is SELF RESPONSIBILITY!
So does God.
> Your claim suggests I have no honor, integrity, honesty or even social
> worth unless I believe in something that ancient sheepherders invented.
> Shove your arrogance!!!
Not in the least. I have argued my points politely and with much
thought. I have in no way purposfully disrespected you. I do believe
you have honor, integrity and infinite social worth. So does God.
I'm just sharing with you news of a higher being that you obviously are
still unaware of that loves you even to death on a cross.
No arrogance here. I am totally at peace.
Bill Carver
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> What did the terrorism problem have to do with Iraq. Saddam was evil,
> but he was hardly a supporter of mindless religious zealotry. That was
> the role of Arabia and Pakistan, the folks who are major contributors to
> this terrorism problem.
Since this is not a forum about Bush here, I'm just going to skip this.
We've heard all the arguments anyway.
Free Lunch
>In article <1167806792.2...@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > Trust me.. To the 78% of the world that believes in God, there is proof.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Whatever happened to blind faith? (Emphasis on
>> blind. :))
>
>Blind faith is jumping out of an airplane without checking your chute.
>Religious faith is based on seeing.
There is no evidence to support any religious claims.
>> > In the case of my faith, if the story were made up, why would people
>> > have chosen something so unbelievable.
>>
>> Is it really so unbelievable? Don't people want to believe that there
>> is somebody out there protecting them, somebody who will look after
>> them even after death?
>>
>> You are really making progress, you know? Of course, the myth of God
>> is "unbelievable".:)
>>
>> > It would be so much easier if it
>> > were not for some of the dying on the cross and yet living to tell about
>> > it thing.
>>
>> I'm sorry but your sentence structure is a bit awkward here. Are you
>> saying tha because people believe in the resurrection of Christ then it
>> must be true? So that means Mohammed must also be the one true prophet
>> of God because plenty of people believe that too. Do you see what I
>> mean?
>
>There are first hand accounts of the resurrections traceable in both
>scripture and history.
Are there?
>Mohammed is Allah's prophet, but Allah is not God.
Of course Allah is God. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all agree that
they worship the God of Abraham.
>> > However, that is what happened and there is historial records
>> > of all kinds of miracles performed not only in Jesus' time on earth, but
>> > even to this day.
>>
>> There have also been ghost and UFO sightings to this day. People
>> perform "magic" tricks in public every day and people are fooled into
>> thinking it is real. We can't believe everything that people tell us,
>> not just because it is unbelievable but also because it is often
>> contradictory.
>
>> Don't forget that in order for people to be canonized as saints in the
>> Catholic church there have to be records of them performing miracles.
>> Oddly enough these records only surface after the person is dead. You
>> don't see people coming on Jerry Springer talking about the miracles
>> they have performed. So, yes, a lot of these "records" are made up.
>>
>> Martin
>
>You need to read about miracles, saints and scripture. When you see the
>magnitude of the miracles. Restored sight to the blind. An insane man
>instantly cured. Chronic bleeding stopped by touching the hem of His
>garment etc that you will understand that Jesus miracles were not magic
>tricks, but the real thing.
Some people claimed these things happened. None of it was written down
by eyewitnesses nor was it written down by anyone without a stake in the
story.
>You also should pick a saint or two and just read about what the
>miracles were. Saints don't brag in life about miracles performed.
>Glory belongs to God. Saints in the Catholic Church are simply people
>held up as examples of the Christ-Like life we are to lead.
Okay.
>One of St. Francis of Assissi's miracles happened all the time as he was
>teaching. Birds and animals would stop making noise while he spoke.
So we are told.
Free Lunch
You brought it up.
Bill Carver
> Public prayers, forced on students by school officials has been banned.
> Private prayers have not. Is anyone forced to participate in a service
> held by an army chaplain?
Actually yes by your standards. Military people are required to
"uncover" and listen to prayers given by the chaplain as part of certain
activities such as funerals etc. However, like students, they're not
forced to pray. Only stand perfectly still and listen for the next
command if they choose not to join in the prayer itself which involves
usually one word. "Amen"
> Objective teachings about religious doctrines tends to annoy those whose
> religion is being taught about.
Not if they're presented fairly. Such as "in general, Christians
believe X, Not all Christians believe exactly the same thing, but all do
have in common these attributes. Important people throught Christian
history are X, Y, and Z. Maybe I have a book in the making:) Muslims
believe X. (important people in Muslim History) etc...
> >> You must know that that is both silly and insulting.
> >
> >I'm sure you'll get over it.
>
> It's pretty clear that you worship yourself far more than anyone else in
> this thread.
Naw.. I just think in my best Italian.. .You're a stronga boy. You can
take a little ribbing:) And yes... I do love me. God thinks I'm worth
his time. And God's worth my life.
Bill O'Reilly has really managed to con you with his multitude of lies.
And he's looking out for you:)
Bill Carver
"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
not a problem. The theory of evolution and creation are not opposed to
each other. It's a some believe this and some believe the other. There
is not any definitive proof that either theory is correct. There is
evidence inferring the existence of both, but no "smoking gun" so to
speak.
Bill Carver
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> What a whopper. What religion teaches you to lie?
>
> >You believe that because some plants and animals
> >have similar structure that they somehow turned one to the other.
>
> Not only do you lie, but you don't even know what you are lying about.
> Plants and animals share a common heritage from single-celled organisms
> that are neither plants nor animals.
>
> >While
> >the progression is there, not one living being has seen a tadpole turn
> >into a lion. Just frogs. No lions have turned to birds as I know. It
> >takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creation.
>
> What a remarkably ignorant criticism. It's almost as if you are
> intentionally acting stupid.
Hey... Ann Coulter is my favorite intellectual hot babe. You should
read her book "godless" some time. very informative stuff there. And
again, my favorite hot babe.
> >I personally find evolution unimportant in the argument. Evolution if
> >it exists does not disprove the existence of God anyway. You just
> >think it does.
>
> Then why is it necessary for you to lie about evolution?
>
> Most Christians belong to denominations that have no problem with
> evolution. What is your problem?
No problem with evolution. My problem is with the omitting the theory
of creation as the other possibility since neither are shown
definitively to be absolutely true without some form of faith.
Bill Carver
"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
right after the words... In the beginning.