Atheism becomes fashionable
J Young
by Richard Bastien
Over the past half century, the dominant view among the chattering
classes has been either that there is no God (atheism) or that one
should go about one's life as if the question of God's existence
cannot be answered (agnosticism) and thus is of no concern. Most of
those who share the atheistic view also think that its propagation is
best achieved by treating it as an accepted and comfortable fact of
life, in keeping with Freud's famous dictum that "the more the fruits
of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the
decline of religious belief".
However, it seems that this low key approach has turned out to be less
convincing for millions of people who just as comfortably accept
advances in science and technology alongside a growing interest for
religious faith. So a new strategy based on open proselytising in
favour of atheism is now gradually taking shape. That at least is the
impression given by the publication in recent months of a spate of
books by reputed atheists -- among them Letter to a Christian Nation,
by Sam Harris, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,
by Daniel C. Dennett, The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, God is not
Great, by Christopher Hitchens and The Failed Hypothesis: How Science
Shows that God Does Not Exist, by Victor Stenger. According to a
recent article in the Wall Street Journal, these authors have
collectively sold about one million books over the past 12 months.
The irony of this new desire to further the spread of atheism is that,
unlike the cool and laid-back atheists of an earlier age, these new
atheists write like true believers... This impatient zeal surely stems
from the fact that, for them, history has not unfolded exactly as
intended.
The intent of these authors is to accelerate the elimination of all
remnants of the Judeo-Christian tradition. As Sam Harris puts it, the
name of the game is "to demolish the intellectual and moral
pretensions of Christianity." As for Hitchens, he seeks to show "how
religion poisons everything".
The irony of this new desire to further the spread of atheism is that,
unlike the cool and laid-back atheists of an earlier age, these new
atheists write like true believers. There is, in fact, a missionary
and, at times, severe, tone to their writings. Indeed, reading them
produces the feeling of being lectured, hectored, and scolded by
atheist fundamentalists. This impatient zeal surely stems from the
fact that, for them, history has not unfolded exactly as intended.
Accordingly, Sam Harris ends his Letter to a Christian Nation with
something that smacks of a personal confession: "This letter is the
product of failure - the failure of the many brilliant attacks upon
religion that preceded it, the failure of our schools to announce the
death of God in a way that each generation can understand, the failure
of the media to criticise the abject religious certainties of our
public figures - failures great and small that have kept almost every
society on this earth muddling over God and despising those who muddle
differently".
>From people who claim to be driven solely by reason and to have
liberated themselves from ignorance and "blind faith", one would
normally expect at least some attempt to understand the deeper human
reasons for refusing to bury God, as demanded. But such an attempt has
yet to be undertaken.
For Christians who take their faith seriously, there is both a
downside and an upside to this new wave of atheistic proselytising,
with the latter probably outweighing the former. The downside is that
it will reinforce already widespread liberal prejudices according to
which there is no point in trying to know God. Instead of encouraging
people to maintain an open mind about religion (the least to be
expected from true liberals), these books will further encourage a
closing of the mind to any possibility of the supernatural, which they
gratuitously equate with superstition.
The upside is that these books help draw more clearly than ever before
the battle lines in the ongoing culture wars. Until recently, most
Christians were inclined to assume that modern culture was at least
neutral with respect to the basic tenets of Christianity, and that it
was possible to adhere to the creed while at the same time accepting
the philosophical heritage of the "modern" age. In short, it was more
or less taken for granted that one could view oneself as being both a
child of God and a child of the Enlightenment.
Thanks in part to these books and others of the same ilk, it is now
becoming increasingly clear that Nietzsche was right: the only true
alternative to Christianity is nihilism and atheism. Nietzsche
inferred from this that morality can only be based on the human will.
Anyone familiar with European history of the 20th century will know
the disastrous outcome of that alternative. It is in this sense that
the new atheists help us to understand why the 150-year old attempt by
"progressive" Christians to find some accommodation between the
Christian creed and the basic tenets of the Enlightenment have led to
a gradual erosion of the faith. This perhaps explains why, at the
outset of the 21st century, many Christians are coming to realise that
the only meaningful choice is between traditional Christianity and
atheism. As the intellectual dust and confusion caused by the collapse
of the numerous variations of liberal Protestantism and "progressive"
Catholicism settles, we find there is no way around this choice.
All this does not mean, however, that Christians and atheists are soon
to find themselves locked into some kind of unrelenting battle.
Whether the more zealous atheists who have adopted the missionary
posture of these books like it or not, there are other atheists who do
not subscribe to their views and who even seek a dialogue with
Christianity. Jürgen Habermas, considered by many as a most
"methodical atheist" and an icon of postmodernism, wrote in a 2004
essay titled A time of transition that "Christianity, and nothing
else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights,
and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilisation. To this day, we
have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish
ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter." A
similar view is held by atheist Marcello Pera, professor of philosophy
and President of the Italian Senate in a book published jointly with
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) and titled Without
Roots.
It is also worth noting that the new atheists, as mentioned, fail to
provide any solid argument in support of the non-existence of God.
This is not because of some lack of intellectual sophistication on
their part, but rather because, as most philosophers will readily
admit, non-existence is something that can never be proven.
Christopher Hitchens, generally considered the most knowledgeable and
entertaining of the five authors mentioned, argues that God does not
exist because "all attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason
are consigned to failure and ridicule".
In making this claim, Hitchens makes two mistakes. First, he fails to
account for the fact that a large proportion of scientists (as many as
50 per cent according to the late Stephen Jay Gould, a leading
spokesman for evolutionary theory) do believe in God. Second, and more
importantly, he is totally oblivious to the fact that, in the order of
natural (ie, non-revealed) knowledge, the idea that God exists can
only make sense as a philosophical answer to a metaphysical question.
Throughout history, the concept of God has always appeared as one
having to do with the why of a certain existence. And the question as
to why something exists is not a scientific one because whatever its
answer might be, it does not lend itself to empirical verification,
ie, it is not falsifiable through experimentation. Anyone wondering
whether God exists is well aware that he is not raising a scientific
question because all scientific enquiries are geared to what a given
thing actually is, rather than to why it exists. In short, religion
has nothing to do with what things are - that is the realm of natural
science -, but rather with why they happen to be at all.
But there is an even deeper flaw in the thinking of the new atheists.
All assume that in the debate on God, the basic distinction is that
between believers and unbelievers. Yet, as Blaise Pascal, a 17th
Century mathematician, scientist and inventor of the first working
computer, notes in his Pensées, the true absolute distinction is
between "seeking" and "unseeking" unbelievers, between unhappy
atheists who seek and eventually become believers, and happy atheists
who simply don't care. Pascal reminds us that God judges atheists, not
by the supernatural standard of faith, but rather by the natural
standard of reason.
Anyone reading Pascal's Pensées cannot help but find them eminently
reasonable. What they tell us is that we are hard-wired to seek
happiness, perfection and certainty. It is impossible for us not to
seek these things. And yet we fail miserably at getting even near
them. Each of us is a living self-contradiction. The consequence,
Pascal says, is that "one needs no great sublimity of soul to realise
that in this life there is no true and solid satisfaction... that our
afflictions are infinite, and finally that death... must... infallibly
face us with the inescapable and appalling alternative of being
annihilated or wretched throughout eternity". This means that we would
be foolish not to reflect on whether there is an afterlife. "The
immortality of the soul is something of such vital importance to us...
that one must have lost all feeling not to care about knowing the
facts of the matter". Because it is our "chief interest" to seek the
truth on this matter, we must make "an absolute distinction between
those who strive with all their might to learn and those who live
without troubling themselves or thinking about it".
Here Pascal is still arguing on the basis, not of some revealed truth,
but of natural reason. He says that the negligence shown by the happy
unseeking atheists about their ultimate destiny "seems quite monstrous
to me. I do not say this prompted by the pious zeal of spiritual
devotion. I mean on the contrary that we ought to have this feeling
from principles of human interest and self-esteem. For that we need
only see what the least enlightened see" (n. 427).This means that the
choice between belief and unbelief is a matter, not primarily of the
head, but of the heart.
If one accepts Pascal's basic premise -- the absolute certainty that
we will die some day - then there is no way we can refute his logic.
And that logic dictates that the proselytising of the new happy
atheists is not only intellectually flawed, but so downright
irrational we may well wonder who, 50 years from now, will enjoy the
greatest readership: Pascal or Hitchens? The answer seems obvious.
IAAH
> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
Actually, if atheism has become fashionable, it's
only because rationality has finally made some
inroads.
parsi...@gmail.com
> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>
> by Richard Bastien
>
> Over the past half century, the dominant view among the chattering
> classes has been either that there is no God (atheism) or that one
> should go about one's life as if the question of God's existence
> cannot be answered (agnosticism) and thus is of no concern. Most of
> those who share the atheistic view also think that its propagation is
> best achieved by treating it as an accepted and comfortable fact of
> life, in keeping with Freud's famous dictum that "the more the fruits
> of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the
> decline of religious belief".
So?
John D. Wentzky
news:PqudnQqlB6B04YDa...@giganews.com...
Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so many atheists demand proof
so often, that Pangaea actually existed?
LOL!
Lucifer
> "IAAH" <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
It's not so hard, if one has an understanding of plate tectonics.
Apparent polar wandering curves, fossil distribution and rock type
distribution, for example, allow us to pinpoint the previous positions
of the continents with remarkable accuracy.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
JTEM
> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so
> many atheists demand proof so often, that Pangaea
> actually existed?
> LOL!
Oh, let's all do B1FF:
LOL!!!111!!!!111!!!!
Anyhow, how does one "Prove" to an untrusting
blind man that my socks are green?
Carlos Ivo
"J Young" <youngi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193113082....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
by Richard Bastien
----
"This means that the choice between belief and unbelief
is a matter, not primarily of the head, but of the heart."
By this you mean we can crook, kill, lie, etc. in the name
of good and it is ok to take advantage of those that "think
with the heart". It is OK not to tell them they are wrong and
that they are exploited by crooks!!!!
----
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Carlos Ivo
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193128187.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Do you mean god exists because a blind man can not
see the colour of your socks?
Because one thing exists and we can not see it,
like love, sound, etc. it does not mean that god exists
LC
Temporarily free of his straitjacket, "J Young" <youngi...@aol.com>
wrote in message
news:1193113082....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> "the more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more
> widespread is the decline of religious belief".
Very true.
Btw, how's that porn obsession of yours, "J"?
"I ain't a Jesus freak... I love porn stars!God bless them."
From: jdyo...@volcanomail.com (Jon Young)
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.04042...@posting.google.com>
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
Organized religion is losing its reign - thank God. It's now time for
fresh ideals - like progress, right?
Well, as we all know, if it isn't religion, it'll be something else.
So, It's all about choice; and I choose to be free from your
contaminating rhetoric.
flores...@hotmail.com
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193128187.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...> "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so
> >> many atheists demand proof so often, that Pangaea
> >> actually existed?
> >> LOL!
>
> > Oh, let's all do B1FF:
>
> > LOL!!!111!!!!111!!!!
>
> > Anyhow, how does one "Prove" to an untrusting
> > blind man that my socks are green?
>
> ---
>
> Do you mean god exists because a blind man can not
> see the colour of your socks?
I think what he means is that a lot of atheist and other lowlife,
low intelligent types are always giving the knee-jerk "proof?"
or "do you have any cites for this?" malarkey. I see this
a lot from the ZioNazi scumwad set. Someone will
be writing of the ZioNazi grip on America, the power
of AIPAC etc. This is often followed by "any credible
cites for this?" Considering the muddy elephant in
the living room that the ZioNazi influence is, the lowlife
is either dumb as dirt, or lying...either way, not worth
anything but ridicule.
As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
not something that can be measured or weighed,
like your drugs.
> Because one thing exists and we can not see it,
> like love, sound, etc. it does not mean that god exists
Come on, you know you're just dying to say "can you
provide a credible cite proving that God exits?"
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Oct 23, 7:05 am, "Carlos Ivo" <carlos...@mafia.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1193128187.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...> "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so
> > >> many atheists demand proof so often, that Pangaea
> > >> actually existed?
> > >> LOL!
>
> > > Oh, let's all do B1FF:
>
> > > LOL!!!111!!!!111!!!!
>
> > > Anyhow, how does one "Prove" to an untrusting
> > > blind man that my socks are green?
>
> > ---
>
> > Do you mean god exists because a blind man can not
> > see the colour of your socks?
>
> I think what he means is that a lot of atheist and other lowlife,
> low intelligent types are always giving the knee-jerk "proof?"
> or "do you have any cites for this?" malarkey.
I think some theists would be better appreciated if they considered
keeping their beliefs to themselves rather than pushing it on people
who don't share those beliefs.
IAAH
(Translation: "I have no evidence to back up my
claims, so I make asking for such a bad thing.")
>
> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
> not something that can be measured or weighed,
> like your drugs.
>
>> Because one thing exists and we can not see it,
>> like love, sound, etc. it does not mean that god exists
>
> Come on, you know you're just dying to say "can you
> provide a credible cite proving that God exits?"
>
And nobody ever can, which means making a concrete
claim of such existence is an untruth.
Ghod
news:1193146670....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 22, 11:18 pm, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
: > http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
:
: Organized religion is losing its reign - thank God. It's now time
for
: fresh ideals - like progress, right?
:
: Well, as we all know, if it isn't religion, it'll be something else.
Ummm...you do realize that most of those leaving organized religion
behind are simply switching to unorganized/neo-whatever, don't you?
Just because they're fed up with the bullshit organized religion
spews, doesn't mean that they're becoming more rational.
: So, It's all about choice; and I choose to be free from your
: contaminating rhetoric.
But he's so amusing! It's not like you're going to start believing
that crap, merely by reading the tripe jonjon posts, is it?
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> "Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193146670....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> : On Oct 22, 11:18 pm, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
> : >http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
> :
> : Organized religion is losing its reign - thank God. It's now time
> for
> : fresh ideals - like progress, right?
> :
> : Well, as we all know, if it isn't religion, it'll be something else.
>
> Ummm...you do realize that most of those leaving organized religion
> behind are simply switching to unorganized/neo-whatever, don't you?
> Just because they're fed up with the bullshit organized religion
> spews, doesn't mean that they're becoming more rational.
That's my point.
> : So, It's all about choice; and I choose to be free from your
> : contaminating rhetoric.
>
> But he's so amusing!
I don't think any of it is amusing.
> It's not like you're going to start believing
> that crap,
He doesn't have a discernable trace of integrity in his entire form.
> merely by reading the tripe jonjon posts, is it?
Unfortunately, fuckheads like IBengetinlittlegirls exist everywhere,.
Bill M
You can ramble on for ever with this nonsense trying to establish that your
god exists but it does not establish or prove anything.
It is reasonable to assume there are no Gods if there is no objective
evidence that any Gods exist - and there isn't any.
We do not believe in Santa Clause, the Esater Bunny or the Wizard of Oz
because there is no evidence for their existence.
Now this is not PROOF of their non existence but is a logical assumption or
position.
If some magnificent all powerful thing created this huge Universe and the
6.5 Billion people in the is world and wants us to behave him, why does he
let his creations to be so decieved and confused by multitudes of claimed
Gods???
Any 'logical' person must assume that non of these Gods actually exist.
John Baker
>"Gwyneđ Bennetdottir" <bennetw...@post.com> wrote in message
As I've said before, maybe I'm just getting overly cynical in my
middle age, but I find Bible-banging idiots like IBen, Duke,
McBrainless, etc. far more annoying than amusing.
Maybe they'd be funnier if there weren't so damned many of them.
Hatter
> "Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
But as the organized religion falls, so does the culture of mandatory
indocrination of youth and the dreams of returning to the theocracy of
the dark ages. Yes, a great deal of unorganized "spirituality" newage
is springing up. None-the-less these warm fuzzy types are far less
likely to indoctrinate, legislate, or otherwise interefere with a
rational persons life. It is certainly religous types, though just as
goofy, I can deal with better than the evangelical fundamentalist
soldiers for christ assholes.
Yeah that's basicly it, I can deal with goofy people better than
assholes.
Hatter
Ghod
news:1193150034.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 23, 9:21 am, "Ghod" <g...@ameritech.net> wrote:
: > "Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1193146670....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Oct 22, 11:18 pm, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
: > :
>http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
: > :
: > : Organized religion is losing its reign - thank God. It's now
time
: > for
: > : fresh ideals - like progress, right?
: > :
: > : Well, as we all know, if it isn't religion, it'll be something
else.
: >
: > Ummm...you do realize that most of those leaving organized
religion
: > behind are simply switching to unorganized/neo-whatever, don't
you?
: > Just because they're fed up with the bullshit organized religion
: > spews, doesn't mean that they're becoming more rational.
:
: That's my point.
Interestingly, I can't see it...sorry. You said "organized religion
is losing its reign" and you said "if it isn't religion, it'll be
something else", but that simply looks as though your point is that
people are leaving organized religion...and not just leaving organized
religion, but leaving religion.
_My_ point, as opposed to what you posted in this thread, is that
people aren't really leaving religion, instead, they're switching from
one to another, and another, and another......
Do you get me yet?
: > : So, It's all about choice; and I choose to be free from your
: > : contaminating rhetoric.
: >
: > But he's so amusing!
:
: I don't think any of it is amusing.
Then why bother reading any of it? Surely you don't expect to change
what little mind they have, do you?
: > It's not like you're going to start believing
: > that crap,
:
: He doesn't have a discernable trace of integrity in his entire form.
That's the facts, Jack!
: > merely by reading the tripe jonjon posts, is it?
:
: Unfortunately, fuckheads like IBengetinlittlegirls exist
everywhere,.
Worrying about them only leads to stress.
patrick...@standardregister.com
Bill M wrote:
> "J Young" <youngi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1193113082....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>
>
> You can ramble on for ever with this nonsense trying to establish that your
> god exists but it does not establish or prove anything.
>
The article does not try to establish that God exists. Did you read
it?
> It is reasonable to assume there are no Gods if there is no objective
> evidence that any Gods exist - and there isn't any.
>
> We do not believe in Santa Clause, the Esater Bunny or the Wizard of Oz
> because there is no evidence for their existence.
>
> Now this is not PROOF of their non existence but is a logical assumption or
> position.
>
Yes.
> If some magnificent all powerful thing created this huge Universe and the
> 6.5 Billion people in the is world and wants us to behave him, why does he
> let his creations to be so decieved and confused by multitudes of claimed
> Gods???
>
Why not? If this thing is magnificently all powerful then why should
he care whether you're confused or not? You're a microbe compared to
him. Less than that, even.
> Any 'logical' person must assume that non of these Gods actually exist.
In a way, yes. But you can't take that too far. Does any logical
person have to refrain from eating cake and ice cream? It isn't
logical to eat junk food. But your taste buds don't care about
logic. And neither does your faith. There is a tendency to say that
since theists do not take a position solely determined by what the
evidence suggests, that they are therefore complete morons. And that
sort of assumption is itself illogical.
Mike
> On Oct 23, 7:05 am, "Carlos Ivo" <carlos...@mafia.org> wrote:
>
> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
> not something that can be measured or weighed,
> like your drugs.
And how can it be rational to believe in something that cannot be
measured or weighed or detected in any way? If you agree that there
can be no evidence for the existence of a God in any normal sense of
the word "evidence", then you should agree that it is irrational to
postulate the existense of God.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> "Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193150034.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> : On Oct 23, 9:21 am, "Ghod" <g...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> : > "Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
> : >
> : >news:1193146670....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> : > : On Oct 22, 11:18 pm, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
> : > :>http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>
> : > :
> : > : Organized religion is losing its reign - thank God. It's now
> time
> : > for
> : > : fresh ideals - like progress, right?
> : > :
> : > : Well, as we all know, if it isn't religion, it'll be something
> else.
> : >
> : > Ummm...you do realize that most of those leaving organized
> religion
> : > behind are simply switching to unorganized/neo-whatever, don't
> you?
> : > Just because they're fed up with the bullshit organized religion
> : > spews, doesn't mean that they're becoming more rational.
> :
> : That's my point.
>
> Interestingly, I can't see it...sorry. You said "organized religion
> is losing its reign" and you said "if it isn't religion, it'll be
> something else",
Meaning if it's not religion they'll use to get their way or hang on
to - it'll be something else in the course of living.
And I was referring to extremists and their hold (or present lack of
it) on religion.
>but that simply looks as though your point is that
> people are leaving organized religion...and not just leaving organized
> religion, but leaving religion.
You inferred something I never implied.
> _My_ point, as opposed to what you posted in this thread, is that
> people aren't really leaving religion, instead, they're switching from
> one to another, and another, and another......
_My_ point is if extremists no longer find that religion is satifying
their evil intent, they'll find another vice.
> Do you get me yet?
I got your point the first time.
> : > : So, It's all about choice; and I choose to be free from your
> : > : contaminating rhetoric.
> : >
> : > But he's so amusing!
> :
> : I don't think any of it is amusing.
>
> Then why bother reading any of it?
Because I choose to read it?
> Surely you don't expect to change
> what little mind they have, do you?
Do you think that's the sole reason why I'd respond?
> : > It's not like you're going to start believing
> : > that crap,
> :
> : He doesn't have a discernable trace of integrity in his entire form.
>
> That's the facts, Jack!
In my case, it'd be Jaqueline!
> : > merely by reading the tripe jonjon posts, is it?
> :
> : Unfortunately, fuckheads like IBengetinlittlegirls exist
> everywhere,.
>
> Worrying about them only leads to stress.
I think I'll make that decision for myself.
John D. Wentzky
news:1193127380....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 7:13 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "IAAH" <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:PqudnQqlB6B04YDa...@giganews.com...
>>
>> >J Young wrote:
>> >>http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>>
>> > Actually, if atheism has become fashionable, it's only because
>> > rationality
>> > has finally made some inroads.
>>
>> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so many atheists demand
>> proof
>> so often, that Pangaea actually existed?
>> LOL!
>
> It's not so hard, if one has an understanding of plate tectonics.
> Apparent polar wandering curves, fossil distribution and rock type
> distribution, for example, allow us to pinpoint the previous positions
> of the continents with remarkable accuracy.
Bullshit.
"PROVE IT" does not mean "Hey, look, wow, dude. If we put the continents
together they would be one land mass; therefore, they had to be one land
mass millions of years ago. A no brainer, huh?"
That does NOT constitute proof.
Scott Richter
> > If some magnificent all powerful thing created this huge Universe and the
> > 6.5 Billion people in the is world and wants us to behave him, why does he
> > let his creations to be so decieved and confused by multitudes of claimed
> > Gods???
> >
>
> Why not? If this thing is magnificently all powerful then why should
> he care whether you're confused or not?
But WE should care, because religion is one of the most destructive
forces affecting humanity. Sheesh...
> You're a microbe compared to him. Less than that, even.
Then clearly, no human could possibly understand the first thing about
"him".
But notice how you, like all religionists, used the personal pronoun
"him". You can't stop yourself from assigning animalistic, even
anthropomorphic labels to your gods. That demolishes your claim that you
can't understand that the first thing about "him". You think you know
enough to refer to "him", and then take it a giant step further into
believing that "he" watches what you do, like Santa Claus, keeping a
list of who's naughty and nice
And that's where the problems begin...
> > Any 'logical' person must assume that non of these Gods actually exist.
>
> In a way, yes. But you can't take that too far.
Why not? That's the exact argument that's been used for centuries:
religious beliefs should somehow be exempt from criticism, that speaking
out and saying gods do not exist except as a product of human
imagination is going "too far".
That time is over.
> Does any logical person have to refrain from eating cake and ice cream?
> It isn't logical to eat junk food. But your taste buds don't care about
> logic. And neither does your faith.
So, you equate religious faith with eating ice cream? WTF?
> There is a tendency to say that since theists do not take a position
> solely determined by what the evidence suggests, that they are therefore
> complete morons. And that sort of assumption is itself illogical.
True, at assumption is illogical. Theists are therefore completely
delusional, but not necessarily morons.
patrick...@standardregister.com
> <patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
> > > If some magnificent all powerful thing created this huge Universe and the
> > > 6.5 Billion people in the is world and wants us to behave him, why does he
> > > let his creations to be so decieved and confused by multitudes of claimed
> > > Gods???
>
> > Why not? If this thing is magnificently all powerful then why should
> > he care whether you're confused or not?
>
> But WE should care, because religion is one of the most destructive
> forces affecting humanity. Sheesh...
>
Maybe. But not relevant to the question.
> > You're a microbe compared to him. Less than that, even.
>
> Then clearly, no human could possibly understand the first thing about
> "him".
>
I agree.
> But notice how you, like all religionists, used the personal pronoun
> "him". You can't stop yourself from assigning animalistic, even
> anthropomorphic labels to your gods.
Bill M used "he" so I used "he".
> That demolishes your claim that you
> can't understand that the first thing about "him".
No it doesn't. Anthropomorphizing God for purposes of conceptualizing
and/or communicating about him does not constitute a claim that God is
actually human-like.
>You think you know
> enough to refer to "him", and then take it a giant step further into
> believing that "he" watches what you do, like Santa Claus, keeping a
> list of who's naughty and nice
I do? That's funny because I didn't think I thought God watched over
me at all, but apparently you know more about what I think than I do.
While you're at it, can you tell me what I'd like for dinner tonight
too?
>
> And that's where the problems begin...
>
The problems begin with bigots who label people with preconceived
steterotypes. Some of those bigots are religious zealots, but others
are atheists.
> > > Any 'logical' person must assume that non of these Gods actually exist.
>
> > In a way, yes. But you can't take that too far.
>
> Why not? That's the exact argument that's been used for centuries:
And it has been wrong for centuries to take it too far.
> religious beliefs should somehow be exempt from criticism, that speaking
> out and saying gods do not exist except as a product of human
> imagination is going "too far".
>
Now you're building a strawman. I never said any such thing.
> That time is over.
>
> > Does any logical person have to refrain from eating cake and ice cream?
> > It isn't logical to eat junk food. But your taste buds don't care about
> > logic. And neither does your faith.
>
> So, you equate religious faith with eating ice cream? WTF?
>
In this context, yes I do.
flores...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 7:05 am, "Carlos Ivo" <carlos...@mafia.org> wrote:
>
> > As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
> > stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
> > not something that can be measured or weighed,
> > like your drugs.
>
> And how can it be rational to believe in something that cannot be
> measured or weighed or detected in any way?
How can things like love be measured, etc., in a tangible way? Yet,
I'd guess that you have felt it, or maybe not, I don't know.
> If you agree that there
> can be no evidence for the existence of a God in any normal sense of
> the word "evidence", then you should agree that it is irrational to
> postulate the existense of God.
I'll tell you that I attend a church service maybe once every ten
years if that,
but I am no atheist because I cannot fathom the majestic clockwork of
the cosmos without what I will call God, the supreme being beyond
time, space and human comprehension. I also believe human love
comes from God and is not a mere evolution of what is commonly
called instinct. Just my beliefs understand; you can believe what
you
want. I just answered your reasonable question.
Ghod
You're really something else. My initial response to your original
post was to point out where I disagreed with you. You then claimed
that that was your point. But of course, it wasn't...or we'd have
finished with this silliness long ago.
The more you post, the less I find myself believing that you know what
your point is. Also, your grasp of english appears exceedingly loose.
: And I was referring to extremists and their hold (or present lack of
: it) on religion.
Sure you were. That's why your reference to extremists never included
any words that mean extremist, right?
: >but that simply looks as though your point is that
: > people are leaving organized religion...and not just leaving
organized
: > religion, but leaving religion.
:
: You inferred something I never implied.
You really ought to learn english before attempting to communicate in
it...really.
: > _My_ point, as opposed to what you posted in this thread, is that
: > people aren't really leaving religion, instead, they're switching
from
: > one to another, and another, and another......
:
: _My_ point is if extremists no longer find that religion is
satifying
: their evil intent, they'll find another vice.
:
: > Do you get me yet?
:
: I got your point the first time.
Of _course_ you did, dearie...that's why we're wasting our time with
this cockeyed conversation, isn't it?
: > : > : So, It's all about choice; and I choose to be free from your
: > : > : contaminating rhetoric.
: > : >
: > : > But he's so amusing!
: > :
: > : I don't think any of it is amusing.
: >
: > Then why bother reading any of it?
:
: Because I choose to read it?
Ah, I see. So you chose to read it, because you choose it?
: > Surely you don't expect to change
: > what little mind they have, do you?
:
: Do you think that's the sole reason why I'd respond?
Certainly not. I expect that you responded out of anger and
frustration, more than anything else. Don't worry, that's probably
the reason most of us respond to them.
: > : > It's not like you're going to start believing
: > : > that crap,
: > :
: > : He doesn't have a discernable trace of integrity in his entire
form.
: >
: > That's the facts, Jack!
:
: In my case, it'd be Jaqueline!
Sorry, it just doesn't scan properly...so you'll just have to be
satisfied with Jack, ok?
: > : > merely by reading the tripe jonjon posts, is it?
: > :
: > : Unfortunately, fuckheads like IBengetinlittlegirls exist
: > everywhere,.
: >
: > Worrying about them only leads to stress.
:
: I think I'll make that decision for myself.
I doubt that.
Pr0r3p
wrote:
> "Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Why should anyone do what you refuse to do, moron? To date, your idea
of proof when anyone asks for it is "It is so because I say so".
Suddenly, I hear to unmistakable sound of irony meters blowing up all
over the earth.
>
> That does NOT constitute proof.
How would you know, you've never provided any?
G.B.
> "Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : I think I'll make that decision for myself.
>
> I doubt that.
Then you know where you can shove your response.
Geoff
> "IAAH" <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
> news:PqudnQqlB6B04YDa...@giganews.com...
>> J Young wrote:
>>> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>>
>> Actually, if atheism has become fashionable, it's only because
>> rationality has finally made some inroads.
>
> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so many atheists
> demand proof so often, that Pangaea actually existed?
> LOL!
What the fuck are you babbling about, Windbag?
patrick...@standardregister.com
I agree. The proof of God, to me, is in the vast and intricate nature
of existence itself. It's not about what the Bible itself says, but
since I accept the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible, that
of one benign source of creation with faith and compassion being the
highest human virtues, I call myself a Christian. And I don't expect
anybody else to necessarily agree with me as I accept that there is no
scientifically verifiable evidence for God's existence.
Ghod
news:1i6fk5h.1bw8io0w2jvqeN%scottri...@yahoo.com...
: <patrick...@standardregister.com> wrote:
:
: > > If some magnificent all powerful thing created this huge
Universe and the
: > > 6.5 Billion people in the is world and wants us to behave him,
why does he
: > > let his creations to be so decieved and confused by multitudes
of claimed
: > > Gods???
: > >
: >
: > Why not? If this thing is magnificently all powerful then why
should
: > he care whether you're confused or not?
:
: But WE should care, because religion is one of the most destructive
: forces affecting humanity. Sheesh...
I might be mistaken, but I think you're doing an apples and oranges
theme here.
: > You're a microbe compared to him. Less than that, even.
:
: Then clearly, no human could possibly understand the first thing
about
: "him".
:
: But notice how you, like all religionists, used the personal pronoun
: "him". You can't stop yourself from assigning animalistic,
Heh....animalism is the belief that humans are mere animals (a belief
that I subscribe to, you know?). I suspect you intended a different
word.
: even
: anthropomorphic labels to your gods. That demolishes your claim that
you
: can't understand that the first thing about "him". You think you
know
: enough to refer to "him", and then take it a giant step further into
: believing that "he" watches what you do, like Santa Claus, keeping a
: list of who's naughty and nice
:
: And that's where the problems begin...
I'd like to go into this, but unfortunately, I have things to get done
before I leave this afternoon.
: > > Any 'logical' person must assume that non of these Gods actually
exist.
: >
: > In a way, yes. But you can't take that too far.
:
: Why not? That's the exact argument that's been used for centuries:
: religious beliefs should somehow be exempt from criticism, that
speaking
: out and saying gods do not exist except as a product of human
: imagination is going "too far".
:
: That time is over.
Only if we win. Assholes like the Bush family have been working for a
long time (since before WW I) to increase their own power & wealth at
our expense.
: > Does any logical person have to refrain from eating cake and ice
cream?
: > It isn't logical to eat junk food. But your taste buds don't care
about
: > logic. And neither does your faith.
:
: So, you equate religious faith with eating ice cream? WTF
Terrible, just terrible. What am I going to do with all that Breyer's
ice cream in my freezer now?
: > There is a tendency to say that since theists do not take a
position
: > solely determined by what the evidence suggests, that they are
therefore
: > complete morons. And that sort of assumption is itself illogical.
:
: True, at assumption is illogical. Theists are therefore completely
: delusional, but not necessarily morons.
Check out the term "cognitive dissonance".
raven1
> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
> From people who claim to be driven solely by reason and to have
> liberated themselves from ignorance and "blind faith", one would
> normally expect at least some attempt to understand the deeper human
> reasons for refusing to bury God, as demanded. But such an attempt has
> yet to be undertaken.
The author's ability to miss the mark completely is truly
breathtaking. The "deeper human reasons for refusing to bury God" are
well-understood from a psychological and sociological standpoint: one
can hardly expect people to willingly give up, en masse, not just a
belief, but for most, the foundation of their entire worldview, that
has been fed to them and reinforced by society at large since they
were born. The new "atheist movement" isn't born of a desire to
deconvert the masses, but to reach rational individuals one at a time.
slate
Calling atheists "stupid", "lowlife", etc., and calling supporters
of Israel "ZioNazi scumwad", only reinforces the disdain atheists
and others have toward your ilk. The simple teachings of the
alleged Jesus, have been turned into a religion of hate and
intolerance by the religious right. As long as religious people
insist that others conform to their dogma, you can expect a
multitude of people to resist and condemn them.
>
>> Because one thing exists and we can not see it,
>> like love, sound, etc. it does not mean that god exists
>
>Come on, you know you're just dying to say "can you
>provide a credible cite proving that God exits?"
I've found it quite futile to ask theists to prove "God exists".
The question I generally ask a theist is: "what is God?"
After all, no one can know if there is a God unless
they know 'what' god is. Some say "God is invisible"
or "God is a unknowable" etc., etc. Of course, these
answers are contrary to the writings in the Bible which
clearly states that God has a face, backside, hand, etc.
It's also interesting to note that God is always referred
to as He, Him, His, Father, etc. How exactly is this known
if people don't know 'what' God is? Has God's genitalia
somehow been revealed to someone?
Slate
Brian E. Clark
@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, JTEM said...
> Anyhow, how does one "Prove" to an untrusting
> blind man that my socks are green?
<Nerd mode on>
He can direct light reflected from the material
through a spectrum analyzer. He will find that the
range of frequencies indicated by the device
corresponds to the range of frequencies arbitrarily
designated as "green."
<Nerd mode off>
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Mike
> On Oct 23, 12:29 pm, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 23, 7:05 am, "Carlos Ivo" <carlos...@mafia.org> wrote:
>
> > > As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
> > > stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
> > > not something that can be measured or weighed,
> > > like your drugs.
>
> > And how can it be rational to believe in something that cannot be
> > measured or weighed or detected in any way?
>
> How can things like love be measured, etc., in a tangible way? Yet,
> I'd guess that you have felt it, or maybe not, I don't know.
But an emotion such as love does not make a truth claim about the
world. The assertion "God exists" or the assertion "electrostatic
forces obey an inverse square law" are objective statements of reality
that are either true or false. I believe the second statement because
it is well supported by evidence and I do not believe the first
statement because it is not.
By contrast if you tell me "I love Mary", you are simply
informing me about an emotional state of yours; there is nothing for
me to agree or disagree with.
> > If you agree that there
> > can be no evidence for the existence of a God in any normal sense of
> > the word "evidence", then you should agree that it is irrational to
> > postulate the existense of God.
>
> I'll tell you that I attend a church service maybe once every ten
> years if that,
> but I am no atheist because I cannot fathom the majestic clockwork of
> the cosmos without what I will call God, the supreme being beyond
> time, space and human comprehension.
OK. I sympathize with that conception of "God". It sounds rather
like Einstein's "religious" sentiments; he thought of the word God as
a metaphor for the harmony and unity of the physical laws that govern
the cosmos. But that is not at all what people usually mean by the
word "God".
>I also believe human love
> comes from God and is not a mere evolution of what is commonly
> called instinct.
Humans are social "pack-animals" like dogs, elephants, dolphins,
and many others. Do you believe that a dog's loving nature is derived
from God? Human love is more profound by orders of magnitude than the
kind of love dogs have because we have awareness and reason, but why
can it not be evolved without some kind of "God"?
Al Klein
Did you miss the "if one has an understanding of plate tectonics"?
Since you don't, the evidence isn't something you understand. "John
D. Wentzky doesn't understand the evidence" isn't "there is no
evidence".
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
Al Klein
[piggybacking]
>On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
>> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
>> not something that can be measured or weighed,
>> like your drugs.
Either God objectively exists or doesn't objectively exist. Does ...
doesn't. Not too many other options. Make up your mind. Does or
doesn't.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
Al Klein
>"Gwyneđ Bennetdottir" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1193150034.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>: Unfortunately, fuckheads like IBengetinlittlegirls exist
>everywhere,.
>Worrying about them only leads to stress.
Not worrying about them only leads to more child abuse.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
- Albert Einstein
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:49:49 -0500, "Ghod" <g...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >"Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1193150034.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >: Unfortunately, fuckheads like IBengetinlittlegirls exist
> >everywhere,.
> >Worrying about them only leads to stress.
>
> Not worrying about them only leads to more child abuse.
And on some occassions...murder.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Subject: Atheism becomes fashionable
Corrected subject: More people realize they've been conned
(HTH)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable
in terms of the not worth knowing.”
- H. L. Mencken
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>
>
> Over the past half century, the dominant view among the chattering
> classes has been either that there is no God (atheism)
It's convenient when an essay lets you know in the first sentence that
nothing that follows need be taken seriously.
Ray Fischer
That and $0.50 will get you a daily newspaper.
> It's not about what the Bible itself says, but
>since I accept the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible,
Except when you don't.
> that
>of one benign source of creation with faith and compassion being the
>highest human virtues, I call myself a Christian.
Except when it comes to pregnant women and anybody who disagrees with
your cult's dogma.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
JTEM
> @v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, JTEM said...
>
> > Anyhow, how does one "Prove" to an untrusting
> > blind man that my socks are green?
>
> <Nerd mode on>
>
> He can direct light reflected from the material
> through a spectrum analyzer. He will find that the
> range of frequencies indicated by the device
> corresponds to the range of frequencies arbitrarily
> designated as "green."
>
> <Nerd mode off>
He's still have to trust someone, even if it's only the
person who placed the brail labels on the machine.
Being blind & distrustful, for all he knows it's a machine
that beeps when someone standing at a distance
pushes a button on a remote.
flores...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 23, 1:39 pm, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 12:29 pm, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 23, 7:05 am, "Carlos Ivo" <carlos...@mafia.org> wrote:
>
> > > > As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
> > > > stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
> > > > not something that can be measured or weighed,
> > > > like your drugs.
>
> > > And how can it be rational to believe in something that cannot be
> > > measured or weighed or detected in any way?
>
> > How can things like love be measured, etc., in a tangible way? Yet,
> > I'd guess that you have felt it, or maybe not, I don't know.
>
> But an emotion such as love does not make a truth claim about the
> world. The assertion "God exists" or the assertion "electrostatic
> forces obey an inverse square law" are objective statements of reality
> that are either true or false. I believe the second statement because
> it is well supported by evidence and I do not believe the first
> statement because it is not.
You don't seem to following too well Mike. And as I said, you are
certainly free to believe what you want.
> > but I am no atheist because I cannot fathom the majestic clockwork of
> > the cosmos without what I will call God, the supreme being beyond
> > time, space and human comprehension.
>
> OK. I sympathize with that conception of "God". It sounds rather
> like Einstein's "religious" sentiments; he thought of the word God as
> a metaphor for the harmony and unity of the physical laws that govern
> the cosmos. But that is not at all what people usually mean by the
> word "God".
I also believe that Christ was probably more than mortal man. I do
not believe that Saul/Paul was insane, delusional, an epileptic, or
the usual smears that are hurled at the man by naysayers.
I also do not think that Christ's mother was a whore and that he was
the son of a Roman soldier named Panzer. I certainly don't
think Christ was a fictional character, like Jimeny Cricket.
flores...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:29:32 -0700, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> [piggybacking]
>
> >On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
> >> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
> >> not something that can be measured or weighed,
> >> like your drugs.
>
> Either God objectively exists or doesn't objectively exist. Does ...
> doesn't. Not too many other options. Make up your mind. Does or
> doesn't.
Re-read the above, then try again.
flores...@hotmail.com
>
> [piggybacking]
>
> >On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
> >> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
> >> not something that can be measured or weighed,
> >> like your drugs.
>
> Either God objectively exists or doesn't objectively exist. Does ...
> doesn't. Not too many other options. Make up your mind. Does or
> doesn't.
Do singularities exist? Do you even know what a singularity is
without
looking it up?
But to answer your question again..In my view, God objectively exists,
in yours, God doesn't.
Christopher A.Lee
>On Oct 23, 5:45 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:29:32 -0700, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>>
>> [piggybacking]
>>
>> >On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
>> >> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
>> >> not something that can be measured or weighed,
>> >> like your drugs.
>>
>> Either God objectively exists or doesn't objectively exist. Does ...
>> doesn't. Not too many other options. Make up your mind. Does or
>> doesn't.
>
>Do singularities exist? Do you even know what a singularity is
>without
>looking it up?
IDiot.
>But to answer your question again..In my view, God objectively exists,
>in yours, God doesn't.
Idiot.
IAAH
If you think that God objectively exists, you
should be able to provide some kind of objective
evidence for that existence, correct?
If you can't, then what possible reason would you
have for your belief?
John D. Wentzky
news:1193162537....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I am sure you do not understand the many methods of proof.
All I need to do is provide one counter example to anything you say and it
destorys your conjecture.
> Suddenly, I hear to unmistakable sound of irony meters blowing up all
> over the earth.
Where is ANY actual proof of pangaea?
>>
>> That does NOT constitute proof.
>
> How would you know, you've never provided any?
How can ANYONE provide any actual proof of pangaea's existence?
Al Klein
>Idiot.
Maybe, maybe not, but one of the finest oxymorons I've seen in a
while. "Objectively, in someone's opinion"?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the
battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
--George W. Bush, May 1, 2003
"...I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult,
and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult - and we are
prevailing."
--George W. Bush, June 28, 2005
"Prevailing in Iraq is not going to be easy."
--George W. Bush, March 19, 20
John D. Wentzky
news:dhqsh35qrddele4fn...@4ax.com...
No. That, in itself does NOT prove pangaea's existence.
Plate tectonics involves continental drift and the reactions between the
plates.
Wanna get into subduction zones and all that?
There is no actual proof that pangaea existed.
Your imagination is insufficient to constitute bonafide proof.
> Since you don't, the evidence isn't something you understand.
Baby, I am not wasting my time with unproven speculation that can not be
proven.
>"John D. Wentzky doesn't understand the evidence" isn't "there is no
> evidence".
There is no evidence.
Your speculation isn't provable.
What you *think* happened has no proof.
John D. Wentzky
news:O76dncKF8MTkpoPa...@giganews.com...
The fact that the pangaea hypothesis is disproven by its lack of evidence
and its reliance on speculation, and by empiricism itself.
Pr0r3p
Yet, you continue to refuse to provide just one case when asked.
>
> > Suddenly, I hear to unmistakable sound of irony meters blowing up all
> > over the earth.
>
> Where is ANY actual proof of pangaea?
I wasn't talking about pangaea, moron, I was talking about you whining
at people to provide proof when you refuse to do it. In fact, I asked
you to cite a statute in another posting and you refused. So, you're
in no position to demand proof of anything from anyone.
>
>
>
> >> That does NOT constitute proof.
>
> > How would you know, you've never provided any?
>
> How can ANYONE provide any actual proof of pangaea's existence?
I'm talking about your hypocrisy. Get with the fucking program.
flores...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:40:31 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>But to answer your question again..In my view, God objectively exists,
> >>in yours, God doesn't.
> >Idiot.
>
> Maybe, maybe not, but one of the finest oxymorons I've seen in a
> while. "Objectively, in someone's opinion"?
Generally, when quotes are used, what's contained inside is
exactly what the person being quoted wrote/said. You might
wanna make a note of it.
jemcd
"Plate tectonics has proven to be as important to the earth sciences
as the discovery of the structure of the atom was to physics and
chemistry and the theory of evolution was to the life sciences. Even
though the theory of plate tectonics is now widely accepted by the
scientific community, aspects of the theory are still being debated
today."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html
USGS does not dispute Pangea.
They acknowledge the debate regarding the nature of the forces, but do
not say anything about disproving Pangea.
I guess the US Geological Society forgot to consult you, better give
them a ring and straighten them out.
But in the meantime...
Can you give an alternative theory explaining the remarkable fit of
coastlines, and shared fossils on separate continents' coastlines, and
tropical fossils in the Antarctic etc?
I'd like to read it,
thanks.
.
"Creationists make it sound like a "theory" is something
you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
Asimov
flores...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:50:42 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
And since the concept of God not being something like a rock specimen
that can be shown to you (like some kid in "show & tell" at
kindergarten)
apparently can't be pounded into your head with a jackhammer, you
say there is no evidence.
There are some executives in the tobacco industry who still swear that
there's no evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Stupidity and
denial are common traits in some creatures.
John D. Wentzky
news:4c3vh3tlo27gt6st7...@4ax.com...
Their error in siding with UNPROVEN conjecture..
>They acknowledge the debate regarding the nature of the forces, but do
> not say anything about disproving Pangea.
> I guess the US Geological Society forgot to consult you, better give
> them a ring and straighten them out.
>
> But in the meantime...
> Can you give an alternative theory explaining the remarkable fit of
> coastlines, and shared fossils on separate continents' coastlines, and
> tropical fossils in the Antarctic etc?
> I'd like to read it,
> thanks.
What makes you think that had there been a pangaea that the continent's
species would be as uniquie as they are today?
What makes you think that putting a pre-school puzzle together proves
pangaea?
IAAH
Ah, the faulty metaphor defense; it's very typical.
There is OBJECTIVE evidence that cigarette smoke
is a carcinogen. There is NO objective evidence
backing the claim of the existence of any god.
Pr0r3p
> "IAAH" <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
>
> news:PqudnQqlB6B04YDa...@giganews.com...
>
> >J Young wrote:
> >>http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>
> > Actually, if atheism has become fashionable, it's only because rationality
> > has finally made some inroads.
>
> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so many atheists demand proof
> so often, that Pangaea actually existed?
> LOL!
No need to since according to you logic, you have to prove it didn't
exist.
"Your inability to show me wrong renders your accusation moot."
- John Wentzky in http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/42abeab18074a068?dmode=source
You'd better get to it...
John D. Wentzky
> On Oct 23, 2:13 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "IAAH" <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:PqudnQqlB6B04YDa...@giganews.com...
>>
>> >J Young wrote:
>> >>http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>>
>> > Actually, if atheism has become fashionable, it's only because
>> > rationality
>> > has finally made some inroads.
>>
>> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so many atheists demand
>> proof
>> so often, that Pangaea actually existed?
>> LOL!
>
> No need to since according to you logic, you have to prove it didn't
> exist.
Stating it didn't exist is easier than stating that it did exist at this
point because you CAN NOT prove that it did exist.
Judgment by default would render your position untrue.
Ineptitude on your part noted.
You still do not understand and are not up to my level of standards of
proof.
I want real evidence of that which you say exists or existed.
I can prove that pangaea did not exist via the lack of proof that is in
evidence.
My statement is much stronger than yours because it IS proven by the lack of
evidence.
> "Your inability to show me wrong renders your accusation moot."
> - John Wentzky in
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/42abeab18074a068?dmode=source
>
> You'd better get to it...
Get to what, fool?
Pangaea doesn't exist now, you idiot.
There is no proof that it existed at any time.
You are who is enlsaved to proving a conjecture that has no real empirical
evidence to prove it and many deficiencies in it.
LOL!
IAAH
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Al Klein
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
It does, if one has an understanding of plate tectonics, which you
don't.
>Plate tectonics involves continental drift and the reactions between the
>plates.
And where, in which direction and how fast each plate drifts. Which
allows us to calculate backwards to see what the surface of the world
looked like at any time in the past, for many millions of years.
>There is no actual proof that pangaea existed.
Not to someone who doesn't understand plate tectonics.
>>"John D. Wentzky doesn't understand the evidence" isn't "there is no
>> evidence".
>There is no evidence.
As I said, your lack of understanding doesn't constitute lack of
evidence.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
Syd M.
Well, it's easy if you don't blind yourself, like you do..
PDW
L Alpert
>>
>>> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
>>> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
>>> not something that can be measured or weighed,
>>> like your drugs.
>>
>> measured or weighed or detected in any way?
>
> How can things like love be measured, etc., in a tangible way? Yet,
> I'd guess that you have felt it, or maybe not, I don't know.
>
>> can be no evidence for the existence of a God in any normal sense of
>> the word "evidence", then you should agree that it is irrational to
>> postulate the existense of God.
>
> I'll tell you that I attend a church service maybe once every ten
> years if that,
> the cosmos without what I will call God, the supreme being beyond
> comes from God and is not a mere evolution of what is commonly
> called instinct. Just my beliefs understand; you can believe what
> you
> want. I just answered your reasonable question.
You don't believe in shit, you beached whale.
John D. Wentzky
news:1193259907....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Suddenly, I hear to unmistakable sound of irony meters blowing up all
>> > over the earth.
>>
>> Where is ANY actual proof of pangaea?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> That does NOT constitute proof.
>>
>> > How would you know, you've never provided any?
>>
>> How can ANYONE provide any actual proof of pangaea's existence?
>
> Well, it's easy if you don't blind yourself, like you do..
Blind myself?
It is you who is blind to the realism of no real proof of Pangea.
When did you observe pangaea itself?
V
> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>
> by Richard Bastien
Don't know if the membership of atheism is falling or rising -- but I
do know atheism can only progress so far JY.
Atheism can offer nothing to theists looking for inner peace, comfort,
charity, hope and compassion.
Sure, atheism appeals to a potion of society that is defiant, bitter
and hate filed.
But people need comfort in times of pain.
What does atheism offer the potential theist convert?
Atheism only offer more pain, not less, so it can never replace
religion.
Whether theist or atheist...we all have irrational beliefs.
After all, atheist believe hatred and ill-will yield them peace?
How more irrational can one get?
Is that any worse than hoping God and heaven are real and working
towards that hope by being charitable, kind and honest to others?
No, if push comes to shove, the fairy tails of theism beat the fairy
tails of atheism any day.
The many countries that the US has been at war with and subsequently
lost the war to can be most grateful we were not an atheist country.
If we were a country that did not apply Christian principles to our
captors millions more would have been killed.
Atheist run countries have a policy of extermination and ethnic
cleansing rather than applying charity.
Atheist like to claim religion killed so many people...well without
religion in world the killings would have been much worse.
Atheism is far from the dream world you make it to be.
The theists are deluded in their beliefs and the atheists are deluded
as well...the atheists just don't have the honesty to admit it.
Become a freethinking agnostic and you can all be at peace.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=470.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
John D. Wentzky
It really doesn't.
Look at the current contentinental plates.
Where is any evidence at all that these plates were actually atop each
other?
Using a reverse extrapolative method that you think proves something that
wasn't actually observed isn't even in line with proper back-testing
procedures becase the data aren't there to back test with.
You are imagining that pangea existed.
>>Plate tectonics involves continental drift and the reactions between the
>>plates.
>
> And where, in which direction and how fast each plate drifts. Which
> allows us to calculate backwards to see what the surface of the world
> looked like at any time in the past, for many millions of years.
Such backward testing isn't empirically valid because there is nothing to
verify your reverse extrapolation.
Only because the calculations are mathematically sound does not mean that
those phenomena actually occurred.
You need REAL PROOF to support such an idea as pangaea.
>>There is no actual proof that pangaea existed.
>
> Not to someone who doesn't understand plate tectonics.
I understand those things.
>>>"John D. Wentzky doesn't understand the evidence" isn't "there is no
>>> evidence".
>
>>There is no evidence.
>
> As I said, your lack of understanding doesn't constitute lack of
> evidence.
It isn't any lack of understanding on my part.
It is a lack of EVIDENCE!
John D. Wentzky
I still so no proof that pangaea existed at any time.
V
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:18:02 -0700, J Young wrote:
> > Subject: Atheism becomes fashionable
>
> Corrected subject: More people realize they've been conned
>
> (HTH)
>
> --
> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
> EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable
> in terms of the not worth knowing."
>
> - H. L. Mencken
I've talked to many theists that realize all is not right with their
religion. But what's the other option Mark?
So people just stick it out.
Thoreau once noted that people inviting him to a dinner would get
their pride from how expensive and fancy a meal that could provide.
He said on the other hand, he got his pride from how simple a meal he
could make.
We can get stuck and blinded with perfecting extreme views and this
shows us where our pride is located.
Where do you get your pride Mark...which can also be said to be your
identity?
Religious practitioners have a set or prepackaged morals that they
identify with....I am a Christian...I am a Muslim... I am a Jew... I
am a Buddhist...and all that goes along with such an identity.
Even my atheists friends have an identity to latch onto when they
ejaculate...I am an atheist.
The only question for the atheist is whether they are of a defiance
based, hate filled, mind manacled identity or an atheist that is of a
spiritual and truth based identity?
Spiritual atheist?
Sure they have em.
http://www.spiritualatheism.com/
Unfortunately they are far and few in the world.
The vast, vast majority of atheists I have come into contact with are
of the former defiance based, hate filled, mind manacled identity.
Alan Watts use to say we define ourselves by our enemies. We define
ourselves by what we are not.
He used the example of 'Beatniks and Squares' which were the in fad
opposites back in his day. So of course it is natural for theist and
atheist to view themselves as polar opposites.
Back in the day, the beatniks looked down on the squares and the
squares looked down on the beatniks.
Nothing has changed since the beginning of time. People build up
artificial self worth by looking down on others not in their group.
There are many benefits from religious associations.
Belonging to such religious fraternal organizations offer many
benefits to the practitioners.
Among them they are:
Companionship
Compassion from others
Business contacts
Pride through community and association
Counseling
Moral support and guidance
Recreation
Trips
Concerts
Music
Outlets for personal artistic gifts such as musical instruments and
voice.
Communal and shut in meals
Communal and family love
An outlet for charitable offerings within the group and within society
Hope
Contemplative time
The supposed benefits of a loving father looking over oneself and your
family
Justice through a higher power
And most impertinent the hopes of life everlasting with one's loved
one's...something that man has craved for since the Egyptians and
probably before that.
Now, atheists don't have all the God delusions and religious fear to
deal with yet they are far from peace.
In fact, we can see they are even more miserable than the theists in
many a case.
Lets look below for some hard facts about the identity that the
atheists latches onto.
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: "What the hell would atheists need "spiritual
values" for when we can have real values instead?"
V wrote:
Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define Kelsey, just as the source
of the wind is hard to define.
Since spiritual matters deal with the unseen and the unknown, how can
we define them perfectly?
If we could do that they would not be spiritual studies.
You can't see why one person is loving and kind and another person is
a fiend of perennial shame, hate and destruction.
Nor can you see what made the hate monger change into a kind and
loving human.
We can describe spiritual concepts and the journey that made the
change possible, but it is impossible to put our finger on it all
exactly.
Spiritual growth is a journey that is a never ending, an imperfect
process in this life.
But just as we can see the effects of the wind and gravity, while
being blind to its source; we can most definitely see the difference
in people that incorporate spiritual values within their lives when
compared to people that live a life devoid of any spiritual values.
No one said we have to 'investigate it all,' but we do have to give it
some thought if we wish to be at peace.
A Hindu sage once told me "Just as water floes downhill without effort
but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the
human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without
effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than
our base desires."
As such without effort, the defiance based atheists sinks deeper and
deeper into sickness and tragedy as time goes by.
Lets look at some of the 'real values' that atheists develop once they
drop spirituality from the equation Kelsey.
As you can see below, the defiance based, mind manacled, spiritually
sick atheist can go out of their way to be very cruel.
The Buddhists follow the eightfold path of right living and one of
these paths encompasses right speech.
One time I brought up this subject of right speech at alt.atheism and
was responded to as such.
Robibnikoff wrote: "So. Fucking what...do you think I give a flying
fuck what you think, dipshit...Not that it's any of YOUR fucking
business...Don't presume that you know what's best for me, you
deluded, motherfucking, cocksucking son of a whore." (condensed)
With my first few posts, I offered to discuss tools that the atheist,
agnostic or theist can all share to develop inner peace.
These are just a few of the responses at alt.atheism on the topics of
developing compassion, simplicity, ethics, morals, mindfulness,
reciprocity, philosophical studies, charity, accepting impermanence,
and developing gratitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "So fucking what? Keep it to yourself and
nobody will know what an asshole you are."
Kate wrote: "I've never been not at peace. What you offer makes me
physically ill. It's like a nasty man come round to tell little
kiddees he has candy for them if they touch his pee pee. You know,
most of the atheists I know are as good as children are at discerning
misrepresentation. You aren't trying to help anyone but your own
self. Go away, we have no interest in touching your pee pee."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "What the fuck has philosophy got to do
with your in-your-face psychopathy?"
Michael Gray wrote: "Stop posting your vile polemic deliberately
nasty, lying Christian? . Please go away. No-one is buying your
poisonous diatribe. Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?"
John Baker wrote: "First of all, this is a newsgroup, not the
freaking public library. Keep it short and to the point. Second,
you're full of shit."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "We know this deliberately nasty,
slandering liar is a Christian by his fruits...a liar as well as an
idiot...don't be so fucking stupid."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "You wouldn't know "virtuous behaviour" if
it hit you over the head, whining hypocrite who needs to get the log
out of his own eye before accusing us of a projection of his own
deficiencies."
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "a few hundred lines of irrelevant bullshit
by a whining hypocrite who
doesn't practice what he preaches, deleted"
Robibnikoff wrote: "Shaddup, you dick."
Michael Gray wrote: "There ain't nothin' lamer than a jabriol
fuckwit"
Christopher A. Lee wrote: "Whi give a shit, in-your-face stuipid
moron?"
John Baker wrote: 'I'd almost feel sorry for him if he wasn't such
a disgusting piece of shit."
Robibnikoff wrote: "I hope that stupid fucker (V) doesn't think I
actually read all that dog shit he posts."
Robibnikoff wrote: "....no one gives a shit what you think."
Stoney wrote: "Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a
wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I
trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could send you an almost endless supply of such material to prove
the point that without spiritual values, the atheist is sunk.
The conundrum of the mind manacled, defiance based, spiritually sick
atheist is this.
They need spiritual values to be at peace - yet their own defiance
blocks them from seeking and finding these values.
The atheist that only has a foundation of ego and hate will never find
peace.
If any theist questioning their faith should wonder onto alt.atheism,
for instance, they could see this for themselves with many spiritually
sick example members and their projection of this spiritual sickness
and self hate onto others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robibnikoff wrote: "Blah, blah, blah... you boring sack of shit."
Mark K Bilbo wrote: "..you're an asshole...a self-absorbed prick
who thinks everything is about him."
Mark K Bilbo wrote: "For a "peace" freak, you sure are a spiteful
little fuck."
Panama Floyd wrote: "...this guy is funny. Why don't we wait a while
before we eat him? Maybe he'll poopie himself!."
John Baker wrote: "Oh, shut the fuck up, you self-righteous twit."
Robibnikoff wrote: "Fuck you, liar"
Robibnikoff wrote: "You must be an arrogant douche bag.(V)"
Jesus was a Cocksucker wrote: "Never,scumbag cocksucker for christ.
your a god damn idiot-every post you make proves it."
Michael Gray wrote: "You exhibit all the signs of full clinical
sociopathy, if not actual psychopathy. You need professional help, but
won't take it, as that would entail admitting that the Fuckups that
are always happening to you are YOUR fault."
Michael Gray wrote: "If you insist upon continuing to strut your
massive ego and miniscule education in alt.atheism, we'll use you for
target practice, until we get bored with your repetitious long-winded
empty-headed bullshit-frosted ignorance."
Michael Gray wrote: "What do you expect from a lying sack of shit?"
Raven wrote: "God, will you get over that fucking ego of yours
already?"
Mark K Bilbo wrote: "what you write is self-absorbed,
condescending, arrogant rife, ego masturbation. You're in love with
yourself, don't care what other people think or feel, and have the
emotional maturity of a two year old."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All atheists are not like this.
Some spiritual based atheist far surpass theists in compassion and
inner peace.
The troubling thing at alt.atheism is no one speaks out against such
illness and this IS being promoted as atheistic view.
I wrote to the president of American Atheists, I wrote to the UK
Atheists as well s a Secular Humanist Foundation and Sam Harris about
this very topic...none had the courtesy to respond.
Atheists are their own worse enemy when it comes to promoting their
cause and trampling over organized religion.
Just as the bible is a major force with theists leaving religion, the
spiritually sick, mind manacled, defiance based atheist is the best
reason that theists return to their religion.
Such wavering theists quickly come to realize that without a
foundation spirituality the atheist is sunk and rapidly head back to
their church, temple or fellowship to get away from such people.
I brought up the topic of developing a 'church of sorts' or atheist
fellowship to lend guidance and support for right living and
reinforcing the ethics morals and the ideals of atheists and secular
humanism.
I'll leave you with just a few more quotes from Panama Floyd as he
writes on the subject of developing human empathy and compassion to
support moral, ethical and right living through such a fellowship:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panama Floyd wrote: "The only thing I need to "support moral,
ethical and right living" is simple human empathy and compassion. That
anyone would need anything else is a mystery to me. Perhaps I'm just a
better person than they are (V)."
Panama Floyd wrote: "Then don't whine like a bitch when your butt
gets fucked,"
Panama Floyd wrote:: "...Take it (bible) and shove it up that smelly
little anus you're using for a cunt."
Panama Floyd wrote: "You're not smart enough, or brave enough to be
an atheist. Keep your idiotic dead-jew-on-a-stick, buttsuck. Fear of
it is probably the only thing keeping you from having sex with your
siblings."
Panama Floyd wrote: "Shaddap, bitch. If I want your opinion, I'll
give you one."
Panama Floyd wrote:: "Go fuck yourself, Christian...Were I a violent
man, I'd advocate you all being rounded up and jailed, to keep you
from ruining other lives."
Panama Floyd wrote: "Go fuck yourself, shitstain. You come in here
and insult people-and then whine about the reception you get? Fuck, I
wish it caused you physical pain to be so ruthlessly stupid."
Panama Floyd wrote: "FUCK OFF ya brainless fucking twat!"
Panama Floyd wrote: "Fuck Jesus. Your dead-jew-on-a-stick probably
never existed, and if he did, he was man-not a god. I don't take
"commands" from an illiterate, superstitious Bronze Age peasant.'
Panama Floyd: wrote: "What are *you* doing back here, you dumb bitch-
assed punk? Ways of disposing with the human garbage called
"missionaries" is very definately on-topic."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner
peace promotion...as you give so your receive.
When you practice destroying others peace, you will reap self
destruction of inner peace...as you give so your receive
This is universal truth once the prejudice of ego is stripped away.
Whether atheists, theists or Buddhists, I submit that you all drop the
pretense and lies that you have been grasping onto for entire life and
rebuild your life through a foundation of truth and testing and
regenerate yourselves into a truth based agnostic freethinker striving
to be at peace within and with all.
No, Kelsey, I stand by my statement 100% that without spiritual
values, the atheist is sunk.
Words give a glimpse of what our insides are like. Whenever we beat
down others to boost our ego we will never find the peace that we are
desperately seeking.
Destroying others to glorify our ego is not the answer my friends.
And until you change, you will continue on your mockery of a life that
can best be described as the tragedy upon humanity that manifests
itself as the defiance, based, mind manacled, spiritually sick
atheist.
Also see:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
Good luck,
flores...@hotmail.com
>
> You don't believe in shit, you beached whale
Hells bells Sweetcheeks, you even steal flames!!:)
Didn't you learn anything in stir? LOL!!
slate
patrick...@standardregister.com wrote:
>I agree. The proof of God, to me, is in the vast and intricate nature
>of existence itself. It's not about what the Bible itself says, but
>since I accept the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible, that
>of one benign source of creation with faith and compassion being the
>highest human virtues, I call myself a Christian. And I don't expect
>anybody else to necessarily agree with me as I accept that there is no
>scientifically verifiable evidence for God's existence.
You are correct when you say:
"......no scientifically verifiable evidence for God's existence."
I don't believe that you and others actually know for sure that
a 'God' really exists, as there is no evidence to support such a
belief. What it is then, is that you and others ' believe in belief'.
Having absolutely no evidence to support the existence of a 'God',
you only have belief or 'faith' if you will, that there is a 'God'.
Atheists on the other hand are skeptics in general, and do not have a
belief in a God or Gods that appear to live but in the minds of those
who do believe. Atheism after all, means 'without' belief, and nothing
more.
IMO, most atheists don't care what others believe in relation
to the existence of a God or Gods. The problem that arises, involves
many Christians that post on ng's condemning others in relation to
abortion, homosexuality, atheism etc., based solely on religious dogma
from a book of books known as the Bible, that is supposed to be the
words of a 'God' they admittedly can not substantiate.
When the above Christians stop the condemnation of others and
threats of eternal damnation in the bowels of Hell, atheists will stop
treating them in a derogatory manner they so richly deserve.
Christians should limit their beliefs and practices to other like
minded individuals and respect people that don't want to hear
the sales pitch, or the holier-than-thou attitudes.
Slate
"I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with
my legs." [Frederick Douglas] escaped slave
IAAH
I see nothing in your statement that proves it
doesn't.
Al Klein
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
How would you know? You don't understand plate tectonics.
>Look at the current contentinental plates.
>Where is any evidence at all that these plates were actually atop each
>other?
If a car is moving down the street at 1 mph, we know it was exactly
1/2 mile further up the street 30 minutes ago. We don't need any more
evidence than the facts we have.
>Using a reverse extrapolative method
It's not 'extrapolation' to calculate that 1/2 hour at 1 mph is 1/2
mile.
> that you think proves something that
>wasn't actually observed isn't even in line with proper back-testing
>procedures becase the data aren't there to back test with.
Then tickets for speeding are illegal, because once the car is stopped
the data aren't there to back test with. Arrest for murder is illegal
because the data to back test with. No action is prosecutable unless
there's a confession that couldn't be faked.
Sorry, John, that's not considered reality on this planet. We accept
that what we see here is caused.
>>>Plate tectonics involves continental drift and the reactions between the
>>>plates.
>> And where, in which direction and how fast each plate drifts. Which
>> allows us to calculate backwards to see what the surface of the world
>> looked like at any time in the past, for many millions of years.
>Such backward testing isn't empirically valid because there is nothing to
>verify your reverse extrapolation.
See above.
> You need REAL PROOF to support such an idea as pangaea.
Science accepts reality as proof that reality is real, even if you
don't.
>>>There is no actual proof that pangaea existed.
>> Not to someone who doesn't understand plate tectonics.
>I understand those things.
The fact that we're having this discussion is proof that you don't.
>
>>>>"John D. Wentzky doesn't understand the evidence" isn't "there is no
>>>> evidence".
>>
>>>There is no evidence.
>>
>> As I said, your lack of understanding doesn't constitute lack of
>> evidence.
>
>It isn't any lack of understanding on my part.
>It is a lack of EVIDENCE!
That you don't understand the evidence isn't proof that it's not
there, it's just proof that you don't understand it.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we"
- George W. Bush - Aug 5, 2004
jemcd
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
There is evidence for it, and none against.
I am still waiting for your explanation why it is not possible, or not
likely.
>
>>They acknowledge the debate regarding the nature of the forces, but do
>> not say anything about disproving Pangea.
>> I guess the US Geological Society forgot to consult you, better give
>> them a ring and straighten them out.
>>
>> But in the meantime...
>> Can you give an alternative theory explaining the remarkable fit of
>> coastlines, and shared fossils on separate continents' coastlines, and
>> tropical fossils in the Antarctic etc?
>> I'd like to read it,
>> thanks.
>
>What makes you think that had there been a pangaea that the continent's
>species would be as uniquie as they are today?
>What makes you think that putting a pre-school puzzle together proves
>pangaea?
>
ok, answering my questions with questions doesn't convince me you are
serious, and you may just like scoffing at things.
Which continent are you referring to anyway? No matter, since the
estimate is about 225 million years ago when it last broke apart,
there is plenty of time for species to develop separately, emerge on
one and not the other continent, etc. There was a lot of separation
around and mainly following the Jurassic period, you know, the real
big ones like the sauropods Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus etc., and
Stegosaurs with big plates on their backs. The thing with Stegosaurus
is that it has always been found in North America, until last winter.
One was found in Portugal, and this supports the Pangea theory. The
only other one from that period is the Allosaurus, another big guy.
These are dated to the same period of when they think the continents
were last close together, enough so that land bridges would appear
when water was low. I suppose early Jurassic may have still had quite
a bit of contact between North America and Europe, a piece connecting
Europe and Africa, and Africa and South America were real close.
The presence of identical fossil species along the coastal parts of
Africa and South America is pretty compelling background info for the
"pre school puzzle".
They have not mapped out the specific bridges between Europe and North
America, that might be impossible now. Shortly after(in geological
terms), the Atlantic ocean became too large a barrier for any
lumbering giants to cross. Birds arose in Jurassic I think.
Paleontologists recognize the boring similarity to rocks from the
previous period, Triassic, early Triassic shows the same rock
everywhere in the world, just like it was one continent. Early
Triassic fossils are predominately small species, found throughout the
world, just like it was one continent. The fossil record is a tad
light, but there is one.
Another thought, the most massive extinction in history happened in
the Permian period, when Pangea existed. Might the chances for more
survival be better if the continents were separate and had the
diversity of life and conditions? That extinction marked the end of
the Paleozoic era. It was covered with reptiles, fossil records exist,
like it was one landmass.
Long after those two periods(Triassic-Jurassic), Cretaceous to now, we
have diversity that reflects the separations we see in the continents.
65 million years is a long time, plenty of life can rise/change/ go
extinct in that time.
Tectonic plates have been moving around on the planet, and we have a
reasonable enough idea what movement they have done up to 1100 million
years ago.
The "pre-school" puzzle is just the fun graphic part, easy for you to
make fun of perhaps, but the rest is actual science, and done by
actual scientists. The puzzle doesn't exactly refute the various
mappings put forth by science.
You can and will believe whatever you want, but for me there is no
reason to claim that the last century of scientists are all wrong.
They know this stuff better than I do, and I am guessing better than
you as well.
But I am eager to read any thought out reasoning you have, based on
actual evidence of something, and using real data would be a certain
plus. Not liking the theories is not enough by itself.
Got anything besides baseless derision?
Pr0r3p
> "Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193254794....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2:13 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> "IAAH" <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:PqudnQqlB6B04YDa...@giganews.com...
>
> >> >J Young wrote:
> >> >>http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>
> >> > Actually, if atheism has become fashionable, it's only because
> >> > rationality
> >> > has finally made some inroads.
>
> >> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so many atheists demand
> >> proof
> >> so often, that Pangaea actually existed?
> >> LOL!
>
> > No need to since according to you logic, you have to prove it didn't
> > exist.
>
> Stating it didn't exist is easier than stating that it did exist at this
> point because you CAN NOT prove that it did exist.
I don't have to prove it existed, according to you. Any time you're
asked to defend a claim you've made, you immediately claim that no one
can disprove your claim therefore it's true. That's the way you do
things, you'd better not whine when we throw it back at you.
"Your inability to show me wrong renders your accusation moot."
- John Wentzky
> Judgment by default would render your position untrue.
No, you're inability to prove it doesn't exist, renders it true, at
least according to your logic. Or, are you going to change your story
now that the shoe is on the other foot?.
> Ineptitude on your part noted.
LOL!! You're calling your own logic ineptitude...
> You still do not understand and are not up to my level of standards of
> proof.
You have no standards of proof, that's why you continue to run away
from defending your own claims.
> I want real evidence of that which you say exists or existed.
I want real proof hat you can have your public records removed from
public as you claimed. Ooops, you ran away from that one by
claiming I had to disprove it. See, you demand proof when it's
convenient for you, and then run when it's demanded of you.
> I can prove that pangaea did not exist via the lack of proof that is in
> evidence.
That doesn't prove it didn't exist, asshole. The house I lived in
when I was 5 years old no longer stands, does that mean it DIDN'T
exist?
> My statement is much stronger than yours because it IS proven by the lack of
> evidence.
>
> > "Your inability to show me wrong renders your accusation moot."
> > - John Wentzky in
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/42abeab18074a068?dmod...
>
> > You'd better get to it...
>
> Get to what, fool?
> Pangaea doesn't exist now, you idiot.
So what. That doesn't prove that it DIDN'T exist. I really don't
care either way though, because the point I'm making is that you
demand proof from others but refuse to provide it when you're asked of
it. Therefore, people can tell you to kiss their ass when it comes to
your demands for proof of anything.
> There is no proof that it existed at any time.
> You are who is enlsaved to proving a conjecture that has no real empirical
> evidence to prove it and many deficiencies in it.
> LOL!!
John D. Wentzky
>
> I see nothing in your statement that proves it doesn't.
Nothing in my statement that shows that pangaea doesn't exist?
Look at a map.
John D. Wentzky
Assuming things again?
>>Look at the current contentinental plates.
>>Where is any evidence at all that these plates were actually atop each
>>other?
>
> If a car is moving down the street at 1 mph, we know it was exactly
> 1/2 mile further up the street 30 minutes ago.
Bullshit.
It coulda been parked 1/4 mile up the street and started 15 minutes ago.
> We don't need any more
> evidence than the facts we have.
Your reliance on backwards extrapolation doesn't prove that pangaea existed.
>>Using a reverse extrapolative method
>
> It's not 'extrapolation' to calculate that 1/2 hour at 1 mph is 1/2
> mile.
It is a huge assumption that the item was 1/2 mile away 1 hour ago.
Without real evidence you are doing nothing more than blowing smoke and the
odds that your imagination is true are very small.
>> that you think proves something that
>>wasn't actually observed isn't even in line with proper back-testing
>>procedures becase the data aren't there to back test with.
>
> Then tickets for speeding are illegal, because once the car is stopped
> the data aren't there to back test with.
What?
You mean that instantaneous radar reading aren't used?
If you rely on current data to write tickets for past things you IMAGINED
occurred you are really nutty.
> Arrest for murder is illegal because the data to back test with.
How did you get away from the pangaea thing to that?
> No action is prosecutable unless
> there's a confession that couldn't be faked.
I thought we were discussing pangaea.
> Sorry, John, that's not considered reality on this planet. We accept
> that what we see here is caused.
Other than breast cancer and birth control pills, huh?
>>>>Plate tectonics involves continental drift and the reactions between the
>>>>plates.
>
>>> And where, in which direction and how fast each plate drifts. Which
>>> allows us to calculate backwards to see what the surface of the world
>>> looked like at any time in the past, for many millions of years.
>
>>Such backward testing isn't empirically valid because there is nothing to
>>verify your reverse extrapolation.
>
> See above.
Where are the data for your pangaea hypothesis?
>> You need REAL PROOF to support such an idea as pangaea.
>
> Science accepts reality as proof that reality is real, even if you
> don't.
Science wasn't here according to the time that you assert that pangaea was
here.
>>>>There is no actual proof that pangaea existed.
>
>>> Not to someone who doesn't understand plate tectonics.
>
>>I understand those things.
>
> The fact that we're having this discussion is proof that you don't.
Wrong.
Plate tectonics, a coin phrase you like to use to present something which
hasn't been proven satisfactorily, isn't telling me that pangaea actually
existed.
All you are doing is imagining that pangaea existed.
Very fantastical, at best.
>>
>>>>>"John D. Wentzky doesn't understand the evidence" isn't "there is no
>>>>> evidence".
>>>
>>>>There is no evidence.
>>>
>>> As I said, your lack of understanding doesn't constitute lack of
>>> evidence.
>>
>>It isn't any lack of understanding on my part.
>>It is a lack of EVIDENCE!
>
> That you don't understand the evidence isn't proof that it's not
> there, it's just proof that you don't understand it.
Why is it I have courses in geology and can not say that pangaea existed
with certainty?
Look. I can not attest to pangaea having actually existed because I have not
seen actual proof of it.
John D. Wentzky
Bullshit.
Show me a satellite photgraph of pangaea.
> and none against.
Bullshit.
There is no evidence to substantiate the imaginary pangaea presentation.
It is all fantasy without actual proof.
> I am still waiting for your explanation why it is not possible, or not
> likely.
There is no empirical proof of pangaea on record.
You are relying on unproven fantasy.
What is it that makes you think that cattle aren't found on almost all
continents?
What makes you think that pangaea had to be in existence for cattle to be on
almost every continent?
The climates along the latitudes are similar depending on elevations and
proximity to oceans, correct?
Well, I am not saying that the investigative work of these people isn't
without merit.
Only saying that there is much that is lacking to actually prove such a
thing as pangaea.
> But I am eager to read any thought out reasoning you have, based on
> actual evidence of something, and using real data would be a certain
> plus. Not liking the theories is not enough by itself.
> Got anything besides baseless derision?
Don't feel so bad about it.
The rigors of proof demand empirical evidence, not only speculation.
John D. Wentzky
> On Oct 24, 4:38 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1193254794....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 23, 2:13 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> "IAAH" <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:PqudnQqlB6B04YDa...@giganews.com...
>>
>> >> >J Young wrote:
>> >> >>http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>>
>> >> > Actually, if atheism has become fashionable, it's only because
>> >> > rationality
>> >> > has finally made some inroads.
>>
>> >> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so many atheists demand
>> >> proof
>> >> so often, that Pangaea actually existed?
>> >> LOL!
>>
>> > No need to since according to you logic, you have to prove it didn't
>> > exist.
>>
>> Stating it didn't exist is easier than stating that it did exist at this
>> point because you CAN NOT prove that it did exist.
>
> I don't have to prove it existed, according to you.
Something as tangible as pangaea begs for no real proof?
> Any time you're asked to defend a claim you've made, you immediately claim
> that no one
> can disprove your claim therefore it's true.
It works when I know I am correct.
It saves me time and spares me the trouble of going to the extra effort in
such instances.
> That's the way you do things, you'd better not whine when we throw it back
> at you.
Asserting that Pangaea did or didn't exist and accusing me of wrongdoing are
very different matters.
> "Your inability to show me wrong renders your accusation moot."
> - John Wentzky
No flaw in that statement.
>> Judgment by default would render your position untrue.
>
> No, you're inability to prove it doesn't exist, renders it true, at
> least according to your logic.
Ridiculous.
> Or, are you going to change your story
> now that the shoe is on the other foot?.
I can prove that pangaea doesn't exist.
LOOK!
It doesn't exist.
LOL!
>> Ineptitude on your part noted.
>
> LOL!! You're calling your own logic ineptitude...
Not really.
>> You still do not understand and are not up to my level of standards of
>> proof.
>
> You have no standards of proof,
Wrong.
> that's why you continue to run away
> from defending your own claims.
What claims?
>> I want real evidence of that which you say exists or existed.
>
> I want real proof hat you can have your public records removed from
> public as you claimed. Ooops, you ran away from that one by
> claiming I had to disprove it. See, you demand proof when it's
> convenient for you, and then run when it's demanded of you.
Admitted failure on your part.
Pangaea and public records aren't equivalent phenomena.
>> I can prove that pangaea did not exist via the lack of proof that is in
>> evidence.
>
> That doesn't prove it didn't exist, asshole.
It doesn't exist now.
It didn't exist before.
How about that logic?
LOL!
Smashes your idea, huh?
> The house I lived in when I was 5 years old no longer stands, does that
> mean it DIDN'T
> exist?
No.
I just do not see any real evidence that pangaea existed.
Is that too hard for you to accept?
You got satellite photographs of pangaea?
>> My statement is much stronger than yours because it IS proven by the lack
>> of
>> evidence.
>>
>> > "Your inability to show me wrong renders your accusation moot."
>> > - John Wentzky in
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/42abeab18074a068?dmod...
>>
>> > You'd better get to it...
>>
>> Get to what, fool?
>> Pangaea doesn't exist now, you idiot.
>
> So what.
Got any satellite photgraphs of it?
> That doesn't prove that it DIDN'T exist.
It doesn't prove that it DID exist, which is very close to proving that it
didn't exist, although there doesn't seem to be anyone saying with abolsute
certainty that it did or diodn't exist.
Based on the evidence available, and after so many years, I feel more
content with saying that it didn't exist.
I don't think this is something for anyone to be in a tizzy about. We are
talking about ending tax funding of the pangaea fantasy in schools.
> I really don't care either way though, because the point I'm making is
> that you
> demand proof from others but refuse to provide it when you're asked of
> it. Therefore, people can tell you to kiss their ass when it comes to
> your demands for proof of anything.
In what situation?
Can't be done in law.
The law demands absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mathematics makes the same type demand.
Evolution doesn't.
See the difference?
Ray Fischer
> Christopher A.Lee
>> flores...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>But to answer your question again..In my view, God objectively exists,
>>>in yours, God doesn't.
>
>>Idiot.
>
>Maybe, maybe not, but one of the finest oxymorons I've seen in a
>while. "Objectively, in someone's opinion"?
It does seem that religion tends to encourage such muddled thinking.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>> "IAAH" <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
>>> news:PqudnQqlB6B04YDa...@giganews.com...
>>>> J Young wrote:
>>>>> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>>>>
>>>> Actually, if atheism has become fashionable, it's only because
>>>> rationality has finally made some inroads.
>>>
>>> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so many atheists
>>> demand proof so often, that Pangaea actually existed?
>>> LOL!
>>
>
>The fact that the pangaea hypothesis is disproven by its lack of evidence
Wrong again, loser. Just because you are ignorant of the evidence, as
you are ignorant of so many things, does not mean that the evidence
does not exist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
You must be really stupid to think that satellite photographs are the
only form of proof.
But then, you don't even know how to avoid getting sent to prison.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 23, 12:18?am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>>
>> by Richard Bastien
>
>Don't know if the membership of atheism is falling or rising -- but I
>do know atheism can only progress so far JY.
How do you know this?
>Atheism can offer nothing to theists looking for inner peace, comfort,
>charity, hope and compassion.
Sure it can.
>Sure, atheism appeals to a potion of society that is defiant, bitter
>and hate filed.
That's a typically defiant, bitter, and hate-filled statement from a
religious bigot attacking the non-religious.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Al Klein
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
No, just reading your posts.
>
>>>Look at the current contentinental plates.
>>>Where is any evidence at all that these plates were actually atop each
>>>other?
>>
>> If a car is moving down the street at 1 mph, we know it was exactly
>> 1/2 mile further up the street 30 minutes ago.
>
>Bullshit.
>It coulda been parked 1/4 mile up the street and started 15 minutes ago.
It could also not exist, but those aren't the parameters given.
>
>> We don't need any more
>> evidence than the facts we have.
>
>Your reliance on backwards extrapolation doesn't prove that pangaea existed.
Your insistence on it being backward extrapolation shows that you know
nothing about reality.
>
>>>Using a reverse extrapolative method
>>
>> It's not 'extrapolation' to calculate that 1/2 hour at 1 mph is 1/2
>> mile.
>
>It is a huge assumption that the item was 1/2 mile away 1 hour ago.
Not when we see that it was. But you wouldn't know how we can see
that, since you know less about the subject than you know about the
law, and we know that the only thing you "know" about the law is what
you make up.
>>> that you think proves something that
>>>wasn't actually observed isn't even in line with proper back-testing
>>>procedures becase the data aren't there to back test with.
>>
>> Then tickets for speeding are illegal, because once the car is stopped
>> the data aren't there to back test with.
>
>What?
>You mean that instantaneous radar reading aren't used?
Not according to YOUR rules. It's just "backward extrapolation",
which is invalid. There are no RADAR signals to back test.
>If you rely on current data to write tickets for past things you IMAGINED
>occurred you are really nutty.
So relying on the locked speed-meter reading for the past speed of a
car that's now standing still is nutty.
>> Arrest for murder is illegal because the data to back test with.
>How did you get away from the pangaea thing to that?
YOUR rules - there's no data to back test. It's just backward
extrapolation that the killer was the one who left his fingerprints
and DNA at the scene.
>> No action is prosecutable unless
>> there's a confession that couldn't be faked.
>I thought we were discussing pangaea.
YOU were discussing the non-validity of coming to conclusions about
things that happened in the past.
>> Sorry, John, that's not considered reality on this planet. We accept
>> that what we see here is caused.
>Other than breast cancer and birth control pills, huh?
Nope. There's no CURRENT evidence that any "pills" prevent pregnancy.
Women always take the pill BEFORE they have sex, so it's a "past thing
you imagined".
>Where are the data for your pangaea hypothesis?
In the position of the continents a long time in the past.
>> Science accepts reality as proof that reality is real, even if you
>> don't.
>Science wasn't here according to the time that you assert that pangaea was
>here.
So the judge can't find you guilty of any crime, because he wasn't
there at the time the crime was committed.
So how come so many criminals are in prison?
>>>>>There is no actual proof that pangaea existed.
>>
>>>> Not to someone who doesn't understand plate tectonics.
>>
>>>I understand those things.
>>
>> The fact that we're having this discussion is proof that you don't.
>
>Wrong.
>Plate tectonics, a coin phrase you like to use to present something which
>hasn't been proven satisfactorily, isn't telling me that pangaea actually
>existed.
Isn't telling YOU, because YOU don't understand science. It's telling
SCIENTISTS, though.
>Why is it I have courses in geology and can not say that pangaea existed
>with certainty?
Because taking a course doesn't make you an expert on the subject?
Because you're crazy?
>Look. I can not attest to pangaea having actually existed because I have not
>seen actual proof of it.
And no judge or jury can attest to your actually having assaulted a
police officer, but you're going to go to prison for it anyway.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president."
- George W. Bush, quoted in George Magazine, September, 2000
"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith,
deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by
God to save Germany."
- Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler
Al Klein
Or that the inability to think clearly leads one to accept the
assertions of religion? Chicken-egg?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On 25 Oct 2007 06:10:46 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> Christopher A.Lee
>
> >>>>But to answer your question again..In my view, God objectively exists,
> >>>>in yours, God doesn't.
>
> >>>Idiot.
>
> >>Maybe, maybe not, but one of the finest oxymorons I've seen in a
> >>while. "Objectively, in someone's opinion"?
>
> >It does seem that religion tends to encourage such muddled thinking.
>
> Or that the inability to think clearly leads one to accept the
> assertions of religion? Chicken-egg?
Yes.
But I tend to think toward the possibility that people need something
on which to hold because they fear being alone and facing themselves,
hence comes the thinking that God will provide or be there for them.
patrick...@standardregister.com
Of course we don't know for sure. Without any evidence we cannot know
for sure. It must be taken on faith. That is what I meant to imply
in my paragraph.
> What it is then, is that you and others ' believe in belief'.
We have faith.
> Having absolutely no evidence to support the existence of a 'God',
> you only have belief or 'faith' if you will, that there is a 'God'.
>
Yes. This is exactly what I said.
> Atheists on the other hand are skeptics in general, and do not have a
> belief in a God or Gods that appear to live but in the minds of those
> who do believe. Atheism after all, means 'without' belief, and nothing
> more.
>
Yes.
> IMO, most atheists don't care what others believe in relation
> to the existence of a God or Gods.
And I disagree. At least when it comes to the newsgroups. In
mainstraim society, I agree with you.
> The problem that arises, involves
> many Christians that post on ng's condemning others in relation to
> abortion, homosexuality, atheism etc., based solely on religious dogma
> from a book of books known as the Bible, that is supposed to be the
> words of a 'God' they admittedly can not substantiate.
>
That's not "the" problem. That's "a" problem. Another problem that
arises is when atheists somehow get the idea that their suspension of
belief is somehow indicative of a superior level of intellect and
justifies them becoming hostile and insulting towards all believers,
regardless of whether those believers are attempting to force their
beliefs on others or not.
There is in the minds of some of the people an idea that "it is okay
for us to say whatever we want to and about believers, and no matter
how illogical or rude it is, we are still intellectually and morally
superior to them because they're fundamentalist religious morons and
we are open minded logical atheists."
> When the above Christians stop the condemnation of others and
> threats of eternal damnation in the bowels of Hell, atheists will stop
> treating them in a derogatory manner they so richly deserve.
No, they won't. It almost never fails in alt.atheism that if I
respond to an atheist to point out poor reasoning or a rude attitude,
I will be attacked for being a Christian. Despite the fact that I
make it crystal clear that I do not claim any objective evidence for
God nor do I attempt to convert anyone, I will still be attacked for
being a Christian rather than for what I actually have said. So my
experience in alt.atheism tells me that what you are saying is wrong.
> Christians should limit their beliefs and practices to other like
> minded individuals and respect people that don't want to hear
> the sales pitch, or the holier-than-thou attitudes.
>
Everyone should do that, not just Christians. Your same comment
should apply to the atheists who cross-post their anti-Christian stuff
to Christian newsgroups.
> Slate
>
> "I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with
> my legs." [Frederick Douglas] escaped slave- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pr0r3p
Well, science is correct about the existence of pangaea. Therefore,
using your logic, they're not required to show you evidence.
>
> > That's the way you do things, you'd better not whine when we throw it back
> > at you.
>
> Asserting that Pangaea did or didn't exist and accusing me of wrongdoing are
> very different matters.
I never asserted pangaea existed, dipshit. I merely pointed out that
no one is required to show you proof of anything since you refuse to
show proof of your claims.
>
> > "Your inability to show me wrong renders your accusation moot."
> > - John Wentzky
>
> No flaw in that statement.
>
> >> Judgment by default would render your position untrue.
>
> > No, you're inability to prove it doesn't exist, renders it true, at
> > least according to your logic.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
I agree, but then again I was using YOUR logic, not mine.
> > Or, are you going to change your story
> > now that the shoe is on the other foot?.
>
> I can prove that pangaea doesn't exist.
> LOOK!
> It doesn't exist.
> LOL!
Which doesn't mean it didn't exist.
>
> >> Ineptitude on your part noted.
>
> > LOL!! You're calling your own logic ineptitude...
>
> Not really.
Yes, really.
>
> >> You still do not understand and are not up to my level of standards of
> >> proof.
>
> > You have no standards of proof,
>
> Wrong.
>
> > that's why you continue to run away
> > from defending your own claims.
>
> What claims?
LOL!!!! For starters, that you can have your public records removed
from public view. Are you not capable of keeping up?
>
> >> I want real evidence of that which you say exists or existed.
>
> > I want real proof hat you can have your public records removed from
> > public as you claimed. Ooops, you ran away from that one by
> > claiming I had to disprove it. See, you demand proof when it's
> > convenient for you, and then run when it's demanded of you.
>
> Admitted failure on your part.
> Pangaea and public records aren't equivalent phenomena.
I never argued they were. Your refusal to show evidence of your claim
about public records proves my claim that you don't defend your claims
when asked, but now whine that someone else hasn't provided proof that
you find acceptable, which makes you a whining hypocrite.
>
> >> I can prove that pangaea did not exist via the lack of proof that is in
> >> evidence.
>
> > That doesn't prove it didn't exist, asshole.
>
> It doesn't exist now.
> It didn't exist before.
> How about that logic?
My house when I was 5 doesn't exist now, but it did back then. How
about that logic?
> LOL!
> Smashes your idea, huh?
No, it proves that you don't understand that just because something
doesn't exist now, doesn't mean it never existed. Did you ever hear
of extinction? Animals that once existed no longer exist, but using
your logic, you'd claim they never existed since they don't exist
now. See how stupid you are?
>
> > The house I lived in when I was 5 years old no longer stands, does that
> > mean it DIDN'T
> > exist?
>
> No.
> I just do not see any real evidence that pangaea existed.
> Is that too hard for you to accept?
> You got satellite photographs of pangaea?
I have no satellite photos of my house when I was 5 either, does that
mean it didn't exist?
>
> >> My statement is much stronger than yours because it IS proven by the lack
> >> of
> >> evidence.
>
> >> > "Your inability to show me wrong renders your accusation moot."
> >> > - John Wentzky in
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/42abeab18074a068?dmod...
>
> >> > You'd better get to it...
>
> >> Get to what, fool?
> >> Pangaea doesn't exist now, you idiot.
>
> > So what.
>
> Got any satellite photgraphs of it?
Got any satellite photos of the house I lived in when I was 5 that no
longer exists?
>
> > That doesn't prove that it DIDN'T exist.
>
> It doesn't prove that it DID exist, which is very close to proving that it
> didn't exist, although there doesn't seem to be anyone saying with abolsute
> certainty that it did or diodn't exist.
> Based on the evidence available, and after so many years, I feel more
> content with saying that it didn't exist.
> I don't think this is something for anyone to be in a tizzy about. We are
> talking about ending tax funding of the pangaea fantasy in schools.
>
> > I really don't care either way though, because the point I'm making is
> > that you
> > demand proof from others but refuse to provide it when you're asked of
> > it. Therefore, people can tell you to kiss their ass when it comes to
> > your demands for proof of anything.
>
> In what situation?
In any situation here.
Dubh Ghall
>On Oct 23, 7:05 am, "Carlos Ivo" <carlos...@mafia.org> wrote:
>> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1193128187.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...> "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Does that mean that you can actually prove, as so
>> >> many atheists demand proof so often, that Pangaea
>> >> actually existed?
>> >> LOL!
>>
>> > Oh, let's all do B1FF:
>>
>> > LOL!!!111!!!!111!!!!
>>
>> > Anyhow, how does one "Prove" to an untrusting
>> > blind man that my socks are green?
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Do you mean god exists because a blind man can not
>> see the colour of your socks?
>
>I think what he means is that a lot of atheist and other lowlife,
>low intelligent types
Can't you just feel that xtian love...
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Kill Filed by David Morgan, and his Mam.
flores...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> But I tend to think toward the possibility that people need something
> on which to hold because they fear being alone and facing themselves,
> hence comes the thinking that God will provide or be there for them
There are people like that, I agree. But it doesn't speak for me.
My beliefs are based on logic, not need.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
What's logical about a belief in God?
Dubh Ghall
>On Oct 23, 12:29 pm, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 23, 7:05 am, "Carlos Ivo" <carlos...@mafia.org> wrote:
>>
>> > As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
>> > stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
>> > not something that can be measured or weighed,
>> > like your drugs.
>>
>> And how can it be rational to believe in something that cannot be
>> measured or weighed or detected in any way?
>
>How can things like love be measured, etc., in a tangible way?
True, it is subjective.
It is an assortment of other feelings, lust, greed, jealousy,
possessiveness, fear, etc, all subjective.
> Yet, I'd guess that you have felt it,
Yes.
...Or at least, I think so. Of course, it being subjective, there is
no way that I can know, because there is no one who can tell me.
> or maybe not,
That too, it might just be stress.
Certainly, the sensations were nowhere near my heart.
>I don't know.
You surprise me.
>
>> If you agree that there
>> can be no evidence for the existence of a God in any normal sense of
>> the word "evidence", then you should agree that it is irrational to
>> postulate the existense of God.
>
>I'll tell you that I attend a church service maybe once every ten
>years if that,
Irrelevant.
>but I am no atheist because I cannot fathom the majestic clockwork of
>the cosmos without what I will call God,
It is easier than thinking; Isn't it?
>the supreme being beyond
>time, space and human comprehension.
Yet you claim to comprehend it: Why.
>I also believe human love
>comes from God and is not a mere evolution of what is commonly
>called instinct.
Actually, all emotions can, to a degree, be measured, and to a greater
degree, be induced.
> Just my beliefs understand;
Oh indeed.
> you can believe what you want.
Another xtian fallacy
> I just answered your reasonable question.
>
No. Actually, you didn't.
What you did, was to create a straw man, and base your reply on that.
Dubh Ghall
patrick...@standardregister.com wrote:
>I agree. The proof of God, to me, is in the vast and intricate nature
>of existence itself. It's not about what the Bible itself says, but
>since I accept the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible, that
>of one benign source
You must be using a definition of benign, with which I am unfamiliar.
> of creation with faith and compassion being the
>highest human virtues, I call myself a Christian. And I don't expect
>anybody else to necessarily agree with me as I accept that there is no
>scientifically verifiable evidence for God's existence.
Then there is absolutely no reason to even consider that a god, any
god, might exist.
Dubh Ghall
>On Oct 23, 5:45 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:29:32 -0700, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>>
>> [piggybacking]
>>
>> >On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
>> >> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
>> >> not something that can be measured or weighed,
>> >> like your drugs.
>>
>> Either God objectively exists or doesn't objectively exist. Does ...
>> doesn't. Not too many other options. Make up your mind. Does or
>> doesn't.
>
>Do singularities exist? Do you even know what a singularity is
>without
>looking it up?
>
>But to answer your question again..In my view, God objectively exists,
Then there is objective evidence for it's existence?
If yes; Produce it.
If no: Explain why not.
>in yours, God doesn't.
Irrelevant, it is your view that we are interested in.
Al Klein
I guess the best response to an attitude like that would be pity.
Someone who can't face, or be alone with, her/himself? Sad.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
Al Klein
wrote:
>On 24 Oct 2007 09:36:32 -0700, flores...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Oct 23, 5:45 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:29:32 -0700, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> [piggybacking]
>>>
>>> >On Oct 23, 9:58 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >> As far as the atheist types, they/you are apparently too
>>> >> stupid to ever understand that the concept of God is
>>> >> not something that can be measured or weighed,
>>> >> like your drugs.
>>>
>>> Either God objectively exists or doesn't objectively exist. Does ...
>>> doesn't. Not too many other options. Make up your mind. Does or
>>> doesn't.
>>
>>Do singularities exist? Do you even know what a singularity is
>>without
>>looking it up?
>>
>>But to answer your question again..In my view, God objectively exists,
>
>Then there is objective evidence for it's existence?
>
>If yes; Produce it.
>
>If no: Explain why not.
Dubh, how can objective existence depend on viewpoint? The two are
mutually exclusive.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
- Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
slate
>On Oct 23, 12:18?am, J Young <younginsig...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/atheism_becomes_fashionable/
>>
>> by Richard Bastien
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Don't know if the membership of atheism is falling or rising -- but I
>do know atheism can only progress so far JY.
Atheism means without belief, nothing more.
>
>Atheism can offer nothing to theists looking for inner peace, comfort,
>charity, hope and compassion.
>
I have all of those things, and a God is not necessary.
>Sure, atheism appeals to a potion of society that is defiant, bitter
>and hate filed.
Atheism means without belief, nothing more.
>
>But people need comfort in times of pain.
Atheists deal with reality.
>
>What does atheism offer the potential theist convert?
Atheism is the natural state. We are all born atheists.
The theist can't make the same claim.
>
>Atheism only offer more pain, not less, so it can never replace
>religion.
It is not a religion.
>
>Whether theist or atheist...we all have irrational beliefs.
Atheism is not a "belief". Theism on the other hand, is.
>
>After all, atheist believe hatred and ill-will yield them peace?
"Hatred" and "ill-will" have nothing to do with atheism.
>
>How more irrational can one get?
I'm not sure. I haven't read the rest of your post yet.
Stay tuned.....
>
>Is that any worse than hoping God and heaven are real and working
>towards that hope by being charitable, kind and honest to others?
>
My life is based on reality. I'm "charitable, kind and honest to
others" because of my humanity, not to show some unsubstantiated
deity how good I am.
>No, if push comes to shove, the fairy tails of theism beat the fairy
>tails of atheism any day.
>
Theism IS the fairy tail. Atheism is the natural state. No fairies
necessary.
>The many countries that the US has been at war with and subsequently
>lost the war to can be most grateful we were not an atheist country.
You know this how?
>
>If we were a country that did not apply Christian principles to our
>captors millions more would have been killed.
If we practiced "Christian principles" in wars, we would love our
enemies, turn the other cheek, and proceed to get our collective
ass kicked.
>
>Atheist run countries have a policy of extermination and ethnic
>cleansing rather than applying charity.
"Charity" such as Bush denying funding for the medical care
of children? That's very Christian of him.
>
>Atheist like to claim religion killed so many people...well without
>religion in world the killings would have been much worse.
You know this how?
>
>Atheism is far from the dream world you make it to be.
Atheism requires reason and logic. The "dream world" is
reserved for theists. Sweet dreams.
>
>The theists are deluded in their beliefs and the atheists are deluded
>as well...the atheists just don't have the honesty to admit it.
Atheism is not a "belief". It's non-belief. I honestly admit it.
>
>Become a freethinking agnostic and you can all be at peace.
A freethinker is one who has rejected authority and dogma, especially
in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.
You are not a freethinker. If you were, you would know that atheism
is not a "belief", "dream world", "fairy tail" or " bitter and hate
filled". You would know it only means non-belief, but you don't or
won't except that fact. Change your tag-line and show that YOU are
honest.
Slate
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or
a dose of common sense."
>
>See:
>
>http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=470.0
>
>http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
>
>
>Take care,
>
>
>V (Male)
>
>Agnostic Freethinker
>Practical Philosopher
>AA#2
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:03:24 -0000, Gwyneð Bennetdottir
>
>
>
>
>
> <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 25, 7:46 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 25 Oct 2007 06:10:46 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> Christopher A.Lee
> >> >>> floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >>>>But to answer your question again..In my view, God objectively exists,
> >> >>>>in yours, God doesn't.
>
> >> >>>Idiot.
>
> >> >>Maybe, maybe not, but one of the finest oxymorons I've seen in a
> >> >>while. "Objectively, in someone's opinion"?
>
> >> >It does seem that religion tends to encourage such muddled thinking.
>
> >> Or that the inability to think clearly leads one to accept the
> >> assertions of religion? Chicken-egg?
>
> >Yes.
>
> >But I tend to think toward the possibility that people need something
> >on which to hold because they fear being alone and facing themselves,
> >hence comes the thinking that God will provide or be there for them.
>
> I guess the best response to an attitude like that would be pity.
> Someone who can't face, or be alone with, her/himself? Sad.
That can be said of substance abusers, food and love addicts,
overspenders, internet junkies, etc.
> --
> Al at Webdingers dot com
> "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
> Christ."
> - Mohandas Gandhi- Hide quoted text -
flores...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Oct 25, 9:34 am, floresriki...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 25, 9:03 am, Gwyneð Bennetdottir <bennetwitho...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > But I tend to think toward the possibility that people need something
> > > on which to hold because they fear being alone and facing themselves,
> > > hence comes the thinking that God will provide or be there for them
>
> > There are people like that, I agree. But it doesn't speak for me.
> > My beliefs are based on logic, not need.
>
> What's logical about a belief in God?
Your ilk remind me of the old joke about the moth who got
into the concert for free; never knew it was there, or heard
the music.