Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Waiting for God

226 views
Skip to first unread message

Joe Cummings

unread,
Apr 22, 2015, 7:25:10 AM4/22/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ray Martinez should be having a wonderful time. There is more discussion about the Bible in the NG than usual, and this means that there are more people actually being exposed to the word of the Lord.

Could I ask anyone who has been converted to belief by this current perusal of the Bible to come out and be counted?

Joe Cummings

jillery

unread,
Apr 22, 2015, 11:20:08 AM4/22/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
One of the methodologies of science is to expose all aspects of a
question to the full light of day. However, the current comments
about Creation chronology provide a poor foundation for belief. So
whatever jollies Ray gets from exposing himself, they're almost
certainly not the result of saving sinners.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

Mike Painter

unread,
Apr 22, 2015, 2:15:06 PM4/22/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 04:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

I Think you left the "ot" off your subject line.

As for conversions, I have never seen anyone become a theist or more
religious as a result of this group or A.A but I have seen people
become less so.

No one believes me but once upon a time a True Christian came here and
told us of Darwin's Death Bed Conversion. Nothing new there.
But after being given the usual responses he (NO he really did) looked
it up, came back and admitted he was wrong.

I always hope that was the first step onto that slippery slope.

John Vreeland

unread,
Apr 23, 2015, 10:45:04 AM4/23/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 04:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

I generally treat anyone who claims both to have read the entire Bible
and to be a Christian with some suspicion. For me the book revealed
the awful truth behind the mostly happy stories, and contributed
greatly to my final break with Christianity.

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 24, 2015, 7:55:02 AM4/24/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 12:25:10 UTC+1, Joe Cummings wrote:

> Ray Martinez should be having a wonderful time. There is more discussion about the Bible in the NG than usual, and this means that there are more people actually being exposed to the word of the Lord.

Good.

It's like having Christmas *EVERY DAY*. And I mean that literally.

People cellebrate it once a year, because it's not "too much trouble", to think once a year, (Hang on, why am I doing this).

But do it daily, and 2 things will happen.

1) People say hang on, this is B.S. No fat man slides down *EVERY CHIMNEY SIMULTAINIOUSLY*.
2) LOONBALLS will see an oppertunaty to *CONTROL*. They will *ENFORCE*, the fact that everyone celebrates, every day. (BUT ***ONLY***) because it gives them control.

But in either outcome, *EVENTUALLY*, People say; "Hang on".


Time after time, this happens, with modification & selection for the ones who survive such cult behaviour.


What I'm trying to say, is that no matter which LOONBALLS, take control, common sense *ALWAYS* wins. And the *LOONBALLS* are *ALWAYS* ousted.

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 24, 2015, 8:40:01 AM4/24/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, 23 April 2015 15:45:04 UTC+1, John Vreeland wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 04:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cummings
> <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ray Martinez should be having a wonderful time. There is more discussion about the Bible in the NG than usual, and this means that there are more people actually being exposed to the word of the Lord.
> >
> >Could I ask anyone who has been converted to belief by this current perusal of the Bible to come out and be counted?
> >
> >Joe Cummings
>
> I generally treat anyone who claims both to have read the entire Bible
> and to be a Christian with some suspicion.

I have both memorised it, and used to be, (At a very young age).

But as you say.

A book that after reading it, leads to it's own demise, is hardly inspired.

> For me the book revealed
> the awful truth behind the mostly happy stories, and contributed
> greatly to my final break with Christianity.

For any thinking person, a ship full of holes cannot float.

Neither can a book.

If it was written today as scientific fact's, sent by the most intelligent entity in existance, it would take a 6 year old to sink it.

Leopoldo Perdomo

unread,
Apr 25, 2015, 6:54:58 AM4/25/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
it is not only the question of reading the bible, but to make sense of
what you are reading.
A computer can be programmed to read the bible, our even to read it aloud
in English. Well, does the computer knows what he had read? Does the
computer extracted any sense of reading the bible?

The same with human. We are in general nothing best than computers. We
can read a book, but we cannot extract much sense out of it, unless we are
compulsive "ruminators" of what we are reading.

I remember the first time I read a book a physics, I only wanted to make
sense of words like energy, force, power and work. For in general, when
I read some comments that contained those words I was rather lost.

But this is mostly all I read of the book of physics. Then, when I read
about kinematics, I was a little puzzled that they defined work just to
moving a mass from a place to another. I understood this definition was
not good, for it is not clear how much force or energy you need to
move a mass from a place to another. There was a lot of variables involved.

I think the argument of kinematics was badly defined. I missed other
variables like time, or friction, etc. Most of the practical work of
moving a mass, involves friction and gravity. Both of these variables
can change totally the meaning of work as defined by moving a mass from
here to there. If we do not know these couple of variables we cannot
have a clear notion of the work involved. For in a state of weightlessness
like a mass in the space, to move a mass a certain distance, independent
of the movement it has... we do not need much force, unless we are demanding
some velocity for the new movement. When a meteorite is going towards
the earth, not only the earth is accelerating the meteorite, but the
meteorite is also accelerating the earth. But due to the insignificant
forces involved, we could measure the acceleration of refined instrument
the meteorite but not the acceleration of the earth. We have not any sort
of instrument to measure this acceleration on the earth. But we can
theoretically calculate this acceleration with some maths.


It seemed to me that kinematics do not contemplated the work performed by
the "mover". The work performed by the one that pushes the cart, or that
raises a mass to some hight, is not contemplated in kinematics. Then,
the first thing a young man can perceive is this absence of the animal
work involved. Or just in case, if we are talking about a machine or a
reactor rocket, there is a lot more of substance in kinematics when you
move an mass some distance.
To move a mass some distance in 100 years do not involve the same rate of
power as moving the same mass in 20 seconds. Then, the rate of power is
important, specially if we are thinking about animal power doing some work.
Then, a student has an intuitive concept of power that comes from some
physical exertions like running, walking or doing other jobs.
A teacher that is telling a student that it involves the same amount of
work to run a mile than to walk it, is doing a bad job, and it would be
warping the intelligence of the student. To say that is counterintuitive
for the student knows that is not the same effort to walk ten miles than
to run the same distance.

Not only animals doing a work are limited by the maximum power they can
deliver and for how long. Even machines are also limited. If you have
a machine it has a limited amount of power, and that means that some
works only can be done by acting for extended periods of time. I remember
being pulling on a chain to raised a heavy motor and it took a lot of
time to do it. I was tired when I finished. But by doing a lot of modest
effort on a chain with a pulley device I was able to raised a motor of
a couple of tons. It was so slow a process that I thought I would never
finished this damn job. Perhaps the one that gave me this order was teaching
some nasty lecture of mechanical work. Of course, I knew what a pulley was.
This is taught in primary school. But I do not knew this as fact of life,
something you ordered to do.

Eri


pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 25, 2015, 9:54:57 AM4/25/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, 25 April 2015 11:54:58 UTC+1, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:

> A computer can be programmed to read the bible, our even to read it aloud
> in English. Well, does the computer knows what he had read? Does the
> computer extracted any sense of reading the bible?

Here is why you fail(Below your other comments) I see that you are one step away from thinking clearly, you ask many questions. And you are a nats penus away from truth.

Now ask yourself a simple question (& ignore any MUMBO JUMBO your brain may have previously been exposed to).

1) Does 1+1 = 2?

If you answered "Yes", that is a precedent. That you can build on.

With enough of these, all of your questions (Below) are answered.

Which brings us back, to your *ILLOGICAL* Book, the bible.

It breaks all precedents (pre cedants, a.k.a pre-laws that we have established as *TRUE*).

It is a work of total gibberish.

Now, you may infer, that from Gibberish true enlightenment arises.

Who am I to argue?

Peter Nyikos

unread,
Apr 27, 2015, 3:49:50 PM4/27/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
All of it? Including Ecclesiastes?

I also suggest you read (re-read?) the part of the Book of Job
that Christians generally don't like to talk about:
Chapters 3-31, where Job, while believing in God, delivers
one of the most searing indictments of that God's ways that I have
ever seen, making most cracks by atheists seem juvenile in comparison.

Christians love to quote the following mistranslation:

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:

but they almost always ignore the second half of the same verse:

but I will maintain mine own ways before him.
--Job 13:15 King James Version (KJV)

And that's just a warm up. Have a look at this:

Men remove landmarks;
they seize flocks and pasture them.
3
They drive away the ass of the fatherless;
they take the widow's ox for a pledge.
4
They thrust the poor off the road;
the poor of the earth all hide themselves.
5
Behold, like wild asses in the desert
they go forth to their toil,
seeking prey in the wilderness
as food[a] for their children.
6
They gather their[b] fodder in the field
and they glean the vineyard of the wicked man.
7
They lie all night naked, without clothing,
and have no covering in the cold.
8
They are wet with the rain of the mountains,
and cling to the rock for want of shelter.
9
(There are those who snatch the fatherless child from the breast,
and take in pledge the infant of the poor.)
10
They go about naked, without clothing;
hungry, they carry the sheaves;
11
among the olive rows of the wicked[c] they make oil;
they tread the wine presses, but suffer thirst.
12
From out of the city the dying groan,
and the soul of the wounded cries for help;
yet God pays no attention to their prayer.
--Job 24:1-12, Revised Standard version

[a] Job 24:5 Heb food to him
[b] Job 24:6 Heb his

The Jerusalem Bible is even more emphatic in that last line:
"Yet God remains deaf to their appeal!"


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 28, 2015, 9:09:48 AM4/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You are approaching this, as if Moses, (Who was supposed to have written Job), actuall believed, in YHWH.

If he did exist he was a thinking man. And even he knew the hypocracy of the hebrew God.

But what happened then is happening today & will always happen.

And it doesn't take an I.Q. as high as the writer of the book of Job, to note, this thing.

1) If you was God, wouldn't you simply cure *EVERY* child with leukemia?

And that's the only argument you need to know.



Peter Nyikos

unread,
Apr 28, 2015, 11:04:48 AM4/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Actually, Moses is only supposed to have written the Torah
(Pentateuch) or large parts thereof, by fundies who have little
idea of how the Bible was compiled. The book of Job is of
much more recent vintage. What may be confusing to you
is that it is set in a time even before that of Moses,
hence its use of archaisms such as "Shaddai" for YHWH.

Actually, Job never refers to God as YHWH at all. The Jerusalem Bible
is perhaps unique in spelling out "Yahweh" wherever YHWH
is in the original, but in Job's speeches where he doesn't
use archaisms, what he says is translated "God". Not having
seen the original, I guess that the word he uses is "Elohim".
[I believe the King James Version would render it as "The Lord"
if it were "Adonai."]

> If he did exist he was a thinking man. And even he knew the hypocracy
> of the hebrew God.

He was very meek about it if he was; quite unlike Abraham,
who kept arguing with God against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

> But what happened then is happening today & will always happen.
>
> And it doesn't take an I.Q. as high as the writer of the book of Job, to note, this thing.
>
> 1) If you was God, wouldn't you simply cure *EVERY* child with leukemia?

> And that's the only argument you need to know.

Au contraire, you need to be able to deal with counter-arguments,
some of which will outflank you "on the left," so to speak, such as:

"Why do you meekly talk about `cure' when the real question is,
`Why does God allow children to get leukemia in the first place?'?"

Then, of course, there are counter-arguments from the "right"
as well as the "left", such as:

1. "He is expediting their entry into a heaven much nicer than
any earthly place could be."

2. "He is making sure that human beings understand the difference
between good and bad, right and wrong, in line with him having
made humans to his image and likeness."

Of course, there are counter-counter arguments to these and other
counter-arguments, but my point is, you seem singularly naive
as to what counts as an unanswerable argument.

I get the impression that you are new to talk.origins. Here
is something I post in reply even to people who have been
here for decades, but have been spoiled rotten by hardly
ever being challenged by knowledgeable adversaries.

Arguments and counter-arguments seldom count for much
in a politically charged newsgroup like this one.
It is in the counter-counter arguments, and counter-counter-counter
arguments that one may start to get a feel for where the truth might
lie. And even those are of little or no value when one of the parties
is holding what he thinks is the real knockdown argument in reserve.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 28, 2015, 11:29:48 AM4/28/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:04:48 UTC+1, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 9:09:48 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

> Actually, Moses is only supposed to have written the Torah
> (Pentateuch) or large parts thereof, by fundies who have little
> idea of how the Bible was compiled. The book of Job is of
> much more recent vintage.

King Josiah Miraculously finds the scroll of moses.

Please don't patronize me.

> What may be confusing to you
> is that it is set in a time even before that of Moses,
> hence its use of archaisms such as "Shaddai" for YHWH.


Nothing confuses me, only mans need for enlightenment.



> Actually, Job never refers to God as YHWH at all. The Jerusalem Bible
> is perhaps unique in spelling out "Yahweh" wherever YHWH
> is in the original, but in Job's speeches where he doesn't
> use archaisms, what he says is translated "God". Not having
> seen the original,

Yet you are an expert.

> I guess that the word he uses is "Elohim".


I guess that 2+2=3.


> [I believe the King James Version would render it as "The Lord"
> if it were "Adonai."]
>
> > If he did exist he was a thinking man. And even he knew the hypocracy
> > of the hebrew God.
>
> He was very meek about it if he was;


Nope. He spoke his mind.

> quite unlike Abraham, who kept arguing with God against the destruction of
> Sodom and Gomorrah.

Exodus 32:11


> > But what happened then is happening today & will always happen.
> >
> > And it doesn't take an I.Q. as high as the writer of the book of Job, to note, this thing.
> >
> > 1) If you was God, wouldn't you simply cure *EVERY* child with leukemia?
>
> > And that's the only argument you need to know.
>
> Au contraire, you need to be able to deal with counter-arguments,
> some of which will outflank you "on the left," so to speak, such as:
>
> "Why do you meekly talk about `cure' when the real question is,
> `Why does God allow children to get leukemia in the first place?'?"


Let me Guess. Please don't go near that tree you will contract a disease!

Who created the disease?


> Then, of course, there are counter-arguments from the "right"
> as well as the "left", such as:
>
> 1. "He is expediting their entry into a heaven much nicer than
> any earthly place could be."

Kill with kindness, yes next time I'm in a court of law for murder, that will be my defence.


> 2. "He is making sure that human beings understand the difference
> between good and bad, right and wrong, in line with him having
> made humans to his image and likeness."

You are foregetting, 1 simple truth.

********I******** am a **HUMAN BEING**.

I would *NEVER* kill to prove my point!

I would never put my foot down before a spider, so that it turns left, and if it turn's right, place my boot on it's tourso.

***ONLY A SICK MIND WOULD DO THAT***.



> Of course, there are counter-counter arguments to these and other
> counter-arguments, but my point is, you seem singularly naive
> as to what counts as an unanswerable argument.

Really?

I appear to be more qualified, than you & your religious leaders.


> I get the impression that you are new to talk.origins.

I'm sure that nearly everyone here will tell you.

If T.O. had a 20year old cancer, they would call it a Spin.

Peter Nyikos

unread,
Apr 30, 2015, 11:44:42 AM4/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 11:29:48 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:04:48 UTC+1, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 9:09:48 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
>
> > Actually, Moses is only supposed to have written the Torah
> > (Pentateuch) or large parts thereof, by fundies who have little
> > idea of how the Bible was compiled. The book of Job is of
> > much more recent vintage.
>
> King Josiah Miraculously finds the scroll of moses.

I was talking about this day and age, not claims made
in the Bible itself. Fundies accept these accounts for
reasons inheret in the term "fundies."

> Please don't patronize me.

What do you call what you are doing to me?

> > What may be confusing to you
> > is that it is set in a time even before that of Moses,
> > hence its use of archaisms such as "Shaddai" for YHWH.
>
> Nothing confuses me, only mans need for enlightenment.

Then provide us with more light and less heat.

>
>
> > Actually, Job never refers to God as YHWH at all. The Jerusalem Bible
> > is perhaps unique in spelling out "Yahweh" wherever YHWH
> > is in the original, but in Job's speeches where he doesn't
> > use archaisms, what he says is translated "God". Not having
> > seen the original,
>
> Yet you are an expert.
>
> > I guess that the word he uses is "Elohim".

> I guess that 2+2=3.

And YOU asked ME not to be patronizing! Do you have any better
guesses? Maybe you could give a reference to an authoritative
source that could tell us which Hebrew word Job uses for "God"?


>
> > [I believe the King James Version would render it as "The Lord"
> > if it were "Adonai."]
> >
> > > If he did exist he was a thinking man. And even he knew the hypocracy
> > > of the hebrew God.
> >
> > He was very meek about it if he was;

> Nope. He spoke his mind.
>
> > quite unlike Abraham, who kept arguing with God against the destruction of
> > Sodom and Gomorrah.
>
> Exodus 32:11

Oops, you are right about this. I'd forgotten about that incident.
Well done.

>
> > > But what happened then is happening today & will always happen.
> > >
> > > And it doesn't take an I.Q. as high as the writer of the book of Job, to note, this thing.
> > >
> > > 1) If you was God, wouldn't you simply cure *EVERY* child with leukemia?
> >
> > > And that's the only argument you need to know.
> >
> > Au contraire, you need to be able to deal with counter-arguments,
> > some of which will outflank you "on the left," so to speak, such as:
> >
> > "Why do you meekly talk about `cure' when the real question is,
> > `Why does God allow children to get leukemia in the first place?'?"

> Let me Guess. Please don't go near that tree you will contract a disease!
> Who created the disease?

Nobody. But note, you didn't let yourself be outflanked. You joined
these outflankers wholeheartedly.

> > Then, of course, there are counter-arguments from the "right"
> > as well as the "left", such as:
> >
> > 1. "He is expediting their entry into a heaven much nicer than
> > any earthly place could be."
>
> Kill with kindness, yes next time I'm in a court of law for murder,
> that will be my defence.

Thanks for indirectly confirming that your "1)" is of no use without
counter-counter arguments. Yours, of course, is NOT designed
to try to sway the opponents. You simply put your atheistic
POV up against their Christian POV.

>
> > 2. "He is making sure that human beings understand the difference
> > between good and bad, right and wrong, in line with him having
> > made humans to his image and likeness."
>
> You are foregetting, 1 simple truth.
>
> ********I******** am a **HUMAN BEING**.
>
> I would *NEVER* kill to prove my point!
>
> I would never put my foot down before a spider, so that it turns left, and if it turn's right, place my boot on it's tourso.
>
> ***ONLY A SICK MIND WOULD DO THAT***.

Thank you for demonstrating how WELL you've learned about
good and evil from experience. I get the impression that the
kind of world you think a good creator might create is the kind
of world depicted by Pieter Brueghel in his painting,"The Land
of Cockaigne." Those pudgy blokes lying on the grass
evidently never learned about good and evil.

> > Of course, there are counter-counter arguments to these and other
> > counter-arguments, but my point is, you seem singularly naive
> > as to what counts as an unanswerable argument.
>
> Really?
>
> I appear to be more qualified, than you & your religious leaders.

Let's see how well you deal with my counter-counter-counter
arguments.

>
> > I get the impression that you are new to talk.origins.
>
> I'm sure that nearly everyone here will tell you.
>
> If T.O. had a 20year old cancer, they would call it a Spin.

Oh, have you posted under the pseudonym "Spin" before?

Peter Nyikos

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 30, 2015, 12:29:41 PM4/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 16:44:42 UTC+1, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 11:29:48 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:04:48 UTC+1, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 9:09:48 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
> >
> > > Actually, Moses is only supposed to have written the Torah
> > > (Pentateuch) or large parts thereof, by fundies who have little
> > > idea of how the Bible was compiled. The book of Job is of
> > > much more recent vintage.
> >
> > King Josiah Miraculously finds the scroll of moses.
>
> I was talking about this day and age,

Really? I thought we was talking about an ancient contrivance.


> not claims made
> in the Bible itself. Fundies accept these accounts for
> reasons inheret in the term "fundies."

Yes, it makes as much sense as "Whinney The Poo".

> > Please don't patronize me.
>
> What do you call what you are doing to me?

Leaving no doubt.


> > > What may be confusing to you
> > > is that it is set in a time even before that of Moses,
> > > hence its use of archaisms such as "Shaddai" for YHWH.
> >
> > Nothing confuses me, only mans need for enlightenment.
>
> Then provide us with more light and less heat.

This is how *EVERY* religion starts.

So I say, fuck off, & find the light yourself.


> > > Actually, Job never refers to God as YHWH at all. The Jerusalem Bible
> > > is perhaps unique in spelling out "Yahweh" wherever YHWH
> > > is in the original, but in Job's speeches where he doesn't
> > > use archaisms, what he says is translated "God". Not having
> > > seen the original,
> >
> > Yet you are an expert.
> >
> > > I guess that the word he uses is "Elohim".
>
> > I guess that 2+2=3.
>
> And YOU asked ME not to be patronizing! Do you have any better
> guesses?

I didn't invent the concept of guesswork in this conversation.

> Maybe you could give a reference to an authoritative
> source that could tell us which Hebrew word Job uses for "God"?

When it comes to a book of magic & hocus-pocus, a child is an authority.

> > > [I believe the King James Version would render it as "The Lord"
> > > if it were "Adonai."]
> > >
> > > > If he did exist he was a thinking man. And even he knew the hypocracy
> > > > of the hebrew God.
> > >
> > > He was very meek about it if he was;
>
> > Nope. He spoke his mind.
> >
> > > quite unlike Abraham, who kept arguing with God against the destruction of
> > > Sodom and Gomorrah.
> >
> > Exodus 32:11
>
> Oops, you are right about this. I'd forgotten about that incident.
> Well done.

Thank You!


> > > > But what happened then is happening today & will always happen.
> > > >
> > > > And it doesn't take an I.Q. as high as the writer of the book of Job, to note, this thing.
> > > >
> > > > 1) If you was God, wouldn't you simply cure *EVERY* child with leukemia?
> > >
> > > > And that's the only argument you need to know.
> > >
> > > Au contraire, you need to be able to deal with counter-arguments,
> > > some of which will outflank you "on the left," so to speak, such as:
> > >
> > > "Why do you meekly talk about `cure' when the real question is,
> > > `Why does God allow children to get leukemia in the first place?'?"
>
> > Let me Guess. Please don't go near that tree you will contract a disease!
> > Who created the disease?
>
> Nobody. But note, you didn't let yourself be outflanked. You joined
> these outflankers wholeheartedly.

Well you needed direction.

> > > Then, of course, there are counter-arguments from the "right"
> > > as well as the "left", such as:
> > >
> > > 1. "He is expediting their entry into a heaven much nicer than
> > > any earthly place could be."
> >
> > Kill with kindness, yes next time I'm in a court of law for murder,
> > that will be my defence.
>
> Thanks for indirectly confirming that your "1)" is of no use without
> counter-counter arguments. Yours, of course, is NOT designed
> to try to sway the opponents. You simply put your atheistic
> POV up against their Christian POV.


With my argument, "Kill with Kindness" (As God Does), Aren't we excusing every killer who ever existed? Mostly Religious ones, as God will (expedite their entry into a heaven )?

Context adds meaning.

> > > 2. "He is making sure that human beings understand the difference
> > > between good and bad, right and wrong, in line with him having
> > > made humans to his image and likeness."
> >
> > You are foregetting, 1 simple truth.
> >
> > ********I******** am a **HUMAN BEING**.
> >
> > I would *NEVER* kill to prove my point!
> >
> > I would never put my foot down before a spider, so that it turns left, and if it turn's right, place my boot on it's tourso.
> >
> > ***ONLY A SICK MIND WOULD DO THAT***.

> Thank you for demonstrating how WELL you've learned about
> good and evil from experience.

Really?

> I get the impression that the kind of world you think a good creator might
> create is

Not this one.

> the kind of world depicted by Pieter Brueghel in his painting,"The Land
> of Cockaigne." Those pudgy blokes lying on the grass
> evidently never learned about good and evil.


A problem without a solution. I'm not good with those.

> > > Of course, there are counter-counter arguments to these and other
> > > counter-arguments, but my point is, you seem singularly naive
> > > as to what counts as an unanswerable argument.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > I appear to be more qualified, than you & your religious leaders.
>
> Let's see how well you deal with my counter-counter-counter
> arguments.

K.

> > > I get the impression that you are new to talk.origins.
> >
> > I'm sure that nearly everyone here will tell you.
> >
> > If T.O. had a 20year old cancer, they would call it a Spin.
>
> Oh, have you posted under the pseudonym "Spin" before?


Why in your mind is that a crime?

Would you allow your 6 year old daughter (who insists on posting on the WWW) to give her name, address, your bank details, and every piece of information that could hurt her, to be posted in the most dangerous maximum security prison of pedophiles & murderers? Of course not.

There is a stronger argument for anonimity, than against it.

Leopoldo Perdomo

unread,
Apr 30, 2015, 2:19:41 PM4/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
perhaps this king simply ordered to write new books to be added
to the set that existed before.
Eri

Leopoldo Perdomo

unread,
Apr 30, 2015, 2:19:41 PM4/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Amazing!
I had not read that much the bible, but some pages here and there.
But I remember some comments anyone made in the Nazi death camps.
Where is god? Yeah, where is god when you need it?
It seems there is not any.
Eri

Peter Nyikos

unread,
Apr 30, 2015, 5:19:41 PM4/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 2:19:41 PM UTC-4, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> El lunes, 27 de abril de 2015, 20:49:50 (UTC+1), Peter Nyikos escribió:
> > On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 9:54:57 AM UTC-4, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> > > Here is why you fail(Below your other comments) I see that you are one step away from thinking clearly, you ask many questions. And you are a nats penus away from truth.

"gnat's penis" is what he is trying to say. He is assuming that,
since you aren't a militant atheist like him, you still haven't
completely found what he "KNOWS" to be the truth.

> > > Now ask yourself a simple question (& ignore any MUMBO JUMBO your brain may have previously been exposed to).
> > >
> > > 1) Does 1+1 = 2?
> > > If you answered "Yes", that is a precedent. That you can build on.

Note the patronizing tone.

> > > With enough of these, all of your questions (Below) are answered.
> > >
> > > Which brings us back, to your *ILLOGICAL* Book, the bible.

Funny how he associated this book with YOU, Eri. Not very bright
is he?
And I'm afraid you may be right, Eri. But I continue to hope,
due to the way Jesus is said to have been divine, yet one
of us, and sharing in one of the most gruesome deaths
the ancient world had at its disposal. That was indeed
a "stumbling block" to the rational Greeks, as St. Paul
put it, but it has given billions of Christians hope that
the suffering of those people Job describes is temporary
and is as nothing compared to their joy in heaven.

A very slim hope, but I cling to it nevertheless. I'd
despair at all the evil and suffering in this world if
I were ever to become the kind of unquestioning atheist
Mr. Blackburn is.

Peter Nyikos

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 30, 2015, 5:44:41 PM4/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Oish.

> A very slim hope, but I cling to it nevertheless.

Good luck with that.

> I'd despair at all the evil and suffering in this world if
> I were ever to become the kind of unquestioning atheist
> Mr. Blackburn is.


You're right of course.

Fear of death, is an excellent reason to believe in God.

Now why don't you be a man, and accept your fate?

> Peter Nyikos


pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 30, 2015, 6:09:41 PM4/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 22:19:41 UTC+1, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> He is assuming that, since you aren't a militant atheist like him....

I prefer "Highly motivated Agnostic".

> >> quite unlike Abraham, who kept arguing with God against the destruction of
> >>Sodom and Gomorrah.

> >Exodus 32:11

Wow, that's gotta hurt.

A (How did you say?) "militant atheist" knows scripture better than a churech going lunatic.

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Apr 30, 2015, 10:49:41 PM4/30/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 19:19:41 UTC+1, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> El martes, 28 de abril de 2015, 16:29:48 (UTC+1), pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk
> > King Josiah Miraculously finds the scroll of moses.

> perhaps this king simply ordered to write new books to be added
> to the set that existed before.
> Eri


This is how things work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJt7gNi3Nr4

pedr...@lycos.com

unread,
May 1, 2015, 4:14:39 AM5/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 10:45:04 PM UTC+8, John Vreeland wrote:

> I generally treat anyone who claims both to have read the entire Bible
> and to be a Christian with some suspicion. For me the book revealed
> the awful truth behind the mostly happy stories, and contributed
> greatly to my final break with Christianity.

I treat anyone who claims to have read the entire Koran with suspicion.
It is a turgid boring bag of shit.

Leopoldo Perdomo

unread,
May 1, 2015, 5:54:40 AM5/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Well, I am not prone to this despair, because the natural world is thus.
I mean, there are moments of peace and quite and suddenly... when you
least expect it, everything is asunder. It start raining meteorites from
the sky, or it is starting a new glacial age. Then, the seven billion
humans of this planet are a too heavy load for mother earth. It is time
to kill 990/1000 of them. And that is, a new age of extinction arrives.

In this sense, in a naturalistic sense, we are living in a sort of paradise;
for most of the human animals. But think about what happens... when an
excess of population, of whatever species, occur. I remember now a video
I watched years ago, "the Mautam", a sudden invasion of rats close to the
bamboo forests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mautam

In some sense, this can be seen as a horrific parable on overpopulation.

If you think in geologic terms, the industrial, or even the civilized man,
it had been like a brief lightening in the night. Things are presumable
to return back to normalcy. That is, humans should be a humble living
animal species like any another. But being humans so frail and with so
little natural power to survive... they needed to develop a minimum of intelligence; then it come out the stone age tools, and the spears with
a sharp point of stone, or even later the bows and arrows, etc. This
was an urgent need to survive in a harsh environment. Nature in general
do not show much pity for the living beings.
And hunger is frequent, and has not a moment to feel pity, but to kill
anything that moves and it eat.
In normal times, the rat of the bamboo forest, barely survives. It
is not so rare that a female rat would eat their own progeny due to
hunger. For the bamboo forest do not provide much food. The density
or rats in in there is very low.

But some weeks after the flowering of the bamboo, a sudden explosion of
living rats occur. They start to grow exponentially very fast. When
the fruits of the bamboo are consumed... they get out of the forest...
like "a flood of rats". Thats the way the natives call this phenomenon.
But outside the forest there is not enough food for the billions or rats
that had suddenly appeared. They had to perish by hunger, and devour each
other in the process to satiate the hunger. A few rats had remained in
the forest, read to wait another 50 years, for a new sudden burst of overpopulation to occur.

All the miseries civilized humans had suffered in the past, or just suffer
are suffering in the present, are the result of some "overpopulation".
I do not think Malthus was wrong. The last hundred years of humanity,
it is a little like the abundance of fruits provided by the bamboo forest.
The present fruits we are enjoying now, are the coal and oil we extract
from ground. We are at present eating the fruits of the bamboo forest.
They would not last on the whole more than 50 or 60 years. After that,
the Armageddon is awaiting, it is hiding behind our ignorance ready to
devour us all in the wink of an eye.

Then, it is not so rare that a lot of people would love to think that
another life "full of happiness" is awaiting us in the afterlife.
It is a sort of anesthesia, or the "soma" mentioned in the novel of
Aldous Huxley, A Brave New World.

Eri





jonathan

unread,
May 1, 2015, 6:39:39 AM5/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Name one place in the known universe more wondrous or capable
than being alive and aware?

This is Heaven! We are already there. Good, bad or indifferent
this is what Heaven is like, and every day is another step in
The Garden.

One of these days it'll dawn on you that Heaven isn't
a place, but a state of mind. And God is our vision
of Utopia.

No evidence is needed to prove the existence of God
or Heaven, they are a product of pure reason and
entirely...self-evident.



Jonathan



"Truth -- is as old as God
His Twin identity
And will endure as long as He
A Co-Eternity

And perish on the Day
Himself is borne away
From Mansion of the Universe
A lifeless Deity."





s
















jonathan

unread,
May 1, 2015, 7:19:39 AM5/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I think you could learn a thing or two from Islam
and the Ayatollahs. The following is from the website
of Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the highest ranking Ayatollah
in all of Shia Islam and whose word is law.

A couple of...recent examples of his opinions.


Grand Ayatollah Sistani.org
http://www.sistani.org/english/



Advice and Guidance to the Fighters on the Battlefields


2. With regards to Jihad there are general guidelines to
which one must adhere even when confronting non-Muslims.
The Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, advised
Companions to follow these general guidelines before
sending them off to battle. .....'Do not indulge in acts
of extremism, do not disrespect dead corpses, do not resort
to deceit, do not kill an elder, do not kill a child,
do not kill a woman, and do no not cut down trees
unless necessity dictates otherwise.'

3. Similarly, the fighting against those Muslims who
oppress [others] and who wage war [unjustly] has its
guidelines and etiquettes, too.

7. Never inflict harm on non-Muslims, regardless of
their religion and sect. The non-Muslims [who live
in predominately Muslim lands] are under the
protection of the Muslims in those lands.
Whosoever attacks non-Muslims is a betrayer and traitor.
And rest assured that such an act of betrayal and
treachery is one of the most repugnant acts in
accordance to innate nature and the religion
of God.


20. Everyone must let go of those sentiments which
carry hatred and bigotry. Follow the noble manners.
God has made people into different tribes and races
so that they may know each other. Do not be overcome
by narrow-minded views and personal egos. Do you not
see how the majority of Muslims today are engaged in
self-destruction where they spend their resources,
energy, and wealth on killing and destruction of
each other? They should instead spend their resources
and wealth on the advancement of knowledge and
multiplying their resources and improve the welfare
of the people.


http://www.sistani.org/english/archive/25036/



...................





Found this on Ayatollah Sistani's main page



The Monitor's View... Who can end Iraq's Sunni-Shiite violence?


As Sunni-Shiite tensions erupted over the past year after
sectarian power grabs by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,
Mr. Sistani met with religious Sunni leaders to tell them
that Iraqi Muslims (and the country’s ethnic Kurds) have
too much in common to split over long-held theological
and cultural disputes. He has called on the prime minister
to “give justice to the Sunnis in Iraq.” He even puts
Iraqi national identity above a Muslim one.

Unlike the Shiite clerics in neighboring Iran, Sistani warns
against the dangers of clerical rule, favoring instead such
democratic equalizers as one person, one vote. Like many
Shiites in Iraq, he has embraced the democracy implanted
after the 2003 American ouster of Saddam Hussein.

That mental shift is important. Shiites, being a minority
in the Muslim world, have a history of being rebellious
against Sunni dominance. With a culture rooted in protest,
are not used to holding secular power. That kind of
thinking comes with values based on survival, while
a democracy relies on the values of self-governance
and inclusive, collective progress.

Iraq’s young democracy has yet to create the depth of
popular support that is needed to sustain it. The country
still requires leaders who stand up to preserve democracy
when societal divisions jeopardize it. Sistani is one
of those necessary leaders – despite his reluctance to
evoke religious authority for a secular cause.

Within Shiism, leaders like Sistani rise up because
of their principles, education, pedigree, and connections.
They are often seen as infallible. Their fatwas
(edicts) are obeyed.

It is rare, then, when such a figure adopts
constitutional democracy as the ideal form
of governance.

http://www.sistani.org/english/in-news/24560/




s

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 1, 2015, 11:04:38 AM5/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It's a suspense thriller compared with the Book of Mormon.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

Tim Norfolk

unread,
May 1, 2015, 11:39:38 AM5/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I read the Koran twice, and found it rather repetitive. I recall a lot of comments about not having sex with camels.

I have the Book of Mormon on my shelf, but haven't read it.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 1, 2015, 2:04:38 PM5/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 1 May 2015 08:37:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Norfolk
<tims...@aol.com>:

>On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:04:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/1/15 1:10 AM, pedr...@lycos.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 10:45:04 PM UTC+8, John Vreeland wrote:
>> >
>> >> I generally treat anyone who claims both to have read the entire Bible
>> >> and to be a Christian with some suspicion. For me the book revealed
>> >> the awful truth behind the mostly happy stories, and contributed
>> >> greatly to my final break with Christianity.
>> >
>> > I treat anyone who claims to have read the entire Koran with suspicion.
>> > It is a turgid boring bag of shit.
>>
>> It's a suspense thriller compared with the Book of Mormon.

>I read the Koran twice, and found it rather repetitive. I recall a lot of comments about not having sex with camels.

One wonders about the perceived need for such a stated
prohibition, especially reinforced through repetition.
Apparently the author knew his audience better than I
imagined he did...

>I have the Book of Mormon on my shelf, but haven't read it.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
May 2, 2015, 4:09:34 PM5/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, 1 May 2015 11:39:39 UTC+1, jonathan wrote:

> Name one place in the known universe more wondrous or capable
> than being alive and aware?
>
> This is Heaven! We are already there. Good, bad or indifferent
> this is what Heaven is like, and every day is another step in
> The Garden.

Nail-Head-Enlightenment-Purpose-Meaning-Philosophy-Debate.

Bang Bang Bang -driven down- Perfect circle - reason for existence - Power from H+Deu, related through the frequency of their interacting at the very frequency of their emission.

Now that is your perfect circle.

A perfect comment, a singular truth.

ed wolf

unread,
May 2, 2015, 6:54:34 PM5/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 8:15:06 PM UTC+2, Mike Painter wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 04:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Joe Cummings
> <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ray Martinez should be having a wonderful time. There is more discussion about the Bible in the NG than usual, and this means that there are more people actually being exposed to the word of the Lord.
> >
> >Could I ask anyone who has been converted to belief by this current perusal of the Bible to come out and be counted?
> >
> >Joe Cummings
>
> I Think you left the "ot" off your subject line.

That would make it "Waiting for Godot"
Cheers
Ed

jonathan

unread,
May 2, 2015, 8:09:34 PM5/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The suffering in the world doesn't bother you?

The vast bulk of the suffering of the world is due
to one thing only, the inability to understand
the difference between a natural system and
a man-made system, and in an abstract way so
it can be applied to society etc.

I've read one of your blogs on the definition
of natural, and you haven't the first clue
either.

Hint: the difference has nothing at all to do
with what the components are made of.

Leopoldo Perdomo

unread,
May 3, 2015, 12:04:35 PM5/3/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I thought the same, "Waiting for Godot"; he must had made a mistake,
I thought.
Eri


Peter Nyikos

unread,
May 7, 2015, 3:09:20 PM5/7/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Hmmm...New Google Groups did not offer to translate that word
into English. Would you be so kind as to do that, yourself?

> > A very slim hope, but I cling to it nevertheless.
>
> Good luck with that.

If you sincerely meant that you are a Highly motivated
[to do what?] Agnostic, then, thanks for your good wishes.

If not, and you are a militant atheist, fgeddaboudit.

> > I'd despair at all the evil and suffering in this world if
> > I were ever to become the kind of unquestioning atheist
> > Mr. Blackburn is.
>
>
> You're right of course.
>
> Fear of death, is an excellent reason to believe in God.

Who said anything about fear of death?

> Now why don't you be a man, and accept your fate?

Done decades ago, IF all that death means, if God does not exist,
is oblivion.

But does it mean that?

"To sleep, perchance to dream...ay, there's the rub..."
-Hamlet

Please resist the temptation to ignore the context of Hamlet's
trenchant remark.

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

unread,
May 7, 2015, 3:29:19 PM5/7/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 8:09:34 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> On 4/30/2015 6:04 PM, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > On Thursday, 30 April 2015 22:19:41 UTC+1, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
> >>> Amazing!
> >>> I had not read that much the bible, but some pages here and there.
> >>> But I remember some comments anyone made in the Nazi death camps.
> >>> Where is god? Yeah, where is god when you need it?
> >>> It seems there is not any.
> >>> Eri
> >>
>
> >> And I'm afraid you may be right, Eri. But I continue to hope,
> >> due to the way Jesus is said to have been divine, yet one
> >> of us, and sharing in one of the most gruesome deaths
> >> the ancient world had at its disposal. That was indeed
> >> a "stumbling block" to the rational Greeks, as St. Paul
> >> put it, but it has given billions of Christians hope that
> >> the suffering of those people Job describes is temporary
> >> and is as nothing compared to their joy in heaven.
> >>
> >> A very slim hope, but I cling to it nevertheless. I'd
> >> despair at all the evil and suffering in this world if
> >> I were ever to become the kind of unquestioning atheist
> >> Mr. Blackburn is.
>
>
>
> The suffering in the world doesn't bother you?

What's the matter, can't you read? It bothers me
tremendously.

On the other hand, your fautuous "This is Heaven!"
comment certainly does create the impression that
it does not bother YOU.

> The vast bulk of the suffering of the world is due
> to one thing only, the inability to understand
> the difference between a natural system and
> a man-made system, and in an abstract way so
> it can be applied to society etc.

Good luck on telling that to the victims of the Nepal
earthquake who are still alive, but who have lost
someone dear to them.

Be ready to duck any missiles thrown your way.

> I've read one of your blogs on the definition
> of natural, and you haven't the first clue
> either.
>
> Hint: the difference has nothing at all to do
> with what the components are made of.

um...are you talking to me, or to "pdblackburn"?
To what "blogs" are you referring?

> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >
> >> He is assuming that, since you aren't a militant atheist like him....
> >
> > I prefer "Highly motivated Agnostic".
> >
> >>>> quite unlike Abraham, who kept arguing with God against the destruction of
> >>>> Sodom and Gomorrah.
> >
> >>> Exodus 32:11
> >
> > Wow, that's gotta hurt.
> >
> > A (How did you say?) "militant atheist" knows scripture better than
> > a churech going lunatic.

The "knows scripture" bit cannot be determined in the wake of the
absurdly sketchy evidence we have so far. As for "lunatic", I suggest
people look at the last week of the thread "Answering Questions" and ask
themselves: if one of {Peter Nyikos, pdblack...@hotmail.co.uk} is a lunatic,
which one is it?

And as for 'church going,' I wonder whether "pdblackburn" goes to church
because he can get a good laugh at least one hour a week from doing so.

Peter Nyikos

0 new messages