Think Like a Rock

[Bill]

Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
that there can be no evidence of their existence. Anything suggesting
that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim. Since
false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
dismissed without further thought.

Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
all that does exist. Since it has been determined that deities are
impossible, atheists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.
While this implies omniscience, it's just a natural consequence of
atheists privileged knowledge of the universe.

Since atheists are exempt from considering alternative points of view,
they are relieved of any responsibility to think novel thoughts or
consideration of non-standard concepts. Atheists have transcended the
mundane realm of ideas and other products of thought and depend
entirely on what they already know.

They have made themselves intellectually inert. They, having nothing
left to learn, can dismiss all evidence that requires thought. This
is the very state of mind mystics have sought for millennia, the
complete detachment from the world of changing phenomena, minds purged
of pesky ideas and imagination. This is exactly the state of intellectual inertia experienced by enlightened rocks.

Bill

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
>that there can be no evidence of their existence. Anything suggesting
>that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim. Since
>false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
>dismissed without further thought.

You failed remedial logic.

>Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
>doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
>all that does exist. Since it has been determined that deities are
>impossible, atheists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.
>While this implies omniscience, it's just a natural consequence of
>atheists privileged knowledge of the universe.

More failure from you.

>Since atheists are exempt from considering alternative points of view,
>they are relieved of any responsibility to think novel thoughts or
>consideration of non-standard concepts. Atheists have transcended the
>mundane realm of ideas and other products of thought and depend
>entirely on what they already know.

Once again, you show us that you have no ability to think clearly or
logically.

>They have made themselves intellectually inert. They, having nothing
>left to learn, can dismiss all evidence that requires thought. This
>is the very state of mind mystics have sought for millennia, the
>complete detachment from the world of changing phenomena, minds purged
>of pesky ideas and imagination. This is exactly the state of intellectual inertia experienced by enlightened rocks.

And so the rockhead speaks.

[Bill]

Brilliant! You manage to reply to the post without saying anything. Since you didn't address what was said, it must be that you probably have no rational reply. I have to wonder, why did you bother to say anything at all?

Bill

[raven1]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm curious: in twenty-some years of telling atheists what atheism
entails, have you convinced a single person yet?

[raven1]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>

I wondered the same about your original post.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>

You have no idea what you are talking about.

What more need I tell you.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:10:29 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com>
wrote:

He's convinced us of several things related to his ability to think and
understand logic.

[Greywolf]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 10:53:41 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
>
> that there can be no evidence of their existence. Anything suggesting
>
> that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim.

Says who?

You seem to think that legitimate proof for the existence of deity would be dismissed as illegitimate. But that's not true.

Where is irrefutable proof for the existence of deity? Point to it.

Since
>
> false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
>
> dismissed without further thought.

What nonsense.

Your problem is that you can't deal with the fact that no one has ever provided irrefutable proof for the existence of God. So you attack atheists with the charge that we would not accept legitimate, irrefutable proof for the existence of God out of hand.

That's simply not true.

Again, point to what you believe to be irrefutable proof for the existence of God. What is your own personal proof that God exists?

>
>
>
> Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
>
> doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
>
> all that does exist.

That is such a *stupid* statement.

Trying to make yourself out to be some sort of theist "intellectual", are you?

Well, you're talking stupid. I hope you know.

Since it has been determined that deities are
>
> impossible,

What atheist has claimed *that*? Post the name and provide the actual quote of what you speak.

atheists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.

Simply dumb.

>
> While this implies omniscience, it's just a natural consequence of
>
> atheists privileged knowledge of the universe.
>
>

Guess what we atheists *do* know? That not one theist in the entire history of mankind has provided irrefutable proof for the actual existence of deity, that's what!

>
> Since atheists are exempt from considering alternative points of view,

What planet do you live on?

We atheists would become theists in a heartbeat if, say, God poked His head through the clouds and said "Howdy, my earthly children" to each person on planet earth--in their own language.

Now suppose that that was some alien creature that did that instead of "God". It doesn't matter, we atheists would be completely fooled and become theists--until the "fraud" is uncovered, that is. So see, you're "wrong," again.

>
> they are relieved of any responsibility to think novel thoughts or
>
> consideration of non-standard concepts.

Hey, here's a "novel" thought for you: You worship the most evil creature in all of existence. The creature that actually created very Evil itself.

How does *that* make you feel, Mr. Intellectual!

Atheists have transcended the
>
> mundane realm of ideas and other products of thought and depend
>
> entirely on what they already know.
>

Strange, those atheists, eh? They rely on facts rather than on a make-believe religion and discredited religious beliefs. What next?

>
>
> They have made themselves intellectually inert.

OOOOOOHWEEEEEEE, that sounds *real* intellectual-like. Got any more intellectual talk to pass down onto us?

They, having nothing
>
> left to learn, can dismiss all evidence that requires thought.

Greywolf calling planet Zenon, one of your theists is talking really stupid again! In an ATHEIST forum.

This
>
> is the very state of mind mystics have sought for millennia, the
>
> complete detachment from the world of changing phenomena, minds purged
>
> of pesky ideas and imagination.

A reality of their own making that *still* doesn't provide irrefutable proof for the existence of deity.

This is exactly the state of intellectual inertia experienced by enlightened rocks.
>
>
>
> Bill

Did you say you have the mind of a "rock". Well, that you do.

You dismiss counter-evidence for the existence of "God" and claim that the only "proof" atheists provide countering religious belief is "non-belief". That's simply not true. And you *know* it.

You simply repeat yourself over and over and over again, in one form or another.

You're not going to change your world-view no matter *what* evidence the atheist can provide you with. So why post here?

[Bill]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 11:30:16 AM UTC-5, Greywolf wrote:
> On Friday, August 22, 2014 10:53:41 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> > Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
>
> >
>
> > that there can be no evidence of their existence. Anything suggesting
>
> >
>
> > that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim.
>
>
>
>
>
> Says who?
>
>
>
> You seem to think that legitimate proof for the existence of deity would be dismissed as illegitimate. But that's not true.
>
>
>
> Where is irrefutable proof for the existence of deity? Point to it.

Where is irrefutable proof for the existence of a Big Bang or a force of gravity or a Higgs field? You should apply your "irrefutable proof" criterion to all things equally. Watch your world shrink to fit your imagination.

Bill

[Tom McDonald]

On 8/22/2014 10:53 AM, Bill wrote:
> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods,

Wrong from the start. Why not ask an atheist what atheism is?

<snip>

[Bill]

No one ever agrees with my definition so tell me your version.

Bill

[Tom McDonald]

Not believing in a god or gods. Nothing to do with any assertion or
implication that there is no god or gods.

[Bill]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 1:22:30 PM UTC-5, Tom McDonald wrote:
> On 8/22/2014 1:07 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>
> >> Wrong from the start. Why not ask an atheist what atheism is?
>
>

> > No one ever agrees with my definition so tell me your version.
>
> >
>
> > Bill
>
> >
>
> Not believing in a god or gods. Nothing to do with any assertion or
>
> implication that there is no god or gods.

In some circles that may apply but not in this newsgroup. This whole thing about defining atheism is ludicrous since there is no agreement. This is brought up to sidetrack a discussion with an empty quibble. Atheists here are known by what they say and how they say it.

One of your pals here demands irrefutable proof for the existence of God(s) but not for much of anything else. Others like to pretend that there is no evidence for the existence of deities by simply ignoring any that surfaces. Going by the actual practices of the atheists posting here, mere disbelief in the existence of deities explains nothing.

Bill

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Since theism is an implied claim that there are gods, it follows
that there is no evidence of their existence. Anything suggesting

that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim. Since
false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
dismissed without further thought.

Since theism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
does exist (deities), it follows that theism implies knowledge of
all that doesnt exist. Since it has been determined that deities are
possible, theists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.

While this implies omniscience, it's just a natural consequence of

theists privileged knowledge of the universe.

Since theists are exempt from considering alternative points of view,

they are relieved of any responsibility to think novel thoughts or

consideration of non-standard concepts. Theists have transcended the

mundane realm of ideas and other products of thought and depend
entirely on what they already know.

They have made themselves intellectually inert. They, having nothing
left to learn, can dismiss all evidence that requires thought. This
is the very state of mind mystics have sought for millennia, the
complete detachment from the world of changing phenomena, minds purged
of pesky ideas and imagination. This is exactly the state of
intellectual inertia experienced by enlightened rocks.

Oh yeah this sounds a bit more accurate....

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:10:29 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

He has surely convinced me 100% that he is an complete idiot....

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>

bill read a book or two I can suggest a few names for reference if you
need them. The big bang can not be proven that is obvious the higgs
boson has been found and that is irrefutable. Gravity has been proven
irrefutably hundreds of years ago.. Where you been man?

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

whom made you the benefactor of this NG ? Whom gave you the power to
create the guidelines to set in this NG.

[Tom McDonald]

On 8/22/2014 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> On Friday, August 22, 2014 1:22:30 PM UTC-5, Tom McDonald wrote:
>> On 8/22/2014 1:07 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Wrong from the start. Why not ask an atheist what atheism is?
>>
>>
>>> No one ever agrees with my definition so tell me your version.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>>
>>
>> Not believing in a god or gods. Nothing to do with any assertion
>> or
>>
>> implication that there is no god or gods.
>
> In some circles that may apply but not in this newsgroup. This whole
> thing about defining atheism is ludicrous since there is no
> agreement. This is brought up to sidetrack a discussion with an empty
> quibble. Atheists here are known by what they say and how they say
> it.

Your original post began with a falsehood. It may not be universally
false, but it is nevertheless false and therefore misleading.

Whatever argument you try to build on that false, misleading beginning
will, of necessity, be at least strongly suspect, and probably wrong.

Pointing that out to you isn't sidetracking the discussion, it's
clarifying it. Sorry you don't seem to get that.

> One of your pals here demands irrefutable proof for the existence of
> God(s) but not for much of anything else. Others like to pretend that
> there is no evidence for the existence of deities by simply ignoring
> any that surfaces. Going by the actual practices of the atheists
> posting here, mere disbelief in the existence of deities explains
> nothing.
>

OK, then let's try this. Let's get a more precise set of definitions,
based on two often conflated concepts wrt religion/god/gods:

1. Claim of *knowledge*, gnostic or agnostic statements;

2. Claim of *belief*, or theist or atheist statements.

One can claim gnostic or agnostic theism. IOW, one may claim to know a
god/gods exist; or one may claim to not know a god/gods exist and yet
claim to believe in god/gods. The first is gnostic theism, the second is
agnostic theism.

One can claim gnostic or agnostic atheism. IOW, one may claim to know a
god/gods does not exist; or one may claim not to know whether a god/gods
exist, yet claim no belief in god/gods. The first is gnostic atheism;
the second is agnostic atheism.

In your opening post, your apparent assumption was that all the atheists
here were claiming to be gnostic atheists. That's clearly not true.
Most, in my experience, are agnostic atheists. Thus you didn't clearly
enough define the premises of your argument, and thus my replies to you.

[Greywolf]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>

__________

My field of "expertise" is the Christian religion, not science. So you
need to ask atheists who specialize in scientific matters to answer
your question.

As for "irrefutable proof", I know this: Professor Higgs predicted the
Higgs "particle" back in 1947, I believe. With the construction of the
Large Hadron Collider, that particle has now been proven to exist.

And note: No one said that the Higgs boson existed for *sure*. It was
a "theory" that was proven to be true. And that's because there was
enough scientific information discovered that it *could* exist and
proven "real" if only a powerful enough collider could be built.

The Christian faith, on the other hand, maintains God, does indeed,
exist. Not that that's just a theory, or mere speculation. The Church
has deemed it to be *fact*--without the slightest bit of irrefutable
proof proving it so.

Notice the difference?

And hey, you Christians worship a very, very, Evil God. Aren't you in
the least bit embarrassed by that? Assuming you're a Christian, of
course.

[JTEM]

Free Lunch wrote:

> You failed remedial logic.

He's in good company. After all, you never once rose
above naked assertions. You simply pronounce statements
as wrong, giving every indication that your response is
purely knee jerk, absent any rational thought.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

raven1 wrote:

> I wondered the same about your original post.

But not about your content-free response. A
reasoned, well articulated argument is alien
to you, but that's okay. You believe you're
right. You have faith. You don't require

[JTEM]

Greywolf wrote:

> Bill wrote:
>
> > Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods,
> > it follows that there can be no evidence of their existence.

Technically, no, it doesn't follow. Evidence frequently
supports more than one conclusion, and is uncompelling.

...though it is true that the collective does claim
that there is no evidence. So though your statement is
technically incorrect, it is effectively correct. Here.
In alt.atheism amongst the fakers.

> > Anything suggesting that such evidence exists
> > must, therefore, be a false claim.

Again, technically incorrect but EFFECTIVELY correct,
correct in practice. Here.

> Says who?

You. RavingOne. The troll posting as Gene Douglas
or whatever they sometimes call themselves... Tom
McDolt or whatever... the collective... alt.atheism.

You have repeatedly claimed that there is no evidence
for God. You have argued this incessantly. You've
reduced yourselves to infantile name calling in response
to my pointing out the FACT that there is evidence --
chiefly personal testimony and medical miracles.

> You seem to think that legitimate proof

Ah, see? See that? The word "Evidence" is used and
your twisted brain substitutes "Proof," and then
denies it's existence... while claiming that he's wrong
for saying that you deny evidence.

Amazing. It's like you have no idea what you're saying,
no control over the words you use...

> Where is irrefutable proof for the existence of deity?

You don't know the difference between "Evidence" and
"Roof."

> Your problem is that you can't deal with the fact
> that no one has ever provided irrefutable proof

Again, the word used was "Evidence."

> Again, point to what you believe to be irrefutable proof

Again, the word used was "Evidence."

> > Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
> > doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
> > all that does exist.

> That is such a *stupid* statement.

It's 100% factually correct. There is no useful
distinction between knowing something and believing
something, and atheists believe there is no God.

> > Since it has been determined that deities are
> > impossible,

> What atheist has claimed *that*?

All of them?

Are you confusing "Atheist" with "Agnostic," again?

> > atheists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.

> Simply dumb.

There's a lot of "Dumb" going around. You, for instance,
saw "Evidence" and read it as "Proof."

Here. You stupidly do it again:

> Guess what we atheists *do* know? That not one theist
> in the entire history of mankind has provided irrefutable
> proof for the actual existence of deity, that's what!

See? Where the word was "Evidence" you read "Proof."

> > Since atheists are exempt from considering alternative points of view,

> What planet do you live on?

Even if he may be wrong about atheists, he's right
about you...

> We atheists would become theists in a heartbeat

You're not an atheist. Atheists believe there is
no God. You're simply an obnoxious child that's
angry with his God, and thinks he can somehow get
even with Him -- hurt Him -- by pretending that
He doesn't exist.

...it's actually quite humorous to watch.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

Greywolf wrote:

> My field of "expertise" is the Christian religion

So you have no expertise what so ever. Check.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Wrong from the start. Why not ask an atheist what atheism is?

Because there aren't any here. Duh.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:


> Not believing in a god or gods.

You believe there is no God?

No?

You're not an atheist. You're the religious
equivalent to the straight "Queer."

You're a bandwagon jumper... "I think atheists
are cool. I want to be cool. If I call myself
an atheist I'll be cool too."

Pathetic.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[Bill]

Not so but I won't challenge you faith ...

Bill

[Mitchell Holman]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:88cfda43-0906-4d56...@googlegroups.com:

> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
> that there can be no evidence of their existence.

At none shown so far.

Is there such evidence of any gods
why don't you point it out for us?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:35:44 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net>
wrote:

>Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:88cfda43-0906-4d56...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
>> that there can be no evidence of their existence.

How did he ever get into the University of Oklahom, Norman with such
an abysmal grasp of logic?

> At none shown so far.
>
> Is there such evidence of any gods
>why don't you point it out for us?

The nasty little lying shit knows he can't.

[Bill]

Apparently you didn't read the link I provided. Here you will find how latitudinal displacement affects the intellectual capacity of people living at the higher latitudes. The only remedy is to move closer to the equator. But you're old, it's probably too late for you derive any benefit. To see why you can't comprehend much of anything, try this:

http://misplacedfacts.org/roundness.html

Your Pal,

Bill

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:10:12 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/22/2014 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>> On Friday, August 22, 2014 1:22:30 PM UTC-5, Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> On 8/22/2014 1:07 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wrong from the start. Why not ask an atheist what atheism is?
>>>
>>>> No one ever agrees with my definition so tell me your version.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> Not believing in a god or gods. Nothing to do with any assertion
>>> or implication that there is no god or gods.
>>
>> In some circles that may apply but not in this newsgroup.

Once again, the pathological liar lies through his teeth.

>> This whole
>> thing about defining atheism is ludicrous since there is no
>> agreement.

Someone remind the pathological liar that there is broad agreement
among atheists, because after all, it describes themselves.

The disagreement is between atheists and stupid, rude, pig-ignorant
theists like him, who are incapable of thinking outside the walls
Christianity has erected around their minds.

>> This is brought up to sidetrack a discussion with an empty
>> quibble.

Another amateur-psychologised falsehood from a sociopathic theist who
refuses to accept what it means to an atheist to be one.

>> Atheists here are known by what they say and how they say
>> it.

Because stupid, arrogantly and nastily rude theists like Conner come
here and lie about us to our faces, in the one place where we don't
have to put up with it.

>Your original post began with a falsehood. It may not be universally
>false, but it is nevertheless false and therefore misleading.

As have all the threads he has started since his first one in January
1993.

>Whatever argument you try to build on that false, misleading beginning
>will, of necessity, be at least strongly suspect, and probably wrong.

Obviously.

>Pointing that out to you isn't sidetracking the discussion, it's
>clarifying it. Sorry you don't seem to get that.

Or anything else.

>> One of your pals here demands irrefutable proof for the existence of
>> God(s) but not for much of anything else.

Once again, the pathological liar lies by omission, because he knows
we only demand proof after theists rudely and stupidly presume it in
the one place they know nobody believes that nonsense.

>> Others like to pretend that
>> there is no evidence for the existence of deities

Another deliberate lie, because nothing remotely resembling evidence
has ever been provided.

>> by simply ignoring
>> any that surfaces.

More of the same lie.

>> Going by the actual practices of the atheists
>> posting here, mere disbelief in the existence of deities explains
>> nothing.

The liar knows it's not meant to - it just describes us.

And even he finds it too hard to understand, even though it's not
difference of his own absence of speaking Swahili, he should have the
decency to accept that this actually does describe us instead of
presuming we're perjuring ourselves because Christianity (which is
biased) tells him something else

.
>OK, then let's try this. Let's get a more precise set of definitions,
>based on two often conflated concepts wrt religion/god/gods:
>
>1. Claim of *knowledge*, gnostic or agnostic statements;
>
>2. Claim of *belief*, or theist or atheist statements.
>
>One can claim gnostic or agnostic theism. IOW, one may claim to know a
>god/gods exist; or one may claim to not know a god/gods exist and yet
>claim to believe in god/gods. The first is gnostic theism, the second is
>agnostic theism.

Too complicated for a bear of little brain.

>One can claim gnostic or agnostic atheism. IOW, one may claim to know a
>god/gods does not exist; or one may claim not to know whether a god/gods
>exist, yet claim no belief in god/gods. The first is gnostic atheism;
>the second is agnostic atheism.
>
>In your opening post, your apparent assumption was that all the atheists
>here were claiming to be gnostic atheists. That's clearly not true.
>Most, in my experience, are agnostic atheists. Thus you didn't clearly
>enough define the premises of your argument, and thus my replies to you.

Even with this explanation, it doesn't get to the root of the problem,
which is that theists will always get us wrong as long as they try to
describe us using inside-the-box doctrines and tenets which don't even
apply outside it.

[Malte Runz]

"Bill" skrev i meddelelsen
news:88cfda43-0906-4d56...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, ...

Well, actually... Hell, I'm a strong atheist, so I won't fight you on that
one. Others will, though, and you'll get your ass whipped, Billy Boy.


> ... it follows
> that there can be no evidence of their existence. ...

Sure, if it doesn't exist there can be no evidence of it existing.


> ... Anything suggesting
> that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim. ...

I haven't read any of the other replies to your post yet, but I can't
believe I'm the only one to object right here. It's the lack of evidence
that leads to the claim, that it's very likely, that there are no gods.
You're three sentences into a lengthy argument (which I haven't even read
yet) and you present the first strawman, that atheists 'claim to know that
gods do not exist'. The rest is uninteresting.

(and, therefore, snip)

--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
news:653407d3-f368-4530...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Greywolf wrote:

(snip)

> You don't know the difference between "Evidence" and
> "Roof."

Come on, he's not that stupid!

>
> > Your problem is that you can't deal with the fact
> > that no one has ever provided irrefutable proof
>
> Again, the word used was "Evidence."

But when one claims to 'know' that something exists, as the theist does, he
must have "proof" thereof. Evidence can only support and confirm a theory.


(snip repetition)

>
> > > Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
> > > doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
> > > all that does exist.
>
> > That is such a *stupid* statement.
>
> It's 100% factually correct. There is no useful
> distinction between knowing something and believing

> something, ...

Are you also colorblind?

> ... and atheists believe there is no God.

Some do. I do. Prove me wrong, if you can.

See how that worked? My belief (or theory, in the scientific sense), 'gods
do not exist', can be falsified, and I dare anyone to try.

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:18:50 +0200, "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
>news:653407d3-f368-4530...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Greywolf wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> You don't know the difference between "Evidence" and
>> "Roof."
>
>Come on, he's not that stupid!

McShitforbrains doesn't know the difference between arson and
incest...

He set fire to his sister.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:31:08 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >Where is irrefutable proof for the existence of a Big Bang or a force of gravity or a Higgs field? You should apply your "irrefutable proof" criterion to all things equally. Watch your world shrink to fit your imagination.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> bill read a book or two I can suggest a few names for reference if you
>>
>> need them. The big bang can not be proven that is obvious the higgs
>>
>> boson has been found and that is irrefutable. Gravity has been proven
>>
>> irrefutably hundreds of years ago.. Where you been man?
>
>Not so but I won't challenge you faith ...
>
>Bill

Oh sorry I forgot you are retarded I apologize.. Even though you may
be slow it may finalllly catch up to you...

[Steve O]

On 22/08/2014 16:53, Bill wrote:
> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
> that there can be no evidence of their existence. Anything suggesting
> that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim. Since
> false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
> dismissed without further thought.
>

> Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
> doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge of

> all that does exist. Since it has been determined that deities are
> impossible, atheists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.
> While this implies omniscience, it's just a natural consequence of
> atheists privileged knowledge of the universe.
>

> Since atheists are exempt from considering alternative points of view,

> they are relieved of any responsibility to think novel thoughts or
> consideration of non-standard concepts. Atheists have transcended the
> mundane realm of ideas and other products of thought and depend
> entirely on what they already know.
>
> They have made themselves intellectually inert. They, having nothing
> left to learn, can dismiss all evidence that requires thought. This
> is the very state of mind mystics have sought for millennia, the
> complete detachment from the world of changing phenomena, minds purged
> of pesky ideas and imagination. This is exactly the state of intellectual inertia experienced by enlightened rocks.
>
> Bill
>

Did it take you very long to dream up this bunch of ridiculous lies?

[Greywolf]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 4:08:39 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
> Greywolf wrote:
>
>
>
> > My field of "expertise" is the Christian religion
>
>
>
> So you have no expertise what so ever. Check.
>
>

Oh, but I do. And your making a false statement doesn't make it "untrue".

But let's put *you* to the test: Disprove the assertion made in the following article:

http://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/jesus-god-versus-god-the-father/

And if you can't, just say so. If you agree, say that as well.

(Pssst! I'm showing you some of my "expertise".)

[%]

Greywolf wrote:
> On Friday, August 22, 2014 4:08:39 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
>> Greywolf wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> My field of "expertise" is the Christian religion
>>
>>
>>
>> So you have no expertise what so ever. Check.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, but I do. And your making a false statement doesn't make it
> "untrue".
>

yes it does

[duke]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:00:03 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>

>wrote:
>
>>Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
>>that there can be no evidence of their existence. Anything suggesting
>>that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim. Since
>>false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
>>dismissed without further thought.
>

>You failed remedial logic.

He just nailed you.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:06:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:00:03 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods, it follows
>>>that there can be no evidence of their existence. Anything suggesting
>>>that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim. Since
>>>false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
>>>dismissed without further thought.
>>
>>You failed remedial logic.
>
>He just nailed you.

Way to jump in to defend ignorance, duke. Congratulations.

[Smiler]

Many have tried, all have failed.

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[Smiler]

He's a theist and, therefore, well versed in telling ridiculous lies.
It's what they do. "By their fruits shall they be know."

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 21:47:09 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:18:50 +0200, Malte Runz wrote:
>
>> "JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:653407d3-f368-4530...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Greywolf wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> You don't know the difference between "Evidence" and "Roof."
>>
>> Come on, he's not that stupid!
>>
>>
>>> > Your problem is that you can't deal with the fact that no one has
>>> > ever provided irrefutable proof
>>>
>>> Again, the word used was "Evidence."
>>
>> But when one claims to 'know' that something exists, as the theist does,
>> he must have "proof" thereof. Evidence can only support and confirm a
>> theory.
>>
>> (snip repetition)
>> >
>>> > > Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
>>> > > doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge
>>> > > of all that does exist.

The nasty little shit can't stop lying, can he?

We've been correcting him for donkey's years, so it's not an honest
mistake - if it ever was one in the first place.

>>> > That is such a *stupid* statement.
>>>
>>> It's 100% factually correct. There is no useful distinction between
>>> knowing something and believing something, ...

It is a deliberately nasty lie, meant to annoy because he is an
obsessive, a stalker, a coward, a bigot, and a psychopath.

>> Are you also colorblind?
>>
>>> ... and atheists believe there is no God.

For the umpteenth time, the proven serial liar knows we don't have
anything to believe doesn't exist.

>> Some do. I do. Prove me wrong, if you can.
>>
>> See how that worked? My belief (or theory, in the scientific sense),
>> 'gods do not exist', can be falsified, and I dare anyone to try.

That's not a belief, it's the falsifiable conclusion in the real
world.

There is no symmetry between "a magical superbeing 'poofed'
everything into existence all at once", and "no, it didn't".

Especially when objective scientific research has resulted in a pretty
idea of how it actually happened.

>Many have tried, all have failed.

Which is why they have to lie about us.

[Kadaitcha Man]

On 24/08/2014 9:01 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> There is no symmetry between "a magical superbeing 'poofed'
> everything into existence all at once", and "no, it didn't".

Oh, yes there is...

> Especially when objective scientific research has resulted in a pretty
> idea of how it actually happened.

Interesting. What is it about the quantum vacuum state a mere 10^-43
seconds prior to the thoroughly silent and assumed 'big bang' that is
classifiable as objective, Christopher?

Where:

1. The word objective takes any reasonable meaning of the word.
2. The vacuum energy bound(1) is assumed to be:
|pšvac| < 10€^-29g/cm^3 ~˜ 10€^-47 GeV^4 ˜~ 10^-€9erg/cm^3

(1) S.E. Rughƒand and H. Zinkernagely:The Quantum Vacuum and the
Cosmological Constant Problem, p2;
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0012253

Take a deep breath, Christopher...

It is not possible to have even a remote idea "of how it actually
happened" because there is no way to tie events occuring below the
Planck scale either to theories of how the universe was born or to the
known laws of physics. It is therefore no less logically absurd for a
phyicist to claim that some random fluctuation in the quantum vacuum
state caused the universe than it is for a fucking redneck religious
zealot to claim 'god did it'.

Why is it so? It is so because the evidence for one is 100% equivalent
to the evidence for the other. The evidence being a thoroughgoingly
symmetrical zip, zilch, zero, nada, fuck all, nothing, nowt.

HTH

[Malte Runz]

"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
news:4da50d6d-838b-45c1...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> > Wrong from the start. Why not ask an atheist what atheism is?
>
> Because there aren't any here. Duh.

Hello! I'm here. I believe that there are no gods, which seems to fit your
definition of what 'a true atheist' is. What is it you wish to learn?


--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
news:22e80570-8daa-425f...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>
> > Not believing in a god or gods.
>
> You believe there is no God?

Yes.

Now what?

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[duke]

He just nailed you, free.

[Why not]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:88cfda43-0906-4d56...@googlegroups.com:

> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods

No, it isn't. Just a lack of belief in them. Some atheists also claim
there are no gods.

>, it follows
> that there can be no evidence of their existence.

Obvously, if the claim some atheists make is correct, there can by no
conclusive evidence of something that does not exist.

But if there is conclusive evidence of the existence of gods, then the
claim some atheists made is wrong, and it would be irrational of them to
maintain it.

That's how logic works.

> Anything suggesting
> that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim.

It would be a contradictory claim, not necessarily false. The evidence
must be examied to determine which claim is correct. Possibly the
evidence supports both claims, in which case it is not of much use.

> Since
> false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
> dismissed without further thought.

How would one know it is a false claim until it has been considered?

Certainly an unsubstantiate claim of evidence would not be accepted, and
should be dismissed if (and as long as) there is no indication of it
being valid.

> Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
> doesn't exist (deities),

It isn't. Though some atheists believe that gods (in a supernatural
sense) do not exist (or that things that do exist are not, objectively,
gods)

No atheist, for example, would claim that the sun doesn't exist, even
though some theists consider it to be a god, they simply do not hold that
belief of it being anything other than the material object that it is.

> it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
> all that does exist.

Even if atheism claimed that gods don't exist, that does NOT imply in any
way a knowledge of all that DOES exist.

You are not thinking logically.

> Since it has been determined that deities are
> impossible, atheists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.

That does not follow logically. You clearly haven't thought your
argument through.

> While this implies omniscience, it's just a natural consequence of
> atheists privileged knowledge of the universe.

Your argument is neither rational nor logical. It is illogical thinking
like yours that theism uses for support .. and a very flimsy support that
is

[snip rest of illogical nonsense]

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:34:50 +0000 (UTC), Why not <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:88cfda43-0906-4d56...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods
>
>No, it isn't. Just a lack of belief in them. Some atheists also claim
>there are no gods.

The proven serial liar knows this because we have been explaining it
to him for more than twenty years.

>>, it follows
>> that there can be no evidence of their existence.
>
>Obvously, if the claim some atheists make is correct, there can by no
>conclusive evidence of something that does not exist.

It's not really a claim, just the default peding theists actually
backing up their nonsense.

Until they do that it remains merely part of somebody else's religion.

Just like Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Osiris and all the others.

Not something that could or could not exist.

Because we see it from _outside_ their religion where it has a
different meaning from the one inside it.

>But if there is conclusive evidence of the existence of gods, then the
>claim some atheists made is wrong, and it would be irrational of them to
>maintain it.

What claim?

Stupid theists who can't think outside the box imagine their god is as
"real" for us as it is for them - but because we are part of the real
world beyond their religion, we cannot be described according to its
presumptions.

>That's how logic works.
>
>> Anything suggesting
>> that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim.
>
>It would be a contradictory claim, not necessarily false. The evidence
>must be examied to determine which claim is correct. Possibly the
>evidence supports both claims, in which case it is not of much use.

There is no evidence supporting the theist's claims, and atheists
aren't making any claims.

It's like assuming symmetry between a kid earnestly telling us Father
Christmas is real, and a laughing "no it isn't".

>> Since
>> false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
>> dismissed without further thought.
>
>How would one know it is a false claim until it has been considered?
>
>Certainly an unsubstantiate claim of evidence would not be accepted, and
>should be dismissed if (and as long as) there is no indication of it
>being valid.

No theist has ever provided anything remotely resembling evidence for
their god. At best they just cite the Bible as if it were an accurate
record, but that is no different than eg Jesper using the Bhagavad
Gita to prove Krishna.

>> Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
>> doesn't exist (deities),
>
>It isn't. Though some atheists believe that gods (in a supernatural
>sense) do not exist (or that things that do exist are not, objectively,
>gods)

Even then it's only a minor sort of belief, no different than "no
ghosts", "no UFO abductions", etc - not the equivalent but opposite to
the theist's belief.

>No atheist, for example, would claim that the sun doesn't exist, even
>though some theists consider it to be a god, they simply do not hold that
>belief of it being anything other than the material object that it is.
>
>> it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
>> all that does exist.
>
>Even if atheism claimed that gods don't exist, that does NOT imply in any
>way a knowledge of all that DOES exist.

Pretty well everything Bill has said in this thread or any other in
the more than twenty years he has been trolling here, is true.

>You are not thinking logically.

He isn't thinking, period.

>> Since it has been determined that deities are
>> impossible, atheists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.
>
>That does not follow logically. You clearly haven't thought your
>argument through.

It's a Christian. 'Nuff said.

>> While this implies omniscience, it's just a natural consequence of
>> atheists privileged knowledge of the universe.
>
>Your argument is neither rational nor logical. It is illogical thinking
>like yours that theism uses for support .. and a very flimsy support that
>is
>
>[snip rest of illogical nonsense]

He's just being deliberately offensive.

[JTEM]

raven1 wrote:

> I'm curious

Ugly, closed-minded and pathetically stupid, but "Curious"?

Please. That's not funny.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

Greywolf wrote:

> But let's put *you* to the test

I would sooner play connect the dots with your
ass pimples.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

Malte Runz wrote:

> But when one claims to 'know' that something exists, as
> the theist does, he must have "proof" thereof.

But it doesn't work that way anywhere else, not even
in science. Science accepts that things we used to
believe were true were later proven false, and even
grants that many things we accept as "Fact" today will
one day be disproven.

> Evidence can only support and confirm a theory.

Yup:

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories

> > > > Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
> > > > doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
> > > > all that does exist.
> >
> > > That is such a *stupid* statement.
> >
> > It's 100% factually correct. There is no useful
> > distinction between knowing something and believing
> > something, ...

> Are you also colorblind?

Please stop confusing the words "Belief" and "Suspicion"

There is no useful distinction between knowing something

and believing something.

> > ... and atheists believe there is no God.

> Some do.

All do. If someone doesn't then they're not an
atheist.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95685325993

[JTEM]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> He set fire to his sister.

Your deviant sexual fantasies make me uncomfortable.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95685325993

[JTEM]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> The nasty little shit can't stop lying, can he?

Again, wouldn't it save a great deal of time &
bandwidth if you simply listed everyone who
fails to agree with you that's NOT lying?



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95685325993

[JTEM]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> Once again, the pathological liar lies

You are redundant & repetitive.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95685325993

[JTEM]

Malte Runz wrote:

> Hello! I'm here. I believe that there are no gods, which seems to fit your
> definition of what 'a true atheist' is.

And yet you clearly just fell off the turnip truck
yesterday, as you think it's somehow my definition.




-- -

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95685325993

[Lormaria Prakanakatakapan]

On 25/08/2014 07:55, JTEM wrote:
> Greywolf wrote:
>
>> But let's put *you* to the test
>
> I would sooner play connect the dots with your
> ass pimples.

Or anybods asspimps, yah we know that already. So much better your
answer than "Ah dasn't kno".

Oh an Bubbles don wan you lik her no more

[Benjamin Hinn]

On 24/08/2014 09:31, Kadaitcha Man hat geshplurted:

> On 24/08/2014 9:01 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> There is no symmetry between "a magical superbeing 'poofed'
>> everything into existence all at once", and "no, it didn't".
>
> Oh, yes there is...

It's on the left, next to the blähungen moor.

>
>> Especially when objective scientific research has resulted in a pretty
>> idea of how it actually happened.
>
> Interesting. What is it about the quantum vacuum state a mere 10^-43
> seconds prior to the thoroughly silent and assumed 'big bang' that is
> classifiable as objective, Christopher?

The best bits.
>
> Where:
There:

>
> 1. The word objective takes any reasonable meaning of the word.
> 2. The vacuum energy bound(1) is assumed to be:
> |pšvac| < 10€^-29g/cm^3 ~˜ 10€^-47 GeV^4 ˜~ 10^-€9erg/cm^3

There are more nerveuze knaagdieren on this planet than epidemiologen.

>
> (1) S.E. Rughƒand and H. Zinkernagely:The Quantum Vacuum and the
> Cosmological Constant Problem, p2;
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0012253

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Z13t3l8WI

>
> Take a deep breath, Christopher...

Don't take mine.

>
> It is not possible to have even a remote idea "of how it actually
> happened" because there is no way to tie events occuring below the
> Planck scale either to theories of how the universe was born or to the
> known laws of physics. It is therefore no less logically absurd for a
> phyicist to claim that some random fluctuation in the quantum vacuum
> state caused the universe than it is for a fucking redneck religious
> zealot to claim 'god did it'.

One goes "Here's a description of what might have happened." Can you
tell which one that might be? Beware your afzichtelijke voorliefde voor
zichzelf spottend domheid lest it be your downfalling.
>
> Why is it so?
Why isn't it what so what?

> It is so because the evidence for one is 100% equivalent
> to the evidence for the other. The evidence being a thoroughgoingly
> symmetrical zip, zilch, zero, nada, fuck all, nothing, nowt.
>
> HTH

Your ball has appeared once again from your immodestly short shorts.

Benny

--
In Praise of The Triune Redeemer and His Golden Tricyle

[Lormaria Prakanakatakapan]

On 25/08/2014 08:11, JTEM wrote:
> Malte Runz wrote:
>
>> Hello! I'm here. I believe that there are no gods, which seems to fit your
>> definition of what 'a true atheist' is.
>
> And yet you clearly just fell off the turnip truck
> yesterday, as you think it's somehow my definition.

U flatout refuse to define nothin. Corse its ur definn. Just cos u got
bog lipz.

[Kadaitcha Man]

On 25/08/2014 4:55 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Greywolf wrote:
>
>> But let's put *you* to the test
>
> I would sooner play connect the dots with your
> ass pimples.

That isn't a mass of "ass pimples". It's a price list for the blind.

[Kadaitcha Man]

On 25/08/2014 4:53 PM, JTEM wrote:
> raven1 wrote:
>
>> I'm curious

> --

> Ugly, closed-minded and pathetically stupid, but "Curious"?

Nice sig. Highly appropriate.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:48:55 +0100, Benjamin Hinn
<benjam...@jhm.org> wrote:

>On 24/08/2014 09:31, Kadaitcha Man hat geshplurted:
>> On 24/08/2014 9:01 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> There is no symmetry between "a magical superbeing 'poofed'
>>> everything into existence all at once", and "no, it didn't".
>>
>> Oh, yes there is...

The guy's a fucking moron.

>It's on the left, next to the bl�hungen moor.

>>
>>> Especially when objective scientific research has resulted in a pretty
>>> idea of how it actually happened.
>>
>> Interesting. What is it about the quantum vacuum state a mere 10^-43
>> seconds prior to the thoroughly silent and assumed 'big bang' that is
>> classifiable as objective, Christopher?

Dishonestly moving the goalposts, noted.

Kiddikar Man is a long time troll, being deliberately and stupidly
dishonest.

He knows perfectly well that big-bang cosmology is based on real-world
observation and research, unlike the OT's bronze-age fairy tales which
presume an imaginary magical superbeing, an order of creation that
doesn't match reality, a talking snake, a global flood and other
nonsense.

He pretends these are symmetrical.

Astrophysics and cosmology have parsimonious speculations about what
happened prior to Planck time, that break no known laws of physics -
and more importantly nobody insists that any one of these is the right
one.

Unlike the fairy stories religious fanatics insist are true, and which
invoke a magical superbeing with no justification whatsoever, complete
with attributes plucked out of thin air.

>The best bits.
>>
>> Where:
>There:
>>
>> 1. The word objective takes any reasonable meaning of the word.
>> 2. The vacuum energy bound(1) is assumed to be:

>> |p?vac| < 10?^-29g/cm^3 ~? 10?^-47 GeV^4 ?~ 10^-?9erg/cm^3

>There are more nerveuze knaagdieren on this planet than epidemiologen.
>>

>> (1) S.E. Rugh?and and H. Zinkernagely:The Quantum Vacuum and the

>> Cosmological Constant Problem, p2;
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0012253
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Z13t3l8WI
>>
>> Take a deep breath, Christopher...
>Don't take mine.

He's just being stupid.

>> It is not possible to have even a remote idea "of how it actually
>> happened" because there is no way to tie events occuring below the
>> Planck scale either to theories of how the universe was born or to the
>> known laws of physics. It is therefore no less logically absurd for a
>> phyicist to claim that some random fluctuation in the quantum vacuum
>> state caused the universe than it is for a fucking redneck religious
>> zealot to claim 'god did it'.

An outright lie, because "god did it" has no justification whatsoever.

The speculations are based on reality, and as with anything else at
the leading edge of scientific research, are avenues for
investigation.

Nobody pretends otherwise, unlike the religious fanatics who insist
that their bronze age myths and legends are the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth.

>One goes "Here's a description of what might have happened." Can you
>tell which one that might be? Beware your afzichtelijke voorliefde voor
>zichzelf spottend domheid lest it be your downfalling.

He can't tell the difference between might-have-happened based on the
parsimonious application of known fact, and based on fantasy.

>> Why is it so?
>Why isn't it what so what?
>> It is so because the evidence for one is 100% equivalent
>> to the evidence for the other. The evidence being a thoroughgoingly
>> symmetrical zip, zilch, zero, nada, fuck all, nothing, nowt.

Complete and utter bullshit.

The moron pretends he doesn't understand the difference between
parsimonious suggestions that are avenues to be investigated if and
when we have the capability, and a magical superbeing plucked out of
his arse.

[Kadaitcha Man]

On 25/08/2014 7:48 PM, Benjamin Hinn wrote:
> On 24/08/2014 09:31, Kadaitcha Man hat geshplurted:
>> On 24/08/2014 9:01 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> There is no symmetry between "a magical superbeing 'poofed'
>>> everything into existence all at once", and "no, it didn't".
>>
>> Oh, yes there is...
> It's on the left, next to the blähungen moor.

No, that's a pluggerhagen.

>>> Especially when objective scientific research has resulted in a pretty
>>> idea of how it actually happened.
>>
>> Interesting. What is it about the quantum vacuum state a mere 10^-43
>> seconds prior to the thoroughly silent and assumed 'big bang' that is
>> classifiable as objective, Christopher?
> The best bits.
>>
>> Where:
> There:
>>
>> 1. The word objective takes any reasonable meaning of the word.
>> 2. The vacuum energy bound(1) is assumed to be:
>> |pšvac| < 10€^-29g/cm^3 ~˜ 10€^-47 GeV^4 ˜~ 10^-€9erg/cm^3
> There are more nerveuze knaagdieren on this planet than epidemiologen.
>>
>> (1) S.E. Rughƒand and H. Zinkernagely:The Quantum Vacuum and the
>> Cosmological Constant Problem, p2;
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0012253
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Z13t3l8WI
>>
>> Take a deep breath, Christopher...
> Don't take mine.

Your sunken chest doesn't count.

>> It is not possible to have even a remote idea "of how it actually
>> happened" because there is no way to tie events occuring below the
>> Planck scale either to theories of how the universe was born or to the
>> known laws of physics. It is therefore no less logically absurd for a
>> phyicist to claim that some random fluctuation in the quantum vacuum
>> state caused the universe than it is for a fucking redneck religious
>> zealot to claim 'god did it'.
> One goes "Here's a description of what might have happened." Can you
> tell which one that might be? Beware your afzichtelijke voorliefde voor
> zichzelf spottend domheid lest it be your downfalling.

^^^ oh, look! A European Arab (clogwog kankerhomo).

>> Why is it so?
> Why isn't it what so what?

Kloothoofd.

>> It is so because the evidence for one is 100% equivalent
>> to the evidence for the other. The evidence being a thoroughgoingly
>> symmetrical zip, zilch, zero, nada, fuck all, nothing, nowt.
>>
>> HTH
> Your ball has appeared once again from your immodestly short shorts.

Better my ball popping out from under my shorts than your cloven hoof
from under your dress, kutloze scheefgepoepte.

So, what do you do for an encore, pijnlijke?

[Malte Runz]

"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
news:bcae7501-bf85-4d0a...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Malte Runz wrote:
>
> > But when one claims to 'know' that something exists, as
> > the theist does, he must have "proof" thereof.
>
> But it doesn't work that way anywhere else, not even

> in science. ...

Oh, but it does. An obvious example is, that we /know/ that Earth revolves
around the Sun. (Well, if you're Jahnu you don't, but he is... special.)

> ... Science accepts that things we used to

> believe were true were later proven false, and even
> grants that many things we accept as "Fact" today will
> one day be disproven.

And there are things, like the the Earth revolving around the sun, that we
know is a fact, and nothing that we might learn about the Universe in the
future will change that.

There are things we know we know (sic) are true, and that's a fact. [que
violins playing in a minor key] Now, more than ever!

>
> > Evidence can only support and confirm a theory.
>
> Yup:
>
> https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories

Do you believe that any of those theories will ever be falsified?

>
> > > > > Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
> > > > > doesn't exist (deities), it follows that atheism implies knowledge
> > > > > of
> > > > > all that does exist.
> > >
> > > > That is such a *stupid* statement.
> > >
> > > It's 100% factually correct. There is no useful
> > > distinction between knowing something and believing
> > > something, ...
>
> > Are you also colorblind?
>
> Please stop confusing the words "Belief" and "Suspicion"

Where do you see me do that?

>
> There is no useful distinction between knowing something
> and believing something.

I'd say it depends on what we /know/, that water expands when it freezes,
and what we /believe/, like the existence of the Higgs Boson (before it was
actually found), or that miasma caused diseases.

>
> > > ... and atheists believe there is no God.
>
> > Some do.
>
> All do. If someone doesn't then they're not an
> atheist.

Weak atheists don't believe gods exist. Strong atheists don't believe that
either, and, furthermore, they believe that no god exists. I know you know
that, so ...?




--
Malte Runz

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:48:42 +0200, "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
>news:bcae7501-bf85-4d0a...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Malte Runz wrote:

>> > > ... and atheists believe there is no God.
>>
>> > Some do.

Most of us don't waste any time and effort having that belief, because
we are outside the theist's religious paradigm so it's merely somebody
else's belief - and theists don't understand just how much work they
have to do to make it anything more than just that because they can't
think outside the box.

>> All do. If someone doesn't then they're not an
>> atheist.
>
>Weak atheists don't believe gods exist. Strong atheists don't believe that
>either, and, furthermore, they believe that no god exists. I know you know
>that, so ...?

...so he's being deliberately obnoxious.

[Malte Runz]

"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
news:9d0ba5aa-8d03-45e1...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Malte Runz wrote:
>
> > Hello! I'm here. I believe that there are no gods, which seems to fit
> > your
> > definition of what 'a true atheist' is.
>
> And yet you clearly just fell off the turnip truck
> yesterday, as you think it's somehow my definition.
>

I take it for granted that you know that I didn't imply you coined the
definition, and was simply refering to a definition of an atheist you adhere
to. So, I'm confused. Remember this:

****

> > ... and atheists believe there is no God.

> Some do.

All do. If someone doesn't then they're not an
atheist.

****

Aren't you saying here that 'all atheists believe there is no God'? Isn't it
how you define atheism? Someone who believes there is no God?



--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

"Why not" skrev i meddelelsen news:lte0ba$fi3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:88cfda43-0906-4d56...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods
>
> No, it isn't. Just a lack of belief in them. Some atheists also claim
> there are no gods.

And some who believe there are none, but do not claim to know. That would be
an 'strong agnostic atheist'

>
> >, it follows
> > that there can be no evidence of their existence.
>
> Obvously, if the claim some atheists make is correct, there can by no
> conclusive evidence of something that does not exist.

Exactly. Who's impressed by a tautology?

>
> But if there is conclusive evidence of the existence of gods, then the
> claim some atheists made is wrong, and it would be irrational of them to
> maintain it.
>
> That's how logic works.

'Cut the philosophical mumbo jumbo and give it to me straight, professor!!!'

If he hasn't understood it yet, I see little chance of him ever learning.

>
> > Anything suggesting
> > that such evidence exists must, therefore, be a false claim.
>
> It would be a contradictory claim, not necessarily false. The evidence
> must be examied to determine which claim is correct. Possibly the
> evidence supports both claims, in which case it is not of much use.

This is way over his head, I'm afraid.

>
> > Since
> > false claims do not require consideration, all such claims can be
> > dismissed without further thought.
>
> How would one know it is a false claim until it has been considered?

The Biblical litteralist sees no problem there. 'If it ain't in the Bible it
ain't true.' Truths are arbitrary and logic is suspended. Much easier that
way, don't you think.

>
> Certainly an unsubstantiate claim of evidence would not be accepted, and
> should be dismissed if (and as long as) there is no indication of it
> being valid.
>
> > Since atheism is an implicit claim to a certain knowledge of what
> > doesn't exist (deities),
>
> It isn't. Though some atheists believe that gods (in a supernatural
> sense) do not exist (or that things that do exist are not, objectively,
> gods)

Strong agnostic atheist.

>
> No atheist, for example, would claim that the sun doesn't exist, even

> though some theists consider it to be a god, ...

Good one! But I'm afraid that there people to whom Biblical God is as real
as the Sun is.

> ... they simply do not hold that

> belief of it being anything other than the material object that it is.

>
> > it follows that atheism implies knowledge of
> > all that does exist.
>
> Even if atheism claimed that gods don't exist, that does NOT imply in any
> way a knowledge of all that DOES exist.
>
> You are not thinking logically.

> > Since it has been determined that deities are
> > impossible, atheists are claiming knowledge of all that is possible.
>
> That does not follow logically. You clearly haven't thought your
> argument through.

'But... But... To me it's all so clear!'. It's dunning kruger all over
again.

>
> > While this implies omniscience, it's just a natural consequence of
> > atheists privileged knowledge of the universe.
>
> Your argument is neither rational nor logical. It is illogical thinking
> like yours that theism uses for support .. and a very flimsy support that
> is
>
> [snip rest of illogical nonsense]

You lasted quite a bit longer than I did.


--
Malte Runz

[JTEM]

Malte Runz wrote:

> Oh, but it does. An obvious example is, that we /know/ that
> Earth revolves around the Sun. (Well, if you're Jahnu you
> don't, but he is... special.)

Almost nobody "Knows" that. They simply believe.

The number of people who've actually done the science,
made the observations, and "Know" that the earth
revolves around the sun -- and not the other way around --
is miniscule in proportion to those who take it all on
faith.

> And there are things, like the the Earth revolving around
> the sun, that we know is a fact

who's this "We"? I've never been in space. I've certainly
never made any earthly observations that exclude the
possibility of it being the other way around. I simply
accept what "Science" tells me. Like nearly everyone else,
I "believe."

> > https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories

> Do you believe that any of those theories will ever be falsified?

Some claim that Einstein's universal speed limit has
already been broken.

> > Please stop confusing the words "Belief" and "Suspicion"

> Where do you see me do that?

Anywhere & everywhere it's claimed that there's some
useful distinction between "Belief" and "Knowledge."

> > There is no useful distinction between knowing something
> > and believing something.

> I'd say it depends on what we /know/

No. As in your earth-revolving-around-the-sun, no it
doesn't.

> Weak atheists don't believe gods exist.

The whole strong/weak "atheist" thing is just nonsense.

You might as well claim that EVERYONE is bisexual, because
all the homosexuals, heterosexuals & asexuals have barely
met any of the 7 billion (plus) people on the earth, so
the odds favor them being attracted to at least some of those
who don't fit their alleged orientation...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

Malte Runz wrote:

> I take it for granted that you know that I didn't
> imply you coined the definition

I take it you were being equally as facetious in
implying that I made any claims about or requests
from a real atheists. I merely pointed out WHAT
an atheist is.

> Aren't you saying here that 'all atheists believe there is no God'?

Of course. But only because it's true.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

Why not wrote:

> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in

> > Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods

> No, it isn't. Just a lack of belief in them.

You don't believe they exist == you believe that
they don't exist.

Stop being such a worm and accept reality.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/

[JTEM]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> Why not <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote

> >> Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods
> >
> >No, it isn't. Just a lack of belief in them.

> The proven serial liar knows this because we have been explaining it
> to him for more than twenty years.

Ah, dogma! If you don't accept the holy scripture
as truth, they are obviously liars who claim they
don't but do...

So you're just another fake atheist who's angry at God.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95685325993

[JTEM]

Malte Runz wrote:

> That would be an 'strong agnostic atheist'

a "Strong" atheist is one who gets on a crowded
elevator on a hot day WITHOUT wearing any deodorant.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95685325993

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Wrong from the start.

Of course you are. Remember when you argued
that "hand axes" could cut through an animal's
hide with no difficulty, slice through muscle
and tendon without a care even as it carves
unintentional tracks in done, but human flesh
is impervious to it?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.anthropology.paleo/iDj13iNyFoc/NW0oR1pQdh0J

Good days, huh? Fun time...

And now you're denying the fact that atheists
believe there is no God(s)...

My, you certainly are consistent!




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95685325993

[Bill]

On Monday, August 25, 2014 12:48:42 PM UTC-5, Malte Runz wrote:
> "JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
>
> news:bcae7501-bf85-4d0a...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>
> > Malte Runz wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > But when one claims to 'know' that something exists, as
>
> > > the theist does, he must have "proof" thereof.
>
> >
>
> > But it doesn't work that way anywhere else, not even
>
> > in science. ...
>
>
>
> Oh, but it does. An obvious example is, that we /know/ that Earth revolves
>
> around the Sun. (Well, if you're Jahnu you don't, but he is... special.)
>
>
>
> > ... Science accepts that things we used to
>
> > believe were true were later proven false, and even
>
> > grants that many things we accept as "Fact" today will
>
> > one day be disproven.
>
>
>
> And there are things, like the the Earth revolving around the sun, that we
> know is a fact, and nothing that we might learn about the Universe in the
> future will change that.

Other than the orbit of the earth, what knowledge do "we" have that can never change? Even the earth's orbit is a complex phenomenon requiring a complex explanation some elements of which maybe misunderstood, especially by those who believe it's simple.

For instance, is there a gravity particle (graviton) a gravity wave or curved space keeping the earth in its orbit? No one knows. What we do know is that we can observe the orbit and mathematically describe what's observed without needing to know what's really happening.

Most knowledge is like this. We can measure and quantify and describe phenomena without knowing the underlying causes. We take these explanations as fact and then incorporate them into new facts; ad infinitum. Strip away all the explanations and what's left? Knowledge possibly, conjecture, more likely, maybe just wishful thinking.

Bill

[Malte Runz]

"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
news:9c203a23-7397-4144...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Malte Runz wrote:
>
> > Oh, but it does. An obvious example is, that we /know/ that
> > Earth revolves around the Sun. (Well, if you're Jahnu you
> > don't, but he is... special.)
>
> Almost nobody "Knows" that. They simply believe.

I smell an argumentum ad populum in the making.

> The number of people who've actually done the science,
> made the observations, and "Know" that the earth
> revolves around the sun -- and not the other way around --
> is miniscule in proportion to those who take it all on
> faith.

Add populum and a generous dash of personal incredulity. Let simmer. Serves
billions!
The crux of the matter is, that it, the heliocentric nature of our solar
system, is a known fact that can be verified by proof. It is not important
how many people have access to the proof. But we're not talking about 'the
common man'. You started out talking about proof in science:

****

> But when one claims to 'know' that something exists, as
> the theist does, he must have "proof" thereof.

But it doesn't work that way anywhere else, not even
in science.

****
What works in science, not what the scientific illiterate don't understand.

Of course, you can choose to play the Decartes card, but I'll take that as a
fold, and rake in the pot.

> > And there are things, like the the Earth revolving around
> > the sun, that we know is a fact
>

> who's this "We"? ...

Me and three other guys.


> ... I've never been in space. I've certainly

> never made any earthly observations that exclude the
> possibility of it being the other way around. I simply
> accept what "Science" tells me. Like nearly everyone else,
> I "believe."

You don't believe anything about the solar system. You believe what the
people, who actually know about the solarsystem, tell you.

Believing people, who we believe know, is an evolutionary trait that has
made us who we are. Me, the guys and you too.

> > > https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories
>
> > Do you believe that any of those theories will ever be falsified?
>
> Some claim that Einstein's universal speed limit has
> already been broken.

These people?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9100009/Scientists-did-not-break-speed-of-light-it-was-a-faulty-wire.html

They were wrong and have acknowlegded it. They /know/ they didn't break the
limit.

>
> > > Please stop confusing the words "Belief" and "Suspicion"
>
> > Where do you see me do that?
>
> Anywhere & everywhere it's claimed that there's some
> useful distinction between "Belief" and "Knowledge."

Imagine I hold a rock in my hand, three feet above a glass pane. I let it
drop. I /know/ the rock will fall, and I /believe/ it'll break the glass,
but I don't know for sure, because I lack information about the glass. There
is definitely a distinction to be made here between the two.

> > > There is no useful distinction between knowing something
> > > and believing something.
>
> > I'd say it depends on what we /know/
>
> No. As in your earth-revolving-around-the-sun, no it
> doesn't.

What about my rock-definitely-falling-and-maybe-breaking-the-glass-pane?

(snip)

--
Malte Runz

[Malte Runz]

"Bill" skrev i meddelelsen
news:1e618450-87cd-4991...@googlegroups.com...

>
> On Monday, August 25, 2014 12:48:42 PM UTC-5, Malte Runz wrote:

(snip)

> > And there are things, like the the Earth revolving around the sun, that
> > we
> > know is a fact, and nothing that we might learn about the Universe in
> > the
> > future will change that.
>
> Other than the orbit of the earth, what knowledge do "we" have that can

> never change? ...

That lifeforms evolve. Water expands when it freezes. You can create
electricity with a magnet and a coil. Stuff like that.

> ... Even the earth's orbit is a complex phenomenon requiring a complex

> explanation some elements of which maybe misunderstood, especially by
> those who believe it's simple.
>
> For instance, is there a gravity particle (graviton) a gravity wave or
> curved space keeping the earth in its orbit? No one knows. What we do know
> is that we can observe the orbit and mathematically describe what's
> observed without needing to know what's really happening.

>
> Most knowledge is like this. We can measure and quantify and describe
> phenomena without knowing the underlying causes. We take these
> explanations as fact and then incorporate them into new facts; ad
> infinitum. Strip away all the explanations and what's left? Knowledge
> possibly, conjecture, more likely, maybe just wishful thinking.

Yet, the Earth continues to revolve around the Sun, even if we don't know
why.



--
Malte Runz

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:17:04 +0200, "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
>news:9c203a23-7397-4144...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Malte Runz wrote:
>>
>> > Oh, but it does. An obvious example is, that we /know/ that
>> > Earth revolves around the Sun. (Well, if you're Jahnu you
>> > don't, but he is... special.)
>>
>> Almost nobody "Knows" that. They simply believe.
>
>I smell an argumentum ad populum in the making.

McShitforbrains picks arguments with people who don't want them, using
the most outrageous stupidity and outright falsehoods, then moves the
goalposts to retreat into solipsism so he can pretend the real world
is just as much fantasy as religious belief is, that accepting the
results of objective research is just a belief, etc.

[Greywolf]

On Saturday, August 23, 2014 11:02:49 AM UTC-5, % wrote:
> Greywolf wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 22, 2014 4:08:39 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
>
> >> Greywolf wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> My field of "expertise" is the Christian religion
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So you have no expertise what so ever. Check.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Oh, but I do. And your making a false statement doesn't make it
>
> > "untrue".
>
> >
>
> yes it does
____________

I clearly had a mental "slip-up". And you correctly spotted it.

Obviously the word I meant to type was "true'.

I made a mistake.

But see how easy it is to admit to an error?

Seems, however, you theists just can't bring yourselves to do the same--in regards to your religious faith, that is.

[Greywolf]

On Monday, August 25, 2014 1:55:26 AM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
> Greywolf wrote:
>
>
>

> > But let's put *you* to the test
>
>
>
> I would sooner play connect the dots with your
>
> ass pimples.
>

_________________

No guts, no glory, my man.

Seems to me you're afraid of even *tackling* the problem because 1) you won't be able to, and 2) you'll reveal just how inept of a Christian exegete you really are. That you're all bluster and no go.

But hey, if you decided to give it a go now, here's the link to the article once again:

http://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/jesus-god-versus-god-the-father/

If you can't refute it, just say so. And if you agree, say that too.

[%]

i can't speak for other secs but i'm never wrong so i have nothing to admit

[%]

i agree with your refute

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:36:37 +0200, "Malte Runz"
<malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote:

>"Bill" skrev i meddelelsen
>news:1e618450-87cd-4991...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Monday, August 25, 2014 12:48:42 PM UTC-5, Malte Runz wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> > And there are things, like the the Earth revolving around the sun, that
>> > we
>> > know is a fact, and nothing that we might learn about the Universe in
>> > the
>> > future will change that.
>>
>> Other than the orbit of the earth, what knowledge do "we" have that can
>> never change? ...
>
>That lifeforms evolve. Water expands when it freezes. You can create
>electricity with a magnet and a coil. Stuff like that.
>
>> ... Even the earth's orbit is a complex phenomenon requiring a complex
>> explanation some elements of which maybe misunderstood, especially by
>> those who believe it's simple.
>>
>> For instance, is there a gravity particle (graviton) a gravity wave or
>> curved space keeping the earth in its orbit? No one knows. What we do know
>> is that we can observe the orbit and mathematically describe what's
>> observed without needing to know what's really happening.

So what? Nobody insists there is or there isn't.

>> Most knowledge is like this.

No.

Science is pretty clear about what it does and doesn't know.

>> We can measure and quantify and describe
>> phenomena without knowing the underlying causes.

Sometimes.

Unlike gravity we know exactly what causes evolution.

>> We take these
>> explanations as fact and then incorporate them into new facts; ad
>> infinitum. Strip away all the explanations and what's left? Knowledge
>> possibly, conjecture, more likely, maybe just wishful thinking.

Bullshit - the explanations provide us with pretty well everything we
have today, all the technologies that hypocritical fundamentalists
should reject because they attack the underlying science and the
scientists whose research led to it.

Does the morn really imagine this is all the result of conjecture and
wishful thinking?

>Yet, the Earth continues to revolve around the Sun, even if we don't know
>why.

The loonie must imagine that is just conjecture and wishful thinking.

Although I don't know how it could be described as either.

Does he imagine Galileo, Newton, Keppler, Copernicus etc only wished
it did?

Or did they realise it did, based on their observations?

It's pretty obvious why the pillock wants it to be just wishful
thinking - he imagines science should have found his imaginary magical
superbeing, and needs to rationalise why it hasn't.

Perhaps he could explain what the LaGrange points are, and why
artificial satellites looking into deep space that have found planets
in other solar systems are stationed there?

[Smiler]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:14:29 -0700, JTEM wrote:

> Why not wrote:
>
>> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods
>
>> No, it isn't. Just a lack of belief in them.
>
> You don't believe they exist == you believe that they don't exist.
>
> Stop being such a worm and accept reality.
>

Some claimed gods DO exist and can be proven to exist. I don't believe in
them, so remain an atheist. You probably don't believe in them either.

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:14:29 -0700, JTEM wrote:
>
>> Why not wrote:
>>
>>> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> > Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods
>>
>>> No, it isn't. Just a lack of belief in them.
>>
>> You don't believe they exist == you believe that they don't exist.

Only to somebody with a seriously below average IQ, because that is
only one of the possibilities for it.

But then the nastily little shit has been given others, including our
actual position.

He has no excuse, but then he does this deliberately, just to be
nasty.

>> Stop being such a worm and accept reality.

The pathological liar needs to take his own advice.

>Some claimed gods DO exist and can be proven to exist. I don't believe in
>them, so remain an atheist. You probably don't believe in them either.

Too deep for the troll.

[nature bats last]

On Monday, August 25, 2014 12:40:53 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> On Monday, August 25, 2014 12:48:42 PM UTC-5, Malte Runz wrote:
>
> > "JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen

> > And there are things, like the the Earth revolving around the sun, that w=
> > know is a fact, and nothing that we might learn about the Universe in the=
> > future will change that.

> Other than the orbit of the earth, what knowledge do "we" have that can nev=
> er change?

The atomic weight of xenon, that Rn 222 decays into Pb 214, Planck's
constant, Newton's G, the oxidation states of Iron, the velocity
of light in a vacuum, the number of human chromosomes, the fine
structure constant (to eleven significant figures, last time I looked),
the functions of cytochrome C...oh, quite a number of things, actually.

> Even the earth's orbit is a complex phenomenon requiring a compl=
> ex explanation some elements of which maybe misunderstood, especially by th=

> ose who believe it's simple.

> For instance, is there a gravity particle (graviton) a gravity wave or curv=

> ed space keeping the earth in its orbit? No one knows.

Both. Everything is both a wave and a particle: one of the first insights
of quantum mechanics.

> What we do know is t=
> hat we can observe the orbit and mathematically describe what's observed wi=

> thout needing to know what's really happening.

> Most knowledge is like this. We can measure and quantify and describe pheno=

> mena without knowing the underlying causes.

Quite true.

> We take these explanations as f=
> > act and then incorporate them into new facts; ad infinitum. Strip away all =
> the explanations and what's left? Knowledge possibly, conjecture, more like=
> ly, maybe just wishful thinking.

In Richard Dawkins' words: "Science works, bitches".

Seth

[JTEM]

Greywolf wrote:

> No guts, no glory, my man.

There is no glory in being "Tested" by some wank
who appointed himself a religious "Expert."




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[JTEM]

Malte Runz wrote:

> "JTEM"

> > > Oh, but it does. An obvious example is, that we /know/ that
> > > Earth revolves around the Sun. (Well, if you're Jahnu you
> > > don't, but he is... special.)
> >
> > Almost nobody "Knows" that. They simply believe.

> I smell an argumentum ad populum in the making.

There's is something dreadfully wrong with your sense
of smell.

> > The number of people who've actually done the science,
> > made the observations, and "Know" that the earth
> > revolves around the sun -- and not the other way around --
> > is miniscule in proportion to those who take it all on
> > faith.

> Add populum and a generous dash of personal incredulity.

That's a strange way of spelling "Fact."

You haven't the faintest clue whether or not the earth
revolves around the sun -- or the other way around. You
have FAITH in authority, "Scientific" authority. You take
their word on faith.

This is true for nearly everything you mistakenly label
as "Knowledge" instead of belief.

As you testify -- inadvertently -- few are capable of
even perceiving a difference between what they believe
and what they actually "Know."





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[JTEM]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> McShitforbrains picks arguments with people who don't want them, using
> the most outrageous stupidity and outright falsehoods, then moves the
> goalposts

Wait. All I said is that practically nobody has been out
in space, or made the proper observations/performed the
necessary calculation to determine if indeed the Earth
revolves around the sun.

You're literally squeezing a steam pile of shit on yourself
here, blowing a gasket over fact.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[JTEM]

nature bats last wrote:

> The atomic weight of xenon

Practically nobody has determined the atomic
weight of xenon, or just about anything else
for that matter. They simply accept what they
are told on faith.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[JTEM]

Smiler wrote:

> Some claimed gods DO exist

Proving you are not an atheist.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[Malte Runz]

"JTEM" skrev i meddelelsen
news:14f8cfc8-25d3-41f5...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Malte Runz wrote:
>
(snip)

>
> You haven't the faintest clue whether or not the earth

> revolves around the sun -- ...

Yes I do. I watch the Sun, the Moon and the stars move across the sky, I see
the retrograte movements of some planets, I notice the coriolis effect and
reach the only logical conclusion. The Earth orbits the Sun. Easy.


> ... or the other way around. You

> have FAITH in authority, "Scientific" authority. You take
> their word on faith.

Bullshit. I can verify their claims myself. And so could you, but obviously
you lack something (guts?) and fail to see how it is possible to know.

>
> This is true for nearly everything you mistakenly label
> as "Knowledge" instead of belief.

"Nearly everything"! Care to mention something that is truly "Knowledge"?

>
> As you testify -- inadvertently -- few are capable of
> even perceiving a difference between what they believe
> and what they actually "Know."

But some are.

Reinsertion:

Imagine I hold a rock in my hand, three feet above a glass pane. I let it
drop. I /know/ the rock will fall, and I /believe/ it'll break the glass,
but I don't know for sure, because I lack information about the glass. There
is definitely a distinction to be made here between the two.

Comments?



--
Malte Runz

[%]

i moved the glass

http://video.wpbt2.org/video/2365286141/

[Why not]

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c2c88337-13a3-4bef-9cb0-
66651f...@googlegroups.com:

> Why not wrote:
>
>> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > Since atheism is an implied claim that there are no gods
>
>> No, it isn't. Just a lack of belief in them.
>
> You don't believe they exist == you believe that
> they don't exist.

Not so. One does not need to believe either position.

If someone tosses a coin, it is NOT the case that you MUST BELIEVE that it
will be heads or else MUST BELIEVE that it will not be heads. You can have
an opinion without having a belief, or you can be undecided, or just
totally not care.

You also can't think logically, there seems to be quite a lot of that going
around, especially amongst theists.

You'll probably just snip everything that shows you are wrong. That is the
theist's way ... head in the sand and speak through your arse.

> Stop being such a worm and accept reality.

Try learning how to think logically, and stop showing your ignorance as
Bill does.

[Why not]

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news:73f1f555-18a8-4b18-9d5b-1ef6def94b63
@googlegroups.com:

> Smiler wrote:
>
>> Some claimed gods DO exist
>
> Proving you are not an atheist.

So because I say that the sun exists (and it is claimed to be a god), that
makes me NOT an atheist? Really .. you are just showing you are incapable
of logical and rational thought.

[Why not]

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b83e6905-73c7-45f5-a824-
ca2af0...@googlegroups.com:

The earth revolves around its axis, not around the sun. You seem to be
confusing "orbits" with "revolves".

Of course, the earth's orbit is (close to) eliptical and the sun is not at
the centre of that orbit.

[%]

in as much as you can say it isn't i can say it is

[JTEM]

Malte Runz wrote:

> Yes I do. I watch the Sun, the Moon and the stars move across the sky, I see
> the retrograte movements of some planets, I notice the coriolis effect and
> reach the only logical conclusion. The Earth orbits the Sun. Easy.

So you take on faith what other people told you, and
then log onto usenet and lie about it...

Check.

To be perfectly honest -- no doubt a new experience
for you -- the observations are pretty much identical
whether the earth revolves around the sun or the other
way around. You have to know what to look for, and
by "Know" I mean NOT accept on faith what an authority
tells you, to be able to perceive any difference.

This is true for almost everything your jerking knee
wants to label as a "Fact."

The group [Things you take on faith] so dwarfs the
group [Things you actually know] that only a fool
would claim that they operate on fact instead of
beliefs.

Accept it & move on.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[JTEM]

Why not wrote:

> So because I say that the sun exists (and it is claimed to be a god)

If you believe the son is a god then you're not an
atheists. Believing that the sun exists does not in
any way, shape or form imply -- let alone require --
belief that a sun god exists.

You believe such a god exists, you are not an atheist.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

[Why not]

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6568a302-1787-4b56-a12f-
5a4f46...@googlegroups.com:

> Why not wrote:
>
>> So because I say that the sun exists (and it is claimed to be a god)
>
> If you believe the son

"sun", not "son"

> is a god then you're not an
> atheists.

I didn't say it was.

> Believing that the sun exists does not in
> any way, shape or form imply -- let alone require --
> belief that a sun god exists.

I didn't say it did.

> You believe such a god exists, you are not an atheist.

I don't beleive it and I am.

I corrected your error. You're welcome.

[Greywolf]

On Monday, August 25, 2014 11:36:15 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
> Greywolf wrote:
>
>
>
> > No guts, no glory, my man.
>
>
>
> There is no glory in being "Tested" by some wank
>
> who appointed himself a religious "Expert."
>

________________

Translation: I can't refute Greywolf. So I'm not even going to try. I'm really all bluster and nothing else. Greywolf kicks my theological ass. But I've got to save face, so I'll just call his "some wank" and that he claims he's a "religious expert" when, in fact, Greywolf actually said his field of "expertise" was the *Christian* religion.

So, you've been shown just a small *fragment* of the counter-evidence that goes towards disproving your bogus-religion and what do you do? Nothing but wet your underwear.

Why don't you "man-up" and at least *try* to refute the article. Then, at least, you would be *trying* to show the members of this forum that your faith isn't bogus (which it most certainly is)and that you *can* put up a better "front" than you are now doing.

What? Can't do it? Well just say so, and we'll move on to something else. Otherwise I've proven the Trinitarians refuted.

[Malte Runz]

"Why not" skrev i meddelelsen news:lthhp0$opv$3...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b83e6905-73c7-45f5-a824-
> ca2af0...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >
> >> McShitforbrains picks arguments with people who don't want them, using
> >> the most outrageous stupidity and outright falsehoods, then moves the
> >> goalposts
> >
> > Wait. All I said is that practically nobody has been out
> > in space, or made the proper observations/performed the
> > necessary calculation to determine if indeed the Earth
> > revolves around the sun.
> >
> > You're literally squeezing a steam pile of shit on yourself
> > here, blowing a gasket over fact.
>
> The earth revolves around its axis, not around the sun. You seem to be
> confusing "orbits" with "revolves".

I'm one of the confused. As well as the good folks at www.npr.org:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says
"A quarter of Americans surveyed could not correctly answer that the Earth
revolves around the sun and not the other way around, ..."

And there is more:
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-americans-unaware-earth-circles-sun.html
"Just 74 percent of respondents knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun,
..."

http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-solar-eclipse.html
"The Earth revolves around the Sun and the Moon circles the Earth."

Etc.

>
> Of course, the earth's orbit is (close to) eliptical and the sun is not at
> the centre of that orbit.

Could you elaborate?


--
Malte Runz