To ALL Girls and Women between the ages of 10 and 50 -- VITAL Information!
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) �� WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ��
"Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Regarding the possibility that "pro-abortion" could be an honest
way to refer to a Pro-CHOICE person ---
>> NOT likely, since that would be the equivalent of a person's
>> saying he was "pro-aspirin." Pro-CHOICERS support the RIGHT
>> of all girls and women to have unimpeded ACCESS the option of
>> their choice, whether it be gestating-to-term or the REMEDY of
>> abortion.
> Do you advocate a 12 year old pregnant girl having the right
> to contract for abortion surgery?
If a bully attacks a 12-year-old girl, does she have the right to
defend herself? This is no different. Her entire FUTURE is at
stake, and if there is any chance that she has Anti-Choice parents
who would FORCE her to sacrifice countless of her future opportun-
ities and gestate-to-term against her will, we can only hope that
she is astute enough, and well-informed enough, to be able to
access the REMEDY of abortion on the sly.
12-year-olds can be VERY astute and act accordingly, when
seriously threatened. And a pregnancy at that age would consti-
tute an *extremely* serious threat.
BTW -- what makes you think she'd need to seek surgery?
Haven't you heard of RU-486? It's legal, available, and can be
employed during the first 7 weeks?
And "Plan B" -- the "morning-after pill" -- even though not yet
available for teens under 17, has been deemed perfectly safe for
ALL teen girls. So probably would be just as safe for 12-year-old
ones. And it beats hell out of being pregnant at that age! THIS
link informs all pre-17-year-old girls who read it just HOW they can
GET AROUND that prescription requirement. It's EASY to do. And
they can obtain it in advance, and have it ready to use if needed.
(Any girls under 17 who are reading this are invited to click on
the link below, print it out for themselves, and forward its URL to
everyone in their address books!) ---
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
Accessing the remedy of abortion is possibly the single MOST
significant act of SELF-DEFENSE that girls and women of ANY
age when pregnancy is possible might ever be in a position to take
in their entire lives.
Girls and women of ALL ages who are capable of becoming
pregnant NEED to always be fully aware of THIS:
Pregnant at the WRONG time?
Considering gestating to term?
The DAMAGE done to countless of your future
opportunities by gestating unwanted pregnancies
to term is SERIOUS and PERMANENT. For most of
those lost opportunities, they are GONE FOREVER!
There's NO turning back!
99% of all who initially plan to gestate-to-term
and then adopt out... DON'T. During the pregnancy,
they change their minds. And the result is the perma-
nent LOSS of countless future opportunities.
So DON'T be pushed or influenced by others into
gestating. Remember that abortion is the REMEDY
for that unwanted medical condition that will *immed-
iately* RESTORE your FULL range of future oppor-
tunities to PRE-ill-timed-pregnancy levels.
You can always get pregnant AGAIN when the time
is RIGHT. But is you gestate an UNwanted pregnancy
at the WRONG time, countless of your future oppor-
tunities WILL be wrecked, irrevocably. Forever! And
there'll be NO getting them back -- EVER.
Important: Early abortion is 8-10 times safer than childbirth,
especially for teenagers. In the end, though, it's the woman's
choice. Nobody can force a woman to have an abortion, regard-
less of her age.
HERE are KEY resources to HELP you access the remedy
of abortion, in the event of ill-timed pregnancy:
Read the TOP two FIRST. Then check out the rest
of these links:
=> http://www.allentownwomenscenter.com/howto.html
=> http://www.womensmedcenter.com/faqs/consumerwatch.asp
http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/sfr/cpc-profiles.html
http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/listing.html
http://www.feministcampus.org/act/cpc/What_is_a_Fake_Clinic_2008.pdf
http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/sfr/cpc-profiles.html
http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/about.html
Nothing could be more HEINOUS than for any person to be
enough of a hateful LOUSE as to support an agenda that could
DENY that right (or make it difficult) to ANY of them -- regardless
of age. That would be as big a crime against humanity as any
other form of terrorism, since it has the STRONG potential of
destroying a person's entire FUTURE!
America most assuredly DOES have its very own home-grown
version of the Taliban. Its terrorists abuse people in different
ways from the Middle Eastern variety, but if not for the fact that
SENSIBLE and COMPASSIONATE people (egalitarians) constantly
hold them at bay, countless people and their futures would be
grievously harmed.
To those whom we defend: REST ASSURED! We will NEVER
stop opposing the hateful bigots of Anti-Choice until their agenda
has become EXTINCT.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� REMEMBER DR. TILLER!! ���
��� REJECT *ALL* of the RRR & LDS Cults' Hate-Agendas ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
www.LayoffRemedy.com.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
Alfredo
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) troll in message
news:v8mm251eva7hmlngv...@4ax.com...
Fantastic website:
Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is in fact a very great sin before a
Holy God. If you want to know what God thinks about the sin of
homosexuality, just look back in the Bible in the Old Testament. What
happened to the City of Sodom? Was God pleased with the sin of those
Sodomites? You probably already know the answer. Fire and brimstone was
God's righteous answer to the sin of homosexuality.
Some would say, "that was the Old Testament." But God is still God. God has
not changed. God still thinks such homosexual sin is evil, that it is in
fact an "abomination" before God. The destruction of Sodom by God was a
warning - a warning to those who would commit such sin. God is against
homosexuality.
Some call homosexuality a "lifestyle". But is it though? Are homosexuals
generally happy ("gay") or are they sad? The fact is that homosexuals have
a very high rate of suicide. No, the sexual perversion of homosexuality is
really a "death-style". Perhaps you are offended that homosexuals are
called sex perverts. But actually, homosexuality is by definition a sexual
perversion and so the term "sex pervert" is a correct term to use in
describing a homosexual's perversion of the normal sexual relationship into
one that is "against nature".
Many, if not most homosexuals are also sexual predators as well. The Roman
Catholic Church has paid out millions of dollars in settlements regarding
homosexual priests who prey on others in order to commit homo sex sin on
them. Nevertheless, that is just a sample of this type of problem.
Homosexuals generally are sexual predators in that they often try to
"evangelize" their sin by seeking out the "fresh meat" of new victims. I
have known of both men and women who have been "propositioned" on the street
by homosexuals trying to get such "straights" to commit homo sin with them.
This problem is not at all uncommon.
Another example of homosexuals trying to get others to commit their sin with
them was the shocking attempt by homosexuals in California back in 2006 to
require that children's textbooks include only "positive" words about
homosexuality. The reason was obvious - to get such impressionable children
to think "positive" thoughts about those who commit this wicked sin and
therefore to encourage those children to commit this wicked sin with those
homosexuals. It was a "sexual predator" attempt, not upon individuals, but
upon vast numbers of unsuspecting little children in all of the public
schools in California. It was the attempt to seduce a whole generation of
little children into becoming sex perverts.
The citizens of Sodom were also the same; in the sense that they too wanted
to evangelize their sex sin to non-homosexuals. The men of Sodom told Lot
that they were going to do it with him, (by force if necessary), to try and
make Lot commit the sin of homosexuality. It took an act of God to stop
this forceful "evangelism effort" by the homos of Sodom. God, however, did
stop them from succeeding.
Perhaps you have fallen into this abominable sin of homosexuality. Please
remember that God has not changed. Your sin will find you out one day. God
has already sent AIDS as a warning to homosexuals. God will judge your sin
soon enough.
Perhaps you have not gotten AIDS yet. But you will still die one day
anyway. When you do die, you will stand before God, and you will be forced
to answer for your wicked homo sin. God will judge you in that day by
having you cast into the Lake of Fire called Hell. This will be the just
reward by God upon you for your error.
The "good news" is that you do not have to spend Eternity in Hell. God has
one, and only one, remedy for your sin problem. The very word "evangelize"
actual comes from the words "good news". God has some very good news for
you. Jesus can save you from your awful sex sin. Jesus paid for your sin
on the Cross 2,000 years ago. Jesus is up in Heaven right now, desiring for
you to trust Him to pay for your sins.
Why not come to Jesus right now? Why not have Jesus save you from your
sins? Practicing homosexuals never make it to Heaven. Almost all love
their sex sin too much and so will not give it up and come and trust Jesus
to save them from it. Don't follow the crowd down to Hell. Be the
exception. Be one of the very few former homos who will ever make it to
Heaven. Trust Jesus today while God's Spirit is calling you. Then get into
a Fundamentalist Baptist church and live for Jesus.
Enkidu
> Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is in fact a very great sin
> before a Holy God. If you want to know what God thinks about the sin of
> homosexuality, just look back in the Bible in the Old Testament.
And if we think the Bible is bad fiction, what then?
--
Enkidu
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
- John Adams
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) �� WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ��
"Alfredo" <Alf...@pazju.yu>spewed:
...moronic and bigoted GARBAGE.
<SWILL flushed>
Previous post follows:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:56:01 -0700,
"Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) �� WHY be Unemployed? <www.LayoffRemedy.com> ��
Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
> "Alfredo" wrote:
>> If you want to know what God thinks...
We'll ASK him. Not from YOU, moron!
> And if we think the Bible is bad fiction, what then?
He'll either go off into a corner and POUT -- or else
he'll post more bigoted GARBAGE and continue to make a
complete FOOL of himself. (No wonder he's too COWARDLY
to post under his REAL name. LOL!!!)
Ray Fischer
>Homosexuality is a sin.
No it isn't.
> Homosexuality is in fact a very great sin before a
>Holy God.
No it isn't.
> If you want to know what God thinks about the sin of
>homosexuality, just look back in the Bible in the Old Testament.
According to the Old Testament you must be put to death for posting on
Sunday.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) troll in message
> news:v8mm251eva7hmlngv...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:56:01 -0700,
>> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Fantastic website:
>
> http://www.homosin.com/
>
> Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is in fact a very great sin before a
> Holy God.
>
care which god, you pick it.
2. Once you have competed step 1 we can then argue about whether or not
the god you proved in step 1 is in fact, your god.
Till that time however, keep your fairy tales and mythology to yourself.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
SkyEyes
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) troll in messagenews:v8mm251eva7hmlngv...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:56:01 -0700,
> > "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Fantastic website:
>
> http://www.homosin.com/
>
> Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is in fact a very great sin before a
> Holy God.
Got any objective evidence that god exists?
>If you want to know what God thinks about the sin of
> homosexuality, just look back in the Bible in the Old Testament. What
> happened to the City of Sodom? Was God pleased with the sin of those
> Sodomites? You probably already know the answer. Fire and brimstone was
> God's righteous answer to the sin of homosexuality.
Got objective evidence that any god exists?
>
> Some would say, "that was the Old Testament." But God is still God. God has
> not changed. God still thinks such homosexual sin is evil, that it is in
> fact an "abomination" before God. The destruction of Sodom by God was a
> warning - a warning to those who would commit such sin. God is against
> homosexuality.
Got objective evidence that any god exists?
<Snip anti-homosexual propaganda>
> The citizens of Sodom were also the same; in the sense that they too wanted
> to evangelize their sex sin to non-homosexuals. The men of Sodom told Lot
> that they were going to do it with him, (by force if necessary), to try and
> make Lot commit the sin of homosexuality. It took an act of God to stop
> this forceful "evangelism effort" by the homos of Sodom. God, however, did
> stop them from succeeding.
Got objective evidence that any god exists?
> Perhaps you have fallen into this abominable sin of homosexuality. Please
> remember that God has not changed. Your sin will find you out one day. God
> has already sent AIDS as a warning to homosexuals. God will judge your sin
> soon enough.
Got objective evidence that any god actually exists?
> Perhaps you have not gotten AIDS yet. But you will still die one day
> anyway. When you do die, you will stand before God, and you will be forced
> to answer for your wicked homo sin. God will judge you in that day by
> having you cast into the Lake of Fire called Hell. This will be the just
> reward by God upon you for your error.
Got any objective evidence that any part of human conciousness
continues on after death?
> The "good news" is that you do not have to spend Eternity in Hell. God has
> one, and only one, remedy for your sin problem. The very word "evangelize"
> actual comes from the words "good news". God has some very good news for
> you. Jesus can save you from your awful sex sin. Jesus paid for your sin
> on the Cross 2,000 years ago. Jesus is up in Heaven right now, desiring for
> you to trust Him to pay for your sins.
Got any objective (extra-biblical) evidence that Jesus was anything
other than a myth?
>
> Why not come to Jesus right now? Why not have Jesus save you from your
> sins? Practicing homosexuals never make it to Heaven. Almost all love
> their sex sin too much and so will not give it up and come and trust Jesus
> to save them from it. Don't follow the crowd down to Hell. Be the
> exception. Be one of the very few former homos who will ever make it to
> Heaven. Trust Jesus today while God's Spirit is calling you. Then get into
> a Fundamentalist Baptist church and live for Jesus.
To sum up: you've go no evidence to back up any of your assertions.
All you've got are stories written down in a book from the Bronze Age,
and threats.
I grew up fundamentalist Baptist, by the way. I was born again at age
11. But I made my way out to reason and rationality, and it beats
your evil, sick mythology hands-down.
Now kindly keep your proselytizing out of alt.atheism. It's against
our charter and those who insist on doing so will be reported for
abuse.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Chris
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:2nctf6-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
> Alfredo wrote:
>> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) troll in message
>> news:v8mm251eva7hmlngv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:56:01 -0700,
>>> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> Fantastic website:
>>
>> http://www.homosin.com/
>>
>> Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is in fact a very great sin before
>> a
>> Holy God.
> 1. Using objective evidence prove that there is a god, any god, I don't
> care which god, you pick it.
The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
Enkidu
> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
dougberry
mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
Who created the Creator?
--
Douglas E. Berry
dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com/
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
Well I'm not evil, I'm just good looking.
Ray Fischer
>> care which god, you pick it.
>
>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
Logical fallacy: Circular argument.
>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
Says who, idiot?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a2c21a7$0$1599$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
>>> 1. Using objective evidence prove that there is a god, any god, I don't
>>> care which god, you pick it.
>>
>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>
> Logical fallacy: Circular argument.
Not even close. Circular reasoning requires the premise to be drawn from the
conclusion.
>
>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>
> Says who,
It simply follows.
Chris
"Doug Berry" wrote in message
news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>
> Who created the Creator?
The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the Creator.
Chris
"Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>
>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>
> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
To clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being
God.
Enkidu
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4a2c21a7$0$1599$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
>>>> 1. Using objective evidence prove that there is a god, any god, I
>>>> don't care which god, you pick it.
>>>
>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>
>> Logical fallacy: Circular argument.
>
> Not even close. Circular reasoning requires the premise to be drawn from
> the conclusion.
No, circular reasoning requires the premise to depend on the conclusion.
Your argument is even worse, it's self-contradictory. You use the
(supposed) fact that everything requires a creator to prove the existence
of something that didn't require a creator.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
convinced that it says what he means."
-George Bernard Shaw
Enkidu
> "Doug Berry" wrote in message
> news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>
>> Who created the Creator?
>
> The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the
> Creator.
Which direction is "outside of creation"? Where's the exit? Where's any
evidence that there is an "outside of creation" beyond an admission that
there's no room inside the universe for your God?
Enkidu
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>
>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>
> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God. To clarify,
> all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being God.
So you jump from "all things need a cause" to "God doesn't need a cause"
with no justification beyond your word? Clearly, if God doesn't need a
creator, not everything requires a creator. If at least one thing doesn't
require a creator, why can't that thing be the universe?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always
polymer
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:23:25 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>> Logical fallacy: Circular argument.
>>
>> Not even close. Circular reasoning requires the premise to be drawn
>> from the conclusion.
>
> No, circular reasoning requires the premise to depend on the conclusion.
Both descriptions of it were not quite right.
Actually, circular reasoning means that the conclusion
is assumed as one of the premises. In the argument
below, "c" appears both as a conclusion and a premise.
p: d
P: a -> b
p: c
P: b->c
______________
C: c
The problem is not that the argument is incorrect.
You can indeed correctly deduce c as the conclusion.
It is just that it is silly to take the trouble
to "prove" something that you already assume
to be true.
Ray Fischer
>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>
>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>
>God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
Why do you think that you can just make up nonsense and expect anybody
to believe it?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4a2c21a7$0$1599$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
>>>> 1. Using objective evidence prove that there is a god, any god, I don't
>>>> care which god, you pick it.
>>>
>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>
>> Logical fallacy: Circular argument.
>
>Not even close. Circular reasoning requires the premise to be drawn from the
>conclusion.
Existence proves God. God creates existence.
>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>
>> Says who,
>
>It simply follows.
Arrogant stupidity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
polymer
It's the basic strategy of religion. Convince 'em you're so
kraphouse krazy that if they don't knuckle under you'll
have them burned forever. It's just really cheap and
despicable.
dougberry
mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>
>> Who created the Creator?
>
>The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the Creator.
Special pleading. You lose.
--
Douglas E. Berry
dberryOB...@gmail.com http://gridlore.livejournal.com/
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email. Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration -
courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the
truth" - H. L. Mencken
Chris
Probably for the same reason you think you can claim that the sun rises in
the west and expect anybody to believe it.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Chris
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, Chris wrote:
>
>
>> "Doug Berry" wrote in message
>> news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>
>>> Who created the Creator?
>>
>> The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the
>> Creator.
>
> Which direction is "outside of creation"? Where's the exit? Where's any
> evidence that there is an "outside of creation" beyond an admission that
> there's no room inside the universe for your God?
Equivocation.
Ray Fischer
>>>"Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>
>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>
>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>
>>>God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
>>
>> Why do you think that you can just make up nonsense and expect anybody
>> to believe it?
>
>Probably for the same reason you think you can claim that the sun rises in
>the west and expect anybody to believe it.
I make no such claim, lunatic, nor would I expect anybody to believe
it. But you do make absurd claims.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Enkidu
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:792q5iF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>> news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when
>>>> the mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>
>>>> Who created the Creator?
>>>
>>> The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the
>>> Creator.
>>
>> Which direction is "outside of creation"? Where's the exit? Where's any
>> evidence that there is an "outside of creation" beyond an admission
>> that there's no room inside the universe for your God?
>
> Equivocation.
You must have heard that word and thought it sounded neat, but you have
no idea what it means.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
Chris
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:28:21 -0700, Chris wrote:
>
>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>
>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>
>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God. To clarify,
>> all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being God.
>
> So you jump from "all things need a cause" to "God doesn't need a cause"
> with no justification beyond your word?
Not at all. That's why I clarified my statement.
> Clearly, if God doesn't need a
> creator, not everything requires a creator. If at least one thing doesn't
> require a creator, why can't that thing be the universe?
(see above)
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>
>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>
> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
> To clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
> being God.
>
resort to spouting metaphysical nonsense to cover up for your failings.
That's nice.
Chris
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:44:51 -0700, Chris wrote:
>
>
>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:792q5iF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>>> news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when
>>>>> the mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>>exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who created the Creator?
>>>>
>>>> The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the
>>>> Creator.
>>>
>>> Which direction is "outside of creation"? Where's the exit? Where's any
>>> evidence that there is an "outside of creation" beyond an admission
>>> that there's no room inside the universe for your God?
>>
>> Equivocation.
>
> You must have heard that word and thought it sounded neat, but you have
> no idea what it means.
Whether or not I have an idea of what it means does not change the fact that
it describes the tenor of your questions.
Chris
> Chris wrote:
>>
>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>
>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>
>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
>> To clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
>> being God.
>>
> IOW's, you have no objective evidence to support your claims and instead
> resort to spouting metaphysical nonsense to cover up for your failings.
>
> That's nice.
And also untrue. My very first statement presents all the evidence one
needs.
Chris
"Doug Berry" wrote in message
> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, when the
> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>
>>> Who created the Creator?
>>
>>The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the Creator.
>
> Special pleading. You lose.
Present one argument proving that God is created, and I will concede.
Chris
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:23:25 -0700, Chris wrote:
>
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4a2c21a7$0$1599$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
>>>>> 1. Using objective evidence prove that there is a god, any god, I
>>>>> don't care which god, you pick it.
>>>>
>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>
>>> Logical fallacy: Circular argument.
>>
>> Not even close. Circular reasoning requires the premise to be drawn from
>> the conclusion.
>
> No, circular reasoning requires the premise to depend on the conclusion.
There's a difference?
> Your argument is even worse, it's self-contradictory. You use the
> (supposed) fact that everything requires a creator
Apparently, you failed to read my previous clarification to which you
replied.
dougberry
mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>news:2umo25tlihmce7cfn...@4ax.com...
>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, when the
>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>
>>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>>news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>
>>>> Who created the Creator?
>>>
>>>The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the Creator.
>>
>> Special pleading. You lose.
>
>Present one argument proving that God is created, and I will concede.
My dear child, I don't believe you deity exists at all. However, I am
simply pointing that your argument fails spectacularly because it
depends on a Special Pleading fallacy.
You stated that everything requires a creator. But when pressed,
stated that God doesn't need a creator. Making this a special pleading
that we've seen over and over. Go take a debate class.
--
Douglas E. Berry
dberryOB...@gmail.com http://gridlore.livejournal.com/
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email. Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>
> "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
> news:728uf6-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>
>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>
>>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
>>> To clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
>>> being God.
>>>
>> IOW's, you have no objective evidence to support your claims and
>> instead resort to spouting metaphysical nonsense to cover up for your
>> failings.
>>
>> That's nice.
>
> And also untrue. My very first statement presents all the evidence one
> needs.
>
"Objective" and "Evidence". Your metaphysical noise is not evidence of
anything but your own delusions. I'd suggest you find a better message,
because you have failed epically at delivering your current one.
Chris
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>"Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>>
>>>>God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
>>>
>>> Why do you think that you can just make up nonsense and expect anybody
>>> to believe it?
>>
>>Probably for the same reason you think you can claim that the sun rises in
>>the west and expect anybody to believe it.
>
> I make no such claim,
Nor do I make the claim implied by your above question. But since you chose
that path.........
> lunatic, nor would I expect anybody to believe
> it. But you do make absurd claims.
For instance?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Chris
> Chris wrote:
>>
>> "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
>> news:728uf6-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>> Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>>
>>>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
>>>> To clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
>>>> being God.
>>>>
>>> IOW's, you have no objective evidence to support your claims and instead
>>> resort to spouting metaphysical nonsense to cover up for your failings.
>>>
>>> That's nice.
>>
>> And also untrue. My very first statement presents all the evidence one
>> needs.
>>
> No, it does not.
Actually, it does.
> And clearly you have no concept of the terms "Objective" and "Evidence".
> Your metaphysical noise is not evidence of anything but your own
> delusions. I'd suggest you find a better message, because you have failed
> epically at delivering your current one.
Which is?
duke
>The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>
>Who created the Creator?
Nobody knows. Who created you - God.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, when the
>mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>
>>> Who created the Creator?
>>
>>The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the Creator.
>
>Special pleading. You lose.
Nobody knows. But we know who created you. It was God.
duke
>The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 21:01:06 -0700, when the
>mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>news:2umo25tlihmce7cfn...@4ax.com...
>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, when the
>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>>>news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>>>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who created the Creator?
>>>>
>>>>The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the Creator.
>>>
>>> Special pleading. You lose.
>>
>>Present one argument proving that God is created, and I will concede.
>
>My dear child, I don't believe you deity exists at all.
Your funeral.
> However, I am
>simply pointing that your argument fails spectacularly because it
>depends on a Special Pleading fallacy.
So does yours, because all evidence to be found disagrees with you.
>You stated that everything requires a creator. But when pressed,
>stated that God doesn't need a creator. Making this a special pleading
>that we've seen over and over. Go take a debate class.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
that you can not backup with objective evidence. If you're an adult and
interested in actual debate, then knock of the stupid act.
If you want to act like a child however, many of us here will happily
treat you as one.
Your choice. Put up or shut up.
Chris
Again, the message to which you refer is?
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
"God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
To clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
being God."
Now, put up or shut up. Stop playing the fool. Objective evidence
punk, got any?
Chris
"Doug Berry" wrote in message
> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 21:01:06 -0700, when the
> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>news:2umo25tlihmce7cfn...@4ax.com...
>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, when the
>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>>>news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when the
>>>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who created the Creator?
>>>>
>>>>The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the
>>>>Creator.
>>>
>>> Special pleading. You lose.
>>
>>Present one argument proving that God is created, and I will concede.
>
> My dear child,
With all due respect, I aint' your child.
> I don't believe you deity exists at all. However, I am
> simply pointing that your argument fails spectacularly because it
> depends on a Special Pleading fallacy.
>
> You stated that everything requires a creator. But when pressed,
> stated that God doesn't need a creator. Making this a special pleading
> that we've seen over and over. Go take a debate class.
Apparently, my message was not communicated. "Creator of all things" meaning
the cause of all events. Again, present one argument proving that God is
created, and I will concede.
> --
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
the issue go away. You make the claim that there is such a creator, it
is up to you to support that claim with objective, verifiable, testable,
falsifiable, cold, hard evidence.
Get cracking kid. So far all you've done is generate a lot of hot air.
Enkidu
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:792qb9F...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:28:21 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>> exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>
>>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God. To clarify,
>>> all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being God.
>>
>> So you jump from "all things need a cause" to "God doesn't need a
>> cause" with no justification beyond your word?
>
> Not at all. That's why I clarified my statement.
You made an assertion. You didn't clarify anything.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the
world as this good news of Atheism."
--Annie Wood Besant
Enkidu
Uh, no. You have given no reason to believe that there is a god, no
reason to believe that there is an "outside of creation" for him to
inhabit, no reason to think the universe was created.
All you've done is make a self-contradictory assertion.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the
Enkidu
> "Doug Berry" wrote in message
> news:2umo25tlihmce7cfn...@4ax.com...
>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, when the
>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>>news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when
>>>> the mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>
>>>> Who created the Creator?
>>>
>>>The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the
>>>Creator.
>>
>> Special pleading. You lose.
>
> Present one argument proving that God is created, and I will concede.
If God never existed, there's no need to prove God was created. Prove god
exists, then we'll talk.
Enkidu
>> Your argument is even worse, it's self-contradictory. You use the
>> (supposed) fact that everything requires a creator
>
> Apparently, you failed to read my previous clarification to which you
> replied.
You clarified nothing.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that
the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan
dougberry
mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>news:astp25pejnro9m3rr...@4ax.com...
>> My dear child,
>
>With all due respect, I aint' your child.
"ain't" If you're going to abuse English, do it correctly.
No, you aren't my child. If you were, you would be required to be able
to frame a debate before you were allowed loose on the world. My
family reveled in debate and discussions. We also have an unhealthy
fondness for puns.
>> I don't believe you deity exists at all. However, I am
>> simply pointing that your argument fails spectacularly because it
>> depends on a Special Pleading fallacy.
>>
>> You stated that everything requires a creator. But when pressed,
>> stated that God doesn't need a creator. Making this a special pleading
>> that we've seen over and over. Go take a debate class.
>
>Apparently, my message was not communicated. "Creator of all things" meaning
>the cause of all events. Again, present one argument proving that God is
>created, and I will concede.
It's your claim that all things require a creator. Saying that god is
exempt from this universal rule is a logical fallacy. Special
Pleading, you might want to look it up.
Essentially, you cannot claim that "A" is universally required or
possessed as a law, then state that B does not possess that attribute.
--
Douglas E. Berry
dberryOB...@gmail.com http://gridlore.livejournal.com/
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email. Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Chris
If I failed to deliver my message, how is it that you were able to deliver
it back to me? And what's up with the ad hominem?
Chris
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:01:06 -0700, Chris wrote:
>
>> "Doug Berry" wrote in message
>> news:2umo25tlihmce7cfn...@4ax.com...
>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:25:52 -0700, when the
>>> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>>>news:306o25h1ck0oif3h6...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, when
>>>>> the mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>>exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who created the Creator?
>>>>
>>>>The Creator stands outside of creation; that's what makes him the
>>>>Creator.
>>>
>>> Special pleading. You lose.
>>
>> Present one argument proving that God is created, and I will concede.
>
> If God never existed, there's no need to prove God was created. Prove god
> exists, then we'll talk.
Read my very first statement in this thread.
Chris
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:23:23 -0700, Chris wrote:
>
>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:792qb9F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:28:21 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>> exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>>
>>>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God. To clarify,
>>>> all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being God.
>>>
>>> So you jump from "all things need a cause" to "God doesn't need a
>>> cause" with no justification beyond your word?
>>
>> Not at all. That's why I clarified my statement.
>
> You made an assertion. You didn't clarify anything.
What part of "all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being
God" is unclear to you?
Chris
Uh, yes. Clearly, my use of the term "outside" does not refer to the
physical; your use does.
> You have given no reason to believe that there is a god, no
> reason to believe that there is an "outside of creation" for him to
> inhabit, no reason to think the universe was created.
Indeed I have! May not be "reason" in YOUR mind, but then again NO one can
believe in God short of Him revealing His truth to them.
>
> All you've done is make a self-contradictory assertion.
You must be making reference to "Creator of all things". That's why I
immediately clarified my statement in our other discussion. Thus, there is
no contradiction.
John Baker
It isn't the message you failed to deliver, Sport. It's the evidence
to back it up.
>And what's up with the ad hominem?
He may be calling you ten kinds of idiot, but he's not saying that's
the reason your argument fails. Hence, no ad hominem.
Ray Fischer
>Chris wrote:
>>> Chris wrote:
>
>>>> Again, the message to which you refer is?
>
>>> Your claim:
>>>
>>> "God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
>>> To clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being
>>> God."
>>>
>>> Now, put up or shut up. Stop playing the fool. Objective evidence punk,
>>> got any?
>
>> If I failed to deliver my message, how is it that you were able to deliver
>> it back to me?
>
He's not playing.
> Exactly what evidence do you
>have that demonstrates the truth behind your assertion that:
>
>1) A god exists
>2) It stands outside of creation
>3) *Everything* needs a cause
>4) God does *not* need a cause
>
>Words games and sophomoric attempts at logic are not evidence.
Except to fools.
>> And what's up with the ad hominem?
>
>He hasn't made use of ad hominem, he insulted you. The two things are
>not identical.
And fools don't know the difference.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
You have nothing, you never did. There is NO objective evidence to
support your claim, there never has been. You throw metaphysical
nonsense around as if you are an expert on things that do not exist.
You act like a child, playing silly little word games when backed into a
corner by someone that sees through the smoke and mirrors. You were
asked several times to provide evidence and you tried every punkish way
possible to avoid and dodge the issue.
The name fits, get over it.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:795m9bF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:23:23 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:792qb9F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:28:21 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>>> exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God. To clarify,
>>>>> all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being God.
>>>>
>>>> So you jump from "all things need a cause" to "God doesn't need a
>>>> cause" with no justification beyond your word?
>>>
>>> Not at all. That's why I clarified my statement.
>>
>> You made an assertion. You didn't clarify anything.
>
> What part of "all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
> being God" is unclear to you?
>
your ludicrous statement null and void.
Grow up. Fairy tales are for children.
Enkidu
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:795m9bF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:23:23 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:792qb9F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:28:21 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>>> exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God. To
>>>>> clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
>>>>> being God.
>>>>
>>>> So you jump from "all things need a cause" to "God doesn't need a
>>>> cause" with no justification beyond your word?
>>>
>>> Not at all. That's why I clarified my statement.
>>
>> You made an assertion. You didn't clarify anything.
>
> What part of "all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
> being God" is unclear to you?
First, it's an unsupported assertion. How do you know that all things
need a cause? Second, when you claim all things need a cause, you also
are claiming either God needs a cause or you are special pleading God out
of your original assertion without justification.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B.
Anthony
Chris
As I've said before, the very fact that you are reading this post is proof
that God exists.
>
Chris
Again, what part of "all events (creation of things) need a cause; such
cause being God" is unclear to you?
>
Chris
Ok, I'm over it. Again, if I failed to deliver my message, how is it that
you were able to deliver it back to me?
>
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Sorry, reading these posts proves only that there is:
1) a computer
2) electricity
3) shelter
4) somebody in a chair typing on a keyboard
5) The Internet
Sorry, no gods there. Try again. And this time, do try to act like an
adult about it.
Chris
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a2c3fa3$0$1676$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:4a2c21a7$0$1599$742e...@news.sonic.net...>>>>> 1. Using objective evidence prove that there is a god, any god, I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> care which god, you pick it.
>>>>
>>>>The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God exists.
>>>
>>
>>Not even close. Circular reasoning requires the premise to be drawn from
>>the
>>conclusion.
>
> Existence proves God. God creates existence.
God causes events that result in creation.
>
>>>>Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would exist.
>>>
>>> Says who,
>>
>>It simply follows.
>
> Arrogant stupidity.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Chris
"Doug Berry" wrote in message
> The scrolls speak of the day, Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:28:03 -0700, when the
> mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>news:astp25pejnro9m3rr...@4ax.com...
>
>>> My dear child,
>>
>>With all due respect, I aint' your child.
>
> "ain't" If you're going to abuse English, do it correctly.
>
> No, you aren't my child. If you were, you would be required to be able
> to frame a debate before you were allowed loose on the world. My
> family reveled in debate and discussions. We also have an unhealthy
> fondness for puns.
>
>>> I don't believe you deity exists at all. However, I am
>>> simply pointing that your argument fails spectacularly because it
>>> depends on a Special Pleading fallacy.
>>>
>>> You stated that everything requires a creator. But when pressed,
>>> stated that God doesn't need a creator. Making this a special pleading
>>> that we've seen over and over. Go take a debate class.
>>
>>Apparently, my message was not communicated. "Creator of all things"
>>meaning
>>the cause of all events. Again, present one argument proving that God is
>>created, and I will concede.
>
> It's your claim that all things require a creator. Saying that god is
> exempt from this universal rule is a logical fallacy. Special
> Pleading, you might want to look it up.
I did, and it does NOT apply. My claim is that all events require a cause;
and the cause of all events leading to creation is God.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
you having a hard time with?
You have presented NOTHING in the way of proof for your claim. You are
acting childish and foolish. You continue to duck and weave trying to
avoid admitting you are with out evidence and only making blind assertions.
You are a poor apologist for your mythical deity. Perhaps you should
look into a different belief system. Reality comes to mind, you might
want to take a look at that.
Chris
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote in message
news:123c14knvqpbk.1...@40tude.net...
> Chris wrote:
>> "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" wrote
>>> Chris wrote:
>
>>>> Again, the message to which you refer is?
>
>>> Your claim:
>>>
>>> "God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God.
>>> To clarify, all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause
>>> being
>>> God."
>>>
>>> Now, put up or shut up. Stop playing the fool. Objective evidence
>>> punk,
>>> got any?
>
>> If I failed to deliver my message, how is it that you were able to
>> deliver
>> it back to me?
>
> have that demonstrates the truth behind your assertion that:
>
> 1) A god exists
> 2) It stands outside of creation
> 3) *Everything* needs a cause
All events (creation of things) need a cause.
> 4) God does *not* need a cause
>
> Words games and sophomoric attempts at logic are not evidence.
>
>> And what's up with the ad hominem?
>
> He hasn't made use of ad hominem, he insulted you. The two things are
> not identical.
>
>
> --
> L. Raymond
Chris
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:31sr25tedmgv9fkcq...@4ax.com...
Then why did he claim that it IS?
Chris
Do you ALWAYS answer a question with a question?
Chris
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:08:07 -0700, Chris wrote:
>
>>> Your argument is even worse, it's self-contradictory. You use the
>>> (supposed) fact that everything requires a creator
>>
>> Apparently, you failed to read my previous clarification to which you
>> replied.
>
> You clarified nothing.
According to YOU. Obviously, you and I have a different understanding of
"clarification".
Chris
To a blind man, colors do not exist.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
the issue here, your lack of objective evidence for your deity is.
When you grow up, you might understand what the means. Till that time
however, child, you're gaining no converts and your argument has failed.
You made a statement of fact, were asked to produced objective
evidence to support it and you failed, miserably in fact.
Go crawl back into your bed with your security blanket of myth and leave
the adults alone.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Provide objective evidence to support your claim that there is a creator
that was not created itself. Go on, be an adult about it, if possible.
I explained simply, and the objective evidence is under your finger
tips, where your messages come from and what supports them. Do you deny
the objective evidence for the Internet and your messages?
Perhaps your delusion has gotten to the point where you don't even
consider yourself an inhabitant of planet earth. Since you and reality
are obviously complete strangers, it would not surprise me to see you
post somewhere along the line, that the natural laws of physics,
chemistry, biology and such, don't apply to you. But I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt for now.
So, where's this objective evidence for the creator, kid? Come on,
present SOMETHING. If you can.
Ray Fischer
>
>"Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>news:795m9bF...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:23:23 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:792qb9F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:28:21 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:792i3qF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:08:02 -0700, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The very fact that you are reading this post is proof that God
>>>>>>> exists. Without the Creator of all things (God), nothing would
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If all things need a creator, how can God exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> God stands outside of creation; that's what makes him God. To clarify,
>>>>> all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being God.
>>>>
>>>> So you jump from "all things need a cause" to "God doesn't need a
>>>> cause" with no justification beyond your word?
>>>
>>> Not at all. That's why I clarified my statement.
>>
>> You made an assertion. You didn't clarify anything.
>
>What part of "all events (creation of things) need a cause; such cause being
>God" is unclear to you?
Your ignorance isn't a compelling argument.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>All events (creation of things) need a cause.
Says who?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> exempt from this universal rule is a logical fallacy. Special
>> Pleading, you might want to look it up.
>
>I did, and it does NOT apply. My claim is that all events require a cause;
Your claim is crap.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris
What ridiculous word games might that be?
> Your message is not the issue here,
Then why did you bring it up?
> your lack of objective evidence for your deity is.
>
> When you grow up, you might understand what the means. Till that time
> however, child, you're gaining no converts and your argument has failed.
> You made a statement of fact, were asked to produced objective evidence to
> support it and you failed, miserably in fact.
Untrue. Care to reveal how you were able to deliver back to me a message
which I failed to deliver?
>
> Go crawl back into your bed with your security blanket of myth and leave
> the adults alone.
I don't tell you what to do, so please don't tell ME what to do.
Chris
..... that YOU can see.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Objective evidence, present it or shut up about gods.
Come on child, present something, ANYTHING, in the way of objective
evidence for this creator YOU claim exist.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>
>> Your message is not the issue here,
>
> Then why did you bring it up?
>
>
>> your lack of objective evidence for your deity is.
>>
>> When you grow up, you might understand what the means. Till that time
>> however, child, you're gaining no converts and your argument has
>> failed. You made a statement of fact, were asked to produced objective
>> evidence to support it and you failed, miserably in fact.
>
> Untrue. Care to reveal how you were able to deliver back to me a message
> which I failed to deliver?
>
>>
>> Go crawl back into your bed with your security blanket of myth and
>> leave the adults alone.
>
> I don't tell you what to do, so please don't tell ME what to do.
>
up shake that little house of cards you live in a little too much?
Chris
False conclusion based upon a false premise.
Chris
The law of causality.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Chris
I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no"?
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
about it.
Come on, prove your claim. Be the first, EVER, to prove that a deity
actually does in fact exist.
Then we can argue about whether or not it is your deity. But that comes
AFTER you prove the damn thing is even out there, somewhere.
Get to kid, be clever.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>
>>>
>> Look below junior. Oh, and present the objective evidence, if you can.
>
> I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no"?
>
delights in your own stupidity. You make grandiose claims without one
shred of objective evidence to support those claims. Your entire world
is based on fairy tales supported by your childish reasoning of "because
you say so." You know nothing of science, logic or debate and you have
shown you are not interested in actually talking about the merits of
your silly little claims. You wallow in a putrid pool of blissful
stupidity and stamp your feet crying, "is too real" when ever someone
comes along to challenge your non-existent deity.
You are a pathetic little fool, living a life without the common sense
or dignity of a flat worm. Enjoy your house of cards, punk.
Chris
You can lead a horse to water, but ya can't make him drink. That you are
simply blind to the evidence no less makes it there.
Chris
You know this how?
> >
>>> Your message is not the issue here,
>>
>> Then why did you bring it up?
>>
> Because you can't back it up with objective evidence, that's why.
I see, so it IS the issue.
> >
>>> your lack of objective evidence for your deity is.
>>>
>>> When you grow up, you might understand what the means. Till that time
>>> however, child, you're gaining no converts and your argument has failed.
>>> You made a statement of fact, were asked to produced objective evidence
>>> to support it and you failed, miserably in fact.
>>
>> Untrue. Care to reveal how you were able to deliver back to me a message
>> which I failed to deliver?
>>
> Failed to support you mean.
No I don't. I mean exactly what I said. You proclaimed that I failed to
"deliver" my message. So, the answer to my question is?
>>>
>>> Go crawl back into your bed with your security blanket of myth and leave
>>> the adults alone.
>>
>> I don't tell you what to do, so please don't tell ME what to do.
>>
> Then don't make claims you can't support.
Non sequitur.
dougberry
mysterious "Chris" <re...@juno.com> spoke thusly in alt.atheism:
>> It's your claim that all things require a creator. Saying that god is
>> exempt from this universal rule is a logical fallacy. Special
>> Pleading, you might want to look it up.
>
>I did, and it does NOT apply. My claim is that all events require a cause;
>and the cause of all events leading to creation is God.
Now you're Moving the Goalposts. Your original post said nothing about
events requiring a cause, but rather that everything needed a creator.
Give it up kid, you're playing a losing hand here.
--
Douglas E. Berry
dberryOB...@gmail.com http://gridlore.livejournal.com/
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email. Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Enkidu
>> The fact that you have no objective evidence to support that claim
>> makes your ludicrous statement null and void.
>
> Again, what part of "all events (creation of things) need a cause; such
> cause being God" is unclear to you?
First, the part where you claim that all events need a cause. I don't
believe you've presented any evidence that this is true. Second, if all
things need a cause, then God needs a cause. What caused god?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"God is not dead. He is alive and working on a much less ambitious
project."
-- graffito
Ray Fischer
>Chris wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Look below junior. Oh, and present the objective evidence, if you can.
>>
>> I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no"?
>>
>You have proven one thing. You are a puerile, ignorant, twit, who
>delights in your own stupidity. You make grandiose claims without one
>shred of objective evidence to support those claims. Your entire world
>is based on fairy tales supported by your childish reasoning of "because
>you say so." You know nothing of science, logic or debate and you have
>shown you are not interested in actually talking about the merits of
>your silly little claims. You wallow in a putrid pool of blissful
>stupidity and stamp your feet crying, "is too real" when ever someone
>comes along to challenge your non-existent deity.
>
>You are a pathetic little fool, living a life without the common sense
>or dignity of a flat worm. Enjoy your house of cards, punk.
I'll 2nd that.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>All events (creation of things) need a cause.
>>
>> Says who?
>
>The law of causality.
No such thing, idiot. Pulling "laws" out of your ass isn't evidence.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris
Name an event that was not caused.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Chris
> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Look below junior. Oh, and present the objective evidence, if you can.
>>
>> I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no"?
>>
> You have proven one thing. You are a puerile, ignorant, twit, who
> delights in your own stupidity. You make grandiose claims without one
> shred of objective evidence to support those claims. Your entire world is
> based on fairy tales supported by your childish reasoning of "because you
> say so." You know nothing of science, logic or debate and you have shown
> you are not interested in actually talking about the merits of your silly
> little claims. You wallow in a putrid pool of blissful stupidity and
> stamp your feet crying, "is too real" when ever someone comes along to
> challenge your non-existent deity.
>
> You are a pathetic little fool, living a life without the common sense or
> dignity of a flat worm. Enjoy your house of cards, punk.
Feel better now?
Frank Mayhar
> "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
> news:t1s2g6-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote in message
>>> news:7gn2g6-...@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...
>>>>>> Again, no evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> ..... that YOU can see.
>>>>>
>>>> And since you have none for this god thing, you can't see it either.
>>>
>>> False conclusion based upon a false premise.
>>>
>> Then present the objective evidence and stop beating around the bush
>> about it.
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but ya can't make him drink. That you are
> simply blind to the evidence no less makes it there.
Um, dipshit? "Because I say so" isn't evidence.
I don't believe you, simple as that.
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
Chris
> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>All events (creation of things) need a cause.
>>>
>>> Says who?
>>
>>The law of causality.
>
> No such thing,
Uhuh, and no such thing as trees either.
Ray Fischer
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4a2f2d32$0$1618$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> Chris <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>All events (creation of things) need a cause.
>>>>
>>>> Says who?
>>>
>>>The law of causality.
>>
>> No such thing,
>
>Uhuh, and no such thing as trees either.
Wrong, idiot. There are such things as trees. You can even see them
and feel them. But your farts aren't "laws" even if you need to
believe in them and worship them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>"Doug Berry" wrote in message
>>>> It's your claim that all things require a creator. Saying that god is
>>>> exempt from this universal rule is a logical fallacy. Special
>>>> Pleading, you might want to look it up.
>>>
>>>I did, and it does NOT apply. My claim is that all events require a cause;
>>
>> Your claim is crap.
>
>Name an event that was not caused.
Atomic decay of atoms.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John Baker
>
>You can lead a horse to water, but ya can't make him drink.
And you can lead a theist to reason, but ya can't make him think.
>That you are
>simply blind to the evidence no less makes it there.
Where? Up your arse? Because you certainly haven't presented any of it
here.