Ray Martinez: an "ad hoc" silence?

[Joe Cummings]

Our friend Ray has been banging on for some time about how the
inquisitors were not Christians, and when doing their work were
therefore murderers.

I have tried in vain to get a ruling from Ray as to whether those
Protestants who carried out similar work were also not Christians and
therefore murderers.

I cited in particular Tawney who wrote in "Religion and the Rise of
Capitalism" that there were on average two immolations a year in
Calvinist Geneva.

I would add also the Margaret Clitheroe, a Recusant Catholic was
sentenced at York to be pressed to death - "Peine forte et dure."
She was laid under a door upon which stones were placed until she expired.

The treatment of these people in Geneva and at York was carried out in
the name of the Protestants' God.

If Ray would also condemn them, that would end the matter for me.

Can he do that?


Joe Cummings

[Ray Martinez]

Joe: How long has it been since you stopped beating and raping your wife?

Ray

[Joe Cummings]

Ray's Magisterial failure to reply is noted.

Joe Cummings

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>Joe: How long has it been since you stopped beating and raping your wife?

Perhaps you should try out for football; footwork like that
could make you rich as a wide receiver.
--

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

[Joe Cummings]

On 11/02/2016 21:03, Ray Martinez wrote:

I think we should all be grateful to Ray for such a classical example of
cognitive dissonance syndrome:

When something is presented to a person that is completely contrary to
their beliefs, there are a number of possible reactions, to attack the
bearer of the news, to deny the truth of the news, and to reaffirm one's
beliefs.

Ray, seeing the information about Protestant killings and tortures,
realises that these facts aren't going to disappear, and has opted to
attack the bearer of the information. Let me assure the reader that it
doesn't hurt, and, like the information, I'm not going to disappear
anytime soon.

I notice that whenever he is cornered he lashes out in all directions,
and isn't afraid of lying to maintain his position.

But for the moment, we have to recognise that he's in a very difficult
situation, and really ought to have our friendly help to wean him away
from his (too) fixed ideas.

He'll have to come to terms with the fact that his views are
untenable,and his much-vaunted book about Darwin is never going to see
the light of day.

If he feels to be in need of help or friendly advice, let him remember
that we are here to help him.

With sympathetic best wishes,

JoeCummings

[Joe Cummings]

Here's another name for Ray.

This time it is that of Giles Corey, who was pressed to death by
Protestants during the Salem Witch Trials in Massachusetts in the
seventeenth century.

They would no doubt claim they were doing God's work.

I wonder what heinous crimes Ray will invent this time to accuse me of?

Buggery with a horse? Sodomy with a goat?

I wait with baited breath, but I'm quite sure it will be just as
irrelevant as his previous effort.

Let me repeat: I condemn both the Catholic AND the Protestant
obscenities in their treatment of dissidents, whereas Ray has refused to
say anything about the actions of Protestants, even though he is making
an impossible attempt to gain the moral high ground in another thread on
the Inquisition.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Joe Cummings]

Before the grammar police catch me, a correction: "bated breath."

J.C.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:08:57 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@gmail.com>:

I was wondering if you ate a tin of anchovies and were lying
in wait for the cat... ;-)

[jillery]

Considering that a lot of bait stinks, one wouldn't want to have
baited breath.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[James Beck]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:57:55 +0100, Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/02/2016 11:04, Joe Cummings wrote:
>> Our friend Ray has been banging on for some time about how the
>> inquisitors were not Christians, and when doing their work were
>> therefore murderers.
>>
>> I have tried in vain to get a ruling from Ray as to whether those
>> Protestants who carried out similar work were also not Christians and
>> therefore murderers.
>>
>> I cited in particular Tawney who wrote in "Religion and the Rise of
>> Capitalism" that there were on average two immolations a year in
>> Calvinist Geneva.

[snip]

People are a bit too casual in their use of the word 'capitalism.'
Today it's used more or less synonymously with market economics, but
at the time referring to an English Calvinist as a capitalist would
have been understood to mean that the person believed that the church
is a dictator in its own sphere and that the economy should be laissez
faire.

In other words, it was a return to the early Christian view of the
separation of church and propertied (e)state(s). Broadly, I find Ray's
position doctrinally consistent with early 20th century English
Calvinism, 'English' being a key term.

In England, the Calvinists were a repressed minority, eyed with
suspicion, and on carefully good behavior. By contrast, in Geneva,
they were a majority. Why ask him to defend all corners?

[Ernest Major]

On 14/02/2016 21:53, James Beck wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:57:55 +0100, Joe Cummings
> <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2016 11:04, Joe Cummings wrote:
>>> Our friend Ray has been banging on for some time about how the
>>> inquisitors were not Christians, and when doing their work were
>>> therefore murderers.
>>>
>>> I have tried in vain to get a ruling from Ray as to whether those
>>> Protestants who carried out similar work were also not Christians and
>>> therefore murderers.
>>>
>>> I cited in particular Tawney who wrote in "Religion and the Rise of
>>> Capitalism" that there were on average two immolations a year in
>>> Calvinist Geneva.
> [snip]
>
> People are a bit too casual in their use of the word 'capitalism.'
> Today it's used more or less synonymously with market economics, but
> at the time referring to an English Calvinist as a capitalist would
> have been understood to mean that the person believed that the church
> is a dictator in its own sphere and that the economy should be laissez
> faire.
>
> In other words, it was a return to the early Christian view of the
> separation of church and propertied (e)state(s). Broadly, I find Ray's
> position doctrinally consistent with early 20th century English
> Calvinism, 'English' being a key term.
>

If I recall correctly, Ray has denied being a Calvinist.

> In England, the Calvinists were a repressed minority, eyed with
> suspicion, and on carefully good behavior. By contrast, in Geneva,
> they were a majority. Why ask him to defend all corners?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[James Beck]

Ray strikes me as a Precisian, so I don't doubt that he can find a
rationale under which he can deny almost any affiliation. Paley was
technically C of E, I suppose, though what he might have considered
classical liberalism would have put him at odds with the Crown and in
sympathy with the English Calvinist minority.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <dfydnbTv44XU_V3L...@giganews.com>,

Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Before the grammar police catch me, a correction: "bated breath."

Unlike the cat who ate cheese and stayed near the mousehole with
baited breath?!

[Joe Cummings]

I was trying, and I think I've succeeded, to show that Protestants and
Catholics were just as cruel as each other in the 15th. and 16th. centuries.

My reference to Calvinism was only to show that as Protestants they were
just as cruel as the others, and I wanted also to show that it not just
an assertion of mine, but that there was a reference source in Tawney.

To discuss "capitalism" and Calvinism would take us too far away from
the point I was making, although it's a topic that's full of interest.

I also hope that Ray will by now be dimly aware that, if Catholics had a
lot to answer for, so had the various Protestant sects.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Ray Martinez]

The inferior cannot help the superior.

Ray

[Joe Cummings]

So Ray still can't face the truth. He's still blinded by dogma, so
instead he utters what he fondly thinks will be regarded as a gnomic
utterance. It isn't.

Regarding his "gnomic utterance," who's doing the judging?

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Ernest Major]

It sounds like something Ayn Rand might have written, but Google doesn't
find it.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Peter Nyikos]

Sorry for the very late reply. I chanced across this post while looking
for the latest post of by Joe Cummings. I hope he isn't gone for good.

Ray has said that his affiliation is with the cult [not his word,
of course] of Gene Scott, carried on by his widow. I've asked
him whether he physically attends services, but have not seen
a reply.

> Paley was
> technically C of E, I suppose, though what he might have considered
> classical liberalism would have put him at odds with the Crown and in
> sympathy with the English Calvinist minority.


>
> >> In England, the Calvinists were a repressed minority, eyed with
> >> suspicion, and on carefully good behavior. By contrast, in Geneva,
> >> they were a majority. Why ask him to defend all corners?
> >>

By the way, Ray's latest word on who is a Christian seems to be
that if one is not following Christ in some action (say, murder)
he at least temporarily ceases to become a Christian.

Of course, he is cutting the ground out from under his feet
thereby, because now he can't taunt and jeer that when I
accuse him of lying, it is the word of an "Atheist" against
a "Christian." By his standards, I am not accusing a Christian
of lying, but someone who ceased to be a Christian in the act of
lying.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Peter Nyikos accepts and promotes the assumptions of Materialism to explain scientific evidence. These assumptions of course are pro-Atheism. Peter also propagates space aliens, as opposed to God, to be responsible for the first life forms on earth. This belief corresponds to Atheism as well. And as an Evolutionist Peter rejects the concept of design existing in nature. Once again this position corresponds to Atheism; and Peter, as one could expect, rejects Biblical miracles, as all Atheists are known to do. Yet in spite of these pro-Atheism views Peter denies being an Atheist.

For making these observations, Peter tars me---the messenger----as a liar.

Ray (Christian, Paleyan Creationist)

[jillery]

Pot meets kettle. Just sayin'.

[Ray Martinez]

Both Jillery and Peter Nyikos are Atheists and of course Evolutionists. I am a Christian and of course a Paleyan Creationist.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 7:03:46 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 8:58:48 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:20:05 AM UTC-5, James Beck wrote:
> > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:41:58 +0000, Ernest Major
> > > <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On 14/02/2016 21:53, James Beck wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:57:55 +0100, Joe Cummings
> > > >> <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 11/02/2016 11:04, Joe Cummings wrote:
> > > >>>> Our friend Ray has been banging on for some time about how the
> > > >>>> inquisitors were not Christians, and when doing their work were
> > > >>>> therefore murderers.
> >
> > > >>>> I have tried in vain to get a ruling from Ray as to whether those
> > > >>>> Protestants who carried out similar work were also not Christians and
> > > >>>> therefore murderers.

Did you ever issue such a ruling, Ray?

> > > >>>> I cited in particular Tawney who wrote in "Religion and the Rise of
> > > >>>> Capitalism" that there were on average two immolations a year in
> > > >>>> Calvinist Geneva.
> > > >> [snip]

<snip for focus>

> > > >If I recall correctly, Ray has denied being a Calvinist.
> > >
> > > Ray strikes me as a Precisian, so I don't doubt that he can find a
> > > rationale under which he can deny almost any affiliation.
> >
> > Ray has said that his affiliation is with the cult [not his word,
> > of course] of Gene Scott, carried on by his widow. I've asked
> > him whether he physically attends services, but have not seen
> > a reply.

DO you attend services of that church, Ray?

> > > >> In England, the Calvinists were a repressed minority, eyed with
> > > >> suspicion, and on carefully good behavior. By contrast, in Geneva,
> > > >> they were a majority. Why ask him to defend all corners?
> > > >>
> >
> > By the way, Ray's latest word on who is a Christian seems to be
> > that if one is not following Christ in some action (say, murder)
> > he at least temporarily ceases to become a Christian.
> >
> > Of course, he is cutting the ground out from under his feet
> > thereby, because now he can't taunt and jeer that when I
> > accuse him of lying, it is the word of an "Atheist" against
> > a "Christian." By his standards, I am not accusing a Christian
> > of lying, but someone who ceased to be a Christian in the act of
> > lying.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Peter Nyikos accepts and promotes the assumptions of Materialism to
> explain scientific evidence.

Like the evidence that you are the ultimate outcome of a sperm cell
penetrating an oocyte, rather than coming in a towel carried by a stork,
or being directly formed from the dust of the earth, yes.

But that is not the sort of thing you are talking about, is it? Tell me just
what you REALLY meant when you wrote that, so that we may see
just how you once again temporarily stopped being a Christian, by
your own standards [given above, in the text that you conveniently
ignored].

> These assumptions of course are pro-Atheism.

This puts you outside of Christianity, by your own standards. The
fact that I use the methodology of science in every case where there
is no good evidence for divine intervention, is not pro-Atheism.

This fact is the ONLY reality behind your cunningly equivocal
statement that began your reply to my post.

Do you think "wise as serpents" was a mis-translation of something
Jesus said, and that he really advised his followers to be "as
cunning and sneaky as serpents"?

Do you even know enough about the Bible to know which passage
I am talking about?

> Peter also propagates space aliens, as opposed to God,
> to be responsible for the first life forms on earth.

Not "as opposed to God," who could have easily been responsible
for the decision of His first creations to fill the earth with
micro-organisms via directed panspermia -- IF there really is a God,
whose existence I have never denied.

What's more, if God not only exists, but acted in human history
more or less as reported in the Bible, this would be the most natural
hypothesis for the beginning of life on earth.

Would you like to know why, or are you as implacably resolved to
bill me as an Atheist, as Ron Okimoto is to bill me as a creationist?

Btw if this hypothesis is true, you are insulting God's first biological
"children" by calling them "space aliens".

> This belief corresponds to Atheism as well.

Find me one *living* atheist who supports the DP hypothesis, or be
seen as once again ceasing to be a Christian, momentarily at least.

> And as an Evolutionist Peter rejects the concept of design existing
> in nature.

Here again, you are ceasing to be a Christian by your unique standards.
I have said time and again that I am open to the idea of God
designing the universe and even first life in the universe, but
alas! the evidence for God's existence, while strong, is still
over-ruled by such unanswerable questions as "How could we account
for the existence of such a perfectly designed God"?

>Once again this position corresponds to Atheism; and Peter,
> as one could expect, rejects Biblical miracles,

This is the most outrageous falsehood you've uttered in this post,
inasmuch as I have even refuted boiler-plate atheistic attacks
on the reality of Jesus's Resurrection.

If you had behaved like a true Christian, you would have put
"some" between "rejects" and "Biblical miracles."

I do not take Genesis 1- 9 literally, any more than St. Augustine did.
Can you find a single Christian biblical scholar trying to show
St. Augustine SHOULD have taken it literally, before Dawin's
_Origin of Species_ was published?

>as all Atheists are known to do. Yet in spite of these pro-Atheism views Peter denies being an Atheist.

..because I have never expressed any such "pro-Atheism views."

> For making these observations, Peter tars me---the messenger----as a liar.

And rightly so, since they are not observations, but cunning inventions
of your nefarious mind. As a messenger, you are acting like a fallen angel.
[Trivia: "angel" literally means "messenger".]

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
U. of S. Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

I've done my own reply to this pack of lies and half-truths, deceitfully
referred to as "observations".

>
> Pot meets kettle. Just sayin'.

Wrong metaphor. Correct would have been "Throwing stones from
in front of your glass house."

It is you who are in pot-kettle mode with Ray, so much so that
you avoid ever accusing him of lying, due to your own
vulnerability to such an accusation.

One example from the last two weeks: your allegation against
Kalkidas, in effect accusing him of insanity [which you also
don't accuse Ray of, do you?]:

If only scientists could change reality to suit their
preferences, the way you say you can.

You have used a huge variety of dirty debating tactics to avoid giving
any evidence at all for this serious accusation of insane claims by Kalkidas.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 10:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:13:45 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 8:58:48 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> >> By the way, Ray's latest word on who is a Christian seems to be
>> >> that if one is not following Christ in some action (say, murder)
>> >> he at least temporarily ceases to become a Christian.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, he is cutting the ground out from under his feet
>> >> thereby, because now he can't taunt and jeer that when I
>> >> accuse him of lying, it is the word of an "Atheist" against
>> >> a "Christian." By his standards, I am not accusing a Christian
>> >> of lying, but someone who ceased to be a Christian in the act of
>> >> lying.
>> >>
>> >> Peter Nyikos
>> >
>> >Peter Nyikos accepts and promotes the assumptions of Materialism to explain scientific evidence. These assumptions of course are pro-Atheism. Peter also propagates space aliens, as opposed to God, to be responsible for the first life forms on earth. This belief corresponds to Atheism as well. And as an Evolutionist Peter rejects the concept of design existing in nature. Once again this position corresponds to Atheism; and Peter, as one could expect, rejects Biblical miracles, as all Atheists are known to do. Yet in spite of these pro-Atheism views Peter denies being an Atheist.
>> >
>> >For making these observations, Peter tars me---the messenger----as a liar.
>
>I've done my own reply to this pack of lies and half-truths, deceitfully
>referred to as "observations".
>
>>
>> Pot meets kettle. Just sayin'.
>
>Wrong metaphor. Correct would have been "Throwing stones from
>in front of your glass house."

Nope, I picked the one that describes this case quite accurately.

>It is you who are in pot-kettle mode with Ray, so much so that
>you avoid ever accusing him of lying, due to your own
>vulnerability to such an accusation.

How does that even make sense to you? If I don't accuse him of lying,
I can hardly be a pot when he's an accusing-you-of-lying kettle.
Apparently you're so desperate to say something negative about me,
that you don't care that you're incoherent.

OTOH you repeated above another demonstration of your Ray-is-a-liar
pot to his kettle, and so prove my point. You two are birds of a
feather stewing in your own juices.

>One example from the last two weeks: your allegation against
>Kalkidas, in effect accusing him of insanity [which you also
>don't accuse Ray of, do you?]:
>
> If only scientists could change reality to suit their
> preferences, the way you say you can.
>
>You have used a huge variety of dirty debating tactics to avoid giving
>any evidence at all for this serious accusation of insane claims by Kalkidas.

Every time you inject this latest example of your egregiously
polemical noise, you just help to document my claim, that your replies
to me are little more than a perpetual series of polemically egregious
trolls. My comment to Kalky, which is just your latest compulsive
obsession, is as pointless as your earlier compulsive obsessions about
my nic and my email address. Apparently you think pissing in all the
wells shows something other than you're an egregiously dishonest and
polemically cowardly troll.

[Peter Nyikos]

Allegation noted.

>
> >It is you who are in pot-kettle mode with Ray, so much so that
> >you avoid ever accusing him of lying, due to your own
> >vulnerability to such an accusation.
>
>
> How does that even make sense to you?

Wait for it.

Meanwhile, you are just showing what a poor reasoner you are

by the next thing you write:


> If I don't accuse him of lying,
> I can hardly be a pot when he's an accusing-you-of-lying kettle.

You falsely accuse me of lying innumerable times, just as he does.

Hence the sense in what I said earlier.

> Apparently you're so desperate to say something negative about me,
> that you don't care that you're incoherent.

Counting your chickens before they are hatched.

> OTOH you repeated above another demonstration of your Ray-is-a-liar
> pot to his kettle, and so prove my point. You two are birds of a
> feather stewing in your own juices.
>
>
> >One example from the last two weeks: your allegation against
> >Kalkidas, in effect accusing him of insanity [which you also
> >don't accuse Ray of, do you?]:
> >
> > If only scientists could change reality to suit their
> > preferences, the way you say you can.
> >
> >You have used a huge variety of dirty debating tactics to avoid giving
> >any evidence at all for this serious accusation of insane claims by Kalkidas.
>
>
> Every time you inject this latest example of your egregiously
> polemical noise, you just help to document my claim, that your replies
> to me are little more than a perpetual series of polemically egregious
> trolls.

Every time you talk like this, you show that your thirst
for revenge against me is so great, even the Count of Monte
Cristo would have been ashamed to be so mindlessly vengeful.

> My comment to Kalky, which is just your latest compulsive
> obsession, is as pointless as your earlier compulsive obsessions about
> my nic and my email address.

Thanks for admitting that your comment to Kalky was pointless.

No wonder you went through hysterical gyrations to avoid
supporting it.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 13:07:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Failure to refute allegation noted.

>> >It is you who are in pot-kettle mode with Ray, so much so that
>> >you avoid ever accusing him of lying, due to your own
>> >vulnerability to such an accusation.
>>
>>
>> How does that even make sense to you?
>
>Wait for it.

Don't be insulted that I don't wait for you.

>Meanwhile, you are just showing what a poor reasoner you are
>by the next thing you write:
>
>
>> If I don't accuse him of lying,
>> I can hardly be a pot when he's an accusing-you-of-lying kettle.
>
>You falsely accuse me of lying innumerable times, just as he does.

Which has nothing to do with anything here. You just showed your
inability to reason. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>Hence the sense in what I said earlier.

Hence you show you don't know what you're talking about.

>> Apparently you're so desperate to say something negative about me,
>> that you don't care that you're incoherent.
>
>Counting your chickens before they are hatched.

Them chickens be hatched, growed, butchered, and deep-fried long ago.

>> OTOH you repeated above another demonstration of your Ray-is-a-liar
>> pot to his kettle, and so prove my point. You two are birds of a
>> feather stewing in your own juices.
>>
>>
>> >One example from the last two weeks: your allegation against
>> >Kalkidas, in effect accusing him of insanity [which you also
>> >don't accuse Ray of, do you?]:
>> >
>> > If only scientists could change reality to suit their
>> > preferences, the way you say you can.
>> >
>> >You have used a huge variety of dirty debating tactics to avoid giving
>> >any evidence at all for this serious accusation of insane claims by Kalkidas.
>>
>>
>> Every time you inject this latest example of your egregiously
>> polemical noise, you just help to document my claim, that your replies
>> to me are little more than a perpetual series of polemically egregious
>> trolls.
>
>Every time you talk like this, you show that your thirst
>for revenge against me is so great, even the Count of Monte
>Cristo would have been ashamed to be so mindlessly vengeful.

Every time you talk about my "thirst for revenge", you show your
disconnect with reality. Any such revenge-seeking is entirely a
reflection of your own wet dreams. Tu quoque back atcha, bozo.

>> My comment to Kalky, which is just your latest compulsive
>> obsession, is as pointless as your earlier compulsive obsessions about
>> my nic and my email address.
>
>Thanks for admitting that your comment to Kalky was pointless.

Thanks for admitting that your compulsive obsessions about my nic and
my email address were pointless. Let's count the number of times each
of us has repeated our pointless comments, shall we? That would
pretty much put the lie to your claims.

>No wonder you went through hysterical gyrations to avoid
>supporting it.

No gyrations. I have no need to support it. OTOH you are going out
of your way to egregiously and polemically inject it into every thread
you can. You've been doing it for years. That's what you do. You
can't help yourself.

[Peter Nyikos]

There was no such admission. You alleged that these were as pointless
as your own comment to Kalky:

My comment to Kalky, ..., is as pointless as your earlier

compulsive obsessions about my nic and my email address.

This is an unambigous admission of pointlessness on your part.
I found it to be so striking that I put the rest of your sentence
on the back burner.

I'm sure your command of English extends to knowing the function
of subordinate clauses, even if you've forgotten what they are
called. I snipped out one when re-quoting your admission, because
it has no effect on the meaning of the rest of the sentence.

> Let's count the number of times each
> of us has repeated our pointless comments, shall we? That would
> pretty much put the lie to your claims.

Based on false premises as it is, this is "garbage in, garbage out."

> >No wonder you went through hysterical gyrations to avoid
> >supporting it.
>
>
> No gyrations. I have no need to support it.

Of course, there is never any need to support pointless trolling,
which is what your trashy comment to Kalky consisted of. Its only function
was to vent your dislike of Kalky, which one can deduce from
plenty of other things you write to and about him.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 3 May 2016 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


<mercy snip>

>> >Thanks for admitting that your comment to Kalky was pointless.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that your compulsive obsessions about my nic and
>> my email address were pointless.
>
>There was no such admission. You alleged that these were as pointless
>as your own comment to Kalky:
>
> My comment to Kalky, ..., is as pointless as your earlier
> compulsive obsessions about my nic and my email address.
>
>This is an unambigous admission of pointlessness on your part.
>I found it to be so striking that I put the rest of your sentence
>on the back burner.

You agreed with my admission, and so you admit that your compulsive
obsessions about my nic and my email address were also pointless.

The only to avoid your admission is to disagree with my admission. You
can't have it both ways, bozo.

<snip remaining egregious rockhead rant>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 1:03:25 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2016 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> <mercy snip>
>
> >> >Thanks for admitting that your comment to Kalky was pointless.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for admitting that your compulsive obsessions about my nic and
> >> my email address were pointless.
> >
> >There was no such admission. You alleged that these were as pointless
> >as your own comment to Kalky:
> >
> > My comment to Kalky, ..., is as pointless as your earlier
> > compulsive obsessions about my nic and my email address.
> >
> >This is an unambigous admission of pointlessness on your part.
> >I found it to be so striking that I put the rest of your sentence
> >on the back burner.

And it is still on the back burner, and will remain there as long
as you cling to your insane view of what is rational.

> You agreed with my admission, and so you admit that your compulsive
> obsessions about my nic and my email address were also pointless.

I repeat: I made no admission. You made an explicit admission,
and an unsupported claim that some things I did were just as pointless.

> The only to avoid your admission is to disagree with my admission. You
> can't have it both ways, bozo.

Sorry, you do not get to make the world conform to your insane
version of logic.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 1:03:25 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> On Tue, 3 May 2016 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> <mercy snip>
>
> >> >Thanks for admitting that your comment to Kalky was pointless.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for admitting that your compulsive obsessions about my nic and
> >> my email address were pointless.
> >
> >There was no such admission. You alleged that these were as pointless
> >as your own comment to Kalky:
> >
> > My comment to Kalky, ..., is as pointless as your earlier
> > compulsive obsessions about my nic and my email address.
> >
> >This is an unambigous admission of pointlessness on your part.
> >I found it to be so striking that I put the rest of your sentence
> >on the back burner.

And it is still on the back burner, and will remain there as long
as you cling to your insane view of what is rational.

> You agreed with my admission, and so you admit that your compulsive
> obsessions about my nic and my email address were also pointless.

I repeat: I made no admission. You made an explicit admission,

and an unsupported claim that some things I did were just as pointless.

> The only to avoid your admission is to disagree with my admission. You
> can't have it both ways, bozo.

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 May 2016 14:18:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 1:03:25 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2016 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <mercy snip>
>>
>> >> >Thanks for admitting that your comment to Kalky was pointless.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for admitting that your compulsive obsessions about my nic and
>> >> my email address were pointless.
>> >
>> >There was no such admission. You alleged that these were as pointless
>> >as your own comment to Kalky:
>> >
>> > My comment to Kalky, ..., is as pointless as your earlier
>> > compulsive obsessions about my nic and my email address.
>> >
>> >This is an unambigous admission of pointlessness on your part.
>> >I found it to be so striking that I put the rest of your sentence
>> >on the back burner.
>
>And it is still on the back burner, and will remain there as long
>as you cling to your insane view of what is rational.

With all the stuff you put on the back burner, it's a wonder the fire
dept doesn't cite you for hazardous conditions.

>> You agreed with my admission, and so you admit that your compulsive
>> obsessions about my nic and my email address were also pointless.
>
>I repeat: I made no admission. You made an explicit admission,
>and an unsupported claim that some things I did were just as pointless.

I repeat: the two go together, hand in hand; "is as pointless".

>> The only to avoid your admission is to disagree with my admission. You
>> can't have it both ways, bozo.
>
>Sorry, you do not get to make the world conform to your insane
>version of logic.

Your unintended ironies are always entertaining.

Now then, let's count how many times you post your egregiously
polemical and pointless rants.

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 7:03:46 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 8:58:48 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:20:05 AM UTC-5, James Beck wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:41:58 +0000, Ernest Major
> > > > <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On 14/02/2016 21:53, James Beck wrote:
> > > > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:57:55 +0100, Joe Cummings
> > > > >> <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 11/02/2016 11:04, Joe Cummings wrote:
> > > > >>>> Our friend Ray has been banging on for some time about how the
> > > > >>>> inquisitors were not Christians, and when doing their work were
> > > > >>>> therefore murderers.
> > >
> > > > >>>> I have tried in vain to get a ruling from Ray as to whether those
> > > > >>>> Protestants who carried out similar work were also not Christians and
> > > > >>>> therefore murderers.
>
> Did you ever issue such a ruling, Ray?

Of course....when I said one cannot be a Christian and a murderer at the same time.

>
> > > > >>>> I cited in particular Tawney who wrote in "Religion and the Rise of
> > > > >>>> Capitalism" that there were on average two immolations a year in
> > > > >>>> Calvinist Geneva.
> > > > >> [snip]
>
> <snip for focus>
>
> > > > >If I recall correctly, Ray has denied being a Calvinist.
> > > >
> > > > Ray strikes me as a Precisian, so I don't doubt that he can find a
> > > > rationale under which he can deny almost any affiliation.
> > >
> > > Ray has said that his affiliation is with the cult [not his word,
> > > of course] of Gene Scott, carried on by his widow. I've asked
> > > him whether he physically attends services, but have not seen
> > > a reply.
>
> DO you attend services of that church, Ray?

Only Atheists describe scholarly word-based churches as "cults."

>
> > > > >> In England, the Calvinists were a repressed minority, eyed with
> > > > >> suspicion, and on carefully good behavior. By contrast, in Geneva,
> > > > >> they were a majority. Why ask him to defend all corners?
> > > > >>
> > >
> > > By the way, Ray's latest word on who is a Christian seems to be
> > > that if one is not following Christ in some action (say, murder)
> > > he at least temporarily ceases to become a Christian.
> > >
> > > Of course, he is cutting the ground out from under his feet
> > > thereby, because now he can't taunt and jeer that when I
> > > accuse him of lying, it is the word of an "Atheist" against
> > > a "Christian." By his standards, I am not accusing a Christian
> > > of lying, but someone who ceased to be a Christian in the act of
> > > lying.
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > Peter Nyikos accepts and promotes the assumptions of Materialism to
> > explain scientific evidence.
>
> Like the evidence that you are the ultimate outcome of a sperm cell
> penetrating an oocyte, rather than coming in a towel carried by a stork,
> or being directly formed from the dust of the earth, yes.

Long-winded assent. Atheists have no choice but to believe material reality somehow produces material reality.

>
> But that is not the sort of thing you are talking about, is it? Tell me just
> what you REALLY meant when you wrote that, so that we may see
> just how you once again temporarily stopped being a Christian, by
> your own standards [given above, in the text that you conveniently
> ignored].

Please tell us what God made? (If you're not denying Atheism/Materialism then disregard.)

>
> > These assumptions of course are pro-Atheism.
>
> This puts you outside of Christianity, by your own standards. The
> fact that I use the methodology of science in every case where there
> is no good evidence for divine intervention, is not pro-Atheism.

This comment says science today has made some conclusions in behalf of interventionism----which is a brazen lie. Science today says no such thing. Peter Nyikos just told a brazen lie----as if science today is not 100 percent pro-Materialism.

And I'd like to emphasize that Atheists like Peter Nyikos don't hesitate to lie to one's face concerning non-complicated matters like science accepting Materialism. If Peter would attempt to lie about an undisputed fact like science accepting Materialism then just think what his kind does with complicated scientific evidence?

>
> This fact is the ONLY reality behind your cunningly equivocal
> statement that began your reply to my post.
>
> Do you think "wise as serpents" was a mis-translation of something
> Jesus said, and that he really advised his followers to be "as
> cunning and sneaky as serpents"?
>
> Do you even know enough about the Bible to know which passage
> I am talking about?

Peter: You are known not to even possess Sunday School knowledge of the Bible. This means you're struggling to achieve 101 knowledge, which supports the fact that you're a typical Atheist-Materialist.

>
>
> > Peter also propagates space aliens, as opposed to God,
> > to be responsible for the first life forms on earth.
>
> Not "as opposed to God," who could have easily been responsible
> for the decision of His first creations to fill the earth with
> micro-organisms via directed panspermia -- IF there really is a God,
> whose existence I have never denied.

Here Peter intentionally conveys a subjective view of Directed Panspermia: to be a doctrine belonging to Deism or Theism----it is not and he knows that. So Peter once again lies to our face in order to deny Atheism. Directed Panspermia says space aliens, not God, were responsible for the first life forms on earth. Genesis, of course, says God created life on earth. So Peter willfully and maliciously misrepresents uncomplicated claims in order to evade from being seen as an Atheist.

From above: "IF there really is a God, whose existence I have never denied" (Peter Nyikos).

Blatant contradiction: Initial thought implies non-existence, last thought implies existence; yet Peter accepts Materialism and Directed Panspermia. The former says the Immaterial does not exist in reality and the latter says space aliens started life on earth, not the God of Genesis.

So the number of lies grows exponentially with every "argument" Peter, our Atheist, makes.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

>
> What's more, if God not only exists, but acted in human history
> more or less as reported in the Bible, this would be the most natural
> hypothesis for the beginning of life on earth.

Peter once again "argues" Directed Panspermia presupposing Deism or Theism. He only makes this "argument" when a person observes him an Atheist or observes Directed Panspermia a pro-Atheism doctrine. And his "argument" contains an egregious contradiction: God or the supernatural creates "the most natural" which presupposes reality not created.

>
> Would you like to know why, or are you as implacably resolved to
> bill me as an Atheist, as Ron Okimoto is to bill me as a creationist?
>
> Btw if this hypothesis is true, you are insulting God's first biological
> "children" by calling them "space aliens".

Again, Peter asserts ad hoc that Directed Panspermia is a doctrine of Deism or Theism----it is not. The absurd lengths Peter will go to deny Atheism seen clearly.

Neither Deism nor Theism postulate Directed Panspermia, which is a euphemistic phrase for space aliens starting life on earth, which is postulated because abiogenesis (life from non-life) is known to be impossible.

>
> > This belief corresponds to Atheism as well.
>
> Find me one *living* atheist who supports the DP hypothesis, or be
> seen as once again ceasing to be a Christian, momentarily at least.

You're a living Atheist who propagates DPism.

>
> > And as an Evolutionist Peter rejects the concept of design existing
> > in nature.
>
> Here again, you are ceasing to be a Christian by your unique standards.
> I have said time and again that I am open to the idea of God
> designing the universe and even first life in the universe, but
> alas! the evidence for God's existence, while strong, is still
> over-ruled by such unanswerable questions as "How could we account
> for the existence of such a perfectly designed God"?

A wad of lies and contradictions. As if open to the possibility of the existence of God harms Atheism. Most Atheists, if not all Atheists, claim openness. They don't want to appear close minded even though they are.


Then Peter says "the evidence for God's existence, while strong"----what evidence? Again, Peter is lying. He does not accept evidence supporting existence of God, which is the position of Atheism, as we all know. So what is Peter talking about? Why didn't he identify this evidence? Why must he be asked or prodded? Real Theists don't have to be asked or prodded. They are known to make statements that say nature is designed. Note the fact that Peter hasn't said "nature is designed." Instead he makes "what if" statements and utters straight out lies as seen in the quotation "the evidence for God's existence, while strong" (Peter Nyikos).

>
> >Once again this position corresponds to Atheism; and Peter,
> > as one could expect, rejects Biblical miracles,
>
> This is the most outrageous falsehood you've uttered in this post,
> inasmuch as I have even refuted boiler-plate atheistic attacks
> on the reality of Jesus's Resurrection.

Are the miracles in the Bible factually true? Do you accept the Resurrection of Christ?

Dear Audience: Watch and see how Peter evades answering in a complete and straight forward manner. Peter, of course, rejects all miracles as false, like all Atheists reject the existence of miracles as false.

>
> If you had behaved like a true Christian, you would have put
> "some" between "rejects" and "Biblical miracles."

Identify any miracle that you accept as having occurred? Waiting....

>
> I do not take Genesis 1- 9 literally, any more than St. Augustine did.

The typical Atheist misrepresentation of an early Church Father. Like I said----of course you reject miracles. The fact that you're attempting to conceal the fact shows how dishonest and thus how Atheist you are.

> Can you find a single Christian biblical scholar trying to show
> St. Augustine SHOULD have taken it literally, before Dawin's
> _Origin of Species_ was published?
>

This statement argues against being understood literally. Since the author didn't say he wants to be understood literally we can't be sure as to what he is asking?

>
> >as all Atheists are known to do. Yet in spite of these pro-Atheism views Peter denies being an Atheist.
>
> ..because I have never expressed any such "pro-Atheism views."
>

Except you accept the assumptions of Materialism to explain scientific evidence thus you are, in fact, an Atheist and of course an Evolutionist; and you believe space aliens started life on earth, not God. You reject design in nature and Biblical miracles as having occurred and occurring. Yes other than these things there is no evidence that you're an Atheist.

> > For making these observations, Peter tars me---the messenger----as a liar.
>
> And rightly so, since they are not observations, but cunning inventions
> of your nefarious mind. As a messenger, you are acting like a fallen angel.
> [Trivia: "angel" literally means "messenger".]
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor of Mathematics
> U. of S. Carolina

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 3:58:18 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 7:03:46 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 8:58:48 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:20:05 AM UTC-5, James Beck wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:41:58 +0000, Ernest Major
> > > > > <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On 14/02/2016 21:53, James Beck wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:57:55 +0100, Joe Cummings
> > > > > >> <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On 11/02/2016 11:04, Joe Cummings wrote:
> > > > > >>>> Our friend Ray has been banging on for some time about how the
> > > > > >>>> inquisitors were not Christians, and when doing their work were
> > > > > >>>> therefore murderers.
> > > >
> > > > > >>>> I have tried in vain to get a ruling from Ray as to whether those
> > > > > >>>> Protestants who carried out similar work were also not Christians and
> > > > > >>>> therefore murderers.
> >
> > Did you ever issue such a ruling, Ray?
>
> Of course....when I said one cannot be a Christian and a murderer at the same time.

Do you cherry-pick the commandments, saying this but not that
"one cannot be a Christian and be bearing false witness at the same time"?

> >
> > > > > >>>> I cited in particular Tawney who wrote in "Religion and the Rise of
> > > > > >>>> Capitalism" that there were on average two immolations a year in
> > > > > >>>> Calvinist Geneva.
> > > > > >> [snip]
> >
> > <snip for focus>
> >
> > > > > >If I recall correctly, Ray has denied being a Calvinist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ray strikes me as a Precisian, so I don't doubt that he can find a
> > > > > rationale under which he can deny almost any affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > Ray has said that his affiliation is with the cult [not his word,
> > > > of course] of Gene Scott, carried on by his widow. I've asked
> > > > him whether he physically attends services, but have not seen
> > > > a reply.
> >
> > DO you attend services of that church, Ray?
>
> Only Atheists describe scholarly word-based churches as "cults."

You ducked the question, which made no use of the word "cult[s]".

Can you show evidence that the church of Gene Scott was scholarly and
word-based? And is it also pyramid-power based?

Anyway, your ignorant comment about "Only Atheists" shows how little
you know about the Roman Catholic Church that you left. It is a "big tent"
[do you know the literal meaning of the word "catholic"?] and
has numerous cults of various saints, and various cults devoted to
promoting belief in various apparitions of the Blessed Virgin. Some cults,
like that of St. Philomena, no longer have official sanction, but are
tolerated as long as they don't slip into heresy.

> > > > > >> In England, the Calvinists were a repressed minority, eyed with
> > > > > >> suspicion, and on carefully good behavior. By contrast, in Geneva,
> > > > > >> they were a majority. Why ask him to defend all corners?
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > By the way, Ray's latest word on who is a Christian seems to be
> > > > that if one is not following Christ in some action (say, murder)
> > > > he at least temporarily ceases to become a Christian.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, he is cutting the ground out from under his feet
> > > > thereby, because now he can't taunt and jeer that when I
> > > > accuse him of lying, it is the word of an "Atheist" against
> > > > a "Christian." By his standards, I am not accusing a Christian
> > > > of lying, but someone who ceased to be a Christian in the act of
> > > > lying.
> > > >
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos accepts and promotes the assumptions of Materialism to
> > > explain scientific evidence.
> >
> > Like the evidence that you are the ultimate outcome of a sperm cell
> > penetrating an oocyte, rather than coming in a towel carried by a stork,
> > or being directly formed from the dust of the earth, yes.
>
> Long-winded assent. Atheists have no choice but to believe material reality somehow produces material reality.

So you claim that your body would not exist if God had not intervened
in the process of that sperm uniting with that oocyte?

That is what your allegation, "Long-winded assent" amounts to, but you
may be just as twisted in your logic as jillery. Have you read the
exchanges that have taken place between us on this thread in the past week?
One each day, but today I'm taking a break, thanks to you.

> >
> > But that is not the sort of thing you are talking about, is it? Tell me just
> > what you REALLY meant when you wrote that, so that we may see
> > just how you once again temporarily stopped being a Christian, by
> > your own standards [given above, in the text that you conveniently
> > ignored].
>
> Please tell us what God made?

If God exists, he made the universe at the moment of the Big Bang.
Also, if Roman Catholicism is right, he made each of our individual souls.

On the other hand, God did not miraculously make my body out of the
dust of the earth, or ex nihilo, or out of the rib of my mother or
father, and it's a safe bet he didn't make your body that way either.

>(If you're not denying Atheism/Materialism then disregard.)

I have always denied believing either, but mostly just to one of your
best friends in this newsgroup, John Harshman, and I don't think you
pay much attention to our arguments.

In fact, I would be very much surprised if you started participating
on the thread,
Subject: Re: How Close Did "Prince Michael" Come
to Describing John Harshman?

The two of you are almost always in mutual "see no evil, hear no evil,
speak no evil" relationship. The fact that he is a militant atheist
may have something to do with that.

> > > These assumptions of course are pro-Atheism.
> >
> > This puts you outside of Christianity, by your own standards. The
> > fact that I use the methodology of science in every case where there
> > is no good evidence for divine intervention, is not pro-Atheism.
>
> This comment says science today has made some conclusions in behalf
> of interventionism----which is a brazen lie.

It is your description of my comment that is the brazen lie, and it
is interesting to see that your whole sentence could be construed as
having the part after the hyphen saying that the part before it
is a brazen lie.

However, since your next claim disavows that construal, you are
in the position of again having abandoned Christianity by bearing
false witness against me:

> Science today says no such thing. Peter Nyikos just told a brazen lie

I think you are deliberately and deceitfully misreading my sentence,
which says that I use the methodology of science in every case where
using the methodology of science seems to be called for. There are
some things on which I reserve judgment, including the miracles
attributed to the intervention of St. John Paul II and the soon to
be canonized Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

> ----as if science today is not 100 percent pro-Materialism.

Science has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of
miracles, and rightly so. I do believe many of regulars to
talk.origins are sufficiently atheistic to be deluded into thinking
that science is 100% pro-Materialism, just like you.

No wonder you and Harshman are on such good terms with each other.

No wonder "Roger Shrubber" took such pains to deny that you are a liar,
and to deny that you are insane.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to tomorrow.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
U. of S. Carolina, Columbia -- standard disclaimer--

PS Thanks for giving me a way of keeping active on this thread
while ignoring jillery for a couple of days. Jillery is another
benefactor of yours, and, like you, a rabid bearer of false witness
against me.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:53:18 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]

Short on time, I address only a few of numerous examples in the
post to which I am replying, of Ray
bearing false witness against me.

<snip of things to be dealt with later>

> > > And as an Evolutionist Peter rejects the concept of design existing
> > > in nature.
>
> > Here again, you are ceasing to be a Christian by your unique standards.
> > I have said time and again that I am open to the idea of God
> > designing the universe and even first life in the universe, but
> > alas! the evidence for God's existence, while strong, is still
> > over-ruled by such unanswerable questions as "How could we account
> > for the existence of such a perfectly designed God"?
>
> A wad of lies and contradictions.

There is not a single lie or contradiction here. [1] You are once again
ceasing to be a Christian by bearing false witness against me.

You have no basis, for instance, for the taunt you make next:

> As if open to the possibility of the existence of God harms Atheism.

It greatly does so. Would you like to know why? It is because I actually
think deeply about the fantastic fine-tuning in the universe, and atheists
are powerless to refute it. I believe most of them are made very uneasy
by a multiverse teeming with "garbage universes" being the only alternative
to belief in a staggeringly powerful God who designed all that fine tuning.

Most atheists would love it if our little universe were all that is
or was or ever be, the way Carl Sagan confidently proclaimed it to be.

> Most Atheists, if not all Atheists, claim openness.

On the other hand, they don't spend untold hours trying to impress
upon John Harshman just how strong the evidence is for the existence
of God, and how the multiverse is the only rational alternative.

You don't want to know about any of this, do you? I might even
be able to dig up an old post of mine where I gave some nice
arguments that brought me back from the despair of four days
when I, for the first time, could find no argument for a good God
allowing so much suffering in the world. I said at one point that
one of the arguments was more for you than for him, but you
weren't around.

Those were the days when I actually wanted to bolster your Christian
faith and wished you could see me arguing with him.

But now it seems that, even if you are a Christian, you are the sort
who feels entitled to often stop being a Christian by bearing false witness
as often as you wish, and I don't want to encourage such a twisted
form of Christianity.

[1] Strangely enough, you might be able to make a case for me uttering
a lie if you could answer what I called the "unanswerable question"
but it's obvious that you find it unanswerable too.

> They don't want to appear close minded even though they are.

You and Ron O are two of the most closed minded people about me, and
the post to which I am replying shows that many times over.

>
> Then Peter says "the evidence for God's existence, while strong"----what evidence?

Were I inclined to bearing false witness the way you are, I would seize
upon this "what evidence?" as an admission that you do not believe
there IS any evidence for the existence of God.

The preceding paragraph is there to illustrate the way your nefarious mind
works, and to give you some idea of what you'd be up against if you
were to treat someone like jilley as hatefully as you treat me.

>Again, Peter is lying.

Again, you are ceasing to be a Christian by bearing false witness.

> He does not accept evidence supporting existence of God, which is the
> position of Atheism, as we all know. So what is Peter talking about?
> Why didn't he identify this evidence? Why must he be asked or prodded?

Because it would take untold hours to explain it, many more hours than I've
already spent with Harshman. But knowing this won't change your
determination to cast me as an Atheist come hell or high water,
will it? Even if I were to spend hours writing it out and showing
it to you, you would ignore it, wouldn't you?

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, but only some time next week
unless you show some sincere sign of changing your determination to go on
labeling me as an Atheist no matter what I do.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.
U. of South Carolina at Columbia
-- standard disclaimer --
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 May 2016 17:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


<snip for focus>

>So you claim that your body would not exist if God had not intervened
>in the process of that sperm uniting with that oocyte?
>
>That is what your allegation, "Long-winded assent" amounts to, but you
>may be just as twisted in your logic as jillery. Have you read the
>exchanges that have taken place between us on this thread in the past week?
>One each day, but today I'm taking a break, thanks to you.

and

>PS Thanks for giving me a way of keeping active on this thread
>while ignoring jillery for a couple of days. Jillery is another
>benefactor of yours, and, like you, a rabid bearer of false witness
>against me.

And this is one way to document your irrelevant injection of my nym
and your bald assertions against me into your replies to others.

>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Department of Math.
>U. of South Carolina at Columbia
>-- standard disclaimer --
>http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

Let's see if your employer really doesn't mind being associated with
your egregiously polemical posts.

[Bill Rogers]

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:43:17 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:53:18 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > [snip material addressed previously....]
>
> Short on time, I address only a few of numerous examples in the
> post to which I am replying, of Ray
> bearing false witness against me.
>
> <snip of things to be dealt with later>

Ray is an obvious nut job. Why you would care about what he says about you is beyond me.

[jillery]

Birds of a feather...

[Peter Nyikos]

Because he is a pathological liar, but he has benefactors like Harshman and
Isaak and jillery, who strive to keep that realization from all but a
handful of people. Besides myself, I have only seen Dana Tweedy and Joe
Cummings call him a liar.

Are you another exception?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Anybody who calls me a benefactor of Ray Martinez clearly doesn't
know, or doesn't care, what the word means.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 3:58:18 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

Picking up where I left off last night:

> And I'd like to emphasize that Atheists like Peter Nyikos don't hesitate to
> lie to one's face concerning non-complicated matters like science accepting
> Materialism. If Peter would attempt to lie about an undisputed fact like
> science accepting Materialism

There are many people in talk.origins who have disputed it, so
you are compounding your bearing of false witness (the accusation
of a lie by me) against me with the bearing of false witness
against everyone who has disputed it just in talk.origins.

Most leading scientists in the big outside world could
tell you that you are seriously deluded about science accepting
Materialism, but you may be blissfully unaware of them.

> then just think what his kind does with complicated scientific evidence?

I talk expertly about the evidence for common descent of all members of
the horse family from the "dawn horse," for one. There are many,
many other such examples.

You on the other hand lack the aptitude to comprehend the evidence,
unless you are an atheist and evolutionist trolling talk.origins
and fooling everyone about your true beliefs. People did wonder
about that when you posted on Dennett's book without a hint about
you being a creationist, you know.

> >
> > This fact is the ONLY reality behind your cunningly equivocal
> > statement that began your reply to my post.
> >
> > Do you think "wise as serpents" was a mis-translation of something
> > Jesus said, and that he really advised his followers to be "as
> > cunning and sneaky as serpents"?
> >
> > Do you even know enough about the Bible to know which passage
> > I am talking about?
>
> Peter: You are known not to even possess Sunday School knowledge of the Bible. This means you're struggling to achieve 101 knowledge,

Unless you can refute those two distinguished Protestant theologians
whom I quoted in regard to "Get thee behind me, Peter," you will have
shown no evidence of possessing even even 001 knowledge.

And so, you are bearing false witness against me yet again here,
and once again ceasing to be a Christian thereby, by your own
standards for who is a Christian.

Concluded in a reply to this post next week.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

Bill Rogers is a well known Atheist and of course Evolutionist. I am a well known Christian and Paleyan Creationist. So Bill's comment is now explained.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

Ray says a great many outlandish things which are not true, but it seems to me that he does indeed believe them to be true. So, no, I don't think he's a liar. A nut job, for sure, and I cannot see why anyone would think twice about anything Ray says about him, but not a liar.

[Robert Camp]

No, Ray is not a pathological liar. And yes, only someone who is
paranoid would believe others are nefariously working against that
"revelation."

[jillery]

My impression is that in T.O., it's not what is said, but who says it.
Some liars are given a lot more wiggle room than others.

[erik simpson]

For what it's worth (very little), I see no dishonesty in Ray's presentations.
He has his set of axioms and applies them in a way that is consistent (to him).
Whether or not his world view makes sense to other is a different question.

Does he know much about evolutionary biology? No. Is he interested or does he
care? No. Is he persuadable? Seems unlikely. So what is the problem or
fascination with his beliefs?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 May 2016 13:34:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 8:38:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:43:17 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:53:18 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [snip material addressed previously....]
>> >
>> > Short on time, I address only a few of numerous examples in the
>> > post to which I am replying, of Ray
>> > bearing false witness against me.
>> >
>> > <snip of things to be dealt with later>
>>
>> Ray is an obvious nut job. Why you would care about what he says about you is beyond me.
>
>Because he is a pathological liar,

Sorry, but there's no evidence I've seen which indicates
that Ray doesn't believe what he posts, making him other
than a liar, pathological or otherwise.

> but he has benefactors like Harshman and
>Isaak and jillery, who strive to keep that realization from all but a
>handful of people.

Perhaps because, like me, they don't automatically equate
"adamantly positive, but wrong" with "lying"?

> Besides myself, I have only seen Dana Tweedy and Joe
>Cummings call him a liar.

Their choice (assuming you're correct). I don't recall
either, but I don't read all threads.
--

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

[Ray Martinez]

Peter is calling me a liar in the context of identifying him to be an Atheist. Peter desperately wants his anti-Biblical views to be perceived and seen as neutral or even objective. My observations that identify him an Atheist ruin his goal to be seen as he desires.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

If a person were to hang out over at the Sandwalk (Larry Moran's blog) it wouldn't take long for them to discover that Larry routinely accuses fellow Evolutionists with doctorates to not understand the theory of evolution!

Ray

[....]

[Robert Camp]

And in that you are certainly wrong. But that doesn't make you a
pathological liar. You have clearly lied in the past about some things,
but I think you believe most of the silly stuff you say. That doesn't
make you a liar, it just makes you nuts.

Nyikos, of course, sees you as a liar because it supports his internal
narrative of personal righteousness and sufferer of conspiratorial
reprobates.

> Peter desperately wants his anti-Biblical views to be
> perceived and seen as neutral or even objective. My observations that
> identify him an Atheist ruin his goal to be seen as he desires.

Nyikos is obviously not anti-Biblical (and your comments don't "ruin"
anything, though your assumption of influence is entertaining). This is
just another nugget of lunacy based on your favorite logical solecism,
which should be renamed the Martinez No True Christian fallacy.

[jillery]

My understanding is that Larry's Moran's main professional objection
to other Evolutionists is their emphasis of natural selection relative
to genetic drift. Since you recognize neither, that distinction is
irrelevant to you and your claims against all Evolutionists. And to
the best of my knowledge, Moran has never said that they didn't
understand the theory of evolution.

But since you say Moran does it routinely, you shouldn't have any
problem citing one of those cases. Just one. I'm not greedy. But
don't be insulted that I don't wait for you to do so.

[Ray Martinez]

Why didn't you provide evidence? Why are you stalling?

> But that doesn't make you a
> pathological liar. You have clearly lied in the past about some things,

Please tell the Group what I knew to be true then denied? Again, why are you stalling?

> but I think you believe most of the silly stuff you say. That doesn't
> make you a liar, it just makes you nuts.

I am not the least bit offended of being called nuts by a person like yourself who believes the order and organization seen in nature came about through laws tethered to a genuine element of chance.

>
> Nyikos, of course, sees you as a liar because it supports his internal
> narrative of personal righteousness and sufferer of conspiratorial
> reprobates.

Peter opposes identification as an Atheist because it renders his views predetermined and predictable. He wants, like all so called Agnostics want, to be viewed neutral and thus objective. Agnostics are neither. They accept the assumptions of Materialism/Naturalism to explain scientific evidence. These assumptions are pro-Atheism.

>
> > Peter desperately wants his anti-Biblical views to be
> > perceived and seen as neutral or even objective. My observations that
> > identify him an Atheist ruin his goal to be seen as he desires.
>
> Nyikos is obviously not anti-Biblical (and your comments don't "ruin"
> anything, though your assumption of influence is entertaining). This is
> just another nugget of lunacy based on your favorite logical solecism,
> which should be renamed the Martinez No True Christian fallacy.

Please show me a pro-Bible Peter Nyikos?

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Evidence? I'm a Democrat, do I need to provide evidence for that? If I
say that's what I am, then that's what I am. If Nyikos says he's not an
atheist, then he's not an atheist.

These things are, by definition, determined by our own
self-identification, not by ideological nutcases, whether political or
religious.

>> But that doesn't make you a pathological liar. You have clearly
>> lied in the past about some things,
>
> Please tell the Group what I knew to be true then denied? Again, why
> are you stalling?

I remember something with Dana, as well as an incident with me. I don't
recall what either was about, and I have no desire to look them up. It's
possible you may not necessarily have known you were speaking falsehoods
but had simply not bothered to check your facts or think about them.
However the negligence in those cases was egregious enough that I
remember them as lies.

>> but I think you believe most of the silly stuff you say. That
>> doesn't make you a liar, it just makes you nuts.
>
> I am not the least bit offended of being called nuts by a person like
> yourself who believes the order and organization seen in nature came
> about through laws tethered to a genuine element of chance.

Oh, please stop this silliness and just go see a professional. After all
these years isn't it obvious I don't say these things because of my
worldview? I think you need help, not because I'm an atheist or a
physicalist, but because you display a troubling inability to access
reality.

>> Nyikos, of course, sees you as a liar because it supports his
>> internal narrative of personal righteousness and sufferer of
>> conspiratorial reprobates.
>
> Peter opposes identification as an Atheist because it renders his
> views predetermined and predictable. He wants, like all so called
> Agnostics want, to be viewed neutral and thus objective. Agnostics
> are neither. They accept the assumptions of Materialism/Naturalism to
> explain scientific evidence. These assumptions are pro-Atheism.

You see, this is what I mean. You believe and say things that are
obviously counterfactual. What is "real" for you is determined by what
you want to be true, not what is true for the rest of world (including
most Christians).

No, agnostics don't want to be "viewed neutral and objective." They have
determined that for that particular question there isn't enough, or
there can never be enough, information to reach a conclusion.

And no, naturalistic assumptions as a part of scientific methodology are
not pro-atheism. That's simply nonsense.

>>> Peter desperately wants his anti-Biblical views to be perceived
>>> and seen as neutral or even objective. My observations that
>>> identify him an Atheist ruin his goal to be seen as he desires.
>>
>> Nyikos is obviously not anti-Biblical (and your comments don't
>> "ruin" anything, though your assumption of influence is
>> entertaining). This is just another nugget of lunacy based on your
>> favorite logical solecism, which should be renamed the Martinez No
>> True Christian fallacy.
>
> Please show me a pro-Bible Peter Nyikos?

I've read a vanishingly small percentage of what Nyikos posts here, but
even from that I can see that he's a former Catholic who appears to have
great respect and affection for the trappings of Christian faith,
including the Bible. That this doesn't pass your nutcase purity test
tells us nothing but that you are still trying to climb back up on your
rocker.

Phillip K. Dick once made a comment about reality, saying it's that
thing "which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." The
problem is that observation only applies to people with a grip. For you
reality truly does seem to have gone away, and that's why you need help.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43555afb-6c49-4551...@googlegroups.com...

You are not implying that your views are not predetermined and predictable?
I find all your views very predictable, as well as wrong.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 2:53:11 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016 13:34:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 8:38:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:43:17 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:53:18 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > [snip material addressed previously....]
> >> >
> >> > Short on time, I address only a few of numerous examples in the
> >> > post to which I am replying, of Ray
> >> > bearing false witness against me.
> >> >
> >> > <snip of things to be dealt with later>
> >>
> >> Ray is an obvious nut job. Why you would care about what he says about you is beyond me.
> >
> >Because he is a pathological liar,
>
> Sorry, but there's no evidence I've seen which indicates
> that Ray doesn't believe what he posts,

There is plenty of evidence, but you are blissfully ignorant of it because
you see so little of what I post--or what Dana Tweedy has posted
since Ray has been boycotting him for over a year.

Would you like to know why Ray has been boycotting him,
or would you prefer to continue your track record of not seeing
how dishonest Ray can be?

You pay so little attention to the goings-on between me and Ray, that
at one point I even had to remind you of something that should
have been obvious to you:

_______________________excerpt_______________________

>There's no doubt that an ancestral
> species existed or we wouldn't be here. There's little doubt
> that whatever species it was, it almost certainly had
> apelike characteristics; it probably didn't look much like a
> porpoise.

Hey, you're talking to me here, not Glenn or some ignorant
creationist. Has someone conned you into thinking I'm not
firmly committed to common descent?

==================== end of excerpt from

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/9rEoeQGDDAAJ
Message-ID: <02abb3e6-63fa-48e8...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT)

This was the thread where you displayed your ignorance of all but
the basics of human evolution, just enough to get by against the
pitifully ignorant creationists here, while speaking in
condescending ways to me, as above.

> making him other
> than a liar, pathological or otherwise.

Dana Tweedy, who has very closely followed Ray around for years
(although I've seen little of him these past few months) has
repeatedly accused Ray of lying. Will his testimony convince you?

If not, and I were to post documentation of lies by Ray, would those
posts be among the ones you won't see because "you only see the posts
you want to see"?

> > but he has benefactors like Harshman and
> >Isaak and jillery, who strive to keep that realization from all but a
> >handful of people.
>
> Perhaps because, like me, they don't automatically equate
> "adamantly positive, but wrong" with "lying"?

No, it is because they know how vulnerable they would be if
anyone except a certifiable nutcase or bigot were generally
seen as highly dishonest.

For instance, you've been studiously ignoring evidence that
Harshman is either a highly dishonest person or an idiot savant,
on the thread I set up recently,

Subject: How Close Did "Prince Michael" Come to Describing John Harshman?

For instance, this post which directly deals with some of that
evidence, has not been touched by ANYONE with a ten foot pole.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/l9H1BPTH3BA/BPxac0bCMgAJ
Message-ID: <1307d7d1-209d-45c7...@googlegroups.com>

What is even MORE interesting is that you are also ignoring evidence
on that same thread that "Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon" is seriously unbalanced
mentally, and that "Wolffan" is a troll who has made it clear that
this evidence is of no interest to him/her, while flaming me repeatedly
about how I am supposed to be certifiably insane--all without a
smidgen of evidence, of course.

In fact, you've shown awareness of only the few posts to which you've
replied directly; hence my talk above of you "seeing only the posts
you want to see." That has the advantage of making it easier to play
"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" with respect to both
Thrinaxodon and Wolffan.

> > Besides myself, I have only seen Dana Tweedy and Joe
> >Cummings call him a liar.
>
> Their choice (assuming you're correct).

Truth *does* seem to be a matter of choice to you where the morality
of honesty and sincerity is concerned.

> I don't recall
> either, but I don't read all threads.

Nor do you read all the posts in threads where you participate.

Both are classic understatements.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Stop being so flippant, Ray, it is almost impossible to catch you
in any other context when you start bearing false witness
against me. I've noted many such times on this thread alone,
but none of them were on account of you pinning the label
"Atheist" on me.

I'll remind you below, at the end, of the most important of my replies
to you on this thread. You and everyone who thinks you are not dishonest is
afraid to touch with a ten foot pole. But your reason is different:
you are running from a promise to deal with a Biblical issue ASAP,
and it is one where I am anything but "anti-Biblical."

> > And in that you are certainly wrong.
>
> Why didn't you provide evidence? Why are you stalling?

This is rich, coming from someone who has stalled for years on
what he alleges to be convincing scientific proof, and
convincing Biblical proof, that species immutabilism is true.

Your stalling will continue until the book you allege to be
working on is published -- which may be until the day, yea,
second that you die.

<snip for focus>

> Peter opposes identification as an Atheist because it renders his views
> predetermined and predictable.

You call me an Atheist on the true grounds that I am convinced that
evolution has taken place on a grand scale. That does NOT render
my views on anything outside of biology predetermined and predictable.

You have also accused me on many false grounds, and I've dealt with
a few of those right on this thread. Like the following:

> He wants, like all so called Agnostics want, to be viewed neutral and thus objective. Agnostics are neither. They accept the assumptions of Materialism/Naturalism to explain scientific evidence. These assumptions are pro-Atheism.

I've rebutted these stupid comments, right on this thread,
and you are cravenly repeating them here instead of dealing
with the rebuttals.

> >
> > > Peter desperately wants his anti-Biblical views to be
> > > perceived and seen as neutral or even objective.

In view of you running away from the post where the following
took place, you have no grounds on which to call me "anti-Biblical":

_______________________ excerpt from post on this thread_______________

> Peter: You are known not to even possess Sunday School knowledge of the Bible.
>This means you're struggling to achieve 101 knowledge,

Unless you can refute those two distinguished Protestant theologians

whom I quoted in regard to "Get thee behind me, [Satan]," you will have

shown no evidence of possessing even even 001 knowledge.

And so, you are bearing false witness against me yet again here,
and once again ceasing to be a Christian thereby, by your own
standards for who is a Christian.

=============== end of excerpt
from

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/zFajeWGe0Q8/9vsCdVEINAAJ
Message-ID: <a79ae7cf-3da4-40fe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Ray Martinez: an "ad hoc" silence?
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 14:17:38 -0700 (PDT)

> > > My observations that
> > > identify him an Atheist ruin his goal to be seen as he desires.
> >
> > Nyikos is obviously not anti-Biblical (and your comments don't "ruin"
> > anything, though your assumption of influence is entertaining). This is
> > just another nugget of lunacy based on your favorite logical solecism,
> > which should be renamed the Martinez No True Christian fallacy.
>
> Please show me a pro-Bible Peter Nyikos?

How about a pro-Bible Ray Martinez, instead of one who claimed
he would deal "ASAP" with my quoting from highly respected
Protestant theologians and has yet to deliver?

Where is your rebuttal to their exegesis of Jesus's "Get thee behind
me, satan"?

If their exegesis is correct, it makes complete hash of your exegesis.

Is it not Possible (as in "ASAP") for you to deal with their exegesis
until the book you claim to be working on is published?

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

So Robert plays No True Scotsman, which in and of itself, is a fallacy: he insists self-identity claims are exempt from normal evidentiary requirements when in fact these claims are not, but are like any other claim.

>
> >> But that doesn't make you a pathological liar. You have clearly
> >> lied in the past about some things,
> >
> > Please tell the Group what I knew to be true then denied? Again, why
> > are you stalling?
>
> I remember something with Dana, as well as an incident with me. I don't
> recall what either was about, and I have no desire to look them up. It's
> possible you may not necessarily have known you were speaking falsehoods
> but had simply not bothered to check your facts or think about them.
> However the negligence in those cases was egregious enough that I
> remember them as lies.
>

Long-winded accusation restatement. I knew you couldn't back up your slanderous charge.

> >> but I think you believe most of the silly stuff you say. That
> >> doesn't make you a liar, it just makes you nuts.
> >
> > I am not the least bit offended of being called nuts by a person like
> > yourself who believes the order and organization seen in nature came
> > about through laws tethered to a genuine element of chance.
>
> Oh, please stop this silliness and just go see a professional. After all
> these years isn't it obvious I don't say these things because of my
> worldview? I think you need help, not because I'm an atheist or a
> physicalist, but because you display a troubling inability to access
> reality.

A non-sequitur if there ever was one; obviously I struck a nerve; Atheists do indeed believe the order and organization seen in the universe came about through laws tethered to a genuine element of chance.

>
> >> Nyikos, of course, sees you as a liar because it supports his
> >> internal narrative of personal righteousness and sufferer of
> >> conspiratorial reprobates.
> >
> > Peter opposes identification as an Atheist because it renders his
> > views predetermined and predictable. He wants, like all so called
> > Agnostics want, to be viewed neutral and thus objective. Agnostics
> > are neither. They accept the assumptions of Materialism/Naturalism to
> > explain scientific evidence. These assumptions are pro-Atheism.
>
> You see, this is what I mean. You believe and say things that are
> obviously counterfactual. What is "real" for you is determined by what
> you want to be true, not what is true for the rest of world (including
> most Christians).

Another evasive non-sequitur; my points stand.

>
> No, agnostics don't want to be "viewed neutral and objective." They have
> determined that for that particular question there isn't enough, or
> there can never be enough, information to reach a conclusion.

Robert conveys what Agnostics are known to claim. But in reality they believe the position of Agnosticism provides them a perception of neutrality and objectivity that can be used to argue against the Bible and Creationism while not being seen as an Atheist----that's the reason-for-being of Agnosticism.

One, of course, cannot expect Agnostics, or Atheists, to admit. Agnostics, of course, live their lives as Atheists. Moreover, the sole validity of Agnosticism is as a temporary position until exposure to evidence allows formation of an up or down opinion as to the question of the existence of God. There is, of course, more than ample evidence to form such an opinion. So the real motivation to hold Agnosticism as a permanent position is seen in the preceding paragraph.

>
> And no, naturalistic assumptions as a part of scientific methodology are
> not pro-atheism. That's simply nonsense.

Naturalistic assumptions forbid pro-supernatural explanations, interpretations, and conclusions (= pro-Atheism).

>
> >>> Peter desperately wants his anti-Biblical views to be perceived
> >>> and seen as neutral or even objective. My observations that
> >>> identify him an Atheist ruin his goal to be seen as he desires.
> >>
> >> Nyikos is obviously not anti-Biblical (and your comments don't
> >> "ruin" anything, though your assumption of influence is
> >> entertaining). This is just another nugget of lunacy based on your
> >> favorite logical solecism, which should be renamed the Martinez No
> >> True Christian fallacy.
> >
> > Please show me a pro-Bible Peter Nyikos?
>
> I've read a vanishingly small percentage of what Nyikos posts here, but
> even from that I can see that he's a former Catholic who appears to have
> great respect and affection for the trappings of Christian faith,
> including the Bible.

Robert equates "former Catholic" as supporting pro-Bible; good evidence of Robert's contradictory thinking with no awareness of the fact.

In reality genuine pro-Bible persons are known to be practicing Christians or Jews who support miracles, design, and Creationism in general. Since Robert didn't mention any of these pillars one can be sure he doesn't really believe Peter Nyikos is pro-Bible.

> That this doesn't pass your nutcase purity test
> tells us nothing but that you are still trying to climb back up on your
> rocker.
>
> Phillip K. Dick once made a comment about reality, saying it's that
> thing "which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." The
> problem is that observation only applies to people with a grip. For you
> reality truly does seem to have gone away, and that's why you need help.

Reality----highly organized and complex----has no correspondence to the work of chance, unlike design. So you're the one who needs help getting a grip.

Ray (Palayen Creationist)

[Ray Martinez]

That's the point: I admit, Atheists cannot. Atheists and Agnostics desperately want their views perceived as not originating from bias.

Ray

[snip....]

[Robert Camp]

(...skipping over the eye-popping irony of Ray accusing someone else of
using a NTS argument...)

No, Ray, I don't insist self-identity claims are exempt from normal
evidentiary requirements. I insist someone's demurral from atheism is
exempt from non-evidentiary, unhinged claims that enjoy a constituency
of one (i.e., you). I insist that these are claims with which it is both
rhetorically and dialectically foolish to take issue (why would anyone
lie about being an agnostic or a Democrat?).

In fact my Democrat example doesn't go far enough in analogizing your
illogic, because there is no single determinative factor in that
self-identification. However there is with atheism - that one believes
there is enough evidence to say god doesn't exist.

Think about what calling someone an atheist, despite their protests,
entails. It can only be that either they do not know what the word
means, or they are lying when they demur. Unless you think Nyikos
doesn't understand the meaning of the word "atheist," or he is
deliberately hiding the fact that he is one (here, in t.o, really?),
then your charge is nonsensical on its face.

Of course I predicate all this on the assumption that the person I'm
addressing is capable of reason. The point being; there's a third option
I didn't mention - that you think you know better than someone else
whether or not that person believes in god. Experience tells me you are
troubled enough to believe such a thing - because it just might be true
in the alternate reality in which you live.

>>>> But that doesn't make you a pathological liar. You have
>>>> clearly lied in the past about some things,
>>>
>>> Please tell the Group what I knew to be true then denied? Again,
>>> why are you stalling?
>>
>> I remember something with Dana, as well as an incident with me. I
>> don't recall what either was about, and I have no desire to look
>> them up. It's possible you may not necessarily have known you were
>> speaking falsehoods but had simply not bothered to check your facts
>> or think about them. However the negligence in those cases was
>> egregious enough that I remember them as lies.
>
> Long-winded accusation restatement. I knew you couldn't back up your
> slanderous charge.

Not "couldn't," wouldn't. But since that's a weak protest I'll just
concede this point (right up until someone else bothers to take up the
challenge).

>>>> but I think you believe most of the silly stuff you say. That
>>>> doesn't make you a liar, it just makes you nuts.
>>>
>>> I am not the least bit offended of being called nuts by a person
>>> like yourself who believes the order and organization seen in
>>> nature came about through laws tethered to a genuine element of
>>> chance.
>>
>> Oh, please stop this silliness and just go see a professional.
>> After all these years isn't it obvious I don't say these things
>> because of my worldview? I think you need help, not because I'm an
>> atheist or a physicalist, but because you display a troubling
>> inability to access reality.
>
> A non-sequitur if there ever was one;

Ah, we're back to the non-sequitur malapropism.

No, Ray, it's not a non-sequitur. My comments were, in fact, directly
relevant to your lame, unconvincing protest that you don't mind such a
charge coming from a materialist. They addressed the "nuts" element that
I introduced as well as the atheist element into which you digressed.
They were entirely germane.

In other words, the only non-sequitur here is your charge that there was
a non-sequitur.

For a native speaker, you really are the most appalling mangler of the
English language that I've ever known.

> obviously I struck a nerve;
> Atheists do indeed believe the order and organization seen in the
> universe came about through laws tethered to a genuine element of
> chance.

And even if that accurately described my position how could it have
"struck a nerve"? I have never hidden my beliefs about these things.
There is no nerve there to be struck.

>>>> Nyikos, of course, sees you as a liar because it supports his
>>>> internal narrative of personal righteousness and sufferer of
>>>> conspiratorial reprobates.
>>>
>>> Peter opposes identification as an Atheist because it renders
>>> his views predetermined and predictable. He wants, like all so
>>> called Agnostics want, to be viewed neutral and thus objective.
>>> Agnostics are neither. They accept the assumptions of
>>> Materialism/Naturalism to explain scientific evidence. These
>>> assumptions are pro-Atheism.
>>
>> You see, this is what I mean. You believe and say things that are
>> obviously counterfactual. What is "real" for you is determined by
>> what you want to be true, not what is true for the rest of world
>> (including most Christians).
>
> Another evasive non-sequitur; my points stand.
>
>>
>> No, agnostics don't want to be "viewed neutral and objective." They
>> have determined that for that particular question there isn't
>> enough, or there can never be enough, information to reach a
>> conclusion.
>
> Robert conveys what Agnostics are known to claim. But in reality they
> believe the position of Agnosticism provides them a perception of
> neutrality and objectivity that can be used to argue against the
> Bible and Creationism while not being seen as an Atheist----that's
> the reason-for-being of Agnosticism.

And this type of disturbed argument is exactly the reason I said above
that you live in an alternate reality. You really do believe this kind
of thing. You really think you know something that others are hiding.
You really believe you have a connection to ultimate truth.

You really need help, Ray.

> One, of course, cannot expect Agnostics, or Atheists, to admit.
> Agnostics, of course, live their lives as Atheists. Moreover, the
> sole validity of Agnosticism is as a temporary position until
> exposure to evidence allows formation of an up or down opinion as to
> the question of the existence of God. There is, of course, more than
> ample evidence to form such an opinion. So the real motivation to
> hold Agnosticism as a permanent position is seen in the preceding
> paragraph.

Drat! You've seen through us all, haven't you? You've uncovered our
conspiratorial machinations and are going to ruin all our nefarious,
tyrannical plans. Curse you, Ray, curse you!

>> And no, naturalistic assumptions as a part of scientific
>> methodology are not pro-atheism. That's simply nonsense.
>
> Naturalistic assumptions forbid pro-supernatural explanations,
> interpretations, and conclusions (= pro-Atheism).

No, that's just wrong. For the umpteenth time I'll cite religious
scientists as obviously demolishing that nonsense.

>>>>> Peter desperately wants his anti-Biblical views to be
>>>>> perceived and seen as neutral or even objective. My
>>>>> observations that identify him an Atheist ruin his goal to be
>>>>> seen as he desires.
>>>>
>>>> Nyikos is obviously not anti-Biblical (and your comments don't
>>>> "ruin" anything, though your assumption of influence is
>>>> entertaining). This is just another nugget of lunacy based on
>>>> your favorite logical solecism, which should be renamed the
>>>> Martinez No True Christian fallacy.
>>>
>>> Please show me a pro-Bible Peter Nyikos?
>>
>> I've read a vanishingly small percentage of what Nyikos posts here,
>> but even from that I can see that he's a former Catholic who
>> appears to have great respect and affection for the trappings of
>> Christian faith, including the Bible.
>
> Robert equates "former Catholic" as supporting pro-Bible; good
> evidence of Robert's contradictory thinking with no awareness of the
> fact.
>
> In reality genuine pro-Bible persons are known to be practicing
> Christians or Jews who support miracles, design, and Creationism in
> general. Since Robert didn't mention any of these pillars one can be
> sure he doesn't really believe Peter Nyikos is pro-Bible.

I'm sorry, Ray, but I really believe that if the phrase "pro-Bible" has
any reasonable meaning at all, Nyikos is obviously pro-Bible.

By this I mean, of course, that your very eccentric, very illogical,
very unbalanced approach to definitions doesn't pass muster in the real
world. I know plenty of people who would count themselves as pro-Bible
who are not Christians or Jews, who don't support miracles and
creationism...some of whom are even atheists.

I know it might hurt your head to hear these things, but that's reality
knocking on your door.

>> That this doesn't pass your nutcase purity test tells us nothing
>> but that you are still trying to climb back up on your rocker.
>>
>> Phillip K. Dick once made a comment about reality, saying it's
>> that thing "which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
>> The problem is that observation only applies to people with a grip.
>> For you reality truly does seem to have gone away, and that's why
>> you need help.
>
> Reality----highly organized and complex----has no correspondence to
> the work of chance, unlike design. So you're the one who needs help
> getting a grip.

Thanks for the help. Nyikos won't change his mind, but you've certainly
laid the evidence out there for all to see.

[Jonathan]

On 2/11/2016 5:04 AM, Joe Cummings wrote:

> Our friend Ray has been banging on for some time about how the
> inquisitors were not Christians, and when doing their work were
> therefore murderers.
>
> I have tried in vain to get a ruling from Ray as to whether those
> Protestants who carried out similar work were also not Christians and
> therefore murderers.
>
> I cited in particular Tawney who wrote in "Religion and the Rise of
> Capitalism" that there were on average two immolations a year in
> Calvinist Geneva.
>
> I would add also the Margaret Clitheroe, a Recusant Catholic was
> sentenced at York to be pressed to death - "Peine forte et dure."
> She was laid under a door upon which stones were placed until she expired.
>
> The treatment of these people in Geneva and at York was carried out in
> the name of the Protestants' God.
>



....."in the name of"

How many innocents have died 'in the name of' freedom?

When one German and Japanese city after another
were carpet bombed 'in the name of' the allies
does that make freedom and democracy evil?

Or just the people that decided to drop the bombs?

You talk of two immolations per year and one
Recusant Catholic as if that stains all religions
for eternity.


Well, what about this crime, just for instance?
Who or what does this stain forever?


One day a lone B-29 flew over Hiroshima in the middle of
morning rush hour, when the streets were filled with throngs
of people busily headed to work. The civil defense spotted it
and dutifully sounded the air raid sirens.

The mass of workers scurried underground to await the
expected bombs. But none came, instead a small parachute
was dropped by the B-29, then the bomber harmlessly flew off.

So the all-clear was sounded, the masses of rush hour workers
returned to the streets and back to work just like
any other week day.

That's when the...second B-29 dropped The Bomb.
Just minutes after the all-clear was sounded.

The first one dropped an instrument package
to observe the impending explosion. Little
did anyone think that 'science' package
would skyrocket the death count.


Who pays for that?



Who pays for what happened in Tokyo?

When by plan an entire city quarter is fire bombed
but only at the circumference first. So the entire
city quarter is ringed with fire.

Once that is accomplished, the very center of the
city quarter is firebombed. Why? So the heat plume
in the center draws the ring of fire inward at such
a pace it becomes a tornado of super-heated fire
racing towards the center.

Burning the entire city quarter to cinders, but only
using a fraction of the bombs normally needed to
create such complete devastation.

Quite efficient.

Should the principles America stands for be abandoned, and
America be considered immoral?

Or just the people that decided to drop those bombs?


When Stalin slowly starved 20 million Ukrainians
because they snubbed his collective 'plan', does
that make all governments evil or immoral?

Or just the one that committed the crime?

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I'll put the crimes of religion up against the
crimes of /secular society/ any day of the week
and win with ease.

By a million times.




> If Ray would also condemn them, that would end the matter for me.
>
> Can he do that?
>
>
> Joe Cummings
>

[Jonathan]

"I looked at it, and it was a B-29!"

"I heard a voice shout, "A parachute is coming down..."
"it was not really a big flash...."
"blue flash of light just like a spark...."
"a blue flash from the window..."
"made by a train or some short circuit...."
"magnesium burning...."
"bluish-white flash like a magnesium flare outside the window..."
"far brighter than one used for a camera..."
"brighter even than the sun...."

"he said, ``That was a killer beam..."

"as if a flash had directly entered my eyes..."
"After I noticed the flash, white clouds spread over the blue sky... "
"a stone lantern in the garden became brilliantly lit... "
"could only see people's shadows...
"garden shadows disappeared..."
"the world around me turned bright white..."
"the world went white..."
"a tiny, glittering, white object about the size of a grain of rice..."
"tinged with yellow and red..."

"soon grew into a monstrous fireball..."

"a bright red pillar of fire..."
"it measured 200 meters in diameter..."
"a whirlpool of fire approached..."
"sheet of fire..."
"a big tornado of fire..."
"sometimes it was hollow at the center..."
"the wave steadily approached..."
"just like a white wave head coming toward me while standing
on the beach...."
"it was traveling in my direction..."


"then came the heat wave..."

"my forehead felt hot..."
"I felt hot..."
"ten seconds since the flash of light..."
"tremendous noise..."
"an earsplitting roar..."
"I am under the impression that it exploded directly over our house..."
"things and flames were falling from the sky..."
"houses levitated a little and then crushed down to the ground..."
"when the blow came, I closed my eyes..."


"hundreds of needles were stabbing me..."

"felt weightless as if I were an astronaut... "
"the sensation of floating in the air..."
"now dark and hazy..."
"couldn't see anything in the dark..."
"through swirling dust..."
"it looked like twilight..."
"pitch black swirling smoke..."
"total silence and darkness..."

"Then big black drops of rain..."


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

50 eyewitness accounts from Hiroshima
August 6, 1945





Go ahead and name the 30 worst atrocities by religion.
Here's the top 30 from secular society.



30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century

The Hemoclysm
(river of blood)

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
















s

[Peter Nyikos]

I don't expect many people to reply to this one, Jonathan, unless they
can somehow lay Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden... at the feet of
Christians.

For some reason, far less attention is paid to the even more
outrageous second atomic bomb on Nagasaki. The Japanese
government had precious little time to assess the damage
of the first bomb, and the Soviet Union had declared war
on Japan only the day before!!

You might also have mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq, and some
of the secular voices here might have replied by now,
because Bush is touted to be a religious Christian. But note,
he alleged that 9/11 happened because of Al-Qaeda's hatred of
democracy, while a far stronger case could be made for its
hatred of Jews, and of the USA for being such a staunch ally
of Israel, back then.

> The first one dropped an instrument package
> to observe the impending explosion. Little
> did anyone think that 'science' package
> would skyrocket the death count.
>
>
> Who pays for that?
>
>
>
> Who pays for what happened in Tokyo?
>
> When by plan an entire city quarter is fire bombed
> but only at the circumference first. So the entire
> city quarter is ringed with fire.

The firebombing of Dresden was the subject of "Slaughterhouse-Five,"
a film (and book) by science fiction notable Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
The scene where we first see the utter devastation is unforgettable,
with one of the young Germans crying over and over: "Ihr Schweine!"

By the way, Nagasaki was the city where an underground Catholic
Church had been secretly in existence for something like three
centuries, without any priests, but the people (legally, by Church
law) had kept administering the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony
to each other all that time. When relations with the USA were resumed
in the 19th century, it turned out that there were 30,000 of them.

The Catholic survivors of the second atom bomb acquitted themselves
well, some even asking that aid first be given to people who had
suffered even more severe injuries, regardless of creed.

>
> Once that is accomplished, the very center of the
> city quarter is firebombed. Why? So the heat plume
> in the center draws the ring of fire inward at such
> a pace it becomes a tornado of super-heated fire
> racing towards the center.
>
> Burning the entire city quarter to cinders, but only
> using a fraction of the bombs normally needed to
> create such complete devastation.
>
> Quite efficient.
>
> Should the principles America stands for be abandoned, and
> America be considered immoral?
>
> Or just the people that decided to drop those bombs?
>
>
> When Stalin slowly starved 20 million Ukrainians
> because they snubbed his collective 'plan', does
> that make all governments evil or immoral?

Believe it or not, I've encountered a fanatic who goes by the nym
"Stalinist" who blames all the starvation on the rebellious "Kulaks".
He excuses every atrocity Stalin ever committed, including the
purge of such diverse people as Zinoviev, Tukhachevsky, Bukharin,
and Rykov, on the grounds that they were guilty of every crime that
they confessed to in the show trials.

Of course, there is no record of what kinds of torture these patriotic
Bolsheviks were threatened with if they hadn't gone along with the
show. And "Stalinist" would have sneered at anyone saying that, just
as there are several people right on this thread who are in the habit
of sneering at similar expressions of "paranoia".

> Or just the one that committed the crime?
>
> Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
>
> I'll put the crimes of religion up against the
> crimes of /secular society/ any day of the week
> and win with ease.
>
> By a million times.

Don't exaggerate. The truth is bad enough as it is. Make it five times,
so as to err on the side of understatement. That way, people can
talk of the Thirty Years' War without refuting you.

> > If Ray would also condemn them, that would end the matter for me.
> >
> > Can he do that?

Yeah, by disqualifying them as Christians for the few hours that they
were guilty. Just as he should disqualify himself as a Christian
for those posts in which he bears false witness against someone.

He doesn't do that, because, in addition to being highly dishonest,
he is also remorselessly hypocritical.

Peter Nyikos


> > Joe Cummings
> >

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3dc2f15d-b92b-43bd...@googlegroups.com...

What are you tring to say? That they are desperate to make people believe
they have no bias?
Of course they have bias, we all have. But your bias is built on the Bible.
if the Bible falls, you fall. You are fallen, failed to make your case.

Our case stands on rock solid feet, 160 years of sound science and counting.
That's some ballast.

Bias by itself doesn't default to something bad, it all depends upon what it
is standing on.

Fact is that ID has failed, found wanting. Dembski gave up and bailed out,
Luskin quit the DI.

> Ray
>
> [snip....]
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 May 2016 13:40:26 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 2:53:11 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Fri, 6 May 2016 13:34:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 8:38:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:43:17 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:53:18 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> > > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > [snip material addressed previously....]
>> >> >
>> >> > Short on time, I address only a few of numerous examples in the
>> >> > post to which I am replying, of Ray
>> >> > bearing false witness against me.
>> >> >
>> >> > <snip of things to be dealt with later>
>> >>
>> >> Ray is an obvious nut job. Why you would care about what he says about you is beyond me.
>> >
>> >Because he is a pathological liar,
>>
>> Sorry, but there's no evidence I've seen which indicates
>> that Ray doesn't believe what he posts,
>
>There is plenty of evidence, but you are blissfully ignorant of it because
>you see so little of what I post--or what Dana Tweedy has posted
>since Ray has been boycotting him for over a year.

You seem remarkably poorly informed regarding what I see,
and how I evaluate what I see. Just a note: Your perceptions
don't automatically reflect reality, and my disagreement
with you on the point above is not automatically false
because you say it is. It is, in fact, just the opposite;
I've yet to see any evidence that Ray isn't sincere in his
mistakes, illogic and willful blindnesses.

>Would you like to know why Ray has been boycotting him,
>or would you prefer to continue your track record of not seeing
>how dishonest Ray can be?

You seem to continue to equate "wrong" with "dishonest". You
might want to work on that problem. He also stated he was
boycotting me when his errors in a particular thread became
too egregious. It's what he does, reject logic and evidence
which contradict his beliefs, but that doesn't equate to
active lying; he actually believes that his beliefs trump
evidence and logic, so he grasps for his own. Blind,
scientifically illiterate and not very bright, but not a
liar per se.

Of course, YMMV, and you may consider any falsehood to be a
"lie" no matter whether or not the proponent knows it to be
false (rather than, as Ray does, simply rejecting the
evidence against it out of hand), based solely on what you
perceive to be true. If so, that's your problem, not mine
(or, for that matter, Ray's), and it isn't what I call
lying, which requires that the liar *knows* it to be false.

>You pay so little attention to the goings-on between me and Ray, that
>at one point I even had to remind you of something that should
>have been obvious to you:
>
>_______________________excerpt_______________________
>
>>There's no doubt that an ancestral
>> species existed or we wouldn't be here. There's little doubt
>> that whatever species it was, it almost certainly had
>> apelike characteristics; it probably didn't look much like a
>> porpoise.
>
>Hey, you're talking to me here, not Glenn or some ignorant
>creationist. Has someone conned you into thinking I'm not
>firmly committed to common descent?
>
>==================== end of excerpt from
>
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/rehTL2kf_jU/9rEoeQGDDAAJ
>Message-ID: <02abb3e6-63fa-48e8...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: Re: Did we come from monkeys?
>Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
>
>This was the thread where you displayed your ignorance of all but
>the basics of human evolution, just enough to get by against the
>pitifully ignorant creationists here, while speaking in
>condescending ways to me, as above.

Speaking of condescension, how do you rate your
condescending comment about me? Different, huh?

And you continue to equate condescension and sarcasm. You
might want to work on that.

>> making him other
>> than a liar, pathological or otherwise.
>
>Dana Tweedy, who has very closely followed Ray around for years
>(although I've seen little of him these past few months) has
>repeatedly accused Ray of lying. Will his testimony convince you?

Possibly, but only *if* it's obvious that Ray is actually
saying something he knows to be false (rejection of evidence
which contradicts his beliefs doesn't count; we all know he
does that). So feel free to post such.

>If not, and I were to post documentation of lies by Ray, would those
>posts be among the ones you won't see because "you only see the posts
>you want to see"?
>
>> > but he has benefactors like Harshman and
>> >Isaak and jillery, who strive to keep that realization from all but a
>> >handful of people.
>>
>> Perhaps because, like me, they don't automatically equate
>> "adamantly positive, but wrong" with "lying"?
>
>No, it is because they know how vulnerable they would be if
>anyone except a certifiable nutcase or bigot were generally
>seen as highly dishonest.

I have no idea what you're trying to impart here. Are you
claiming that the three examples post things which they know
to be false, or do you assume that if they disagree with you
they *must* know that what they post is false, rather than
that they simply don't agree with you? That issue seems to
me to be the source of many of your complaints.

>For instance, you've been studiously ignoring evidence that
>Harshman is either a highly dishonest person or an idiot savant,
>on the thread I set up recently,

....or I simply disagree with you, regardless of what you
think is supporting evidence. Ever think of that
possibility?

> Subject: How Close Did "Prince Michael" Come to Describing John Harshman?
>
>For instance, this post which directly deals with some of that
>evidence, has not been touched by ANYONE with a ten foot pole.
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/l9H1BPTH3BA/BPxac0bCMgAJ
>Message-ID: <1307d7d1-209d-45c7...@googlegroups.com>
>
>What is even MORE interesting is that you are also ignoring evidence
>on that same thread that "Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon" is seriously unbalanced
>mentally, and that "Wolffan" is a troll who has made it clear that
>this evidence is of no interest to him/her, while flaming me repeatedly
>about how I am supposed to be certifiably insane--all without a
>smidgen of evidence, of course.

So? You'll also note that I disagreed with Wolffan when he
accused you of insanity. You seem to have selective memory
issues. Or would you prefer I also defend Oxyaena? If so,
sorry, but that's my call.

>In fact, you've shown awareness of only the few posts to which you've
>replied directly; hence my talk above of you "seeing only the posts
>you want to see." That has the advantage of making it easier to play
>"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" with respect to both
>Thrinaxodon and Wolffan.

Your perceptions, unfortunately for your argument that I
"see only the posts I want to see", are no more than your
opinion of things you assume, and you know the sayings about
opinions and assumptions. The fact that I don't run off at
the keyboard in response to every post I read is irrelevant,
and if you're using that as evidence that I don't read them
that's not my problem; it's yours.

>> > Besides myself, I have only seen Dana Tweedy and Joe
>> >Cummings call him a liar.
>>
>> Their choice (assuming you're correct).
>
>Truth *does* seem to be a matter of choice to you where the morality
>of honesty and sincerity is concerned.

No, Peter, truth is not a matter of choice. But whether one
agrees with a particular characterization *is* a choice,
something you seem unable to understand since you seem to
think your opinions are automatically true, and that if
someone disagrees with those opinions they're "lying" (or
exercising sycophancy, or "solidarity", or some other term
for conspiracy).

>> I don't recall
>> either, but I don't read all threads.
>
>Nor do you read all the posts in threads where you participate.

Not always, no; I tend to ignore some posters, especially
when they begin to rant about the perceived faults of
others.

>Both are classic understatements.

Of what? I never claimed to read all posts in their
entirety, even in threads in which I participate. As an
example, when someone drags up multiple segments of posts
from as far back as several years I tend to tune out that
post. Is that a problem?

[Ray Martinez]

Everything written after the first sentence contradicts the first sentence. Again, Robert commits a blatant contradiction without any awareness.

>
> In fact my Democrat example doesn't go far enough in analogizing your
> illogic, because there is no single determinative factor in that
> self-identification.

Pure nonsense. The Republican Party is in conspiracy against the Democratic Party and vice versa. Case in point: ever hear of Watergate?

> However there is with atheism - that one believes
> there is enough evidence to say god doesn't exist.
>
> Think about what calling someone an atheist, despite their protests,
> entails. It can only be that either they do not know what the word
> means, or they are lying when they demur. Unless you think Nyikos
> doesn't understand the meaning of the word "atheist," or he is
> deliberately hiding the fact that he is one (here, in t.o, really?),
> then your charge is nonsensical on its face.

These comments assume self-identity claims should be exempt from normal evidentiary requirements. And yes Peter Nyikos is lying when he denies Atheism. And you're lying when you say you believe him pro-Bible. It's a well proven fact: Evolutionists believe it is acceptable to lie to one's face. Moreover, evolution is rejected by many as a predetermined, mandatory, and thus un-falsifiable view of Atheism. So the ToE is always in need of non-Atheists to help defeat the preceding fact.

>
> Of course I predicate all this on the assumption that the person I'm
> addressing is capable of reason. The point being; there's a third option
> I didn't mention - that you think you know better than someone else
> whether or not that person believes in god. Experience tells me you are
> troubled enough to believe such a thing - because it just might be true
> in the alternate reality in which you live.

Imagine that; Atheism is unidentifiable, wholly reliant on self-admission!

>
> >>>> But that doesn't make you a pathological liar. You have
> >>>> clearly lied in the past about some things,
> >>>
> >>> Please tell the Group what I knew to be true then denied? Again,
> >>> why are you stalling?
> >>
> >> I remember something with Dana, as well as an incident with me. I
> >> don't recall what either was about, and I have no desire to look
> >> them up. It's possible you may not necessarily have known you were
> >> speaking falsehoods but had simply not bothered to check your facts
> >> or think about them. However the negligence in those cases was
> >> egregious enough that I remember them as lies.
> >
> > Long-winded accusation restatement. I knew you couldn't back up your
> > slanderous charge.
>
> Not "couldn't," wouldn't. But since that's a weak protest I'll just
> concede this point (right up until someone else bothers to take up the
> challenge).

Very rare concession. Thanks. Said concession does aid in harming my observation that you're a liar.

The concept of "conspiracy" is valid, it exists. You believe, for example, that the enemies of the ToE are in a conspiracy to destroy evolution. Ron Okimoto is The Boy Who Cries Wolf daily.

>
> >> And no, naturalistic assumptions as a part of scientific
> >> methodology are not pro-atheism. That's simply nonsense.
> >
> > Naturalistic assumptions forbid pro-supernatural explanations,
> > interpretations, and conclusions (= pro-Atheism).
>
> No, that's just wrong. For the umpteenth time I'll cite religious
> scientists as obviously demolishing that nonsense.

Why are you stalling? Until you do you're bluffing.

>
> >>>>> Peter desperately wants his anti-Biblical views to be
> >>>>> perceived and seen as neutral or even objective. My
> >>>>> observations that identify him an Atheist ruin his goal to be
> >>>>> seen as he desires.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nyikos is obviously not anti-Biblical (and your comments don't
> >>>> "ruin" anything, though your assumption of influence is
> >>>> entertaining). This is just another nugget of lunacy based on
> >>>> your favorite logical solecism, which should be renamed the
> >>>> Martinez No True Christian fallacy.
> >>>
> >>> Please show me a pro-Bible Peter Nyikos?
> >>
> >> I've read a vanishingly small percentage of what Nyikos posts here,
> >> but even from that I can see that he's a former Catholic who
> >> appears to have great respect and affection for the trappings of
> >> Christian faith, including the Bible.
> >
> > Robert equates "former Catholic" as supporting pro-Bible; good
> > evidence of Robert's contradictory thinking with no awareness of the
> > fact.
> >
> > In reality genuine pro-Bible persons are known to be practicing
> > Christians or Jews who support miracles, design, and Creationism in
> > general. Since Robert didn't mention any of these pillars one can be
> > sure he doesn't really believe Peter Nyikos is pro-Bible.
>
> I'm sorry, Ray, but I really believe that if the phrase "pro-Bible" has
> any reasonable meaning at all, Nyikos is obviously pro-Bible.

Robert repeats his lie while evading rebuttal points.

>
> By this I mean, of course, that your very eccentric, very illogical,
> very unbalanced approach to definitions doesn't pass muster in the real
> world. I know plenty of people who would count themselves as pro-Bible
> who are not Christians or Jews, who don't support miracles and
> creationism...some of whom are even atheists.

Imagine that; an Atheist can be pro-Bible in the mind of Robert Camp!

Your answer proves that you're thinking is subjective and contradictory. I suppose a Creationist can be pro-evolution; a Republican can be pro-Democrat; and an Islamic terrorist can be pro-Christian. All of these absurdities are the products of your confused thinking.

>
> I know it might hurt your head to hear these things, but that's reality
> knocking on your door.
>
> >> That this doesn't pass your nutcase purity test tells us nothing
> >> but that you are still trying to climb back up on your rocker.
> >>
> >> Phillip K. Dick once made a comment about reality, saying it's
> >> that thing "which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
> >> The problem is that observation only applies to people with a grip.
> >> For you reality truly does seem to have gone away, and that's why
> >> you need help.
> >
> > Reality----highly organized and complex----has no correspondence to
> > the work of chance, unlike design. So you're the one who needs help
> > getting a grip.
>
> Thanks for the help. Nyikos won't change his mind, but you've certainly
> laid the evidence out there for all to see.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 5/13/16 4:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:37:59 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 5/11/16 3:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 8:23:02 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/16 7:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:03:07 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/16 10:25 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 7:33:12 AM UTC-7, Robert
>>>>>>> Camp wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/16 1:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 8:38:17 AM UTC-4, Bill
>>>>>>>>> Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:43:17 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:53:18 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:58:37 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:

<snip>

> And yes Peter Nyikos is lying when
> he denies Atheism. And you're lying when you say you believe him
> pro-Bible. It's a well proven fact: Evolutionists believe it is
> acceptable to lie to one's face.

I'm sorry, Ray. I tried, I really did. I read up to this point, laughed
out loud, then felt really sad about it. I didn't read any more.

Only a seriously deluded person could write this kind of gibberish. I
urge you again to seek out professional help.

<snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 May 2016 11:54:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

Since you posted here several times since this was posted,
can I assume you don't care to reply? Or were you too busy?