Taliban before the Taliban
Ray Martinez
Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
atheists?
Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>
> Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
> Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
> atheists?
>
> Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
I'm, uh, still not an atheist, Ray . . .
And why does it not surprise me in the slightest to see you defending
VELIKOVSKY? (snicker) (giggle)
Here, Mr Christian-Creationist --- here's a few websites for you to
check out. More Christian activists who are being unfairly repressed
by the atheistic scientific conspiracy.
Uh-oh, Ray --- that second one seems to be down at the moment; it was
up just last week. Maybe the god-hating atheistic scientific
conspiracy found it. Go help them out, Ray! Onward, Christian
Soldier !!!!!!!!!!!!
(snicker) (giggle)
No wonder everyone thinks you're nutty, Ray.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
CreateThis
wrote:
You are one weird, pitiful dude. Thankfully, you're no Christian.
CT
Ray Martinez
> On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>
> > Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> > The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> > engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> > evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
> > Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> > liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> > Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> > and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
> > atheists?
>
> > Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
> I'm, uh, still not an atheist, Ray . . .
>
Then why do you agree with atheists?
I have devised a simple litmus test to determine an atheist: If a
person agrees with the tenets of atheism; defends their origins
theory; and argues against the Bible = atheist.
Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
identification. Since all atheists rabidly endorse and defend ToE the
theory is *their* origins theory. If you think of yourself as some
type of Christian, then again, how could a Christian and Atheist agree
on origins? What's the point of being a Christian if the source is
wrong? Christians know Jesus rose from the dead. If said miracle is
true, then how could all the other miracles in the Bible be untrue?
The Resurrection is a proveable historic fact. Jesus descended from
Adam, the historic fact implicitly confirms the lineage. Why am I
preaching to a Christian....you already agree with this. Right
REVEREND Lenny?
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
> On 21 Apr 2007 14:30:59 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>
> >Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> >The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> >engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> >evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
> >Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> >liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> >Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> >and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
> >atheists?
>
> >Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
> You are one weird, pitiful dude. Thankfully, you're no Christian.
>
> CT
Since you are an Atheist and you think I am not a Christian, this
confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
real Christian.
Ray
snex
> On Apr 21, 2:54 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>
> > > Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> > > The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> > > engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> > > evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
> > > Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> > > liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> > > Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> > > and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
> > > atheists?
>
> > > Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
> > I'm, uh, still not an atheist, Ray . . .
>
> Then why do you agree with atheists?
>
> I have devised a simple litmus test to determine an atheist: If a
> person agrees with the tenets of atheism; defends their origins
> theory; and argues against the Bible = atheist.
there are no tenets of atheism, other than that theists have not
proven their case that god exists. flank and tweedy think theists have
proven this case, but hey - nobody's perfect. acceptance of evolution
isnt required to be an atheist, nor does arguing that the bible is
false in its entirety. there are plenty of stories in the bible that
are probably true, just none that are supernatural.
xe...@comcast.net
> Op Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:51:06 -0700, schreef snex:
>
> > there are no tenets of atheism, other than that theists have not proven
> > their case that god exists.
>
>
> > flank and tweedy think theists have proven this case, but hey -
> > nobody's perfect. acceptance of evolution isnt required to be an
> > atheist, nor does arguing that the bible is false in its entirety.
> > there are plenty of stories in the bible that are probably
> > true, just none that are supernatural.
>
> be inspirational - when someone reads them to be inspired. I personally
> *like* the hero of the New Testament, Jesus. He said a couple of things
> that should inspire every person on the planet to think. I liked how he
> chased the traders from the temple. Indeed we should hold some things in
> life "sacred", not stain them with commercialism. I liked how he
> prevented a woman being stoned to death. People are always too fast to
> judge and condemn others.
>
> We may find heroes like that in other books, of course.
the story of paul's conversion, minus the supernatural aspects, is
probably a true story.
Free Lunch
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1177195715....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
I approve of almost everthing that Jesus taught. You have made it clear
that you do not. If you cannot persuade an unbeliever that you are a
Christian, you aren't acting like one.
Pete G.
news:1177197341.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 21, 6:05 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> Op Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:51:06 -0700, schreef snex:
>>
>> > there are no tenets of atheism, other than that theists have not proven
>> > their case that god exists.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> > flank and tweedy think theists have proven this case, but hey -
>> > nobody's perfect. acceptance of evolution isnt required to be an
>> > atheist, nor does arguing that the bible is false in its entirety.
>> > there are plenty of stories in the bible that are probably
>> > true, just none that are supernatural.
>>
>> I wouldn't say they are probably true. I would agree if you said they can
>> be inspirational - when someone reads them to be inspired. I personally
>> *like* the hero of the New Testament, Jesus. He said a couple of things
>> that should inspire every person on the planet to think.
What do you 'personally' do with the words and deeds of 'Jesus' which reveal
him to be, inter alia, a petty, racist, intolerant, spiteful, thief? Or have
you managed to overlook those less 'inspirational' bits...?
>
> the story of paul's conversion, minus the supernatural aspects, is
> probably a true story.
>
How you do throw your 'probablys' around! The rest of us are not even
convinced that this 'Paul' of yours *even existed*, quite apart from the
fact that what he is supposed to have written has essentially nothing to do
with the 'Jesus' depicted in the 'gospels'...
P.
snex
> <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
of course paul existed. paul is the person that wrote paul's letters.
if paul didnt write them, then who did? *somebody* had to, and thats
the person we call "paul." this "paul" claims that he saw a flash of
light and a loud noise, fell off his horse, and had a vision of god.
stories of this type happen even in modern times, to temporal lobe
epileptics (minus the horse part, but then theres no reason to doubt
"paul" rode a horse).
>
> P.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
flank and tweedy think theists have
> proven this case,
Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I'm sorry, Ray --- did you say something?
I tend not to pay any attention to the rants of kook cases like you.
Oh, and how's that, uh, earth-shaking paper that will finally destroy
darwinism once and for all, coming . . . .? (snicker) (giggle)
No wonder everyone thinks you're a nutter, Ray. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> > Why am I preaching to a Christian....you already agree with this. Right
> > REVEREND Lenny?
>
> Lenny can give his own answer.
I already have, lots of times, both here and in other forums.
I'm kind of surprised that Ray hasn't found it for himself yet. But
then, given the results I've seen from Ray's, uh, "research", perhaps
I shouldn't be surprised at all. (snicker) (giggle)
snex
> flank and tweedy think theists have
>
> > proven this case,
>
> Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
are you not a theist?
Ken Rode
> On Apr 21, 2:54 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>
> > > Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> > > The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> > > engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> > > evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
> > > Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> > > liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> > > Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> > > and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
> > > atheists?
>
> > > Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
> > I'm, uh, still not an atheist, Ray . . .
>
> Then why do you agree with atheists?
Still with the double standards, Ray? You've identified Velikovsky as
an atheist, and *you* agree with *him*.
Why is it that the atheists that you agree with get a free pass, but
the ones that you disagree with are proof of the existence of Satan?
> I have devised a simple litmus test to determine an atheist: If a
> person agrees with the tenets of atheism; defends their origins
> theory; and argues against the Bible = atheist.
Interesting. I don't pass your litmus test since I have never defended
the atheists' "origins theory" (whatever that might be). Perhaps,
according to you, I'm not an atheist.
> Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
> identification. Since all atheists rabidly endorse and defend ToE the
> theory is *their* origins theory.
Oh, you're still going on about the ToE as the atheist origins theory.
You've been told many times, Ray, that the only belief that atheism
requires is that there are no gods. That's it. I cannot fathom why you
cannot take in that one simple fact.
I find myself increasing unable to understand your thought processes,
Ray. You've indicated that *all* atheists endorse and defend the ToE.
You've identified Velikovsky as an atheist. Therefore, you must also
believe that Velikovsky endorses and defends the ToE. Why, then, are
you in agreement with him about anything? Another -ology moment?
> If you think of yourself as some
> type of Christian, then again, how could a Christian and Atheist agree
> on origins? What's the point of being a Christian if the source is
> wrong? Christians know Jesus rose from the dead. If said miracle is
> true, then how could all the other miracles in the Bible be untrue?
> The Resurrection is a proveable historic fact.
I'm not aware that there is anything provable about it. However, I am
open to whatever evidence you'd care to present.
snex
> On Apr 21, 6:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
> > identification. Since all atheists rabidly endorse and defend ToE the
> > theory is *their* origins theory.
>
> Oh, you're still going on about the ToE as the atheist origins theory.
> You've been told many times, Ray, that the only belief that atheism
> requires is that there are no gods. That's it. I cannot fathom why you
> cannot take in that one simple fact.
atheism does not require that belief.
>
<snip>
Ken Rode
I found your comment a little curt. Are you suggesting that atheism
doesn't require a belief in the nonexistence of gods?
Stile4aly
> On Apr 21, 7:08 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > flank and tweedy think theists have
>
> > > proven this case,
>
> > Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
>
> are you not a theist?
Not all theists are gnostic theists. Of course, we know that you
think that unprovable assertions should never be believed, but that
doesn't necessarily stop the rest of us.
snex
thats correct. atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods.
one doesnt have to assert that x doesnt exist merely because people
who believe in x have bad arguments.
AC
Yeah, Velikovsky was taken out and mutilated by rampaging armed scientists.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177191059.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velikovsky_affair_01.htm
>
> Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
No, my comment here is "so what"? Apparently Ray believes that if it's on
the internet, it must be true....
>
> The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
Most of Velikovsky's claims have been shown to been nonsense. I'd ask Ray
to present any evidence to support his claims, but Ray doesn't seem to have
any.
>
> Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> liars inside and out.
Or he proves that crackpots can still be very popular with the general
public.
> That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> and the ancients were correct.
Nothing that Velikovsky produced proves the Bible correct. Velikovsky made
some outrageous claims, which were not supported by the evidence. If Ray
chooses to argue by quoting websites, here's one that is refutes
Velikovsky's claims. Why are these people wrong, and Ray's site correct?
http://skepdic.com/velikov.html
> Could we expect anything else from
> atheists?
Many people rejected Velikovsky's claims, including many religious
scientists. Atheists aren't the only ones who oppose dishonesty.
Here's a few question for Ray to consider:
Do you think it's possible for fly larvae to survive in space, and the heat
of re-entry into Earth's atmosphere?
Did the craters on the moon form by meteor impacts, or by "bubbles in the
lava"?
Is it possible for a planet to "expel" another planet?
Does excessive heat cause frogs to reproduce rapidly?
I await Ray's answer.
DJT
DJT
snex
and yet you have no criteria for determining which unprovable
assertions should be believed over others. if you cant support the
idea that your position is more likely true than a position you
consider ridiculous, why do you refuse to accept that your position
might also be ridiculous?
Ken Rode
Ah, yes. This variant is sometimes referred to as "weak atheism" if I
recall correctly, but it is atheism nevertheless. Thanks for the
correction.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> I'm, uh, still not an atheist, Ray . . .
>>
>
> Then why do you agree with atheists?
He "agrees" with them when they are correct, unlike Ray, who agrees with
atheists only when they say something Ray wants to believe.
>
> I have devised a simple litmus test to determine an atheist: If a
> person agrees with the tenets of atheism; defends their origins
> theory; and argues against the Bible = atheist.
Then your "litmus test" is wrong. Atheists don't belive in God. Many
Christians, and other religionists agree with atheists on scientific
matters, and oppose dishonest and flawed Biblical interpetations.
>
> Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
> identification.
What makes you think you know this? On what are you basing this claim?
> Since all atheists rabidly endorse and defend ToE the
> theory is *their* origins theory.
Not all atheists endorse, or defend the theory of evolution, and certianly
not rabidly. Atheist have no exclusive claim to the theory of evolution.
> If you think of yourself as some
> type of Christian, then again, how could a Christian and Atheist agree
> on origins?
Because reasonable people often agree as to what the evidence shows.
> What's the point of being a Christian if the source is
> wrong?
The "source" of being a Christian is faith in Christ, and following his
teachings. How can that be wrong? Only if you are foolishly insisting the
Bible be treated as if it were scientific can it be "wrong".
> Christians know Jesus rose from the dead.
Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It's a matter of faith.
> If said miracle is
> true, then how could all the other miracles in the Bible be untrue?
Non sequitur. You are assuming that "true" and "scientific" are the same
thing. Many of the stories in the bible are jsut that, stories, which
convey a message. They were not meant to be taken as literal events.
> The Resurrection is a proveable historic fact.
Actually, Ray, it isn't. I believe in the Resurrection, but there is no
evidence that it is a "provable historic fact".
> Jesus descended from
> Adam, the historic fact implicitly confirms the lineage.
Jesus descended from humans, which is what's important. Adam is an
archeotype of humanity, not a literal person.
> Why am I
> preaching to a Christian.
Because "preaching" is all you can do. You can't provide any evidence to
support your claims.
>...you already agree with this. Right
> REVEREND Lenny?
Not necessarily. Many Christians, and theologians don't agree with you.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177195866.6...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> I have devised a simple litmus test to determine an atheist: If a
>> person agrees with the tenets of atheism; defends their origins
>> theory; and argues against the Bible = atheist.
>
> there are no tenets of atheism, other than that theists have not
> proven their case that god exists. flank and tweedy think theists have
> proven this case, but hey - nobody's perfect.
I must point out that I don't think that theist have "proven their case".
I believe because I feel it's right for me. I don't think that religious
belief is something that can be proven.
DJT
Ken Rode
I can't speak for Stile4aly, but I'll say the following for myself. I
consider myself a strong atheist, in that I believe that no gods
exist. I have a full appreciation that it is a belief, that it can't
be demonstrated to be true, that my belief is non-rational. But this
is also true of the theist side as well. In the absence of evidence
either for or against the existence of gods, we should all be
agnostic. The fence has two sides, and most people seem to have made
the jump to one side or the other.
Dana Tweedy
snip
> Since you are an Atheist and you think I am not a Christian, this
> confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
> real Christian.
Why not, Ray? Atheists have approved of genuine Christians in the past,
and still do today. Many people, of many religious persuasions don't
approve of dishonest, hate filled, charlatians. Maybe this is why no one
"approves" of you.
DJT
snex
argumentum ad populum.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Apr 21, 7:08 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > flank and tweedy think theists have
>
> > > proven this case,
>
> > Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
>
> are you not a theist?
I have been a Buddhist for over 25 years. Buddhism neither affirms
nor denies the existence of any god or gods. Buddhism is about
discovering who you are deep down inside, and being that. No one can
tell you how to be yourself but you -- not even god can do that. So
the whole question of gods is utterly irrelevant to Buddhism. Maybe
there's a god, maybe there ain't. Makes no difference either way.
(shrug)
Since I don't assert the existence of any god or gods, I don't refer
to myself as a "theist". Since I don't deny the existence of god or
gods either, I don't refer to myself as an "atheist" either (and in
any case, referring to myself as an "atheist" would tend to associate
me with some rather intolerant evangelical atheists who I would rather
not be associated with). I am not comfortable with the label
"agnostic" either, since agnosticism assumes no one can know, while
there are plenty of people on both sides who DO claim to know.
Were I forced to choose a label, I'd choose "apa-theist". I simply
don't give a damn whether there's a god or not. (shrug)
Ken Rode
nope
snex
yes it is. you hold a position that you know is non-rational and cant
be proven or even hinted at by evidence, and you justify it by saying
most everybody else does too.
if thats not the case, perhaps you can clarify what you meant.
Ken Rode
Perhaps I shouldn't have added the last sentence. It wasn't intended
to be a justification, just an observation. The fact that I know that
the belief is non-rational means that I can't justify it rationally.
eerok
If you haven't unmasked the unprovable assertions in your
life, perhaps you haven't taken self-awareness seriously
enough. I think that if a belief causes no harm, there's no
harm in it, which makes me no fan of evangelical atheism.
Have you ever considered that your position against theists
might be a tad bigoted? Or ... inappropriately reactive?
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
snex
so why maintain it?
snex
> snex wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 8:16 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 21, 5:13 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 21, 7:08 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > flank and tweedy think theists have
> >> > > > proven this case,
> >> > > Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
> >> > are you not a theist?
> >> Not all theists are gnostic theists. Of course, we know
> >> that you think that unprovable assertions should never be
> >> believed, but that doesn't necessarily stop the rest of us.
> > and yet you have no criteria for determining which
> > unprovable assertions should be believed over others. if you
> > cant support the idea that your position is more likely true
> > than a position you consider ridiculous, why do you refuse
> > to accept that your position might also be ridiculous?
>
> If you haven't unmasked the unprovable assertions in your
> life, perhaps you haven't taken self-awareness seriously
> enough. I think that if a belief causes no harm, there's no
> harm in it, which makes me no fan of evangelical atheism.
perhaps you can point out any unprovable assertions in my life that i
claim to believe in? also, what makes you think that superstition
causes no harm? theres lots of evidence that it is very harmful.
>
> Have you ever considered that your position against theists
> might be a tad bigoted? Or ... inappropriately reactive?
no more bigoted than scientists' position against creationists. when
people make absurd claims, i call them on it. labeling those claims
"faith" or "religion" is not a free pass.
Inez
> On Apr 21, 3:26 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr 2007 14:30:59 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>
> > >Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> > >engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> > >evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
> > >Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> > >atheists?
>
> > >Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
> > You are one weird, pitiful dude. Thankfully, you're no Christian.
>
> > CT
>
> Since you are an Atheist and you think I am not a Christian, this
> confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
> real Christian.
>
But if atheists don't approve of Real Christians (tm) then an atheist
calling someone a Real Christian (tm) would be a sign of disapproval,
wouldn't it? If anything, you logic would indicate that he approves
of you, although the words "weird" and "pitiful" work against you
there.
Ken Rode
I don't think that I have an answer that will satisfy you. Say that
It's a reflection of my conviction that evidence for the existence of
gods will never be found, that neither the supernatural nor genuine
magic does not exist in this universe, and that it seems pointless to
me to hold open the possibility that these things exist in the absence
of evidence, especially given what we do know about the workings of
the universe. To the questions "Is there an invisible pink unicorn in
my garage?" or "Was the universe created last Thursday?" should I
answer "I don't know."? I see no merit in doing so.
Al
>
> I have devised a simple litmus test to determine an atheist: If a
> person agrees with the tenets of atheism; defends their origins
> theory; and argues against the Bible = atheist.
>
WTF? Then Buddhists, Shintoists, etc are all Athiests?
Your christo-centric world view is depressing.
Pete G.
>>
>> How you do throw your 'probablys' around! The rest of us are not even
>> convinced that this 'Paul' of yours *even existed*, quite apart from the
>> fact that what he is supposed to have written has essentially nothing to
>> do
>> with the 'Jesus' depicted in the 'gospels'...
>
> of course paul existed. paul is the person that wrote paul's letters.
> if paul didnt write them, then who did? *somebody* had to, and thats
> the person we call "paul." this "paul" claims that he saw a flash of
> light and a loud noise, fell off his horse, and had a vision of god.
> stories of this type happen even in modern times, to temporal lobe
> epileptics (minus the horse part, but then theres no reason to doubt
> "paul" rode a horse).
What ludicrous rubbish you spout.
'Paul' is no more likely to have existed than this mythical 'Jesus'.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
P.
Stile4aly
And we've had this discussion before. I *do* accept that my position
might be ridiculous, but that wasn't enough for you in the past.
Since I accept that it might be ridiculous, you hold that I should
accept that it *must* be ridiculous. I see no reason to take that
step.
snex
your outlook would equally discourage research into things like dark
energy, string theory, etc. we will likely never know everything that
is to be known, so we must keep an open mind. i agree that
anthropomorphic gods, IPUs and such are probably non-existent, but
that is based on evidence from psychology, anthropology, and the
history of these beliefs. omnimax gods are clearly false based on
their internal logical inconsistencies.
however, like with dark energy and string theory, things that sound
"supernatural" or "magic" at one point in time may in fact be a part
of reality, and we can only wait until technology catches up enough to
test them.
snex
> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1177199925.114151.30170@
then you must believe his letters were created ex nihilo by god
himself. only humans write letters. "paul" is the person who wrote
most of the letters with his name on them.
snex
heh, technically they are, as those religions have no god concepts. :)
snex
if your belief really is ridiculous, how would you come to know it?
what tests have you performed against it? if you havent performed any,
or if no tests even exist, then you are either being intellectually
lazy or intellectually dishonest.
Pete G.
That is an absolutely demented answer. Tell us: when was your brain actually
removed?
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
P.
Ken Rode
I will admit that I don't know much about dark energy or string
theory, nor do I have much interest in knowing about them. Certainly,
my outlook would prevent *me* from engaging in research on these
topics. I don't see why I would discourage anyone else from carrying
out such research. Research is an important way of increasing our
knowledge.
> i agree that
> anthropomorphic gods, IPUs and such are probably non-existent, but
> that is based on evidence from psychology, anthropology, and the
> history of these beliefs. omnimax gods are clearly false based on
> their internal logical inconsistencies.
>
> however, like with dark energy and string theory, things that sound
> "supernatural" or "magic" at one point in time may in fact be a part
> of reality, and we can only wait until technology catches up enough to
> test them.
Agreed.
snex
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
who wrote hte letters?
CreateThis
wrote:
>On Apr 21, 3:26 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr 2007 14:30:59 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>>
>> >Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>>
>> >The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
>> >engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
>> >evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>>
>> >Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
>> >liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
>> >Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
>> >and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
>> >atheists?
>>
>> >Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>>
>> You are one weird, pitiful dude. Thankfully, you're no Christian.
>>
>> CT
>
>Since you are an Atheist and you think I am not a Christian, this
>confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
>real Christian.
Only you can confirm your Christianity. A Christian would know that.
Your constant "us vs. them" divisiveness confirms that you're no
Christian. A Christian would try to win atheists over, not alienate
them.
I like most things about Christians. I don't like anything I've seen
about you (Jesus, who would?). Even Christians probably don't like
you, but they'd treat you with the charity that you're incapable of.
You're no Christian.
CT
Pete G.
What matters is who *didn't* write them, cupcake. And if you weren't too
yellow to follow the link, you'd know by now what the real issues were. The
'letters' are *a crock of shit*.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
P.
snex
you didnt answer the question. who wrote those letters? how did they
get there?
John Wilkins
> "snex" <xe...@comcast.net> wrote
What a funny little site! I think that it is a really terrible argument
- that Paul couldn't have existed because the works assigned to him make
no mention of stuff that elsehwere the site argues is fabricated much
later.
Paul was a real person - the literary material has too much of the marks
of a single person's style (at least, the authentic ones). Whether
anything he says is corretc is a different matter, but I think we have
enough reason to think he was a historical person.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
snex
> On Apr 21, 7:13 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:08 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > flank and tweedy think theists have
>
> > > > proven this case,
>
> > > Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
>
> > are you not a theist?
>
> I have been a Buddhist for over 25 years. Buddhism neither affirms
> nor denies the existence of any god or gods. Buddhism is about
> discovering who you are deep down inside, and being that. No one can
> tell you how to be yourself but you -- not even god can do that. So
> the whole question of gods is utterly irrelevant to Buddhism. Maybe
> there's a god, maybe there ain't. Makes no difference either way.
> (shrug)
>
> Since I don't assert the existence of any god or gods, I don't refer
> to myself as a "theist". Since I don't deny the existence of god or
> gods either, I don't refer to myself as an "atheist" either (and in
> any case, referring to myself as an "atheist" would tend to associate
> me with some rather intolerant evangelical atheists who I would rather
> not be associated with). I am not comfortable with the label
> "agnostic" either, since agnosticism assumes no one can know, while
> there are plenty of people on both sides who DO claim to know.
>
> Were I forced to choose a label, I'd choose "apa-theist". I simply
> don't give a damn whether there's a god or not. (shrug)
fair enough, i was under the impression that you were a christian of
some sort.
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
> http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velikovsky_affair_01.htm
>
> Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
> Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> liars inside and out.
yeah, all the religious fanatics have been saying that for centuries.
good thing you guys can't burn us at the stake any more.
incidentally...notice you're using a scientist invented computer to
tell us science doesn't work
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
> Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
> identification. Since all atheists rabidly endorse and defend ToE the
> theory is *their* origins theory. If you think of yourself as some
> type of Christian, then again, how could a Christian and Atheist agree
> on origins?
well, ray, for the same reason they agree on the fact that if you step
out a 10th story window you're gonna die...it's science
What's the point of being a Christian if the source is
> wrong? Christians know Jesus rose from the dead. If said miracle is
> true, then how could all the other miracles in the Bible be untrue?
> The Resurrection is a proveable historic fact.
really? care to prove it?
Jesus descended from
> Adam,
'tain't what the gospels say. his father wasn't joseph, remember?
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Since you are an Atheist and you think I am not a Christian, this
> confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
> real Christian.
au contraire, mes ami...if anyone's a 'real' christian, you're it.
wf3h
wf3h
eerok
> On Apr 21, 9:09 pm, eerok <e...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>> snex wrote:
>> > On Apr 21, 8:16 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 21, 5:13 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Apr 21, 7:08 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > > flank and tweedy think theists have
>> >> > > proven this case,
>> >> > > Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
>> >> > are you not a theist?
>> >> Not all theists are gnostic theists. Of course, we know
>> >> that you think that unprovable assertions should never be
>> >> believed, but that doesn't necessarily stop the rest of us.
>> > and yet you have no criteria for determining which
>> > unprovable assertions should be believed over others. if you
>> > cant support the idea that your position is more likely true
>> > than a position you consider ridiculous, why do you refuse
>> > to accept that your position might also be ridiculous?
>> If you haven't unmasked the unprovable assertions in your
>> life, perhaps you haven't taken self-awareness seriously
>> enough. I think that if a belief causes no harm, there's no
>> harm in it, which makes me no fan of evangelical atheism.
> perhaps you can point out any unprovable assertions in my
> life that i claim to believe in?
There are none you can even imagine? No objective life has
ever been lived, nor ever will be. We are subjective beings.
We are loaded with preferences and emotions and contradictons.
But I guess that, technically, if you don't speak of these
things, they're not assertions. And perhaps things that make
a qualitative difference to your life, that you don't "claim
to believe in," are absent as far as anyone knows.
> also, what makes you think that superstition causes no harm?
> theres lots of evidence that it is very harmful.
I need think nothing, only observe. We are not discussing
abstract generalities after all, but the specific case of
concrete harm. This should be understood since the subject
involves specific people. For example, what harm does Dana
Tweedy do? You brought this up; didn't you have something
particular in mind? Evidence?
Or better yet, don't bother. Just think about it.
snex
i make an effort to discover such assertions and to eliminate them, if
there is no evidence to be found.
>
> > also, what makes you think that superstition causes no harm?
> > theres lots of evidence that it is very harmful.
>
> I need think nothing, only observe. We are not discussing
> abstract generalities after all, but the specific case of
> concrete harm. This should be understood since the subject
> involves specific people. For example, what harm does Dana
> Tweedy do? You brought this up; didn't you have something
> particular in mind? Evidence?
direct harm? none im aware of. but tweedy promotes the idea that
superstition is ok, and superstition is harmful.
Mark VandeWettering
> On Apr 21, 3:26 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr 2007 14:30:59 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>>
>>
>> >The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
>> >engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
>> >evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>>
>> >Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
>> >Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
>> >and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
>> >atheists?
>>
>> >Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>>
>> You are one weird, pitiful dude. Thankfully, you're no Christian.
>>
>> CT
>
> confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
> real Christian.
Ah, the "I'm rubber and your glue" defense.
Glad to see your upping the level of your discourse.
Mark
>
>
> Ray
>
>
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> Paul was a real person - the literary material has too much of the marks
> of a single person's style (at least, the authentic ones). Whether
> anything he says is corretc is a different matter, but I think we have
> enough reason to think he was a historical person.
You mean his entire output could be fiction? Maybe he lived at the time
he said, or maybe not. Has anyone done a stylistic check for time
period, OTOH I suppose that could be restropetively faked. In any event
from his autobiographical details, I wouldn't trust the man.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velikovsky_affair_01.htm
>
>Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
>The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
>engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
>evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
>Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
>liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
>Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
>and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
>atheists?
>
>Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
Every so often a respected scientist will go "nuts". That is the only
way you can perceive Velikovsky's claims, and so it is the only way
you can label him.
Even as a 15 year old, which I was when I read Velikovsky's Worlds in
Collision, I could tell he was off his rocker. Many of his claims were
just so nuts you have to consider that he should have been sectioned.
Let's look at a couple.
Venus is a planet that has been know to all the world's civilizations
since the dawn of human reasoning. It is a planet almost identical in
size to the Earth. Clearly not a tiny ball of rock and ice that a
comet is - and yet he claimed a comet collided with Mars, lost its
tail (Duh!) and turned into the planet Venus. All this about the time
of Moses. So what was Venus before the comet became Venus?
He talks of the disrupting effect of the comet's gravitational pull as
it passed Earth. He claimed that between the 15th and 8th centuries
BC. the length of the year was only 360 days and that it suddenly
increased to 365 1/ 4 days in 687 BC. The orbit of the moon and the
length of the month were also changed.
He claimed that at one point the Earth was turned upside down so that
the sun rose in the west and set in the east.
Do you realize just how stupid these claims are Dishonest Ray?
--
Bob.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1177191059.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velikovsky_a
ffair_01.htm
>
> Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
also seem to remember having verified long ago that it has indeed not been
confirmed, but rather has been really debunked.
> Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> and the ancients were correct.
I have asked you before, and I know you never will admit it, but you have
absolutely no evidence for what you write here.
You will, true to form, respond with 'You are a lying fundamentalist
atheist, therefore I need not address the issue. I know I am right, you are
not and that's it.'
But the question needs to asked again: Evidence, yes! Please, pleas show
some! I love facts and evidence, that is what I have been stuffing my brain
with all my life, but I have room for more.
Please Ray, I beg you on my knees, do let us have a glimpse of all that
evidence yuou keep bragging about. Unless you show your cards real soon now,
our only conclusion will be, just as we have been thinking all the time,
that you are bluffing.
I am calling your bluff, but will your response be anything but your
standard mantra? I doubt it, I seriously think you are incapable of anything
else. You are a typical case of monomania.
Cheerio.
> Could we expect anything else from
> atheists?
>
What do you think we expect from you?
> Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>
Rolf
> On Apr 21, 3:26 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >
>http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
> >
> > >Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
> >
> > >The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> > >engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> > >evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
> >
> > >liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> > >Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> > >atheists?
> >
> > >Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
> >
> > You are one weird, pitiful dude. Thankfully, you're no Christian.
> >
> > CT
>
> Since you are an Atheist and you think I am not a Christian, this
> confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
> real Christian.
>
I wish I was an atheist, then I could approve of a real Christian just to
prove Ray wrong. As it is, even not being an atheist, I still approve of
real Christians. Since Ray definitely is not a real Christian, he deserves
no respect and cannot be approved. See. Ray is not an approved Christian.
Please step forward any real Christian ready to risk his neck by approving
Ray?
>
> Ray
>
>
Jim Willemin
news:1hwzf0l.1z0hbne11dx3esN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
> Those epistles that are authentic have sufficient autobiographical
> details to be credible reasons for thinking he actually went tot he
> places he said and did the things he said he did. Paul's intellectual
> milieu included Thucydides - he knew that one must at least be
> accurate about such details. Acts is less secure - Luke (the actual
> author, whether or not he *was* called Luke) at least gets the
> administrative details of Roman society correct for the time period
> described. But the miracles are not thereby warranted. Paul, if memory
> serves, gives no firsthand accounts of actual miracles.
>
> In any case, the literature of the NT is sufficient to justify a
> historian claiming that Paul existed, whatever details about him might
> be later inventions or contemporary exaggerations.
John, you do realize that if Ray reads this his head will implode from the
implications of a Darwinist-Atheist(TM) affirming Paul (who, I believe, is
second only to Scott in Ray's pantheon)? I look forward to profound
silence from Ray in this particular branch of the thread as he steadfastly
refuses to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
John Wilkins
Ken Rode
wrote:
> j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote innews:1hwzf0l.1z0hbne11dx3esN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
>
>
>
> > Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article <1hwz53k.1aaxwsy8y48qN%j.wilki...@uq.edu.au>,
I'm not sure this is right. Scott is definitely first (assuming that
we aren't considering Ray himself, since he clearly considers himself
infallible), but I suspect that Paul is third following Luther in
second place. Christ appears to be a distant fourth.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
>
> fair enough, i was under the impression that you were a christian of
> some sort.
I think Christianity would be a wonderful idea. Who could object to
"love thy neighbor" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto
you"?
Well, I mean, who OTHER THAN THE FUNDIES could object to that?
Rolf
"Ken Rode" <kar...@sympatico.ca> skrev i melding
news:1177205988....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 21, 9:22 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 8:16 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 21, 5:13 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Apr 21, 7:08 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > flank and tweedy think theists have
> >
> > > > > > proven this case,
> >
> > > > > Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
> >
> > > > are you not a theist?
> >
> > > Not all theists are gnostic theists. Of course, we know that you
> > > think that unprovable assertions should never be believed, but that
> > > doesn't necessarily stop the rest of us.
> >
> > and yet you have no criteria for determining which unprovable
> > assertions should be believed over others. if you cant support the
> > idea that your position is more likely true than a position you
> > consider ridiculous, why do you refuse to accept that your position
> > might also be ridiculous?
>
> consider myself a strong atheist, in that I believe that no gods
> exist.
In my opinion, you are right- as long as we are 'dealing with' common gods,
like Yahweh or the god in Ray's imagination, and the god of fundamentalists
and so on.
But - I believe, I could even say I know - but you'd have to have my
knowledge before you could say the same thing - that the concept of 'god'
actually refers to a reality, but it is definitely not the god of the
fundies. And so on.
Whether god is one, a trinity, a pantheon or the multitude of gods we find
among the Hindus is more of a philosophical issue than a reality we need
occupy ourselves with.
Ken Rode
> On Apr 21, 10:12 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:05 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 9:57 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 8:54 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 9:45 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 21, 8:39 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 8:16 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 5:13 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 7:08 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > flank and tweedy think theists have
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > proven this case,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Huh? I don't recall ever saying any such thing . . . . .
>
> > > > > > > > > > are you not a theist?
>
> > > > > > > > > Not all theists are gnostic theists. Of course, we know that you
> > > > > > > > > think that unprovable assertions should never be believed, but that
> > > > > > > > > doesn't necessarily stop the rest of us.
>
> > > > > > > > and yet you have no criteria for determining which unprovable
> > > > > > > > assertions should be believed over others. if you cant support the
> > > > > > > > idea that your position is more likely true than a position you
> > > > > > > > consider ridiculous, why do you refuse to accept that your position
> > > > > > > > might also be ridiculous?
>
> > > > > > > I can't speak for Stile4aly, but I'll say the following for myself. I
> > > > > > > consider myself a strong atheist, in that I believe that no gods
> > > > > > > be demonstrated to be true, that my belief is non-rational. But this
> > > > > > > is also true of the theist side as well. In the absence of evidence
> > > > > > > either for or against the existence of gods, we should all be
> > > > > > > agnostic. The fence has two sides, and most people seem to have made
> > > > > > > the jump to one side or the other.
>
>
> > > > > nope
>
> > > > yes it is. you hold a position that you know is non-rational and cant
> > > > be proven or even hinted at by evidence, and you justify it by saying
> > > > most everybody else does too.
>
> > > > if thats not the case, perhaps you can clarify what you meant.
>
> > > Perhaps I shouldn't have added the last sentence. It wasn't intended
> > > to be a justification, just an observation. The fact that I know that
> > > the belief is non-rational means that I can't justify it rationally.
>
> > so why maintain it?
>
> I don't think that I have an answer that will satisfy you. Say that
> It's a reflection of my conviction that evidence for the existence of
> gods will never be found, that neither the supernatural nor genuine
> magic does not exist in this universe, and that it seems pointless to
> me to hold open the possibility that these things exist in the absence
> of evidence, especially given what we do know about the workings of
> the universe. To the questions "Is there an invisible pink unicorn in
> my garage?" or "Was the universe created last Thursday?" should I
> answer "I don't know."? I see no merit in doing so.
I've got to proofread my material better before posting it. Please
read "neither the supernatural nor genuine magic does not exist" as
"neither the supernatural not genuine magic exists".
Ken Rode
> "Ken Rode" <kar...@sympatico.ca> skrev i meldingnews:1177205988....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
You "know" this in precisely the same way that I "know" that the
concept of 'god' is an invention of man, with no basis in reality. My
opinions in these matters are every bit as subjective as yours.
> Whether god is one, a trinity, a pantheon or the multitude of gods we find
> among the Hindus is more of a philosophical issue than a reality we need
> occupy ourselves with.
What is the use in philosophizing about issues that *cannot* be
resolved and that don't affect us?
er...@swva.net
Here is where snex has a bee in his bonnet. He thinks that for
someone to *simply admit* to being a theist is to assert a positive
claim that requires a strong objection on his part. I consider it in
the "nobody's business" category, which is also what I usually tell
fundamentalists. "Objection to the notion of superstition" may be a
worthwhile pursuit, but so is "minding one's business," and in the
arena of human evolution, which is ultimately more valuable?
Eric Root
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(snip)
> Whether god is one, a trinity, a pantheon or the multitude of gods we find
> among the Hindus is more of a philosophical issue than a reality we need
> occupy ourselves with.
(snip)
As an aside, the "gods" in Hinduism are not really "gods" in the
Western sense of the term. They are not intended to be actual
supernatural entities; instead, they are symbolic representations of
various aspects of reality. That is one reason why Hindus are so apt
to accept any and all other gods into their pantheon --- Buddha has
been accepted as a deity by several Hindu sects, as have also Jesus
Christ and Mohammed.
There are also some Buddhist groups (usually those who have been
heavily influenced by Hindus, such as Tantric Buddhism) who also
picture gazillions of gods. These also are entirely symbolic, and are
not intended to be actual supernatural entities.
Having said that, there are of course lots of people in the "lower
levels" of these groups who do indeed treat the symbolic gods as if
they were real ones, just as there are lots of people in the "lower
levels" of the Catholic church who treat all the various saints as
minor gods.
Part of the reason for this is that, in Hinduism and Hindu-influenced
Buddhism, there has long been a tradition of "exoteric knowledge", the
kind that gets passed on to the "people in the street", and "esoteric
knowledge", the kind reserved solely for those who have studied for a
long time and have reached the higher levels in the hierarchy. So
it's not unusual for the "people on the street" to be taught Hinduism
as a religious system of gods and goddesses that punish people who do
wrong, while only the "higher levels" are actually taught that it is
all just symbolism, and instructed in what that symbolism actually
means.
Part of the reason for THAT is because many of those societies were
pseudo-theocracies, where the religious hierarchies were the only
educated literate people around, and therefore religious services and
teachings were compelled to take the place of schools for instructing
people in social laws and customs. In some places like Nepal and
Tibet, that is still true to a large extent.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Iguanas: Their Biology and Captive Care"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/iguanas.html
Author:
"The Turtle: Your Happy Healthy Pet"
wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0876054998,descCd-
authorInfo.html
er...@swva.net
> On Apr 21, 8:13 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 8:56 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 7:47 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 6:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
> > > > > identification. Since all atheists rabidly endorse and defend ToE the
> > > > > theory is *their* origins theory.
>
> > > > You've been told many times, Ray, that the only belief that atheism
> > > > requires is that there are no gods. That's it. I cannot fathom why you
> > > > cannot take in that one simple fact.
>
> > > atheism does not require that belief.
>
> > I found your comment a little curt. Are you suggesting that atheism
> > doesn't require a belief in the nonexistence of gods?
>
> thats correct. atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods.
>
> one doesnt have to assert that x doesnt exist merely because people
> who believe in x have bad arguments.
A-ha! That's like me! I don't assert that God exists, I simply lack
the belief that
He doesn't!
Eric Root
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(snip)
> I think that if a belief causes no harm, there's no
> harm in it, which makes me no fan of evangelical atheism.
(snip)
I quite agree. The evangelical atheists and the evangelical
fundamentalist Christians are just different sides of the very same
coin -- neither of them can tolerate the very idea that somebody
somewhere might hold religious opinions that are different from
theirs. Neither will rest until the entire world thinks precisely the
same way that they do.
No matter how loudly they squawk at each other, under the feathers
they are the very same bird.
I would not like to live in a world run by either one of them.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
Ken Rode
Anatheism!
> Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
(snip)
>
> > What's the point of being a Christian if the source is
> > wrong?
>
> The "source" of being a Christian is faith in Christ, and following his
> teachings. How can that be wrong? Only if you are foolishly insisting the
> Bible be treated as if it were scientific can it be "wrong".
>
I figure that the point of being a Christian is that it feels right ot
me. The first generation of Christians didn't even have a New
Testament, and then for several more generations they had an unedited
mish-mash. I don't suppose they are all writhing in hell for lack of
a Bible.
> > Christians know Jesus rose from the dead.
>
> Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It's a matter of faith.
Or, in my case, I believe something happened that His followers
characterize as rising from the dead, but since I was not there, I
don't know what it really was.
>
> > If said miracle is
> > true, then how could all the other miracles in the Bible be untrue?
>
> Non sequitur. You are assuming that "true" and "scientific" are the same
> thing. Many of the stories in the bible are jsut that, stories, which
> convey a message. They were not meant to be taken as literal events.
>
Plus, since the Bible was written by many people over many years, it
is entirely likely that it could be right about some things and wrong
about others. This is the case with other books.
(snip)
>
> > Jesus descended from
> > Adam, the historic fact implicitly confirms the lineage.
>
> Jesus descended from humans, which is what's important. Adam is an
> archeotype of humanity, not a literal person.
Regardless of Adam's 'metaphoricalness,' Jesus is no more and no less
descended from him than we all are. Also, does "the historic fact
implicitly confirms the lineage" actually mean something?
>
> > Why am I
> > preaching to a Christian.
>
> Because "preaching" is all you can do. You can't provide any evidence to
> support your claims.
>
> >...you already agree with this. Right
> > REVEREND Lenny?
>
> Not necessarily. Many Christians, and theologians don't agree with you.
>
> DJT
Also, Ray is obviously in the dark about Lenny's 'Rev Dr.' Didn't he
do it as a send-up of Jason <cough> Gastrich?
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1177195715....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I don't know if I qualify as a "real Christian." I consider myself a
"rather poor Christian" with lots of room for improvement.
Eric Root
bul...@bellsouth.net
> http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>
> Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>
> The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>
> Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
> atheists?
>
> Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
Velikovsky? Bwahahahahahah! What a maroon!
Boikat
snex
once they announce such things in a public forum, they are fair game.
snex
> On Apr 21, 9:09 pm, eerok <e...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>
> (snip)> I think that if a belief causes no harm, there's no
> > harm in it, which makes me no fan of evangelical atheism.
>
> (snip)
>
> I quite agree. The evangelical atheists and the evangelical
> fundamentalist Christians are just different sides of the very same
> coin -- neither of them can tolerate the very idea that somebody
> somewhere might hold religious opinions that are different from
> theirs. Neither will rest until the entire world thinks precisely the
> same way that they do.
i have no religious opinions. neither should anybody else until such
opinions can be verified.
when a seemingly educated and prominent person has unverified
religious opinions, he/she validates the idea that it is ok to have
religious opinions that need no verification. and as your post above
about hinduism indicates, the "people in the streets" will undoubtedly
have the ones that cause problems - and they will undoubtedly cite
people like francis collins as justification that their beliefs are
perfectly ok to have.
snex
> On Apr 21, 10:55 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > fair enough, i was under the impression that you were a christian of
> > some sort.
>
> I think Christianity would be a wonderful idea. Who could object to
> "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto
> you"?
thats not what "christianity" is of course. those are only 2 things
jesus said were required to follow him. ignoring the rest is
disengenuous.
Free Lunch
er...@swva.net wrote in
<1177257435.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
That makes you much more real as a follower of Jesus than those who
worship themselves and thank God that they are not like other men.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 21, 2:54 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>>
>> > Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>>
>> > The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
>> > engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
>> > evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>>
>> > Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
>> > liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
>> > Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
>> > and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
>> > atheists?
>>
>> > Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>>
>> I'm, uh, still not an atheist, Ray . . .
>>
>
>Then why do you agree with atheists?
>
>I have devised a simple litmus test to determine an atheist: If a
>person agrees with the tenets of atheism; defends their origins
>theory; and argues against the Bible = atheist.
>
>Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
>identification. Since all atheists rabidly endorse and defend ToE the
>theory is *their* origins theory. If you think of yourself as some
>type of Christian, then again, how could a Christian and Atheist agree
>on origins?
By understanding the science and agreeing on the truth.
> What's the point of being a Christian if the source is
>wrong?
A question you would do well to answer.
>Christians know Jesus rose from the dead.
Which, of course, is not possible.
>If said miracle is
>true, then how could all the other miracles in the Bible be untrue?
Miracles do not exist.
>The Resurrection is a proveable historic fact.
No it is not, there is no evidence to support it at all.
> Jesus descended from
>Adam, the historic fact implicitly confirms the lineage.
Since Adam is a fictional character it would be very hard for anyone
(other than another fictional character) to descend from him.
> Why am I
>preaching to a Christian....
Trying to convert someone to your evil ways.
>you already agree with this. Right
>REVEREND Lenny?
Ranting again Dishonest Ray? Ranting=inability to refute according to
your rules.
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 21, 3:26 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr 2007 14:30:59 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
>>
>> >Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
>>
>> >The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
>> >engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
>> >evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
>>
>> >Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
>> >liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
>> >Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
>> >and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
>> >atheists?
>>
>> >Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
>>
>> You are one weird, pitiful dude. Thankfully, you're no Christian.
>>
>> CT
>
>Since you are an Atheist and you think I am not a Christian, this
>confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
>real Christian.
>
>
>Ray
>
I would approve on anyone that was good, regardless of faith or
colour.
I disaprove of you, regardless of your faith or colour because you are
not a good person. You are evil, you worship evil.
--
Bob.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> i have no religious opinions. neither should anybody else until such
> opinions can be verified.
With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
You're entirely entitled to your opinions and beliefs.
So is everyone else.
Even if you don't like them.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> thats not what "christianity" is of course.
Says you. (shrug)
With all due respect, it's not up to you to determine what
"Christianity" is or is not.
(sigh)
Like I said before -- different feathers, same bird.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Also, Ray is obviously in the dark about Lenny's 'Rev Dr.' Didn't he
> do it as a send-up of Jason <cough> Gastrich?
Yep. Hence the quote marks. (Cost me eight bucks, I think.)
But I do indeed have a license to teach Tantric Buddhism, which does
indeed make me the equivilent of an ordained Christian Minister.
snex
> On Apr 22, 11:24 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > i have no religious opinions. neither should anybody else until such
> > opinions can be verified.
>
> With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
not they listen, is up to them.
the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
apply? if so, why?
>
> You're entirely entitled to your opinions and beliefs.
and im entirely entitled to speak those opinions and beliefs, and to
peacefully coerce others of them.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
>
> I must point out that I don't think that theist have "proven their case".
> I believe because I feel it's right for me. I don't think that religious
> belief is something that can be proven.
Indeed, that would be the entire point of "faith".
But once again I am struck by how remarkably similar the evangelical
atheists are to the foaming fundies. Both want science to support
their particular religious opinions. Both declare that the Bible must
be taken literally, in its entirety, or it is entirely meaningless.
Both assert that if evolution happens, that means there is no God.
Both declare that Biblical-literalist fundamentalism is the only "True
Christianity(tm)(c)" and that all other forms of "liberal"
Christianity are either dishonest or stupid. Both conclude, either
implicitly or explicitly, that anyone who is not with them, must be
against them. Both are utterly totally implacably intolerant of
anyone who doesn't agree with their religious opinions (indeed, both
of them get awfully testy whenever anyone even calls their religious
opinions "religious opinions"). Both will not rest, ever, until they
have stamped the other out completely.
I guess it is true that if you fight an enemy with enough devotion and
enthusiasm, you become just like him.
Like I said before, I would not want to live in a world run by either
of them.
snex
> On Apr 22, 11:25 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > thats not what "christianity" is of course.
>
> Says you. (shrug)
>
> With all due respect, it's not up to you to determine what
> "Christianity" is or is not.
i agree, thats why i take the words of self-described christians on
the matter. perhaps you should consider it.
in any case, you are taking 2 things jesus allegedly said and ignoring
the rest, and thats not opinion. thats fact.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(snip)
>
> I figure that the point of being a Christian is that it feels right ot
> me. The first generation of Christians didn't even have a New
> Testament, and then for several more generations they had an unedited
> mish-mash. I don't suppose they are all writhing in hell for lack of
> a Bible.
>
(snip)
Indeed. But then, those people worshipped a god. Fundies like Ray
don't worship a god --- they worship a book about god, and are too
stupid to tell the difference.
Idolators, I believe is the proper term for that.
snex
>
> news:1177195866.6...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
> >> I have devised a simple litmus test to determine an atheist: If a
> >> person agrees with the tenets of atheism; defends their origins
> >> theory; and argues against the Bible = atheist.
>
> > proven their case that god exists. flank and tweedy think theists have
> > proven this case, but hey - nobody's perfect.
>
> I must point out that I don't think that theist have "proven their case".
> I believe because I feel it's right for me. I don't think that religious
> belief is something that can be proven.
is it ok to believe that the earth is flat because "it feels right for
me?"
is it ok to believe that medicine is evil and should never be taken
because "it feels right for me?"
is it ok to believe that condoms are a sin to wear even if i have an
STD and am married because "it feels right to me?"
why or why not?
>
> DJT
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> apply? if so, why?
Who the hell cares, Snex? Why are you on such a Mission from God to
stamp out religion? Why such a hardon for theists? What did Mother
Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr ever do to you?
(I am assuming, of course, that you are able to tell the difference
between "religion" and "fundamentalism". Of course, given what I've
seen of evangelical atheists, that is often an incorrect
assumption . . . . . .)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(snip)
>
> > With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> > world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
>
> actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
> not they listen, is up to them.
(snip)
Oddly enough, that is PRECISELY the answer I get from fundies when I
ask them what right they think they have to "peacefully coerce"
everyone else to their religious opinions.
Like I said --- different feathers, same bird. (shrug)
snex
> On Apr 21, 8:35 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I must point out that I don't think that theist have "proven their case".
> > I believe because I feel it's right for me. I don't think that religious
> > belief is something that can be proven.
>
> Indeed, that would be the entire point of "faith".
what is "faith?" how does it lead to correct conclusions? what error-
correcting steps does it involve?
>
> But once again I am struck by how remarkably similar the evangelical
> atheists are to the foaming fundies.
> Both want science to support
> their particular religious opinions.
lie #1
as much as i want science to support my opinions (not my religious
ones, remember i dont have any? so please stop lying), i am well aware
of the fact that science doesnt give a shit about my opinions. when my
opinions conflict with the facts of science, i abandon them. religious
people do not do the same thing, nor are they willing to.
> Both declare that the Bible must
> be taken literally, in its entirety, or it is entirely meaningless.
lie #2
i look at the evidence of how a particular passage should be taken,
and then take it that way. christians who know that certain parts of
the bible are completely false when taken literally ignore the
evidence that it should be taken literally because their religious
opinions prevent them from looking at evidence.
> Both assert that if evolution happens, that means there is no God.
lie #3
not a single atheist i know asserts this. you are really reaching on
this one.
> Both declare that Biblical-literalist fundamentalism is the only "True
> Christianity(tm)(c)" and that all other forms of "liberal"
> Christianity are either dishonest or stupid.
lie #4
we atheists take christians at their word about what christianity is,
along with taking the word of the bible itself. we mostly think that
*all* forms of christianity are dishonest or stupid, because that is
in fact what they are. one doesnt need to assert the existence of
supernatural beings just to accept the golden rule. in fact, such a
thing is dangerous. if the golden rule is logically tied to the
existence of jesus, then scientific evidence that disproves the notion
of jesus will necessarily throw out the golden rule with him. we
atheists are not bound by any such stupid things. we can look at each
assertion individually and evaluate it on its own merits.
> Both conclude, either
> implicitly or explicitly, that anyone who is not with them, must be
> against them.
lie #5
all we do is attack absurd claims and show their absurdity using
simple logic and science.
> Both are utterly totally implacably intolerant of
> anyone who doesn't agree with their religious opinions (indeed, both
> of them get awfully testy whenever anyone even calls their religious
> opinions "religious opinions").
lie #6
our only opinions on religious claims is that they have not been
demonstrated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt. although some
of us maintain religious opinions, like "no gods exist," those you are
critisizing, like myself, dawkins, harris, et al, do not maintain
those opinions.
> Both will not rest, ever, until they
> have stamped the other out completely.
neither will you rest until you have stamped out creationism. why?
because it is based on untruths. maybe you are happy with only a
subset of untruths being stamped out, but i would like to see them
*all* stamped out. call me an idealist.