There is no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed
Religion is a Lie
nature of their faiths. Should they be informed so they
can make rational, logical, sane decisions? Yes. We owe
it to them, as co-inhabitants of planet earth, to help
them see the light of the mythical nature of their
religions that most were cajoled into from a young
and vulnerable age.
Do believers have faith or evidence? Evidence requires no
faith, evidence asks us to think/ponder/reflect/assess,
faith requires no evidence, faith demans we believe/follow/
suspend doubt/submit. If all believers have is claims,
i.e., faith, then it's logical to concede that there is
no evidence. Tell me this, my friend, is there any evidence
of the christian god in the pre-Europe Americas, in China,
in India?
Many scholars concede there is no evidence that the gospel
Jesus Christ ever existed, but instead the evidence points
to pagan and other myths from the fertile crescent cultures
of the time as the sources for the gospel stories. Most
concede that Matthew, John, and Luke were derived mostly
from Mark and Q, written in Greek, with those documents
written by mysterious writers decades after the supposed
Jesus would have had to exist, based on the information
contained in the gospels themselves.
Claims, claims, claims ... for example, Paul, the New
Testamyth epistles, full of heavenly christ stories, all
similar to pagan myths and none with any knowledge of
a Jesus earthman ... Hmmmmmm ... worship the risen christ,
bow to the risen christ, but where did he rise from? Paul
makes no mention and expresses no care regarding the Jesus
earthman or godman, as if he's basing his christ stories
on pagan myths, not an earth visit from a Jesus.
Sorry, let's keep all this to ourselves and whatever we
do, let's not share this with christians as they may
actually start thinking about what life is, why we're
here, and where we're going, and, heaven forbid, may
actually start showing an interest in enjoying and
maxing out this life experience rather than suffering
through it for some imagined afterlife ... actually,
that would be a good thing, don't you think, maybe,
the maxing out of this certain life rather than the
delusions and lies regarding mythical beings that
don't, in fact, exist?
If you can't ask "Is it true?", if you can't test it,
think about it, research it, doubt it, it's unworthy
as a focus/reason for being, in my view. An approach
of faith is an approach of d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n, for
whatever means/goals/purposes folks wish to apply
to them, and a guarantee that truth will be nailed
to the cross, crucified, and buried, so long as
one holds faith above reason.
.d.a.n.f.a.k.e. (d_a_n_...@my-deja.com) in
Message-ID: <91tpng$opa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
People's Commissar
people/cultures and then written down? Or do ya think Zeus was real? The
entire planet was once shamanist - which is not a religion at all. it's
just a wrong (or sometimes right) way of explaining things, like thunder,
drought, why boomerangs get thrown and come back, etc.
Please see inside.
"Religion is a Lie" <green_gai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64a73bf1.03112...@posting.google.com...
> Xian groups are for the most part unaware of the mythical
> nature of their faiths.
Most Christians or others know that the mythopoetic nature of their
doctrines is more archetypical, like "to give example." Others beieve in
the literal existence of the half-human Jesus - (or the half human
Hercules?)
Should they be informed so they
> can make rational, logical, sane decisions? Yes.
Ahem. A preacher is a preacher is a preacher that preaches. Sounds all the
same to me.
We owe
> it to them, as co-inhabitants of planet earth, to help
> them see the light of the mythical nature of their
> religions that most were cajoled into from a young
> and vulnerable age.
These have now become entire cultures. The faiths are part of the culture.
>
> Do believers have faith or evidence?
As the Pope, or the Rabbi or the Mullah would explain, faith is faith. It
has nothing to do with evidence. People have FAITH in doctors in white
coats, the new priesthood. But do they know the name of the antibiotics
they might be given? Or if it's really any good? Usually not. They trust
the priest in the white coat using big Latin words. aka, the doctor. Ya
know, there are smart doctors and dumb doctors - and new stuff discovered
every day (like antibiotic RESISTENT bacteria - oh oh).
Evidence requires no
> faith, evidence asks us to think/ponder/reflect/assess,
> faith requires no evidence, faith demans we believe/follow/
> suspend doubt/submit.
Like patients that take antibiotics - and have FAITH that the doctor is not
stupid?
If all believers have is claims,
> i.e., faith, then it's logical to concede that there is
> no evidence. Tell me this, my friend, is there any evidence
> of the christian god in the pre-Europe Americas, in China,
> in India?
What's up with the Christian God? You think no one else has gods? LMAO.
You can't prove or disprove the existence of god, gods, or goddesses! You
CAN prove that there is some kind of "dark force in nature" because heh,
that can be MEASURED, or at least the affects of it can be - "entropy?"
>
> Many scholars concede there is no evidence that the gospel
> Jesus Christ ever existed, but instead the evidence points
> to pagan and other myths from the fertile crescent cultures
> of the time as the sources for the gospel stories. Most
> concede that Matthew, John, and Luke were derived mostly
> from Mark and Q, written in Greek, with those documents
> written by mysterious writers decades after the supposed
> Jesus would have had to exist, based on the information
> contained in the gospels themselves.
So what? Did this christianity, whether real or invented out of whole
cloth, serve to unite people to such an extent that they well ---- heh,
conquered the world? Oh well it sure did. Sucks, don't it? I imagine
where mankind could have been had NOT this doctrine for morons taken over
everything and destroyed so much wisdom. Consider that the ATOMISTS were a
Greek school of thought that predated Plato. They were talking about the
atom. BACK THEN. All lost. Some of it rediscovered today.
>
> Claims, claims, claims ... for example, Paul, the New
> Testamyth epistles, full of heavenly christ stories, all
> similar to pagan myths and none with any knowledge of
> a Jesus earthman ... Hmmmmmm ... worship the risen christ,
> bow to the risen christ, but where did he rise from? Paul
> makes no mention and expresses no care regarding the Jesus
> earthman or godman, as if he's basing his christ stories
> on pagan myths, not an earth visit from a Jesus.
Risen and etc story of Jesus - cf Soshiosh of the much earlier Persians.
Same shit, different channel.
>
> Sorry, let's keep all this to ourselves and whatever we
> do, let's not share this with christians as they may
> actually start thinking about what life is, why we're
> here, and where we're going, and, heaven forbid, may
> actually start showing an interest in enjoying and
> maxing out this life experience rather than suffering
> through it for some imagined afterlife ...
Most Christians (let's leave the fruitloops out of this) DO enjoy life,
watch science shows, learn math and chemistry and even physics - in fact, I
think Professor Steven Hawking is a Catholic - he's the world's top
physicist. Sure, they have their faith, but it doesn't dominate their
lives. Steven J. Gould was Jewish, he was the expert on evolution and
dinosaurs and such things. His faith was just FAITH. Faith is one thing.
What is of "the world" is another thing, a thing that they might see as
"creation" but which definitely obeys certain laws of chemistry, physics,
etc.
actually,
> that would be a good thing, don't you think, maybe,
> the maxing out of this certain life rather than the
> delusions and lies regarding mythical beings that
> don't, in fact, exist?
While you're are at it, ban SUPERMAN.
>
> If you can't ask "Is it true?", if you can't test it,
> think about it, research it, doubt it, it's unworthy
> as a focus/reason for being, in my view. An approach
> of faith is an approach of d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n, for
> whatever means/goals/purposes folks wish to apply
> to them, and a guarantee that truth will be nailed
> to the cross, crucified, and buried, so long as
> one holds faith above reason.
Most people that have any religion do not hold faith above reason. They
base their lives on reason, they balance their check books using reason, and
so forth. And despite some of the fruitloops claiming that they BELIEVE the
world is coming to an end tomorrow, the big bank accounts they set asside
for their 3 year old kid's college education proves they do NOT really
believe that, at all. People can say a lot of things. Just watch watch
they DO if you want to really know what they think and believe.
Jon Davis
> think about it, research it, doubt it, it's unworthy
> as a focus/reason for being, in my view. An approach
> of faith is an approach of d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n, for
> whatever means/goals/purposes folks wish to apply
> to them, and a guarantee that truth will be nailed
> to the cross, crucified, and buried, so long as
> one holds faith above reason.
Nice thing about Christianity is that it can be proven. Spend enough time in
Benny Hinn seminars and real worshipers and true believers, and you're going
to see some amazing things happen. Blind people will see. Disabled people
will walk. Spend even more time around the faithful and you're going to see
some of their lives being shown with unusual superhuman "favor"--what will
seem to you to be luck.
Do your homework. What is the mathematical possibility of DNA forming itself
accidentally in a pool of primordial soup, so fittingly that a cell with all
its necessary chromosomes begins to reproduce? The math shows that the
athiest is putting his faith in an impossibility.
Look at the scenery outside. What evolutionary benefit was it to you to
enjoy the beauty of it?
Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools
despise wisdom and discipline.
Jon
"Religion is a Lie" <green_gai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64a73bf1.03112...@posting.google.com...
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
news:vsaeekd...@corp.supernews.com:
>> If you can't ask "Is it true?", if you can't test it,
>> think about it, research it, doubt it, it's unworthy
>> as a focus/reason for being, in my view. An approach
>> of faith is an approach of d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n, for
>> whatever means/goals/purposes folks wish to apply
>> to them, and a guarantee that truth will be nailed
>> to the cross, crucified, and buried, so long as
>> one holds faith above reason.
>
> Nice thing about Christianity is that it can be proven. Spend enough
> time in Benny Hinn seminars and real worshipers and true believers,
You mean you really got sucked into a scam like that. ROFL. I know a guy
from Nigeria who wants to talk to you urgently!
<SNIP>
>
> Do your homework. What is the mathematical possibility of DNA forming
> itself accidentally in a pool of primordial soup, so fittingly that a
> cell with all its necessary chromosomes begins to reproduce? The math
> shows that the athiest is putting his faith in an impossibility.
The probability is 1.0000000000 to a near approximation. Tell me, what is
the probability that all of the lottery winners in all countries over the
last one hundred years were just those people that actually did win? Did
it actually happen? In actual fact the probability of abiogenesis can't
be calculated because no one knows the mechanism yet. The bogus type of
calculations cretinists such as your huckster bosses use, ignore chemical
afinities and also the fact that for any particular function of a protein
there are vast numbers of possibile variants that will do the same job.
You don't need one particular variant.
>
> Look at the scenery outside. What evolutionary benefit was it to you
> to enjoy the beauty of it?
>
Being content and at ease in your environment is a pretty obvious
evolutionary advantage.
> Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but
> fools despise wisdom and discipline.
>
If we followed that nonsense we would still be living in caves. You only
learn by putting fear aside.
Llanzlan.
> Jon
>
<SNIP>
Martin Thomas
<j...@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote:
>> If you can't ask "Is it true?", if you can't test it,
>> think about it, research it, doubt it, it's unworthy
>> as a focus/reason for being, in my view. An approach
>> of faith is an approach of d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n, for
>> whatever means/goals/purposes folks wish to apply
>> to them, and a guarantee that truth will be nailed
>> to the cross, crucified, and buried, so long as
>> one holds faith above reason.
>
>Nice thing about Christianity is that it can be proven. Spend enough
time in
>Benny Hinn seminars and real worshipers and true believers, and
you're going
>to see some amazing things happen. Blind people will see. Disabled
people
>will walk. Spend even more time around the faithful and you're going
to see
>some of their lives being shown with unusual superhuman "favor"--what
will
>seem to you to be luck.
The same claim is made for dozens of other religions.
>Do your homework. What is the mathematical possibility of DNA forming
itself
>accidentally in a pool of primordial soup, so fittingly that a cell
with all
>its necessary chromosomes begins to reproduce? The math shows that
the
>athiest is putting his faith in an impossibility.
If you want to make sure that no one takes you seriously, this is the
way to do it. Quote a crazy idea that nobody on this planet believes
in and pretend that the people you are addressing believe it to be
true.
Most of them wil not bother to reply.
Some will insult you.
Some will try to explain what they really believe.
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Blast Femur
>> If you can't ask "Is it true?", if you can't test it,
>> think about it, research it, doubt it, it's unworthy
>> as a focus/reason for being, in my view. An approach
>> of faith is an approach of d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n, for
>> whatever means/goals/purposes folks wish to apply
>> to them, and a guarantee that truth will be nailed
>> to the cross, crucified, and buried, so long as
>> one holds faith above reason.
>
> Nice thing about Christianity is that it can be proven. Spend enough
> time in Benny Hinn seminars and real worshipers and true believers,
> and you're going to see some amazing things happen. Blind people will
> see. Disabled people will walk. Spend even more time around the
> faithful and you're going to see some of their lives being shown with
> unusual superhuman "favor"--what will seem to you to be luck.
Wow. You've really been fooled. You're gonna LOVE L. Ron Hubbard. He's
got a whole set of christiatonic values to magically beset upon you.
LOL!
>
> Do your homework. What is the mathematical possibility of DNA forming
> itself accidentally in a pool of primordial soup, so fittingly that a
> cell with all its necessary chromosomes begins to reproduce? The math
> shows that the athiest is putting his faith in an impossibility.
One chance in <you enter the number here> is all it takes. Or should I
say, all it took, given enough time.
>
> Look at the scenery outside. What evolutionary benefit was it to you
> to enjoy the beauty of it?
None whatsoever. I can even take a picture of it and enjoy it for many
years. Can you do the same with your god(s)?
>
> Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but
> fools despise wisdom and discipline.
>
Actually, the casting out of fear and superstition is the beginning of
knowledge, but what would the likes of you know?
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
Jos Flachs
<j...@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote:
>Nice thing about Christianity is that it can be proven.
Indeed, it can be proven wrong...
>Spend enough time in
>Benny Hinn seminars and real worshipers and true believers, and you're going
>to see some amazing things happen.
Like what?
>Blind people will see. Disabled people will walk.
Pity the blind remain blind, and the disabled people fall flat on
their faces...
>Spend even more time around the faithful and you're going to see
>some of their lives being shown with unusual superhuman "favor"--what will
>seem to you to be luck.
No, not luck. Just tricks.
>Do your homework. What is the mathematical possibility of DNA forming itself
>accidentally in a pool of primordial soup, so fittingly that a cell with all
>its necessary chromosomes begins to reproduce?
Given a few billion years, pretty good.
>The math shows that the athiest is putting his faith in an impossibility.
Atheist, please. One god being three at the same time is possible?
>Look at the scenery outside. What evolutionary benefit was it to you to
>enjoy the beauty of it?
What is beauty? The beauty of a cheetah is not quite so beautiful for
the impala.
duke
wrote:
>Xian groups are for the most part unaware of the mythical
>nature of their faiths.
Atheists are unaware of the mythical fable of their beliefs.
>Do believers have faith or evidence?
Both.
> Evidence requires no
>faith, evidence asks us to think/ponder/reflect/assess,
>faith requires no evidence, faith demans we believe/follow/
>suspend doubt/submit.
Wrong. Christ has been an intense and unabated center of lifestyle and writing
for 2000 years now.
That's evidence.
>Many scholars concede there is no evidence that the gospel
>Jesus Christ ever existed, but instead the evidence points
>to pagan and other myths from the fertile crescent cultures
>of the time as the sources for the gospel stories.
But huge amounts of scholars believe.
>Claims, claims, claims
Yes, that's all you doing.
>. for example, Paul, the New
>Testamyth epistles, full of heavenly christ stories, all
>similar to pagan myths and none with any knowledge of
>a Jesus earthman ... Hmmmmmm ... worship the risen christ,
>bow to the risen christ, but where did he rise from? Paul
>makes no mention and expresses no care regarding the Jesus
>earthman or godman, as if he's basing his christ stories
>on pagan myths, not an earth visit from a Jesus.
This one is laughable. Jesus had 12 followers and lived on a faraway hill in the
middle of nowheres. His death and resurrection became known and has grown
unabated for 2000 years now.
>Sorry, let's keep all this to ourselves and whatever we
>do, let's not share this with christians as they may
>actually start thinking about what life is, why we're
>here, and where we're going, and, heaven forbid, may
>actually start showing an interest in enjoying and
>maxing out this life experience rather than suffering
>through it for some imagined afterlife ... actually,
>that would be a good thing, don't you think, maybe,
>the maxing out of this certain life rather than the
>delusions and lies regarding mythical beings that
>don't, in fact, exist?
Actually, your keeping it quiet works best to keep you from being laughed at.
socode
> Atheists are unaware of the mythical fable
> of their beliefs.
Atheism doesn't describe any beliefs, but rather
the lack of them.
socode
Martin Thomas
<Llan...@Llurdiaxorb.net> wrote:
I think you have fallen for the creationist straw man. DNA does not
work unless there are a large number of very complex proteins whose
properties are complimentary. The idea that it could have formed by
chance is absurd, unless the number of years available had several
dozen digits in them.
I have never seen a creditable scientist suggest that. Far more likely
that a simpler life form came first and evolved into DNA, all the
scientific theories I have seen work that way. Unfortunately, the DNA
based critters probably gobbled up the evidence of what came before -
so we might never know all the details.
But research continues, and the future looks promising.
>> Look at the scenery outside. What evolutionary benefit was it to
you
>> to enjoy the beauty of it?
>>
>
>Being content and at ease in your environment is a pretty obvious
>evolutionary advantage.
>
>> Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but
>> fools despise wisdom and discipline.
>>
>
>If we followed that nonsense we would still be living in caves. You
only
>learn by putting fear aside.
Absolutely true!
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
duke
Sorry snocone, but denying the existance of God is also included.
To twit:
a·the·ist (ł“th¶-ąst) n. One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or
gods.
Better luck next Thanksgiving.
angelicusrex
> > Evidence requires no
> >faith, evidence asks us to think/ponder/reflect/assess,
> >faith requires no evidence, faith demans we believe/follow/
> >suspend doubt/submit.
Speaking of evidence...Iread the entire 33 pages of the very interesting
"Anti-Missionary" treatise that "Religion is a lie" posted yesterday. I saw
that most of the "evidence" cited was actually pretty much conjecture,
supposition and a particularly odd lambasting of Christians as fabricators
of letters and documents, which the author of the treatise said was first a
habit of the Jews of Hashmonean times! Which basically means the Christians,
who were a branch of Judaism, learned their stock and trade of written
mummery from the Jews! The author even makes mention of the fact that the
births and miracles of Moses and Abraham were obviously made up! Yet he
expects Jews to "resist the missionaries of Christianity with the "truth."
The truth of what, I wonder? The truth of the Hebrew Torah which he claims
lies...and the Talmud which he claims few Jews ever read anymore?
I feel the whole O.T. Bible is just as full of fables, myths and combination
religions as the New Testament is, maybe more, since they had more time to
collect myths.
What it comes down to is that the Anti-Missionary tract is just aggravating
a long unhealed wound between Christian and Jew by making it out that the
Splinter group of the Christians (Natzori=offshoot), [which seems to have
included, in his estimation, the Samaritans and Gnostics, Manicheans and
other "Jewish-Pagans" of early Christian History]; had pretty much
fabricated Jesus, the Apostles, Disciples and the Miracles, Acts and
Revelations in such a way as to have outdone the fabrications of the Old
Testament! This tract then is not a very convincing evidential text.
What he does say is this, there were evidently several Yeishuas, Yehudas,
Yehoshuas and other Messiahs from the times of the Maccabbees onwards. Each
one was either stoned to death by his own people, the Jews, or crucified by
the Romans! So we know that Messiahs were both unwelcome, pretty common, and
that the Romans did indeed crucify them whenever they felt like it.
We also then find out that though most gospels and epistles were written
around 120 CE or so, that the Romans were indeed persecuting Christians in
64 CE when Nero was around. And of course before that in Calligula's day as
well. Now, even if these particular "Christians" had no books or papers or
gospels, who were they worshiping if not Jesus Christ? Though there had been
other Messiahs, none was called the Christ. No other Jewish Messiah had been
accepted by the Latins, Africans, Greeks and Asians of the Roman colonies.
And there is still no evidence that Jesus called the Christ did not live and
die in Judea in 33 CE. Someone named Jesus the Anointed One seems to have
been at the basis of a Jewish splinter religious cult from 33 CE on. About
sixty years after this "church" had swept through Asia Minor, Ethiopia and
up into Greece and Rome, some people decided to write about it and maybe
make up some stuff too, in order to give it a pedigree.
What the trouble really seems to have been is that this Christ Cult seems to
have taken over the minds and hearts of many, many people who once worshiped
Mithras, Tammuz, Baal, and even taken over the Samaritan Jewish splinter
group to produce the Gnostic cults. In other words, by 120 CE everyone in
the Middle East all the way to Rome was talking about the teachings of one
Jesus the Christ. So we know that Christianity began its rise to prominence
in the middle of the First Century CE and rapidly took over the entire
world. Whereas the other religions seemed to already be on the wane. The
process only took a scant sixty years!
Far from being a "comic book" religion, as one poster so smugly puts it,
Christianity seems to have captured some spirit that people needed enough to
begin to change the world very rapidly. Was there a real Jesus? Well, the
author of the anti-missionary treatise cites three to five different Jesus'!
So if we are going to use his research and testament, there indeed was a
Jesus! In fact there were at least three literally named Jesus! One even had
disciples named Matthew and Thaddeus. All of them had been crucified. Why
could we not posit another young Judean named Yeishua Ben Yesef who followed
in the footsteps of other Messiahs, even to be broken on the cross like
them? It would be the rule in Judea, not the exception
Perhaps the idea of so may traditionalist Jews joining with the Romans to
martyr leaders of the common people, simply took root and took on a life of
its own in the common people's hearts? The Jesus of the Gospels is
definitely a man of the people, he speaks to the poor,indigant, outcast and
sick. he feeds the hungry. Yet uses the rich and the gentile to his own
purposes as well, befriending one and all. He goes to weddings, funerals and
parties. He's a regular joe, a guy like all the rest, his dad and he were
workers (not carpenters, but masons or handymen).He preaches against the
established, haughty and finely dressed fat priests and the Roman
government, he sides with John the Baptist who despises the traditionalists
and the puppet king Herod the Arab, and basically establishes what amounts
to a new Judean socialist collective. he even gets into occassional scraps
with the authorities and thinks his mom ought to keep out of his business!
Why wouldn't regular people everywhere join the cult that was made just for
them, headed by a God who incarnates into the lowest social rung and
proceeds to lead the masses?
Whatever, mine is all specualtion. The tract author's evidence is very
interesting and proves several Jesus' existed who may all have been models
for the Christ figure. So for atheists to say "Jesus didn't exist" can be
laid to rest as an argument. Lots of Jesus' existed. Pick one! I could also
tell you about some Muslim martyrs who thought they were messiahs, as well
as later Jewish ones. Messiah Martyrs have a long history. To say one didn't
exist but the rest did is rather ludicrous.
The whole thing of Pauline doctrine which really does side step the issue of
a real historical Jesus is pretty interesting too. Because people don't seem
to understand Paul's point of view (Or, if there was no real Paul, call it
the "Pauline POV"), which was: without a resurrection proving Jesus to be
the Christ, the Anointed Son of God, or God incarnated as Man, there is no
religion. With out resurrection, (and Paul does discuss this in the NT) you
have a nice carpenter's son who preached nice things and got himself killed
like many others. So whether resurrection was a myth or a fact, the entire
Christian religion revolves around it. However why would the myth of Jesus
resurrection thrill people who already seemed to have heard of the
resurrection of Osiris, Attis, Tammuz, Mithras or others? Why would they
cleave to the Jesus story, when they already had plenty of stories of their
own? And especially when this particular messiah was a Jewish one, that no
one should have cared about?
This may sound odd or even threatening to some, but my researches indicate
that Anti-Semitism existed long before Jesus or Paul created a hotbed for it
in Christian thought. The Romans did not like the Jews, they thought them
stubborn, divisive and with a tendency to dissemble. Others in the region
had long, long feuds with the Jewish nation. Blood payback was one of the
things the Arabs wanted from the Jews, which is why the Herods slaughtered
them and taxed them to death before Christ came along. So along comes this
messiah who is rejected by the Jews. Just as the Jews often rejected Pagan's
gods! Jesus fits the bill of many of the other god stories. And he seems to
have been accepted as a genuine person, a living person, not just a mythic
god. So here is this man-god, rejected by people no one really liked. After
all the Jews were very separatist and called outsiders unclean, dogs and
goyim. The outsiders were Gentiles and God would have nothing to do with
them, UNTIL the Messiah brought all of God's children together again. So why
not accept this Jesus as that Messiah, adhering to him as the outcast
god-man of the Jews? That way they could say the Jews were the wrong ones,
the ones who God did not like, while the Pagans who accepted the Christ
would now be worthy in God's eyes as the inheritors of the earth under the
worship of the One God. Like the story of Jacob and Essau, except now Essau
get's his blessing and inheritence. When the Romans destroyed the Temple,
sacked it and rolled over Jerusalem and Masada, was this not a sign then to
people that the Jews had lost favor with their own God once again? This may
have cemented the whole Jesus Myth into place! "Look at those poor dwoncast
Jews! Their temple is gone, their God is dead! That's what happens when you
worship the wrong way and reject God's chosen." And we must face facts, the
Jews were absolutely notorious for rejecting nearly every prophet that came
along. Only later sanctifying the prophet's words, when it was found out the
prophet had been right and God had smote his Chosen People once more.
Perhaps this sounds Anti-Semitic. I hope not. Because I actually think quite
highly of Judaism and Jews as a people. But I think Anti-Semitism may be at
the very basis of Christianity. The idea of one group of people going around
telling everyone God chose them and too bad for you, is particularly
aggravating to those on the receiving end of being belittled. Even the Nazis
had this feeling of inferiority. Much of their anti-Semitism came from a
feeling that they had literally been to stupid to see how they had let the
Jews snatch everything away from them. This inferiority complex caused them
to over-react and try to destroy all Jews. The terrible thing was that
Hitler and others felt that Western and Eastern Europe and Russia would
APPRECIATE the effort! And they were not so far from the truth. Jews were
not welcomed or beloved anywhere. And not for being "Christ-Killers" but
just for adhering to foreign and obscure traditions that seemed so ancient
and strict and odd that Europeans and Americans just couldn't understand
them. There is a feeling of being left out, of being the fifth wheel in some
secret society that won't let you in on the game. This is most likely why
Europeans fashioned secret societies like the Masons and Templars, etc. that
seemed to have links to King Solomon and Judaism.
Much of what the Anti-Missionary tract established was that Jews should
stick to being Jewish no matter what, no matter if it to was a lie, no
matter if evidence was brought to bear for Jesus or not, the bottom line was
"reject all evidence as spurious!" Yet the author brought no real evidence
to bear that Christianity was wrong or based on fables, he just supposes
that it was. And unfortuantely supposition, "maybe" "possibly" "could have
been" "it is suggested that" etc. is not a qualified bringing to bear of
real evidentiary material. The real argument he has is: Since there is no
evidence of Jesus, Christianity is spurious." Fine, if you are Jewish. (But
also showing beyond doubt that Jews did not approve of or want the Jesus
cult to flourish, and that they could be just as devious in hiding or
doctoring evidence as early Christians were...and why not, they were both
the same group at one point!) He even says that the Jewish historians kept a
copy of Josephus' Antiquities that seemingly had not one word about
Christians, and that the Christian's had a copy that was 'edited' to show
Jesus did live. Now what is to make us believe the Jewish copy wasn't
doctored, if they were known to have doctored so many other documents and
basically invented the psuedigraphic epistle and gospel???
But why would atheists bring this tract in as "evidence" that Jesus never
existed, when they want to believe GOD doesn't exist at all??? The author
refers to God in the proper Hebrew manner G-d. He cites texts like "You take
Jesus, I'll take God!" This is just rubbing salt in old wounds. But more
importantly it is supporting a HEBREW GOD over all other gods, goddesses and
religions and is actually a diatribe written against Atheism!
One would think any real atheist would find this pamphelt particularly
unattractive. Again though, the guy who names himself "Religion is a Lie"
has an agenda to prove ALL religous belief is wrong. And as I said
previously can we accept such a person with such an obvious agenda is going
to bring reasonable argument (as he claims we should all use, in an earlier
post), and real evidence to bear both pro-and con in this discussion? I say
no. The tract he presents is just as spurious as any atheistic tract and the
two do not enhance one another's philosophies.
Saint
People's Commissar
another person.
Yah, the author is OBVIOUSLY saying to Jews, to avoid becoming NON-Jews and
refute the missionaries.
"angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bq6b3r$1vtpio$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Christians Kill
> "Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
>
> > Please respect the alt.atheism charter and stop preaching,
> > fuckface.
> >
> >
> > Don
>
> Please respect the Charter of the United States pertaining to freedom of
> speech. You seem to be abridging these people's rights!
And yet, you've claimed that you're not a Christian, but you keep
preaching it all the same.
Strange, that.
-
The Church reveals an institution that has yet to come to terms with
basic ideas like freedom of conscience and the dialectical nature of
rational inquiry.
--James Carroll
Mekkala
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:cJaxb.23119$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
*raises eyebrows*
Do you have *any* idea what entropy is? You sound like a certain person
I know who thinks that the universe is full of mystical energy because
"energy is a scientific fact."
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
People's Commissar
"Mekkala" <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9441868E...@199.45.49.11...
> goddesses! You CAN prove that there is some kind of "dark force in
> > nature" because heh, that can be MEASURED, or at least the affects of
> > it can be - "entropy?"
>
> *raises eyebrows*
Well, I could paste up something in here but the letters for the
mathematical formula, which had to be made into "image files" because
people's browsers weren't seeing it right would NOT show up. I can't post
attachments in newsgroups. But you can see here:
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/entropy.html
>
> Do you have *any* idea what entropy is? You sound like a certain person
> I know who thinks that the universe is full of mystical energy because
> "energy is a scientific fact."
No, interactions of matter/energy (more specifically as spelled out in the
article) cause increases in entropy. Also, there is "something" causing
space itself to blow up like a balloon. There is nothing mystical about
it - except perhaps that such notions are very VERY old - but newly
discovered in modern science. See the article - the actual formula is on
there. This "end of argument" referred to on there was due to people
thinking that entropy was the same as energy.
What is often thought of as mystical energy is usually just a person, using
the 5 senses in ways he or she is not used to using them - "reaching out" in
FEELING this all around. An in-touchness with the environment all around
and IN you. That is often thought of as mystical by people who don't always
do that. Is energy itself mystical, tho? Well, heh, you tell me. Is that
there little thing a WAVE or a PARTICLE? Well, make up their minds cause,
as ol genius Al said, it can't be BOTH and NEITHER. Well, waves and
particles are things we see in the "big world" and applying those notions to
Very Small things doesn't seem to work. In that sense, all of this is
mystical - in the sense that it is the underlying reality that makes up the
world we think we see. They ain't little balls or little waves - and
superstrings is a dumbfuck idea. In that sense, it is mystical - perhaps
outside the box that the human mind thinks in.
You know how mass and energy are interchangeable. And I hope you know how
converting mass to energy is a seriously BAD way to get energy. Well, so
are phonons and photons. Why not get energy from turning phonons into
photons? You know, it was done (sonoluminescence). Clean too. Ah, no
profits in it.
Lots of people see increase in entropy (aka just ENTROPY) as some kind of
force for chaos. But no. You have the same exact amount of matter/energy
in the universe as you had at the start. But entropy increases as this
matter/energy is used or "it increases thru WORK" (work defined as matter
energy exchanges, such as when you type on a keyboard :). Yeah, things
dissolve into chaos but then new and higher levels of order, diversity and
complexity result from that. And still, the amount of matter/energy is
always the same.
In the sense of the MYSTICAL expression, "Dark Force in Nature," (that's an
expression that provably predates any discovery of this new dark energy in
the cosmos) yeah, some people do feel that as a kind of underlying unseen
"thing" if they "reach out" and feel the environment around them - the
"thing" that is underlying the measurements we can see, not only regarding
increases in entropy (coincident with time moving ONE way), but also with
expansion of the space itself in the cosmos.
Read the article or just look at the math on there.
People's Commissar
consider it - IF you think that religion (of any type) is irrational or that
"people need to be told" anything at all that is not immediate in their
lives. .
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-humans-tod.html
:)
"Mekkala" <joremovedath...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9441868E...@199.45.49.11...
Mark Twain
news:c58fsvc0sf19rv7ng...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:44:12 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
<ne...@jcsm.org>
> wrote:
>
> >tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:05:00 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
<ne...@jcsm.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> angelicusrex wrote:
> >>>> "Walking on Glass" <walking_...@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote
in
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have heard about. Many definitions of gods,
> >>>>> including your sky spook, fall flat on their face by being
> >>>>> internally inconsistent (omnipotence, omniscience etc all have
> >>>>> this flaw).
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you really think calling someone's god a "sky spook" is
proper
> >>>> to a discussion of religion vs. atheism? It just makes you look
> >>>> like a jack ass with absolutely no respect.
> >>>>
> >>>> Saint
> >>>
> >>> You're right, Saint. However, there is no need to stoop to
their
> >>> level. Many of the people in alt.atheism need to clean up their
> >>> acts. Feel free to plonk or ignore the offensive ones. There
are a
> >>> few that will be respectful and engage in meaningful
conversation.
> >>
> >> Would that include answering legitimate questions?
> >
> >Yes, I have met some people from alt.atheism that will answer
legitimate
> >questions.
>
> Return the favor and stop being so dishonest.
Asking Jason Gastrich to be honest is like asking the sun to stop
shining.
Mark Twain
"Yang" <eac...@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fc7245f...@news.cox.net...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:19:11 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
<ne...@jcsm.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> >You're welcome to see my resume here:
http://jcsm.org/MISC/Resume.htm. I'd
> >appreciate seeing your resume.
>
> And your resume clearly states that you are not a doctor. Being "in
> progress" to a PhD does NOT make you a PhD, no more than enrolling
in
> fantasy basketball camp with Michael Jordan makes me an NBA player.
Oh
> look, I declared myself eligible for the NFL draft, that makes me a
> "professional" football player! Oh, wait, by your logic, if I put my
> name on the election ballot, you'll have to call me "Mr. President"!
>
> At best you are an ABD, and I doubt you are even that given that you
> began your 'PhD" classes in 2003.
>
> Also, what kind of bullshit PhD requirement is this? All you need is
> 30 instruction hours? My first year of grad school had at least 300
> instruction hours, not counting labs. Did you complete your 30
> instruction hours in between your TV dinner and fixing your toilet?
>
> Poser.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Gregory A Greenman
mark_...@writers.com said...
Not really. Eventually, the sun will stop shining.
Greg the Reprobate
Missionary of Death
-------------------
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Rhyanon
tiny mynde to wrap around, man.
--
"I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 feet away from
science at all times."
~Judge Roy Schnieder~
"People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:cJaxb.23119$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Melleagris Gallopavo
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> > Mr. Gastrich is simply the latest in a long and undistinguished line
> > of dishonest fundies.
>
> Being as honest as "you can be," is not exactly the same as being dishonest.
So you are both liars, then.
angelicusrex
"Melleagris Gallopavo" you troll.
Lou Sofer
> "Mike Painter" <mdotp...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> > Document this.
> > With the *very* rare exception of cold water immersion syndrome where the
> > record is now about three hours this does not happen.
> > Skinny kids are the best candidates because they can cool fast.
> > CPR must be started as soon as the face breaks the water.
> > They are not breathing on their own and their heart is not beating well
> but
> > circulation is maintained.
> > The medical field recognizes this and while it is almost always useless
> they
> > are not pronounced dead until the body is warm.
>
> I'm sorry, but your one instance of "documentation" (without citations) does
> not disallow for my own hundreds of hours of research.
You mean your hundreds of lies. FYI...the documentation of the poster
in question is widely availablem, and has in fact, been recently
posted several times in various threads.
> Which I am not going
> to bring here, because there is simply too much material.
Nonsense. You are lying as usual. You aren't going to bring it here
because you have made it up, like you always do.
> You have still made my point for me.
Impossible, since you haven't made any points.
> People die and are resurrected, even after three hours.
They haven't died, you moron. You really need to get a grip.
Lou Sofer
> God is a God of the living.
Where is the evidence for your claim?
Lou Sofer
> > to rationalise their pre-existing belief.
> >
> > There is no evidence whatsoever.
>
> This is absolutely untrue. There is a wealth of evidence, it just happens to
> be disputed evidence.
You have been asked about 50 times to show evidence. You have failed,
and hence, you have lied.
Lou Sofer
> Atheism is a belief
Wrong again. Atheism is the absence of belief.
How many more times will you repeat this lie?
Lou Sofer
> God will reveal Himself.
When and where? Please provide an exact date.
Inga Swenson
> > that, too. Link:
> > http://www.jcsm.org/misc/TheExodus.htm
>
> After following your links, I can only conclude that you are
> mentally disturbed.
most of us have concluded that jason is a few fries short of a happy meal
inga
Michelle Malkin
The man disagrees with you and this is how you respond.
The only angel you sound like is a fallen one.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Hands that work are better than mouths that pray -
Robert Ingersoll
****************************************************
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "Inga Swenson" <ingaswe...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:d69b642f.03113...@posting.google.com...
It's all aboot food with you people.
Uncle Davey
Alan Hobson
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
AngryJohn
wrote:
A person needs the energy food provides in order to fully partake of
beer and sex.
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
zayton
meal
> >
> > inga
>
> It's all aboot food with you people.
>
> Uncle Davey
>
>
Joe
Budikka
He's a pair short of an ark?
Budikka
Ron Baker
"Budikka" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.03120...@posting.google.com...
> "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<BrSyb.10277$Qc....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
> > news:bqf3q6$ba9$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > most of us have concluded that jason is a few fries short of a happy
> > meal
> > > >
> > > > inga
> > >
> > > It's all aboot food with you people.
Canadian?
> > >
> > > Uncle Davey
> > >
> > >
> > Would you prefer, "His elevator only goes as high as the basement?"
> >
> > Joe
>
> He's a pair short of an ark?
;)
Harry Palms
To put it nicely. He's a fake doctor, that's for sure.
Harry Palms
> Speaking of evidence...
Yes, where is yours?
Harry Palms
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<_eAxb.53724$t01....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>
> > God will reveal Himself.
>
> When and where? Please provide an exact date.
Don't hold your breath.
Harry Palms
> Ah, yes. 90% of the world has a god belief. They have had an experience
> with the supernatural. This is plenty of evidence.
It's not evidence, it's an appeal to the majority, also knowns as the
fallacy argumentum ad populum.
Li Mu Bai
>
> We do NOT know the condition of Jesus or if he was actually still
alive
> or breathing when he was laid in that tomb.
Appeal to ignorance, noted...again.
Phoenix
"Harry Palms" <gaias_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acf527b5.03120...@posting.google.com...
True.. it's quite possible to have an experience with the supernatural
without believing in god.
P
angelicusrex
What would you like evidence for?
Saint
Mike Painter
Assuming 6 billion about 1 billion are atheists according to a recent study.
Seems that Russia and China turns out a lot of them.
I don't know of any religions except Islam, Judaism and some Christian sects
that worship one god.
angelicusrex
It is not a fallacious argument. He said there is evidence. He just didn't
present it. To compile it one place would be a monumental task. And you
would not read it anyway.
One for instance. A study was done among Pima Indians here in Arizona who
had diabetes. One group was given the best medical care money could buy. The
second group was given no medical care, instead they were given traditional
tribal wisdom and ceremonies, including shamanistic and prayer rites. The
group with the scientific medical procedures got worse. The ones with the
Spiritual procedure got markedly better. It is said that scientists did not
want this getting out as this goes directly against what should be the facts
of science. Now there are scientific studies being done world wide to see if
prayer and spiritual healing methods are useful in the healing process. All
indications point to the positive for spiritual healing of all kinds,
including but not limited to Christian prayer at a distance for people who
don't even know they are being prayed for. Those who do not get prayers
often become more ill. Read some Deepak Chopra. Or if that is too flighty
for you, simply read some modern medical journals. I got my information from
the S.C.C. college newspaper. Now, why don't you bring some relevant
information that proves that spirituality or the supernatural is NOT being
experienced by anyone. Because that is what you are disputing.
Saint
angelicusrex
Apparently your cut and paste of my words left out the main context. The
point was, Jesus could easily have been resurrected if he was not actually
dead. And guess what? It is possible to bring actual dead people to life
too! This is not an "appeal to ignorance fallacy" I need give no evidence
when I make a point which is "common knowledge." Have half dead people come
back to life? Yes. Have dead people been brought back to life? Yes.
Depending on their condition and time of death and what caused it. For
instance, Jesus dies on the cross. Death on the cross is due to
asphyxiation. Had someone done simple CPR on him three to six minutes after
he was taken down, he could have easily been brought back to life...IF in
fact he had actually been dead, and not simply comatose or even drugged
(What was on the "vinegar soaked sponge? Vinegar was a common ingredient in
drugs of those days, there is a distinct possibility someone drugged him so
he would appear dead). He could have easily resided in a comatose state for
days and still awaken of his own accord. These are medical facts and need no
"citation." They are also speculation and in need of no reference material.
The literature on NDE and live burial and people awakening form death like
states, and drugs which can cause death like states is vast. Read some.
Otherwise, continually telling people about fallacies still does not prove a
fallacy has been committed, you have to bring evidence of it specifically
against the contextual statements that were made.
As it is your whole posting form is a red herring. You are not allowing for
any valid argument to take place because you spuriously interject your idea
of fallacy into every post! That is not an argument. That is simply being
rude and contrary. You are keeping people off the scent of the thread.
Eventually so many of you atheists do this that no one knows what was
previously said and you think you have won an argument. You need to get back
to basics. Your style would never see you through a typical trial case in
court.
Saint
"Li Mu Bai" <gr...@goddess.net> wrote in message
news:vsvj0q7...@corp.supernews.com...
Li Mu Bai
> The point was, Jesus could easily have been resurrected if he was
not
> actually dead.
There's no evidence Jesus ever existed.
Li Mu Bai
>
> "Harry Palms" <gaias_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acf527b5.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:<EQyxb.53708$t01....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> >
> > > Ah, yes. 90% of the world has a god belief. They have had an
> experience
> > > with the supernatural. This is plenty of evidence.
> >
> > It's not evidence, it's an appeal to the majority, also knowns as
the
> > fallacy argumentum ad populum.
>
> It is not a fallacious argument.
It most certainly is, and the fact that you can't recognize it says a
lot about your lack of critical thinking skills.
Li Mu Bai
> I need give no evidence when I make a point which is "common
knowledge."
Your statement is fallacious (as usual). You have just demonstrated
the "Bandwagon Fallacy", aka an appeal to popularity and presumption
by common knowledge.
Can you post just one, single reply that doesn't contain a fallacy?
Li Mu Bai
> Otherwise, continually telling people about fallacies still does not
> prove a fallacy has been committed, you have to bring evidence of it
> specifically against the contextual statements that were made.
The evidence is in every one of your posts.
Li Mu Bai
> As it is your whole posting form is a red herring.
This is a pretty funny statement coming from someone who just posted a
great example of a red herring - the Bandwagon fallacy.
Li Mu Bai
> You are not allowing for any valid argument to take place because
you
> spuriously interject your idea of fallacy into every post!
You're delusional. You are the one posting the fallacies. You are
the one making invalid arguments. You are the one asking others to
prove negatives, appeal to popularity, and jumping on bandwagons. You
are the one who is not interested in valid arguments.
Li Mu Bai
> For instance, Jesus dies on the cross. Death on the cross is due to
> asphyxiation. Had someone done simple CPR on him three to six
minutes
> after he was taken down, he could have easily been brought back to
> life...IF in fact he had actually been dead, and not simply comatose
or
> even drugged (What was on the "vinegar soaked sponge? Vinegar was a
> common ingredient in drugs of those days, there is a distinct
possibility
> someone drugged him so he would appear dead). He could have easily
> resided in a comatose state for days and still awaken of his own
accord.
> These are medical facts and need no "citation."
Ipse dixit.
angelicusrex
assume the ten are correct?
An argumentum ad populum proposes that a popular belief, such as everyone
SHOULD believe in God because they do is an argument for the belief in God.
It is not an argumentum ad populum to say: 90% of people see the sun shine
every day, and we can use this as evidence that the sun shines nearly every
day, even if we live in a place where we do not see the sun shine every day.
In other words, the argument from the minority that may never have seen the
sun shine every day can be defeated by the very fact that majority of people
do see it. Gastrich mentioned EVIDENCE of supernatural events in these
people's lives. Therefore you have to research the EVIDENCE of the
EVENTS...not the belief.
If 90% of people or more have had a spiritual or supernatural experience
that they can personally relate. This IS evidence. Eye witness evidence of
something we call the supernatural. The only way to rid yourself of the
evidence is to pick apart every one of those billions of stories and find it
to be untruthful or of a natural cause. However if after doing this you
found even 1 % of supernatural events that seem to have no natural
explanation, you would have to conclude that there is a potential the
supernatural exists. That's how "critical thinking works." Critical thinking
does not mean being critical of other people's arguments. You are not using
critical thinking against this Gastrich character at all. All you are doing
is yelling "Fallacy!" You have to SHOW how it is a fallacy. You have not
succeeded in doing this. Just as you have not succeeded in proving I am not
thinking critically. All you are doing is giving opinions.
Saint
"Li Mu Bai" <gr...@goddess.net> wrote in message
news:vsvvoer...@corp.supernews.com...
angelicusrex
We are assuming for the sake of argument, my dear, that Jesus existed. You
cannot therefore entertain the idea that you have no evidence for his
existence. That is not part of the argument. So you just threw in a red
herring to keep us off the subject. This does NOT make my argument, (or
speculation really), invalid.
Think before you type again.
Saint
"Li Mu Bai" <gr...@goddess.net> wrote in message
news:vsvvn6b...@corp.supernews.com...
angelicusrex
does not come into play. I say the sky is blue because we not only all agree
the sky is blue, but because it is common scientific factual knowledge that
it is blue.
Now, if you didn't know that dead people are resurrected in hospitals on a
daily basis, I pity you. But seeing how you seem to think your first year
English teacher sent you a gift from heaven because he or she taught you
about logical fallacies, I can see why you should be pitied. You are not
critically thinking. You are jumping the gun, throwing in red herrings and
totally misinterpreting fallacies.
I am not appealing to popularity. I am appealing to scientific fact, which
in any case, you seem to be blissfully unaware of.
Saint
"Li Mu Bai" <gr...@goddess.net> wrote in message
news:vt002qn...@corp.supernews.com...
angelicusrex
This is NOT evidence. Your opinion cannot be taken in evidence. You have not
once shown how I have used a fallacy. Because your ideas are
misinterpretations of what a fallacy is. You have to PROVE fallacy. And to
do that you've got to write more than one sentence.
Saint
angelicusrex
what? You aren't worth writing to.
Go plonk.
Saint
"Li Mu Bai" <gr...@goddess.net> wrote in message
news:vt00bgp...@corp.supernews.com...
JTEM
"angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote
> So, you are saying if 90 people saw a murder and ten did not.
> We should assume the ten are correct?
To be truly parallel with your position on religion & God, we
must assume that the 90% who witnessed this murder all
came away testifying against a different murderer.
90% of the world's population does not believe in the same deity.
Mike Painter
Can you document the study that started it all?
Can you say "This was not a double blind study and we want to see the follow
up?"
A brief Google turns up no such study. This indicates to me that there is a
lot left out.
If it was a valid study "traditional tribal wisdom and ceremonies,
including shamanistic and prayer rites." probably included diet and exercise
and the study noted this.
Admittedly this is an anecdotal comment but I have noticed that *ANYTHING*
that says prayer is of any value hits the christian sites rapidly and comes
out high on Google.
Mike Painter
> So, you are saying if 90 people saw a murder and ten did not. We should
> assume the ten are correct?
>
> that they can personally relate. This IS evidence.
There is a sound scientific theory for the existence of the tachyon. We
can't say that it does not exist but no experiment has ever shown it to and
there have been many.
After a while you just don't look as hard.
Far more supernatural "experiences" have been studied and the results have
always been the same. Nothing there.
After a while you just stop looking.
Mike Painter
> More like this is an appeal to the ignorant.
>
> Apparently your cut and paste of my words left out the main context. The
> point was, Jesus could easily have been resurrected if he was not actually
> dead. And guess what? It is possible to bring actual dead people to life
> too! This is not an "appeal to ignorance fallacy" I need give no evidence
> when I make a point which is "common knowledge." Have half dead people
come
> back to life? Yes. Have dead people been brought back to life? Yes.
> Depending on their condition and time of death and what caused it. For
> instance, Jesus dies on the cross. Death on the cross is due to
> asphyxiation. Had someone done simple CPR on him three to six minutes
after
> he was taken down, he could have easily been brought back to life...
a real death. If they did then there would be no need for CPR. You are dead
or you are not dead, you are never "half-dead"
There are any number of reasons how somebody might have survived such an
event.
You are making up situations for a made up story to give some probably
ficticious person some way to survive.
The bible's version of the fiction is better than yours.
The method of death, the time to die, the day of the execution, the events
that happened afterwards, all are more than enough to indicate it did not
happen.
No I will not explain each one but the answers are easy to find in things
called books and probably here on the Internet.
Li Mu Bai
> Is it a bandwagon fallacy or a red herring? It can't be both...
Wrong again, ignorant one. The bandwagon fallacy is a subfallacy of
the fallacy of irrelevancy, aka the red herring.
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/bandwagn.html
The red herring is the general fallacy of irrelevance, while...
"The Bandwagon Fallacy is committed whenever one argues for an idea
based upon an irrelevant appeal to its popularity."
Please, get an education, angelicusrex.
> You know
> what? You aren't worth writing to.
And you're incapable of learning from your mistakes.
The bandwagon fallacy is a type of red herring.
Your mistakes have been corrected, again.
Li Mu Bai
>
> "Li Mu Bai" <gr...@goddess.net> wrote in message
> news:vt005u...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:bqoubb$2430b1$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > Otherwise, continually telling people about fallacies still does
not
> > > prove a fallacy has been committed, you have to bring evidence
of it
> > > specifically against the contextual statements that were made.
> >
> > The evidence is in every one of your posts.
>
> This is NOT evidence.
It most certainly is evidence, and can be repeatedly demonstrated
unlike your claims.
> Your opinion cannot be taken in evidence.
It's not my opinion; it's a demonstrated fact. Are you unable to
comprehend the difference?
> You have not once shown how I have used a fallacy.
Your fallacies have been demonstrated dozens of times in dozens of
your posts. The irony of course is that your posting history
demonstrates your knowledge of these fallacies, yet you continue to
use them. I suggest you are suffering from some form of mental
illness that makes you unable to learn from your past mistakes. For
example, the archives show you criticizing others for making
fallacious claims, yet you yourself go on to make those very same
fallacious claims without regard to the fact that you just corrected
someone else who made the same mistake.
The evidence for your fallacies is freely available for anyone to
peruse, here:
Angelicusrex commits the fallacy of circularum in demonstrando in
message-ID: bq9lft$1vdeo4$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de
"So the Gospels at least are SOME evidence..."
(Don Kresch points out the fallacy, here: http://tinyurl.com/xu7l)
Angelicusrex commits the fallacy of argumentum ad populum in
message-ID: bq9lft$1vdeo4$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de
"Since millions have not, [dismissed the holy spirit] then that makes
you in the minority."
http://tinyurl.com/xu81
Angelicusrex commits the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam in
message-ID: bplj97$1qj0a0$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de
"what you are saying is that you "believe" there is no God but cannot
prove it..."
(Al Klein points out the fallacy, here: http://tinyurl.com/xu8u )
Those are just two posts. The numbers of fallacies angelicusrex
commits numbers in the hundreds.
Al Klein
<green_...@usenet.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:bqp4dl$24mfq8$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> You have not once shown how I have used a fallacy.
>Your fallacies have been demonstrated dozens of times in dozens of
>your posts. The irony of course is that your posting history
>demonstrates your knowledge of these fallacies, yet you continue to
>use them. I suggest you are suffering from some form of mental
>illness
It's called "religious belief".
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Walking on Glass
write in alt.atheism, news:bqotln$254hql$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> "Harry Palms" <gaias_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acf527b5.03120...@posting.google.com...
>> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:<EQyxb.53708$t01....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>>
>> > Ah, yes. 90% of the world has a god belief. They have had an
> experience
>> > with the supernatural. This is plenty of evidence.
>>
>> It's not evidence, it's an appeal to the majority, also knowns as the
>> fallacy argumentum ad populum.
>
> It is not a fallacious argument. He said there is evidence. He just
> didn't present it.
This is gassy we're talking about after all. Color me surprised that he
didn't present any evidence.
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
Li Mu Bai
> You have not once shown how I have used a fallacy.
True, I have not shown once. I have "shown" dozens.
Li Mu Bai
> I say the sky is blue because we not only all agree the sky is blue,
but
> because it is common scientific factual knowledge that it is blue.
1. Arguing that the sky is blue because others "agree" is fallacious
2. Arguing that the sky is blue because it is "common scientific
factual knowledge" is fallacious
More accurately, the sky is most certainly _not_ blue, nor is it
always blue. Sometimes, the sky looks blue to human beings since our
eyes are more sensitive to blue. In reality, the sky is actually
violet, but we can't see it.
TehGhodTrole
And I don't see you attending to this, either...
I will proceed from the agnostic point. Please proceed to demolish the
proof.
Definitions - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
Agnosticism \Ag*nos"ti*cism\, n.
That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts
nor denies. Specifically: (Theol.) The doctrine that the
existence of a personal Deity, an unseen world, etc., can be
neither proved nor disproved, because of the necessary limits
of the human mind (as sometimes charged upon Hamilton and
Mansel), or because of the insufficiency of the evidence
furnished by physical and physical data, to warrant a
positive conclusion (as taught by the school of Herbert
Spencer); -- opposed alike dogmatic skepticism and to
dogmatic theism.
Incoherent \In`co*her"ent\, a. [Pref. in- not + coherent: cf. F.
incoh['e]rent.]
1. Wanting coherence or agreement; incongruous; inconsistent;
having no dependence of one part on another; logically
disconnected. ``The same rambling, incoherent manner.''
Inconsistent \In`con*sist"ent\, a. [Pref. in- not + consistent:
cf. F. inconsistant.]
1. Not consistent; showing inconsistency; irreconcilable;
discordant; at variance, esp. as regards character,
sentiment, or action; incompatible; incongruous;
contradictory.
Irrational \Ir*ra"tion*al\, a. [L. irrationalis: cf. F.
irrationnel. See In- not, and Rational.]
1. Not rational; void of reason or understanding; as, brutes
are irrational animals.
2. Not according to reason; absurd; foolish.
Syn: Absurd; foolish; preposterous; unreasonable; senseless.
See Absurd.
Prove \Prove\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Proved; p. pr. & vb. n.
Proving.] [OE. prover, F. prouver, fr. L. probare to try,
approve, prove, fr. probus good, proper. Cf. Probable,
Proof, Probe.]
1. To try or to ascertain by an experiment, or by a test or
standard; to test; as, to prove the strength of gunpowder
or of ordnance; to prove the contents of a vessel by a
standard measure.
2. To evince, establish, or ascertain, as truth, reality, or
fact, by argument, testimony, or other evidence.
Syn: To verify; justify; confirm; establish; evince;
manifest; show; demonstrate.
PROPOSITION: The existence of any deity, or of an unseen or metaphysical
world, etc., can be neither proved nor disproved.
ASSUMPTION 1: The atheist position is based on, and is described by, "God
does not exist because X".
ASSUMPTION 2: The human brain can encode sequences of numbers and can
computably generate axioms. Consequently it can encode the syntactic notions
of "formula", "sentence" and "proof".
PROOF: Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the
set of numbers that encode sentences (the syntactic notions of "formula",
"sentence", "proof") that are provable from the given axioms:
Thus for any sentence s,
(1) < s > is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
so is the set of proofs that use these axioms and
so is the set of provable theorems and hence
so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE is
definable.
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
s exists since it is the solution of:
(2) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE.
Thus
(3) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE iff s is not
provable.
Now (excluded middle) s is either true or false:
If s is false, then by (3), s is provable.
This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by (3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
"This sentence is unprovable" is provably equivalent to the sentence;
CON:
"There is no < s > with both < s > and < not s > in
PROVABLE".
CON is the formal statement that atheism is consistent.
Since s was not provable, and since s and CON are
equivalent, CON is not provable...
SO...
In any consistent axiomatisable theory that can encode sequences of numbers,
and consequently the syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence", "proof,"
consistency is not provable.
Thus the statement "God does not exist because X" is both imprecise and
inconsistent.
CONCLUSION: Atheism is prima facie absurd since it is inconsistent
Kadaitcha Man
And I don't see you attending to this, either...
SO...
--
Your Free Insult: Thou toeing, astringing, oversized cheat hepatising freakface.
Icarus
<snip nonsense>...
> Thus the statement "God does not exist because X" is both
> imprecise and inconsistent.
>
> CONCLUSION: Atheism is prima facie absurd since it is
> inconsistent
Or alternatively:
Thus the statement "A god or gods exist because X" is both
imprecise and inconsistent.
CONCLUSION: Religious belief is prima facie absurd since it is
inconsistent. Hence atheism is the only rationally justified
point of view.
Kadaitcha Man
Ditto.
--
Your Free Insult: Thou praying, eloigning, dust-covered flyswat gushing whore.
Icarus
news:8694Ran9F95D88DE...@two.ltinet.com...
LOL... my point exactly!
Kadaitcha Man
> "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:8694Ran9F95D88DE...@two.ltinet.com...
>> Icarus wrote:
>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nos...@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip nonsense>...
>>
>> Ditto.
>
> LOL... my point exactly!
No. On the contrary. Your point was clear; You didn't understand a word of
what was wriiten.
--
Your Free Insult: Thou farcing, gyrating, stearic hamburger beshining genetic disorder.
Nevermore
assumed to be the color as perceived by humans. To nitpick into other
parts of the electromagnetic spectrum is to argue absurd specifics for
the sake of argument when broad generalities will suffice. The sky,
absent some modifier such as time of day or weather conditions, is
generally blue. Humans see it as blue (it's blue out my window right
this second with a few scattered white clouds). Just because some
scientific instrument can find additional hues doesn't make it any less
true that it's blue.
Nevermore (obviously defending the obvious)
Anatid Bonecki
This is a moot point 90% of humanity BELIEVES and has had some
EXPERIENCE of the Supernatural.
Now, this might be all mass hallucination or meme infection or
incipient schizophraenia. But someone among the atheists will have to
prove EVERY case is fallacious, unproven or wrongheaded. Belief is
RELATIVE. A Jivaro indian's viewopoint of a supernatural event is
going to be different than a Catholics. But they both agree such
events exist. Just as 100 people seeing a murder are not going to all
agree on the details. And yet you seem to be concluding this still
means we should listen to the TEN who saw nothing at all!
Also, please read my other posts. An Ad Populum argument is NOT the
same as a large percentage of people WITNESSING a thing. Common Belief
is what Ad Populum is all about, not Common Knowledge. If Ninety nine
people say "The moon is full tonight," and you say "it is only half
full," then it is time to have YOUR eyes checked.
Saint
JTEM
"Anatid Bonecki" <Ana...@volcanomail.com> wrote
> > To be truly parallel with your position on religion & God, we
> > must assume that the 90% who witnessed this murder all
> > came away testifying against a different murderer.
> >
> > 90% of the world's population does not believe in the same deity.
> This is a moot point 90% of humanity BELIEVES and has had
> some EXPERIENCE of the Supernatural.
Irrelevant. They don't all believe the same thing. That's the point.
> Now, this might be all mass hallucination or meme infection
> or incipient schizophraenia. But someone among the atheists
> will have to prove EVERY case is fallacious, unproven or
> wrongheaded.
Bullshit. According to Christianity, if even a single one of the
non-Christian experiences is truly supernatural, Christianity is
a farce. There's only one God of the bible, with no room for any
other deity. If there was another deity, the bible is wrong, the
"One God" of the bible is a fraud.
And, if a single one of the Christian claims in true, then
all of the non-Christian claims are the product of fantasy. The
"One God" of the bible doesn't allow any room for their
non-Christian deities & spirits.
Your own reported figures -- this 90% -- is more than enough
to discount all the religions currently practiced here on Earth.
Li Mu Bai
> In <vtb75aq...@corp.supernews.com> Li Mu Bai wrote:
> > "angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:bqp49h$25duf0$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >> I say the sky is blue because we not only all agree the sky is blue,
> > but
> >> because it is common scientific factual knowledge that it is blue.
> >
> > 1. Arguing that the sky is blue because others "agree" is fallacious
> > 2. Arguing that the sky is blue because it is "common scientific
> > factual knowledge" is fallacious
> >
> > More accurately, the sky is most certainly _not_ blue, nor is it
> > always blue. Sometimes, the sky looks blue to human beings since our
> > eyes are more sensitive to blue. In reality, the sky is actually
> > violet, but we can't see it.
> >
> Any normal conversation about color, such as "the sky is blue", is
> assumed to be the color as perceived by humans.
Except Angelicusrex was not engaging in normal conversation. He was
giving further examples of fallacious argumentation.
> To nitpick into other
> parts of the electromagnetic spectrum is to argue absurd specifics for
> the sake of argument when broad generalities will suffice.
No such nitpicking occured. Angelicusrex claimed that it was a
scientific fact that the sky was blue. In reality, it is not.
> The sky,
> absent some modifier such as time of day or weather conditions, is
> generally blue.
Please define "generally". Hint: there are ~24 hours in a day. Are
you saying the sky is blue for more than 12 hours a day all over the
world? Before you answer, please take into consideration climatic
conditions and geographical proximity.
> Humans see it as blue
Correct, and addresses my point about the limitation of perception.
> (it's blue out my window right
> this second with a few scattered white clouds). Just because some
> scientific instrument can find additional hues doesn't make it any less
> true that it's blue.
Question for you: Do non-human animals and insects perceive the sky
as blue?
How about bees?
Li Mu Bai
wrote:
> > 90% of the world's population does not believe in the same deity.
>
> This is a moot point 90% of humanity BELIEVES and has had some
> EXPERIENCE of the Supernatural.
90% of humanity is also incapable of thinking rationally.
Li Mu Bai
wrote:
> An Ad Populum argument is NOT the
> same as a large percentage of people WITNESSING a thing. Common Belief
> is what Ad Populum is all about, not Common Knowledge.
Wrong. Eyewitness testimony is not logical justification.
tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk
>In <vtb75aq...@corp.supernews.com> Li Mu Bai wrote:
>> "angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:bqp49h$25duf0$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>> I say the sky is blue because we not only all agree the sky is blue,
>> but
>>> because it is common scientific factual knowledge that it is blue.
>>
>> 1. Arguing that the sky is blue because others "agree" is fallacious
>> 2. Arguing that the sky is blue because it is "common scientific
>> factual knowledge" is fallacious
>>
>> More accurately, the sky is most certainly _not_ blue, nor is it
>> always blue. Sometimes, the sky looks blue to human beings since our
>> eyes are more sensitive to blue. In reality, the sky is actually
>> violet, but we can't see it.
>>
>Any normal conversation about color, such as "the sky is blue", is
>assumed to be the color as perceived by humans. To nitpick into other
>parts of the electromagnetic spectrum is to argue absurd specifics for
>the sake of argument when broad generalities will suffice. The sky,
>absent some modifier such as time of day or weather conditions, is
>generally blue.
Most of the time it does not even appear to be blue.
Humans see it as blue (it's blue out my window right
>this second with a few scattered white clouds). Just because some
>scientific instrument can find additional hues doesn't make it any less
>true that it's blue.
>
>Nevermore (obviously defending the obvious)
And ignoring what Produced Li Mu Bai's response.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Nevermore
yahoo.dk wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2003 17:50:54 GMT, Nevermore <bur...@thestake.net> wrote:
>
>>In <vtb75aq...@corp.supernews.com> Li Mu Bai wrote:
>>> "angelicusrex" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bqp49h$25duf0$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>> I say the sky is blue because we not only all agree the sky is blue,
>>> but
>>>> because it is common scientific factual knowledge that it is blue.
>>>
>>> 1. Arguing that the sky is blue because others "agree" is
>>> fallacious 2. Arguing that the sky is blue because it is "common
>>> scientific factual knowledge" is fallacious More accurately, the
>>> sky is most certainly _not_ blue, nor is it always blue. Sometimes,
>>> the sky looks blue to human beings since our eyes are more sensitive
>>> to blue. In reality, the sky is actually violet, but we can't see
>>> it.
>>Any normal conversation about color, such as "the sky is blue", is
>>assumed to be the color as perceived by humans. To nitpick into other
>>parts of the electromagnetic spectrum is to argue absurd specifics for
>>the sake of argument when broad generalities will suffice. The sky,
>>absent some modifier such as time of day or weather conditions, is
>>generally blue.
>
> Most of the time it does not even appear to be blue.
>
Nevermore
Hint: I know you know exactly what I'm talking about because nobody who
can work a keyboard has any difficulty figuring out what a person means
when they say "The sky, absent some modifier SUCH AS TIME OF DAY or
weather conditions, is generally blue."
> Are
> you saying the sky is blue for more than 12 hours a day all over the
> world?
Did I say the sky was blue for more than 12 hours a day all over the
world?
> Before you answer, please take into consideration climatic
> conditions and geographical proximity.
>
Geographical proximity to what? The ground?
>> Humans see it as blue
>
> Correct, and addresses my point about the limitation of perception.
>
Not really. The only species that describes the sky as having any color
at all is humans so it makes perfect sense that a statement like "the
sky is blue" would be, absent any other modifier (such as "When viewed
through an ultraviolet filter on a telescope the sky is...."), a direct
reference to generally understood frames of common human reference as
regards human perception. Human perception may be limited but it's
valid as far as it goes.
>> (it's blue out my window right
>> this second with a few scattered white clouds). Just because some
>> scientific instrument can find additional hues doesn't make it any
>> less true that it's blue.
>
> Question for you: Do non-human animals and insects perceive the sky
> as blue?
>
Question for you: When somebody calls you from Miami and says "It was
really warm today!" Do you immediately think "But it wasn't in
Antarctica!". And if you do, what the Hell is the point? Who's the
stupid person in such a conversation: the one who gets the clearly
intended meaning or the one who wafts off into some Baroque curly-cues
of absurdist Da-Daist thinking to find somehow to obscure the obvious?
> How about bees?
>
How about asking them directly?
Nevermore
tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk
Does the sun always shine where you live? I repeat; most of the time
it does not even look blue.
Baruch
> > I say the sky is blue because we not only all agree the sky is blue,
> but
> > because it is common scientific factual knowledge that it is blue.
>
> 1. Arguing that the sky is blue because others "agree" is fallacious
> 2. Arguing that the sky is blue because it is "common scientific
> factual knowledge" is fallacious
>
> More accurately, the sky is most certainly _not_ blue, nor is it
> always blue. Sometimes, the sky looks blue to human beings since our
> eyes are more sensitive to blue. In reality, the sky is actually
> violet, but we can't see it.
>
OK, the way out of this mess is to first define what we mean by "blue", and
then see whether the sky matches that definition. "Blue", as far as I
understand it, is either a certain wavelength of light, or a range of them.
If the sky displays that set of wavelengths, then it is blue. If not, it's
not blue. We can get into all sorts of trouble by arguing that the sky
displays wavelengths we can't see (which it does - infrared and ultraviolet
both). But we can get around that if we are willing to abandon those
wavelengths that are outside the range of human perception.
Oh, I suppose we'd have to define what "sky" meant, and that might be more
difficult. The problem is that if we define it as air, it's basically
transparent. The blue comes from how the air scatters light. So is it the
*sky* that's blue? Beats the heck out of me...
I can't believe I'm sitting here admitting publicly that I don't know
whether the sky is blue...
Nevermore
Earth where I am posting from it is usually blue when the sun is shining.
What color is it on your planet?
Nevermore
Li Mu Bai
news:20031211003...@news.valley.net...
You have avoided addressing the fallacies that angelicusrex presented,
and instead, you have have distracted away from that fact, albeit
unintentionally.
Angelicusrex fallaciosly argued that the sky is blue because we
"agree" that the sky is blue. While it is true that colors have an
agreed upon meaning, the measurement of sky color can be done by
anyone and is repeatable. Also, angelicusrex argued that it is
"scientific factual knowledge" that the sky is blue, and that too is
incorrect. We perceive the sky as "blue" but the sky itself is a
mixture of blue and violet during the day, and yellow, orange, and red
during the sunrise and sunset.
Li Mu Bai
"Baruch" <Bar...@NOblessedb.orgSPAM> wrote in message
news:FWSBb.432322$0v4.20...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I can't believe I'm sitting here admitting publicly that I don't
know
> whether the sky is blue...
Look it up on any science site. The sky is not blue; we merely
perceive it as blue.
R.L. Lot
> "The Mad Doctor" <sawb...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>
> > Well, as a physician, I can attest that the only time people recover
> > after having been "down" for more than about 6 minutes is when they
> > have been put into a hypometabolic state (the body has been
> > significantly cooled) and usually then, only in young children (who
> > have a higher resistance to anoxia)
>
> O.K. There's my point, the other guy says eight minutes, you say six. I've
> heard from people who have been dead for HOURS. So who am I to believe?
Er, you aren't paying attention to what the good Doctor wrote. Read
it again.
He said that people can survive for MORE than 6 minutes when their
body goes into a hypometabolic state. IMO, this is probably an
evolutionary trait related to the mechanism behind hibernation in
animals.
Nevermore
humans look upward on a clear day and see a blue sky. Just because you
can find scientific information that suggests there is more to it
doesn't make the general statement "The sky is blue" any less true.
Humans are the only species that write books in which they mention
colors. When an author says "Under a clear blue sky" the other humans
know what is meant. The ability to generalize the obvious as a basis
for common understanding isn't a weakness of human intelligence, it's
one of it's chief strengths. That's why even though Shakespeare has
been dead for hundreds of years we are still deeply moved by his words.
If you have a scientific point to add that is relevent that suggests
there is more to the sky than just it's perceived blue hue that's one
thing, but to just declare when somebody says "I like the blue sky
today" that it's not really blue is just twisting words for the sake of
being argumentative.
Nevermore
tonyofbexa...@yahoo.dk
You finally got it. The sun does not shine on all parts of the earth
all the time does it? Furthermore, even when it is shining, different
weather conditions affect the apparent color of the sky. Most of the
time it does not even appear blue.
Nevermore
understand?
Baruch
> Look it up on any science site. The sky is not blue; we merely
> perceive it as blue.
>
But my point isn't whether *scientists* say it's blue. Who made those guys
boss? If what you're saying is true (and you haven't yet shown any evidence
that it is), then these scientists have some reason for their claim.
However, their technical reason may not be meaningful outside their context
(physics, meterology, whatever).
When you say we mrerely perceive something to be blue, you are suggesting
that the perception is not the definition. That may in fact be the case, if
we agree to it; however, so far I have seen no reason to agree to this.
What do we mean when we say something is blue (or cold, or good, or
whatever)? We are speaking of the effect it has on us; and in the case of
color, we are saying, in essence, that we are perceiving a certain range of
frequencies. If we define a color to mean *only* a certain range of
frequencies, then it is true that we can perceive something thus, while
still being exposed to imperceptible frequencies (as I noted in a previous
post). That is fine, if we take for our definition of color the *total*
input.
However, if we use as our definition our perception (which is how we
originally came up with the concept of "blue"), then we have a different
outcome.
When I look up at the daytime sky that is not overcast, I perceive a range
of frequencies that falls within the limits of "blue" as seen in the
spectum. Whether it is the sky I am seeing is not yet determined; however,
the light reaching my eyes is blue. Barring some compelling evidence to
convince me otherwise, I accept that this is a fact - that the light is in
the blue range. If this is *not* correct, perhaps you could point me to a
Website that discusses the matter, rather than telling me to check out "any"
scientific Website.
If, indeed, I am seeing blue, then the question becomes, *what* is blue - is
it the "sky" (which we haven't defined), or is it something else?
angelicusrex
Don't they understand that the sky is full of water vapor and that
scientists have recently concluded that water is indeed blue? That is the
frequency of vibrations which reach our eyes reflected from LARGE amounts of
water. It does not matter what dogs, birds, insects or dolphins see. WE
define the world in terms of our perceptions. We do not literally know what
other species "see." However it would not matter in that we cannot
communicate with them yet. Therefore to us the sky is blue. It is common
knowledge and scientific knowledge. What bugs me is these people want to be
contrary to anyone and everyone. They cannot agree with the simple
statement, the sky is usually blue. We are not talking
about a sky full of clouds. Clouds are white, grey, black (because they are
lesser volumes of frozen water which appear in such density that they tend
to obscure the color of the sky. This does not mean the sky changed color!
The sky remains blue. Water remains blue. That is why we see the earth as a
blue ball in space. Not a green one, not off white, not yellow, but BLUE.
Unless a person is blind, in which case they see nothing, the sky is blue.
Even at sunset, the sky is still blue, but the SUNLIGHT reflecting at
certain angles make it appear to be red, reddish, orange, yellowish, etc.
This is a light phenomenon, not the actual color of the sky. Just like some
bugs are iridescent. They are not any one color, they simply reflect
different colors from different angles. This is diffusion. The sky however
is blue with refractive qualities at certain times of the day and earth/sun
angles.
These people mix up the idea of "ad populum" arguments, that is, asking that
a person accept an assertion simply because a lot of people "believe it,"
with an argument which cites a percentage of the population as firmly
knowing and or understanding something which is common knowledge. Like
gravity. Or the sun is hot. The sun is hot. To humans! We can bring in a
whole lot of math and science to prove it. or we can simply argue that
everyone knows it is hot. Therefore if you are saying it is not hot, you are
either not human, lying or simply trying to be contrary.
My grandpa used to love to argue the sky was green. He'd go on and on, no
matter what evidence was given. Finally, in exasperation we'd say: "All
right! It's green! So what!?" And then he'd say: "You are stupid it is
obviously blue!" and start the whole process over again! Anyone can argue
anything, find "facts" for anything. But at some point an argument is either
pure stupidity to contribute to, or is so moot as to be without merit of any
kind. A blue sky vs other colored sky is just such an argument. It is
fallacious on the face of it, because there really is no argument.
Saint
"Baruch" <Bar...@NOblessedb.orgSPAM> wrote in message
news:mgaCb.181721$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Baruch
> I used to think you were a nit picker, until I met these atheists! Sheesh.
See? There are worse than me.
I still don't know if the sky is blue, but I will continue to assert this.
It is closest to the truth, as far as I am able to understand it. Maybe
some day I'll come to believe it's another color, but for now I'll go along
with the poets, lovers, the unwashed billions to whom the sky only *looks*
blue.
>
>
> My grandpa used to love to argue the sky was green. He'd go on and on, no
> matter what evidence was given. Finally, in exasperation we'd say: "All
> right! It's green! So what!?" And then he'd say: "You are stupid it is
> obviously blue!" and start the whole process over again! Anyone can argue
> anything, find "facts" for anything. But at some point an argument is
either
> pure stupidity to contribute to, or is so moot as to be without merit of
any
> kind. A blue sky vs other colored sky is just such an argument. It is
> fallacious on the face of it, because there really is no argument.
>
Remember the Greek Sophists? They'd argue a point, just like your grandpaw;
then they'd argue its opposite. Whoever said one thing, they'd take another
stance and argue them down. They apparently did this for a living. Some of
us are doing it for free now...
angelicusrex
"Baruch" <Bar...@NOblessedb.orgSPAM> wrote in message
> Hi, Saint...
>
> > I used to think you were a nit picker, until I met these atheists!
Sheesh.
>
> See? There are worse than me.
I know. I can almost forgive you your sins! Snicker!
>
> I still don't know if the sky is blue, but I will continue to assert this.
> It is closest to the truth, as far as I am able to understand it. Maybe
> some day I'll come to believe it's another color, but for now I'll go
along
> with the poets, lovers, the unwashed billions to whom the sky only *looks*
> blue.
> >
But dammit, the vibration of light which we see as blue is proven to exist!
It's all about the vibes, dude!
> >
> > My grandpa used to love to argue the sky was green. He'd go on and on,
no
> > matter what evidence was given. Finally, in exasperation we'd say: "All
> > right! It's green! So what!?" And then he'd say: "You are stupid it is
> > obviously blue!" and start the whole process over again! Anyone can
argue
> > anything, find "facts" for anything. But at some point an argument is
> either
> > pure stupidity to contribute to, or is so moot as to be without merit of
> any
> > kind. A blue sky vs other colored sky is just such an argument. It is
> > fallacious on the face of it, because there really is no argument.
> >
> Remember the Greek Sophists? They'd argue a point, just like your
grandpaw;
> then they'd argue its opposite. Whoever said one thing, they'd take
another
> stance and argue them down. They apparently did this for a living. Some
of
> us are doing it for free now...
I wondered why my Grandpa had a Greek Key design runningaround his
walls...Bastard was a Sophist! he did his for free too...but we had to pay
and pay.
Saint
>
>
Li Mu Bai
> But dammit, the vibration of light which we see as blue is proven to
exist!
> It's all about the vibes, dude!
And yet, your original claim, that the sky was blue because science
says so, was wrong. Science says that sky is a combination of blue
and violet.
Li Mu Bai
"Baruch" <Bar...@NOblessedb.orgSPAM> wrote in message
> I still don't know if the sky is blue, but I will continue to assert
this.
> It is closest to the truth, as far as I am able to understand it.
1. There is no such thing as "truth"
2. The sky may be blue where you are, red where it is setting. yellow
where it is rising, orange somewhere else, and black at night
Li Mu Bai
> It is common knowledge and scientific knowledge.
Again, you appeal to the ad populum fallacy. The sky is not blue
because it is common knowledge.
Li Mu Bai
news:brbl5e$1i5mt$1...@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
> WE define the world in terms of our perceptions.
Hence your errors. Perception is faulty, and the world is defined by
the laws of physics as we know them, which do not depend on human
perception.