A few things you all need to realize

[Jope]

It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
Time is an artificial concept.
God exists outside of time.
Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
years old at creation.
There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
beyong the historical era.
All of recorded history and all the important human developments
happened only during the last few thousand years.
God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
ultimate physical cause.
God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
soul,the real you.
Once you die your consciousness still lives.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<b15d06de-3334-4bf1...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,

Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

Where's your evidence that consciousness survives death?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

OK.No way to check this, but I'll take it as read that you believe
this.

> Time is an artificial concept.

How so? It is measurable, it has direction (recent studies of sub-
atomic particles show that there is an 'arrow of time' at that scale,
and that it points in the same direction as that seen on the macro
scale), and it is accounted for in scientific investigations.

> God exists outside of time.
> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.

Again, I don't doubt that you believe this.

> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong  the historical era.

Not so. At minimum, we have tree ring dates going back over 12,000
years, and they exactly confirm radiometric dating methods applicable
at that scale.

In addition, we have ice core data going back at least 100,000 years,
and that tracks exactly with radiometric dating.

Further, no means of changing the rate of decay of radioactive
elements has been discovered or even proposed that would describe the
universe as we see it, both today, and looking backward in time via
astronomy.

> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last  few thousand years.

Depends on what you mean by 'the last few thousand years'. If you mean
3-5,000 years, you are wrong.

Pre-human hominids made tools at least 2 million years ago.

The use of fire goes back almost as far.

Dogs have been domesticated for no less than 30-50,000 years, and
probably longer.

Plants have been domesticated, pretty much all over the world,
starting about 10-12,000 years ago.

Large settlements of people have existed for at least 10,000 years.

Textiles and pottery go back at least 10,000 years, and probably
farther.

The first cities arose about 3500 years BC, or more than 5,000 years
ago.

Writing, which means recorded information (if not history) goes back
about 3100 years BC, or about 5,000 years ago.

Which of these do you think is not an important human development?

> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.

OK.

> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

OK.

> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
science in the physical realm.

> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.

There are hypotheses, many of them. There is a vast amount of
scientific work done, and being done, on human consciousness. I'm not
sure any of them rise to the level of a scientific theory, though some
seem pretty close.

That said, you cannot say, 'we don't know how human consciousness
arose or how it works in detail, therefore GOD'. At least not with any
intellectual integrity.

> Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.

Explicate, please.

> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

What evidence, scientific evidence, do you have for this assertion?
I'm curious.

[Ken]

Wadda load of mindless B U L L C R A P!

[FreeThink]

On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

Seems like a lot of wishful thinking as motivation to perpetuate a
bronze age myth. Maybe you should examine your need for an invisible
sky daddy?

[Olrik]

Le 2012-11-21 21:35, Jope a écrit :
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> Time is an artificial concept.
> God exists outside of time.

Good to know that your «god» exists outside an artificial concept.

For your information, «Harry Potter» is an artificial concept, and I
exist outside of «Harry Potter». What does that make me?

;-)

[Jope]

Actually, the tree ring method uses carbon dating to go beyond 6000
years, making the process rather circular.Considering how huge the
margin of error is for radiometric dating,I would not consider it to
be an exact science.Furthemore it is very unlikely that the decay
process continues on a straight line over long period of
times.Whenever you have a margin of error of thousands of years,it is
reasonable to dismiss the dating results.
Besides,one can showcase the many mistakes that have been made while
trying to carbon dating the so called missing links.
Now,if you believe that eternity exists ,time cannot exist at the
same time.If you consider for instance a huge amount of time ,let's
say a trillion years;as you keep increasing time ,that trillion will
eventually be equal to zero.Eternity and time are mutually
exclusive.Time is the measure of
an internal process.If you stop that process,the perception of time
is gone.
History before writing is pure speculation.Anyone with a good
imagination can create amazing historical events with those scanty
clues that scientists are working with.
Anyway ,what atheists are unable or unwilling to grasp is that with
have a transcendal nature capable of reaching beyond the range of our
senses.
We are more than mere matter.You will surely find out on the day of
your death,then it will be too late.
There plenty of evidence for the supernatural,be it good or be it
evil ,but you people are so dismissive that no one breach that
firewall that you have created.

[Jope]

There are plenty of evidence for the supernatural,be it good or be it
evil ,but you people are so dismissive that no one can breach that

[Tom McDonald]

Actually, it isn't circular at all. Dendrochronology is a well-
understood science, and does not depend on radiocarbon dating at all.
In fact, radiocarbon dating is, in part, confirmed and adjusted by
reference to tree ring dating.

> Considering how huge the
> margin of error is for radiometric dating,I would not consider it to
> be an exact science.

The error bars for radiocarbon dating can be as small as a decade or
less. Of course, radiocarbon dating isn't the only type of radiometric
dating. Other methods, which are used for dating more than the
50-60,000 years for which radiocarbon (14C) is effective, often do
have error bars in the thousands or tens of thousands of years. But
since they generally are used for things that are millions or billions
of years old, the error bars are relatively quite small.

You may be interested to know that all measurement has error bars, not
just radiometric measurements. It is simply a fact of nature. It says
nothing about the utility of measurement within the scope of the
technique used, except that real scientists acknowledge their level of
confidence in their experimental measurements. That's part of how
science works. And it does work very well.

> Furthemore it is very unlikely that the decay
> process continues on a straight line over long period of
> times.

And you know this, how? What mechanism would you propose that would
allow the observed decay processes to speed up or slow down? Remember,
in order to do this, you have to propose significant changes in the
speed of light over time, something that is not observed.

> Whenever you have a margin of error of thousands of years,it is
> reasonable to dismiss the dating results.

Why? If you are talking about error bars in the thousands of years for
radiocarbon dates (remember, radiocarbon dating isn't used for time
deeper than about 60,000 years), you might be right. But we don't see
that in modern radiocarbon dates.

We do see such error bars in some other techniques; but they are
measuring things in the hundreds of thousands, millions and billions
of years old. The absolute range may be in the thousands of years, but
the percentage of error is rather small at those ranges.

> Besides,one can showcase the many mistakes that have been made while
> trying to carbon dating the so called missing links.

The so-called 'missing links' are not dated by carbon decay methods,
since we are now talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of
years. Radiocarbon won't work at those time depths, and scientists
know that. You, apparently, don't.

I'd be fascinated to know what some of those many mistakes you mention
are. Be as specific as you can.

>  Now,if you believe that eternity exists ,time cannot exist at the
> same time.If you consider for instance a huge amount of time ,let's
> say a trillion years;
>  as you keep  increasing  time  ,that trillion will eventually be
> equal to zero.

Wow. No. That trillion years would never be equal to zero. Look up
stochastic sometime.

> Eternity and time are mutually exclusive.Time is the
> measure of
>  an internal process.If you stop that process,the perception of time
> is gone.

OK, if that's what you believe, I will accept that you believe it.

> History before writing is pure speculation.Anyone with a good
> imagination can create amazing historical events with those scanty
> clues that scientists are working with.

I've got several years of study of archaeology at the graduate level,
and know that you are not very well versed in how archaeology works.
Or science in general, for that matter.

It is true that archaeologists, in common with all scientists, develop
hypotheses based on what we know, and then develop means to test those
hypotheses. It's a very useful and productive process. In that
process, sometimes we find that we are wrong in our initial thinking.
When that happens, we discard that which doesn't work, and develop
better hypotheses based on our new knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is always partial, contingent, and open to new
data. But we know it works to become better aware of what actually
happened in the past (in the case of archaeology). What we know isn't
useful is to accept a story and never change that story no matter what
we learn. That's religion, not science.

> Anyway ,what atheists are unable or unwilling to grasp is that with
> have a transcendal nature capable of reaching beyond the range of our
> senses.
> We are more than mere matter.You will surely find out on the day of
> your death,then it will be too late.

Interesting. So you know the state of my salvation, or damnation, on
the basis of our short Usenet acquaintance? It might surprise you to
know that I'm a Christian.

> There are plenty of evidence for the supernatural,be it good or be it
> evil ,but you people are so dismissive that no one can breach that
> firewall that you have created.

I've looked at a great deal of that evidence, and found it in every
case to be either false or misinterpreted. My faith as a Christian
might agree with you; but when you make statements about matters which
can be known, and especially when you bash science with every evidence
of not having read or understood the relevant science, then you are
speaking from faith, not scientific knowledge. If you'd simply
acknowledge that, I'd have little trouble with your statements.

As it is, when you make such elementary errors as thinking that
radiocarbon dating is used for the remains of living things more than
ca. 60,000 years old, ISTM that your religious agenda has taken over,
and you are not thinking clearly (or perhaps honestly) about your
pronouncements about reality.

[Galen Hekhuis]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:44:07 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

>...

>Actually, it isn't circular at all. Dendrochronology is a well-
>understood science, and does not depend on radiocarbon dating at all.
>In fact, radiocarbon dating is, in part, confirmed and adjusted by
>reference to tree ring dating.

>...

Just as a useless data point, scientists have found that some
stalactites (formations that hang from the ceiling in caves) have
rings too, such that they can pretty accurately tell things like
seasonal rainfall, not just the quantity of years, in areas that don't
even have trees.

[Syd M.]

On Nov 21, 9:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,

Because 'god' has never been shown to exist.

<snip rest of empty rant>

PDW

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 22, 9:11 am, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:44:07 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
>

I didn't know that. That's interesting. ISTM that that technique could
be very useful in looking at things like the great, decades-long
droughts at the end of the Classic Maya period. Especially in areas
where deforestation and rot might make it difficult to recover wood to
use for dendrochronology.

[Ken]

Jope spewed this load of BS, expecting us to blindly believe, accept
based on his word alone

It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

Time is an artificial concept.

God exists outside of time.
Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
years old at creation.

There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
beyong the historical era.

All of recorded history and all the important human developments
happened only during the last few thousand years.

God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
ultimate physical cause.

God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very

basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
soul,the real you.

Once you die your consciousness still lives.

Then on Nov 21, 10:39 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> incorrectly stated
this sentence, so I had to fix it for him...yur welcome

There are plenty of evidence for evolution, but you people are so

[Galen Hekhuis]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 07:28:02 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 22, 9:11 am, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:44:07 -0800 (PST), Tom McDonald
>>
>> <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >...
>> >Actually, it isn't circular at all. Dendrochronology is a well-
>> >understood science, and does not depend on radiocarbon dating at all.
>> >In fact, radiocarbon dating is, in part, confirmed and adjusted by
>> >reference to tree ring dating.
>> >...
>>
>> Just as a useless data point, scientists have found that some
>> stalactites (formations that hang from the ceiling in caves) have
>> rings too, such that they can pretty accurately tell things like
>> seasonal rainfall, not just the quantity of years, in areas that don't
>> even have trees.
>
>I didn't know that. That's interesting. ISTM that that technique could
>be very useful in looking at things like the great, decades-long
>droughts at the end of the Classic Maya period.

I think that is exactly the context that I heard about it. Cave
divers (the caves in that area are now mostly underwater) have been
using that very technique to date things, like the drought to which
you refer.

>Especially in areas
>where deforestation and rot might make it difficult to recover wood to
>use for dendrochronology.

We are just begriming to see real results like this. Speleology is a
relatively young science, and many of its facets have yet to be
revealed. I've been fussing around caves for about 45 years now, and
I don't think I've ever met a caver who doesn't think the earth must
be extremely old.

[Jope]

> When that happens, we discard that which ...
>
> read more »

Scientists do not just count the rings,they have to use other
techniques in conjunction with that method ,because ring-counting has
shown to be unreliable.

"The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not
unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence
from a new piece of wood matches well (note that even two trees
growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring
patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not
unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in
favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be
‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14
‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is
acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and
the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is
dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2

The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of
the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the
publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring
chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology
from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with
the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also,
the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was
abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the
authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until
the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is
not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant
claims of some of its advocates.

Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/
calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated
dates, as has been claimed."Don Batten, Ph.D.

[Ken]

On Nov 22, 8:58 am, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> CCPer more BS that's not
worth repeating as usual

There are plenty of evidence for evolution, but you people are so
dismissive that no one can breach that firewall that you have
created. .

[Fred^44]

Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It did not take God

Woops! Have any evidence for these "god" things of yours? Any at all?

Right. Once you find evidence for the existance of your gods, then you
may start providing evidence that they take things.

Bye now.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 8:35ï¿œpm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>
> It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
> cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
> investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
> science in the physical realm.

I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant
refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen. I've copied it and
added it to my quotes file. Well done, Tom.

--
__ _ | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
(_ |_) | -- Motto of the Royal Society
__)|_) |

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 22, 12:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>
> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
> > science in the physical realm.
>
> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant
> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen.  I've copied it and
> added it to my quotes file.  Well done, Tom.
>
> --
>  __ _  | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
> (_ |_) |   -- Motto of the Royal Society
> __)|_) |

Gorsh! Thanks. I try.

[Devils Advocaat]

Nonsensical waffle.

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:35:37 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
>distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

Which version of the two creation stories does this apply to?
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[Jope]

On Nov 22, 1:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>
> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
> > science in the physical realm.
>
> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant
> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen.  I've copied it and
> added it to my quotes file.  Well done, Tom.
>
> --
>  __ _  | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
> (_ |_) |   -- Motto of the Royal Society
> __)|_) |

The world existed before human science.
What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
before,something that you cannot possibly know.Man is not the measure
of all things.You are commiting the basic error that brought evil into
the world ,proudly thinking that all knowlege must transit trough your
limited senses.The spiritual realm is accessed through spiritual
means.
Human science can not even define life,even though it is a constant
experience.Human science does not even know that man has a soul.
You are placing your trust into something that will prove utterly
useless ,when the terrors of death come upon you.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 1:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>>
>> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
>> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
>> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
>> > science in the physical realm.
>>
>> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant
>> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen.  I've copied it and
>> added it to my quotes file.  Well done, Tom.
>>
>> --
>>  __ _  | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
>> (_ |_) |   -- Motto of the Royal Society
>> __)|_) |
>
> The world existed before human science.

Yes. The world also existed before humans.

> What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
> before,something that you cannot possibly know.

No, we can possibly know it:

1) We assume uniformitarianism; that the laws of nature today behave as they
did before. Why can we assume this? Well, two reasons; there's no evidence to
suggest they didn't, and there's no current model to explain how they could do
so otherwise.
2) We can look into the past through the lens of archeology and geology.

> Man is not the measure
> of all things.

Man is currently the measurer of all things, as there's no current indication
of any other sufficiently advanced intellegence here or anywhere else.

> You are commiting the basic error that brought evil into
> the world ,proudly thinking that all knowlege must transit trough your
> limited senses.

How else do you propose I obtain knowledge, if not through my senses.

> The spiritual realm is accessed through spiritual
> means.

1) Please provide some evidence that the spiritual realm exists.
2) Please provide some idea what these "spiritual means" are.
3) Please provide a definition for "spiritual" and "spirit".

> Human science can not even define life,even though it is a constant
> experience.

Well, that's because "life" is a process, not a "thing". What does that have
to do with anything?

> Human science does not even know that man has a soul.

Correct. Because there's no evidence he has.

> You are placing your trust into something that will prove utterly
> useless ,when the terrors of death come upon you.

I spent 14 billion years not existing, and it didn't incommode me at all. I
don't think I'll have any problem not existing again; I won't have any sensory
input, as I'll be dead. What "terrors" I go through in the transition between
"life" and "death" are inconsequential, and will soon be over.

Read some Epicurus, and be enlightened.

--
__ _ | Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be
(_ |_) | driven into practice with courageous impatience.
__)|_) | -- Admiral Hyman Rickover

[Les]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:35:37 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 22, 1:10 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>>
>> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
>> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
>> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
>> > science in the physical realm.
>>
>> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant
>> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen.  I've copied it and
>> added it to my quotes file.  Well done, Tom.
>>
>> --
>>  __ _  | Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
>> (_ |_) |   -- Motto of the Royal Society
>> __)|_) |
>
>The world existed before human science.

Rather obviously yes

>What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
>before,something that you cannot possibly know.

Are you sure about that? We cannot know competely of coursem we do
not even know our present times completley, but there are many clues
left behind which gives us some insights.

Was this the excuse you needed to invent gods to explain it?

> Man is not the measure
>of all things.You are commiting the basic error that brought evil into
>the world ,proudly thinking that all knowlege must transit trough your
>limited senses.The spiritual realm is accessed through spiritual
>means.

Spiritual realm? Wot the eck is one of those?

If we cannot reach it through our senses than please explain how you
can claim to know know there is such a thing in a way we can check and
verify for ourselves

>Human science can not even define life,even though it is a constant
>experience.

Indeed our knowledge is still limited but we are learning much all the
time and already know a great deal. We have even started to get some
valuable insight into how our brain works

> Human science does not even know that man has a soul.

That depends on how you define what you call a soul and upon
which evidence you do the defining

If we have not the means to detect one nobody will know will they?

Hardly grounds for claiming there is such a things is it?

>You are placing your trust into something that will prove utterly
>useless ,when the terrors of death come upon you.

Am I?



Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

[Jope]

On Nov 22, 12:52 pm, repo...@scientology.org (Fred^44) wrote:

"So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after
Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us."
Acts 17v27
It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that
you should seek and find him.
God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
consciousness that are manifest in the world.
To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see the
driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
intelligent driving force.
That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
universe.
As for purpose,even the preposterous theory of evolution finds it
necessary to use natural selection as a purpose.
Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
conscious .
If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard to
think that it possesses what it bestows.
And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
consciousness in the universe?
You trust what you see.But how can you trust the observation if you
don't know the nature of the observer.
The real you,the one inside,the soul, is the one that matters.It is
the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to your
creator.

[Wombat]

IIRC, that method was also used to confirm the drought that brought
the Egyptian Old Kingdom down.

[Jope]

On Nov 22, 3:23 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

You used the word "assume",meaning that you don't really know.You are
basically saying that unless you can see or touch ,you will dismiss
whatever knowledge that is presented to you;therein lies the basic
conflict.Unless you can find in yourself the motivation to priviledge
your transcendal nature and reach beyond your mere senses ,your soul
will perish.You have to believe first and there are no two ways about
it.

[Galen Hekhuis]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:50:29 -0800 (PST), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
wrote:

For more than you ever wanted to know about this kind of stuff:
http://www.speleogenesis.info/

[Tom McDonald]

Was that by studying caves in Egypt, or by looking at stalactites in
the limestone pyramids?

[Tom McDonald]

We all make assumptions. So do you wrt your spiritual/religious
realm.

The difference is that the most basic assumptions used by science
(e.g. that there is something rather than nothing; that there is
something outside of ourselves; that it has rules and laws; and that
we can learn about it using our senses and intelligence) work, and are
repeatable by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Religion/spirituality, OTOH, is not universal. Do you think Hindus and
those of the Shinto religion use the same spiritual/religious
assumptions that you do? And religion has the limitation that, if one
is satisfied with the answers it gives regarding the world around us,
technological and scientific progress is not possible. As you have
shown in this thread, when you claim that science doesn't know
everything, therefore God.

The fact is you are probably using the 'God of the Gaps' argument,
especially to the extent that you use modern medicine instead of
religious incantations and demon-exorcisms. And, since you use a
computer, you trust science to carry messages to, for example, this
newsgroup, instead of praying for a miracle to have God make your
messages appear here.

If I'm wrong about that last, PLEASE let me know. It would save so
much on my ISP and electic bill payments. :-)

[Tom McDonald]

Thanks. Found this on that site:

"Sannur Cave: A Crescent shaped cave developed in Alabaster formation
in Eastern Desert, Egypt"

http://www.speleogenesis.info/directory/karstbase/publication.php?id=8518

Or;

http://tinyurl.com/adst265

From the abstract, a tease about the issue Galen brought up:

"In addition to surveying the cave, based on the geologic, structural
and morphologic observation inside and outside the cave some
interpretations on the paleoenvironment an the origin of the cave."

I wonder whether the full paper discusses the paleoenvironmental issue
of either dating or climatological investigation using stalactites.
Anyone have access to this article? Or to some other work on the topic?

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 22, 3:23ï¿œpm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 22, 1:10ï¿œpm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> >> In alt.atheism Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>>
>> >> > It equally means that spirituality, and its associate, religion,
>> >> > cannot be scientific, and nor can it provide a basis for scientific
>> >> > investigation. And, most importantly, it can't be used to trump
>> >> > science in the physical realm.
>>
>> >> I just wanted to point out that this is the simplest, and most elegant

>> >> refutation of that particular argument I've ever seen. ï¿œI've copied it and
>> >> added it to my quotes file. ï¿œWell done, Tom.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> ￜ__ _ ￜ| Nullius in verba ("Take nobody's word for it")
>> >> (_ |_) | ￜ -- Motto of the Royal Society

>> >> __)|_) |
>>
>> > The world existed before human science.
>>

>> Yes. ï¿œThe world also existed before humans.

>>
>> > What you are experiencing now ,is the product of what existed
>> > before,something that you cannot possibly know.
>>
>> No, we can possibly know it:
>>
>> 1) We assume uniformitarianism; that the laws of nature today behave as they

>> did before. ï¿œWhy can we assume this? ï¿œWell, two reasons; there's no evidence to

>> suggest they didn't, and there's no current model to explain how they could do
>> so otherwise.
>> 2) We can look into the past through the lens of archeology and geology.
>>
>> > Man is not the measure
>> > of all things.
>>
>> Man is currently the measurer of all things, as there's no current indication
>> of any other sufficiently advanced intellegence here or anywhere else.
>>
>> > You are commiting the basic error that brought evil into
>> > the world ,proudly thinking that all knowlege must transit trough your
>> > limited senses.
>>
>> How else do you propose I obtain knowledge, if not through my senses.
>>
>> > The spiritual realm is accessed through spiritual
>> > means.
>>
>> 1) Please provide some evidence that the spiritual realm exists.
>> 2) Please provide some idea what these "spiritual means" are.
>> 3) Please provide a definition for "spiritual" and "spirit".
>>
>> > Human science can not even define life,even though it is a constant
>> > experience.
>>

>> Well, that's because "life" is a process, not a "thing". ï¿œWhat does that have
>> to do with anything?
>>
>> > Human science does not even ï¿œknow that man has a soul.
>>
>> Correct. ï¿œBecause there's no evidence he has.

>>
>> > You are placing your trust into something that will prove utterly
>> > useless ,when the terrors of death come upon you.
>>

>> I spent 14 billion years not existing, and it didn't incommode me at all. ï¿œI

>> don't think I'll have any problem not existing again; I won't have any sensory

>> input, as I'll be dead. ï¿œWhat "terrors" I go through in the transition between

>> "life" and "death" are inconsequential, and will soon be over.
>>
>> Read some Epicurus, and be enlightened.
>>
>> --

>> ￜ__ _ ￜ| Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be

>> (_ |_) | driven into practice with courageous impatience.

>> __)|_) | ￜ -- Admiral Hyman Rickover

> You used the word "assume",meaning that you don't really know.

It's called inductive reasoning. Read some Hume. You don't "know" you're
going to live one second longer, but I bet you already made plans for dinner,
didn't you? Why? Because you have no evidence to assume you're not going to
be eating pot roast in another hour or two.

We have no evidence, and no reason, to think that the laws of the universe
haven't *always* been this way.

> You are
> basically saying that unless you can see or touch ,you will dismiss
> whatever knowledge that is presented to you;

Depends on what the knowledge is, and how it's presented. If you want to tell
me a funny story about elves, under the condition that we both agree it's just
a story about elves, then that's fine, I'll experience the story, and if it's a
good one, tell it to my kids. If you tell me a story about elves and insist
that elves are REAL, well, that's a different kettle of fish.

> therein lies the basic
> conflict.Unless you can find in yourself the motivation to priviledge
> your transcendal nature

WHAT transcendal nature? First you've got to establish I have one.

> and reach beyond your mere senses

What evidence do you have that there is something beyond my senses?

> ,your soul
> will perish.

What evidence do you have that we have souls?

> You have to believe first and there are no two ways about
> it.

Sorry, I don't believe in things that nobody's demonstrated existence of.

Tell me, do you believe in Zeus? Apollo? If not, why not?

--
__ _ | You may my glories and my state dispose,
(_ |_) | But not my griefs; still am I king of those.
__)|_) | -- William Shakespeare, "Richard II"

[Wombat]

Thank you. I have bookmarked it and will peruse it later.

[Wombat]

I seem to recall it was caves just outside Egypt. The cave study may
have been ref 5 in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event referring to Soreq
Cave, Israel.
For more info, though not including the caves, look at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml#four

[Tom McDonald]

> have been ref 5 inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_eventreferring to Soreq
> Cave, Israel.
> For more info, though not including the caves, look athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.sh...

Thank you. Those are interesting pages.

[Freedom Man]

"Jope" <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b15d06de-3334-4bf1...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

> Time is an artificial concept.
> God exists outside of time.
> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.
> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong the historical era.
> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last few thousand years.
> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.
> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.
> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

AMAZING how brainwashed fanatics can rationalize their beliefs - but they
can NEVER offer any scientific proof!

See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?

Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.

"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind
intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell." --- Karl Popper

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig

Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he
is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and
wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.

"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen

"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." - Mark
Twain

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins

"Cult today, religion tomorrow."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 21, 9:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> Time is an artificial concept.
> God exists outside of time.
> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.
> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong  the historical era.
> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last  few thousand years.
> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.
> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.
> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
thing Monday morning.

[Ken]

On Nov 23, 5:04 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote
about some fool named Jope

> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
> thing Monday morning.

Haven't you heard...His shrink moved and changed his phone #.

[Wombat]

On Nov 23, 7:57 pm, "Freedom Man" <freespe...@4eva.com> wrote:
> "Jope" <jope...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:b15d06de-3334-4bf1...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
> > distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
> > Time is an artificial concept.
> > God exists outside of time.
> > Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> > years old at creation.
> > There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> > beyong  the historical era.
> > All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> > happened only during the last  few thousand years.
> > God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> > ultimate physical cause.
> > God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
> > The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
> > Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> > understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> > basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
> > soul,the real you.
> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> AMAZING how brainwashed fanatics can rationalize their beliefs - but they
> can NEVER offer any scientific proof!

Delete spam

[linuxgal]

Father Haskell wrote:
> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
> thing Monday morning.

Litium will no longer be available on credit.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Jope]

Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .You should try to refute
 instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.
Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
rejecting wisdom of eternity.
Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
consciousness?
 You cannot answer none of those questions ,yet you consider your
feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.
 What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
fire.Really?

[Ken]

On Nov 24, 8:07 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> Father Haskell wrote:
> > Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
> > thing Monday morning.
>
> Litium will no longer be available on credit.
>

A few self-administered EST jolts might help instead....

[Jope]

Except for some rare instances,scientific theories usually follow
scientific discoveries.Therefore human inventions are not the products
of some deep knowledge of the world ,rather result from some deep
tinkering with pre-existing properties.You are making the mistake of
considering your narrow perceptions to be the complete reality.
According to Einstein 's theory of realtivity ,the nature of reality
varies with the position of the observer.As an observer what is your
position in the universe?How can you ascertain the value of your
experience?You all need to acknowledge your limitations and pay heed
to repeated warnings.Because , a nasty surprise lies at the
end.Believe it or not.

[Ken]

Maybe a Hot Lead Enema?

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 24, 2:09 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .

Neither does lucidity for the xian loony.

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 2:09 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eternal torments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
rejecting the wisdom of eternity.
Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years ago?What

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
>> thing Monday morning.
>Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .You should try to refute
> instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.
>Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
>rejecting wisdom of eternity.
>Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
>is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
>consciousness?
> You cannot answer none of those questions ,yet you consider your
>feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.
> What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
>fire.Really?

Why didn't you save your fingers the effort and just say
"I, Jope am a fucking moron"?

[Christopher A. Lee]

He's insane.

Not because he believes this silliness, but because he imagines we
should too.

[Les]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 23, 8:04 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 9:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It did not take God seven days to create the world,rather God
>> > distributed the creation of the world into seven days.
>> > Time is an artificial concept.
>> > God exists outside of time.
>> > Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
>> > years old at creation.
>> > There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
>> > beyong  the historical era.
>> > All of recorded history and all the important human developments
>> > happened only during the last  few thousand years.
>> > God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
>> > ultimate physical cause.
>> > God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.
>> > The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.
>> > Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
>> > understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
>> > basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.Because, human conciousness is the
>> > soul,the real you.
>> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>>
>> Take your lithium and be sure to call your shrink first
>> thing Monday morning.


>Death does not wait for the scoffing atheist .

It waits for no living thing.

So what?

>You should try to refute
> instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.

What's to reject?

Other than a claim you expect us to accept just on your say-so
that is.

>Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
>rejecting wisdom of eternity.

Did you want us to accept this just on your say-so?

>Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
>is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
>consciousness?
> You cannot answer none of those questions

"You cannot answer any..." Your version was a double negative

Can you answer any of these questions yourself without needing to
expect us to accept what you say just on your say-so?

> ,yet you consider your
>feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.

Really

Ae you another of these theist who thinks he can read peoples
minds?

There seems to be rash of then just lately in this frenzy of
iditic theist posts. Is it the full moon that has brought you
all out or summat?

Please keep em coming I am enjoying this turkey shoot :-)

Hmm that is the second time I have seen that phrase used. Do
you know what it means or did not you just cut and paste it
because you thought it looked impressive?

> What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
>fire.Really?

What lake of fire?

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 4:30 pm, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

The gospel has been preached with supernatural miracles and
demonstration of God presence.
You are putting your trust in your own ablities to understand   the
universe.
Consciousness is the soul.Like somebody with a small magnifying
glass ,to whom is being described a microscopic world:
where is it? I cannot see it ,therefore it cannot possibly exist.
You do not even know that you have a soul.Your ignorance is
bottomless.Repent now ,while you still can.

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 4:30 pm, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:09:48 -0800 (PST), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

Concerning the existence of God ,let me repeat my earlier post.Maybe
some of you atheists will end up getting it.

"So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after
Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us."
Acts 17v27
It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that
you should seek and find him.
God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
consciousness that are manifest in the world.
To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see
the
driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
intelligent driving force.
That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
universe.
As for purpose,even the preposterous theory of evolution finds it
necessary to use natural selection as a purpose.
Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
conscious .
If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard to
think that it possesses what it bestows.
And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
consciousness in the universe?
You trust what you see.But how can you trust the observation if you
don't know the nature of the observer.
The real you,the one inside,the soul, is the one that matters.It is
the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to your
creator.

[Ken]

And it's NOT cope, rope, hope, or nope!

[linuxgal]

Ken wrote:
> And it's NOT cope, rope, hope, or nope!

Pope?

[Father Haskell]

"Scornful rejection?" Fuck you. That was derisive mockery.

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 24, 7:15 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > And it's NOT cope, rope, hope, or nope!
>
> Pope?

Soap? Cantaloupe?

[Ken]

Close, but no cigar!

[Budikka666]

On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It did not take God seven days to create the world

Nope, ti took only six according to the "inerrant word of god"!

> ,rather God
> distributed the creation of the world into seven days.

Nope. Six.

> Time is an artificial concept.

No, it really exists. it's been demosntrated scientifically.

> God exists outside of time.

Your evidence for this is where?

> Man was created a full adult and the world could have been billion of
> years old at creation.

Nope. The Bible expliclty states six 24 hour days as identified by
the words "evening and morning" used to delineate each day. Arbitrary
time periods do not have "evening and morning". A thousand years does
not have "evening and morning". An epoch doesn't have "evening and
morning". Only a 24 hour day has evening and morning and that's what
the hebrew word means, taken form a root meaning 'heat of the day'.
Indeed, in israel, they *still* today class their day as starting at
sunset and ending the following day at sunset, thereby having an
evening and a morning in that order.

> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
> beyong  the historical era.

That's an outright lie. Go do some reading:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

> All of recorded history and all the important human developments
> happened only during the last  few thousand years.

Lie.

> God is not the ultimate physical cause,He is the creator of the
> ultimate physical cause.

And your objective independent evidence for this is where?

> God is spiritual and as such can only be understood spiritually.

And your objective independent authority for this is what?

> The spiritual realm is well beyond the purview of human science.

Lie. if your god interacts with reality, then that interaction must
leave traces in reality, which in turn can be analyzed and measured
scientifically. A global flood as depicted in fiction in Genesis
would have left global traces and none have been found. Therefore the
miraculous/supernatural global flood was tested and found to be
false. In short, the Bible lied.

> Despite all the progress ,scientists are not even close to
> understanding human consciousness;no theory at all exist on that very
> basic subject ,zero ,zilch, nada.

Lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

> Because, human conciousness is the
> soul,the real you.

And your objective independent authority for this is what?

A few things *you* need to know:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/14/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-it/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/23/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-it-pt-ii-the-supremacy-of-vision/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/08/08/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-pt-iii-memory-communication-and-perception/

> Once you die your consciousness still lives.

And your objective independent authority for this is what?

We posted several threads on the soul some time ago and not a single
theist on Usenet was able to intellgiently or comeptently answer the
questions those threads posed, much less support their answers.
Here's one of them:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2295fa89be33ae07

Budikka

[sbalneav]

All available evidence suggests it does. It also awaits the most fervent
theist.

> You should try to refute
>  instead of scornfully reject what is presented to you.

Here's the refutation: you've provided zero evidence for what you're claiming.
Without that, we have no reason to believe you.

> Eternal tourments lie at the end of your path ,unless you stop
> rejecting wisdom of eternity.

Ah, yes. The threat of eternal torment from the kind and loving God.

> Let us reason:

All right.

> What do you think existed one Centillion years away

Well, depending on your definition of "Centillion", that could either be 10^303
or 10^600. Since you're using "existed", one assumes that "years away" means
"in the past". If this is the case, your question is nonsensical. Our
universe is only about 14 billion years old. Current hypotheses would indicate
that time started at the moment of the big bang. Your number is larger than 14
billion years. Therefore, since time appears to have stared 14 billion years
ago, it makes no sense to talk about older time frames.

> What
> is man ?

One of the great apes. Biped hominid. Our full family tree is:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

> what is his position in the universe?

We're on a small rocky planet orbiting an unremarkable main-sequence star, in
an otherwise undistingushed galaxy.

Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not.
In either case the idea is quite staggering.
-- Arthur C. Clarke

> What is life?

Hard to exactly pin down, but here on earth, tends to have DNA in it.

> What is
> consciousness?

Current thinking is that it's an emergent property of our brains.

>  You cannot answer none of those questions

I answered all of them. For some, the current answer is a little fuzzy, but
that's ok, we'll learn more as time goes on.

> ,yet you consider your
> feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.

And yet, the hubris of the theist is never more on display when he asserts "God
did it" with no evidence whatsoever to presume that this God exists!

>  What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
> fire.Really?

Well, I tend not to go spelunking in calderas so unless a volcano opens up
under my house, I'm not too worried about it. I do, however, often face fire
frequently. I usually handle that by throwing on another log, and grabbing
some marshmallows, graham crackers, and chocolate.

--
__ _ | Books are lighthouses erected in the great sea of time.
(_ |_) | -- Edwin P. Whipple
__)|_) |

[Jope]

> Lie.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

>
> > Because, human conciousness is the
> > soul,the real you.
>
> And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>

> A few things *you* need to know:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-a...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/14/why-di...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/23/why-di...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/08/08/why-di...

>
> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>
> We posted several threads on the soul some time ago and not a single
> theist on Usenet was able to intellgiently or comeptently answer the
> questions those threads posed, much less support their answers.
> Here's one of them:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2295fa89be33ae07
>
> Budikka

"No, it really exists.  it's been demosntrated scientifically. "

Actually time is the perception of internal process ,if you stop that
process ,the feeling of time is gone.That has happened to quite a few
people.The problem you have is that our range of thinking is too
narrow.Instead of thinking in terms of billions ,why not septillion
and even centillion.
As the amount of time  increases the actual value eventually reaches
zero,making time anf eternity mutually exclusive.




 The soul,the real you.

"And your objective independent authority for this is what? "

Peope have had out of body experiences ,where they saw things that
they could not possible have seen from their locations.
In one instance somebody  managed to show himself semi-visible to
another person while in the OBE state.
Now,as a christian I strongly advise against experimenting in OBE as
you will fall against the influence of demons ,presenting themselves
as spirit guides.Besides,practicing the occult is against the law of
God and leads to perdition.
Still, there is large body of evidence if you are inclined to
investigate.

There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
 beyong  the historical era.




"That's an outright lie.  Go do some reading"

Radiometric dating has huge margin of errors making  it unreliable at
the outset.
There have been a lot of glaring mistakes ,when scientists tried to
date the so called missing links.
When you throw a piece of rock into the water ,the waves keep on
decreasing in strengh over greater surface,
That pattern reflects the general behavior of nature .Therefore it is
preposterous to think that aging would occur in straight line over
long period of times.
Somebody mentioned the tree ring method as a way of corroborating the
acuuracy of carbon dating.You should know that merely counting the
number of rings do not yield accurate results,scientists have to use
other methods ,making it a rather circular process.




Some people in this group are content to just throw rocks .At least
you tried to reason.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "For the  assertion that ???There is no God??? is just as much a claim to
>> knowledge as  is the assertion that ???There is a God.???  Therefore, the

>> former assertion  requires justification just as the latter does. "
>> - William Lane Craig,  "Reasonable Faith"
>
> Concerning the existence of God ,let me repeat my earlier post.Maybe
> some of you atheists will end up getting it.

Unlikely, since we have functional brains.

> "So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after
> Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us."
> Acts 17v27

Ahh, always start off with a bible quote from a book we've already rejected as
fairy tale. THAT will convince us.

> It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that
> you should seek and find him.

Well, of course. If the bible actually made the claim that he would APPEAR,
it would have been debunked 2000 years ago. Much better to say he wants you to
look for him. That way, the self-deluded will find what they're looking for.
Those that don't? Oh, the bible talks about those 'unbelievers' too.

> God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
> consciousness that are manifest in the world.

Like what? A design for humans that has our breathing tube and food tube share
the same hole, so if we can't swallow something, we choke? A design that makes
a nerve that control something in our head take a detour around our heart
before it gets to the brain? A design that puts a little pocket in our
intestines that gets plugged with rotting food and kills us? This "design" is
"intelligent"?

> To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
> traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
> turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see
> the
> driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
> intelligent driving force.

Self driving cars.

> That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
> universe.

Please provide an example of something naturalistic that displays this
intelligent behaviour.

> As for purpose,even the preposterous theory of evolution finds it
> necessary to use natural selection as a purpose.

Natural selection through reproductive success, yes. You'll notice a lot of
animals either die immediately after, or go into decline after their breeding
lifetime. Consider the mayfly, with no working mouth or digestive system.
After living most of it's life as a nymph, it turns into an adult, mates, and
dies of starvation.

Humans, traditionally, become fecund in their teens, and for hundreds of years,
didn't live much past their thirties. Just long enough to usher the next
generation into fecundity.

> Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
> conscious .

Read some current studies on neuroscience.

> If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard to
> think that it possesses what it bestows.

Argumentum ad ignoratum. Just because YOU find it hard to imagine, doesn't
mean those of us who paid attention in science class do.

> And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
> consciousness in the universe?

Yes. How would this consciousness work, without a brain? How does a being
that transcends this universe affect anything in it? Where did it come from?
It raises far more questions than it answers.

> You trust what you see.

No, I don't. I *know* my senses are fallable. I am reminded of this every
time I watch a Magician. What I *do* trust, however, is a rational
investigation of phenomenon. We have a name for that: science. So far, while
not being perfect, it's had a damn sight better track record than religion for
telling us how the universe works.

> But how can you trust the observation if you
> don't know the nature of the observer.
> The real you,the one inside,the soul,

Where's the evidence I have one?

> is the one that matters.It is
> the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to your
> creator.

No evidence that this is the case.

--
__ _ | I think we can put our differences behind us...
(_ |_) | for science. You monster.
__)|_) | -- GLaDOS, Portal 2

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 8:37 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

Interesting! so you do not believe in the concept of eternity.Then
what is time?What is your best definition?

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 8:56 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

That request is simply unbelievable.Just look around.Anywhere.

[Jope]

On Nov 24, 8:11 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

> Lie.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

>
> > Because, human conciousness is the
> > soul,the real you.
>
> And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>

> A few things *you* need to know:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-a...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/14/why-di...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/23/why-di...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/08/08/why-di...

>
> > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>
> We posted several threads on the soul some time ago and not a single
> theist on Usenet was able to intellgiently or comeptently answer the
> questions those threads posed, much less support their answers.
> Here's one of them:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2295fa89be33ae07
>
> Budikka

"The Bible expliclty states six 24 hour days as identified by
the words "evening and morning" used to delineate each day.
Arbitrary
time periods do not have "evening and morning". A thousand years
does
not have "evening and morning". An epoch doesn't have "evening and
morning". Only a 24 hour day has evening and morning and that's what
the hebrew word means, taken form a root meaning 'heat of the day'.
Indeed, in israel, they *still* today class their day as starting at
sunset and ending the following day at sunset, thereby having an
evening and a morning in that order. "

The problem here has to do with your definition of time.If you accept
the Einsteinian definition of time
as number of events,then it would be possible to complete the whole
of creation in a few seconds simply through acceleration.
But why having such a small anthropomorphic image of God anyway.You
need to try to think outside the box.
No wonder you are still trapped into atheism.
God is by his very definition beyond your abilities to grasp.If I
mention the world spiritual ,your answer will be :Where is it?Where
can i see ? How much does it weigh?.Again,try to think outside the box.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-11-24 14:09, Jope a �crit :

MEDIC!

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 25, 12:42 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Too late. Call animal control.

[Les]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:28:08 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well

Yes or no?

>> >Let us reason:What do you think existed one Centillion years away?What
>> >is man ?what is his position in the universe? What is life?What is
>> >consciousness?
>> >�You cannot answer none of those questions
>>
>> "You cannot answer any..." �Your version was a double negative
>>
>> Can you answer any of these questions yourself without needing to
>> expect us to accept what you say just on your say-so?

Well?

>>
>> > ,yet you consider your
>> >feeble mind to to be the measure of everything.
>>
>> Really
>>
>> Ae you another of these theist who thinks he can read peoples
>> minds?

Well?

>>
>> There seems to be rash of then just lately in this frenzy of
>> iditic theist posts. Is it the full moon that has brought you
>> all out or summat?
>>
>> Please keep em coming I am enjoying this turkey shoot :-)
>>
>> Hmm that is the second time I have seen that phrase used. Do
>> you know what it means or did not you just cut and paste it
>> because you thought it looked impressive?
>>
>> >�What will be your answer ,when you are facing the lake of
>> >fire.Really?
>>
>> What lake of fire?

>The gospel has been preached with supernatural miracles and
>demonstration of God presence.

Has it?

Do you wish me to accept this extraordinary claim just on your say so?

>You are putting your trust in your own ablities to understand � the
>universe.

Am I?

Claiming to read my mind are you?

I will have to start wearing a some kind of shield on my head
to block your mind probes.

Hmm what works best I wonder? Steel gauze, a woolly hat.
or perhaps common sense which is telling me you are lying.

>Consciousness is the soul.Like somebody with a small magnifying
>glass ,to whom is being described a microscopic world:

Very poetic

Nowt wrong with that I love poetry

>where is it? I cannot see it ,therefore it cannot possibly exist.

Really?

>You do not even know that you have a soul.

Tin hats everybody he is reading our minds again.

> Your ignorance is
>bottomless.Repent now ,while you still can.

Well I checked the Pent roof of my shed last week
it still looks quite sound so I do not think it needs repenting
just yet.

Boom boom

The old jokes are still the best don't you think?

And they do not come much older that Christaniy

LOL

[Les]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:33:37 -0800 (PST), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sorry don't do repeats especially when we know the repeat was a
waste of time the first ime round.

>
>"So that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after
>Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us."
>Acts 17v27
>It is not the will of God that you see him physically but rather that
>you should seek and find him.
>God is revealed through the intelligence,purposefulness and the
>consciousness that are manifest in the world.
>To illustrate intelligence :Let's consider a car moving through
>traffic with no visible driver;it stops at the lights,carefully makes
>turns and avoids hitting other vehicles.Even though you cannot see
>the
>driver,it would never occur to you to deny the existence of an
>intelligent driving force.

You theists just love these simplistic but oeverlong analagies don't
you? It is the second time this week I have seen one and there never
seems to be any real point to them

I guess it is an attempt to associate reality with fantasy in the
hope we will not notice the obvious difference.

>That kind of intelligent behavior is observable everywhere in the
>universe.
>As for purpose,even the preposterous theory of evolution finds it
>necessary to use natural selection as a purpose.
>Your body is made of inanimate substances ,yet you are alive and
>conscious .
>If nature can bestow intelligence and consciousness,is it hard to
>think that it possesses what it bestows.
>And ,Is it that hard to conceive of an ultimate intelligence and
>consciousness in the universe?
>You trust what you see.But how can you trust the observation if you
>don't know the nature of the observer.

>The real you,the one inside,the soul, is the one that matters.

Well to me and my loved ones certainly. Less so to others.

Ah at last. after all this long ramble with nothing in particular we
finally get to the point:

> It is
>the one that will end up in eternal torments ,unless you turn to your
>creator.

Did you wish me to accept this just on your say-so?

And what has all this go to do with autopilots in cars, your
attempt to deny evolution takes place and goodness knows
what else.

You are clearly have just been asting my time

Try not to crosspost into our newsgroup again OK so
as not to waste any more of our time

Have a nice day.

[Les]

Something for which religion seems to have been pefectly designed for.

Humans are usually not all the good at designing perfection but then
making themselves mockable is not what they had in mind when they
invented religion

[Devils Advocaat]

[snipped for brevity and focus]

What about those that have sought for your deity and found nothing?

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Like I say, pick *one*. Let's discuss it.

You can pick one, can't you?

--
__ _ | Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.
(_ |_) | -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
__)|_) |

[Budikka666]

> > A few things *you* need to know:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-a......

>
> > > Once you die your consciousness still lives.
>
> > And your objective independent authority for this is what?
>
> > We posted several threads on the soul some time ago and not a single
> > theist on Usenet was able to intellgiently or comeptently answer the
> > questions those threads posed, much less support their answers.
> > Here's one of them:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/2295fa89be33ae07
>
> > Budikka
>
> "No, it really exists.  it's been demosntrated scientifically. "
>
> Actually time is the perception of internal process ,if you stop that
> process ,the feeling of time is gone.

Lie. Which part of "it's been demonstrated scientifically" was lost
on you? When a clock is accelerated, time slows down for that clock
as compared with a clock not undergoing said acceleration. This has
nothing to do with anyone's subjective PoV. It has been tested, and
demonstrated, and proven scientifically.

That has happened to quite a few
> people.The problem you have is that our range of thinking is too
> narrow.Instead of thinking in terms of billions ,why not septillion
> and even centillion.

Your problem is that you are A. scientifically ignorant and B. not
thinking at all.

> As the amount of time  increases the actual value eventually reaches
> zero,making time anf eternity mutually exclusive.

Time arose as part and parcel of this universe. There is a limit to
how far you can divide time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Please, educate yourself. Right now you're an embarrassment to your
chosen faith. Not that anything isn't an embarrassment to faith.

>  The soul,the real you.
> "And your objective independent authority for this is what? "
>
> Peope have had out of body experiences

Which have been explained scientifically. There's no need for the
evidence-free ficiton of a soul to explain them.

> ,where they saw things that
> they could not possible have seen from their locations.
> In one instance somebody  managed to show himself semi-visible to
> another person while in the OBE state.

I see no scientific citation for this delusional claim. We *know*
that people are delusional. We *know* that eye witness is the least
reliable kind of witness. These explanations make far moro sense than
your positing of the evidence-free ficiton of a soul to explain them.

> Now,as a christian I strongly advise against experimenting in OBE as
> you will fall against the influence of demons ,presenting themselves

Seriously? You need psychiatric help. Where is your evidence for
these "demons"? You've so far failed to back up *a* *single* *thing*
you've said with objective evidence. You may well be welcomed in
theist groups spouting these lies, but they do not fly in the atheist
gorups. Got that straight now?

[rest of your delusional material on this topic snipped]

> There is no way of confirming the accuracy of radiometric dating
>  beyong  the historical era.
>
> "That's an outright lie.  Go do some reading"
>
> Radiometric dating has huge margin of errors making  it unreliable at
> the outset.

I see no evidence for your ignroant claim. Your opinion is delusional
and ignorant and in now way counts as evidence. Did you not read the
reference i provided wherein a fellow Christian explaisn this to you?
or did you simply not understand it? Your ignorance is not evidence
for the supernatural, and for the rest of my response, your message
will be snipped and ignored where it offers no independent objective
evidence.

> There have been a lot of glaring mistakes ,when scientists tried to
> date the so called missing links.

There are no "missing links". Why do you, a purported Christian
persist in bearing false witness? Are you just another in a long line
of Christian hypocrites?

> When you throw a piece of rock into the water ,the waves keep on
> decreasing in strengh over greater surface,

Do you know this from science or do you know this from revelation? My
guess is science. No one has gained *any* sure knowledge from divine
revelation. That ought to tell you something, if you're smart enough
to listen.

> That pattern reflects the general behavior of nature .Therefore it is
> preposterous to think that aging would occur in straight line over
> long period of times.

I'm sure this is relevant to something in your deluded world, but do
pelase rest assured that it's meaningless in the real world. You're
rambling and making *no* sense and you cannot support a word you post.

> Somebody mentioned the tree ring method as a way of corroborating the
> acuuracy of carbon dating.You should know that merely counting the
> number of rings do not yield accurate results,scientists have to use
> other methods ,making it a rather circular process.

Lie.

> Some people in this group are content to just throw rocks .At least
> you tried to reason.

It;s impossible to reason with somone who is a reason-free zone like
you are. Now either you start supporting your claims with objective
evidence or you'll be labeled a nutjob like Andrew-a-Blank and Duke-
Box. Got that?

Budikka

[Budikka666]

If you ever wondered why Budikka is so abusive and has neither time
nor respect for theists, then follow what's written below. The number
of times over the last decade that we have honestly tried to engage
with theists and to have them explain their position and *support*
their explanation with independent objective evidence are virtually
uncountable.

The number of times others in the atheist groups have pursued this
same strategy are even less countable. And after a decade, what has
been achieved? Is there a dialog between the two camps?

Not even remotely. The theists - perhaps different theists than we
saw a decade ago, but still the same intractable, proselytizing
theists who insult us and abuse scientists, and who offer *not* *a*
*single* *solitary* *shred* of objective evidence for their claims are
posting the same lies and bullshit, and exhibiting the same cowardice
in their (non)responses.

Have any of these theists even remotely considered adjusting their
views?

No.

Have any started supporting their claims with evidence?

No.

Have any stopped running and actually tried to engage with us?

No.

***NOTHING*** has changed.

As the current two exchanges (one here and one in another thread) with
Jope prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, the theists have neither the
desire nor the intention of engaging in any sort of dialog with us
(unless by 'engaging' you mean trying to force their insanity upon us
and condemning us to rot in hell if we don't), and they never will.
They *cannot afford to* because if they honestly approached us, they
would realise how hypocrtical and delusional they truly are and their
religious life would shatter.

That's why we have neither respect nor time for them, and why it's a
waste of time even pretending. You *cannot* engage with people who
are functionally insane. You may just as well abuse them because none
of it makes any difference except that it feels far better to abuse
them than to endlessly and frustratingly try to get their attention
focused on the evidence.

That's why our focus is not to abuse, although we see no reason
whatsoever to refrain from it, but to expose and embarrass them with
their cowardice, their lies, their shameless hypocrisy and their
vacuity every time they turn around. The abuse is simply frosting on
the cake.

It's the only rational strategy given what they offer us to work with.

Now to the evidence that, despite a respectful approach and an honest
desire to engage with Jope, he has wandered further and further into
delusion, has failed to enage a single thing we've offered, and has
failed equally to support a single claim he's made. And now he's had
fair warning. So I flatly refuse to heed any jerkwads, atheist or
theist, whining about Budikka abusing the theists. As long as they're
not going to stop, neither are we.

On Nov 24, 10:47 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:11 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> "The Bible expliclty states six 24 hour days as identified by
> the words "evening and morning" used to delineate each day.
> Arbitrary
> time periods do not have "evening and morning".  A thousand years
> does
> not have "evening and morning".  An epoch doesn't have "evening and
> morning".  Only a 24 hour day has evening and morning and that's what
> the hebrew word means, taken form a root meaning 'heat of the day'.
> Indeed, in israel, they *still* today class their day as starting at
> sunset and ending the following day at sunset, thereby having an
> evening and a morning in that order. "
>
> The problem here has to do with your definition of time.

The problem here is that you're presenting yourself more and more as a
delusional coward who will not actually tackle the points we've made.
This is no surprise, but here is the real issue you're fleeing: If you
do indeed have an omnipotent god behind you, then why are you so
desperately afraid to tackle the truth? Whya re you bearign false
witness? Why are you afraid to look at the real world evidence?

> Again,try to think outside the box.

The box is entirely of your construction, and you're the one trapped
inescapably inside it. That box is called Christianity. It is making
you stupid. Get help now.

Now we started out this line of response to you respectifully, but all
we got for that is your insanity, offered without even a pretense of
engaging with what we've said, without even addressing it, and with
endless further examples of your craziness, unsupported by anything
which has any point of contact in reality.

Either you answer my question and engage with what we've said, or
we'll be forced to dismiss you as another religious whackjob as we've
been forced to do, so many times before.

People like Besque wonder why we have zero respect for theists and
only offer insults? Well now you know. it;s because of
(non)responses like yours. Insulting, patronising, cowardly responses
which offer no evidence and desperately try to force us to see the
world through your deluded and excuse-ridden eyes.

Well, the answer is no: we will not buy into your insanity no matter
how important it is to you; we will not share your delusion, we will
not voluntarily abandon reality as you ahve so readily and desperately
done; and if you continue with your insanity, then we will treat you
*exactly* as we treat loser hypocrties and jerks like J Young, Andrew-
a-Blank, Duke-Box, etc., etc.

Is that what you want? because we have tried to be respectful and we
have tried reason, and you've rejected that.

We've tried to do the Christian thing: we've troed to go the extra
mile and to offer our hand, but you have rejected that in favor of
ignoring everything we have posted in favor of endless mindless
childish proselytizing and your desperate attempts to foist your
utterly dysfunctional view of life on us.

This we will not endure, and we will not respect it. You do not
deserve any respect.

This is your last chance. Either engage with what we have said, and
support your response, or you will be summarily consigned to the trash
heap of theism from which there is no return as far as we're
concerned.

Budikka

[Devils Advocaat]

You say you haven't the time for them.

Yet you keep trying to engage them in debate.

You demand the impossible of them.

Faith and belief require no evidence.

So they have no evidence to give to you.

Consequently you are the cause of your anger.

You are the cause of your frustration.

No one else is to blame.

[Caranx latus]

Agreed. I would also hasten to add that I object to Budikka's constant
use of the word 'we' unless s/he has been selected to represent her/his
tapeworms.

[Budikka666]

As we've repeatedly explained, and evidently you haven't had the
wherewithal to grasp it or you're playing deliberately dumb, we do not
offer debates to actually debate them (but we would if they actually
accepted), we offer debates to prove what vacuous cowards they are,
and in this we are 100% successful.

> You demand the impossible of them.

Exactly. Maybe you're not so dumb.

> Faith and belief require no evidence.

Yet *they* not us, but THEY repeatedly claim that they have evidence
and that it points only to a creator god.

> So they have no evidence to give to you.

Exactly. They are liars. Their own Bible insists that they should
bear no false witness, yet they frequently do thereby proving what
hypocrties they are as well as liars.

> Consequently you are the cause of your anger.

Project much? You're the one getting on our case for no reason
whatsoever. We are not getting on yours, because we are not your
mother, we are not your owner, we are not your teacher, we are not
your spouse. Are you seriously under the laughable delusion that you
are our mother/teracher/spouse/owner? You might want to look at the
plank in your own eye which oughtn't to be difficult, given that it's
actually in your eye.

> You are the cause of your frustration.

Clearly there's no point in trying to explain anything to you,
either. We'll just lump you in with the ineducable theists from this
point onwards and ignore you because you're contributing nothing and
you're a chronic whiner.

> No one else is to blame.

Thanks for the sermon. lol! We feel so uplifted. Clearly it was a
complete waste of time trying to communicate with fellow atheists.
Rest assured that we will waste no more time on such a lost cause.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Nov 25, 11:37 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. I would also hasten to add that I object to Budikka's constant
> use of the word 'we' unless s/he has been selected to represent her/his
> tapeworms.

The 'we' refers to those who post under the 'Budikka' name. That
clarify things for you?

Budikka

[Caranx latus]

I appreciate the clarification. I didn't realize that you were a collective.

[Jope]

You are going on like that because you missed the simple argument of
the discussion that is :GOD IS NOT BOUND BY TIME. God distributed
creation into six days.He could have created it in a few seconds .To
make you understand a bit I tried to bring in a bit of Einstein theory
of relativity,Unfortunately  it sounded crazy to you.The point is, the
creator of the universe has means and abilities well beyond you
ability to grasp.
You should not therefore try to visualize God simply as a big man.That
would be an exemple of thinking outside of your existential box.
Another exemple would be to try to figure out how the universe might
have been, trillions of years ago.Whatever existed then is responsible
for what came after.Simple isn't it?

[Budikka666]

Don't worry - you won't be assimilated!

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Nov 25, 12:22 pm, Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are going on like that because you missed the simple argument of
> the discussion that is :GOD IS NOT BOUND  BY TIME.

Again, you offer not a shred of support for your claim.

Before you make a claim like that, you need to establish that this god
exists. Do you have evidence for any gods? And by that i mean
independent objective evidence, not your evidently delusional personal
opinion.

> God distributed
> creation into six days.He could have created it in a few seconds

Sez U.

> make you understand a bit I tried to bring in a bit of Einstein theory
> of relativity,Unfortunately  it sounded crazy to you.The point is, the
> creator of the universe has means and abilities well beyond you
> ability to grasp.

And you grasp this how? lol! Again you have failed to support your
claim. All you have offered is your opinion and other Christians
disagree with you. By what means would you pursuade *them* to accept
your six-day creation claim?

> You should not therefore try to visualize God simply as a big man.

I visualize "God" only as fiction.

>That
> would be an exemple of thinking outside of your existential box.

No, that would be rational in the complete, total, utter, and absolute
lack of any evidence to the contrary.

> Another exemple would be to try to figure out how the universe might
> have been, trillions of years ago.Whatever existed then is responsible
> for what came after.Simple isn't it?

If anything existed then, it would be the parent universe from which
this one budded. There's is no need to add any gods to the mix.

Next time, support your claims with indepdent objective evidence or
we're done wasting time on you.

Budikka

[Jope]

On Nov 25, 9:28 am, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

The nourishment of living creatures, for example, depends on the
coordination between the sun, clouds, rain, earth and its resources.
Have you considered how precise the variations in temperature have to
be in order for life to continue.How about the movements of the stars.
How about the development of a whole creature from a single cell.
All those things  point to the existence of one coordinated system in
the universe.

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited
human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there
is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for
support for such views."(The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton
University Press, p. 214)

[Caranx latus]

On 11/25/2012 1:34 PM, Jope wrote:
> On Nov 25, 9:28 am, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> On Nov 24, 8:56 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>> "Please provide an example of something naturalistic that displays
>>> this
>>> intelligent behaviour. "
>>> That request is simply unbelievable.Just look around.Anywhere.
>>
>> Like I say, pick *one*. Let's discuss it.
>>
>> You can pick one, can't you?
>>
>> --
>> __ _ | Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.
>> (_ |_) | -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
>> __)|_) |
>
> "You can pick one, can't you?"
>
> The nourishment of living creatures, for example, depends on the
> coordination between the sun, clouds, rain, earth and its resources.
> Have you considered how precise the variations in temperature have to
> be in order for life to continue.How about the movements of the stars.
> How about the development of a whole creature from a single cell.
> All those things point to the existence of one coordinated system in
> the universe.

Paraphrasing... "My God! that a humble puddle such as myself should find
itself in a hole that fits so perfectly. It *must* have been designed!"

[Devils Advocaat]

Which contradicts your claim that you have no time for them.

>
> > You demand the impossible of them.
>
> Exactly.  Maybe you're not so dumb.

Gosh, thanks.

>
> > Faith and belief require no evidence.
>
> Yet *they* not us, but THEY repeatedly claim that they have evidence
> and that it points only to a creator god.

Not all of them claim to have evidence.

Only those whose faith is weak.

They need the story that there is evidence.

>
> > So they have no evidence to give to you.
>
> Exactly.  They are liars.  Their own Bible insists that they should
> bear no false witness, yet they frequently do thereby proving what
> hypocrties they are as well as liars.
>
> > Consequently you are the cause of your anger.
>
> Project much?

Never, as I have no need to.

> You're the one getting on our case for no reason
> whatsoever.

If I was "getting on your case" I would be posting in the manner that
you post when you rail against the theists.

> We are not getting on yours, because we are not your
> mother, we are not your owner, we are not your teacher, we are not
> your spouse.

I never said you were, nor did I imply such in my postings.

> Are you seriously under the laughable delusion that you
> are our mother/teracher/spouse/owner?

I suffer no delusions.

> You might want to look at the
> plank in your own eye which oughtn't to be difficult, given that it's
> actually in your eye.

I see much clearer than most people posting here.

There is no plank in my eye.

>
> > You are the cause of your frustration.
>
> Clearly there's no point in trying to explain anything to you,
> either.  We'll just lump you in with the ineducable theists from this
> point onwards and ignore you because you're contributing nothing and
> you're a chronic whiner.

I'm not whining about anything.

I'm telling you what I see.

If I'm wrong, you should be able to put me right.

But instead you set your bias against me as well.

Is that the manner of one who desires debate?

I think not.

>
> > No one else is to blame.
>
> Thanks for the sermon.  lol!  We feel so uplifted.  Clearly it was a
> complete waste of time trying to communicate with fellow atheists.

Which "fellow atheists" are you referring to?

I'm not and never have been an atheist.

Nor am I a theist.

I haven't been true to my old faith since before I was seven years
old.

I questioned much of it from then onwards.

I only paid lip service to it from the age of sixteen.

And left it completely at the age of nineteen.

Now I'm a young fifty-four years of age.

I've been a pragmatic agnostic for many years now.

And still there is no evidence for me that there is anything
resembling any deity from any religious text.

> Rest assured that we will waste no more time on such a lost cause.

You seem to surround yourself with what you see as lost causes.

Then you rail against them.

Why not just let yourself be free of them?
>
> Budikka

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 25, 9:28 am, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism Jope <jope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > On Nov 24, 8:56 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> > "Please provide an example of something naturalistic that displays
>> > this
>> > intelligent behaviour. "
>> > That request is simply unbelievable.Just look around.Anywhere.
>>
>> Like I say, pick *one*.  Let's discuss it.
>>
>> You can pick one, can't you?
>>
>> --
>>  __ _  | Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.
>> (_ |_) |   -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
>> __)|_) |
>
> "You can pick one, can't you?"
>
> The nourishment of living creatures, for example, depends on the
> coordination between the sun, clouds, rain, earth and its resources.

The sun was here when the planets hadn't formed yet. One happened to form
within the habitable zone. Clouds, rain, earth, and it's resources don't
coordinate, by any known method. They function independently, following well
understood physical princibles. We know this because we've observed the same
systems performing the same way on other planets, such as Mars, where we've
currently got a probe landed.

> Have you considered how precise the variations in temperature have to
> be in order for life to continue.

Life continues because the conditions on earth happen to be favourable to it,
not the other way around. And since 99% of every species that has ever lived
is extinct, life has a fairly tenuous foothold here.

> How about the movements of the stars.

What about them? They move because if gravity. Gravity does one thing only;
attract bodies to other bodies. Galaxies are held together by it, planets are
spherioid because of it, suns shine because of it, etc. But there's no
"design", no "intelligence" operating it. Just a few simple rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

Conway's game of life is an excellent example. Here's a system with 4 simple
rules, yet it's capable of making a huge, complex universe of structures that
seem to be "designed". But they're just simple things, following 4 rules.

> How about the development of a whole creature from a single cell.

How about it? The Theory of Evolution has a good explaination for how that
happens, no God necessary. What's even better: we've observed it happening,
BOTH in the wild AND UNDER LAB CONDITIONS. God? Never been observed, in the
wild, or in the lab.

> All those things  point to the existence of one coordinated system in
> the universe.

If by "coordinated system" you mean "emergent properties from the 4 fundamental
forces of the universe (nuclear strong, weak, electromagnetic, gravity) then,
yes, I'd agree with you. If by "coordinated system" you mean God, then no, I
don't. Why? Because we can OBSERVE the 4 forces working, and explain things
in terms of them, without resorting to God.

> "In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited
> human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there
> is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for
> support for such views."(The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton
> University Press, p. 214)

So? Einstein also spent 30 years of his life searching for a grand unifying
theory that he never found. Does quoting Einstein carry any weight in this
matter?

--
__ _ | Politicians should read science fiction,
(_ |_) | not westerns and detective stories.
__)|_) | -- Arthur C. Clarke

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why not?

> God distributed
> creation into six days.

According to the bible.

> He could have created it in a few seconds .

Why? How do you know this? And "a few seconds" is still a measure of time.
How can God, who you're asserting is timeless, do things in a time dimension?
Pleae explain how this is possible.

> To
> make you understand a bit I tried to bring in a bit of Einstein theory
> of relativity,Unfortunately  it sounded crazy to you.

That's because it was. The only thing that actually travels at the speed of
light are photons. If God were "photons", we could detect him/it.

> The point is, the
> creator of the universe has means and abilities well beyond you
> ability to grasp.

How do you know this, since by definition, he therefore has means and abilities
beyond YOUR ability to grasp. How can you tell the difference between means
and abilities that are beyond your grasp, and non-existence?

> You should not therefore try to visualize God simply as a big man.That
> would be an exemple of thinking outside of your existential box.
> Another exemple would be to try to figure out how the universe might
> have been, trillions of years ago.Whatever existed then is responsible
> for what came after.Simple isn't it?

Most gibberish is.

--
__ _ | I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me
(_ |_) | as much as a week sometimes to make it up.
__)|_) | -- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad"

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 25, 12:15 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

> If you ever wondered why Budikka is so abusive and has neither time
> nor respect for theists, then follow what's written below.  The number
> of times over the last decade that we have honestly tried to engage
> with theists and to have them explain their position and *support*
> their explanation with independent objective evidence are virtually
> uncountable.

LaVey would say it's probably because they're begging for it.
A man with a "kick me" sign on his back shouldn't be
surprised when people accept the invitation.

[J]

Like all schizophrenics, Budikka is never alone.





--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

http://www.americandecency.org/

[duke]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:30:55 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You say you haven't the time for them.
>Yet you keep trying to engage them in debate.

Actually, she does no such thing. To engage takes back and forth, and she goes
into hiding on the first response.

>You demand the impossible of them.
>Faith and belief require no evidence.
>So they have no evidence to give to you.

Oh, sure we have evidence. I've given it to her repeatedly, but alas, she never
responds because she knows she can't answer my response.

>Consequently you are the cause of your anger.
>You are the cause of your frustration.
>No one else is to blame.

Now that's true.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Andrew]

"Caranx latus" wrote in message news:c5tss.7957$jx1...@fe13.iad...
> Budikka666 wrote:

>> Caranx latus wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. I would also hasten to add that I object to Budikka's constant
>>> use of the word 'we' unless s/he has been selected to represent her/his
>>> tapeworms.
>>
>> The 'we' refers to those who post under the 'Budikka' name. That
>> clarify things for you?
>
> I appreciate the clarification. I didn't realize that you were a collective.

Some may be possessed by multiple entities.

"Jesus asked him, saying, What is your name? And he said,
Legion: because *many* devils were entered into him."
-- Luke 8:30

But Jesus has greater power and is able to deliver them,
even as He did to the demoniac possessed by the "Legion".

"A crowd soon gathered around Jesus and they saw the man
who had been possessed by the legion of demons. He was
sitting there fully clothed and perfectly sane " -- Mark 5:15

[duke]

One head, 2 asses.

[duke]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:29:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 12:15 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> You are going on like that because you missed the simple argument of
>> the discussion that is :GOD IS NOT BOUND BY TIME.
>
>Why not?
>
>> God distributed
>> creation into six days.
>
>According to the bible.
>
>> He could have created it in a few seconds .
>
>Why? How do you know this? And "a few seconds" is still a measure of time.
>How can God, who you're asserting is timeless, do things in a time dimension?
>Pleae explain how this is possible.

Scripture is a statement of faith of our God creating this on day one and that
on day 2. It's faith in action. In true science, God blinked and the universe
come into existence. Faith and science are the same single story.

[Syd M.]

On Nov 25, 5:13 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:05:28 -0500, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/25/2012 12:58 PM, Budikka666 wrote:
> >> On Nov 25, 11:37 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Agreed. I would also hasten to add that I object to Budikka's constant
> >>> use of the word 'we' unless s/he has been selected to represent her/his
> >>> tapeworms.
>
> >> The 'we' refers to those who post under the 'Budikka' name.  That
> >> clarify things for you?
>
> >I appreciate the clarification. I didn't realize that you were a collective.
>
> One head, 2 asses.
>
>

Keep your nasty fantasies to yourself, please.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Nov 25, 5:13 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Caranx latus" wrote in messagenews:c5tss.7957$jx1...@fe13.iad...

> > Budikka666 wrote:
> >> Caranx latus wrote:
>
> >>> Agreed. I would also hasten to add that I object to Budikka's constant
> >>> use of the word 'we' unless s/he has been selected to represent her/his
> >>> tapeworms.
>
> >> The 'we' refers to those who post under the 'Budikka' name.  That
> >> clarify things for you?
>
> > I appreciate the clarification. I didn't realize that you were a collective.
>
> Some may be possessed by multiple entities.
>
>

No.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Nov 25, 5:12 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:30:55 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >You say you haven't the time for them.
> >Yet you keep trying to engage them in debate.
>
> Actually, she does no such thing.  To engage takes back and forth, and she goes
> into hiding on the first response.
>
> >You demand the impossible of them.
> >Faith and belief require no evidence.
> >So they have no evidence to give to you.
>
> Oh, sure we have evidence.  I've given it to her repeatedly,

Just refuse to stop lying, eh?

PDW

[Budikka666]

Your lord and master told you to give everything to the poor and to
follow him, yet here you are saying the poor should get nothing -
you're not following him. HYPOCRITE.

Your lord and master told you not to judge, yet here you are ignoring
your lord and master and judging. HYPOCRITE.

Your lord and master told you to turn the other cheek, yet here you
are *refusing* to do what your lord and master expressly told you to
do. HYPOCRITE.

Your lord and master told you to cross the street to help those in
trouble, yet here you are flatly rebelling against your lord and
master's dictates. HYPOCRITE.

Your lord and master told you to go the extra mile, yet here you are
stamping your privileged little baby feet and saying no to your lord
and master's instructions. HYPOCRITE.

Your lord and master told you to give your coat as well as your shirt,
yet here you are calling your lord and master a socialist and refusing
to heed him. HYPOCRITE.

Your lord and master told you to depart and shake the dust off your
feet when your false teachings are rejected, yet here you are defying
your lord and master by refusing to depart. HYPOCRITE.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Nov 25, 4:12 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:30:55 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >You say you haven't the time for them.
> >Yet you keep trying to engage them in debate.
>
> Actually, she does no such thing.  To engage takes back and forth, and she goes
> into hiding on the first response.

Is that why I accepted Seth lePod's debate challenge and you're sitll
runnign from it here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/6b639843fdbe4de6?scoring=d&

But then you have a looooong history of rank cowardice, don't you?

Here's the most recent example of Duke's Shameless cowardice:
Challenged to present his evidence for a creator god, he RAN AWAY!
(Again, yawn).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8a0474ae8eb1ded?scoring=d&
9/29/2012

Challenged to a formal debate on abortion, Duke Box aborted!
http://tinyurl.com/9zgnxcb
9/9/2012

Challenged to a formal debate on the existence of Jesus, Duck & Run
Dipshit-For-Christ Duke RAN:
http://tinyurl.com/7mo8j5l
3/25/2012

In the massive slaughter of Usenet creationists, *every* *single*
*one* of whom fled because they could not post even on item of
positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a creation, Duped
was merely one of a host of creationists who RAN AWAY:
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
(3/18/2012)

Challenged to identify the two species on either side of this "missing
link" he lies exists, Dumbass Duke RAN AWAY!
http://tinyurl.com/7k2w6jc
(2/25/2012)

The Valentine's Day Massacre!
http://tinyurl.com/7mdvcep
(2/14/2012)

Duck & Run starts the new year in fine fettle - runs three times in
one day!
http://tinyurl.com/7eotebl
http://tinyurl.com/7b2waz8
http://tinyurl.com/7o23uvn

Dec 27th, 2011
Challenged to debate his 100% evidence for Jesus, Duck & Run ducked
and ran.
http://tinyurl.com/6m4ub5q

Dec 26th, 2011
Duck & Run claimed he had 100% of the evidence for a god, yet when
*given* *a* *second* *chance* to produce it, he fled the challenge!
http://tinyurl.com/7kawokn

Dec. 24th 2011
Duck & Run claimed he had 100% of the evidence for a god, yet when
challenged to produce it, he fled the challenge!
http://tinyurl.com/6m4ub5q

Sept. 5th 2011
asked for evidence for this Jesus of his. Duck & Run ducked & ran!
http://tinyurl.com/3brposl


On January 22, 2011, under the title: "Chicken Duke Has a Beautifully
Clean Pair of heels Does he Not?" We requested "Please provide
independent evidence - that is, from *outside* the Bible - that there
ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle working son of a god."
Chicken Duke couldn't do it.
http://tinyurl.com/4h6wdzm

Then there was this:
http://tinyurl.com/4dk7aoz
Jan 16, 2011, We requested this of Chicken Duke:
please provide *positive* *scientific* evidence for a creator or for a
creation, and post it right here in response to this message.
This was in response to his assertion that "Existence mandates
creation".
He ran away.

http://tinyurl.com/29hkt7j
December 22nd 2010, in which Chicken Duke was challenged to support
statements he has made repeatedly on Usenet. Once again he ran from
them like the stinking diarrhea he is and hid behind an irrelevant and
dishoenst non-sequitur.

Prior to that he ran from a similar challenge just the day before(!):
He ran from a challenge to support his bullshit on December 21st,
2010:
http://tinyurl.com/29hkt7j

And just the month before that:
http://tinyurl.com/2d5xtf3

November 20th 2010, he ran form these five simple questions rather
than support his god, thereby proving that he's nothing but another
limp Peter at the passion!

Here are the questions:
1. That the figure you quoted is true.
2. That they all believe in the *same* deity.
3. That this single deity actually exists
4. That this single deity actually created the universe
5. That this single deity is not a figment of their imagination
Here's my prediction at the time:
Time to show us that clean pair of heels again, Chicken Duck & Run.
Yep - he ran!

Claimed there are "gargantuan holes" in the Theory of Evolution and
then RAN when we called him on it:
http://tinyurl.com/27kf2da

The entire "Why There Isn't a God" series, started here:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9et

Duck & Run Ran Away - that is to say he failed 100% to actually get to
grips with the subject matter in any of those threads, his 'response'
consisting solely of chanting "no it isn't" or words to that effect.
He could offer no rebuttal, let alone refutation, he could not support
a single thing he claimed and he could offer zero rationale for his
position.

Let's face it, on this basis, he's run away from the entire "Why the
Holy Bible Lies" series, the entire "Why There Was No Flood" series,
and all of the the "Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid"
series so far.

Petition to Save the Hubble Telescope
Duck & Run makes yet another blind claim "Ok, you foot the bill to
keep looking at the same "sky" that's already been looked at" he
blathers, like there couldn't possibly be anything new to discover,
yet we proved him entirely wrong - again.
http://tinyurl.com/74p46nj

Scientists find new face on back of Turin shroud
http://tinyurl.com/2bx6jcf
Duck & Run, shrouded in cowardice, ran away.

The Inquisition
http://tinyurl.com/4pokf
Duck & Run didn't expect the inquisition....

Another Problem for Creation IDiots
http://tinyurl.com/3px9j
Duck & Run proved to be a creation IDiot.

Human aspect of Jesus
http://tinyurl.com/4w488
Duck and Run has provided us with a de facto admission that there was
no Jesus Christ, miracle-working son-of-a-god.

Jesus's three days sacrifice
http://tinyurl.com/3jhop
Duck & Run sacrificed the truth and got caught.

Which is the real God???
http://tinyurl.com/6bnoo
Duck & Run didn't know.

God isn't very smart about spreading his word, is he?
http://tinyurl.com/7xjux
Neither is Duck & Run.

Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13?
http://tinyurl.com/4v759
Duck & Run opened this thread to accuse someone else of running away.
As soon as he was challenged, Duck & Run ran away!

Why Didn't Jesus Die Sooner?
http://tinyurl.com/5gevm
Duck & Run's claims died sooner.

Why is Duke Such a Coward?
http://tinyurl.com/5p3qt
Duck & Run ran away, proving what a coward he is.

Duck & Run's five evidences of god
(that he later admitted were not evidences):
http://tinyurl.com/3otzr

Questions that Duke Can't Answer
(in which we accused Duck & Run of running away and from which
he...**RAN AWAY**! The questions remain unanswered. There are only
ten numbered questions in this thread, assembled from previous threads
from which
Duck & Run ran away. Duck & Run lied there were 75 questions
and...ran away!)
http://tinyurl.com/5ozyl

There are now well over one hundred unanswered questions that Duck &
Run has fled. Here's the bulk of them:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y

Duck & Run thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven
centuries, gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk
Duck & Run ran away.

Duke: Global Flood Challenge
A thread which we opened specifically at Duck & Run's request, and
from which he, predictably, ran away. He admitted there is no
evidence for a global flood, we presented abundant evidence that there
never was one,
Duck & Run offered zero rebuttal and ran away as he again did in the
recent flood series.
http://tinyurl.com/4l83y

Evidence that Duke can't refute:
http://tinyurl.com/5l2av
Duck & Run failed to refute the evidence and ran away, thereby proving
my case

An Answer to Pascal's Wager
http://tinyurl.com/4y63n
In which we accuse Duck & Run of running away. He ran away!

Thread: "Why Puke is Such a Pathological, Unregenerate, Cowardly,
Lying, Hypocritical Asshole"
http://tinyurl.com/4ant3
Duck & Run ran away because he's a pathological, unregenerate,
cowardly, lying hypocritical asshole.

Thread: "Duke's Chronic lying"
http://tinyurl.com/3ra8l
Duck & Run ran away.

Thread: "aqotm - bud(ikka) style"
http://tinyurl.com/4r4gz
Duck & Run ran away from his own clueless stupidity

Thread: "Duke: Global Flood Challenge"
http://tinyurl.com/3qd5m
Duck & Run was out of his depth - as he's recently proven again - and
so he...ran away!

Thread: "The Bland Assumption of Jesus' Existence"
http://tinyurl.com/5kj3m
Duck & Run ran away as we blandly assumed he would.

Thread: "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke"
http://tinyurl.com/3ozwo
Duck & Run ran away after we ran scriptural circles around him

And my favorite:
http://tinyurl.com/487vc
This was a cowardly thread Duck & Run opened titled "Budikka Runs
Away". He set this up because he was peeved that he didn't get an
instant response from me in another thread! He never told me he'd
opened this alternate thread, yet he accused me of running away in
it! LoL! When we finally happened across it and challenged him in
it, he ran away! How pathetic is that?!

And more than once/month for an entire 12 month period starting April
2009:
April 21st, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzywu7q
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrmfxp
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
January 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnesb2
January 24th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
January 27th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycgm8u8
January 31st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 3rd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
February 15th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjjj93v
February 16th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 22nd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ye59brz
March 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ykgtezr
March 6th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjhe3fe
March 9th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnahkb
March 11th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yl8hcea

The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things,
but I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.

He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them,
let alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads
to a dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!

The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
http://tinyurl.com/c6hkg.

He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
thoroughly discredited.

He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
http://tinyurl.com/bc5ud
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.

We used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is
no God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). We changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally we didn't count them in the 666
since they were so pathetic.

His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aimed at the
material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.

His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange
anything, but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this
purported Christian love he's supposed to dispense.

He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his
slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
regular set on a.a.:
http://tinyurl.com/9gycg

It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!

His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
1. http://tinyurl.com/ac2vg
2. http://tinyurl.com/4dyok
3. http://tinyurl.com/664yu
4. http://tinyurl.com/apenc

He thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven centuries,
gave rise to Mithraism:
http://tinyurl.com/yzp9bk

He's quite literally astronomically stupid:
http://tinyurl.com/yhyopg
("the same "sky" that's already been looked at."!)
http://tinyurl.com/6fbwqh

He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
http://tinyurl.com/3z47u
he ran away!

He has numerous documented lies:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
http://tinyurl.com/ablwm

He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. We personally had him run from the *same topic*
well over 100 times in direct response to a challenge *he* made!

He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
http://tinyurl.com/7zm43

He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly
here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u (October 22nd 2004)

and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y (July 16th 2005)

In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
other than this.

End of Douche. Case closed.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:

> In true science, God blinked and the universe
> come into existence.

Do you have an abstract of the paper from the peer-reviewed journal
where the blink mechanism was described?

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:29:38 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 12:15 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> You are going on like that because you missed the simple argument of
>>> the discussion that is :GOD IS NOT BOUND BY TIME.
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>>> God distributed
>>> creation into six days.
>>
>>According to the bible.
>>
>>> He could have created it in a few seconds .
>>
>>Why? How do you know this? And "a few seconds" is still a measure of time.
>>How can God, who you're asserting is timeless, do things in a time dimension?
>>Pleae explain how this is possible.
>
> Scripture is a statement of faith of our God creating this on day one and that
> on day 2.

I agree. Your statement of faith, however, has nothing to do with reality.

> It's faith in action.

No. Your faith is not what happened.

> In true science, God blinked and the universe
> come into existence.

How do you know it wasn't a nose wiggle, a la "I dream of Genie". I mean, if
you're going to believe in magic, why not go all the way? Why not assert God,
dressed in a tux and cape, pulled the universe out of his top-hat?

> Faith and science are the same single story.

Not even close. Science doesn't insert "Goddidit" into the bits where "We
don't know" fits.

--
__ _ | Eating words has never given me indigestion.
(_ |_) | -- Winston Churchill
__)|_) |

[Ralph]

Anyone who believes this event actually occurred as written, is a damn fool.