The Five Commandments of Atheism

[Terry Cross]

We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:

1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
informed.
3. You shall believe as you are told.
4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.
5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
punishment without end in a mental institution.

Fear and punishment. Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
it is practiced.

TCross

[linuxgal]

Terry Cross wrote:
> Fear and punishment. Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
> it is practiced.

And yet who is it has an afterlife doctrine to ease their fear of death,
and a hell doctrine to punish the unbelievers?

[John Manning]

Terry Cross, as a defender of religion and its "values,"
demonstrates his hatred for atheist fellow human beings
and viciously lies about them.

[MarkA]

It seems to me these "Commandments" are more applicable to theism than
atheism. In fact, I'm pretty sure that one of The Official Ten
Commandments, as written in the Bible, is about having "No other Gods
before Me." (What?? There's Other Gods?? My Sunday School Teacher
always told me that there was only ONE god!)

Given that TCross is sadly ignorant of science, it's no surprise that he
is so ignorant of atheism, as well.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[raven1]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
>punishment without end in a mental institution.

Speaking from experience?

[Terry Cross]

On May 22, 11:31 am, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:35 -0700, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
>
> > 1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
> > 2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
> > informed.
> > 3. You shall believe as you are told.
> > 4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.
> > 5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
> > punishment without end in a mental institution.
>
> > Fear and punishment.  Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
> > it is practiced.
>
> > TCross
>
> It seems to me these "Commandments" are more applicable to theism than
> atheism.

Truly, the Atheist commandments are sadly reminiscent of the Jewish
barbarism known as the Torah.

> In fact, I'm pretty sure that one of The Official Ten
> Commandments, as written in the Bible, is about having "No other Gods
> before Me."  (What??  There's Other Gods??  My Sunday School Teacher
> always told me that there was only ONE god!)

Judaism loves to clobber people, particularly Gentiles.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 22, 11:55 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
> >punishment without end in a mental institution.
>
> Speaking from experience?

Not yet. :-)

TCross

[John Manning]

On 5/22/2013 4:38 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> On May 22, 11:31 am, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:35 -0700, Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>>> We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
>>
>>> 1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
>>> 2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
>>> informed.
>>> 3. You shall believe as you are told.
>>> 4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.
>>> 5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
>>> punishment without end in a mental institution.
>>
>>> Fear and punishment. Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
>>> it is practiced.
>>
>>> TCross
>>
>> It seems to me these "Commandments" are more applicable to theism than
>> atheism.
>
>
> Truly, the Atheist commandments are sadly reminiscent of the Jewish
> barbarism known as the Torah.

There are no "Atheist commandments".

[A Really Really Large Number]

On May 22, 4:12 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> There are no "Atheist commandments".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZa26_esLBE

[casey]

Did you mean to write this?

We could satirize the theist faith with these commandments:

1. Do not seek truth as an individual.

2. The Church will find the truth, and you will be duly

informed.
3. You shall believe as you are told.
4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.

5. Anyone who violates these rules will be
called nasty names and killed if possible
and sent to hell when they die.

Fear and punishment. Theism operates on the same

parameters wherever it is practiced.

Providing they are humanists you need not fear
those who can't find evidence to convince them
there is a god and your particular church is the
way to such a god. They will not demonize you
for they don't believe in demons.

[Mitchell Holman]

MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in
news:pan.2013.05.22....@somewhere.invalid:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:35 -0700, Terry Cross wrote:
>
>>
>> We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
>>
>> 1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
>> 2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
>> informed.
>> 3. You shall believe as you are told.
>> 4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.
>> 5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
>> punishment without end in a mental institution.
>>
>> Fear and punishment. Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
>> it is practiced.
>>
>> TCross
>
> It seems to me these "Commandments" are more applicable to theism than
> atheism. In fact, I'm pretty sure that one of The Official Ten
> Commandments, as written in the Bible, is about having "No other Gods
> before Me." (What?? There's Other Gods?? My Sunday School Teacher
> always told me that there was only ONE god!)
>

Don't forget Genesis, "WE will make Man in OUR own image"

[Uncle Vic]

Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3098c73a-6a1a-40b9-8dad-
1f49aa...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

> We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:

Oh. Whew! Good thing there's no such thing as an "atheist faith".

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Andy W]

Well yes, if you think "satirize" actually means "shamelessly and
blatantly lie about". It amuses and amazes me that theists so often
have to resort to such dishonesty to try to score points over us. But
I suppose it would require more effort and brainpower than the average
theist can muster to actually understand atheism well enough to even
attempt a legitimate rebuttal.

Andy

[A Really Really Large Number]

On May 22, 6:29 pm, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>But
> I suppose it would require more effort and brainpower than the average
> theist can muster to actually understand atheism well enough

You are delusional.

[casey]

On 22 May, 14:44, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3098c73a-6a1a-40b9-8dad-
> 1f49aa6d9...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

>
> > We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
>
> Oh.  Whew!  Good thing there's no such thing as an "atheist faith".

And yet it serves the dishonest theist to propagate
the lie that it is a faith when it is the opposite.

Some people have come to the *honest* conclusion
that there is not enough evidence for a god just as
they have come to the honest conclusion that matter
cannot be divided indefinitely but will bottom out
at the molecule. Imagine being attacked because
you concluded that what we call matter is made
up of things called atoms instead of believing it
is matter all the way down.

[A Really Really Large Number]

On May 22, 7:05 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Some people have come to the *honest* conclusion
> that there is not enough evidence for a god

LOL!

What planet are you on?

[Syd M.]

On May 22, 7:10 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The real one.
Which one are YOU on?

PDW

[Terry Cross]

It is interchangeable. You have discovered that Atheism is no better
than the worst of churches.

TCros

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article
<b93c3bed-6c17-4807...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

On the contrary, we find that atheism is no worse than the best of
theist religions, and if any better-than-atheism religions exist they
are not theist religions.

[casey]

On 22 May, 16:10, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Planet Earth where a process we call science has
shown itself to be the gold standard when it comes
to explanations that actually work no faith required.

[Terry Cross]

On May 22, 5:48 pm, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc> wrote:
> In article
> <b93c3bed-6c17-4807-9b18-f6f8dee0a...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Really? You give all philosophy a Boolean definition, then suggest
there might be a third alternative? And I don't think you meant it
as a joke!

TCross

[casey]

Nope. I discovered that you were talking about
theism and suffer the delusion that atheism is
a belief system when it is the *absence of a
belief* in a god and as group they would no more
share a set of commandments then they would
share a set of tastes in food.


>
> TCros

[David Canzi]

Satire should resemble what it satirizes. If you don't know how
to write satire, try accuracy and honesty instead.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

[Terry Cross]

On May 22, 7:13 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

Unfortunately, those ARE the core beliefs expressed by common
Atheists. If your neighbors believe something, you have to believe it
too ("accepted truths and theories"). And they don't, you are not
allowed to. Neither Jeanne nor John Manning have the backbone to
disagree with a single article published by Scientific American or
Nature -- not one. Their sole tool of logic is to threaten people
with declarations of insanity of they do not agree with those
publications.

TCross

[Fidem Turbāre,]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:

Atheism isn't a faith, so your commandments don't apply to atheists.

> 1. Do not seek truth as an individual.

How is this valuable?

> 2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
> informed.

Human Hive? Are you confusing humans with bees?

> 3. You shall believe as you are told.

Aside from applying this to prisoners, slaves, and subordinates (while
working), how is this valauble to a general population?

> 4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.

How is this valuable?

> 5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
> punishment without end in a mental institution.

How can a government afford to implement this? Even the Vatican isn't
wealthy enough.

> Fear and punishment. Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
> it is practiced.

Atheism doesn't "operate" because it is a classification of the
"absence of theism." Atheism isn't "practiced" because it is the
natural state of reality -- theism and anti-theism are deviations from
nature and reality.

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism,
satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."
-- Salman Rushdie

[Fidem Turbāre,]

A planet whose English name is "Earth."

Are you a Tellurian, or do you come from a different home planet?

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"It's funny how religion tries so adamantly to say it's something
different than a cult ... then it puts on silly outfits, performs
ritual (sabbat), and requests prayer (mantra) en mass."
-- Runivis Roan (April 18, 2013)

[Fidem Turbāre,]

Theism was humankind's early attempts at philosophy, but philosophy has
progressed far beyond dogma and so the category of "theology" is used
to separate religion, which relies on a lot of unfounded assumptions,
from actual philosophy, which explores complexity and questions ideas.

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Theists want simple answers to complex questions. This is exactly
what theism has been providing for millennia."
-- Josef Balluch (February 13, 2013)

[Fidem Turbāre,]

Still trying to escape?

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I don't have a noggin (whatever that is). There is no question of
this."
-- Zacharias Mulletstein (January 11, 2013)

[Fidem Turbāre,]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:10:51 -0700
linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > Fear and punishment. Atheism operates on the same parameters
> > wherever it is practiced.
>

> And yet who is it has an afterlife doctrine to ease their fear of
> death, and a hell doctrine to punish the unbelievers?

Although death poses a serious threat, fear of it should not be eased,
rather it should be embraced and understood. Fear is like a person's
best friend -- it brings attention to what one "needs" to know (as
opposed to what one "wants" to know).

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"My fear is my concern."
-- Lawrence of Arabia

[Terry Cross]

On May 22, 10:24 pm, Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
>

> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 22, 11:55 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> > > <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment
> > > >and punishment without end in a mental institution.
>
> > > Speaking from experience?
>
> > Not yet.  :-)
>
> Still trying to escape?

No, nameless. I like it on the outside.

TCross

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article
<242cb06e-97d2-44a4...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > On the contrary, we find that atheism is no worse than the best of
> > theist religions, and if any better-than-atheism religions exist they
> > are not theist religions.
>
> Really?

Really!

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article
<142dc089-8a1d-40aa...@ve4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 22, 7:13�pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > Terry Cross �<tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
> >
> > >1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
> > >2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
> > >informed.
> > >3. You shall believe as you are told.
> > >4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.
> > >5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
> > >punishment without end in a mental institution.
> >
> > >Fear and punishment. �Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
> > >it is practiced.
> >
> > Satire should resemble what it satirizes. �If you don't know how
> > to write satire, try accuracy and honesty instead.
>
> Unfortunately, those ARE the core beliefs expressed by common
> Atheists.

That may well be the theist view of atheism, but, like most theist
views, it is corrupted by its many contrary to fact assumptions.

A-theism means no more than being without theism.

Assuming that it means anything else is a self-delusion that theists too
frequently deceive themselves with.

[Terry Cross]

On May 23, 12:22 am, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc> wrote:
> In article

> <242cb06e-97d2-44a4-9deb-fac49f8f7...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>  Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On the contrary, we find

Without prejudice for your own opinion, of course.

Sheesh.

TCross

[Andy W]

On May 22, 11:36 pm, A Really Really Large Number

Well look at this... dishonest snipping followed by an unsupported
assertion rolled into an ad hom. No prizes for guessing you're a
theist. You're just proving my points for me. Way to go.

Andy

[Terry Cross]

On May 23, 12:28 am, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc> wrote:
> In article

> <142dc089-8a1d-40aa-ba37-4903a54f1...@ve4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 7:13 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
>
> > > >1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
> > > >2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
> > > >informed.
> > > >3. You shall believe as you are told.
> > > >4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.
> > > >5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
> > > >punishment without end in a mental institution.
>
> > > >Fear and punishment. Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
> > > >it is practiced.
>
> > > Satire should resemble what it satirizes. If you don't know how
> > > to write satire, try accuracy and honesty instead.
>
> > Unfortunately, those ARE the core beliefs expressed by common
> > Atheists.
>
> That may well be the theist view of atheism, but, like most theist
> views, it is corrupted by its many contrary to fact assumptions.
>
> A-theism means no more than being without theism.

How amusing. And Communism means "shared walls." Aren't words
fascinating?

> Assuming that it means anything else is a self-delusion

I would agree that Atheists are self-deluded. But their willful
abandonment of discrimination has led Atheists to mass delusion.

TCross

[A Really Really Large Number]

Then you are aware jesus and the armies of heaven are already
surrounding your planet.

Stop being retarded.

[Zerkon]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:24:00 -0700, Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:

> Theism

..and Atheism, all -isms, do not exist beyond ideal. What does exist are
people who want to define themselves in some pro/con relationship with
ideals. It is the moment to moment actions of people who define the
reality of any -ism, no -ism can define any person.

A more exact way of saying "I am a Christian/Atheist" is "I am
Christianity/Atheism/Theism"


The Five Commandments of Atheism:

1) 1
2) 2
3) 3
4) 4
5) 5 [ or "Five", if a liberal ]

[Uncle Vic]

A Really Really Large Number <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c1578b3a-
bdf2-4953-a76...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

I'm not. Neither is NASA. Got proof of your moronic claim?

[Terry Cross]

On May 23, 8:59 am, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> A Really Really Large Number <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c1578b3a-
> bdf2-4953-a769-ee4fb4c0c...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 8:01 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 22, 7:10 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 22, 7:05 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > > Some people have come to the *honest* conclusion
> >> > > that there is not enough evidence for a god
>
> >> > LOL!
>
> >> > What planet are you on?
>
> >> The real one.
>
> > Then you are aware jesus and the armies of heaven are already
> > surrounding your planet.
>
> I'm not.  Neither is NASA.  Got proof of your moronic claim?

Do you have proof of your moronic denial?

TCross

[raven1]

Burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, moron.

[Terry Cross]

That is an unusual signature. Do you ave medical certification?

TCross

[raven1]

Irrelevant response noted. Try again.

[Uncle Vic]

raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:tfosp8hah44aanns2...@4ax.com:

He knows you're right, he knows I'm right. He's just being Terry Cross.

[Fidem Turbāre,]

Regarding my name: It's in the Latin language.

--

Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Quality."
-- Hugh Hefner

[Fidem Turbāre,]

That didn't look like pre-judging to me, it looked like judging.

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no
religion in it."
-- John Adams

[Fidem Turbāre,]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:17:09 +0000 (UTC)
Zerkon <Zer...@Z.Zorg> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:24:00 -0700, Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent
> atheist goddess wrote:
>
> > Theism
>
> ..and Atheism, all -isms, do not exist beyond ideal. What does exist
> are people who want to define themselves in some pro/con relationship
> with ideals. It is the moment to moment actions of people who define
> the reality of any -ism, no -ism can define any person.

Atheism doesn't have any pros or cons, it's just a classification of
the "absence of theism." Whether people self-identify as atheist is
incidental to what atheism is. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

> A more exact way of saying "I am a Christian/Atheist" is "I am
> Christianity/Atheism/Theism"

The former is classificational, the latter is an idea and doesn't apply
because a real person cannot be an idea (although they can have ideas).

> The Five Commandments of Atheism:
>
> 1) 1
> 2) 2
> 3) 3
> 4) 4
> 5) 5 [ or "Five", if a liberal ]

Commandments, even if left blank, are dogmatic in nature, which atheism
is not.

--

Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."
-- Benjamin Franklin

[Fidem Turbāre,]

That's correct because skepticism is the practice of true impartiality
in questioning claims, not creating bias nor fabricating claims.

Skepticism: http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/skepticism.pl

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"God is a spirit. 0% proof!"
-- Barry O'Grady

[Terry Cross]

On May 23, 11:55 am, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote innews:tfosp8hah44aanns2...@4ax.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:32:52 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross

If you carried all your "burdens of proof" I might be interested. I
do not believe Jesus or Heaven has "armies" and I don't believe this
planet is surrounded by them. But you are claiming certainty that
they are not there. Now I am curious. Can you cite to your evidence?

TCross

[Mitchell Holman]

Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8ffbf0ae-8cfc-4a05...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

> On May 23, 11:55 am, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote

>> innews:tfosp8hah44aanns27o7vj6
> 51s34...@4ax.com:

The demand to prove a negative - the last
grasp of a failed argument.

[Olrik]

Le 2013-05-23 14:32, Terry Cross a �crit :

Purest admission of defeat as I've ever read here in a.a.

Congrats!

Have a cookie!

> TCross
>


--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Fidem Turbāre,]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:39:43 -0400
Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Do you think he might ask about compliance with health regulations in
the kitchen where that cookie was cooked?

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"We have a holiday where we stuff food into other food."
-- Bill Maher (humourous comment about the Thanksgiving holiday)

[Yap]

On May 23, 2:04 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
>
> 1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
> 2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
> informed.
> 3. You shall believe as you are told.
> 4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.

> 5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
> punishment without end in a mental institution.
>

> Fear and punishment.  Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
> it is practiced.
>

> TCross

Made up lies as usual?

Our foremost principle is not to be superstitious.
That is all.

[Yap]

On May 23, 6:36 am, A Really Really Large Number

<t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 6:29 pm, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> >But
> > I suppose it would require more effort and brainpower than the average
> > theist can muster to actually understand atheism well enough
>
> You are delusional.

Reply by a newbie idiotic sucker ?

[Yap]

On May 23, 7:10 am, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On May 22, 7:05 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Some people have come to the *honest* conclusion
> > that there is not enough evidence for a god
>
> LOL!
>
> What planet are you on?

The planet earth has never, never in one occasion, seen any pixie
doing anything.
Care to list just one simple example to demonstrate otherwise, sucker?

[Yap]

On May 23, 8:16 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 1:59 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 May, 11:04, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
>
> > > 1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
> > > 2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
> > > informed.
> > > 3. You shall believe as you are told.
> > > 4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.
> > > 5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
> > > punishment without end in a mental institution.
>
> > > Fear and punishment.  Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
> > > it is practiced.
>
> > > TCross
>

> > Did you mean to write this?
>
> >  We could satirize the theist faith with these commandments:

>
> >  1. Do not seek truth as an individual.

> >  2. The Church will find the truth, and you will be duly

> >       informed.
> >  3. You shall believe as you are told.
> >  4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.

> >  5. Anyone who violates these rules will be
> >      called nasty names and killed if possible
> >      and sent to hell when they die.
>
> > Fear and punishment.  Theism operates on the same

> > parameters wherever it is practiced.
>

> > Providing they are humanists you need not fear
> > those who can't find evidence to convince them
> > there is a god and your particular church is the
> > way to such a god. They will not demonize you
> > for they don't believe in demons.
>
> It is interchangeable.  You have discovered that Atheism is no better
> than the worst of churches.

Well, we know churches have done criminal acts....such as shielding
molesting priests and not paying huge taxes...all are detrimental to
human progress and development.

>
> TCros

[Yap]

On May 23, 10:13 am, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Terry Cross  <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >We could satirize the Atheist faith with these commandments:
>
> >1. Do not seek truth as an individual.
> >2. The Human Hive will find the truth, and you will be duly
> >informed.
> >3. You shall believe as you are told.
> >4. You shall have no other beliefs before these.
> >5. Anyone who violates these rules may be subject to imprisonment and
> >punishment without end in a mental institution.
>
> >Fear and punishment.  Atheism operates on the same parameters wherever
> >it is practiced.
>

> Satire should resemble what it satirizes.  If you don't know how
> to write satire, try accuracy and honesty instead.

Terry Cross is a Jew who does not know anything about accuracy and
honesty?

>
> --
> David Canzi                             | Eternal truths come and go. |

[Yap]

On May 23, 10:08 pm, A Really Really Large Number

What are they going to do?
You know human have bombs which can tear these zombies into pieces,
right?

>
> Stop being retarded.

[Yap]

Denied what?
There is no pixie in our minds, you silly little sucker who inherited
your belief from the Jews.


>
> TCross

[A Really Really Large Number]

On May 23, 11:59 am, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> A Really Really Large Number <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c1578b3a-
> bdf2-4953-a769-ee4fb4c0c...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On May 22, 8:01 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 22, 7:10 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 22, 7:05 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > > Some people have come to the *honest* conclusion
> >> > > that there is not enough evidence for a god
>
> >> > LOL!
>
> >> > What planet are you on?
>
> >> The real one.
>
> > Then you are aware jesus and the armies of heaven are already
> > surrounding your planet.
>
> I'm not.

If you deny the UFOs are there, then who is nuking the planet?

[A Really Really Large Number]

Jesus moved the moon.

[Good Morning]

In article <5513eaa8-44d5-419c...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, A
Really Really Large Number says...
>
>On May 24, 4:52=A0am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 7:10=A0am, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>
>> > On May 22, 7:05=A0pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > > Some people have come to the *honest* conclusion
>> > > that there is not enough evidence for a god
>>
>> > LOL!
>>
>> > What planet are you on?
>>
>> The planet earth has never, never in one occasion, seen any pixie
>> doing anything.
>> Care to list just one simple example to demonstrate otherwise, sucker?
>
>Jesus moved the moon.

A lot of folks using Starry Night Pro came up with
that explanation, but it's just a mis-set Real Time Clock.

[Terry Cross]

On May 24, 11:48 am, A Really Really Large Number

<t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 4:52 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 7:10 am, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 7:05 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Some people have come to the *honest* conclusion
> > > > that there is not enough evidence for a god
>
> > > LOL!
>
> > > What planet are you on?
>
> > The planet earth has never, never in one occasion, seen any pixie
> > doing anything.

The planet earth is an inanimate lump of matter with no visual
capabilities. With equal veracity, we could say, "Planet earth has
never seen a rainy day or a stock market crash."

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 23, 5:03 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:8ffbf0ae-8cfc-4a05...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 11:55 am, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote
> >> innews:tfosp8hah44aanns27o7vj6

> > 51s34r4e...@4ax.com:

"Proving a negative" is the heart of many scientific experiments, and
hearing the subject dissed by the uneducated is a great
disappointment. We do not teach the theory of aether in schools
because Michelson and Morley proved the negative. Many of Euclid's
proofs depend upon proving the negative. We have so many people who
attempt to take an education from things said in these groups who do
not bother or do not have the ability to think things through for
themselves.

[casey]

On 24 May, 18:05, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 5:03 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> [...]

> > The demand to prove a negative - the last
> > grasp of a failed argument.
>
> "Proving a negative" is the heart of many scientific experiments, and
> hearing the subject dissed by the uneducated is a great
> disappointment.  We do not teach the theory of aether in schools
> because Michelson and Morley proved the negative.  Many of Euclid's
> proofs depend upon proving the negative.  We have so many people who
> attempt to take an education from things said in these groups who do
> not bother or do not have the ability to think things through for
> themselves.

There is no evidence for the aether and there
is no evidence for god. The experiment was
unable to provide evidence FOR the aether it
was not proving the aether did not exist.

[Mitchell Holman]

Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:5a0fe1a3-a37c-45ed...@ve4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

> On May 23, 5:03�pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> innews:8ffbf0ae-8cfc-4a05-b5ba-8
> 519e3...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

>> � �The demand to prove a negative - the last

>> grasp of a failed argument.
>
> "Proving a negative" is the heart of many scientific experiments, and
> hearing the subject dissed by the uneducated is a great
> disappointment. We do not teach the theory of aether in schools
> because Michelson and Morley proved the negative. Many of Euclid's
> proofs depend upon proving the negative. We have so many people who
> attempt to take an education from things said in these groups who do
> not bother or do not have the ability to think things through for
> themselves.
>

"Prove the easter bunny isn't real"

"Prove aliens didn't build the Pyramids"

"Prove women did not come from Adams' rib"


It all amounts to the same thing.

[Terry Cross]

On May 24, 7:03 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 24 May, 18:05, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 5:03 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The demand to prove a negative - the last
> > > grasp of a failed argument.
>
> > "Proving a negative" is the heart of many scientific experiments, and
> > hearing the subject dissed by the uneducated is a great
> > disappointment.  We do not teach the theory of aether in schools
> > because Michelson and Morley proved the negative.  Many of Euclid's
> > proofs depend upon proving the negative.  We have so many people who
> > attempt to take an education from things said in these groups who do
> > not bother or do not have the ability to think things through for
> > themselves.
>
> There is no evidence for the aether

Oh, please. If that be the measure of your knowledge, say no more.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 24, 7:06 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:5a0fe1a3-a37c-45ed...@ve4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 5:03 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:8ffbf0ae-8cfc-4a05-b5ba-8

> > 519e3895...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Really? Easter bunny = pyramids = steak house?

Can you connect the dots, please?

TCross

[Olrik]

Le 2013-05-24 02:32, Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess a
écrit :

Maybe he/she would want the cookie to be «organic»...

[casey]

On 24 May, 20:15, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 7:06 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> [...]

> > > "Proving a negative" is the heart of many scientific experiments, and
> > > hearing the subject dissed by the uneducated is a great
> > > disappointment.  We do not teach the theory of aether in schools
> > > because Michelson and Morley proved the negative.  Many of Euclid's
> > > proofs depend upon proving the negative.  We have so many people who
> > > attempt to take an education from things said in these groups who do
> > > not bother or do not have the ability to think things through for
> > > themselves.
>
> >     "Prove the easter bunny isn't real"
>
> >     "Prove aliens didn't build the Pyramids"
>
> >     "Prove women did not come from Adams' rib"
>
> >     It all amounts to the same thing.
>
> Really?  Easter bunny = pyramids = steak house?
>
> Can you connect the dots, please?

As clearly connecting the dots is beyond the ability of Mr Cross.



>
> TCross

[Mitchell Holman]

Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:aab7b750-2528-4300...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

> On May 24, 7:06 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> innews:5a0fe1a3-a37c-45ed-b281-c
> 3288d...@ve4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Dakota]

Terry Cross demonstrates once again his ignorance of science.

Michelson and Morley did not prove the negative. They demonstrated
that the aether model was incorrect.

Euclid's proofs were limited to mathematics, a man made system with
man made rules. He did not prove a negative outside that system.
---------
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I
am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any
more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla.
To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not
between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical
orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into
account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

[Terry Cross]

On May 25, 9:36 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/2013 7:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >news:aab7b750-2528-4300...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On May 24, 7:06 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >>> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>> innews:5a0fe1a3-a37c-45ed-b281-c

> >> 3288d663...@ve4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

Uh, really? So they didn't prove that aether does not exist, they
proved that the aether model doesn't exist? Wow. Can you quote from
their paper to show that is the case?

Meanwhile, in the real world among real people, Wikipedia says, "In
addition, recent resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of
any aether wind at the 10^17 level."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Real people think the negative was proved.

> Euclid's proofs were limited to mathematics, a man made system with
> man made rules. He did not prove a negative outside that system.

Lay-dees and gentul-men. Here is a Re-al Li-ive A-the-ist who claims
the "Aether Model" was not man-made, but the discoveries of geometry
ARE man-made.

The Greeks would be highly amused to learn that pi and the Pythagorean
Theorem are man-made inventions. Highly amused.

And the only thing proved here is that an Atheist will say anything,
absolutely anything at all, to support her dogmas. And the strength
of her faith is shown by the recalcitrance with which she defends it.

TCross

[casey]

On 25 May, 17:00, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 9:36 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

> [...]

> > Michelson and Morley did not prove the negative. They demonstrated
> > that the aether model was incorrect.
>
> Uh, really?  So they didn't prove that aether does not exist, they
> proved that the aether model doesn't exist?  Wow.

They demonstrated the aether model *as proposed*
did not exist because the aether model as proposed
would have given different results.

Not being able to prove something does not exist
isn't proof or reason to believe it does exist so
whining on about proving something doesn't exist
is pointless.

[Fidem Turbāre,]

...while also failing to answer Yap's question.

--

Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Only two things in life are infinite; the Universe, and human
stupidity (and I'm not so sure about the Universe)."
-- Dr. Albert Einstein

[Fidem Turbāre,]

IFOs?

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle ... then
I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and
asked him to forgive me."
-- Emo Philips

[Fidem Turbāre,]

Ha ha! With a Commodore 64's 8-bit graphics, the dots can be connected.

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
-- John Buchan

[Fidem Turbāre,]

Yes.

> So they didn't prove that aether does not exist, they proved that the
> aether model doesn't exist? Wow. Can you quote from their paper to
> show that is the case?

They proved the model was incorrect. You mis-interpreted that as
proving non-existence of the model, which is illogical.

> Meanwhile, in the real world among real people, Wikipedia says, "In
> addition, recent resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of
> any aether wind at the 10^17 level."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
>
> Real people think the negative was proved.

Wikipedia is not an official representative of the real world. It is a
vast collection of knowledge (which isn't necessarily correct).

> > Euclid's proofs were limited to mathematics, a man made system with
> > man made rules. He did not prove a negative outside that system.
>
> Lay-dees and gentul-men. Here is a Re-al Li-ive A-the-ist who claims
> the "Aether Model" was not man-made, but the discoveries of geometry
> ARE man-made.

If they weren't made in c. 300 BCE by a man named Euclid of Alexandria,
then who made Euclid's proofs?

> The Greeks would be highly amused to learn that pi and the Pythagorean
> Theorem are man-made inventions. Highly amused.

Do you contend made those theorems? (Ha ha! I'm hoping you're going to
give credit to someone's cat.)

> And the only thing proved here is that an Atheist will say anything,
> absolutely anything at all, to support her dogmas. And the strength
> of her faith is shown by the recalcitrance with which she defends it.

Atheism has no dogma, for it is merely a classification of the "absence
of theism" (or "absence of deities and supernatural agents"):

http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheism.pl

Also, atheism isn't a faith.

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important
to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant
superstition."
-- Isaac Asimov

[Fidem Turbāre,]

> > There is no evidence for the aether and there is no evidence for
> > god. The experiment was unable to provide evidence FOR the aether
> > it was not proving the aether did not exist.
>

> Oh, please. If that be the measure of your knowledge, say no more.

Casey was presenting logic. How did you come to understand a valid
logical argument as a measure of knowledge?

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, [and] every opinion. Question with boldness
even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more
approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Good Morning]

In article <103c9ca5-35b5-4f3c...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Terry Cross says...

>> >>>> disappointment. =A0We do not teach the theory of aether in schools
>> >>>> because Michelson and Morley proved the negative. =A0Many of Euclid'=
>s
>> >>>> proofs depend upon proving the negative. =A0We have so many people

>> >>>> who attempt to take an education from things said in these groups
>> >>>> who do not bother or do not have the ability to think things
>> >>>> through for themselves.
>>

>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0"Prove the easter bunny isn't real"
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0"Prove aliens didn't build the Pyramids"
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0"Prove women did not come from Adams' rib"
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0It all amounts to the same thing.
>>
>> >> Really? =A0Easter bunny =3D pyramids =3D steak house?

>>
>> >> Can you connect the dots, please?
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
>>
>> Terry Cross demonstrates once again his ignorance of science.
>>
>> Michelson and Morley did not prove the negative. They demonstrated
>> that the aether model was incorrect.
>
>
>Uh, really? So they didn't prove that aether does not exist, they
>proved that the aether model doesn't exist? Wow. Can you quote from
>their paper to show that is the case?
>
>Meanwhile, in the real world among real people, Wikipedia says, "In
>addition, recent resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of
>any aether wind at the 10^17 level."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
>
>Real people think the negative was proved.
>

>TCross

Hmm. Only to the 10^17 level?
You call that proof that aether does not exist?

I personally do not believe that aether exists.
But you are claiming certainty that it does not.

Typical Anti-Aetherist dogma.

[Terry Cross]

On May 25, 6:14 pm, Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 24, 7:03 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > On 24 May, 18:05, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 23, 5:03 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > The demand to prove a negative - the last
> > > > > grasp of a failed argument.
>
> > > > "Proving a negative" is the heart of many scientific experiments,
> > > > and hearing the subject dissed by the uneducated is a great
> > > > disappointment.  We do not teach the theory of aether in schools
> > > > because Michelson and Morley proved the negative.  Many of
> > > > Euclid's proofs depend upon proving the negative.  We have so
> > > > many people who attempt to take an education from things said in
> > > > these groups who do not bother or do not have the ability to
> > > > think things through for themselves.
>
> > > There is no evidence for the aether and there is no evidence for
> > > god. The experiment was unable to provide evidence FOR the aether
> > > it was not proving the aether did not exist.
>
> > Oh, please.  If that be the measure of your knowledge, say no more.
>
> Casey was presenting logic.  How did you come to understand a valid
> logical argument as a measure of knowledge?

That is not a valid argument. The prevailing theory said light
consisted of waves in some common universal medium that had not been
otherwise detected. M/M proved that light was NOT waves in some
common medium. Since the only evidence of Aether consisted of certain
phenomena of light, all evidence for Aether disappeared or was
contradicted with that experiment. The negative was proved.

The same thing happened with the Brontosaurus and the Piltdown Man.
When the evidence for those entities was shown to be fraudulent, those
entities were proven not to exist. The negative was proved.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 25, 6:12 pm, Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

Jeez, another nincompoop chimes in. Do you contend that gravity was
created by Newton? Euclid formulated the proofs, but he did not
create the facts that he was proving.

I should check into your groups sometime and see what you refugees
from People Magazine do when you are not watched.

> > The Greeks would be highly amused to learn that pi and the Pythagorean
> > Theorem are man-made inventions.  Highly amused.
>
> Do you contend made those theorems?

Do you pretend to speak English?

> (Ha ha!  I'm hoping you're going to
> give credit to someone's cat.)

We were discussing facts, not formalized proofs. In Japan they laugh
about a fool confusing the Moon with the finger that points to the
Moon. Wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, I can now say I have
met several of you folks who would never get the joke.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 25, 8:21 pm, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <103c9ca5-35b5-4f3c-adf1-842bf3a97...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

I am a member in good standing. I will happily show you the receipt
-- though I will admit that in my youth, I was originally seduced by
the apostasy.

TCross

[casey]

A negative proof is a logical fallacy,

X is true because there is no proof that x is false.

No one claimed the aether was true because
no one had proved it was false.

[Fidem Turbāre,]

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.

> Do you contend that gravity was created by Newton?

No. Gravity is a real force that is observed in nature.

> Euclid formulated the proofs, but he did not create the facts that he
> was proving.

That's correct.

> I should check into your groups sometime and see what you refugees
> from People Magazine do when you are not watched.

I participate in the unmoderated "alt.atheism" and "alt.atheism.satire"
newsgroups, and the moderated "alt.atheism.moderated" newsgroup. The
first group is very high volume (approximately 1,000 to 2,000 new
messages per day, ranging anywhere from 30 to 150 new threads per
day), ranking within the top 25 busiest newsgroups domestically and
internationally. The last group is very low volume, and contains
mostly reasonable to high quality posts, the majority of which are
contributed by high quality participants.

I've never been in People Magazine, but I'd be delighted if they
decided to feature a non-existent atheist goddess on the front cover
(since I seem to be the only one - Google for "atheist goddess" to find
me if you can't figure out what my web site address might be).

> > > The Greeks would be highly amused to learn that pi and the
> > > Pythagorean Theorem are man-made inventions.  Highly amused.
> >
> > Do you contend made those theorems?
>
> Do you pretend to speak English?

No. Although I strive for perfection, I'm far from it (contrary to the
belief of a few fans who've made a habit of e-mailing me privately in
the hopes of treating me to a pleasant dinner and a movie) as evidenced
by the fact that the above question I asked was really meant to be:

Who do you contend made those [pi and Pythagorean] theorems?

> > (Ha ha!  I'm hoping you're going to
> > give credit to someone's cat.)
>
> We were discussing facts, not formalized proofs. In Japan they laugh
> about a fool confusing the Moon with the finger that points to the
> Moon. Wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, I can now say I have
> met several of you folks who would never get the joke.

I guess that means you're not giving credit to someone's cat then? But
worry not about any disappointment on my part, for I've selected the
perfect quotation from one of our regular theists that more than makes
up for that.

P.S.: My ability to detect sarcasm is something that escapes me, and
it very likely has some relation to the advantage of being slightly
into the autism spectrum when I was a child (or at least that's how the
doctor explained it to my parents -- I didn't like him, and so I
researched some logic and psychology at the library to become competent
enough just after my single digit years to challenge the mean/idiotic
psychiatrists and psychologists to the point of seriously messing up
their recommendations; I mention this because you remind me of one in
particular who wrecked the door as he angrily stomped out of his office
in frustration and couldn't stop himself from screaming and swearing in
the lobby about "insolent little children daring to question [his]
credibility" as I left with my father who was trying to hide his smile).

--

Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"The moon is not a ball on a string."
-- Duke Earl J. Weber Lebourgeois, American-American (July 9, 2012)

[Fidem Turbāre,]

Casey was correct. Just because something is not proven to exist
doesn't automatically mean that the inverse is true.

Here's a definition of aether from Wikipedia: "The word αἰθήρ (aithēr)
in Homeric Greek means 'pure, fresh air' or 'clear sky,' imagined in
Greek mythology to be the pure essence where the gods lived and which
they breathed, analogous to the air breathed by mortals (also
personified as a deity, Aether, the son of Erebus and Nyx). ..."

The point that Casey made regarding the absence of evidence for a deity
(which I assume also applies to multiple deities) invalidates the
premise that Greek mythology relies upon, which is that deities lived in
it -- without evidence of the existence of those deities, testing that
part of the premise begins to look like an impossibility.

The absence of evidence doesn't automatically invalidate the
possibility of the cause of that evidence ever being present, just like
how an atheist not asserting for or against the existence of deities is
also not deviating from atheism when questioning the veracity of such a
claim.

> The same thing happened with the Brontosaurus and the Piltdown Man.
> When the evidence for those entities was shown to be fraudulent, those
> entities were proven not to exist. The negative was proved.

All the skeptic can really demonstrate in this case is that the claim
isn't valid because it is fraudulent, yet just because the claim is
fraudulent doesn't automatically disprove the claim. (Have you had any
Celestial Tea lately?)

--

Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking."
-- Bill Maher

[Terry Cross]

Not at all. You can prove a one-cup container has zero contents by
observation, and by adding one cup of water to its contents without
overflow.

Now that you have made the claim, where is your proof that "A negative
proof is a logical fallacy,"?

> X is true because there is no proof that x is false.

No.

> No one claimed the aether was true

Yes, those who believed Aether was true claimed it was true.

> because
> no one had proved it was false.

Michelson & Morley proved it was false.

[Terry Cross]

On May 25, 11:16 pm, Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess

Stay off your hobby horse for minute and stick to the subject. Show
that proving a negative is a logical fallacy.

...

> The absence of evidence doesn't automatically invalidate the
> possibility of the cause of that evidence ever being present, just like
> how an atheist not asserting for or against the existence of deities is
> also not deviating from atheism when questioning the veracity of such a
> claim.

Michelson & Morley proved that light does not travel as waves in a
common medium. Since the definition of "aether" was "the postulated
medium for the propagation of light," M/M proved the negative.

> > The same thing happened with the Brontosaurus and the Piltdown Man.
> > When the evidence for those entities was shown to be fraudulent, those
> > entities were proven not to exist.  The negative was proved.
>
> All the skeptic can really demonstrate in this case is that the claim
> isn't valid because it is fraudulent,

In the case of the Piltdown Man, the infidels proved that NO CREATURE
had ever worn the bones presented in the specimen known as the
Piltdown Man. NONE. Negative, zilch. The specimen comprised the
bones of two different species. Hence, the Piltdown man did not exist
and never had existed.

> yet just because the claim is
> fraudulent doesn't automatically disprove the claim.  (Have you had any
> Celestial Tea lately?)

The infidels proved that NO CREATURE had ever worn the bones presented
in the specimen known as the Brontosaurus. The specimen comprised the
bones of two different species. Hence, the Brontosaurus did not exist
and never had existed.

> "Faith is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking."
>    -- Bill Maher

You should apply some of that critical thinking to the soup they've
been feeding you.

TCross

[casey]

Yes you can prove a cup is empty by adding water but if
you couldn't prove it was empty you could not then conclude
is was full. Not being able to prove god doesn't exist or
not being able to prove the cup is empty doesn't prove god
exists or the cup is full.

>
> Now that you have made the claim, where is your proof that "A negative
> proof is a logical fallacy,"?
>
> > X is true because there is no proof that x is false.
>
> No.
>
> > No one claimed the aether was true
>
> Yes, those who believed Aether was true claimed it was true.

If anyone believed the aether existed without evidence
then they were wrong. That has nothing to do with the
fallacious logical form saying x is true because there is

no proof that x is false.

The whole idea of the experiment was to find evidence
for the hypothetical aether. Had it worked as predicted
by the aether model it would have given credence to
that hypothesis just as you can give credence to the
hypothesis of a god by working out an experiment to
test that hypothesis.

[casey]

I think you have strayed from the subject and that was
trying to give credence to believing in x because no one
can prove x doesn't exist. It is not about "proving the
negative" which you are taking as proving that something
is indeed not there proves it is not there.

Logic is a mechanical process where a statements are given
one of two values true or false. It does not determine if the
statements are in fact true or false.

A negative proof for a conclusion that a statement x
is true takes the form.
There is no evidence for x therefore x exists.
To say you "can't prove x is false" means
it could be false or true.
And you seem to think that it has some bearing
on deciding if x is true.

IF x = true or x= false then x = true


So if you say you have no evidence god does not exist
then god exists that is a logical fallacy. You cannot draw
the conclusion that something exists simply because
you cannot prove it doesn't exist. So insisting someone
prove that x doesn't exist has nothing to do with proof
that x exists. To insist someone can't believe that
pink unicorns don't exist because they can't prove
that pink unicorns don't exist is silly.

[Terry Cross]

Great.

> but if
> you couldn't prove it was empty you could not then conclude
> is was full.

Wrong. If you can add one full cup of liquid to the cup without
overflow, you may conclude the cup was previously empty.

> Not being able to prove god doesn't exist or
> not being able to prove the cup is empty doesn't prove god
> exists or the cup is full.

I am not interested in your hobby-horse subject. We are discussing
whether it is possible to "prove a negative." I am showing you that
your little homily is erroneous. Can you deal with it?

> > Now that you have made the claim, where is your proof that "A negative
> > proof is a logical fallacy,"?
>
> > > X is true because there is no proof that x is false.
>
> > No.
>
> > > No one claimed the aether was true
>
> > Yes, those who believed Aether was true claimed it was true.
>
> If anyone believed the aether existed without evidence
> then they were wrong.

This is different from your claims the other day, when you said that
the right answer even without the correct process was still science.
Do you have any consistency?

> That has nothing to do with the
> fallacious logical form saying x is true because there is
> no proof that x is false.

You obviously do understand neither the theory of aether nor the
experiment.

> The whole idea of the experiment was to find evidence
> for the hypothetical aether.

No, the evidence for aether already existed in the wave-like
properties of light, including apparent wave-length and interference
patterns. The purpose of the experiment was to detect and measure the
"aether wind."

> Had it worked as predicted
> by the aether model it would have given credence to
> that hypothesis

It would have enhanced the hypothesis. Aether was already the most
credible and prevalent theory of light.

> just as you can give credence to the
> hypothesis of a god by working out an experiment to
> test that hypothesis.

You are kind of a one-note johny, aren't you.

TCross

[casey]

On 26 May, 05:40, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 12:54 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> [...]

> > The whole idea of the experiment was to find evidence
> > for the hypothetical aether.
>
> No, the evidence for aether already existed in the wave-like
> properties of light, including apparent wave-length and
> interference patterns.  The purpose of the experiment was
> to detect and measure the "aether wind."

The whole idea of the experiment was to find more

evidence for the hypothetical aether.

If the "aether wind" was detected it would have
provided further evidence that it existed. But like all
good science one failure meant another explanation
was required for the wave-like properties of light.

> > Had it worked as predicted
> > by the aether model it would have given credence to
> > that hypothesis
>
> It would have enhanced the hypothesis.  Aether was
> already the most credible and prevalent theory of light.

Sure but like all good science when the aether didn't
show up in an experiment that would have added
evidence it existed it was let go as an explanation
unlike religion's inability to change in the light of new
evidence such as when the soul didn't show up
when we discovered and learnt about our brains.

> > just as you can give credence to the
> > hypothesis of a god by working out an experiment to
> > test that hypothesis.
>
> You are kind of a one-note johny, aren't you.

Actually it is the song of science which works.
The one note you talk about is the scientific method.
You should give it a try one day. Oh, better not
it will destroy your fantasy world.




>
> TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 26, 12:42 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 26 May, 05:40, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 12:54 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The whole idea of the experiment was to find evidence
> > > for the hypothetical aether.
>
> > No, the evidence for aether already existed in the wave-like
> > properties of light, including apparent wave-length and
> > interference patterns.  The purpose of the experiment was
> > to detect and measure the "aether wind."
>
> The whole idea of the experiment was to find more
> evidence for the hypothetical aether.
>
> If the "aether wind" was detected it would have
> provided further evidence that it existed. But like all
> good science one failure meant another explanation
> was required for the wave-like properties of light.
>
> > > Had it worked as predicted
> > > by the aether model it would have given credence to
> > > that hypothesis
>
> > It would have enhanced the hypothesis.  Aether was
> > already the most credible and prevalent theory of light.
>
> Sure but like all good science when the aether didn't
> show up in an experiment that would have added
> evidence it existed it was let go as an explanation

So much for the infomercial. But modern science doesn't always work
that way. When the infinite gradualism of Darwin was contradicted by
the evidence, Darwinism was not abandoned. Instead, it was just
patched, leaving Darwinism to support part of Evolution where it
worked, and finding a half dozen other explanations where it did not.

Good science you define. Good science is too seldom practiced. I am
sure we agree.

TCross

[John Manning]

You have no credibility, Terry. You're
compulsive lying has long ago destroyed it.



>
> TCross
>

[Dakota]

Darwinism is a term invented by deceitful creationists to confuse
their ignorant followers. Scientists don't use the term. They use the
correct term - The Theory of Evolution.

[Terry Cross]

And all of them are antisemites, no doubt. Look under your bed --
probably another deceitful creationist is just waiting for you to fall
asleep so it can jump out and scramble your wonderfully balanced and
objective outlook on life and infect you with superstitions.

TCross

[casey]

Working results are obtained no matter how
well you think it is practiced.

The real power of modern science is that it
is self correcting. Theories are tossed out
when new evidence requires better theories.
Religion sticks to the same made up stories
invented by ancient people.



>
> TCross

[Terry Cross]

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Politics rules, even in scientific
communities.

> Religion sticks to the same made up stories
> invented by ancient people.

That is true of some religions with some people, not with all
religions nor all people. Judaism used to hold women, Gentiles, and
slaves in contempt. Now Judaism does not have slaves, it tolerates
women, and it holds Gentiles in hatred and disdain. You see?
Progress.

TCross

[casey]

Politics doesn't rule forever. New blood force
changes in the light of new evidence and new
theories.

> > Religion sticks to the same made up stories
> > invented by ancient people.
>
> That is true of some religions with some people, not with all
> religions nor all people.  Judaism used to hold women, Gentiles, and
> slaves in contempt.  Now Judaism does not have slaves, it tolerates
> women, and it holds Gentiles in hatred and disdain.  You see?
> Progress.

It is true the many who followed the old religions
have modified their views in the light of modern
science and social evolution but it was science
and a change in social norms that forced that
change.

I think the Roman Catholic Church now accepts
evolution but still insists a god inserts a soul into
each fertilized cell without any evidence for
such a thing.

Religious beliefs no doubt evolve but their basis
remains faith based without merit beyond making
people feel good while they are being controlled.
Modern cinema updates the old fairy tales like
Hansel and Gretel for a new audience as well
but they are still fairy tales.


>
> TCross

[Terry Cross]

There is no such thing as "social evolution." The term is poetry, not
science.

> but it was science
> and a change in social norms that forced that
> change.

"A change in social norms" ...??! You're not really looking for
causes here, are you. The people changed, forcing a change in the
Catholic Church. Wow.

> I think the Roman Catholic Church now accepts
> evolution but still insists a god inserts a soul into
> each fertilized cell without any evidence for
> such a thing.

Who cares what the Pope says? Not you, and not me.

> Religious beliefs no doubt evolve

More silly unscientific presumptions. Your record is zero for six.

> but their basis
> remains faith based without merit beyond making
> people feel good

As some child who grew up under the pope whether she "felt good."

> while they are being controlled.
> Modern cinema updates the old fairy tales like
> Hansel and Gretel for a new audience as well
> but they are still fairy tales.

The fairy tales were updated a thousand times in song, theater,
poetry, narrative, and dance long before cinema tried its hand.

TCross

[casey]

On 28 May, 12:23, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> There is no such thing as "social evolution."

New social ideas are tried and some are adopted.
There is also a technological evolution going on.
There is a theory of memes which are the ideas
that take hold (are selected) in the population to
be passed on like genes to the next generation.

The word evolution means the gradual development of
something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.