Re: Why do atheist deny that atheism is a relegion, when the evidence shows them claiming to BE a Religion! B^p
fasgnadh
>
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Chaos out of Order wrote:
>>>
>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>>
>> So why do atheists claim it is?
>>
>>
>> # It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
>> #
>> #
>> # "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
>> # of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
>> #
>> # "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
>> # we're not one, Perkins said." - The Age 29/1/2009Dr
>>
>
> Fuck off, fasgnadh.
Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Unattractive Meatball #7
>Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
>and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
LOL. Some how your intellectual and moral superiors have managed to
hurt you a lot. "Stings a bit," does it? <smile>
By the way: Christians rape children as a matter of religious ideology.
---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Scientology is organized crime: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/la-megaraid-2010
No, gods and goddesses can't punish atheists, loon.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Fuck off, fasgnadh.
Fasgadh, the thug, is incapable of reason, he snips the evidence
and leaves nothing but witless abuse, revealing his irrationality.
Virgil
Perhaps if fasgadh were not himself an atheist wannabe (refusing to
admit belief in any gods), his attacks on atheism could be understood.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Pink Fraud had nothing but witless ad hom to offer:
>> >
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> Chaos out of Order wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>>>>
>>>> So why do atheists claim it is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
>>>> #
>>>> #
>>>> # "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
>>>> # of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
>>>> #
>>>> # "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
>>>> # we're not one, Perkins said." - The Age 29/1/2009Dr
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fuck off, fasgnadh.
>>
>> Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
>> and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
>>
>
Thanks for confirming my point! B^]
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Pink Fraud had nothing but witless ad hom to offer:
>> >
>>>> Chaos out of Order wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>>>>
>>>> So why do atheists claim it is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
>>>> #
>>>> #
>>>> # "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
>>>> # of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
>>>> #
>>>> # "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
>>>> # we're not one, Perkins said." - The Age 29/1/2009Dr
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
>> and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
>
> LOL.
atheists are ridiculous.. aren't they! B^D Endless fun!
> "Stings a bit"
ask your boyfriend not to stick it in so hard. B^]
> <smile>
Ah well, if you enjoy being shafted you will make the perfect
atheist sheep;
http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/RedGuardsLow.JPG
> By the way: Christians rape children as a matter of religious ideology.
Another weak minded atheist liar trying to snip the facts and change the
subject... pfffffft! They are all intellectual LIGHTWEIGHTS! B^D
Syd M.
> Father Haskell snipped the facts and RAN, spewing atheist abuse:
>
>
>
> Thanks for confirming my point! B^]
>
Your only point is how abuse is answered by abuse, wannabe thug.
PDW
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
> and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
Note that fasgadh is guilty of the same sort of witless abuse and
irrationality that he accuses others of committing.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> atheists are ridiculous
Not nearly as ridiculous in their justifiable skepticism as theists are
in their unjustifiable faiths.
Until all theists can agree on one consistent version of godliness, they
are all much more foolish in their diverse and mutually contradictory
faiths that atheists in their catholic skepticism.
Seon Ferguson
rituals. There is no priests in atheism like in typical religions and there
is no single creed all atheists adhere to. So how exactly is atheism a
religion again?
Maggsy
> Pink Fraud had nothing but witless ad hom to offer:
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> Chaos out of Order wrote:
>
> >>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>
> >> So why do atheists claim it is?
>
> >> # It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
> >> #
> >> #
> >> # "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
> >> # of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
> >> #
> >> # "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
> >> # we're not one, Perkins said." - The Age 29/1/2009Dr
>
> > Fuck off, fasgnadh.
>
> Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
> and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
>
This is very valid.And then they make false allegations that we have
edited posts.
> --
>
> alt.atheism FAQ:
>
> http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl...
>
> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
>
> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
>
> "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
> - Lenin
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
>
> http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-fa...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maggsy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> Chaos out of Order wrote:
>
> >>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>
> >> So why do atheists claim it is?
>
> >> # It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
> >> #
> >> #
> >> # "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
> >> # of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
> >> #
> >> # "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
> >> # we're not one, Perkins said." - The Age 29/1/2009Dr
>
> > Fuck off, fasgnadh.
>
> Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
> and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
>
> --
>
> alt.atheism FAQ:
>
> http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
>
>
> "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
> -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
>
> "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
> - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
>
> "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
> - Lenin
>
> http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
>
> http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bravo . Great post.Most likely this post will be ignored and dismissed.
Maggsy
wrote:
> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >Pink Fraud had nothing but witless ad hom to offer:
> >> Fuck off, fasgnadh.
> >Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
> >and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
>
> LOL. Some how your intellectual and moral superiors have managed to
> hurt you a lot.
So you say. Prove it?
"Stings a bit," does it? <smile>
>
> By the way: Christians rape children as a matter of religious ideology.
Prove it?
>
> ---
> Does belief in astrology cause insanity?http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Maggsy
> In article <aCtgn.9193$pv.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Perhaps if fasgadh were not himself an atheist wannabe (refusing to
> admit belief in any gods), his attacks on atheism could be understood.
What is your evidence for this assertion?This is just another of your
silly beliefs.
Sid9
"Maggsy" <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72ded600-0042-4754...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
.
King James Bible (corrected
"So man created God in his own image, in the image of man created he him;
male and female created he them."
Now, which God were we talking about?
Everyone seems to assert that their god is the "one true God"
Who's wrong?
Dangerous Nonconformist
> No objective evidence for the existence of ANY god has EVER been
> presented since the beginning of recorded history. Do you want to try to
> be the first? There could be a Nobel Prize in it for you.
No doubt you incorrectly believe your challenge to be at the heights of
intelligent thought. I have some bad news for you. It isn't. It's at the
other end of the scale. The very far other end.
Setting aside time as the 4th dimension, humans can only receive
information in a 3-dimensional world via their senses, such as hearing,
which records sound vibrations travelling through matter (air) and
perhaps bouncing off objects constructed of matter. The consequence is
that the only reality that can be perceived by humans is that of the 3-
dimensional world, i.e. all other dimensions cannot be perceived.
M-theory, formerly string theory, a branch of quantum mechanics, demands
that our universe has 11 dimensions.
Again excluding time as the 4th dimension, what method do you propose be
used to inspect the remaining 7 dimensions, which we cannot perceive with
our senses anyway, for objective evidence of any kind of god?
Until you atheists get those two very basic ideas (experiencing only 3
dimensions and a multi-dimensional universe) into your pig-shit thick
heads and understand the implications, every single one of you who
demands "objective evidence" for some kind of god should be given the
pillory and scorn you so richly deserve for being the unthinking nitwits
that you so obviously are.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> > >> Fuck off, fasgnadh.
> > >Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
> > >and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
>
> > LOL. Some how your intellectual and moral superiors have managed to
> > hurt you a lot.
> So you say. Prove it?
something by bill maher...he will teach you that Atheism is the one
and only true religion...And the only way you can be superior and
smart is to be part of it]
>
> > By the way: Christians rape children as a matter of religious ideology.
>
> Prove it?
gospel on faith.
ilbe...@gmail.com
Without a doubt, atheism is a secular religion . It has simularities
to Christian Churches around the country which are labeled
'religion' . Consider:
Atheism is religious in the sense that it is a comprehensive worldview
which seeks to explain the 'why' of existence. Because it has its own
creeds, their own 'scriptures', their own 'clergy', and thier own
closely knit groups for organized discussions / agendas , it is
correct
to label atheism as a religion (even if the particular individual is
not
a member of any atheist organization per se). . This may not be well
recieved amongst atheists because a major reason for thier apriori
philisophical bias against a personal Creator is due to the stigma
associated with the religious in society .
Compare these well known facts about atheism :
1. It is highly organized thruout this nation. There are many large
Atheist Organizations that would love a greater constituency, and they
try for that.
2. There are even Atheist Camps thruout the nation with a well
publicized large one in Ohio., where hostility toward God and
CHristians are promoted.
3. They meet regularly to discuss local and national agendas to spread
their religiousity thru proslytizing.
4. The Atheist Organizations collect dues regularly just like Churches
collect free will offerings on a Sunday to cover overhead, expenses,
activities, and material distribution.
5. They have very large national Conferences yearly just like Church
Denominations do. A very large one was held last year in Colorado.
6. There are active Internet Atheist NG's to educate followers in the
sheer impossibility of matter and naturalism accounting for the many
many complex designs and engineering of our Universe, Solar System,
Planet, Human Body, DNA, et al...
7. They collaborate to build up each other in their freewill chosen
lifestyles the same that Church Members build up one another in
following and obeying Christ as a lifestyle.
8. They lobby for macro evolution theories taught as 'scientific fact'
in
public schools without ANY time for Creationism ; whereas Creationists
want both to be presented so students can make a clear and concise
decision based on rationale and what REAL science has discovered.
9. Most National Atheist Organizations have logos, flags, and
banners...the same that national Church Denominations have.
...and 10. They have Museums located around the Country that show well
prepared artistry on fancy posterboards how apes gradually turned into
cave-men that turned into modern man (despite the fact that no
observation has ever occured for macro-evolution , to which even Prof.
Richard Dawkins (the Atheists Guru) freely admits .
YES, atheism is a secular religion with a belief system (a substitute
for the Creator) , a philosophy to live by incorporating such tenets
as moral relativism and lifestyle freedom since no ultimate
accountability exists , and a psychology to have no one more important
than SELF (no competition and no infringement to ones desired
fun) .
Tim Miller
> Without a doubt, atheism is a secular religion . It has simularities
> to Christian Churches around the country which are labeled
> 'religion' . Consider:
>
> Atheism is religious in the sense that it is a comprehensive worldview
> which seeks to explain the 'why' of existence.
Heh heh. You don't know ANYTHING about it, do you??
But then, you don't even know that much about your OWN
"faith", so who's surprised??
LOL!!
Virgil
<dac84273-7a0f-48bf...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Without doubt, "IlBeBauck" is an ass.
> It has simularities to Christian Churches around the country which
> are labeled 'religion' . Consider:
Consider that "IlBeBauck" cannot even create a grammatical subject line,
much less a coherent case.
Consider that anyone trying to sell what "IlBeBauck" is hawking is a
prime candidate for the funny farm.
Devils Advocaat
And there is where your entire argument about atheism being a religion
falls flat on its face.
Atheism doesn't seek to explain the 'why' of existence.
Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on
the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such things.
I always thought bearing false witness against one's neighbour is
supposed to be a sin in your religion.
Perhaps I missed the memo which says otherwise?
Kadaitcha Man
thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
> Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on
> the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such things.
Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
Do you have any evidence to show that everything that exists only exists
as matter in three dimensions? On what basis do you found your implied
assumption that a god or gods consist only of perceptible matter existing
in three dimensions?
Before you go riding off into the sunset, pedalling for your pathetic
little life on your little red Elmo tricycle, allow me to put a large
metal pole into your rapidly rotating spokes...
By virtue of his senses, man can only perceive that which exists in a
three dimensional material world consisting only of matter. That is to
say, any reality that extends beyond either three dimensions or matter is
imperceptible to man. That is an indisputable scientific fact.
Setting aside the fact that your demand requires some god, which is
assumedly some higher being than your pathetic self, to conform to your
one-eyed and completely mangled idea of reality. M-Theory, formerly
string theory, a subset of quantum theory, demands no less than eleven
dimensions. You live in and experience three dimensions. Science says
there are eleven dimensions.
Read that again. You experience reality in 3 dimensions but science says
reality is comprised of eleven dimensions. Notice the ever so slight
discrepancy of 8 dimensions between your puny idea of reality and the
actuality of reality?
What scientific method do you propose is sufficient to allow a supposed
or alleged higher-dimensional being to be dragged down from up to 11
dimensions into three dimensions such that it may be inspected with your
five empirical senses?
Given that you operate within three dimensions, and given that up to the
minute science requires eleven dimensions, which all of us are completely
incapable of perceiving beyond the first three, do you honestly and
earnestly believe that it is logical to assert "Atheism is simply the
rejection of the existence of any god or gods on the basis that there is
no evidence for the existence of such things"?
If your answer is yes, then provide the inter-dimensional evidence that
can be inspected in three dimensions. That would require you to produce
verifiable evidence that no god or gods exist from within multiple
dimensions that you cannot possibly perceive.
If your answer is no, then perhaps it is wise to shut up rather than
perpetuating the idea that alt.atheism atheists have IQs lower than any
number of dark, dank area-loving lichens, garden slugs and sundry shrubs.
In either case, it is wise for you to shut up.
Any reply from you that is not an admission by you to you being an
unthinking atheist nitwit will be construed as your admission to you
being an unthinking atheist nitwit.
Do you understand?
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise thee,
> thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>
> > Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on
> > the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such things.
>
> Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
> everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
Don't you mean "if the entirety of everything existed as matter and
energy in only four dimensions"? :)
>
> Do you have any evidence to show that everything that exists only exists
> as matter in three dimensions?
As I made no such assertion, there is no obligation on my part to
provide evidence for such. :)
> On what basis do you found your implied
> assumption that a god or gods consist only of perceptible matter existing
> in three dimensions?
Again I made no such assertion, ergo there is no need for me to defend
it. :)
>
> Before you go riding off into the sunset, pedalling for your pathetic
> little life on your little red Elmo tricycle, allow me to put a large
> metal pole into your rapidly rotating spokes...
Now why do you feel the need to be so insulting?
>
> By virtue of his senses, man can only perceive that which exists in a
> three dimensional material world consisting only of matter.
You keep forgetting time and energy, why is that?
> That is to
> say, any reality that extends beyond either three dimensions or matter is
> imperceptible to man.
If any reality exists beyond spacetime, matter and energy and remains
imperceptible it is because it cannot interact with our realm of
spacetime, matter and energy.
And if it cannot interact with our realm that is the same as if it
doesn't exist at all. :)
> That is an indisputable scientific fact.
You keep forgetting time and energy, why is that? :)
>
> Setting aside the fact that your demand requires some god, which is
> assumedly some higher being than your pathetic self, to conform to your
> one-eyed and completely mangled idea of reality.
Did I say this entity had to conform to anything? :)
> M-Theory, formerly
> string theory, a subset of quantum theory, demands no less than eleven
> dimensions. You live in and experience three dimensions. Science says
> there are eleven dimensions.
String theory (or one should say theories as there is more than one of
them) attempt to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity, so
string theory is not a subset of quantum theory.
M-Theory embraces all versions of string theory, and it doesn't demand
but predicts that spacetime consists of eleven dimensions.
I don't know about you, but I live in and experience four dimensions
not three.
Science doesn't say there are eleven dimensions, this is a prediction
of M-Theory which has yet to be supported by any experimental evidence
or observation.
>
> Read that again. You experience reality in 3 dimensions but science says
> reality is comprised of eleven dimensions. Notice the ever so slight
> discrepancy of 8 dimensions between your puny idea of reality and the
> actuality of reality?
I experience reality in 4 dimensions, and if as you previously
suggested there is any reality beyond and imperceptible to the senses
(and devices made by man I might add) then it is the same as if that
reality doesn't exist.
>
> What scientific method do you propose is sufficient to allow a supposed
> or alleged higher-dimensional being to be dragged down from up to 11
> dimensions into three dimensions such that it may be inspected with your
> five empirical senses?
If such an entity exists and is able to interact with our four
dimensional realm, then it should be no problem for that entity to
make itself apparent to us mere mortals.
May I suggest that you get yourself a copy of "Flatland: A Romance of
Many Dimensions" by Edwin Abbott Abbott.
It will give you an idea of how such an entity could interact with an
entity such as you or I.
You don't even have to spend any money to get a copy:
http://www.eldritchpress.org/eaa/FL.HTM
>
> Given that you operate within three dimensions,
Not three, but four as I have said before.
> and given that up to the
> minute science requires eleven dimensions,
The existence of these additional dimensions is a prediction of M-
Theory which has yet to garner any support in the form of experimental
evidence or observations.
> which all of us are completely
> incapable of perceiving beyond the first three,
If it is impossible to perceive these dimensions, that suggests that
these dimensions contain nothing that can interact with our own realm,
and if there is no interaction, then that is the same thing as if
those dimensions do not exist.
> do you honestly and
> earnestly believe that it is logical to assert "Atheism is simply the
> rejection of the existence of any god or gods on the basis that there is
> no evidence for the existence of such things"?
The existence or non-existence of these predicted (but as yet
unverified) additional spatial dimensions of M-Theory in no way has
any bearing on the existence or non-existence of gods of any sort.
My statement with respect to atheism is not an assertion, it is a
typical and commonly recognised definition of the worldview called
atheism.
>
> If your answer is yes, then provide the inter-dimensional evidence that
> can be inspected in three dimensions. That would require you to produce
> verifiable evidence that no god or gods exist from within multiple
> dimensions that you cannot possibly perceive.
Actually the onus is not on me to present evidence for the non-
existence of any god or gods, the onus is on those who believe in the
existence of such to present independently verifiable evidence for the
existence of their god or gods.
>
> If your answer is no, then perhaps it is wise to shut up rather than
> perpetuating the idea that alt.atheism atheists have IQs lower than any
> number of dark, dank area-loving lichens, garden slugs and sundry shrubs.
>
> In either case, it is wise for you to shut up.
So you don't want me to answer your post, despite your presenting
issues that need to be addressed by myself?
Sounds a tad daft to me. :)
>
> Any reply from you that is not an admission by you to you being an
> unthinking atheist nitwit will be construed as your admission to you
> being an unthinking atheist nitwit.
I never said I was an atheist, so it is wrong of you to presume that I
am, without being able to provide evidence that I am such a person.
>
> Do you understand?
Indeed I do, but the question could be, do you?
Kadaitcha Man
fellows as I do, crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves
all, believe none of us. Ye quibbled:
> On 6 Mar, 09:35, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
>> "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise
>> thee, thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>>
>> > Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods
>> > on the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such
>> > things.
>>
>> Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
>> everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
>
> Don't you mean "if the entirety of everything existed as matter and
> energy in only four dimensions"? :)
I am reasonably certain that had I meant something other than what I
wrote I would have written something other than what I wrote.
One.
>> Do you have any evidence to show that everything that exists only
>> exists as matter in three dimensions?
>
> As I made no such assertion, there is no obligation on my part to
> provide evidence for such. :)
Look up the meaning of 'logic "necessarily entails"'.
Two.
>> On what basis do you found your implied assumption that a god or gods
>> consist only of perceptible matter existing in three dimensions?
>
> Again I made no such assertion, ergo there is no need for me to defend
> it. :)
Take very careful note of the phrase "implied assumption".
Three.
>> Before you go riding off into the sunset, pedalling for your pathetic
>> little life on your little red Elmo tricycle, allow me to put a large
>> metal pole into your rapidly rotating spokes...
>
> Now why do you feel the need to be so insulting?
Oh, you feel insulted by being alerted with a dash of verve to your
blatant errors of logic?
>> By virtue of his senses, man can only perceive that which exists in a
>> three dimensional material world consisting only of matter.
>
> You keep forgetting time and energy, why is that?
Einstein asserted that time is an illusion. Perhaps you should take the
issue of time up with him.
As for energy, what do you believe it is that man does or not perceive
about energy via his five senses?
>> That is to
>> say, any reality that extends beyond either three dimensions or matter
>> is imperceptible to man.
>
> If any reality exists beyond spacetime, matter and energy and remains
> imperceptible it is because it cannot interact with our realm of
> spacetime, matter and energy.
The assertion is that no reality exists beyond what is perceived by the
five senses.
Your point is what exactly?
> And if it cannot interact with our realm that is the same as if it
> doesn't exist at all. :)
And the evidence for your assertion, apart from blithering and
meaningless bullshit, is what?
Four.
>> That is an indisputable scientific fact.
>
> You keep forgetting time and energy, why is that? :)
Five.
>> Setting aside the fact that your demand requires some god, which is
>> assumedly some higher being than your pathetic self, to conform to your
>> one-eyed and completely mangled idea of reality.
>
> Did I say this entity had to conform to anything? :)
Look up the phrase "necessarily entails".
Six.
>> M-Theory, formerly
>> string theory, a subset of quantum theory, demands no less than eleven
>> dimensions. You live in and experience three dimensions. Science says
>> there are eleven dimensions.
>
> String theory (or one should say theories as there is more than one of
> them) attempt to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity, so
> string theory is not a subset of quantum theory.
>
> M-Theory embraces all versions of string theory
You got a cite for that bullshit opinion asserted as fact? Cough it up,
atheist.
>, and it doesn't demand
> but predicts that spacetime consists of eleven dimensions.
Wrong.
http://www.google.com/search?q=m-theory+for+dummies
http://books.google.com/books?id=fFSMatekilIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%
22extra+Dimensions+in+space+and+time%22&cd=1
> I don't know about you, but I live in and experience four dimensions not
> three.
Time is a temporal dimension, not a spatial dimension, you atheistic
nitwit.
What human sense organ detects and measures the progress of time?
You are aware that that 'temporal' is a euphemism for "it's all in your
head", yes? No? Not sure?
> Science doesn't say there are eleven dimensions, this is a prediction of
> M-Theory which has yet to be supported by any experimental evidence or
> observation.
Round and round you go. Of course, you're too dense to realise you just
put yourself right back where I started you from, hey.
>> Read that again. You experience reality in 3 dimensions but science
>> says reality is comprised of eleven dimensions. Notice the ever so
>> slight discrepancy of 8 dimensions between your puny idea of reality
>> and the actuality of reality?
>
> I experience reality in 4 dimensions,
Einstein said that time is an illusion. I already told you, at least
twice, that Einstein's assertion means time is entirely in your head and
not anywhere else. Please show your mathematical equations that prove
Einstein wrong. Your pencil-scribblings in the margin are worth 20%.
> and if as you previously suggested
> there is any reality beyond and imperceptible to the senses (and devices
> made by man I might add) then it is the same as if that reality doesn't
> exist.
I assume that particular set of meaningless balderdash means something to
you. Quite what I do not know.
>> What scientific method do you propose is sufficient to allow a supposed
>> or alleged higher-dimensional being to be dragged down from up to 11
>> dimensions into three dimensions such that it may be inspected with
>> your five empirical senses?
>
> If such an entity exists and is able to interact with our four
> dimensional realm
Time is a temporal dimension, not a spatial dimension, remember?
> then it should be no problem for that entity to make
> itself apparent to us mere mortals.
Of course it should be no problem. Let us assume, for the sake of
argument only, that entity X in dimension Y has the full ability "to make
itself apparent to us mere mortals".
Now, what if entity X chooses not to make itself apparent to us mere
mortals? What exactly are you going to do about that?
snork
> May I suggest
No, you may not.
Oh, about the One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six lines. That was the
count of your smiley faces. I take it that either you are not confident
in asserting your bullshit atheistic blitherings as verifiable scientific
fact or that you are an obsequiously acquiescent and fawning sycophant
looking in all the wrong places for psychological support of your
exceedingly weak personality.
You may choose one or the other or both.
Personality, for want of a better word.
Prophet
<danger...@nonconformist.c0m> wrote:
You would //think// the atheists would get a clue from the animals.
Then smell the coffee so-to-speak. But they don't. (A rather thick lot
they are).
Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way beyond
human ability.
The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the tsunami.
But the humans stayed and died.
It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving God
directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
God says in the bible that man will look and look but never find him.
He can't. Man is unable. That's why.
How many times have I read: "Where is your evidence for God"?
There are evidences. But man cannot directly percive the causes. Man
is too limited in ability to understand God or what God has done.
So man has invented "science" to explain the world and what God hath
wrought.
Only now, this man made science wants to replace God with things like
the ToE. The Big Bang Theory, and other wild exotic frabrications.
Which is rather amusing if you ask me. Because science is going to be
as limited as man's abilities are. Which as i said earlier, are not as
sharp as the common house pet's abilities.
How can one posibiliy make the claim that there is no evidence for God
when the tools that gather evidence are limited to only what man can
percieve?
What does this mean? The atheists have drawn a nice neat little box
around themselves and then make the claim that nothing exists outside
of this boc.
heh...
�n�hw��f
with news:09dk2a$d40$1...@squat-charity-moll.biz.estonia:
Oh I do :)
What youve set up is a rock so big you yourself cant lift it.
Due to the "reasons" you give "God" is an esentially undetectable
unknowable quality-thing-concept-potential being. At least by human
perceptual abilities.
Therefore, if "Gods" existance can never be provably known or
quantified in any way, only fucking morons will waste their time
pondering "him". Smart people will say fuck it. And get on with their
miserable lives. And sceptics like me will say bring that lazy fucker
Jesus over here and have him fix my stuff.
FYI
HTH
^_^
--
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You really are dishonest, Dave.
>Atheism is religious in the sense that it is a comprehensive worldview
>which seeks to explain the 'why' of existence.
No, atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. It does nothing else.
> Because it has its own
>creeds, their own 'scriptures', their own 'clergy', and thier own
>closely knit groups for organized discussions / agendas , it is correct
>to label atheism as a religion (even if the particular individual is not
>a member of any atheist organization per se).
No, atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. It does nothing else.
>This may not be well
>recieved amongst atheists because a major reason for thier apriori
>philisophical bias against a personal Creator is due to the stigma
>associated with the religious in society .
You make assertions that you cannot back up with evidence, but expect to
be treated with respect after years of bearing false witness here. Why?
You are an ignorant liar.
>Compare these well known facts about atheism :
>
>1. It is highly organized thruout this nation. There are many large
>Atheist Organizations that would love a greater constituency, and they
>try for that.
Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. A few atheists do join
together for various reasons, but none are religious.
>2. There are even Atheist Camps thruout the nation with a well
>publicized large one in Ohio., where hostility toward God and
>CHristians are promoted.
You've never been to such a camp. You promote hostility to God with your
lies. You make a mockery of Christianity with your foolishness.
>3. They meet regularly to discuss local and national agendas to spread
>their religiousity thru proslytizing.
So you claim. Do you think I am proselytizing by pointing out that you
are intentionally ignorant and a liar and that you call God a trickster
with your doctrines?
>4. The Atheist Organizations collect dues regularly just like Churches
>collect free will offerings on a Sunday to cover overhead, expenses,
>activities, and material distribution.
Lots of organizations collect dues. That does not make them religious.
>5. They have very large national Conferences yearly just like Church
>Denominations do. A very large one was held last year in Colorado.
Oracle users have conferences. Does that make them religious?
>6. There are active Internet Atheist NG's to educate followers in the
>sheer impossibility of matter and naturalism accounting for the many
>many complex designs and engineering of our Universe, Solar System,
>Planet, Human Body, DNA, et al...
You are now going into your area of greatest ignorance. You have once
again confused science with atheism. Do try to learn. I realize that you
think that knowledge is against your religion, but it certainly isn't
rejected by Christianity.
>7. They collaborate to build up each other in their freewill chosen
>lifestyles the same that Church Members build up one another in
>following and obeying Christ as a lifestyle.
No, atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. It does nothing else.
>8. They lobby for macro evolution theories taught as 'scientific fact' in
>public schools without ANY time for Creationism ; whereas Creationists
>want both to be presented so students can make a clear and concise
>decision based on rationale and what REAL science has discovered.
Once again, you show us that you worship lies and are opposed to
knowledge. If your religious doctrines have been shown false by
scientific discoveries, it is because your doctrines are wrong. Atheism
has nothing to do with it.
>9. Most National Atheist Organizations have logos, flags, and
>banners...the same that national Church Denominations have.
Texas does to. Is it a religion?
>...and 10. They have Museums located around the Country that show well
>prepared artistry on fancy posterboards how apes gradually turned into
>cave-men that turned into modern man (despite the fact that no
>observation has ever occured for macro-evolution , to which even Prof.
>Richard Dawkins (the Atheists Guru) freely admits .
Again with your attack on science. It has nothing to do with atheism.
You know that. We know that. You can repeat your lies as long as you
like, they will still be lies.
>YES, atheism is a secular religion with a belief system (a substitute
>for the Creator) , a philosophy to live by incorporating such tenets
>as moral relativism and lifestyle freedom since no ultimate
>accountability exists , and a psychology to have no one more important
>than SELF (no competition and no infringement to ones desired
>fun) .
You have failed completely to support your claim. Congratulations on
being proudly dishonest again. I'm sure that your God would send you to
Hell for being such an immoral liar if your God actually existed.
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise thee,
>thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>
>> Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on
>> the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such things.
>
>Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
>everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
What alternatives do you have based on the evidence?
>Do you have any evidence to show that everything that exists only exists
>as matter in three dimensions? On what basis do you found your implied
>assumption that a god or gods consist only of perceptible matter existing
>in three dimensions?
Oh, your imagination is the evidnece. Right.
>Before you go riding off into the sunset, pedalling for your pathetic
>little life on your little red Elmo tricycle, allow me to put a large
>metal pole into your rapidly rotating spokes...
>
>By virtue of his senses, man can only perceive that which exists in a
>three dimensional material world consisting only of matter. That is to
>say, any reality that extends beyond either three dimensions or matter is
>imperceptible to man. That is an indisputable scientific fact.
Four dimensions at a non-quantum level, but we'll go with your
misunderstanding of physics to see where you are leading.
>Setting aside the fact that your demand requires some god, which is
>assumedly some higher being than your pathetic self, to conform to your
>one-eyed and completely mangled idea of reality. M-Theory, formerly
>string theory, a subset of quantum theory, demands no less than eleven
>dimensions. You live in and experience three dimensions. Science says
>there are eleven dimensions.
That made no sense.
>Read that again. You experience reality in 3 dimensions but science says
>reality is comprised of eleven dimensions. Notice the ever so slight
>discrepancy of 8 dimensions between your puny idea of reality and the
>actuality of reality?
No, you didn't really understand that hypothesis.
>What scientific method do you propose is sufficient to allow a supposed
>or alleged higher-dimensional being to be dragged down from up to 11
>dimensions into three dimensions such that it may be inspected with your
>five empirical senses?
So, you know there isn't any reason to accept claims about gods.
>Given that you operate within three dimensions, and given that up to the
>minute science requires eleven dimensions, which all of us are completely
>incapable of perceiving beyond the first three, do you honestly and
>earnestly believe that it is logical to assert "Atheism is simply the
>rejection of the existence of any god or gods on the basis that there is
>no evidence for the existence of such things"?
>
>If your answer is yes, then provide the inter-dimensional evidence that
>can be inspected in three dimensions. That would require you to produce
>verifiable evidence that no god or gods exist from within multiple
>dimensions that you cannot possibly perceive.
>
>If your answer is no, then perhaps it is wise to shut up rather than
>perpetuating the idea that alt.atheism atheists have IQs lower than any
>number of dark, dank area-loving lichens, garden slugs and sundry shrubs.
>
>In either case, it is wise for you to shut up.
>
>Any reply from you that is not an admission by you to you being an
>unthinking atheist nitwit will be construed as your admission to you
>being an unthinking atheist nitwit.
>
>Do you understand?
You have no clue. Have you considered taking a logic class?
Heather L.
So your 'logic' works like this:
i) humans only experience 3 dimensions;
and
ii) the universe is multi-dimensional;
therefore
iii) Jehovah exists.
Nah. Still a load of shit.
HL.
Ralph
An excellent logical analysis that shows it is a load of shit:-).
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ca68949-1a80-4b06...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
((((( I'm not sure that's true. Atheism is more a counter to claims about
gods - than the rejection (or the possiblility) of gods.
Atheists cannot reject what isn't there - but they can, and do, reject any
invented, unsupported, arguments from believers about there BEING a
(specific ?) god.
Before humans came up with supernatural beliefs, everyone was not
"atheistic". There was no title for just being, and not having a belief
either way.
When some of mankind started getting the idea
(inventing/creating/finding/imagining) of god - there were others who didn't
see what wasn't there. (who were then called "atheists" - which, by the way,
is a demeaning term. Believers were the abnormal "rogues", not "a"theists.)
Atheism, now, is what it always was - the reality that there is no reason to
believe in (or even think about) something that isn't there. (The fact that
there is no valid evidence for+ does not support atheism ... it only shows
that claimants of gods have no basis for their claims.
This also puts it in the perspective that the "outsiders", in this case, are
NOT the atheists - but the ones who moved away by creating something to
believe in - whether it was unsupported, fictional, delusional insane or
anything else.
(as a side note ...... "morality" already existed long before any god was
ever imagined, or any book about such gods ever written).
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
news:09dk2a$d40$1...@squat-charity-moll.biz.estonia...
No!
It would be wise for those who imagine an entity - entirely without valid
evidence - to shut up about claiming the existance of such an entity.
Unless these "delusional" believers can prove that their beliefs are based
on facts accrued from the other dimensions - it means they are doing nothing
more than blowing meaningless smoke.
(By the way, the concept that there are "X" number of dimensions - what they
are, where they are and, certainly, ANY reality about them is NOT unarguable
fact - but dubious speculation.)
>
> Any reply from you that is not an admission by you to you being an
> unthinking atheist nitwit will be construed as your admission to you
> being an unthinking atheist nitwit.
>
> Do you understand?
Any rejection of the clam that your mother & sister sell "it" on a street
corner, will only be construed that the claim your mother and sister sell
"it" on the street corner has some validity.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
> "Devils Advocaat", thou burr-headed haught insulting man. What such
> fellows as I do, crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves
> all, believe none of us. Ye quibbled:
>
>> On 6 Mar, 09:35, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
>>> "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise
>>> thee, thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>>>
>>> > Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods
>>> > on the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such
>>> > things.
>>>
>>> Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
>>> everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
>>
>> Don't you mean "if the entirety of everything existed as matter and
>> energy in only four dimensions"? :)
>
> I am reasonably certain that had I meant something other than what I
> wrote I would have written something other than what I wrote.
?????????????
That doesn't make what you wrote any less insane.
Kadaitcha Man
thyself. Ye disparaged:
If God is not matter then God can never be known by our senses.
> only fucking morons will waste their time pondering "him".
> Smart people will say fuck it. And get on with their miserable lives.
> And sceptics like me will say bring that lazy fucker Jesus over here and
> have him fix my stuff.
Nothing I have asserted implies that a non-material God is unable to make
itself known by kicking you fair in the psyche with a size 12 hobnail
boot thereby inducing one hell of a supernatural headache.
> FYI
> HTH
>
> ^_^
:)
Kadaitcha Man
suits. Ye spattered:
> Oh, your imagination is the evidnece. Right.
> That made no sense.
> No, you didn't really understand that hypothesis.
> So, you know there isn't any reason to accept claims about gods.
> You have no clue. Have you considered taking a logic class?
WOW! Yet another utterly destructive counter-argument.
Kadaitcha Man
thing better than dirt. Ye agonised:
> "Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
> news:462ls5$yj5$6...@toothless-scarlet-lady.co.paraguay...
>> "Devils Advocaat", thou burr-headed haught insulting man. What such
>> fellows as I do, crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant
>> knaves all, believe none of us. Ye quibbled:
>>> Don't you mean "if the entirety of everything existed as matter and
>>> energy in only four dimensions"? :)
>> I am reasonably certain that had I meant something other than what I
>> wrote I would have written something other than what I wrote.
>
> ?????????????
> That doesn't make what you wrote any less insane.
And that's a problem for someone other than you to deal with, is it?
Kadaitcha Man
Why, thou clay brained guts, thou knotty pated fool, thou whoreson
obscene greasy tallow catch. Ye driveled:
Of course, you wrote that without ever once perceiving what you were
replying to for what it actually was, a complete destruction of the
atheistic notion of demanding "valid evidence".
Well done, Noddy. You are, without a doubt, fully qualified to be an
alt.atheism atheist.
Kadaitcha Man
art thou, a rampaging fool, to brag and stamp and swear. Ye orated:
Yes.
> ii) the universe is multi-dimensional; therefore
Yes.
> iii) Jehovah exists.
No such claim was ever made. Your mad imagination seems to have got the
better of you.
> Nah. Still a load of shit.
Et tu, Brute.
> HL.
Kadaitcha Man
Ignorant and blockheaded atheistic logik only makes sense to other
ignorant and blockheaded atheists.
Where 'ignorant and blockheaded atheists' is a tautology.
Father Haskell
>
> If God is not matter then God can never be known by our senses.
Either condition would satisfy the requirements of nonexistance.
Smiler
"My god is hiding in another dimension." is, at least, an original excuse
for why there is no evidence, but still an excuse.
Please explain how you *know* he is in another dimension. Your beliefs are
not knowledge.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Smiler
Which animals believe in a god?
Which god do they believe in?
How do they worship him?
Where would I find an animal's church?
Hey, we do get a clue from animals. We don't believe in any gods either!
> Then smell the coffee so-to-speak. But they don't. (A rather thick lot
> they are).
>
Except that we don't believe without evidence, and you do.
Pssst! Wanna buy a bridge?
> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way beyond
> human ability.
>
So what?
> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the tsunami.
> But the humans stayed and died.
>
Again, so what?
> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving God
> directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
= "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
leprechauns directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too."
Still looking for that crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?
>
> God says in the bible that man will look and look but never find him.
Assuming your conclusion doesn't help your argument. Until you show that
there is a god to say *anything*, why should we believe you? The bible is
nothing more than a fairy tale unless you can show otherwise. There is no
evidence for most of the stories in it and some are downright lies.
> He can't. Man is unable. That's why.
So you are unable to perceive your god, exactly as we atheists claim.
If you are unable to do that, why should we believe you?
>
> How many times have I read: "Where is your evidence for God"?
>
About as many times as I have read "I have evidence." but none is ever
presented.
> There are evidences.
Then present them or shut up.
N.B. Your beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are not evidence.
> But man cannot directly percive the causes.
More made-up excuses for why your god is unevidenced. Almost as if it didn't
exist.
> Man
> is too limited in ability to understand God or what God has done.
= Man is too limited in ability to understand leprechauns or what
leprechauns have done.
Still looking for that crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?
>
> So man has invented "science" to explain the world and what God hath
> wrought.
Again you assume your conclusion. Until you can show evidence for your god's
existence, he hasn't wrought anything.
>
> Only now, this man made science wants to replace God with things like
> the ToE. The Big Bang Theory, and other wild exotic frabrications.
Then please explain why you are using a computer, a product of man made
'fabricated' science?
>
> Which is rather amusing if you ask me.
Nobody did.
> Because science is going to be
> as limited as man's abilities are.
Then we cannot fly in aeroplanes, travel to the moon, etc., etc., etc.,
etc., etc. as our abilities in those things are limited?
> Which as i said earlier, are not as
> sharp as the common house pet's abilities.
>
Which household pet invented the computer?
<DNA said it was the mice :-)>
> How can one posibiliy make the claim that there is no evidence for God
> when the tools that gather evidence are limited to only what man can
> percieve?
If your god is beyond human perception, how do *you* know he exists? Because
you're *not* human?
>
> What does this mean?
It means that you have no evidence for the god you believe in.
Pssst. Wanna buy a bridge?
<gratuitous insult snipped>
Kadaitcha Man
whooped:
Oh, look! A straw man!
Where did I claim "he is in another dimension"? Where did I define any
god, let alone any god exhibiting male attributes, which you now identify
as being a "he"?
Well?
I strongly suggest you try to get out of that self-created and very deep
pit of a predicament because your failure to respond, either at all or
adequately, will be taken as your tacit admission that you believe in the
existence of things not known to exist at all. And isn't that what you
nitwit atheists accuse theists of doing? Hmmm?
<lights match>
<FOOF>
Pity about your straw man, hey, and after all the effort you put into
building it with lashings of irrational atheistic illogik...
--
I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
variation:
God = Metaphysical X
Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
Alex W.
> Which animals believe in a god?
My dog.
> Which god do they believe in?
Me.
> How do they worship him?
The usual -- tail-wagging, delirious delight upon my safe return
from the shops, whiny begging and other signs of utter
submission, willingness to fetch, roll over, beg, kill at my
command....
> Where would I find an animal's church?
My animal's church is my castle.
:-)
>
> Hey, we do get a clue from animals. We don't believe in any gods either!
>
>> Then smell the coffee so-to-speak. But they don't. (A rather thick lot
>> they are).
>>
>
> Except that we don't believe without evidence, and you do.
> Pssst! Wanna buy a bridge?
I don't have much room.
Can I have the abridged version?
>
>> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
>> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way beyond
>> human ability.
>>
>
> So what?
He means your dog is closer to his god because it can smell him.
>
>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the tsunami.
>> But the humans stayed and died.
>>
>
> Again, so what?
>
>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving God
>> directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
>
> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
> leprechauns directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too."
> Still looking for that crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?
Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
terminals.
> So you are unable to perceive your god, exactly as we atheists claim.
> If you are unable to do that, why should we believe you?
<pretzel logic>
Ummm ... inability to perceive him is proof positive of his
existence?
</pretzel logic>
>
>>
>> How many times have I read: "Where is your evidence for God"?
>>
>
> About as many times as I have read "I have evidence." but none is ever
> presented.
You do not have high enough clearance to see the evidence.
:-)
>> Because science is going to be
>> as limited as man's abilities are.
>
> Then we cannot fly in aeroplanes, travel to the moon, etc., etc., etc.,
> etc., etc. as our abilities in those things are limited?
Our abilities are only limited by our imagination.
Jimbo
> "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise thee,
> thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>
> > Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on
> > the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such things.
>
> Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
> everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
>
> Do you have any evidence to show that everything that exists only exists
> as matter in three dimensions?
Four dimensions. Matter exists in lenght, Width, Depth, and Time.
On what basis do you found your implied
> assumption that a god or gods consist only of perceptible matter existing
> in three dimensions?
>
Can you show objective evidence that a god or gods exists anywhere, in
any dimension?
�n�hw��f
I found Jebus:
http://www.ozini.com/?p=8758
Word.
Sla#s
<SNIP>> Nothing I have asserted implies that a non-material God is unable to
> make itself known by kicking you fair in the psyche with a size 12
> hobnail boot thereby inducing one hell of a supernatural headache.
Ah yes - the 'supernatural headache'.
The one that does not exist in nature.
Slatts
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise thee,
> thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>
> > Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on
> > the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such things.
>
> Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
> everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
Proof that god-bothers live in a different world: one with only three
dimensions!
1) Is that X and Y and Z, with no time?
2) How about X and Y with time (which is kinda-flat-earthish!)
I doubt 'Kadaitcha Man' even knows what cartesian space is, let alone
the flaws in that.
> in three dimensions? [snip] in three dimensions [snip] which exists in a
> three dimensional material world [snip] That is an indisputable scientific fact.
*giggle*
> M-Theory, formerly string theory, a subset of quantum theory [snip]
Dude, chucking about technical terms does not mean that you know what
yo are babbling about. It makes you look like a moron.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip
> Einstein asserted that time is an illusion. [snip]
> Einstein said that time is an illusion. I already told you,
> at least twice, that Einstein's assertion means time is
> entirely in your head and not anywhere else.
Talk about a misrepresentation!
Do you always babble out soundbites from The Discovery Channel?
Kadaitcha Man
thy fat already pride. Ye hung crepe:
> On Mar 7, 2:49 am, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote: [snip
>> Einstein asserted that time is an illusion. [snip] Einstein said that
>> time is an illusion. I already told you, at least twice, that
>> Einstein's assertion means time is entirely in your head and not
>> anywhere else.
>
> Talk about a misrepresentation!
Do you have a better representation?
> Do you always babble out soundbites from The Discovery Channel?
I take that as no.
Kadaitcha Man
callet. Ye dinned:
> On Mar 6, 5:16 pm, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
>>
>> If God is not matter then God can never be known by our senses.
>
> Either condition would satisfy the requirements of nonexistance.
Web Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "requirements for non-existence". (0.05
seconds)
Web Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "requirements of nonexistence". (0.17 seconds)
Web Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "requirements of non-existence". (0.12 seconds)
Web Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "requirements for non-existence". (0.04
seconds)
Web Results 1 - 6 of 6 for "non-existence requirements". (0.17 seconds)
Web Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "rules of non-existence". (0.28 seconds)
A definition of requirements of non-existence seems to be non-existent.
snork
<aside>
He has to be, without a shred of doubt, an alt.atheism atheist.
Smiler
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 03:01:06 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>
>
>> Which animals believe in a god?
>
> My dog.
>
>
>> Which god do they believe in?
>
> Me.
>
>
>> How do they worship him?
>
> The usual -- tail-wagging, delirious delight upon my safe return
> from the shops, whiny begging and other signs of utter
> submission, willingness to fetch, roll over, beg, kill at my
> command....
>
>
>> Where would I find an animal's church?
>
> My animal's church is my castle.
> :-)
>
Castle Anthrax?
How do I get an invitation?
>
>>
>> Hey, we do get a clue from animals. We don't believe in any gods
>> either!
>>
>>> Then smell the coffee so-to-speak. But they don't. (A rather thick
>>> lot they are).
>>>
>>
>> Except that we don't believe without evidence, and you do.
>> Pssst! Wanna buy a bridge?
>
> I don't have much room.
> Can I have the abridged version?
>
Yep. But it will only get you part of the way across.
>
>>
>>> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
>>> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way
>>> beyond human ability.
>>>
>>
>> So what?
>
> He means your dog is closer to his god because it can smell him.
>
I have NO dog :-)
>
>>
>>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the tsunami.
>>> But the humans stayed and died.
>>>
>>
>> Again, so what?
>>
>>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving God
>>> directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
>>
>> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
>> leprechauns directly and, from percieving those other dimentions
>> too." Still looking for that crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?
>
> Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
> Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
> terminals.
>
Hence the popularity of the National Lottery!
>
>> So you are unable to perceive your god, exactly as we atheists claim.
>> If you are unable to do that, why should we believe you?
>
> <pretzel logic>
> Ummm ... inability to perceive him is proof positive of his
> existence?
> </pretzel logic>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> How many times have I read: "Where is your evidence for God"?
>>>
>>
>> About as many times as I have read "I have evidence." but none is
>> ever presented.
>
> You do not have high enough clearance to see the evidence.
> :-)
>
That 'incident' with the three naked Russian ballerinas and a can of
'squirty' cream, in my hotel room must be the reason :-)
>>> Because science is going to be
>>> as limited as man's abilities are.
>>
>> Then we cannot fly in aeroplanes, travel to the moon, etc., etc.,
>> etc., etc., etc. as our abilities in those things are limited?
>
> Our abilities are only limited by our imagination.
Agreed.
Smiler
So your mentioning of other dimensions was simply a diversion to avoid
providing evidence for a god character.
Who's strawman was that?
Kadaitcha Man
late into a goodly bulk. Ye grunted:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:01:09 +0545, Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>
>>"§nühw¤£f", thou hunch-backed groundling. Thou begins a new hell in
> Are you effectively saying that there is no way you can detect the
> existence of what you call 'god' therefore you cannot provide any kind
> of evidence such a creature exists?
Setting aside your mad, unthinking alt.atheism illogik that causes you to
define some supposed god as a 'creature', not me ("Are you... saying
that... you..."), nobody can do it.
It is not only impossible, demanding evidence is absurdity itself. Do you
understand that?
If the supposed god is matter-based then one would not only have to turn
over every molecule in the universe, but one would have to actually take
the utterly preposterous step of leaving the universe to examine the
whole universe from outside of the system that is the universe. More on
that latter assertion shortly...
If the supposed god is not reducible to something that can be empirically
inspected in our three-dimensional universe, then:
A) it cannot empirically exist in our three-dimensional universe, and
B) one would not only have to reach into, potentially, eight other
spatial dimensions (M-theory) and perform the same inspections there,
C) one would have the to overcome the small problem of how to go about
bringing back immaterial evidence from another dimension into the three
dimensional material planes of the universe where the immaterial may be
materially inspected.
However, the statement at A) does not imply that the supposed god does
not exist, only that it cannot exist empirically.
The conclusion then is that it is irrational for atheists to demand
evidence of something it is impossible to provide evidence for.
The corollary is that atheism is irrational.
> <snip>
>
> <excessive cross posts remove>
Put back. I will continue to put the groups back because the more people
who come to know that you alt.atheism atheists are unthinking, illogical
nitwits who deserve to be mercilessly ridiculed the better.
About having to leave the universe and inspect it externally...
The universe is a formal axiomatic system, with the formal axioms being
the laws of physics as we understand them. That is, we assume, and
rightly so, that nothing in the universe can or will happen outside the
laws of physics. If something is observed that appears to be outside of
those axioms, we do not go positing some kind of god, instead we revise
our understanding of the laws of physics.
In other words, the universe is a formal axiomatic system where the
axioms are the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are, to all
intents and purposes, immutable, except in the cases where we got them
wrong.
There are several theorems in mathematical, first order predicate logic
that establish a certain and very critical limitation; that the answer to
a question cannot be proven from within the formal axiomatic system
itself.
For example, the proof that 1 + 1 = 2 does not lie within the calculator
that computed the answer, that is, the calculator is the formal axiomatic
system under inspection. The same applies to the universe because both
the calculator and the universe are both formal axiomatic systems.
The conclusion that it is irrational for atheists to demand evidence then
is a provable truth. It is provable by way of a simple demonstration,
such as the calculator analogy, just as much as it is provable in first
order predicate logic. Heck, it might be demonstrated with a simple box
of matches given a few reasonable axioms.
I will continue to bash you alt.atheism atheists around the ears with a
great lump of hardwood fixed with the sharp end of numerous nine-inch
nails poking out of it, until at least one of you comes to his or her
senses and gets a grip on the implications of what you have just been
told. Until then you will all remain unthinking nitwit alt.atheism
atheists.
I am at an absolute loss to comprehend how any of you self-appointed
clever-people could fail to think just one short step beyond your blind,
and exceedingly silly beliefs.
Truly, your collective inability to think is just downright astonishing.
And you have the gall to run around Usenet calling us theists deluded
morons, illogical fools and lunatics?
Pffft.
From another of your posts:
> Changng [sic] the subject, because he has no proof
He doesn't need proof. One of the deeper implications of what I have just
tried to explain to you is that truth lies beyond provability. And that
too is a provable truth.
And I'm certain some nitwit alt.atheism atheist questioned my knowledge
of truth not more than an hour or so ago...
> forgive us if we wonder
> whether you know what the word 'truth' means.
Yes, some nitwit alt.atheism atheist did indeed question my knowledge of
truth. It seems to have been you.
snork
Alex W.
Ah, a drawbridge!
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
>>>> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way
>>>> beyond human ability.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> He means your dog is closer to his god because it can smell him.
>>
>
> I have NO dog :-)
Dogless heathen!
>
>>
>>>
>>>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the tsunami.
>>>> But the humans stayed and died.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, so what?
>>>
>>>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving God
>>>> directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
>>>
>>> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
>>> leprechauns directly and, from percieving those other dimentions
>>> too." Still looking for that crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?
>>
>> Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
>> Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
>> terminals.
>>
>
> Hence the popularity of the National Lottery!
And the Nigerian 401 scam....
>
>>
>>> So you are unable to perceive your god, exactly as we atheists claim.
>>> If you are unable to do that, why should we believe you?
>>
>> <pretzel logic>
>> Ummm ... inability to perceive him is proof positive of his
>> existence?
>> </pretzel logic>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many times have I read: "Where is your evidence for God"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> About as many times as I have read "I have evidence." but none is
>>> ever presented.
>>
>> You do not have high enough clearance to see the evidence.
>> :-)
>>
>
> That 'incident' with the three naked Russian ballerinas and a can of
> 'squirty' cream, in my hotel room must be the reason :-)
I didn't know you were a Whitehall mandarin!
Prophet
> i) humans only experience 3 dimensions;
> and
> ii) the universe is multi-dimensional;
> therefore
> iii) Jehovah exists.
>
> Nah. Still a load of shit.
Only to a mind that cannot percieve 3 feet beyond it's nose.
.
Smiler
Look like?!?!?
Kadaitcha Man
would even infect my mouth. Ye bayed:
<strikes match>
<FOOF>
It was yours. Note past tense.
The "mentioning of other dimensions was simply a" logical mechanism to
highlight the fact that your irrational clinging to your irrational
belief that your irrational demands for "providing evidence" are not in
way rational.
HTH
Kadaitcha Man
greasily, your lips grow foul. Ye advocated:
How disingenuous, making bald assertions in the hope that heartily-
bitchslapped dimbulbs the likes of Smiler and Devils Advocaat will merely
agree with you.
The discussion revolves around what to do with the spatial dimensions wrt
evidence for some supposed metaphysical X, yet you traipse in and try to
impose the temporal experience of time to build a straw man about flat-
earthisms.
<lights match>
<FOOF>
You need a new straw man.
Smiler
Yep. I have a drawing of it in front of me.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
>>>>> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way
>>>>> beyond human ability.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> He means your dog is closer to his god because it can smell him.
>>>
>>
>> I have NO dog :-)
>
> Dogless heathen!
>
Dogist intollerance!
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the
>>>>> tsunami. But the humans stayed and died.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, so what?
>>>>
>>>>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
>>>>> God directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
>>>>
>>>> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
>>>> leprechauns directly and, from percieving those other dimentions
>>>> too." Still looking for that crock of gold at the end of the
>>>> rainbow?
>>>
>>> Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
>>> Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
>>> terminals.
>>>
>>
>> Hence the popularity of the National Lottery!
>
> And the Nigerian 401 scam....
Yep.
>>
>>>
>>>> So you are unable to perceive your god, exactly as we atheists
>>>> claim. If you are unable to do that, why should we believe you?
>>>
>>> <pretzel logic>
>>> Ummm ... inability to perceive him is proof positive of his
>>> existence?
>>> </pretzel logic>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How many times have I read: "Where is your evidence for God"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> About as many times as I have read "I have evidence." but none is
>>>> ever presented.
>>>
>>> You do not have high enough clearance to see the evidence.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> That 'incident' with the three naked Russian ballerinas and a can of
>> 'squirty' cream, in my hotel room must be the reason :-)
>
> I didn't know you were a Whitehall mandarin!
I was more of a lowly satsuma, but I *was* employed by HMG, before I
retired.
Smiler
I know there cannot be any objective evidence for any god, but when
irrational, illogical theists claim they have such, I will ask them to
produce it, in an attempt to get them to either put-up or shut-up. They seem
to 'think' that their beliefs are evidence.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>I know there cannot be any objective evidence for any god, but when
>irrational, illogical theists claim they have such, I will ask them to
>produce it, in an attempt to get them to either put-up or shut-up. They seem
>to 'think' that their beliefs are evidence.
Of course. If it weren't real they wouldn't believe...
Kadaitcha Man
yhou stirreth not, yhou moveth not, the ape is dead. Ye wanted to
talkee-talkee about:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> The "mentioning of other dimensions was simply a" logical mechanism to
>> highlight the fact that your irrational clinging to your irrational
>> belief that your irrational demands for "providing evidence" are not in
>> way rational.
>>
>>
> I know there cannot be any objective evidence for any god,
Then asking for it is irrational.
> but when irrational, illogical theists claim they have such,
Well, yes, they do make that claim. And you know what, they actually have
something that goes speeding way past proof, leaving it in the dust. The
problem lies firstly, beyond your comprehension, and secondly, beyond
most theists' ability to articulate the nature of what it is they have
that surpasses mere proof. Human language is not equipped adequately
enough to deal with it.
I fully understand the problem and can articulate it, in fine detail, and
I can support my position with established logic, practical
demonstrations and simple thought experiments, but your comprehension of
the nature of the problem and the whys and wherefores of the problem will
firmly remain beyond your comprehension until you try to at least
understand what is being told to you without you slamming up your "BRAIN
CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE!" signs the very instant you decide you don't
want to know the truth.
In short, you need a mind willing to at least attempt an understanding,
but so far you have not shown any inclination in that direction. None,
much to your shame. Rather you and those like you build armies of straw
men from your own disconnected views, opinions, illogical beliefs and
unsupported bald assertions and hope nobody will notice you stacking them
up in readiness for yet another ritual burning of some hapless theist
whose only mistake is not being able to adequately explain what it is
that causes him or her to assert that a God indeed exists.
> I will ask them to produce it
So, even though you tacitly acknowledge that it is irrational for you to
ask for it, you will continue to ask for it. That too is irrational.
>, in an attempt to get them to either put-up or shut-up. They
> seem to 'think' that their beliefs are evidence.
They don't have evidence. They have something that lies beyond proof.
Furthermore it is not in the form that your atheistic and over-simplified
views call the mere believing of a belief. The issue goes deep into the
nature of truth. And again, I doubt you have the wherewithal to even
begin to understand the nature of truth.
I look forward to being shown to be wrong about you. But since you
arbitrarily paint all theists as "irrational, illogical theists" without
trying to expand your own understanding you are not only acting from your
own set of silly, illogical beliefs, which is what you accuse theists of
doing, you are also proving my assertion that you don't have what it
takes to understand anyway.
I don't see your wilful decision to remain ignorant about the nature of
reality and truth as being my problem. I see your problem with reality
and truth as being my opportunity to give you the pillorying and ridicule
that your unthinking mind so richly deserves.
It is you who is in control of choosing to be enlightened or ridiculed.
I've made the offer to try and show you the problem. The ball is in your
court.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon", thou poisonous fruit bat. That were to enlard
> thy fat already pride. Ye hung crepe:
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:49 am, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote: [snip
> >> Einstein asserted that time is an illusion. [snip] Einstein said that
> >> time is an illusion. I already told you, at least twice, that
> >> Einstein's assertion means time is entirely in your head and not
> >> anywhere else.
>
> > Talk about a misrepresentation!
>
> Do you have a better representation?
How about what he said, and the theories he was dicussing (as opposed
to your selective butcherings)
> > Do you always babble out soundbites from The Discovery Channel?
>
> I take that as no.
I that that as me being right on the nose, due to your avoidance of
the question.
Kadaitcha Man
and hairy. Ye derided:
> On Mar 8, 11:36 am, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
>> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon", thou poisonous fruit bat. That were to
>> enlard thy fat already pride. Ye hung crepe:
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 2:49 am, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote: [snip
>> >> Einstein asserted that time is an illusion. [snip] Einstein said
>> >> that time is an illusion. I already told you, at least twice, that
>> >> Einstein's assertion means time is entirely in your head and not
>> >> anywhere else.
>>
>> > Talk about a misrepresentation!
>>
>> Do you have a better representation?
>
> How about what he said, and the theories he was dicussing (as opposed to
> your selective butcherings)
What is quoted up there is what he said.
>> > Do you always babble out soundbites from The Discovery Channel?
>>
>> I take that as no.
>
> I that that as me being right on the nose, due to your avoidance of the
> question.
What drugs are you on?
Alex W.
> Alex W. wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:28:56 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>
>>>>> Except that we don't believe without evidence, and you do.
>>>>> Pssst! Wanna buy a bridge?
>>>>
>>>> I don't have much room.
>>>> Can I have the abridged version?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. But it will only get you part of the way across.
>>
>> Ah, a drawbridge!
>>
>
> Yep. I have a drawing of it in front of me.
Can you show me?
I'm etching to see it!
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
>>>>>> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way
>>>>>> beyond human ability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> He means your dog is closer to his god because it can smell him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have NO dog :-)
>>
>> Dogless heathen!
>>
>
> Dogist intollerance!
You're barking, mate!
Mind your manners, or you're in for a good canine.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the
>>>>>> tsunami. But the humans stayed and died.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, so what?
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
>>>>>> God directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
>>>>>
>>>>> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
>>>>> leprechauns directly and, from percieving those other dimentions
>>>>> too." Still looking for that crock of gold at the end of the
>>>>> rainbow?
>>>>
>>>> Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
>>>> Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
>>>> terminals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hence the popularity of the National Lottery!
>>
>> And the Nigerian 401 scam....
>
> Yep.
... and government white papers ....
Smiler
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:48:56 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>
>> Alex W. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:28:56 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>>>>> Except that we don't believe without evidence, and you do.
>>>>>> Pssst! Wanna buy a bridge?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have much room.
>>>>> Can I have the abridged version?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. But it will only get you part of the way across.
>>>
>>> Ah, a drawbridge!
>>>
>>
>> Yep. I have a drawing of it in front of me.
>
> Can you show me?
> I'm etching to see it!
>
I'm NOT inviting YOU to come up and see it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
>>>>>>> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way
>>>>>>> beyond human ability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>
>>>>> He means your dog is closer to his god because it can smell him.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have NO dog :-)
>>>
>>> Dogless heathen!
>>>
>>
>> Dogist intollerance!
>
> You're barking, mate!
> Mind your manners, or you're in for a good canine.
>
After that shit zu're not going to get a peke at my etching, you doggist
terrierist.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the
>>>>>>> tsunami. But the humans stayed and died.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, so what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
>>>>>>> God directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from
>>>>>> percieving leprechauns directly and, from percieving those other
>>>>>> dimentions too." Still looking for that crock of gold at the end
>>>>>> of the rainbow?
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
>>>>> Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
>>>>> terminals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hence the popularity of the National Lottery!
>>>
>>> And the Nigerian 401 scam....
>>
>> Yep.
>
> ... and government white papers ....
Not many of those, from whichever party, promise a crock of gold, except at
election time.
Smiler
Got anything apart from your mindfarts?
Without evidence, which I know you don't have, there is no reason to believe
you.
Maggsy
> How is atheism a religion? atheists do not show any signs of religious
> rituals. There is no priests in atheism like in typical religions and there
> is no single creed all atheists adhere to. So how exactly is atheism a
> religion again?
I will keep posting this dictionary definition of religion until you
guys stop ignoring it.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of
ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Alex W.
> Alex W. wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:48:56 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>
>>> Alex W. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:28:56 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Except that we don't believe without evidence, and you do.
>>>>>>> Pssst! Wanna buy a bridge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have much room.
>>>>>> Can I have the abridged version?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. But it will only get you part of the way across.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, a drawbridge!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. I have a drawing of it in front of me.
>>
>> Can you show me?
>> I'm etching to see it!
>>
>
> I'm NOT inviting YOU to come up and see it!
Is that so?
Then I'm going home ... and I'm taking my ball!
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
>>>>>>>> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way
>>>>>>>> beyond human ability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He means your dog is closer to his god because it can smell him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have NO dog :-)
>>>>
>>>> Dogless heathen!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dogist intollerance!
>>
>> You're barking, mate!
>> Mind your manners, or you're in for a good canine.
>>
>
> After that shit zu're not going to get a peke at my etching, you doggist
> terrierist.
You're irretrieverbly mad, my dear Bernard. I suggest you smoke
some Afghan to mellow out.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the
>>>>>>>> tsunami. But the humans stayed and died.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, so what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from percieving
>>>>>>>> God directly and, from percieving those other dimentions too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from
>>>>>>> percieving leprechauns directly and, from percieving those other
>>>>>>> dimentions too." Still looking for that crock of gold at the end
>>>>>>> of the rainbow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
>>>>>> Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
>>>>>> terminals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence the popularity of the National Lottery!
>>>>
>>>> And the Nigerian 401 scam....
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> ... and government white papers ....
>
> Not many of those, from whichever party, promise a crock of gold, except at
> election time.
Perhaps not exactly gold ... more of a golden liquid....
Smiler
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:45:40 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>
>> Alex W. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:48:56 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex W. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:28:56 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that we don't believe without evidence, and you do.
>>>>>>>> Pssst! Wanna buy a bridge?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have much room.
>>>>>>> Can I have the abridged version?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. But it will only get you part of the way across.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, a drawbridge!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. I have a drawing of it in front of me.
>>>
>>> Can you show me?
>>> I'm etching to see it!
>>>
>>
>> I'm NOT inviting YOU to come up and see it!
>
> Is that so?
> Then I'm going home ... and I'm taking my ball!
>
<Colonel Bogey playing in the background>
Only one?
>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man's perception is not even as good as the comon house pet's
>>>>>>>>> perception. Many animals have perception ability that goes way
>>>>>>>>> beyond human ability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He means your dog is closer to his god because it can smell him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have NO dog :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dogless heathen!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dogist intollerance!
>>>
>>> You're barking, mate!
>>> Mind your manners, or you're in for a good canine.
>>>
>>
>> After that shit zu're not going to get a peke at my etching, you
>> doggist terrierist.
>
> You're irretrieverbly mad, my dear Bernard. I suggest you smoke
> some Afghan to mellow out.
>
You know Jack, Russel. Stop your hounding of me.
Get some sense or I'll wippet into you.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the
>>>>>>>>> tsunami. But the humans stayed and died.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, so what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from
>>>>>>>>> percieving God directly and, from percieving those other
>>>>>>>>> dimentions too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from
>>>>>>>> percieving leprechauns directly and, from percieving those
>>>>>>>> other dimentions too." Still looking for that crock of gold at
>>>>>>>> the end of the rainbow?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
>>>>>>> Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
>>>>>>> terminals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence the popularity of the National Lottery!
>>>>>
>>>>> And the Nigerian 401 scam....
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> ... and government white papers ....
>>
>> Not many of those, from whichever party, promise a crock of gold,
>> except at election time.
>
> Perhaps not exactly gold ... more of a golden liquid....
They actually *remove* that substance.
Alex W.
Your threat does not exactly leave me standing in a poodle of
fear-sweat. Didn't you know I'm a semi-pro boxer? Do I need to
pointer out the painful coonsequences for you?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The animals on SirLanka ran for the hills hours before the
>>>>>>>>>> tsunami. But the humans stayed and died.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, so what?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from
>>>>>>>>>> percieving God directly and, from percieving those other
>>>>>>>>>> dimentions too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> = "It is man's lack of perception that prevents him from
>>>>>>>>> percieving leprechauns directly and, from percieving those
>>>>>>>>> other dimentions too." Still looking for that crock of gold at
>>>>>>>>> the end of the rainbow?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually that is a major characteristic of the human psyche.
>>>>>>>> Most of us *are* looking for crocks of gold and rainbow
>>>>>>>> terminals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hence the popularity of the National Lottery!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the Nigerian 401 scam....
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> ... and government white papers ....
>>>
>>> Not many of those, from whichever party, promise a crock of gold,
>>> except at election time.
>>
>> Perhaps not exactly gold ... more of a golden liquid....
>
> They actually *remove* that substance.
No shit!
Smiler
I don't care if you are a pugg ilist or how hard your chin is.
Do I have to gointer the fact that I've worked down both a Yorkshire and a
Staffordshire pit, bully, and I'm not afiard of you.
But I cairn't get that a cross to you, Scottie.
Ralph
> On Mar 5, 7:52 pm, Dangerous Nonconformist
> to Christian Churches around the country which are labeled
> 'religion' . Consider:
>
> Atheism is religious in the sense that it is a comprehensive worldview
> which seeks to explain the 'why' of existence. Because it has its own
> creeds, their own 'scriptures', their own 'clergy', and thier own
> closely knit groups for organized discussions / agendas , it is
> correct
> to label atheism as a religion (even if the particular individual is
> not
> a member of any atheist organization per se). . This may not be well
> recieved amongst atheists because a major reason for thier apriori
> philisophical bias against a personal Creator is due to the stigma
> associated with the religious in society .
>
> Compare these well known facts about atheism :
>
> 1. It is highly organized thruout this nation. There are many large
> Atheist Organizations that would love a greater constituency, and they
> try for that.
>
> 2. There are even Atheist Camps thruout the nation with a well
> publicized large one in Ohio., where hostility toward God and
> CHristians are promoted.
>
> 3. They meet regularly to discuss local and national agendas to spread
> their religiousity thru proslytizing.
>
> 4. The Atheist Organizations collect dues regularly just like Churches
> collect free will offerings on a Sunday to cover overhead, expenses,
> activities, and material distribution.
>
> 5. They have very large national Conferences yearly just like Church
> Denominations do. A very large one was held last year in Colorado.
>
> 6. There are active Internet Atheist NG's to educate followers in the
> sheer impossibility of matter and naturalism accounting for the many
> many complex designs and engineering of our Universe, Solar System,
> Planet, Human Body, DNA, et al...
>
> 7. They collaborate to build up each other in their freewill chosen
> lifestyles the same that Church Members build up one another in
> following and obeying Christ as a lifestyle.
>
> 8. They lobby for macro evolution theories taught as 'scientific fact'
> in
> public schools without ANY time for Creationism ; whereas Creationists
> want both to be presented so students can make a clear and concise
> decision based on rationale and what REAL science has discovered.
>
> 9. Most National Atheist Organizations have logos, flags, and
> banners...the same that national Church Denominations have.
>
> ...and 10. They have Museums located around the Country that show well
> prepared artistry on fancy posterboards how apes gradually turned into
> cave-men that turned into modern man (despite the fact that no
> observation has ever occured for macro-evolution , to which even Prof.
> Richard Dawkins (the Atheists Guru) freely admits .
>
> YES, atheism is a secular religion with a belief system (a substitute
> for the Creator) , a philosophy to live by incorporating such tenets
> as moral relativism and lifestyle freedom since no ultimate
> accountability exists , and a psychology to have no one more important
> than SELF (no competition and no infringement to ones desired
> fun) .
Look Dave, get a spellchecker or learn to spell. The blatant stupidity
you show in the content of your posts is magnified by your obvious lack
of spelling skills.
Les Hellawell
>On 3/5/2010 11:11 PM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 7:52 pm, Dangerous Nonconformist
>> <danger...@nonconformist.c0m> wrote:
>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>> No objective evidence for the existence of ANY god has EVER been
>>>> presented since the beginning of recorded history. Do you want to try to
>>>> be the first? There could be a Nobel Prize in it for you.
>>>
>>> No doubt you incorrectly believe your challenge to be at the heights of
>>> intelligent thought. I have some bad news for you. It isn't. It's at the
>>> other end of the scale. The very far other end.
Just because you say this does not make it true. Actually it isn't
'very' intelligent, it does not need to be. If somebody asks me to
accept an an extraordinary ordinary claim 'Please accept my belief
there is a god' the obvious questions to ask is. "What god? Can you
show there is such a thing. What is your evidence?" Equally obvious
is the person asking cannot answer these questions then he has not
offered justification for accepting his claim. So, no its does not
require a great deal of intelligence.
>>>
>>> Setting aside time as the 4th dimension, humans can only receive
>>> information in a 3-dimensional world via their senses, such as hearing,
>>> which records sound vibrations travelling through matter (air) and
>>> perhaps bouncing off objects constructed of matter. The consequence is
>>> that the only reality that can be perceived by humans is that of the 3-
>>> dimensional world, i.e. all other dimensions cannot be perceived.
That is correct.
>>>
>>> M-theory, formerly string theory, a branch of quantum mechanics, demands
>>> that our universe has 11 dimensions.
Not interested.
>>> Again excluding time as the 4th dimension, what method do you propose be
>>> used to inspect the remaining 7 dimensions, which we cannot perceive with
>>> our senses anyway, for objective evidence of any kind of god?
Not interested.
If I were interested, the method I would propose would be ask the
claimant to show how he knows there is a god. If he cannot then one
can only surmise he is fantasising.
>>>
>>> Until you atheists get those two very basic ideas (experiencing only 3
>>> dimensions and a multi-dimensional universe) into your pig-shit thick
>>> heads and understand the implications, every single one of you who
>>> demands "objective evidence" for some kind of god should be given the
>>> pillory and scorn you so richly deserve for being the unthinking nitwits
>>> that you so obviously are.
I see no reason to be offensive like this. If this is you approach
then I have no further interest in reading the rest of your post.
Come back when you learn some manners.
<snip>
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from: YORKSHIRE
The White Rose County
Michael Gordge
> I have defined no god.
> Watching you idiot atheists....
So if you have defined no god then how do you recognize / define an
atheist?
MG
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Pink Fraud had nothing but witless ad hom to offer:
>>>
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> Chaos out of Order wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Atheism isn't a religion.
>>>>
>>>> So why do atheists claim it is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
>>>> #
>>>> #
>>>> # "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
>>>> # of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
>>>> #
>>>> # "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
>>>> # we're not one, Perkins said." - The Age 29/1/2009Dr
>
> How is atheism a religion?
Don't expect a rational answer from those hypocritical liars! B^D
Like Humpty Dumpty, they claim to be a religion when it's convenient
and deny it in the next breath! B^D
> atheists do not show any signs of religious rituals.
No one said they are a GENUINE religion.... there was NOTHING
genuine about the atheist states..
Why do you assume that ritual and a priesthood are essential to religion?
> So how exactly is atheism a religion again?
It should be obvious by now that none of the atheists
can justify their claim that is is;
# It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
#
#
# "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
# of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
#
# "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
# we're not one, Perkins said." - The Age 29/1/2009Dr
all the atheists have wehn confronted by rational inquiry is mindless abuse;
>>>
>>> Fuck off, fasgnadh.
>>
>> Atheist thugs are incapable of reason, they snip the evidence
>> and leave nothing but witless abuse, revealing their irrationality.
>>
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Maggsy
> "Maggsy" <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:72ded600-0042-4754...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...> On Feb 22, 7:36 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> In article <aCtgn.9193$pv.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
> >> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps if fasgadh were not himself an atheist wannabe (refusing to
> >> admit belief in any gods), his attacks on atheism could be understood.
>
> > What is your evidence for this assertion?This is just another of your
> > silly beliefs.
>
> .
> .
>
> King James Bible (corrected
>
> "So man created God in his own image, in the image of man created he him;
> male and female created he them."
>
> Now, which God were we talking about?
>
> Everyone seems to assert that their god is the "one true God"
>
> Who's wrong?
Everyone except the Christians.
Maggsy
<danger...@nonconformist.c0m> wrote:
> Smiler wrote:
> > No objective evidence for the existence of ANY god has EVER been
> > presented since the beginning of recorded history. Do you want to try to
> > be the first? There could be a Nobel Prize in it for you.
>
> No doubt you incorrectly believe your challenge to be at the heights of
> intelligent thought. I have some bad news for you. It isn't. It's at the
> other end of the scale. The very far other end.
>
> information in a 3-dimensional world via their senses, such as hearing,
> which records sound vibrations travelling through matter (air) and
> perhaps bouncing off objects constructed of matter. The consequence is
> that the only reality that can be perceived by humans is that of the 3-
> dimensional world, i.e. all other dimensions cannot be perceived.
>
> that our universe has 11 dimensions.
>
> used to inspect the remaining 7 dimensions, which we cannot perceive with
> our senses anyway, for objective evidence of any kind of god?
>
> dimensions and a multi-dimensional universe) into your pig-shit thick
> heads and understand the implications, every single one of you who
> demands "objective evidence" for some kind of god should be given the
> pillory and scorn you so richly deserve for being the unthinking nitwits
> that you so obviously are.
Bravo. Great post.
Maggsy
> On 6 Mar, 09:35, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
>
> > "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise thee,
> > thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>
> > > Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on
> > > the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such things.
>
> > Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
> > everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
>
> energy in only four dimensions"? :)
>
>
>
> > Do you have any evidence to show that everything that exists only exists
> > as matter in three dimensions?
>
> As I made no such assertion, there is no obligation on my part to
> provide evidence for such. :)
Then logically you must admit that God could exist in one of these
other dimensions. So logically you should be an agnostic or a Theist.
Are you?
>
> > On what basis do you found your implied
> > assumption that a god or gods consist only of perceptible matter existing
> > in three dimensions?
>
> Again I made no such assertion, ergo there is no need for me to defend
> it. :)
>
>
>
> > Before you go riding off into the sunset, pedalling for your pathetic
> > little life on your little red Elmo tricycle, allow me to put a large
> > metal pole into your rapidly rotating spokes...
>
> Now why do you feel the need to be so insulting?
>
>
>
> > By virtue of his senses, man can only perceive that which exists in a
> > three dimensional material world consisting only of matter.
>
> You keep forgetting time and energy, why is that?
>
> > That is to
> > say, any reality that extends beyond either three dimensions or matter is
> > imperceptible to man.
>
> If any reality exists beyond spacetime, matter and energy and remains
> imperceptible it is because it cannot interact with our realm of
> spacetime, matter and energy.
>
You have not provided any evidence for this assertion.
> And if it cannot interact with our realm that is the same as if it
> doesn't exist at all. :)
No it is not. You are being illogical.
>
> > That is an indisputable scientific fact.
>
> You keep forgetting time and energy, why is that? :)
>
>
>
> > Setting aside the fact that your demand requires some god, which is
> > assumedly some higher being than your pathetic self, to conform to your
> > one-eyed and completely mangled idea of reality.
>
> Did I say this entity had to conform to anything? :)
If you don't believe this then why can't you accept that God could
exist in another dimension beyond your senses.
>
> > M-Theory, formerly
> > string theory, a subset of quantum theory, demands no less than eleven
> > dimensions. You live in and experience three dimensions. Science says
> > there are eleven dimensions.
>
> String theory (or one should say theories as there is more than one of
> them) attempt to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity, so
> string theory is not a subset of quantum theory.
>
> M-Theory embraces all versions of string theory, and it doesn't demand
> but predicts that spacetime consists of eleven dimensions.
>
> I don't know about you, but I live in and experience four dimensions
> not three.
>
> Science doesn't say there are eleven dimensions, this is a prediction
> of M-Theory which has yet to be supported by any experimental evidence
> or observation.
>
>
>
> > Read that again. You experience reality in 3 dimensions but science says
> > reality is comprised of eleven dimensions. Notice the ever so slight
> > discrepancy of 8 dimensions between your puny idea of reality and the
> > actuality of reality?
>
> I experience reality in 4 dimensions, and if as you previously
> suggested there is any reality beyond and imperceptible to the senses
> (and devices made by man I might add) then it is the same as if that
> reality doesn't exist.
>
>
>
> > What scientific method do you propose is sufficient to allow a supposed
> > or alleged higher-dimensional being to be dragged down from up to 11
> > dimensions into three dimensions such that it may be inspected with your
> > five empirical senses?
>
> If such an entity exists and is able to interact with our four
> dimensional realm, then it should be no problem for that entity to
> make itself apparent to us mere mortals.
>
He has done. You keep ignoring this. This is your problem.
> May I suggest that you get yourself a copy of "Flatland: A Romance of
> Many Dimensions" by Edwin Abbott Abbott.
>
> It will give you an idea of how such an entity could interact with an
> entity such as you or I.
>
> You don't even have to spend any money to get a copy:
>
> http://www.eldritchpress.org/eaa/FL.HTM
>
>
>
> > Given that you operate within three dimensions,
>
> Not three, but four as I have said before.
>
> > and given that up to the
> > minute science requires eleven dimensions,
>
> The existence of these additional dimensions is a prediction of M-
> Theory which has yet to garner any support in the form of experimental
> evidence or observations.
>
This is a circular argument because obviously it can't be tested. It
is not part of the standard model .If we can only experience four
dimensions then the others can not be tested by us. That doesn't mean
they don't exist though.
> > which all of us are completely
> > incapable of perceiving beyond the first three,
>
> If it is impossible to perceive these dimensions, that suggests that
> these dimensions contain nothing that can interact with our own realm,
> and if there is no interaction, then that is the same thing as if
> those dimensions do not exist.
So you keep saying. You have provided no evidence for your belief.
>
> > do you honestly and
> > earnestly believe that it is logical to assert "Atheism is simply the
> > rejection of the existence of any god or gods on the basis that there is
> > no evidence for the existence of such things"?
>
> The existence or non-existence of these predicted (but as yet
> unverified) additional spatial dimensions of M-Theory in no way has
> any bearing on the existence or non-existence of gods of any sort.
So you say. What is your evidence for this assertion?
>
> My statement with respect to atheism is not an assertion, it is a
> typical and commonly recognised definition of the worldview called
> atheism.
>
A statement is an assertion.Look up the word assertion?
>
>
> > If your answer is yes, then provide the inter-dimensional evidence that
> > can be inspected in three dimensions. That would require you to produce
> > verifiable evidence that no god or gods exist from within multiple
> > dimensions that you cannot possibly perceive.
>
> Actually the onus is not on me to present evidence for the non-
> existence of any god or gods, the onus is on those who believe in the
> existence of such to present independently verifiable evidence for the
> existence of their god or gods.
So you say.Prove it?You believe that God and gods don't exist so you
provide evidence for your belief. And don't forget it's impossible to
prove a negative.
>
>
>
> > If your answer is no, then perhaps it is wise to shut up rather than
> > perpetuating the idea that alt.atheism atheists have IQs lower than any
> > number of dark, dank area-loving lichens, garden slugs and sundry shrubs.
>
> > In either case, it is wise for you to shut up.
>
> So you don't want me to answer your post, despite your presenting
> issues that need to be addressed by myself?
>
> Sounds a tad daft to me. :)
>
Mostly you haven't answered his post. You have just made assertions
with out backing them up with any evidence.
>
>
> > Any reply from you that is not an admission by you to you being an
> > unthinking atheist nitwit will be construed as your admission to you
> > being an unthinking atheist nitwit.
>
> I never said I was an atheist, so it is wrong of you to presume that I
> am, without being able to provide evidence that I am such a person.
So are you an Agnostic?
>
>
>
> > Do you understand?
>
> Indeed I do, but the question could be, do you?
Maggsy
> "Devils Advocaat", thou burr-headed haught insulting man. What such
> fellows as I do, crawling between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves
> all, believe none of us. Ye quibbled:
>
> > On 6 Mar, 09:35, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
> >> "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise
> >> thee, thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>
> >> > Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods
> >> > on the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such
> >> > things.
>
> >> Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
> >> everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
>
> > Don't you mean "if the entirety of everything existed as matter and
> > energy in only four dimensions"? :)
>
> wrote I would have written something other than what I wrote.
>
> One.
>
> >> Do you have any evidence to show that everything that exists only
> >> exists as matter in three dimensions?
>
> > As I made no such assertion, there is no obligation on my part to
> > provide evidence for such. :)
>
>
> Two.
>
> >> On what basis do you found your implied assumption that a god or gods
> >> consist only of perceptible matter existing in three dimensions?
>
> > Again I made no such assertion, ergo there is no need for me to defend
> > it. :)
>
>
> Three.
>
> >> Before you go riding off into the sunset, pedalling for your pathetic
> >> little life on your little red Elmo tricycle, allow me to put a large
> >> metal pole into your rapidly rotating spokes...
>
> > Now why do you feel the need to be so insulting?
>
> blatant errors of logic?
>
> >> By virtue of his senses, man can only perceive that which exists in a
> >> three dimensional material world consisting only of matter.
>
> > You keep forgetting time and energy, why is that?
>
> issue of time up with him.
>
That would be hard unless you believe in mediums?
> As for energy, what do you believe it is that man does or not perceive
> about energy via his five senses?
>
> >> That is to
> >> say, any reality that extends beyond either three dimensions or matter
> >> is imperceptible to man.
>
> > If any reality exists beyond spacetime, matter and energy and remains
> > imperceptible it is because it cannot interact with our realm of
> > spacetime, matter and energy.
>
> The assertion is that no reality exists beyond what is perceived by the
> five senses.
>
> Your point is what exactly?
>
> > And if it cannot interact with our realm that is the same as if it
> > doesn't exist at all. :)
>
> And the evidence for your assertion, apart from blithering and
> meaningless bullshit, is what?
>
I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the callow
polemic language. You have already pretty much crushed him with your
arguments.
> Four.
>
> >> That is an indisputable scientific fact.
>
> > You keep forgetting time and energy, why is that? :)
>
> Five.
>
> >> Setting aside the fact that your demand requires some god, which is
> >> assumedly some higher being than your pathetic self, to conform to your
> >> one-eyed and completely mangled idea of reality.
>
> > Did I say this entity had to conform to anything? :)
>
> Look up the phrase "necessarily entails".
>
> Six.
>
> >> M-Theory, formerly
> >> string theory, a subset of quantum theory, demands no less than eleven
> >> dimensions. You live in and experience three dimensions. Science says
> >> there are eleven dimensions.
>
> > String theory (or one should say theories as there is more than one of
> > them) attempt to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity, so
> > string theory is not a subset of quantum theory.
>
> > M-Theory embraces all versions of string theory
>
> You got a cite for that bullshit opinion asserted as fact? Cough it up,
> atheist.
>
> >, and it doesn't demand
> > but predicts that spacetime consists of eleven dimensions.
>
> Wrong.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=m-theory+for+dummies
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=fFSMatekilIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%
> 22extra+Dimensions+in+space+and+time%22&cd=1
>
> > I don't know about you, but I live in and experience four dimensions not
> > three.
>
> Time is a temporal dimension, not a spatial dimension, you atheistic
> nitwit.
>
> What human sense organ detects and measures the progress of time?
>
> You are aware that that 'temporal' is a euphemism for "it's all in your
> head", yes? No? Not sure?
>
> > Science doesn't say there are eleven dimensions, this is a prediction of
> > M-Theory which has yet to be supported by any experimental evidence or
> > observation.
>
> Round and round you go. Of course, you're too dense to realise you just
> put yourself right back where I started you from, hey.
>
> >> Read that again. You experience reality in 3 dimensions but science
> >> says reality is comprised of eleven dimensions. Notice the ever so
> >> slight discrepancy of 8 dimensions between your puny idea of reality
> >> and the actuality of reality?
>
> > I experience reality in 4 dimensions,
>
> Einstein said that time is an illusion. I already told you, at least
> twice, that Einstein's assertion means time is entirely in your head and
> not anywhere else. Please show your mathematical equations that prove
> Einstein wrong. Your pencil-scribblings in the margin are worth 20%.
>
> > and if as you previously suggested
> > there is any reality beyond and imperceptible to the senses (and devices
> > made by man I might add) then it is the same as if that reality doesn't
> > exist.
>
> I assume that particular set of meaningless balderdash means something to
> you. Quite what I do not know.
>
> >> What scientific method do you propose is sufficient to allow a supposed
> >> or alleged higher-dimensional being to be dragged down from up to 11
> >> dimensions into three dimensions such that it may be inspected with
> >> your five empirical senses?
>
> > If such an entity exists and is able to interact with our four
> > dimensional realm
>
> Time is a temporal dimension, not a spatial dimension, remember?
>
> > then it should be no problem for that entity to make
> > itself apparent to us mere mortals.
>
> Of course it should be no problem. Let us assume, for the sake of
> argument only, that entity X in dimension Y has the full ability "to make
> itself apparent to us mere mortals".
>
> Now, what if entity X chooses not to make itself apparent to us mere
> mortals? What exactly are you going to do about that?
>
> snork
>
> > May I suggest
>
> No, you may not.
>
> Oh, about the One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six lines. That was the
> count of your smiley faces. I take it that either you are not confident
> in asserting your bullshit atheistic blitherings as verifiable scientific
> fact or that you are an obsequiously acquiescent and fawning sycophant
> looking in all the wrong places for psychological support of your
> exceedingly weak personality.
>
> You may choose one or the other or both.
>
> Personality, for want of a better word.
Maggsy
> i) humans only experience 3 dimensions;
> and
> ii) the universe is multi-dimensional;
> therefore
> iii) Jehovah exists.
>
> Nah. Still a load of shit.
So you say. This is just your belief.
>
> HL.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maggsy
>
> An excellent logical analysis that shows it is a load of shit:-).- Hide quoted text -
>
Ye right. You are delusional.
Maggsy
> " n hw f", thou hunch-backed groundling. Thou begins a new hell in
> thyself. Ye disparaged:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> clouded the waters of pure thought with
> >news:09dk2a$d40$1...@squat-charity-moll.biz.estonia:
>
> >> "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise
> >> thee, thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>
> >>> Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on
> >>> the basis that there is no evidence for the existence of such things.
>
> >> Well, that would be a wholly logical position if the entirety of
> >> everything existed as matter in only three dimensions.
>
> >> implied assumption that a god or gods consist only of perceptible
> >> matter existing in three dimensions?
>
> >> little life on your little red Elmo tricycle, allow me to put a large
> >> metal pole into your rapidly rotating spokes...
>
> >> say, any reality that extends beyond either three dimensions or matter
>
> >> Setting aside the fact that your demand requires some god, which is
> >> assumedly some higher being than your pathetic self, to conform to your
> >> string theory, a subset of quantum theory, demands no less than eleven
> >> dimensions. You live in and experience three dimensions. Science says
> >> there are eleven dimensions.
>
> >> says reality is comprised of eleven dimensions. Notice the ever so
> >> slight discrepancy of 8 dimensions between your puny idea of reality
> >> and the actuality of reality?
>
> >> or alleged higher-dimensional being to be dragged down from up to 11
> >> dimensions into three dimensions such that it may be inspected with
> >> your five empirical senses?
>
> >> the minute science requires eleven dimensions, which all of us are
> >> completely incapable of perceiving beyond the first three, do you
> >> honestly and earnestly believe that it is logical to assert "Atheism is
> >> simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods on the basis
>
> >> If your answer is yes, then provide the inter-dimensional evidence that
> >> can be inspected in three dimensions. That would require you to produce
> >> verifiable evidence that no god or gods exist from within multiple
> >> dimensions that you cannot possibly perceive.
>
> >> perpetuating the idea that alt.atheism atheists have IQs lower than any
> >> number of dark, dank area-loving lichens, garden slugs and sundry
> >> shrubs.
>
> >> In either case, it is wise for you to shut up.
>
> >> unthinking atheist nitwit will be construed as your admission to you
> >> being an unthinking atheist nitwit.
>
>
> > Oh I do :)
>
> > What youve set up is a rock so big you yourself cant lift it.
>
> > Due to the "reasons" you give "God" is an esentially undetectable
> > unknowable quality-thing-concept-potential being. At least by human
> > perceptual abilities.
> > Therefore, if "Gods" existance can never be provably known or quantified
> > in any way,
>
> If God is not matter then God can never be known by our senses.
Unless he becomes matter as in the form of Jesus.This is what
Christians believe.
>
> > only fucking morons will waste their time pondering "him".
> > Smart people will say fuck it. And get on with their miserable lives.
> > And sceptics like me will say bring that lazy fucker Jesus over here and
> > have him fix my stuff.
>
> Nothing I have asserted implies that a non-material God is unable to make
> itself known by kicking you fair in the psyche with a size 12 hobnail
> boot thereby inducing one hell of a supernatural headache.
>
> > FYI
> > HTH
>
> > ^_^
>
> :)- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
> "Free Lunch", thou quailing base bondsman. You lisp and wear strange
> suits. Ye spattered:
>
> > Oh, your imagination is the evidnece. Right.
> > That made no sense.
> > No, you didn't really understand that hypothesis.
> > So, you know there isn't any reason to accept claims about gods.
> > You have no clue. Have you considered taking a logic class?
>
> WOW! Yet another utterly destructive counter-argument.
You will get used to free lunch. I kill filled the troll ages ago.
Maggsy
> "Heather L.", thou eye-offending idol of idiot-worshippers. What a fool
> art thou, a rampaging fool, to brag and stamp and swear. Ye orated:
>
> > ii) the universe is multi-dimensional; therefore
>
>
> > iii) Jehovah exists.
>
> No such claim was ever made. Your mad imagination seems to have got the
> better of you.
Atheists misrepresenting what you said. They do it all the time.They
will of course ignore and deny this. They do that all the time as
well.Sigh.
>
> > Nah. Still a load of shit.
>
> Et tu, Brute.
>
>
>
> > HL.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Maggsy
> "Ralph", thou dense young waverer. Thou disease of a friend. Ye blew out:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/6/2010 2:28 PM, Heather L. wrote:
>
> >> Nah. Still a load of shit.
>
>
> > An excellent logical analysis that shows it is a load of shit:-).
>
> ignorant and blockheaded atheists.
>
> Where 'ignorant and blockheaded atheists' is a tautology.
Valid. Or so they claim.
Maggsy
Ralph is another troll that I don't feed.
Maggsy
> "Smiler", thou bawdy murmurer. O most insatiate and luxurious woman. Ye
> whooped:
> > excuse for why there is no evidence, but still an excuse. Please explain
> > how you *know* he is in another dimension. Your beliefs are not
> > knowledge.
>
> Oh, look! A straw man!
>
> Where did I claim "he is in another dimension"? Where did I define any
> god, let alone any god exhibiting male attributes, which you now identify
> as being a "he"?
>
> Well?
>
> I strongly suggest you try to get out of that self-created and very deep
> pit of a predicament because your failure to respond, either at all or
> adequately, will be taken as your tacit admission that you believe in the
> existence of things not known to exist at all. And isn't that what you
> nitwit atheists accuse theists of doing? Hmmm?
>
> <lights match>
> <FOOF>
>
> Pity about your straw man, hey, and after all the effort you put into
> building it with lashings of irrational atheistic illogik...
>
> --
> I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
> purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
> supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
> variation:
>
> God = Metaphysical X
>
> Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
> assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
> against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
> b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
Again. Valid.
Maggsy
<misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2:49 am, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
> [snip
>
> > Einstein asserted that time is an illusion. [snip]
> > Einstein said that time is an illusion. I already told you,
> > at least twice, that Einstein's assertion means time is
> > entirely in your head and not anywhere else.
>
>
> Do you always babble out soundbites from The Discovery Channel?
Can you please provide evidence for your assertions?You will probably
ignore this question. Hopefully you will prove me wrong.
Ralph
It's my old buddy, Maggs, still dumb as a fence post.
Ralph
Wow, come back Maggs, when you have something to say that is worthwhile.
Having said that, I don't expect to hear from you again:-)).
Ralph
Christians believe a lot of things that aren't rational...talking
snakes, talking donkeys, global floods, demons that live in the body and
that can speak, floating ax heads, pillars of salt, a sun that stops in
the sky or even backs up, virgin births, people who live to be 800-900
years old, dead people rising up to lice again, and on and on. Is it any
wonder that reasoned people look at them as if they were fools.
Ralph
Say Maggs, why don't you place your reply a little lower on the page and
we won't have to look at it.
Ralph
If that is so I would imagine it is because t hat theists say things
that appear to be so illogical that the intelligent atheist thinks that
no one could be that stupid.
Ralph
Aw Maggs, still smarting from that ass kicking I gave you:-))?
Ralph
If he does, it wouldn't be the first time you've been shown to be wrong.
Maggsy
> "Misanthropic Curmudgeon", thou poisonous fruit bat. That were to enlard
> thy fat already pride. Ye hung crepe:
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:49 am, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote: [snip
> >> Einstein asserted that time is an illusion. [snip] Einstein said that
> >> time is an illusion. I already told you, at least twice, that
> >> Einstein's assertion means time is entirely in your head and not
> >> anywhere else.
>
> > Talk about a misrepresentation!
>
>
> > Do you always babble out soundbites from The Discovery Channel?
>
>
> --
> I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
> purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
> supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
> variation:
>
> God = Metaphysical X
Will you explain this a bit better?
Maggsy
> "Les Hellawell", thou low-life roast meat for worms. Thou is spread of
> late into a goodly bulk. Ye grunted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:01:09 +0545, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
>
> >>"§nühw¤£f", thou hunch-backed groundling. Thou begins a new hell in
> >>thyself. Ye disparaged:
>
> >>> Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> clouded the waters of pure thought with
> >>>news:09dk2a$d40$1...@squat-charity-moll.biz.estonia:
>
> >>>> "Devils Advocaat", thou crack-headed rotten thing. I will chastise
> >>>> thee, thy high minded strumpet. Ye excoriated:
>
> >>>>> Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of any god or gods
>
> >>>> If your answer is yes, then provide the inter-dimensional evidence
> >>>> that can be inspected in three dimensions. That would require you to
> >>>> produce verifiable evidence that no god or gods exist from within
> >>>> multiple dimensions that you cannot possibly perceive.
>
> >>>> If your answer is no, then perhaps it is wise to shut up rather than
> >>>> perpetuating the idea that alt.atheism atheists have IQs lower than
> >>>> any number of dark, dank area-loving lichens, garden slugs and sundry
> >>>> shrubs.
>
> >>>> In either case, it is wise for you to shut up.
>
> >>>> Any reply from you that is not an admission by you to you being an
> >>>> unthinking atheist nitwit will be construed as your admission to you
> >>>> being an unthinking atheist nitwit.
>
> >>>> Do you understand?
>
> >>> Oh I do :)
>
> >>> What youve set up is a rock so big you yourself cant lift it.
>
> >>> Due to the "reasons" you give "God" is an esentially undetectable
> >>> unknowable quality-thing-concept-potential being. At least by human
> >>> perceptual abilities.
> >>> Therefore, if "Gods" existance can never be provably known or
> >>> quantified in any way,
>
> >>If God is not matter then God can never be known by our senses.
>
> > existence of what you call 'god' therefore you cannot provide any kind
> > of evidence such a creature exists?
>
> Setting aside your mad, unthinking alt.atheism illogik that causes you to
> define some supposed god as a 'creature', not me ("Are you... saying
> that... you..."), nobody can do it.
>
> It is not only impossible, demanding evidence is absurdity itself. Do you
> understand that?
>
> If the supposed god is matter-based then one would not only have to turn
> over every molecule in the universe, but one would have to actually take
> the utterly preposterous step of leaving the universe to examine the
> whole universe from outside of the system that is the universe.
They will of course ignore this. They usually do when I make this
argument.
More on
> that latter assertion shortly...
>
> If the supposed god is not reducible to something that can be empirically
> inspected in our three-dimensional universe, then:
>
> A) it cannot empirically exist in our three-dimensional universe, and
>
> B) one would not only have to reach into, potentially, eight other
> spatial dimensions (M-theory) and perform the same inspections there,
>
> C) one would have the to overcome the small problem of how to go about
> bringing back immaterial evidence from another dimension into the three
> dimensional material planes of the universe where the immaterial may be
> materially inspected.
>
> However, the statement at A) does not imply that the supposed god does
> not exist, only that it cannot exist empirically.
>
> The conclusion then is that it is irrational for atheists to demand
> evidence of something it is impossible to provide evidence for.
>
> The corollary is that atheism is irrational.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > <excessive cross posts remove>
>
> Put back. I will continue to put the groups back because the more people
> who come to know that you alt.atheism atheists are unthinking, illogical
> nitwits who deserve to be mercilessly ridiculed the better.
>
This I don't agree with. They don't need to be ridiculed. They show
how foolish they are by their assertions .Its easy for any sensible
person to see they have got nothing. In fact I keep asking them for
evidence for their assertions. Mostly I get a deafening silence in
response.They will probably ignore this. They usually do.
> About having to leave the universe and inspect it externally...
>
> The universe is a formal axiomatic system, with the formal axioms being
> the laws of physics as we understand them. That is, we assume, and
> rightly so, that nothing in the universe can or will happen outside the
> laws of physics. If something is observed that appears to be outside of
> those axioms, we do not go positing some kind of god, instead we revise
> our understanding of the laws of physics.
>
> In other words, the universe is a formal axiomatic system where the
> axioms are the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are, to all
> intents and purposes, immutable, except in the cases where we got them
> wrong.
>
> There are several theorems in mathematical, first order predicate logic
> that establish a certain and very critical limitation; that the answer to
> a question cannot be proven from within the formal axiomatic system
> itself.
>
> For example, the proof that 1 + 1 = 2 does not lie within the calculator
> that computed the answer, that is, the calculator is the formal axiomatic
> system under inspection. The same applies to the universe because both
> the calculator and the universe are both formal axiomatic systems.
>
> The conclusion that it is irrational for atheists to demand evidence then
> is a provable truth. It is provable by way of a simple demonstration,
> such as the calculator analogy, just as much as it is provable in first
> order predicate logic. Heck, it might be demonstrated with a simple box
> of matches given a few reasonable axioms.
>
> I will continue to bash you alt.atheism atheists around the ears with a
> great lump of hardwood fixed with the sharp end of numerous nine-inch
> nails poking out of it, until at least one of you comes to his or her
> senses and gets a grip on the implications of what you have just been
> told. Until then you will all remain unthinking nitwit alt.atheism
> atheists.
>
> I am at an absolute loss to comprehend how any of you self-appointed
> clever-people could fail to think just one short step beyond your blind,
> and exceedingly silly beliefs.
>
> Truly, your collective inability to think is just downright astonishing.
> And you have the gall to run around Usenet calling us theists deluded
> morons, illogical fools and lunatics?
>
> Pffft.
>
> From another of your posts:
>
> > Changng [sic] the subject, because he has no proof
>
> He doesn't need proof. One of the deeper implications of what I have just
> tried to explain to you is that truth lies beyond provability. And that
> too is a provable truth.
>
> And I'm certain some nitwit alt.atheism atheist questioned my knowledge
> of truth not more than an hour or so ago...
>
> > forgive us if we wonder
> > whether you know what the word 'truth' means.
>
> Yes, some nitwit alt.atheism atheist did indeed question my knowledge of
> truth. It seems to have been you.
>
> snork
>
> --
> I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
> purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
> supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
> variation:
>
> God = Metaphysical X
>
> Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
> assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
> against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
> b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Great post again.
Maggsy
Valid.