WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE
Bill M
has ever spoken to or communicated with ANY of the sane 6.8 BILLION members
of society.
There are thousands of God beliefs with NO OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE
that ANY of them are real.
The only evidence they have is what their Priest, Imam. Rabbi or other holy
leader has given them. And none of it is objective verifiable evidence. It
is purely the opinions of church leaders.
There is a wealth of ancient religious documents that are used to support
many different
God beliefs and religions, but there is NO, NADA objective verifiable
evidence that ANY Gods actually exist!
They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all these false
Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
--
Bill M
William Smith
> They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all these false
> Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
>
>
Why, they reject this kind of questions by saying "God's ways are higher
than ours, we should not even try to understand them, and those who try
are sinners".
bob young
William Smith wrote:
Which is primitive and lacking in intelligence, whilst at the same time very
convenient.
Facts and logic are not always so, but in reality they are ALL we have.
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white
is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
[Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.]
Larry
@newsfe19.iad:
> They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all these false
> Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
>
>
> --
> Bill M
>
They only need to ask themselves the question I've been asking theists for
50 years: "Why can your god grow a disabled, devout believer who prays and
prays a new leg he's been begging for for 25 years?"
--
Larry
Be sure to short the leads of the Rationalization Meter together so it
doesn't peg and start smoking while he's trying to explain it away.....
Religious test equipment sure is expensive! Ask any Scientologist!
Les Hellawell
wrote:
>It is amazing that millions of people believe in some God even though NO God
>has ever spoken to or communicated with ANY of the sane 6.8 BILLION members
>of society.
So?
>There are thousands of God beliefs with NO OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE
>
>that ANY of them are real.
So what?
>
>
>The only evidence they have is what their Priest, Imam. Rabbi or other holy
>leader has given them. And none of it is objective verifiable evidence. It
>is purely the opinions of church leaders.
Again so what?
>
>
>There is a wealth of ancient religious documents that are used to support
>many different
>
>God beliefs and religions, but there is NO, NADA objective verifiable
>evidence that ANY Gods actually exist!
So?
>They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all these false
>Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
No they don't. What they choose to believe is none of your business.
It's their life not yours.
If they come to aa and start disrespecting us and our right not to
believe then they deserve what they get in reply. Respect works both
ways as should toleration so if you disrespect their rights then you
deserve what you get in reply.
There is more than enough hatred in this world caused by religion
without you causng more.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Steve Hayes
>
>
>William Smith wrote:
>
>> Bill M wrote:
>>
>> > They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all these false
>> > Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Why, they reject this kind of questions by saying "God's ways are higher
>> than ours, we should not even try to understand them, and those who try
>> are sinners".
>
>Which is primitive and lacking in intelligence, whilst at the same time very
>convenient.
>
>Facts and logic are not always so, but in reality they are ALL we have.
But can you provide PROOF?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mitchell Holman
Index of Leading Catholic Indicators:
Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to
58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States
dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about
31,000 priests--and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70.
Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there
are aged 30 to 34.
Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the
priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent.
Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in
1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was
a net loss of 810.
Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were
without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928
priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By
2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.
Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians
dropped from 49,000 to 4,700--a 90 percent decrease. Without
any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or
shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200
in 2002.
Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic
education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were
75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number
of sisters will drop to 40,000--and of these, only 21,000 will
be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching,
while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.
Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from
about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop
to 3,100 projected for 2020.
Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually
non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there
were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there
were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM
Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000
there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434
Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there
were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist
priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349
priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the
United States mirrors these statistics.
High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high
schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of
students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.
Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade
schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students
went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.
Sacramental Life. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms;
in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of
Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.)
In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms-----converts-----in 2002
there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages,
in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in
2002 there were 50,000.
Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of
Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre
Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more
recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded
that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the
rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
http://www.tldm.org/News6/statistics.htm
bob young
Les Hellawell wrote:
Baai Gum Les,
you must have got out of bed the wrong side this morning
Bob
AZ Nomad
>Les Hellawell wrote:
Didn't anybody ever tell you to shut the fuck up if you have
nothing to say?
bob young
AZ Nomad wrote:
I have something to say to you . . . . .
"Try to grow up"
Bill M
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9v30f5lpptglru4eu...@4ax.com...
> On 2 Nov 2009 23:10:08 -0600, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>William Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Bill M wrote:
>>>
>>> > They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all these
>>> > false
>>> > Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Why, they reject this kind of questions by saying "God's ways are higher
>>> than ours, we should not even try to understand them, and those who try
>>> are sinners".
>>
>>Which is primitive and lacking in intelligence, whilst at the same time
>>very
>>convenient.
>>
>>Facts and logic are not always so, but in reality they are ALL we have.
>
> But can you provide PROOF?
Proof of what??? You can't provide proof of something that does not exist in
reality!
Steve Hayes
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9v30f5lpptglru4eu...@4ax.com...
>> On 2 Nov 2009 23:10:08 -0600, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>William Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all these
>>>> > false
>>>> > Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Why, they reject this kind of questions by saying "God's ways are higher
>>>> than ours, we should not even try to understand them, and those who try
>>>> are sinners".
>>>
>>>Which is primitive and lacking in intelligence, whilst at the same time
>>>very
>>>convenient.
>>>
>>>Facts and logic are not always so, but in reality they are ALL we have.
>>
>> But can you provide PROOF?
>
>Proof of what??? You can't provide proof of something that does not exist in
>reality!
Quite.
So do you think that facts and logic don't exist in reality?
Stormin Mormon
obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:KJKHm.1279$wq5...@newsfe19.iad...
Olrik
> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
<piggybacking>
"sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
personal, and should be kept that way.
Uncle Vic
**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
If that means you're willing to keep your beliefs to yourself, power to
you. It's these assholes that are trying to make people conform to THEIR
beliefs that piss me off. Which is why we atheists ask for evidence.
To the beliver, of course, the evidence is everywhere. But their evidence
is not evidence to the non-believer. It's just a series of unbacked
claims. The believer has been brainwashed to accept claims of this nature
as absolute truth under the threat of eternal damnation. The non-believer
doesn't care about such threats, which only exist inside the believer's
religion.
A believer's evidence is only there if the believer first makes the
assumption that a god exists. Then the "evidence" claimed by the believer
goes on to prove this god exists. For this to be a logical argument, one
cannot assume the premise is true. Which is where they fail.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Christopher A. Lee
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
What evidence?
Don't just say there is some, either provide it or shut the fuck up
about it.
Christopher A. Lee
What message do they imagine it sends when they insist thereis
evidence but never provide it?
Ron Dean
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9v30f5lpptglru4eu...@4ax.com...
>> On 2 Nov 2009 23:10:08 -0600, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> William Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill M wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all these
>>>>> false
>>>>> Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Why, they reject this kind of questions by saying "God's ways are higher
>>>> than ours, we should not even try to understand them, and those who try
>>>> are sinners".
>>> Which is primitive and lacking in intelligence, whilst at the same time
>>> very
>>> convenient.
>>>
>>> Facts and logic are not always so, but in reality they are ALL we have.
>> But can you provide PROOF?
>
> Proof of what??? You can't provide proof of something that does not exist in
> reality!
>
abiogenesis. But both abiogenesis and evolution is true. Only in
mathematics are you able tp obtain proof.
Ron Dean
> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
_evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
or that he created the universe, or you and me. The
universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
Ron Dean
is more important than that of dogs, chimps, or mice?
Why........?
haiku jones
<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
> obvious.
And yet many, if not most of the atheists on this
group were once believers...
Haiku Jones
Christopher A. Lee
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
What "evidence"?
You morons talk about it but never, ever provide it.
>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
We would if you actually provided real world evidence that you could
defend evidence instead of talking about it and copping out with
personal lies like that.
If you bothered to think before posting such dishonesty you would
realise that this simply reinforces the falsifiable conclusion we
reached long ago - that there is none,
>Christopher A. Young
>Learn more about Jesus
We know all we need to know - that it is a fiction made up to tell
Christians whatto believe.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
>I too am a believer. But faith is based upon reason, not
No, moron, it is not. It is no more than wishful thinking, an excuse
to believe something when there is no reason to.
>_evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
So shut the fuck up about it instead of repeatedly begging the
question.
>or that he created the universe, or you and me. The
>universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
Where do you get your knowledge of what happened prior to Planck time
from?
Your Nobel prize awaits you.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>
>>
>> <piggybacking>
>>
>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
>> personal, and should be kept that way.
> >
>You don't believe human life is sacred?
Where did he say that, liar who puts words into people's mouths?
Olrik
That blind faith is a virtue. It's a way to control the sheep.
Olrik
Olrik
> Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>
>>
>> <piggybacking>
>>
>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
>> personal, and should be kept that way.
> >
> You don't believe human life is sacred?
"Sacred" is a meaningless concept to me.
> Do you not think human life
> is more important than that of dogs, chimps, or mice?
Important to whom? A chimp's life is more important to him than yours.
If the question is "Would you sacrifice the life of an animal to save a
human", then the answer is a resounding "yes". Not because the intrinsic
value of the animal is less than that of a human, but because I prefer
saving animals of my own species.
We're nothing "special", but we are important to each other.
Olrik
> Why........?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Why do you keep starting these cross posting wars, asshole?
We get too much noise already.
Uncle Vic
We don't know that. It makes more sense to me that the previous universe
was swallowed up into a black hole, which exploded (big bang) to "create"
the present universe.
BTW, faith is not based upon reason, it couldn't be further from it.
Ron Dean
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:26:10 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>>
>>> <piggybacking>
>>>
>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
>>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>>>
>> You don't believe human life is sacred?
>
> Where did he say that, liar who puts words into people's mouths?
>
Uncle Vic
> Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>
>>
>> <piggybacking>
>>
>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
>> personal, and should be kept that way.
> >
> You don't believe human life is sacred?
Sacred to what?
> Do you not think human life
> is more important than that of dogs, chimps, or mice?
Of course not.
> Why........?
>
We are just part of the evolutionary chain of life. We just happen to
have evolved the most currently productive brain, and probably the most
fervent need to survive. So far.
Mankind has never faced extinction, as billions of other species have.
The next ice age will probably take most of us out, once our comfy
electrical matrices dissolve and we are left to fight on the same level
as wolves, or bacteria. At that point, the survivors will be those who
learn to adapt, and the dead will consist of those who believe prayer is
the answer.
Sacred. Holy fucking shit.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
<piggybacking-reply to "Bill">
Pot, kettle, black.
Andre Lieven
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:26:10 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Olrik wrote:
> >>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
> >>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
> >>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
> >>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
> >>> <piggybacking>
>
> >>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
> >>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>
> >> You don't believe human life is sacred?
>
> > Where did he say that, liar who puts words into people's mouths?
> >
> It's a question, not a repeated comment: do you not know the difference?
It's a rather stupid "question" to ask someone *who has already
told you* that they do NOT see the term "sacred" as having
ANY rational meaning...
And, I agree with him, life has many good qualities, but the
term "sacred" is quite irrelevant to any and all of them.
And, if life is "sacred", then why does every religion have
some much death causing blood on their hands ? It seems
that religions don't view life, at least not any life of anyone
who doesn't agree with their religious views, as being
"sacred"...
> >> Do you not think human life
> >> is more important than that of dogs, chimps, or mice?
> >> Why........?
Andre
fasgnadh
> Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
>> Olrik wrote:
>>>
>>> <piggybacking>
>>>
>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept.
No, the meaning is quite precise, you simply don't know it. B^]
We can't let atheist ignorance define the discussion, it must be
defined by those with knowledge;
"Sacred \Sa"cred\, a. [Originally p. p. of OE. sacren to consecrate"
ie to dedicate, to set aside for special use... Holy OR secular
"Reserved for exclusive use by something.
For example, "Register 7 is sacred to the interrupt handler"
would mean that if any other code changed the contents of
register 7, dire consequences would ensue."
The concept is therefore NOT meaningless, your comment was. B^]
>>> And what you believe in is
>>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>>>
The meaning of 'sacred' is not a personal belief, you ignorant moron!
>> You don't believe human life is sacred?
>
> "Sacred" is a meaningless concept to me.
That's a problem of your ignorance, not the term itself.
>> Do you not think human life
>> is more important than that of dogs, chimps, or mice?
>
> Important to whom?
Well he askd you, so which perspective did you answer from?
THE CHIMP!!! How appropriate! B^D
> A chimp's life is more important to him than yours.
And from an atheist perspective?
> We're nothing "special",
That's for sure!
> but we are important to each other.
Someone has to shore up your manifest inadequacies. ;-)
> Olrik
>
>> Why........?
Why Olrik? Because Chimps can breed.
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
fasgnadh
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:31:11 -0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> Why do you keep starting these cross posting wars,
He seems to be a fan of sports fishing as Taj Mahal said:
"Many fish bites if'n you got good bait...
I'm a goin fishin,
yes I'm goin fishin
an my baby's goin fishin too!"
> asshole?
No thanks, yours seems full of your cranium anyway!
http://data5.blog.de/media/481/2584481_bdc195fac4_m.jpeg
> We get too much noise already.
That must be the echo chamber effects of your colon gurgling!
Olrik
> Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
>>> Olrik wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <piggybacking>
> >>>
>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept.
>
> No, the meaning is quite precise, you simply don't know it.
It's "precise" but meaningless.
Olrik
<snip crap>
Ron Dean
to believe you. Or I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, based
upon the reason that it always has.
But OTOH there is a story: A young Native American graduated from
college, and went to care for his grandfather. Early one morning the old
man asked the grandson to accompany him. In a open field the elderly man
began a dancing, chanting ritual.
He told his grandson that he was getting too old to continue the ritual
so he must learn the it and each morning he must preform the ritual in
exactly the same way. But why: the grandson demanded. To help the sun
break lose from its night bonds and rise in the mornings. But
grandfather, what makes you think that your ritual does anything?
I think it's useless! It a waste of time, It does nothing.
It's an ancient ritual, your father, my father, his father and the
generations all the way back perform the same way and it always worked.
The old man dancing and chanting as the sun rose above the mountains, he
again asked, "grandfather how do you know its your ritual causing it?"
In frustration the old man pointed skyward and exclaimed, "YOU SEE THE
SUN RISING WITH YOUR OWN EYES: SO, HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS RITUAL IS
NOT WORKING?"
> Olrik
fasgnadh
> On Jan 6, 12:40 am, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:26:10 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Olrik wrote:
>>>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>>> <piggybacking>
>>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
>>>>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>>>>
>>>> You don't believe human life is sacred?
>>>
>>> Where did he say that,
Where he said 'sacred' is meaningless, you fuckwit! B^D
If LIFE is not meaningless to him, and life is certainly 'set aside'
"consecrated" and dedicated in many ways, from the respect our laws give
to it, forbidding murder.. to the protection of white rhinos and
endangered species.
They are sacred. set aside. For a dedicated purpose (eg breeding,
not hunting)
It does not have ONLY a religious connoitation (Holy) but is a
broader term.
It is ridiculous for you to call him a LIAR simply for asking
a question you are too fucking STUPID to be able to answer, as usual!
>>>liar who puts words into people's mouths?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHA
Your problem is that he didn't do that, and he can't put THOUGHTS in
your head either.. so you just keep talking IGNORANT BULLSHIT!
>>
>> It's a question, not a repeated comment: do you not know the difference?
No they don't. Their response to tough questions which reveal their
ignorance is to become abusive.
I have responded in kind, becasue that is all they know and understand.
> It's a rather stupid "question" to ask someone *who
is clearly completely CLUELESS!!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
> already told you* that they do NOT see the term "sacred"
> as having ANY rational meaning...
That just means they are ignorant, which in Olrik's case
is well known.
It has rational meaning and the meaning is quite precise,
you simply don't know it. B^]
We can't let atheist ignorance define the discussion, it must be
defined by those with knowledge;
"Sacred \Sa"cred\, a. [Originally p. p. of OE. sacren to consecrate"
ie to dedicate, to set aside for special use... Holy OR secular
"Reserved for exclusive use by something.
For example, "Register 7 is sacred to the interrupt handler"
would mean that if any other code changed the contents of
register 7, dire consequences would ensue."
The concept is therefore NOT meaningless, your comment was. B^]
>
> Alife has many good qualities, but the
> term "sacred" is quite irrelevant to any and all of them.
How doi you know if you don't know the MEANING of the term!? B^]
You are just GUESSING you don't like it! A BLIND punt! B^D
> And, if life is "sacred", then
What do YOU mean by that? B^}
>
>>>> Do you not think human life
>>>> is more important than that of dogs, chimps, or mice?
>>>> Why........?
Atheist ignorance revealed again. B^]
> Andre
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
>>>> Olrik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <piggybacking>
>> >>>
>>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept.
>>
>
> It's "precise" but meaningless.
"The meaning is precise but meaningless?"
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAA
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>
>> I too am a believer. But faith is based upon reason, not
>> _evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
>> or that he created the universe, or you and me. The
>> universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
>
>We don't know that. It makes more sense to me that the previous universe
>was swallowed up into a black hole, which exploded (big bang) to "create"
>the present universe.
That's just one of the possibilities - and doesn't break any known
laws of physics.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:26:10 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Olrik wrote:
>>>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>>>
>>>> <piggybacking>
>>>>
>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
>>>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>>>>
>>> You don't believe human life is sacred?
>>
>> Where did he say that, liar who puts words into people's mouths?
> >
>It's a question, not a repeated comment: do you not know the difference?
Nobody ever said it was a repeated comment apart from you, liar.
You put the words into his mouth that you know he didn't say, liar.
They were your words not his.
Please try to show some honesty next time.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2009-12-11 03:26, Christopher A. Lee a �crit :
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:50:48 -0500, Olrik<olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>>
>>>> <piggybacking>
>>>>
>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
>>>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>>>
>>> What message do they imagine it sends when they insist thereis
>>> evidence but never provide it?
>>
>> That blind faith is a virtue. It's a way to control the sheep.
> >
>Few people operate on blind faith. Most will say I have no reason
>to believe you. Or I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, based
>upon the reason that it always has.
You this equivocation is dishonest, because it was pointed out
previous times you did it.
You believe on blind faith, not reason.
Stop pretending.
>But OTOH there is a story: A young Native American graduated from
>college, and went to care for his grandfather. Early one morning the old
>man asked the grandson to accompany him. In a open field the elderly man
>began a dancing, chanting ritual.
[stupid aanalogy story deleted]
>> Olrik
Uncle Vic
It works for me too, every time I pray at night that there will be no
elephants in my back yard the next morning. But for some crazy reason,
every time I forget to pray that there will be no elephants in my back
yard, there still are no elephants in my back yard. Funny. There never
have been any elephants in my back yard. But I guess it doesn't hurt to
insure this.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Olrik wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> Olrik wrote:
> >>> Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
> >>>> Olrik wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <piggybacking>
> >> >>>
> >>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept.
> >>
> >> No, the meaning is quite precise, you simply don't know it. B^]
> >
> > It's "precise" but meaningless.
>
> "The meaning is precise but meaningless?"
Since it means something different in each of the many religions extant
and nothing otherwise, that about covers it.
> As I said:
>
We can't let Fasgnadh's lack of knowledge define the discussion, it must
be defined by those with knowledge.
And Fasgnadh hasn't any.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> That must be the echo chamber effects of your colon gurgling!
If that is the best ad hom Fasgnadh can come up with, he is getting even
more senile.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Olrik wrote:
> > Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
> >> Olrik wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <piggybacking>
> >>>
> >>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept.
>
> No, the meaning is quite precise, you simply don't know it. B^]
It is meaningless to those sensible enough not to enslave themselves to
some image of the supernatural.
See http://www.godchecker.com/ for your favorite imaginary friend..
In article
<da5b25cb-e210-40f1...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com@,
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com@ wrote:
@ ...an alternative to traditional religion by the Humanist chaplain at
@ Harvard University
@
@ With the current state of the economy, the ongoing wars that rage
@ across the globe, and the unsettling changes to the earth's climate,
@ questions about the role of God and religion in world affairs have
@ never been more relevant or felt more powerfully. Many of us are
@ searching for a place where we can find not only facts and scientific
@ reason but also hope and the moral courage needed to overcome such
@ challenges. For some, answers to the most challenging questions are
@ found in the divine. For others, including the New Atheists, religion
@ has no place in the world and is, in fact, an "enemy."
@
@ But in Good Without God, Greg Epstein presents another, more balanced
@ and inclusive response: Humanism. With a focus on the positive, he
@ highlights humanity's potential for goodness and the ways in which
@ Humanists lead lives of purpose and compassion. Humanism can offer the
@ sense of community we want and often need in good times and bad, as we
@ celebrate marriages and the birth of our children, and as we care for
@ those who are elderly or sick. In short, Humanism teaches us that we
@ can lead good and moral lives without supernaturalism, without higher
@ powers . . . without God.
@
@ In this constructive response not only to his fellow atheists Richard
@ Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris but also to contemporary
@ religious leaders such as Rick Warren and Jim Wallis, Epstein makes a
@ bold claim for what nonbelievers do share and believe. At a time when
@ the debate about morality rages more fiercely than ever�and when
@ millions are searching for something they can put their faith in�
@ Humanism offers a comfort and hope that affirms our ability to live
@ ethical lives of personal fulfillment, aspiring together for the
@ greater good of all.
@
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Without-God-Billion-Nonreligious/dp/0061670111
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: Nothing of consequence
People like Fasgnadh have to believe in gods because they can't stand up
without something with supposed clout behind them.
See
http://www.godchecker.com/
for a few thousand of Fasgnadh's imaginary friends.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Olrik insists on remaining ignorant:
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> Olrik nisses the meaning of common English terms:
>>>>> Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
>>>>>> Olrik wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <piggybacking>
>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept.
>>>>
>>>> No, the meaning is quite precise, you simply don't know it. B^]
>> >
>> > It's "precise" but meaningless.
>>
>> "The meaning is precise but meaningless?"
>>
>>
>
> Since it means something different in each of the many
Then it has MANY MEANINGS you dimwitted atheist, and is NOT MEANINGLESS!
B^]
> religions extant and nothing otherwise,
Rubbish, you poor atheist simpleton, I gave you SECULAR, NON-RELIGIOUS
MEANINGS, and you snipped them and repeated the same stupid IGNORANT DRIVEL!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA
Here they are AGAIN... so everyone can have a good laugh at Virgil
the Clown.. and he's one of the BRIGHTEST of the Atheist asylum; B^D
>> As I said:
>>
>>>> We can't let atheist ignorance define the discussion, it must be
>>>> defined by those with knowledge;
>>>>
>>>> "Sacred \Sa"cred\, a. [Originally p. p. of OE. sacren to consecrate"
>>>>
>>>> ie to dedicate, to set aside for special use... Holy OR secular
>>>>
Apparently Information technology is meaningless to these profoundly
mentally impaired atheists:
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
>>>> Olrik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <piggybacking>
>> >>>
>>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept.
>>
>> No, the meaning is quite precise, you simply don't know it. B^]
>>
>> defined by those with knowledge;
>>
>> "Sacred \Sa"cred\, a. [Originally p. p. of OE. sacren to consecrate"
>>
>> ie to dedicate, to set aside for special use... Holy OR secular
>
> enslave themselves to some image of the supernatural.
What is 'supernatural' about a m onument being consecrated to the
memory of brave soldiers who fought in WWII, you dimwitted atheist fool?
What is supernatuiral about Information Technology? Of course
it must seem like Magic to you ignorant knuckle-dragging trogs
but most people with an IQ larger than their hat size get it;
>> "Reserved for exclusive use by something.
>> For example, "Register 7 is sacred to the interrupt handler"
>> would mean that if any other code changed the contents of
>> register 7, dire consequences would ensue."
>>
>> The concept is therefore NOT meaningless, your comment was. B^]
And the concept is NOT confined to religion.
But once again we see that NARROW MINDED atheists operate from
IGNORANCE and Malice.
Sad really.
fasgnadh
> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
Olrik the atheist has his own beliefs.. he has no proof for them,
they are unfounded beliefs, but still he asserts them to others,
even though he has no proof to support them.
He wants you to take him on faith!
So strong are his irrational atheist beleifs that even when
they are proved wrong, he clings stubbornly to them;
> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
> personal, and should be kept that way.
So your belief (which you can't prove, and can't defend from
proof that you are simply WRONG),that 'sacred' (which has many secular,
non-religious meanings), is meaningless, is a personal belief and
shoulkd have been kept that way! B^]
So why did you inflict it on us? Are you a hypocrite, or just
incredibly THICK, or both? B^]
The meanings of 'sacred' are quite precise, you simply don't
know them. B^]
We can't let atheist ignorance define the discussion, it must be
defined by those with knowledge;
"Sacred \Sa"cred\, a. [Originally p. p. of OE. sacren to consecrate"
ie to dedicate, to set aside for special use... Holy OR secular
For example(and I quote from the dictionary);
"Reserved for exclusive use by something.
For example, "Register 7 is sacred to the interrupt handler"
would mean that if any other code changed the contents of
register 7, dire consequences would ensue."
The concept is therefore NOT meaningless, your comment was. B^]
And your belief is not only UNFOUNDED, but provably WRONG!
Take a bow.. not a single atheist saw the fatal logical flaw in your
COMPLETE raving gibberish.
Atheists blindly support the OPINIONS of other atheists because
they have a mob mentality and are dull, dimwitted ignoramuses,
easily led:
http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/RedGuardsLow.JPG
Olrik
> Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
> So your belief (which you can't prove, and can't defend from
> proof that you are simply WRONG)
You abuse, misuse and overuse the word "belief".
> ,that 'sacred' (which has many secular,
> non-religious meanings), is meaningless, is a personal belief and
> shoulkd have been kept that way! B^]
>
> So why did you inflict it on us? Are you a hypocrite, or just incredibly
> THICK, or both? B^]
>
> The meanings of 'sacred' are quite precise, you simply don't
> know them. B^]
>
> We can't let atheist ignorance define the discussion, it must be
> defined by those with knowledge;
>
> "Sacred \Sa"cred\, a. [Originally p. p. of OE. sacren to consecrate"
>
> ie to dedicate, to set aside for special use... Holy OR secular
>
> For example(and I quote from the dictionary);
>
> "Reserved for exclusive use by something.
> For example, "Register 7 is sacred to the interrupt handler"
> would mean that if any other code changed the contents of
> register 7, dire consequences would ensue."
Idiot.
> The concept is therefore NOT meaningless, your comment was. B^]
I wrote "*RATHER* meaningless", and in the context of its use as a
religious concept.
> And your belief is not only UNFOUNDED, but provably WRONG!
>
> Take a bow.. not a single atheist saw the fatal logical flaw in your
> COMPLETE raving gibberish.
There was none. You also conflate opinion with belief, which is the tool
of trolls.
Christopher A. Lee
>Le 2010-01-06 06:52, fasgnadh a �crit :
>> Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>
>> So your belief (which you can't prove, and can't defend from
>> proof that you are simply WRONG)
>
>You abuse, misuse and overuse the word "belief".
So do most religionists. It has too broad a meaning anyway, but in the
context of theists and theism it means their kind of belief.
Far too many of them equivocate between this and a whole slew of other
things where they have replaced the actual word or phrase with
"believe" so they can dishonestly pretend they are the same.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Olrik the atheist has his own beliefs.. he has no proof for them,
Any atheist has at least as much proof of his beliefs re gods as any
theist has for his theist beliefs re gods.
> they are unfounded beliefs,
No more unfounded than any claim of godly existence.
> but still he asserts them to others
Just like Fasgnadh does.
> even though he has no proof to support them.
Just like fasgnadhhas no proof to support his own delusions.
>
> He wants you to take him on faith!
Which is exactly what all theists do to, because the have nothing else
to offer. Olrick can at least offer common sense, which theists cannot.
>
> So strong are his irrational atheist beleifs that even when
> they are proved wrong, he clings stubbornly to them
It they ever were to be proved wrong, that would be posted in 10 inch
letters in the headlines of every newspaper in the world. But as yet it
has not happened.
The future belongs to the "Good without God" movement.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> Olrik wrote:
> >>> Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
> >>>> Olrik wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <piggybacking>
> >> >>>
> >>>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept.
> >>
> >> No, the meaning is quite precise, you simply don't know it. B^]
> >>
> >> We can't let atheist ignorance define the discussion, it must be
> >> defined by those with knowledge;
> >>
> >> "Sacred \Sa"cred\, a. [Originally p. p. of OE. sacren to consecrate"
> >>
> >> ie to dedicate, to set aside for special use... Holy OR secular
> >
> > It is meaningless to those sensible enough not to
> > enslave themselves to some image of the supernatural.
>
> What is 'supernatural' about a m onument being dedicated to the
> memory of brave soldiers who fought in WWII?
Nothing, but that does not make that monument "sacred". The word under
discussion is "sacred".
Those words are enough different that even someone as dim as Fasgnadh
should be able to tell the difference between them.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Fasgnadh simply makes a fool of himself, again:
I have snipped all of Fasgnadh's fallacious arguments, most of which
have been ad hominem arguments, which constitute the great majority of
all his postings.
Budikka666
> In article <xA_0n.67222$ze1.25...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Fasgnadh simply makes a fool of himself, again:
>
> I have snipped all of Fasgnadh's fallacious arguments, most of which
> have been ad hominem arguments, which constitute the great majority of
> all his postings.
There's no evidence Fartnads is a sentient life-form since it exhibits
all the behaviors and only the behaviors of a spambot.
Budikka
Ron Dean
>
Ron Dean
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:21:46 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
> to believe something when there is no reason to.
>
You hide your _own_ ignorance behind your crying moron, liar,
idiot. The reason no doubt is to throw off the suspicion that
you are in reality describing yourself.
>
>> _evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
>
> question.
>
As an atheist, what is your problem with this? It proves, you
just spout off without even bothering to read.
>
>> or that he created the universe, or you and me. The
>> universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
>
> from?
>
You know nothing of Planck time. I'll bet it's something you copied from
another post. Curiously, you did spell "Planck" it right.
>
> Your Nobel prize awaits you.
Ron Dean
> Le 2010-01-05 17:26, Ron Dean a �crit :
>>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a �crit :
>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
>>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>> >
>
> "Sacred" is a meaningless concept to me.
>
>> is more important than that of dogs, chimps, or mice?
>
>
> If the question is "Would you sacrifice the life of an animal to save a
> human", then the answer is a resounding "yes". Not because the intrinsic
> value of the animal is less than that of a human, but because I prefer
> saving animals of my own species.
>
> We're nothing "special", but we are important to each other.
>
Nothing special! This is one of the reasons Christians object so
strenuously to this view. As far as nature is concern, and without God,
nature is all there is, it's no greater tragedy when a human is killed
than it is when a "lower" animal dies. Christians place much greater
value upon each human life. Christians believe man was created in the
image of God, just a little lower than angels. Your view devalues,
degrades and cheapens each human life.
>
> Olrik
>
>> Why........?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:21:46 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>> I too am a believer. But faith is based upon reason, not
>>
>> No, moron, it is not. It is no more than wishful thinking, an excuse
>> to believe something when there is no reason to.
> >
>You hide your _own_ ignorance behind your crying moron, liar,
>idiot. The reason no doubt is to throw off the suspicion that
>you are in reality describing yourself.
A liar as well as an idiot.
But then we already know you are a pathological narcissist incapable
of grasping that there is a real world beyond the various theisms.
Whatever you pretend, faith IS an excuse for belief where there is no
reason to do so.
What else does "evidence of things unseen" mean, imbecile?
>>> _evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
>>
>> So shut the fuck up about it instead of repeatedly begging the
>> question.
Well, moron?
>As an atheist, what is your problem with this? It proves, you
>just spout off without even bothering to read.
>>
>>> or that he created the universe, or you and me.
What "he", question-begging moron who once again confirms he can't
grasp the world outside his religious fantasies that he is too stupid
to realise aren't granted outside his fellow believers?
>>> The
>>> universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
>>
>> Where do you get your knowledge of what happened prior to Planck time
>> from?
Well, liar?
>You know nothing of Planck time.
Liar.
> I'll bet it's something you copied from
>another post.
Liar.
> Curiously, you did spell "Planck" it right.
In other words you can't say where you got this knowledge from,.
because it is just more of your pig-ignorant bullshit.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:21:46 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>> I too am a believer. But faith is based upon reason, not
>>
>> No, moron, it is not. It is no more than wishful thinking, an excuse
>> to believe something when there is no reason to.
> >
>You hide your _own_ ignorance behind your crying moron, liar,
Why the lie, narcissist?
>idiot. The reason no doubt is to throw off the suspicion that
>you are in reality describing yourself.
Liar.
>>> _evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
>>
>> So shut the fuck up about it instead of repeatedly begging the
>> question.
> >
>As an atheist, what is your problem with this? It proves, you
>just spout off without even bothering to read.
As a pig-ignorant moron incapable of grasping the real borld beying
his religion, why do you keep rudely and stupidly begging the question
where you know your deluded fantasies aren't granted?
Wexford
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Olrik wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:50:48 -0500, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
I was wondering how to get the elephants out of the yard. Ever try to
clean up elephant poop? You don't have a prayer for Yaks, do you? They
tend to mass in my yard on cold evenings.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Olrik wrote:
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as as an idiot.
>> Olrik
>>
>>> Why........?
Ron Dean
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>
>> universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
>>
>
> was swallowed up into a black hole, which exploded (big bang) to "create"
> the present universe.
>
mother-daughter universes, pocket universes, multiverses
etc. The _only_ universe of which we have any evidence is
the universe we find ourselves in.
>
> BTW, faith is not based upon reason, it couldn't be further from it.
>
also be reason to sometimes believe. I have no _reason_ to
believe in your previous universe, you've given no reason. But
I do have reason to believe in the existence of a Fine Tuner.
The fact that the laws of physics have very specific values:
they are very finely adjusted which allowed the universe to
come into existence and for life to appear. If any of the
values were changed slightly, the universe would have failed.
This gives _me_ reason to believe.
Yap
> Olrik wrote:
> > Le 2009-12-11 03:26, Christopher A. Lee a écrit :
>
> >>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a écrit :
> >>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
> >>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
> >>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
> >>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
>
> >>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
> >>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>
> >> evidence but never provide it?
>
> > That blind faith is a virtue. It's a way to control the sheep.
>
> >
> Few people operate on blind faith. Most will say I have no reason
> to believe you. Or I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, based
> upon the reason that it always has.
>
> But OTOH there is a story: A young Native American graduated from
> college, and went to care for his grandfather. Early one morning the old
> man asked the grandson to accompany him. In a open field the elderly man
> began a dancing, chanting ritual.
> He told his grandson that he was getting too old to continue the ritual
> so he must learn the it and each morning he must preform the ritual in
> exactly the same way. But why: the grandson demanded. To help the sun
> break lose from its night bonds and rise in the mornings. But
> grandfather, what makes you think that your ritual does anything?
> I think it's useless! It a waste of time, It does nothing.
>
> It's an ancient ritual, your father, my father, his father and the
> generations all the way back perform the same way and it always worked.
>
> The old man dancing and chanting as the sun rose above the mountains, he
> again asked, "grandfather how do you know its your ritual causing it?"
> In frustration the old man pointed skyward and exclaimed, "YOU SEE THE
> SUN RISING WITH YOUR OWN EYES: SO, HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS RITUAL IS
> NOT WORKING?"
century?
Do you not know you above story indicated why many intelligent people
has chosen atheism?
And soon, the religion will be dead....thanks to your story !
>
>
>
> > Olrik
Yap
> Uncle Vic wrote:
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Olrik wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:50:48 -0500, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>
> >>>> wrote:
Are you an atheist now?
>
>
>
>
Uncle Vic
> On Jan 6, 2:04锟絘m, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Olrik wrote:
>> >> Le 2009-12-11 03:26, Christopher A. Lee a 锟絚rit :
>> >>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:50:48 -0500, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a 锟絚rit :
>> elephants in my back yard the next morning. 锟紹ut for some crazy
>> reason, every time I forget to pray that there will be no elephants
>> in my back yard, there still are no elephants in my back yard.
>> 锟紽unny. 锟絋here ne
> ver
>> have been any elephants in my back yard. 锟紹ut I guess it doesn't hurt
>> t
> o
>> insure this.
>>
>> --
>> Uncle Vic
>> aa Atheist #2011
>> Christians are like Slinkys. 锟絋hey're boring, but they'll put a smile
>> o
> n
>> your face when you push them down the stairs.
>
> I was wondering how to get the elephants out of the yard. Ever try to
> clean up elephant poop? You don't have a prayer for Yaks, do you? They
> tend to mass in my yard on cold evenings.
>
That could be useful, though. Amazon might turn up a few manuals on Yak
Cuddling.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Uncle Vic wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>>
>>> I too am a believer. But faith is based upon reason, not
>>> _evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
>>> or that he created the universe, or you and me. The
>>> universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
>>>
>>
>> We don't know that. It makes more sense to me that the previous universe
>> was swallowed up into a black hole, which exploded (big bang) to "create"
>> the present universe.
> >
>There is no empirical evidence of this previous universe,
>mother-daughter universes, pocket universes, multiverses
>etc. The _only_ universe of which we have any evidence is
>the universe we find ourselves in.
And there is no evidence that it sprung from nothing either.
Yet you said it did.
Which implies you have a source of knowledge denied the rest of us.
In spite of your personal lies rather than admit your "mistake", we do
not know what happened prior to 10^-43 seconds into the expansion from
the singularity because our understanding of the laws of physics stops
there.
If you had been honest you would have admitted that there are several
speculations that break no known laws of physics including mass and
energy conservation.
Yet you insist on one that you cannot defend.
When there is no reason to choose one over the others all of which fit
with current objective understanding.
It could be any of these. Or a new one, depending what further
evidence and knowledge might be found.
It is entirely possible that it appeared out of nothing. Heisenberg
and Dirac allow this possibility, with the universe having a zero sum
over its lifetime. Because they allow energy to be "borrowed" and
"repaid" later. Quantum Mechanics certainly knows about this happening
at the quantum level with particles appearing spontaneously.
>> BTW, faith is not based upon reason, it couldn't be further from it.
>>
>I disagree. If there is reason to ever disbelieve, there must
>also be reason to sometimes believe.
Again you demonstrate your abysmal grasp of logic.
Faith is a transparently dishonest attempt to turn the belief where
there is no reason to do so, into a virtue.
And the idiots who think it is, are too stupid to realise that members
of all the other religions can use exactly the same excuse for their
beliefs too.
They're also too stupid to grasp just how worthless this excuse is
outside their belief system.
> I have no _reason_ to
>believe in your previous universe, you've given no reason. But
It was just an alternative to your insistence that it came from
nothing, imbecile.
>I do have reason to believe in the existence of a Fine Tuner.
No you don't.
You rationalise a pre-existing belief in one.
Stop pretending.
The only person you fool is yourself.
>The fact that the laws of physics have very specific values:
>they are very finely adjusted which allowed the universe to
>come into existence and for life to appear. If any of the
>values were changed slightly, the universe would have failed.
So what?
If it had been any different you wouldn't be here to say this
bullshit.
>This gives _me_ reason to believe.
No moron, it is a rationalisation for your existing belief. Not a
reason to believe.
Because it rests on the unjustified presumption that the universe was
created specifically for our kind of life.
thomas p.
Well of course!
thomas p.
Religious faith in other words. Otherwise it would not be
religious faith.
thomas p.
Because the universe that exists exists just the way it does, and, if
it began some other way, it would not be the same universe. This
proves the existence of god.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Their equivocation over faith is at several levels - they
subconsciously use three meanings.
Most of the time they don't actually have faith that it exists, its
existence is an unquestioned certainty.
They only switch to faith it exists when they can't prove it after
talking /at/ people who don't share their beliefs.
But they then equivocate between this secondary meaning and a
different version of their original because they can't get their minds
around others not seeing it as real.
There is an almost Orwellian doublethink at work.
It's why they use their bad analogies, "God is real", "Prove it",
"Prove your wife loves you". "See, you have faith too".
Ron Dean
>
Ron Dean
which usually means personal experience, reading about etwas
or some incomplete measure of evidence. But, I admit faith is
all too often based upon faulty reasons, that is things sometimes
appear one way when in reality it's the opposite. The sun appears
to circle the sun for example, which is completely false.
My _reason_ for believing that a fine tuner "finely adjusted" the
laws of physics is the best explanation for the precise values
of these fundamental constants.
>
Ron Dean
> On Jan 8, 11:03 am, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Olrik wrote:
by science. I believe a a super intellect with immense power is the
better explanation of the very finely adjusted values of science. And
this is a crucial reason I am a believer.
Dan Listermann
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:M1I1n.17037$Wl3....@newsfe11.iad...
>
> My _reason_ for believing that a fine tuner "finely adjusted" the
> laws of physics is the best explanation for the precise values
> of these fundamental constants.
>
Consider that you are viewing this like the path of the Sun - backwards. If
these "finely adjusted laws of physics" were not the way they are, you
would not be there to see them. In other words, an unstable universe would
self-destruct. We have no way of knowing if there were many such universes
before ours happened by. For that matter, our universe may only appear
stable to us due to our very short time frames. It might very well be
falling apart!
At the bottom, your religious faith is based on an argument from ignorance.
You observe an unknown and imagine an answer. This would be fairly harmless
except these "answers" invariably bring on wasteful superstitions.
AZ Nomad
>>
>Whether you like it or not, faith is always based on reason,
>which usually means personal experience, reading about etwas
faith is the antithesis of reason. It is the act of believing
something where reason indicates that it is false.
Justin Jenkins
Prove it.
--
Justin Jenkins
Dan Listermann
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhken0c.v...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
Where the word "faith" is in the above, plug in "superstition." It works
just fine that way too.
Dan Listermann
"Justin Jenkins" <justi...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hi7mnj$p1j$1...@news.albasani.net...
Justin Jenkins
Prove it.
--
Justin Jenkins
Dan Listermann
Ron Dean
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:26:48 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>>>
>>>> I too am a believer. But faith is based upon reason, not
>>>> _evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
>>>> or that he created the universe, or you and me. The
>>>> universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
>>>>
>>> We don't know that. It makes more sense to me that the previous universe
>>> was swallowed up into a black hole, which exploded (big bang) to "create"
>>> the present universe.
>>>
>> There is no empirical evidence of this previous universe,
>> mother-daughter universes, pocket universes, multiverses
>> etc. The _only_ universe of which we have any evidence is
>> the universe we find ourselves in.
>
> And there is no evidence that it sprung from nothing either.
>
nothing - no thing is that a thing, any "thing" is constituted of
matter. There was neither the quark soup nor atoms at the
moment of the B.B.
Stars which made the heavy elements, didn't appear until almost
1 billion years later.
So, at the moment of the B.B. there were no subatomic particles,
no atoms and no matter, thus no-thing. So, the Big Bang sprang from
nothing (no-thing).
>
> Yet you said it did.
>
> Which implies you have a source of knowledge denied the rest of us.
>
Hawking and Rees.
>
> In spite of your personal lies rather than admit your "mistake", we do
> not know what happened prior to 10^-43 seconds into the expansion from
> the singularity because our understanding of the laws of physics stops
> there.
>
and this was after the big bang.
>
> If you had been honest you would have admitted that there are several
> speculations that break no known laws of physics including mass and
> energy conservation.
>
>
> Yet you insist on one that you cannot defend.
>
> When there is no reason to choose one over the others all of which fit
> with current objective understanding.
>
>
> It could be any of these. Or a new one, depending what further
> evidence and knowledge might be found.
>
> It is entirely possible that it appeared out of nothing. Heisenberg
> and Dirac allow this possibility, with the universe having a zero sum
> over its lifetime. Because they allow energy to be "borrowed" and
> "repaid" later. Quantum Mechanics certainly knows about this happening
> at the quantum level with particles appearing spontaneously.
>
>
>>> BTW, faith is not based upon reason, it couldn't be further from it.
>>>
>> I disagree. If there is reason to ever disbelieve, there must
>> also be reason to sometimes believe.
>
> Again you demonstrate your abysmal grasp of logic.
>
>
> Faith is a transparently dishonest attempt to turn the belief where
> there is no reason to do so, into a virtue.
>
for belief. If nothing more than personal experience.
>
> And the idiots who think it is, are too stupid to realise that members
> of all the other religions can use exactly the same excuse for their
> beliefs too.
>
>
> They're also too stupid to grasp just how worthless this excuse is
> outside their belief system.
>
>> I have no _reason_ to
>> believe in your previous universe, you've given no reason. But
>
> It was just an alternative to your insistence that it came from
> nothing, imbecile.
>
>
>> I do have reason to believe in the existence of a Fine Tuner.
>
> No you don't.
>
fine tuning of the laws of physics means nothing. The fact
is you do _not_ want to believe and for personal reasons.
>
> You rationalise a pre-existing belief in one.
>
>
> Stop pretending.
>
> The only person you fool is yourself.
>
>> The fact that the laws of physics have very specific values:
>> they are very finely adjusted which allowed the universe to
>> come into existence and for life to appear. If any of the
>> values were changed slightly, the universe would have failed.
>
> So what?
>
> If it had been any different you wouldn't be here to say this
> bullshit.
>
Dan Listermann
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%gJ1n.2654$ap2...@newsfe18.iad...
> >
> Where knowledge is impossible, but there is a reason there maybe a basis
> for belief. If nothing more than personal experience.
>>
It is called arguing from ignorance and it ain't pretty.
Justin Jenkins
Q.E.D.
<g>
--
Justin Jenkins
AZ Nomad
Faith is more resiliant to reason.
AZ Nomad
>"Justin Jenkins" <justi...@live.com> wrote in message
>news:hi7n30$p1j$2...@news.albasani.net...
>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>> "Justin Jenkins" <justi...@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hi7mnj$p1j$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:19:03 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether you like it or not, faith is always based on reason,
>>>>>> which usually means personal experience, reading about etwas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> faith is the antithesis of reason. It is the act of believing
>>>>> something where reason indicates that it is false.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Religion is the opposite of science. So now play the "proveit" card . .
>>> . .
>>>
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>LOL!
J is a pathetic parrot brained moron, more data that
religion causes brain damage.
Uncle Vic
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
>>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
>>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
>>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>>>>
>>> I too am a believer. But faith is based upon reason, not
>>> _evidence_. There is no empirical evidence that God exist,
>>> or that he created the universe, or you and me. The
>>> universe came from nothing the result of the Big Bang.
>>>
>>
>> We don't know that. It makes more sense to me that the previous
>> universe was swallowed up into a black hole, which exploded (big
>> bang) to "create" the present universe.
> >
> There is no empirical evidence of this previous universe,
> mother-daughter universes, pocket universes, multiverses
> etc. The _only_ universe of which we have any evidence is
> the universe we find ourselves in.
Of course there's no evidence, unless someday we find a time capsule
impervious to a black hole, and left by inhabitants of said previous
universe.
>>
>> BTW, faith is not based upon reason, it couldn't be further from it.
>>
> I disagree. If there is reason to ever disbelieve, there must
> also be reason to sometimes believe. I have no _reason_ to
> believe in your previous universe, you've given no reason. But
> I do have reason to believe in the existence of a Fine Tuner.
> The fact that the laws of physics have very specific values:
> they are very finely adjusted which allowed the universe to
> come into existence and for life to appear. If any of the
> values were changed slightly, the universe would have failed.
> This gives _me_ reason to believe.
>
Like the pond that marvels about the hole this "fine tuner" created
that's just the right size for it, eh? You've got things backward. We
exist because the conditions happen to be right for our existence.
And, BTW, there is no reason to believe in reality - it's already real.
We don't know how the present conditions of reality came to be, but that
doesn't matter.
thomas p.
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:UUH1n.29185$Gf3....@newsfe22.iad...
Does this mean we can't be friends?
thomas p.
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:s9I1n.17038$Wl3....@newsfe11.iad...
The "fine tuning" of the universe is nonsense. The only way to determine if
something
is fine tuned is to compare it to some standard. What are you comparing the
universe to?
thomas p.
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:M1I1n.17037$Wl3....@newsfe11.iad...
Either you have evidence or you do not. If you have evidence for your
beliefs, they are not based on faith. Religious faith by definition is
unreasonable.
>
> My _reason_ for believing that a fine tuner "finely adjusted" the
> laws of physics is the best explanation for the precise values
> of these fundamental constants.
Compared to what?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You are a disgusting, narcissistic serial liar incapable of
understanding the real world beyond your religion and why people react
negatively to your nastiness and stupidity.
Keep your dishonesty and your bullshit where it belongs and nobody
will even know this about you.
Was that clear enough even for you?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Liar.
It is a rationalisation as an excuse for belief when theer is no
reason to.
>which usually means personal experience, reading about etwas
>or some incomplete measure of evidence. But, I admit faith is
>all too often based upon faulty reasons, that is things sometimes
>appear one way when in reality it's the opposite. The sun appears
>to circle the sun for example, which is completely false.
>
>My _reason_ for believing that a fine tuner "finely adjusted" the
>laws of physics is the best explanation for the precise values
>of these fundamental constants.
Liar.
Christopher A. Lee
Christopher A. Lee
More importantly one that closes his mind, and that he imagines
everybody else should take seriously.
He cant think of anything else therefore his pre-existing religious
beliefs are correct.
Christopher A. Lee
Even the wholly babble describes it as belief without any reason to do
so - because that's what "evidence of things unseen" means. It
replaces evidence.
They turn this absence of evidence into a virtue they imagine is
stronger than actually having any.
Reason means applying logic to arrive at a conclusion.
But Dean's is fallacious - even if his "fine-tuning" were true he uses
the argument from ignorance: he can't think of anything else therefore
the god he just happened to believe in already did it.
But this fine-tuning is only in the eye of the beholder who already
believes in a fine tuner who fine tuned the universe specifically for
us.
It has been explained many times that if the universe were "tuned"
differently we would not be here to see this apparent tuning. Maybe
some other life form would, maybe nobody would.
Like all these arguments it tries to generate information where there
is none.
But if there actually were any information this would itself be direct
evidence and arguments wouldn't even be necessary.
I just wish they would think before telling us just how poor their
cognitive skills are.
Dan Listermann
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFA5EDF...@216.196.97.131...
We
> exist because the conditions happen to be right for our existence.
We will probably find that these conditions are not as unusual as we might
imagine either.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Dec 10 2009, 10:43 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
>
> <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
> > obvious.
>
> group were once believers...
>
> Haiku Jones
>
>
>
> > I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
> > However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
> > wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
> > Christopher A. Young
> > Learn more about Jesus
> > www.lds.org
> > .
>
> > "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:KJKHm.1279$wq5...@newsfe19.iad...
> > It is amazing that millions of people believe in some God
> > even though NO God
> > has ever spoken to or communicated with ANY of the sane 6.8
> > BILLION members
> > of society.
>
> > There are thousands of God beliefs with NO OBJECTIVE
> > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE
>
> > that ANY of them are real.
>
> > The only evidence they have is what their Priest, Imam.
> > Rabbi or other holy
> > leader has given them. And none of it is objective
> > verifiable evidence. It
> > is purely the opinions of church leaders.
>
> > There is a wealth of ancient religious documents that are
> > used to support
> > many different
>
> > God beliefs and religions, but there is NO, NADA objective
> > verifiable
> > evidence that ANY Gods actually exist!
>
> > They need to ask themselves; why would a real God permit all
> > these false
> > Gods and documents to mislead and confuse his creations?
>
Learning to think, rather than blindly believe, is a religion killer.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
So what?
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that science in the form of quantum
mechanics knows of particles spontaneously appearing. From nothing as
you put it.
It's a consequence of Heisenberg and Dirac. Energy is "borrowed" to do
this and "paid back" at the end of the particle's life.
Which blows your argument from personal ignorance out of the water.
But YOU have insisted that you KNOW it "sprang from nothing". Which
means YOU claim knowledge prior to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang.
And instead of explaining how YOU acquired this knowledge which is
denied to the rest of us YOU lied about my not knowing what Planck
time was.
>Stars which made the heavy elements, didn't appear until almost
>1 billion years later.
So?
>So, at the moment of the B.B. there were no subatomic particles,
>no atoms and no matter, thus no-thing.
No, moron, there was energy. Which you have been told many times
already.
Matter condensed from this as the universe cooled due to expansion.
> So, the Big Bang sprang from
>nothing (no-thing).
Are you proud of your deliberate ignorance and your lack of logic
skills?
>> Yet you said it did.
>>
>> Which implies you have a source of knowledge denied the rest of us.
> >
>No, it isn't. the time sequence of events is discussed by both
>Hawking and Rees.
Where does Hawking insist it sprung from nothing?
NOBODY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO 10^-43 SECONDS INTO THE FORMATION
OF THE UNIVERSE. ALL THEY KNOW IS THAT IS EXPANDED AND COOLED FROM A
SINGULARITY. OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS DOESN'T TAKE US BACK
BEFORE PLANCK TIME.
Which word didn't you understand?
>> In spite of your personal lies rather than admit your "mistake", we do
>> not know what happened prior to 10^-43 seconds into the expansion from
>> the singularity because our understanding of the laws of physics stops
>> there.
> >
>This is true, we don't know, but we do know when things first appeared,
>and this was after the big bang.
So how do you know it sprung from nothing?
>> If you had been honest you would have admitted that there are several
>> speculations that break no known laws of physics including mass and
>> energy conservation.
> >
>So, you want to discuss the laws of thermodynamics?
Another non-answer.
You already know that these speculations treat the universe as having
a zero sum over its life because several of us have explained this to
you already.
But thank you for admitting you can't be bothered to read responses
but just parrot the same wilful ignorance over and over again.
Do you want discuss Dirac and Heisenberg? And how energy can be
"borrowed" as long as it is "paid back" later?
>> Yet you insist on one that you cannot defend.
>>
>> When there is no reason to choose one over the others all of which fit
>> with current objective understanding.
> >
>I'm lost here. This is not specific enough.
Couldn't be bothered to read the very next sentence?
>> It could be any of these. Or a new one, depending what further
>> evidence and knowledge might be found.
Well?
>> It is entirely possible that it appeared out of nothing. Heisenberg
>> and Dirac allow this possibility, with the universe having a zero sum
>> over its lifetime. Because they allow energy to be "borrowed" and
>> "repaid" later. Quantum Mechanics certainly knows about this happening
>> at the quantum level with particles appearing spontaneously.
> >
>I read about this is the book entitled "Schrondengers Kittens.
Did it also explain that where the information isn't there to
determine which of several explanations that fit the evidence is the
correct one, that it is wrong to arbitrarily choose one over the
other?
>>>> BTW, faith is not based upon reason, it couldn't be further from it.
>>>>
>>> I disagree. If there is reason to ever disbelieve, there must
>>> also be reason to sometimes believe.
>>
>> Again you demonstrate your abysmal grasp of logic.
> >
>I gave some of my reasons for believing.
Which have been demonstrated several times to be worthless. They're
rationalisations for what you already believe, in terms of what you
already believe. With no way out of that loop.
>> Faith is a transparently dishonest attempt to turn the belief where
>> there is no reason to do so, into a virtue.
> >
>Where knowledge is impossible, but there is a reason there maybe a basis
>for belief. If nothing more than personal experience.
The "basis" for belief is being taught to at an early age before you
can think for yourself.
You have to step aside from that and reach a conclusion from real
world evidence.
Yet all you have done is use your belief that there was a fine tuner
who fine tuned the universe for us, to "conclude" that it was fine
tuned therefore there was a fine tuner.
>> And the idiots who think it is, are too stupid to realise that members
>> of all the other religions can use exactly the same excuse for their
>> beliefs too.
> >
>This is true, but it doesn't invalidate anything.
Lots of things invalidate your fine tuning bullshit.
>> They're also too stupid to grasp just how worthless this excuse is
>> outside their belief system.
>>
>>> I have no _reason_ to
>>> believe in your previous universe, you've given no reason. But
>>
>> It was just an alternative to your insistence that it came from
>> nothing, imbecile.
> >
>I made my case above.
No. You used some fallacious "logic" to "conclude" what you already
believed that relied on its presumption.
>>> I do have reason to believe in the existence of a Fine Tuner.
>>
>> No you don't.
> >
>Why not. As an atheist you certainly have reason to desire the
Liar.
>fine tuning of the laws of physics means nothing. The fact
WHAT FUCKING "FINE TUNING OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS"?
That is no more than your pre-existing belief.
>is you do _not_ want to believe and for personal reasons.
Liar.
>> You rationalise a pre-existing belief in one.
> >
>????
YOU ALREADY BELIEVE IN A FINE TUNER. YOU DO NOT CONCLUDE ONE.
Which word didn't you understand?
>> Stop pretending.
>>
>> The only person you fool is yourself.
>>
>>> The fact that the laws of physics have very specific values:
>>> they are very finely adjusted which allowed the universe to
>>> come into existence and for life to appear. If any of the
>>> values were changed slightly, the universe would have failed.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> If it had been any different you wouldn't be here to say this
>> bullshit.
> >
>Explains nothing. It begging off.
It explains why your fine tuning "argument" is worthless.
>>> This gives _me_ reason to believe.
>>
>> No moron, it is a rationalisation for your existing belief. Not a
>> reason to believe.
>>
>> Because it rests on the unjustified presumption that the universe was
>> created specifically for our kind of life.
Well?
hypa...@comcast.net
> >> Olrik wrote:
> >>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a écrit :
> >>>> To them who believe, the evidence is very real, and very
> >>>> obvious. I am a believer, and I find the evidence obvious.
> >>>> However, I'm just as certain you'd not believe anything I
> >>>> wrote, no matter how sacred to me.
>
>
> >>> "sacred" is a rather meaningless concept. And what you believe in is
> >>> personal, and should be kept that way.
>
>
> > "Sacred" is a meaningless concept to me.
>
> >> Do you not think human life
> >> is more important than that of dogs, chimps, or mice?
>
> > Important to whom? A chimp's life is more important to him than yours.
>
> > If the question is "Would you sacrifice the life of an animal to save a
> > human", then the answer is a resounding "yes". Not because the intrinsic
> > value of the animal is less than that of a human, but because I prefer
> > saving animals of my own species.
>
> > We're nothing "special", but we are important to each other.
>
> >
> Nothing special! This is one of the reasons Christians object so
> strenuously to this view. As far as nature is concern, and without God,
> nature is all there is, it's no greater tragedy when a human is killed
> than it is when a "lower" animal dies. Christians place much greater
> value upon each human life. Christians believe man was created in the
> image of God, just a little lower than angels. Your view devalues,
> degrades and cheapens each human life.
It does nothing of the kind. Humans are part of the chain of life.
We aren't above the other animals. We are one of them. I'll
take that rather than being 'special' and alone any day.
hypa...@comcast.net
> thomas p. wrote:
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >>>>> Olrik wrote:
> >>>>>> Le 2009-12-11 00:43, Stormin Mormon a crit :
>
> > Well of course!
>
> You are just as vile, evil, and closed minded as Chris Lee, And Bill M.
>
>
simply have no patience with fundies who say they
have evidence to back up their beliefs but refuse to say
what that evidence is. To them and me that says that
the fundie has no evidence or is afraid that their evidence
can be proved wrong. In other words, they are cowards.