Atheists Trying Hard to Study Theism
boboroshi of TOKUS
>Shutting down children's hospitals is not scientific?
it doesn't allow you to rule out many things quickly.
> objective evidence of a god, any god, I don't care
> which god, you pick it.
Chango. google him.
bobo:
>|> | I am correct that theists and anti-theists are locked in
>|> | endless meaningless squabbles about that which NEITHER
>|> | really understands because they have not applied
>|> | themselves?
>|
>|> You are wrong.
>|
>| where is the evidence of this?
where is the evidence of this?
>| engaging them in semantic games. meanwhile bunches of folx
>| are finding gods and interacting with them, as they see it.
>
>You've not shown that yo do.
people are studying their experiences.
there's obvious evidence.
>In fact, you seem to have a big problem
>with the very simple concept of objective evidence.
reams and reams. check it out. it's fantastic.
>BTW, evidence of atheists pushing back against
>deluded theists
agreed that many theists are deluded.
>trying to force them to convert?
agreed that some extremist cultists
are imperialistic in the worst way,
often worshipping despotic gods.
> the idea that people believe different from
> them, scares the shit out of them.
guess so. I think belief is way over-rated.
>|> The atheists would like nothing more then to
>|> go about life and the business of living. ....
>|> ...the theists keep shoving their delusions in to the
>|> faces of people that don't accept them. The atheists,
>|> shove back.
>|
>| if you shoved back intelligently you might get somewhere.
> So, to you, demanding real, objective, testable,
> repeatable, validated, and falsifiable evidence
> of a god, is not intelligent.
that's the shove part. doing it intelligently is incremental,
removing their base level priorities initially rather than
dealing with them in any seriousness in further encounters.
conclude positively about orishas as gods because they can
possess people, and then compare and contrast the "reality"
of these kinds of gods with ones that never possess anyone.
the religious olympics, pitting religion against religion
for activities such as prophesying, miracle-generation,
and knowledge-generation. relic and saint making can be
engaged as side-attractions.
> Wrong, I want evidence. Show me the evidence,
I pointed to mounds of it, and means of delivering it.
> I'll study it and if it's valid I'll happily
> shut the fuck up.
I don't want you to shut up. my aim isn't to silence
anyone or to have them go away. only to engage the topic.
> Wrong. It answers a number of questions that I
> have never gotten answers to.
which ones?
>|> Where is it then?
>|
>| cf. anthropology, psychology of consciousness, and
>| sociology of religion. this is where gods are in
>| fact studied, and we can learn something of them.
>| waiting for futile online debate standoffs to end
>| is the height of folly, blessed beast!
>
>Anthropology, study of ancient and neo ancient cultures.
wiki:
Anthropology (from Greek: ????????, anthropos,
"human being"; and ?????, logos,
"speech" lit. to talk about human
beings) is the study of humanity.
Anthropology has origins in the
natural sciences, the humanities,
and the social sciences.[1]
soft sciences. Tani doesn't like 'em.
>Got that one already. Lots of great mythology and stories. No gods.
you missed it. they had gods, you just
have to become a participant-observer.
>Psychology of consciousness. Hmmm, got that one too. Funny thing, no
>one has been able to report about consciousness after the subject has
>died.
right, so study gods while the people are alive.
> Guess you can leave that one out as well for
> not only objective evidence of gods,
I don't follow. it has exploration of mysticism, which is said
to be the direct experience of gods. ignore it if you like.
> but of the after life too.
agreed. that's a fantasy. we're finite animals and whatever
gods we encounter on the inner planes will be accessible
only during our lives as humans. it's now or never!
>There is no "sociology of religion" ....
>...neither of those provides objective evidence of a god either.
>Now, about that objective evidence, got any?
what you looking for and how can i provide it to you?
I cannot make all the children's hospitals close down.
got any other good hypotheses? :)
>You claim the gods
not really, i'm facilitating an argument that you and
the dimwitted invaders who were other theists were
floating very badly about the necessity of faith.
so far i only claimed that i've known many deities
but through the medium of a human being. if you
can get in there and test then you may be able to
detect it like with some kind of instrument if you
really need to, like for feelings or thoughts or
experiences.
do you have objective evidence for any of these
(feelings, thoughts, or experiences)? what is it?
> ...Lots of stories, some of them even pretty
> good ones, but no gods.
possessory? you haven't observed possessions?
benighted ones! blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: compassionate Satan-servant since 9666
The Gospel of Satan exists! it's real! see http://www.gospel-of-satan.com/
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: http://ec.princeton.edu/ 1-800-584-9911
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Hash: SHA1
You have run and moved the goal posts enough already in this thread for
three fundies.
Take it else where to people that give a good crap about it. You got
nothing.
Children around the world still suffer and die at the beginning of their
lives and no gods lift a fucking finger to help. You are not
facilitating both sides of an argument or debate, you are acting the
part of the prat.
When you can present actual evidence, which you still do not understand,
then you'll have something to say.
Till then, bite me.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHl0Nmf+wl0F6+jvgRAt+mAJ9RzIOSdEaJCENI9qkAwldiczCOqgCfTPrb
UuyxXxkxPro8Fc1FAeMPi8g=
=/n6Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
marques de sade
<ktay...@getnet.net> wrote:
>Children around the world still suffer and die at the beginning of their
>lives and no gods lift a fucking finger to help. You are not
>facilitating both sides of an argument or debate, you are acting the
>part of the prat.
>
>When you can present actual evidence, which you still do not understand,
>then you'll have something to say.
understand that maybe god has a reason why s/he doesn't want to
close childrens' hospitals, and then you'll have something to say.
no human can tell god what to do... well, maybe the pope...
there's always a disclaimer in every religion if you read the fine
print which lets the god in question do damn near anything,
anytime, for whatever reason, no need for an explanation...
>
>Till then, bite me.
you're missing the main point that believers DO NOT WANT evidence,
for that would negate the very FAITH that they would be testing...
octinomos
ps: the fact katrina flooded new orleans was enough evidence for
many that god hates gays, jazz musicians and college students...
--
``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Hash: SHA1
marques de sade wrote:
| On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:38:46 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
| <ktay...@getnet.net> wrote:
|
|> Children around the world still suffer and die at the beginning of their
|> lives and no gods lift a fucking finger to help. You are not
|> facilitating both sides of an argument or debate, you are acting the
|> part of the prat.
|>
|> When you can present actual evidence, which you still do not understand,
|> then you'll have something to say.
|
| understand that maybe god has a reason why s/he doesn't want to
| close childrens' hospitals, and then you'll have something to say.
| no human can tell god what to do... well, maybe the pope...
|
You mean a reason other then being a sadistic cold hearted bastard?
|
| there's always a disclaimer in every religion if you read the fine
| print which lets the god in question do damn near anything,
| anytime, for whatever reason, no need for an explanation...
|
Oh, kind of like that hidden clause when I got married. The one about
my always being wrong and about a smart as a box of rocks.
|
|> Till then, bite me.
|
| you're missing the main point that believers DO NOT WANT evidence,
| for that would negate the very FAITH that they would be testing...
|
No, I got that point. Their house of cards is so flimsy now, that
anything that would remotely remove the faith aspect is simply not allowed.
|
| octinomos
|
| ps: the fact katrina flooded new orleans was enough evidence for
| many that god hates gays, jazz musicians and college students...
|
Well damn, I guess San Francisco is just to pretty to destroy then. :-D
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHmMMef+wl0F6+jvgRAiG1AJ4p8u2d5BnPwmXEeE6HwxByzoQkYACfR4kU
2auW8oI9dI7q5yEgq85esmw=
=KhZA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Hash: SHA1
Richard Anacker wrote:
| Rev. Karl E. Taylor , 01.24.2008:
|
|> marques de sade wrote:
|> | ps: the fact katrina flooded new orleans was enough evidence for
|> | many that god hates gays, jazz musicians and college students...
|> |
|> Well damn, I guess San Francisco is just to pretty to destroy then. :-D
|
| And LA, NY, $[TOWN]
|
| What again was the message of this xian bunch? God loves or god hates
| you - I allways get mixed up when I read this fundi-crap.
|
|
| greets
| richie
|
| X'Posted to: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.atheism,alt.religion.orisha,alt.satanism
|
Love the sin, hate the sinner.
Oh, wait.
Sin for love, love the sinner.
Nope, that's not it either.
Love is sin, love each other.
Damn, I know it, it's right here, see :-P
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHmMpKf+wl0F6+jvgRAqGVAJ932ImzfIZVeHHaA+/ufHKiiic2rwCdHxXT
e6AW79w/s5yr8Y+kO0RoJWA=
=O5By
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
marques de sade
<ktay...@getnet.net> wrote:
>| you're missing the main point that believers DO NOT WANT evidence,
>| for that would negate the very FAITH that they would be testing...
>|
>No, I got that point. Their house of cards is so flimsy now, that
>anything that would remotely remove the faith aspect is simply not allowed.
it's no more flimsy than it's ever been. it's built on
flimsiness... if it made sense, no one would join. god does not
need to make sense. the more we recognize our smallness compared
to god, the better we'll be, in their mind... man is not supposed
to understand and make sense of the infinite mind of god
octinomos
gud...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:38:46 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
>
> >Children around the world still suffer and die at the beginning of their
> >lives and no gods lift a fucking finger to help. You are not
> >facilitating both sides of an argument or debate, you are acting the
> >part of the prat.
>
> >When you can present actual evidence, which you still do not understand,
> >then you'll have something to say.
>
> understand that maybe god has a reason why s/he doesn't want to
> close childrens' hospitals, and then you'll have something to say.
> no human can tell god what to do... well, maybe the pope...
>
> there's always a disclaimer in every religion if you read the fine
> print which lets the god in question do damn near anything,
> anytime, for whatever reason, no need for an explanation...
>
>
>
> >Till then, bite me.
>
> you're missing the main point that believers DO NOT WANT evidence,
> for that would negate the very FAITH that they would be testing...
No, that is the point.
>
> octinomos
>
> ps: the fact katrina flooded new orleans was enough evidence for
> many that god hates gays, jazz musicians and college students...
>demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight
Demonstrating that many people have no idea what evidence is.
Kate
sade) wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:38:46 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
><ktay...@getnet.net> wrote:
>
>>Children around the world still suffer and die at the beginning of their
>>lives and no gods lift a fucking finger to help. You are not
>>facilitating both sides of an argument or debate, you are acting the
>>part of the prat.
>>
>>When you can present actual evidence, which you still do not understand,
>>then you'll have something to say.
>
>understand that maybe god has a reason why s/he doesn't want to
>close childrens' hospitals, and then you'll have something to say.
>no human can tell god what to do... well, maybe the pope...
>
>there's always a disclaimer in every religion if you read the fine
>print which lets the god in question do damn near anything,
>anytime, for whatever reason, no need for an explanation...
>
>>
>>Till then, bite me.
>
>you're missing the main point that believers DO NOT WANT evidence,
>for that would negate the very FAITH that they would be testing...
>
>octinomos
>
>ps: the fact katrina flooded new orleans was enough evidence for
>many that god hates gays, jazz musicians and college students...
And here I thought he hated poor people who live in a bowl surrounded
by a leaky wall.
marques de sade
<ktay...@getnet.net> wrote:
>| ps: the fact katrina flooded new orleans was enough evidence for
>| many that god hates gays, jazz musicians and college students...
>|
>Well damn, I guess San Francisco is just to pretty to destroy then. :-D
they've been hit before already with an earthquake...
he makes an example out of one city at a time, and hopes everyone
else gets the message...
marques de sade
<1...@taunus-biker.de> wrote:
>Rev. Karl E. Taylor , 01.24.2008:
>
>> marques de sade wrote:
>>| ps: the fact katrina flooded new orleans was enough evidence for
>>| many that god hates gays, jazz musicians and college students...
>>|
>> Well damn, I guess San Francisco is just to pretty to destroy then. :-D
>
>And LA, NY, $[TOWN]
>
>What again was the message of this xian bunch? God loves or god hates
>you - I allways get mixed up when I read this fundi-crap.
the message is 'gay marriage destroys the concept of traditional
marriage rendering it meaningless'
and once you render that meaningless, the entire concept of
patriarchy falls one precept after another like dominoes...
so gays must be attacked at each turn and never be allowed to
marry or else there goes the entire world, the entire system,
everything... it will be armageddon time, baby...
something of that sort is what i expect one of these nutters to
believe...
>
>
>greets
>richie
>
>X'Posted to: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.atheism,alt.religion.orisha,alt.satanism
>--
>Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
>Metallica - Nothing Else Matters(S&M)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erPnyi90cIc
>und eine WAHNSINNS-Tanz-Version:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeFDIwxCq5g
>und Gregorianisch:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7csvgL-G3E&feature=related
655321
jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
> the message is 'gay marriage destroys the concept of traditional
> marriage rendering it meaningless'
Then the "message" is illogical and based on lies.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
marques de sade
s/he's equal opportunity hater...
marques de sade
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>In article <479a4222...@news.sysmatrix.net>,
> jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>> the message is 'gay marriage destroys the concept of traditional
>> marriage rendering it meaningless'
>
>Then the "message" is illogical and based on lies.
preaching to the choir...
>
>--
>655321
>"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
boboroshi of TOKUS
> When you can present actual evidence,
so...
what would that look like? examples?
any that'd fit on IRC?
thanks, blessed beast!
dh
>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net> writes:
>>Shutting down children's hospitals is not scientific?
>
>it doesn't allow you to rule out many things quickly.
>
>> objective evidence of a god, any god, I don't care
>> which god, you pick it.
>
>Chango. google him.
>
>bobo:
>>|> | I am correct that theists and anti-theists are locked in
>>|> | endless meaningless squabbles about that which NEITHER
>>|> | really understands because they have not applied
>>|> | themselves?
>>|
>>|> You are wrong.
>>|
>>| where is the evidence of this?
>
>where is the evidence of this?
>
>>| engaging them in semantic games. meanwhile bunches of folx
>>| are finding gods and interacting with them, as they see it.
>>
>>You've not shown that yo do.
>
>people are studying their experiences.
>there's obvious evidence.
>
>>In fact, you seem to have a big problem
>>with the very simple concept of objective evidence.
>
>reams and reams. check it out. it's fantastic.
Care to present any example(s) which you happen
to like?
marques de sade
> Care to present any example(s) which you happen
>to like?
According to the science of paleoanthropology, the first life
forms on earth were unicellular and existed about 4 billion years
ago. They originated by combinations of basic chemical matter
called ribonucleic acid (RNA). This was discovered by a group of
biologists led by Dr. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University. The
components that make up RNA are called nucleotides, which
themselves are composed of simple primitive elements, the
primordial soup, consisting of three basic elements - base,
ribose, and phosphate.
http://www.ibcdc.org/essays/meas01.htm
dh
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:32:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> Care to present any example(s) which you happen
>>to like?
>
>According to the science of paleoanthropology, the first life
>forms on earth were unicellular and existed about 4 billion years
>ago. They originated by combinations of basic chemical matter
>called ribonucleic acid (RNA). This was discovered by a group of
>biologists led by Dr. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University. The
>components that make up RNA are called nucleotides, which
>themselves are composed of simple primitive elements, the
>primordial soup, consisting of three basic elements - base,
>ribose, and phosphate.
>
>http://www.ibcdc.org/essays/meas01.htm
It makes the most sense that if there is a creator, he
began life on earth with unicellular organisms. It also
makes sense that he made use of the evolutionary
method of developing different types of oranisms. It
not only makes sense but there's evidence of it as well.
marques de sade
you're not understanding that this is the origin of life... a
creator doesn't exist yet... if a creator existed, then we would
need to know what is the origin of that, and so on...
dh
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:39:22 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:46:10 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:32:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Care to present any example(s) which you happen
>>>>to like?
>>>
>>>According to the science of paleoanthropology, the first life
>>>forms on earth were unicellular and existed about 4 billion years
>>>ago. They originated by combinations of basic chemical matter
>>>called ribonucleic acid (RNA). This was discovered by a group of
>>>biologists led by Dr. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University. The
>>>components that make up RNA are called nucleotides, which
>>>themselves are composed of simple primitive elements, the
>>>primordial soup, consisting of three basic elements - base,
>>>ribose, and phosphate.
>>>
>>>http://www.ibcdc.org/essays/meas01.htm
>>
>> It makes the most sense that if there is a creator, he
>>began life on earth with unicellular organisms. It also
>>makes sense that he made use of the evolutionary
>>method of developing different types of oranisms. It
>>not only makes sense but there's evidence of it as well.
>
>you're not understanding that this is the origin of life...
Of life ON Earth.
>a
>creator doesn't exist yet... if a creator existed, then we would
>need to know what is the origin of that, and so on...
Not necessarily, but if there is one my guess would
be he existed before the big bang, and may have
been through a number of different cycles. It could
be like a seasonal thing for him. He might have more
than one going on at a time too.
Whether a God exists or not we still have the
same problem of where everything we know
about came from, so it's the same either way in
that respect. Saying that a God created it all
does no better or worse in regards to how matter
came into existence.
DanielSan
There is nothing "before" the Big Bang. "Before" is a concept of time.
The concept of "before" is absurd at the beginning of time. If there
were a "before", then that would be PART of time.
> and may have
> been through a number of different cycles. It could
> be like a seasonal thing for him. He might have more
> than one going on at a time too.
"Guess", "may", "could", "might"
>
> Whether a God exists or not we still have the
> same problem of where everything we know
> about came from, so it's the same either way in
> that respect. Saying that a God created it all
> does no better or worse in regards to how matter
> came into existence.
Except it does do "worse" because it shuts down the exploratory process.
If you find your keys after searching for them, do you continue to
look for them? If you have a conclusion ("God did it"), why continue to
look?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:34:50 -0800, DanielSan wrote:
>
>>> Whether a God exists or not we still have the
>>> same problem of where everything we know
>>> about came from, so it's the same either way in
>>> that respect. Saying that a God created it all
>>> does no better or worse in regards to how matter
>>> came into existence.
>>
>> Except it does do "worse" because it shuts down the exploratory process.
>> If you find your keys after searching for them, do you continue to
>> look for them? If you have a conclusion ("God did it"), why continue to
>> look?
>
>That's easy. As an allegory, I'll use computer programming with the "top
>down" method. You take the biggest possible chunk, the simplest
>description, and indeed all "C" programs start with "main". It doesn't
>usually do much but describe what is wanted out of the stuff you haven't
>written yet.
>
>Then, you write top level descriptions -- open file, do something, close
>file. That's still pretty easy.
>
>Then you take each of these and code some particulars.
>
>At some level, you don't even bother because someone else has done the
>really hard work and has stored it in a library.
>
>So, starting out with "God did it" is not much different than "Big Boom".
Yet another pig-ignorant coprocephalic who doesn't know the difference
between his own unjustified presumption, and a conclusion from
investigation and evidence.
marques de sade
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:25:42 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:39:22 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:46:10 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:32:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Care to present any example(s) which you happen
>>>>>to like?
>>>>
>>>>According to the science of paleoanthropology, the first life
>>>>forms on earth were unicellular and existed about 4 billion years
>>>>ago. They originated by combinations of basic chemical matter
>>>>called ribonucleic acid (RNA). This was discovered by a group of
>>>>biologists led by Dr. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University. The
>>>>components that make up RNA are called nucleotides, which
>>>>themselves are composed of simple primitive elements, the
>>>>primordial soup, consisting of three basic elements - base,
>>>>ribose, and phosphate.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.ibcdc.org/essays/meas01.htm
>>>
>>> It makes the most sense that if there is a creator, he
>>>began life on earth with unicellular organisms. It also
>>>makes sense that he made use of the evolutionary
>>>method of developing different types of oranisms. It
>>>not only makes sense but there's evidence of it as well.
>>
>>you're not understanding that this is the origin of life...
>
> Of life ON Earth.
that's misinterpreting me. i mean ALL life, ANYWHERE...
>
>>a
>>creator doesn't exist yet... if a creator existed, then we would
>>need to know what is the origin of that, and so on...
>
> Not necessarily, but if there is one my guess would
>be he existed before the big bang, and may have
>been through a number of different cycles. It could
>be like a seasonal thing for him. He might have more
>than one going on at a time too.
>
> Whether a God exists or not we still have the
>same problem of where everything we know
>about came from, so it's the same either way in
>that respect. Saying that a God created it all
>does no better or worse in regards to how matter
>came into existence.
dh
I don't believe that time actually exists. It's a concept thought
up by humans, so it existed/didn't exist just as much before the
big bang, and any previous cycles or whatever just as much is
it doesn't exist now, meaning that what you mention has absolutely
nothing to do with it.
>> and may have
>> been through a number of different cycles. It could
>> be like a seasonal thing for him. He might have more
>> than one going on at a time too.
>
>"Guess", "may", "could", "might"
I consider might not as well. That's just not ALL I consider.
>> Whether a God exists or not we still have the
>> same problem of where everything we know
>> about came from, so it's the same either way in
>> that respect. Saying that a God created it all
>> does no better or worse in regards to how matter
>> came into existence.
>
>Except it does do "worse" because it shuts down the exploratory process.
In contrast to that, what it does is exands them to the point
of being nearly boundless.
> If you find your keys after searching for them, do you continue to
>look for them? If you have a conclusion ("God did it"), why continue to
>look?
I don't have a conclusion, and if I did I might still discuss
it in ngs. Don't you?
dh
What you referred to is how life began ON EARTH,
which had nothing to do with you.
>i mean ALL life, ANYWHERE...
Life could have begun way before the big bang.
Why do you go into some detail about how life began
on Earth, and then pretend it had some huge influence
on the beginning of life ANYWHERE, do you know?
marques de sade
>>i mean ALL life, ANYWHERE...
>
> Life could have begun way before the big bang.
>Why do you go into some detail about how life began
>on Earth, and then pretend it had some huge influence
>on the beginning of life ANYWHERE, do you know?
i don't look at it as 'life' vs 'not alive' ... i look at it in
terms of 'physical manifestation' vs 'the void'... in 'the void'
there's no room for creator or anything else... everything in the
physical universe is alive to me... to become materialized is to
get Life. to become more than a mere idea. to develop.... to not
exist, that is death. if a chair is just an idea i have to build
but i don't build it, that chair is dead... when i make the chair,
i put the pieces of wood together with glue and nails and sand it
and finish it, then the chair has become alive...
>
>>>>a
>>>>creator doesn't exist yet... if a creator existed, then we would
>>>>need to know what is the origin of that, and so on...
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, but if there is one my guess would
>>>be he existed before the big bang, and may have
>>>been through a number of different cycles. It could
>>>be like a seasonal thing for him. He might have more
>>>than one going on at a time too.
>>>
>>> Whether a God exists or not we still have the
>>>same problem of where everything we know
>>>about came from, so it's the same either way in
>>>that respect. Saying that a God created it all
>>>does no better or worse in regards to how matter
>>>came into existence.
dh
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:34:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>>i mean ALL life, ANYWHERE...
>>
>> Life could have begun way before the big bang.
>>Why do you go into some detail about how life began
>>on Earth, and then pretend it had some huge influence
>>on the beginning of life ANYWHERE, do you know?
>
>i don't look at it as 'life' vs 'not alive' ...
There are some grey areas, but in most cases people
find the distinction between the two to be both easy to
understand and very significant.
>i look at it in
>terms of 'physical manifestation' vs 'the void'... in 'the void'
>there's no room for creator or anything else... everything in the
>physical universe is alive to me...
Then you're screwed from the start, and there's no
telling what other junk you could make up. You should
really try to get a good feel for the distinction between
alive and not, to begin with.
>to become materialized is to get Life.
Not for rocks, etc.
>to become more than a mere idea. to develop.... to not
>exist, that is death. if a chair is just an idea i have to build
>but i don't build it, that chair is dead... when i make the chair,
>i put the pieces of wood together with glue and nails and sand it
>and finish it, then the chair has become alive...
No. In some ways I wonder if I have enough respect for
life itself, then I see you who appear to have none at all.
marques de sade
> No. In some ways I wonder if I have enough respect for
>life itself, then I see you who appear to have none at all.
like i said, the whole material world is alive to me... i don't
think like you do...
Dubh Ghall
TOKUS) wrote:
>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net>:
>> When you can present actual evidence,
>> which you still do not understand....
>
>so...
>
>what would that look like?
No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
>examples?
What convinced you?
Dubh Ghall
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:46:10 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:32:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> Care to present any example(s) which you happen
>>>to like?
>>
>>According to the science of paleoanthropology, the first life
>>forms on earth were unicellular and existed about 4 billion years
>>ago. They originated by combinations of basic chemical matter
>>called ribonucleic acid (RNA). This was discovered by a group of
>>biologists led by Dr. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University. The
>>components that make up RNA are called nucleotides, which
>>themselves are composed of simple primitive elements, the
>>primordial soup, consisting of three basic elements - base,
>>ribose, and phosphate.
>>
>>http://www.ibcdc.org/essays/meas01.htm
>
> It makes the most sense that if there is a creator, he
>began life on earth with unicellular organisms.
Unfortunately, that leaves you with the problem of explaining where
your creator came from
>It also
>makes sense that he made use of the evolutionary
>method of developing different types of oranisms. It
>not only makes sense but there's evidence of it as well.
Show us.
Dubh Ghall
>
> What you referred to is how life began ON EARTH,
>which had nothing to do with you.
Not necessarily.
The first life appeared somewhere.
Where is unimportant.
However, if life on earth had a creator, then clearly that *first*
life, did not happen on Earth.
But where ever it happened, you still have the question of HOW it
started.
If life needs a creator; where did the creator come from?
Could it be that the creator is NOT alive?
>
>>i mean ALL life, ANYWHERE...
>
> Life could have begun way before the big bang.
There is no " *before* the big bang".
boboroshi of TOKUS
> bobo:
>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net>:
>>> When you can present actual evidence....
objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
>> what would that look like?
>
> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
no, gods don't have objective existence that
i can confirm and i've looked pretty thoroughly.
their existence is in a subjective dimension.
most theists don't understand this because
they aren't scientifically-minded.
>> examples?
>
> What convinced you?
subjective experience in interaction with
my God in which She pointed out information
that i had not had myself. this confirmed,
to my mind, that gods exist on some level
internally at a remove from consciousness,
even as a subset of overall consciousness.
I don't expect that this will serve the
average atheist, who demands "objective
evidence" and never specifies what they
would think convincing (the old Atheist
Cup and Balls Game).
got any good data for me? I assume not,
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: compassionate Satan-servant since 9666
boboroshi of TOKUS
>There is no " *before* the big bang".
how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
bobo
Christopher A. Lee
TOKUS) wrote:
>Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>> bobo:
>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net>:
>
>>>> When you can present actual evidence....
>
>objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
>
>>> what would that look like?
>>
>> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
>
>no, gods don't have objective existence that
>i can confirm and i've looked pretty thoroughly.
>their existence is in a subjective dimension.
>most theists don't understand this because
>they aren't scientifically-minded.
Then shut the fuck up about them, and you won't get told to prove it.
>>> examples?
>>
>> What convinced you?
>
>subjective experience in interaction with
>my God in which She pointed out information
>that i had not had myself. this confirmed,
>to my mind, that gods exist on some level
>internally at a remove from consciousness,
>even as a subset of overall consciousness.
Prove it.
>I don't expect that this will serve the
>average atheist, who demands "objective
>evidence" and never specifies what they
>would think convincing (the old Atheist
>Cup and Balls Game).
Stop lying, liar.
You know perfectly well that if believers had the common sense and
courtesy to keep it inside their religion, they wouldn't get told to
put up or shut up.
>got any good data for me? I assume not,
Not our problem, moron.
You see, "prove it didn't" is hardly a satisfactory answer to "put up
or shut up" after they begged the question in the real world beyond
their religion.
Why are so many in-your-face theists so dishonest?
boboroshi of TOKUS
>>>>> When you can present actual evidence....
bobo:
>>objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
bobo:
>>>> what would that look like?
Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>>> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
bobo:
>>no, gods don't have objective existence that
>>i can confirm and i've looked pretty thoroughly.
>>their existence is in a subjective dimension.
>>most theists don't understand this because
>>they aren't scientifically-minded.
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>:
> Then shut the fuck up about them, and you
> won't get told to prove it.
I have already pointed to objective evidence about
the periphery of gods, or the god phenomenon. this
is the logical place to look for data about gods.
otherwise if you want data you'll have to examine
soft sciences examining the subjective dimension.
why won't you do that?
>>> What convinced you?
>>
>>subjective experience in interaction with
>>my God in which She pointed out information
>>that i had not had myself. this confirmed,
>>to my mind, that gods exist on some level
>>internally at a remove from consciousness,
>>even as a subset of overall consciousness.
>
>Prove it.
no, i have already pointed out the data. I will not
now hold your hand and walk you down to the "gods 101"
classroom so that you can have your come-uppance.
you're going to have to either figure out that your
demands are misplaced, or realize that your knowledge
is incomplete and flawed by your biases.
your abuse in response is unfortunately indicative
of your lack of knowledge and incapacity for
rational discussion.
>>I don't expect that this will serve the
>>average atheist, who demands "objective
>>evidence" and never specifies what they
>>would think convincing (the old Atheist
>>Cup and Balls Game).
>...if believers had the common sense and courtesy to
> keep it inside their religion, they wouldn't get
> told to put up or shut up.
indeed so. my activities don't require belief in anything.
> ..."put up or shut up" after they begged the question
> in the real world beyond their religion.
study up! no idea to what you refer. soft sciences are
NOT interior to any religion, blessed beast!
Christopher A. Lee
TOKUS) wrote:
>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net>:
>>>>>> When you can present actual evidence....
>
>bobo:
>>>objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
>
>bobo:
>>>>> what would that look like?
>
>Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>>>> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
>
>bobo:
>>>no, gods don't have objective existence that
>>>i can confirm and i've looked pretty thoroughly.
>>>their existence is in a subjective dimension.
>>>most theists don't understand this because
>>>they aren't scientifically-minded.
>
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>:
>> Then shut the fuck up about them, and you
>> won't get told to prove it.
>
>I have already pointed to objective evidence about
>the periphery of gods, or the god phenomenon. this
>is the logical place to look for data about gods.
>otherwise if you want data you'll have to examine
>soft sciences examining the subjective dimension.
>why won't you do that?
Where, liar?
>>>> What convinced you?
>>>
>>>subjective experience in interaction with r
>>>my God in which She pointed out information
>>>that i had not had myself. this confirmed,
>>>to my mind, that gods exist on some level
>>>internally at a remove from consciousness,
>>>even as a subset of overall consciousness.
>>
>>Prove it.
>
Where, liar?
>no, i have already pointed out the data. I will not
>now hold your hand and walk you down to the "gods 101"
>classroom so that you can have your come-uppance.
What "come-uppance", liar?
>you're going to have to either figure out that your
>demands are misplaced, or realize that your knowledge
What is "misplaced" about "put up or shut up", liar?
>is incomplete and flawed by your biases.
What "biases", liar?
>your abuse in response is unfortunately indicative
>of your lack of knowledge and incapacity for
>rational discussion.
How is treating a demonstrated liar as a liar "abuse", liar?
>>>I don't expect that this will serve the
>>>average atheist, who demands "objective
>>>evidence" and never specifies what they
>>>would think convincing (the old Atheist
>>>Cup and Balls Game).
>
>>...if believers had the common sense and courtesy to
>> keep it inside their religion, they wouldn't get
>> told to put up or shut up.
>
>indeed so. my activities don't require belief in anything.
Yet you still neither put up nor shut up.
>> ..."put up or shut up" after they begged the question
>> in the real world beyond their religion.
>
>study up! no idea to what you refer. soft sciences are
>NOT interior to any religion, blessed beast!
What the fuck are you babbling about, moron?
marques de sade
of TOKUS) wrote:
i think what he means is the big-bang precedes time... so since
the concepts of before and after involve time, then contemplating
such events must occur after the big bang... or maybe he means
something else... but that's my 2 cents...
>
>bobo
boboroshi of TOKUS
>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
bobo:
>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade):
>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes time...
how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>so since the concepts of before and after involve time,
>then contemplating such events must occur after the
>big bang... ...
neither of you have been there or seen it. why do you
believe that any Big Bang ever existed? because you
infer it without having direct evidence of its having
transpired? the same is true for the observation of
the periphery of gods.
bobo
Christopher A. Lee
TOKUS) wrote:
The moron pretends he doesn't understand the difference between an
unjustified presumption and following wherever a conclusion drawm from
evidence and investigation leads.
>bobo
Dubh Ghall
TOKUS) wrote:
>Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>> bobo:
>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net>:
>
>>>> When you can present actual evidence....
>
>objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
>
>>> what would that look like?
>>
>> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
>
>no, gods don't have objective existence that
>i can confirm
Which makes them imaginary creatures, mere flights of fancy:
Why should we be impressed by such?
>and i've looked pretty thoroughly.
>their existence is in a subjective dimension.
>most theists don't understand this because
>they aren't scientifically-minded.
>
>>> examples?
>>
>> What convinced you?
>
>subjective experience in interaction with
>my God in which She pointed out information
>that i had not had myself. this confirmed,
>to my mind, that gods exist on some level
>internally at a remove from consciousness,
>even as a subset of overall consciousness.
>
So you were convinced by wishful thinking, and your fancy.
>I don't expect that this will serve the
>average atheist, who demands "objective
>evidence"
Correct
>and never specifies what they
>would think convincing
When a scientist makes a discovery/claim/whet-have-you, he does not
ask the skeptics, "What will convince you?", he says "There is the
*objective*, evidence, and how I reached it; verify it for your
selves".
>(the old Atheist
>Cup and Balls Game).
The old theist "Duck and Weave".
Still trying to shift the burden of evidence; ain't you?
Dubh Ghall
TOKUS) wrote:
>
>I have already pointed to objective evidence about
>the periphery of gods, or the god phenomenon.
Pointing to it again, would be useful, as it seems that we cannot even
agree on what "objective" means.
> this
>is the logical place to look for data about gods.
>otherwise if you want data you'll have to examine
>soft sciences
What are "soft sciences"?
>examining the subjective dimension.
>why won't you do that?
>
Subjective, is irrelevant.
snip
>
>>...if believers had the common sense and courtesy to
>> keep it inside their religion, they wouldn't get
>> told to put up or shut up.
>
>indeed so. my activities don't require belief in anything.
>
But your assertions do.
Dubh Ghall
TOKUS) wrote:
Before, in this instance, is a temporal concept.
Time began with the BB, without time, there can be no "before".
Dubh Ghall
sade) wrote:
>On 09 Feb 2008 00:21:19 GMT, satanservice.org@boboroshi (boboroshi
>of TOKUS) wrote:
>
>>Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
>>
>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>
>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes
Initiates, I would have said, but otherwise, that is pretty much it.
Dubh Ghall
TOKUS) wrote:
>jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade):
>>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes time...
>
>how did you determine this?
We didn't. It was determined, checked, cross checked. verified, and
verified again, by smarter brains, and better equipment, than either
of us posses.
All of the objective evidence, all of the mathematical evidence is
there, available to all, to check for them selves.
It does not rely on faith, or belief, or magic, or philosophy, or
subjectives, or semantics, or any of the other dishonesty that is part
and parcel of religion, it stands on it's own evidence.
>what is your evidence?
See above.
>
>>so since the concepts of before and after involve time,
>>then contemplating such events must occur after the
>>big bang... ...
>
>neither of you have been there or seen it.
Childish argument.
There are thousands of places on this planet alone, that you have
never been to, but you know that they exist, based on the evidence.
>why do you
>believe that any Big Bang ever existed? because you
>infer it without having direct evidence of its having
>transpired? the same is true for the observation of
>the periphery of gods.
I suggest that you go back to school, and see if you can finish fourth
grade, this time.
Dubh Ghall
I think he understands well enough, but he is a xtian.
marques de sade
of TOKUS) wrote:
hi there, nagasiva... I guess i have trust in the scientific
community... since their answers are arrived at via the empirical
method... i did not do the test myself which came up with the big
bang... i cannot be credited with that at all... i just trust that
the scientists knew what they were doing... i haven't even
researched it in any depth, really...
octinomos 666 333 93 78 44 13
marques de sade
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:45:26 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de
>sade) wrote:
>
>>On 09 Feb 2008 00:21:19 GMT, satanservice.org@boboroshi (boboroshi
>>of TOKUS) wrote:
>>
>>>Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
>>>
>>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>>
>>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes
>
>Initiates, I would have said, but otherwise, that is pretty much it.
thanks for the correction... i need to read more about it, so i
don't sound like a total reject when asked...
>
>> time... so since
>>the concepts of before and after involve time, then contemplating
>>such events must occur after the big bang... or maybe he means
>>something else... but that's my 2 cents...
>>
>>>
>>>bobo
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>> bobo:
>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net>:
>
>>>> When you can present actual evidence....
>
> objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
That is what he said: evidence. Not namby-pamby nonsense.
>>> what would that look like?
>>
>> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
>
> no, gods don't have objective existence that i can confirm
Good, then we can dispense with the nonsense claims that gods exist.
I'm so glad you've decided to drop the entire subject as fit only for the
credulous twits who accept such nonsense without evidence.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:03:49 +0000, boboroshi of TOKUS wrote:
> Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
>
> bobo:
>>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>
> jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade):
>>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes time...
>
> how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>
>>so since the concepts of before and after involve time, then
>>contemplating such events must occur after the big bang... ...
>
> neither of you have been there or seen it. why do you believe that any
> Big Bang ever existed? because you infer it without having direct
> evidence of its having transpired?
Here's a corpse. It has a bullet-sized hole in the front of it. The
front of its clothing is covered in GSR. The bullet - somewhat mangled -
is still in the body. Damage to the body shows the path of the bullet,
as it struck two bones and was deflected. Said damage also shows the
approximate speed of the bullet at entry, consistent with the usual
behaviour of bullets fired at close range.
So; we have a bullet. It was going about the right speed. Through an
entry hole. Which is covered in GSR. All of which is consistent with
the notion the person was shot at close range.
However, in your view, there's no direct evidence a gun was involved.
This is actually *sort of* right. It could have been a modified pipe,
rather than a Smith and Wesson. However, such a detail is irrelevant,
insofar as we're not trying to determine whether it was a Smith and
Wesson or a Colt, what we're trying to determine is whether a _gun_ was
involved - a device for firing bullets. A modified piece of pipe would
qualify. The evidence is sufficient to conclude "a gun" - whatever sort
- was, in fact, involved.
We do not need to see the shooting to determine a gun was involved, the
evidence we have is sufficient.
Now, exactly where did this crap about "neither of you have been there to
see it" come into play? Oh, right, it didn't, because it's crap.
Dispensing with the crap, what's left of the discussion? Oh, yes, the
issue of time.
How do we know there was no time before the BB? Simple: we measure time
by events within our universe, events which can be detected, measured.
This requires the ability to observe them, which in turn requires that
physics works in a manner which allows such observations to occur.
Yet the BB is a singularity; the laws we know break down as you approach
the BB. Nor is this idle speculation; much of the work involved in
approaching such conditions, though on a smaller scale, has in fact been
done. The BB is a singularity, the rules don't apply within it.
But wait... our whole concept of time *requires* consistent rules. It
*requires* predictable manners of particle or energy interaction. It
*requires* consistent interactions between those particles or energies
and the space in which they exist. If the rules don't apply, we *cannot*
measure time, we cannot even *define* time, within such an event.
Which means, in turn, we have no way of even determining if there was a
"time zero", as we simply cannot measure time that far back; the whole
concept of "time" ceases to have any meaning.
But wait... if we cannot even meaningfully say there was a time zero,
cannot meaningfully define time itself in those conditions, how can we
possibly even consider the notion of something "before" that?
We can't find the zero point, we can't define the relations between
events, yet you want to examine something which is dependent upon both a
zero point *and* meaningful relations between events in conditions where
they don't apply?
I'll make you a deal. *You* define how, exactly, we measure time inside
a singularity, *you* explain how we find that zero point, *you* define
how we measure events surrounding that zero point - and particularly,
beyond it - "before" it, as you say - and I'll explain what happened
before the BB.
Christopher A. Lee
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:03:49 +0000, boboroshi of TOKUS wrote:
>
>> Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>>>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
>>
>> bobo:
>>>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>>
>> jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade):
>>>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes time...
>>
>> how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>>
>>>so since the concepts of before and after involve time, then
>>>contemplating such events must occur after the big bang... ...
>>
>> neither of you have been there or seen it. why do you believe that any
>> Big Bang ever existed? because you infer it without having direct
>> evidence of its having transpired?
>
>Here's a corpse. It has a bullet-sized hole in the front of it. The
>front of its clothing is covered in GSR. The bullet - somewhat mangled -
>is still in the body. Damage to the body shows the path of the bullet,
>as it struck two bones and was deflected. Said damage also shows the
>approximate speed of the bullet at entry, consistent with the usual
>behaviour of bullets fired at close range.
The same methodology.
>So; we have a bullet. It was going about the right speed. Through an
>entry hole. Which is covered in GSR. All of which is consistent with
>the notion the person was shot at close range.
The confirmation.
>However, in your view, there's no direct evidence a gun was involved.
>
>This is actually *sort of* right. It could have been a modified pipe,
>rather than a Smith and Wesson. However, such a detail is irrelevant,
>insofar as we're not trying to determine whether it was a Smith and
>Wesson or a Colt, what we're trying to determine is whether a _gun_ was
>involved - a device for firing bullets. A modified piece of pipe would
>qualify. The evidence is sufficient to conclude "a gun" - whatever sort
>- was, in fact, involved.
>
>We do not need to see the shooting to determine a gun was involved, the
>evidence we have is sufficient.
>
>Now, exactly where did this crap about "neither of you have been there to
>see it" come into play? Oh, right, it didn't, because it's crap.
They think God and what it is supposed to have done, are different and
exempt from normal methods of investigation. Because they are utterly
convinced their religion is true.
"But that's different". They apply the same logic and reason to
criminal forensics and even every day events that we do. In fact
everything except what conflicts with a literal reading of scripture.
Even then it's merely some literalist denominations of it. Mainstream
believers don't have any problem treating Genesis as a just-so story.
>Dispensing with the crap, what's left of the discussion? Oh, yes, the
>issue of time.
>
>How do we know there was no time before the BB? Simple: we measure time
>by events within our universe, events which can be detected, measured.
>This requires the ability to observe them, which in turn requires that
>physics works in a manner which allows such observations to occur.
>
>Yet the BB is a singularity; the laws we know break down as you approach
>the BB. Nor is this idle speculation; much of the work involved in
>approaching such conditions, though on a smaller scale, has in fact been
>done. The BB is a singularity, the rules don't apply within it.
With the big difference that unlike religious beliefs, the big bang is
a conclusion from investigation of the observed expansion of the
universe.
A conclusion not a presumption.
Using a methodology that simply follows where investigation leads. Not
some counter-dogma to religious beliefs.
Which a lot of religionists can't grasp. Not just about big bang
cosmology but all the other scientific fields that cast doubt on their
creation myths.
>But wait... our whole concept of time *requires* consistent rules. It
>*requires* predictable manners of particle or energy interaction. It
>*requires* consistent interactions between those particles or energies
>and the space in which they exist. If the rules don't apply, we *cannot*
>measure time, we cannot even *define* time, within such an event.
>
>Which means, in turn, we have no way of even determining if there was a
>"time zero", as we simply cannot measure time that far back; the whole
>concept of "time" ceases to have any meaning.
>
>But wait... if we cannot even meaningfully say there was a time zero,
>cannot meaningfully define time itself in those conditions, how can we
>possibly even consider the notion of something "before" that?
Space time expanded from the singularity. Which wasn't "in" space
time. If it was in anything it was "in" something else, a nothing into
which space time expanded.
And as you say, time is measured inside space time not outside it.
>We can't find the zero point, we can't define the relations between
>events, yet you want to examine something which is dependent upon both a
>zero point *and* meaningful relations between events in conditions where
>they don't apply?
>
>I'll make you a deal. *You* define how, exactly, we measure time inside
>a singularity, *you* explain how we find that zero point, *you* define
>how we measure events surrounding that zero point - and particularly,
>beyond it - "before" it, as you say - and I'll explain what happened
>before the BB.
Religious creationists have gone beyond where there is any
information. Yet they claim knowledge which they can't back up.
Otherwise they would not need the "but you weren't there" dishonesty.
To avoid infinite regress they stop arbitrarily where there is no
information to tell them where to stop.
At which point they say an intelligence was required. Again without
the information to determine that.
An intelligence thy clam has existed forever. Again without the
information to determine that.
boboroshi of TOKUS
>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
bobo:
>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> writes:
>Before, in this instance, is a temporal concept.
>Time began with the BB, without time, there can be no "before".
how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
bobo
boboroshi of TOKUS
>>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
bobo:
>>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
marques de sade:
>>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes
Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>Initiates, I would have said, but otherwise, that is pretty much it.
how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
of all the faith-based loads of hooey.....
>> time... so since
>>the concepts of before and after involve time, then contemplating
>>such events must occur after the big bang... or maybe he means
>>something else... but that's my 2 cents...
there is no evidence that time (or anything else) BEGAN
as of the Big Bang. why do you believe, like some theists,
that things originated at that point? merely because we
are prevented from seeing prior to it with our telescopes?
bobo
bobo
>>>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
bobo:
>>>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade):
>>>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes time...
bobo:
>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
no answers of relevance here. how sadly typical.
>>>so since the concepts of before and after involve time,
apparently none of the atheists even know what time is.
>>>then contemplating such events must occur after the
>>>big bang... ...
>>
>>neither of you have been there or seen it. why do you
>>believe that any Big Bang ever existed?
I answer this question for you so that you can stop
squirming out of previous positions when it arrives
at similar conclusions to previous discussion (i.e.
that we can infer an event or phenomenon even though
we cannot directly observe it objectively; just like
experience, emotions, thoughts, imaginings, gods).
>>because you infer it without having direct evidence
>>of its having transpired? the same is true for the
>>observation of the periphery of gods.
at this point I expect no rational response to
this question from atheists.
jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade):
>hi there, nagasiva...
hi octonomos
>I guess i have trust in the scientific community...
cool, so do i. what do they really say about this?
>since their answers are arrived at via the empirical
>method...
which answers were these? that the universe, time,
anything at all, can be surmised to BEGIN as of the
Big Bang? I doubt this. y'all haven't got rid of
your theistic mindsets yet.
>i did not do the test myself which came up with the big
>bang...
there are good ones substantiating the event. so what?
it was inference, and there was no evidence of *any*
kind for origination.
no WONDER the atheists are busy wasting their time
asking after Creator Gods and preferring to imagine
"xtians" crawling out of holes assaulting them -- they
still believe that a Creation happened, and that
science has confirmed it!?! ridiculous post-theists.
>i cannot be credited with that at all... i just trust that
>the scientists knew what they were doing...
what did they do?
>i haven't even researched it in any depth, really...
neither have any of the other atheists in alt.theism,
apparently, or they wouldn't still be Creationists.
astounding ignorance, really.
bobo
Dubh Ghall
TOKUS) wrote:
Amazing, ain't it?
When reality becomes a little difficult to picture, the fanatical
theist immediately goes into denial mode, and to support his denial,
asks questions which he believes cannot be answered.
Questions, the answers to which, are beyond his ability understand.
Yet, at the same time, he has no problem with the idea of a universe
so complex, it MUST have had a designer, or a designer, complex enough
to design the universe, that just happened to be there.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On 11 Feb 2008 20:43:27 GMT, satanservice.org@boboroshi (boboroshi of
They're not meant to be answered. They're silver bullets.
They think they're foot soldiers for their whichever god, taking pot
shots on its behalf at those they hate on its behalf.
And they duck the return fire hiding between bullet proof mental
barriers.
>Yet, at the same time, he has no problem with the idea of a universe
>so complex, it MUST have had a designer, or a designer, complex enough
>to design the universe, that just happened to be there.
It's pathetic, really.
Dubh Ghall
TOKUS) wrote:
Are you one of those silly people who believes that the only way that
you can know something, is to do the work your self?
If that were the case, we would still be living in caves.
Dubh Ghall
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>asks questions which he believes cannot be answered.
>>Questions, the answers to which, are beyond his ability understand.
>
>They're not meant to be answered. They're silver bullets.
>
>They think they're foot soldiers for their whichever god, taking pot
>shots on its behalf at those they hate on its behalf.
>
>And they duck the return fire hiding between bullet proof mental
>barriers.
>
>>Yet, at the same time, he has no problem with the idea of a universe
>>so complex, it MUST have had a designer, or a designer, complex enough
>>to design the universe, that just happened to be there.
>
>It's pathetic, really.
...Yet I have to feel sorry for them.
marques de sade
of TOKUS) wrote:
[snip <-- probably ignorant of me to snip, but whatever]
>there is no evidence that time (or anything else) BEGAN
>as of the Big Bang. why do you believe, like some theists,
>that things originated at that point? merely because we
>are prevented from seeing prior to it with our telescopes?
>
>bobo
I just thought that it was a proven scientific theory. if it's
not, then i need to research it more... sorry for being
ignorant... you're right that science can have dogma sometimes,
maybe without realizing it... i'm sure scientists try to do the
right thing, but being human, they have failings...
93
octinomos
Mike Painter
> On 11 Feb 2008 20:43:27 GMT, satanservice.org@boboroshi (boboroshi
> of TOKUS) wrote:
>
> [snip <-- probably ignorant of me to snip, but whatever]
>
>> there is no evidence that time (or anything else) BEGAN
>> as of the Big Bang. why do you believe, like some theists,
>> that things originated at that point? merely because we
>> are prevented from seeing prior to it with our telescopes?
>>
>> bobo
>
> I just thought that it was a proven scientific theory. if it's
> not, then i need to research it more... sorry for being
> ignorant... you're right that science can have dogma sometimes,
> maybe without realizing it... i'm sure scientists try to do the
> right thing, but being human, they have failings...
>
Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation we have for
something.
marques de sade
and you put your faith in that?
octinomos
--
"A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting 'Kill the Jew.' Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as 'If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house' and referring to Jews as 'diamond merchants.'"
Dubh Ghall
sade) wrote:
>>Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>>The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation we have for
>>something.
>
>and you put your faith in that?
There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
marques de sade
wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de
inference is evidence?
gud...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de
> >sade) wrote:
>
> >>>Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
> >>>The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation we have for
> >>>something.
>
> >>and you put your faith in that?
>
> >There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>
> inference is evidence?
> octinomos
No, evidence is evidence. Why do you keep playing these word games?
Do you think it makes you clever?
dh
>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:51:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> No. In some ways I wonder if I have enough respect for
>>life itself, then I see you who appear to have none at all.
>
>like i said, the whole material world is alive to me... i don't
>think like you do...
No. There's no reason to feel rocks are alive, though
the microbes and vegetation on them are. The same
with dirt, etc. And to feel the whole universe is alive
and somehow connected, while at the same time
being convinced that some sort of intelligent and
deliberate type of creation is impossible, is absurd.
dh
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:34:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>
>> What you referred to is how life began ON EARTH,
>>which had nothing to do with you.
>
>Not necessarily.
The beginning of life on Earth necessarily had nothing
to do with you.
>The first life appeared somewhere.
>Where is unimportant.
There's no way you could know that.
>However, if life on earth had a creator, then clearly that *first*
>life, did not happen on Earth.
Well, at least you got that part right.
>But where ever it happened, you still have the question of HOW it
>started.
>
>If life needs a creator;
It's a matter of whether or not there was one involved
with life on Earth, regardless of whether or not life could
somehow begin without one even if one was involved.
>where did the creator come from?
Start by figuring out where matter came from, imo.
>Could it be that the creator is NOT alive?
Not and still be a true creator. If there isn't one, then there
just isn't.
>>>i mean ALL life, ANYWHERE...
>>
>> Life could have begun way before the big bang.
>
>There is no " *before* the big bang".
Obviously there was or it could not have occurred.
Christopher A. Lee
>On 13 Feb., 06:19, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de
>> >sade) wrote:
>>
>> >>>Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>> >>>The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation we have for
>> >>>something.
>>
>> >>and you put your faith in that?
>>
>> >There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>>
>> inference is evidence?
>> octinomos
>
>No, evidence is evidence. Why do you keep playing these word games?
Because he's dishonest?
>Do you think it makes you clever?
He's a sociopath. He knows what he's doing but thinks it should fool
everybody else.
marques de sade
a lot of stuff creationists believe is absurd, like the Adam and
Eve story...
octinomos
marques de sade
>On 13 Feb., 06:19, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de
>> >sade) wrote:
>>
>> >>>Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>> >>>The essence of a theory =A0is that it is the best explanation we have f=
>or
>> >>>something.
>>
>> >>and you put your faith in that?
>>
>> >There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>>
>> inference is evidence?
>> octinomos
>
>No, evidence is evidence. Why do you keep playing these word games?
>Do you think it makes you clever?
but no one was present at the big bang... we can only infer it
from observation of current events...
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenb=
>aum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting 'Kill the Jew.' Sha=
>rpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks =
>such as 'If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes bac=
>k and come over to my house' and referring to Jews as 'diamond merchants.'"
>
octinomos
marques de sade
so you observed the big bang yourself, did you?
octinomos
Dubh Ghall
sade) wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de
>>sade) wrote:
>>
>>>>Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>>>>The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation we have for
>>>>something.
>>>
>>>and you put your faith in that?
>>
>>There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>
>inference is evidence?
More childish, dishonest, word games.
Dubh Ghall
sade) wrote:
>>He's a sociopath. He knows what he's doing but thinks it should fool
>>everybody else.
>
>so you observed the big bang yourself, did you?
More childish stupidity
When I come across a tree stump, that the logger has left, I do not
need to have observed the lumberjack, at his work, to know that a tree
was there, that it was cut down, and taken away.
Nor is direct observation necessary to know what tools were used, and
which direction the tree fell.
In fact, from a study of what remains, I can tell you a great deal
about both the tree, and the person/people who cut it down.
...And that would probably be considerably less evidence than there is
for the singularity event.
Dubh Ghall
>On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:30:23 GMT, Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:34:19 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What you referred to is how life began ON EARTH,
>>>which had nothing to do with you.
>>
>>Not necessarily.
>
> The beginning of life on Earth necessarily had nothing
>to do with you.
I never said that it did.
You really must get over that habit of only seeing what you want to
see.
>
>>The first life appeared somewhere.
>>Where is unimportant.
>
> There's no way you could know that.
There is life now, therefore, there must have been "first" life.
It is here, now, but where it originated, is of no consequence, as far
as this discussion is concerned.
Now why do I have no way of knowing that?
>
>>However, if life on earth had a creator, then clearly that *first*
>>life, did not happen on Earth.
>
> Well, at least you got that part right.
>
>>But where ever it happened, you still have the question of HOW it
>>started.
>>
>>If life needs a creator;
>
> It's a matter of whether or not there was one involved
>with life on Earth, regardless of whether or not life could
>somehow begin without one even if one was involved.
No. It is a matter of whether or not, a creator is necessary.
If life can occur without a "creator", then a "creator" is irrelevant.
In fact, it would be more reasonable to assume that the world was
seeded with life from some other source, than to believe that it was
created.
>
>>where did the creator come from?
>
> Start by figuring out where matter came from, imo.
No. The creationist claim is that the "creator", made the matter:
So where did the creator come from?
>
>>Could it be that the creator is NOT alive?
>
> Not and still be a true creator. If there isn't one, then there
>just isn't.
>
>>>>i mean ALL life, ANYWHERE...
>>>
>>> Life could have begun way before the big bang.
>>
>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
>
> Obviously there was or it could not have occurred.
Please explain.
boboroshi of TOKUS
>... evidence is evidence.
problem: it is always consensually-determined.
therefore your conention is meaningless except
for an inference to help you out.
>Why do you keep playing these word games?
they aren't always word games, i'm guessing. they
proceed from different perspectives than you
are accomodating. some people are broader-minded
or have different worldviews. if you don't allow
for that, then you might think someone is playing
games. that's your limitation.
>Do you think it makes you clever?
no more than do snappy and rude public assessments,
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: compassionate Satan-servant since 9666
The Gospel of Satan exists! it's real! see http://www.gospel-of-satan.com/
"Ninth Scholar"'s Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: http://ec.princeton.edu/ 1-800-584-9911
boboroshi of TOKUS
dh@. wrote:
>>> No. In some ways I wonder if I have enough respect for
>>>life itself, then I see you who appear to have none at all.
then the issue becomes where "life" begins and ends.
jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>like i said, the whole material world is alive to me...
please explain why things that don't seem to move seem
alive to you. I am aware of "shamanic consciousness"
and a variety of other perspectives whereby this is
true for the perceiver. I'm curious about your answers.
dh@.:
> No. There's no reason to feel rocks are alive,
in your reasoning mind. for others there is.
how people see the cosmos is their lookout.
note that the terminology here is "feel",
which conveys to me not a rational but
a more somatic basis to perception.
>though the microbes and vegetation on them are. The same
>with dirt, etc. And to feel the whole universe is alive
>and somehow connected, while at the same time
>being convinced that some sort of intelligent and
>deliberate type of creation is impossible, is absurd.
I don't register the absurdity, but i'm unsure how
people can arrive at rational conclusions as to
what is "impossible" except that it is what i'd
call 'inconceivable' (e.g. square circles),
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: compassionate Satan-servant since 9666
The Gospel of Satan exists! it's real! see http://www.gospel-of-satan.com/
"Ninth Scholar"'s Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Feel free to send my words in this thread *anywhere* with attribution :)
BIll M
<dh@.> wrote in message news:9906r310tjhi0bgnd...@4ax.com...
Just take a look at the extremely active Universe and you will see that it
is alive.
a·live ( .-lşv") adj. 1. Having life; living. See note at living . 2. In
existence or operation; active:
keep your hopes alive. 3. Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool
alive with trout.
4. Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.
Beleaving that some sort of creator is necessary to create and run this
complex Universe is
pure specualtion.
There is NO objective verifiable evidence of ANY Gods. How the Universe came
to be we just do not know.
Inventing or imaginaing reasons is not evidence. Its pure imaginationa and
unsupported 'opinion' .
marques de sade
of TOKUS) wrote:
>hi there!
93...
>
>dh@. wrote:
>>>> No. In some ways I wonder if I have enough respect for
>>>>life itself, then I see you who appear to have none at all.
>
>then the issue becomes where "life" begins and ends.
>
>
>jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>like i said, the whole material world is alive to me...
>
>please explain why things that don't seem to move seem
>alive to you. I am aware of "shamanic consciousness"
>and a variety of other perspectives whereby this is
>true for the perceiver. I'm curious about your answers.
i'm thinking from a 'tree of life/qabalah' perspective... you
have the whole tree, right? starting at zero, all the way down to
10, which is when the idea finally materializes, so the idea has
become alive... if the idea didn't materialize, then it would
remain in the realm of imagination, and dead as it were...
so the mountains and rivers and skies and what not must have not
existed at some point, but something caused them to come about,
blind chance perhaps; therefore, anything that i can touch and
feel is alive in my view (or view in photos, etc. eg: i don't need
to go to China to know it exists)...
marques de sade
wrote:
>When I come across a tree stump, that the logger has left, I do not
>need to have observed the lumberjack, at his work, to know that a tree
>was there, that it was cut down, and taken away.
but when you come across the material universe, somehow that came
about without the need of a lumberjack, to use your analogy...
if the universe can suddenly pop out in midair out of nowhere, why
couldn't a tree cut itself... both ideas are equally absurd...
Kenneth Doyle
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:41:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:11:11 -0800 (PST), gud...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Feb., 06:19, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de
>>>>> sade) wrote:
>>>>>>> Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>>>>>>> The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation we have for
>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>> and you put your faith in that?
>>>>> There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>>>> inference is evidence?
>>>> octinomos
>>> No, evidence is evidence. Why do you keep playing these word games?
>> Because he's dishonest?
>>
>>> Do you think it makes you clever?
>> He's a sociopath. He knows what he's doing but thinks it should fool
>> everybody else.
>
> so you observed the big bang yourself, did you?
> octinomos
>
Ever heard of forensic science?
Kenneth Doyle
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:51:14 GMT, Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>
> wrote:
>
>> When I come across a tree stump, that the logger has left, I do not
>> need to have observed the lumberjack, at his work, to know that a tree
>> was there, that it was cut down, and taken away.
>
> but when you come across the material universe, somehow that came
> about without the need of a lumberjack, to use your analogy...
>
> if the universe can suddenly pop out in midair out of nowhere, why
> couldn't a tree cut itself... both ideas are equally absurd...
> octinomos
>
Actually, they're not equally absurd. The big-bang happened at
a point called a singularity, wherein there are no laws of
physics and no time or space. Some cosmologists are bothered by
this too. Perhaps is just a failing of our best theory so far.
See, that's the problem with admitting that we haven't yet
figured everything out. Some of our best theories lead to
seemingly absurd predictions (consider the controversy over
quantum mechanics, for instance). The history of science is
rife with paradoxes and we just have to live with them until a
more complete theory comes along. With religion, you can just
say that god did it all and any contradictions or paradoxes are
the work of the devil.
Kenneth Doyle
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:11:11 -0800 (PST), gud...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On 13 Feb., 06:19, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de
>>>> sade) wrote:
>>>>>> Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>>>>>> The essence of a theory =A0is that it is the best explanation we have f=
>> or
>>>>>> something.
>>>>> and you put your faith in that?
>>>> There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>>> inference is evidence?
>>> octinomos
>> No, evidence is evidence. Why do you keep playing these word games?
>> Do you think it makes you clever?
>
> but no one was present at the big bang... we can only infer it
> from observation of current events...
>
See, that wasn't so hard was it? In the real world, that's
pretty much the best we can ever do. It might surprise you to
learn that even eye-witness accounts of real-world events are
also prone to error. Saying that god did it all, in no way
alleviates the problem.
Kenneth Doyle
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:43:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:25:04 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:51:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. In some ways I wonder if I have enough respect for
>>>> life itself, then I see you who appear to have none at all.
>>> like i said, the whole material world is alive to me... i don't
>>> think like you do...
>> No. There's no reason to feel rocks are alive, though
>> the microbes and vegetation on them are. The same
>> with dirt, etc. And to feel the whole universe is alive
>> and somehow connected, while at the same time
>> being convinced that some sort of intelligent and
>> deliberate type of creation is impossible, is absurd.
>
> a lot of stuff creationists believe is absurd, like the Adam and
> Eve story...
Right, so why not go with whatever theory involves the least
absurdity and the greatest predictive or descriptive power?
thomas p.
"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:47b35c5b....@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:41:45 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:11:11 -0800 (PST), gud...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On 13 Feb., 06:19, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de
>>>> >sade) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>>>> >>>The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation we have
>>>> >>>for
>>>> >>>something.
>>>>
>>>> >>and you put your faith in that?
>>>>
>>>> >There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>>>>
>>>> inference is evidence?
>>>> octinomos
>>>
>>>No, evidence is evidence. Why do you keep playing these word games?
>>
>>Because he's dishonest?
>>
>>>Do you think it makes you clever?
>>
>>He's a sociopath. He knows what he's doing but thinks it should fool
>>everybody else.
>
> so you observed the big bang yourself, did you?
So you insist on being absurd. Apparently you do think it makes you clever
instead of a buffoon.
thomas p.
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:11:11 -0800 (PST), gud...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On 13 Feb., 06:19, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de
>>> >sade) wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>>> >>>The essence of a theory =A0is that it is the best explanation we have
>>> >>>f=
>>or
>>> >>>something.
>>>
>>> >>and you put your faith in that?
>>>
>>> >There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>>>
>>> inference is evidence?
>>> octinomos
>>
>>No, evidence is evidence. Why do you keep playing these word games?
>>Do you think it makes you clever?
>
> but no one was present at the big bang... we can only infer it
> from observation of current events...
Apparently you do think it makes you clever. Whatever makes you happy.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>marques de sade wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:11:11 -0800 (PST), gud...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Feb., 06:19, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:19:08 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:20:12 GMT, jesucris...@netscape.net (marques de
>>>>> sade) wrote:
>>>>>>> Proof is for math, no theory is ever proven.
>>>>>>> The essence of a theory =A0is that it is the best explanation we have f=
>>> or
>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>> and you put your faith in that?
>>>>> There is evidence, and so, no requirement for faith.
>>>> inference is evidence?
>>>> octinomos
>>> No, evidence is evidence. Why do you keep playing these word games?
>>> Do you think it makes you clever?
>>
>> but no one was present at the big bang... we can only infer it
>> from observation of current events...
I've never understood this.
They conflate an objective conclusion reached from observation and
investigation and confirmed by subsequent observation, with their own
unjustified presupposition.
As though they were equivalent.
Then demand an impossibly high standard of proof for what was
concluded while providing none for their presupposition.
Pretending that somehow makes them both equally justified.
Is it any wonder thinking people have such a low opinion of them,
their honesty or their cognitive abilities?
>See, that wasn't so hard was it? In the real world, that's
>pretty much the best we can ever do. It might surprise you to
>learn that even eye-witness accounts of real-world events are
>also prone to error. Saying that god did it all, in no way
>alleviates the problem.
It exacerbates it because instead of one they now have three things
to demonstrate:
1. The big bang.
2. God
3. God did it.
It's easy to demonstrate how the big bang was concluded. Just
demonstrate the steps taken. Whether or not God, the Great
Arkleseizure or Grunthos the flatulent did it,
We've done our part.
Let the theists do theirs or stop being so dishonest.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Standard Christian sophistry thhat fools nobody, not eventhemselves.
marques de sade
as long as we all know it's just a theory, i have no problem...
DanielSan
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:53:34 GMT, Kenneth Doyle
> <nob...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>> marques de sade wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:43:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:25:04 GMT, jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:51:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No. In some ways I wonder if I have enough respect for
>>>>>> life itself, then I see you who appear to have none at all.
>>>>> like i said, the whole material world is alive to me... i don't
>>>>> think like you do...
>>>> No. There's no reason to feel rocks are alive, though
>>>> the microbes and vegetation on them are. The same
>>>> with dirt, etc. And to feel the whole universe is alive
>>>> and somehow connected, while at the same time
>>>> being convinced that some sort of intelligent and
>>>> deliberate type of creation is impossible, is absurd.
>>> a lot of stuff creationists believe is absurd, like the Adam and
>>> Eve story...
>> Right, so why not go with whatever theory involves the least
>> absurdity and the greatest predictive or descriptive power?
>
> as long as we all know it's just a theory, i have no problem...
The problem is the word "theory" is not, in this case, synonymous with
"conjecture" or "hypothesis".
Theory, in this case, is an explanation of observable phenomena.
Theory: My computer's hard drive holds data in a rewritable medium.
Facts: My computer's hard drive holds data in a rewritable medium as
evidenced by the bits written on the platens that are capable of being
changed from binary 1 to binary 0 and back again.
"Theory" does not mean "conjecture", else the theory of relativity and
gravitational theory would mean that both do not have any evidence
thereof...which is laughable.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
Dubh Ghall
sade) wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:51:14 GMT, Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>
>wrote:
>
>>When I come across a tree stump, that the logger has left, I do not
>>need to have observed the lumberjack, at his work, to know that a tree
>>was there, that it was cut down, and taken away.
>
>but when you come across the material universe, somehow that came
>about without the need of a lumberjack, to use your analogy...
I fail to see how you think you are using my analogy, when I am
referring to the observation of evidence, and how conclusions can be
drawn from it, and you are discussing the actual Singularity Event.
There is no connection.
>
>if the universe can suddenly pop out in midair out of nowhere, why
>couldn't a tree cut itself... both ideas are equally absurd...
It would seem that a simple analogy, to indicate that direct
observation is not necessary, is beyond your comprehension.
thomas p.
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:_bidnS6c3OXazCna...@comcast.com...
He follows the Humpty Dumpty school of linguistics. Words mean whatever he
wants them to mean, meaning whatever he needs them to mean at any particular
moment in order to be "right".
boboroshi of TOKUS
>There is NO objective verifiable evidence of ANY Gods.
ok, fine.
>How the Universe came to be we just do not know.
*did* the universe come to be? why presume it did?
what kind of theistic nonsense is this? when did
the atheists take theistic "science" as their lot?
>Inventing or imaginaing reasons is not evidence.
sounds good. why make assumptions?
>Its pure imaginationa and unsupported 'opinion' .
so is "coming to be", "originating" and "creation".
until you (or others) produce (or point out) evidence
of this, please stop calling yourself rational and
presuming them without it. thanks, blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: compassionate Satan-servant since 9666
The Gospel of Satan exists! it's real! see http://www.gospel-of-satan.com/
"Ninth Scholar"'s Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
gud...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "BIll M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >There is NO objective verifiable evidence of ANY Gods.
>
> ok, fine.
>
> >How the Universe came to be we just do not know.
>
> *did* the universe come to be? why presume it did?
> what kind of theistic nonsense is this? when did
> the atheists take theistic "science" as their lot?
>
> >Inventing or imaginaing reasons is not evidence.
>
> sounds good. why make assumptions?
>
> >Its pure imaginationa and unsupported 'opinion' .
>
> so is "coming to be", "originating" and "creation".
>
> until you (or others) produce (or point out) evidence
> of this, please stop calling yourself rational and
> presuming them without it. thanks, blessed beast!
Nice distortion completely and delibrately ignoring the point of the
post. Does it get damp under bridges?
marques de sade
now you know how _he_ felt...
bobo
>dh:
>>dg:
>>>dh:
>>>The first life appeared somewhere. Where is unimportant.
>>
>> There's no way you could know that.
>
>There is life now, therefore, there must have been "first" life.
that is merely a restatement of your contention. life appeared.
could it have emerged from matter? was it ever submerged?
>It is here, now, but where it originated, is of no consequence,
>as far as this discussion is concerned.
completely tangental, agreed.
>Now why do I have no way of knowing that?
because you weren't there, and there isn't a reproduction of
life's emergence / creation happening with human experiment.
>No. It is a matter of whether or not, a creator is necessary.
observed would be a good start. no creation is observed,
no creating agent is observed. there is no reason, therefore,
to presume one did exist, that anything was created.
>If life can occur without a "creator"....
such as with electricity run through oceanic soups,
> , then a "creator" is irrelevant.
fictional or an applique upon another phenomenon,
such as possessory intelligences.
>In fact, it would be more reasonable to assume that
>the world was seeded with life from some other source,
>than to believe that it was created.
these are the 2 options you are choosing between? why?
>>>where did the creator come from?
>>
>> Start by figuring out where matter came from, imo.
start by figuring where life came from. no creators are
necessary unless we start seeing reasons for them such
as evidence of creation. seen any? what's it look like?
>No. The creationist claim is that the "creator",
>made the matter: So where did the creator come from?
the illogic of creationist metaphysics escapes me.
>>>Could it be that the creator is NOT alive?
>>
>> Not and still be a true creator.
gradations of these "creators" for which there is
no objective evidence.
>> If there isn't one, then there just isn't.
impressive premise. a fundamental.
>>>>>i mean ALL life, ANYWHERE...
>>>>
>>>> Life could have begun way before the big bang.
if time existed, stretched back before the Big Bang,
that is correct. cf. Asimov and others on black holes.
>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
this is your faith, apparently. how did you determine
that the limit of your perception was the limit of
everything? does the world end at your doorstep?
>> Obviously there was or it could not have occurred.
>
>Please explain.
the Big Bang's conditions at the start of it were just
perfect for the following cosmic conditions to occur.
therefore there must have been a before the bang, else
it would never have happened, blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: compassionate Satan-servant since 9666
thomas p.
"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:47b614d6....@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:36:50 -0800 (PST), gud...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On 15 Feb., 05:16, satanservice.org@boboroshi (boboroshi of TOKUS)
>>wrote:
>>> "BIll M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>
>>> >There is NO objective verifiable evidence of ANY Gods.
>>>
>>> ok, fine.
>>>
>>> >How the Universe came to be we just do not know.
>>>
>>> *did* the universe come to be? why presume it did?
>>> what kind of theistic nonsense is this? when did
>>> the atheists take theistic "science" as their lot?
>>>
>>> >Inventing or imaginaing reasons is not evidence.
>>>
>>> sounds good. why make assumptions?
>>>
>>> >Its pure imaginationa and unsupported 'opinion' .
>>>
>>> so is "coming to be", "originating" and "creation".
>>>
>>> until you (or others) produce (or point out) evidence
>>> of this, please stop calling yourself rational and
>>> presuming them without it. thanks, blessed beast!
>>
>>
>>Nice distortion completely and delibrately ignoring the point of the
>>post. Does it get damp under bridges?
>
> now you know how _he_ felt...
What are you talking about, nothing as usual?
marques de sade
<gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What are you talking about,
>
>
something that caused you to reply, seemingly...
boboroshi of TOKUS
dg:
>>When I come across a tree stump, that the logger has left,
'stump' implies an organism which preceded it, like 'corpse'.
>>I do not need to have observed the lumberjack, at his work,
>>to know that a tree was there, that it was cut down, and
>>taken away.
that makes sense, because trees don't normally die that way
without some kind of human intervention, yes.
jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade):
>but when you come across the material universe,
an inexact statement. we're part of it, we're born
within it, and we don't just "come across" it.
>somehow that came about without the need of a
>lumberjack, to use your analogy...
the material universe isn't sustainably compared
with a corpse.
>if the universe can suddenly pop out in midair
>out of nowhere,
explain why you think this might be possible or
may have occurred. it doesn't occur in our
observation to my knowledge.
>why couldn't a tree cut itself...
trees don't have hands and chainsaws.
>both ideas are equally absurd...
trees grow as part of the material cosmos.
identifying a part with the whole is inept,
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: compassionate Satan-servant since 9666
The Gospel of Satan exists! it's real! see http://www.gospel-of-satan.com/
Dubh Ghall
>dg:
>>dh:
>>>dg:
>>>>dh:
>
>>>>The first life appeared somewhere. Where is unimportant.
>>>
>>> There's no way you could know that.
>>
>>There is life now, therefore, there must have been "first" life.
>
>that is merely a restatement of your contention. life appeared.
Correct.
>could it have emerged from matter? was it ever submerged?
Irrelevant.
>
>>It is here, now, but where it originated, is of no consequence,
>>as far as this discussion is concerned.
>
>completely tangental, agreed.
>
>>Now why do I have no way of knowing that?
>
>because you weren't there, and there isn't a reproduction of
>life's emergence / creation happening with human experiment.
So?
Life exist, therefore life began.
>
>>No. It is a matter of whether or not, a creator is necessary.
>
>observed would be a good start. no creation is observed,
>no creating agent is observed. there is no reason, therefore,
>to presume one did exist, that anything was created.
You're getting the hang of it.
>
>>If life can occur without a "creator"....
>
>such as with electricity run through oceanic soups,
"How" is irrelevant.
>
>> , then a "creator" is irrelevant.
>
>fictional or an applique upon another phenomenon,
>such as possessory intelligences.
>
>>In fact, it would be more reasonable to assume that
>>the world was seeded with life from some other source,
>>than to believe that it was created.
>
>these are the 2 options you are choosing between? why?
Do take some English classes; No where have I suggested that I am
choosing anything.
>
>>>>where did the creator come from?
>>>
>>> Start by figuring out where matter came from, imo.
>
>start by figuring where life came from. no creators are
>necessary unless we start seeing reasons for them such
>as evidence of creation. seen any? what's it look like?
>
>>No. The creationist claim is that the "creator",
>>made the matter: So where did the creator come from?
>
>the illogic of creationist metaphysics escapes me.
>
Does it indeed?
snip Bobo's remaining tripe.
boboroshi of TOKUS
>>> bobo:
>>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net>:
>>
>>>>> When you can present actual evidence....
bobo:
>>objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
>>
>>>> what would that look like?
>>>
>>> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
>>
>>no, gods don't have objective existence that
>>i can confirm
dg:
>Which makes them imaginary creatures, mere flights of fancy:
that's your supposition. why do you suppose that?
>Why should we be impressed by such?
should you? did i say that you should? I think i've
merely said that gods are more real than Santa Claus
or the Easter Bunny, more real than unicorns, and more
real generally than imaginary concepts without referent.
there are soft sciences studying god peripheries and
mystics study the god phenomenon directly.
>>and i've looked pretty thoroughly.
>>their existence is in a subjective dimension.
here's the point that i was making. you are ignoring
this or supposing that subjective = unreal without,
to my observation, any reason.
>>most theists don't understand this because
>>they aren't scientifically-minded.
>>
>>>> examples?
>>>
>>> What convinced you?
>>
>>subjective experience in interaction with
>>my God in which She pointed out information
>>that i had not had myself. this confirmed,
>>to my mind, that gods exist on some level
>>internally at a remove from consciousness,
>>even as a subset of overall consciousness.
>
>So you were convinced by wishful thinking,
>and your fancy.
you have mischaracterized the interaction.
it is an avoidance-mechanism.
>>I don't expect that this will serve the
>>average atheist, who demands "objective
>>evidence"
>
>Correct
differentiating between objective evidence
and evidence of other kinds can be helpful,
but i don't expect this of atheists who are,
by and large, dogmatic materialists.
>>and never specifies what they
>>would think convincing
>When a scientist makes a discovery/claim/whet-have-you,
this is preceded by hypotheses-generation on the part
of the scientist. part of that specificity is the
identification of what constitutes evidence for what
is possibly being observed in the manner stipulated.
>he does not ask the skeptics, "What will convince you?",
correct!
>he says "There is the *objective*, evidence,
the objective character is only a cultural bias.
>and how I reached it; verify it for your
>selves".
in the objective world this works quite well, agreed.
>>(the old Atheist Cup and Balls Game).
>
>The old theist "Duck and Weave".
not when you specify from the outset 'objective'
evidence. I always say that i have objective
evidence only for god-peripheries and what i
call 'the god phenomenon'.
>Still trying to shift the burden of evidence; ain't you?
no i am not. you're keen to project negatively, however.
bobo
Dubh Ghall
TOKUS) wrote:
>>>Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>:
>>>> bobo:
>>>>>"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktay...@getnet.net>:
>>>
>>>>>> When you can present actual evidence....
>
>bobo:
>>>objective evidence is what you mean, yes.
>>>
>>>>> what would that look like?
>>>>
>>>> No idea, it is your god; Don't you know?
>>>
>>>no, gods don't have objective existence that
>>>i can confirm
>
>dg:
>>Which makes them imaginary creatures, mere flights of fancy:
>
>that's your supposition. why do you suppose that?
Because they do not have objective existence.
>
>>Why should we be impressed by such?
>
>should you? did i say that you should?
Why tell us, if not to impress us?
>I think i've
>merely said that gods are more real than Santa Claus
>or the Easter Bunny, more real than unicorns, and more
>real generally than imaginary concepts without referent.
>there are soft sciences studying god peripheries and
>mystics study the god phenomenon directly.
>
>>>and i've looked pretty thoroughly.
>>>their existence is in a subjective dimension.
>
>here's the point that i was making. you are ignoring
>this or supposing that subjective = unreal without,
>to my observation, any reason.
From the Oxford English Dictionary.
subjective
n adjective
1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or
opinions.
2 dependent on the mind for existence.
>
>>>most theists don't understand this because
>>>they aren't scientifically-minded.
>>>
>>>>> examples?
>>>>
>>>> What convinced you?
>>>
>>>subjective experience in interaction with
>>>my God in which She pointed out information
>>>that i had not had myself. this confirmed,
>>>to my mind, that gods exist on some level
>>>internally at a remove from consciousness,
>>>even as a subset of overall consciousness.
>>
>>So you were convinced by wishful thinking,
>>and your fancy.
>
>you have mischaracterized the interaction.
I don't think so, "subjective experience", says it all.
>it is an avoidance-mechanism.
>
>>>I don't expect that this will serve the
>>>average atheist, who demands "objective
>>>evidence"
>>
>>Correct
>
>differentiating between objective evidence
>and evidence of other kinds can be helpful,
There is no other kind.
>but i don't expect this of atheists who are,
>by and large, dogmatic materialists.
>
>>>and never specifies what they
>>>would think convincing
>
>>When a scientist makes a discovery/claim/whet-have-you,
>
>this is preceded by hypotheses-generation on the part
>of the scientist. part of that specificity is the
>identification of what constitutes evidence for what
>is possibly being observed in the manner stipulated.
Irrelevant.
>
>>he does not ask the skeptics, "What will convince you?",
>
>correct!
>
>>he says "There is the *objective*, evidence,
>
>the objective character is only a cultural bias.
Bullshite!
Objective, is objective, culture is irrelevant.
From the Oxford English Dictionary
objective
n adjective
1 not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in
considering and representing facts.
2 not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
>
>>and how I reached it; verify it for your
>>selves".
>
>in the objective world this works quite well, agreed.
>
>>>(the old Atheist Cup and Balls Game).
>>
>>The old theist "Duck and Weave".
>
>not when you specify from the outset 'objective'
>evidence.
There is no other kind.