Disapproving Creaiton: The Latest "Watchtower" Bullshit

[Budikka666]

Professional Liars for Christ the Jehovah's Witlesses have a new flyer
out evidently. It announces boldly: "All Suffering Soon to End!" and
it features two black kids on the front. Apprently JW's marketing
scheme calls for racial stereotyping.

But rather than attempt the impossible, and explain why a
longsuffering, all-loving, all-good, all-powerful god allows so much
misery into his world, this cowardly publication completely byapsses
that and latches right on to an empty promise that it will all end
soon.

Haven't these losers and liars been claiming this *exact* *same*
*thing* for a century?

They haven't a prayer of ever being right, but instead of following
what the fake Jesus supposedly said, they have clearly chosen, instead
to waste money printing fliers that they could be giving it to help
feed the hungry, clothe the ragged, house the homeless, and help the
sick.

Hypocrites one and all.

Budikka

[weheard...@aol.com]

Bud, when the true gospel is preached throughout the world, look for the signs of the end. We are now at that time.

For the suffering, those who can help should help.

[Mike Duffy]

Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in news:2c3818ac-9dcd-4095-9c22-
101837...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> Hypocrites one and all.
>
> Budikka

Are they? Or is it me, promising to read the flyer and then putting it
directly into the blue box after they leave?

--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[Smiler]

So, when you were preaching the Rapture on May 21 2011, the 'end of the
world' on October 21 2011 and the 'end of the world' by the end of 2011
you weren't preaching the true gospel. Why should anyone believe you now,
false prophet vapidpeepee?

>
> For the suffering, those who can help should help.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Andy W]

On Sep 24, 10:20 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Professional Liars for Christ the Jehovah's Witlesses have a new flyer
> out evidently.  It announces boldly: "All Suffering Soon to End!" and
> it features two black kids on the front.  Apprently JW's marketing
> scheme calls for racial stereotyping.
>
> But rather than attempt the impossible, and explain why a
> longsuffering, all-loving, all-good, all-powerful god  allows so much
> misery into his world, this cowardly publication completely byapsses
> that and latches right on to an empty promise that it will all end
> soon.

Actually, in a lot of their mags, they try to argue that God allows
suffering to prove that he's a good ruler. Who he would need to prove
that to is never made clear, nor is how allowing terrible things to
happen does not in fact show him to be a terrible ruler. JWs insist
God's plans all come to fruition, forgetting that he apparently failed
to govern just two perfect humans who he had created directly.

>
> Haven't these losers and liars been claiming this *exact* *same*
> *thing* for a century?

Not the exact same thing. Over time, the period between WW1 breaking
out in 1914 and judgement day has got progressively longer, to account
for the fact that it didn't happen in time for the previous
predictions. Not that any of those predictions was wrong, of course,
but they were superceded by "new light". Just don't mention 1975.

>
> They haven't a prayer of ever being right, but instead of following
> what the fake Jesus supposedly said, they have clearly chosen, instead
> to waste money printing fliers that they could be giving it to help
> feed the hungry, clothe the ragged, house the homeless, and help the
> sick.
>
> Hypocrites one and all.
>
> Budikka

They actually believe that giving out their magazines is more
important than all of that. Those problems are the temporary issues of
here and now, but the mags can make you immortal! And as fringe wacko
mind control cults go, there are worse. Far worse.

Andy

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <2c3818ac-9dcd-4095-9c22-101837fd0f27
@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, budi...@netscape.net
says...

> Haven't these losers and liars been claiming this *exact* *same*
> *thing* for a century?

The Christians have been peddling that same line for 2000
years. The JWs are just leveraging a proven marketing
approach.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Mike Painter]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:36:23 -0700 (PDT), weheard...@aol.com
wrote:

>
>Bud, when the true gospel is preached throughout the world, look for the signs of the end. We are now at that time.
>
>For the suffering, those who can help should help.

As several statements in the bible say, the end was supposed to have
happened before people alive when Christ died passed on.

In Matthew we find good old JC saying it before and after the gospel
is preached, not hard considering all the "kingdoms" that were known
and there fact that Rome dominated them.

23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this
generation.

24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the
world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come

24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
these things be fulfilled.

[raven1]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:36:23 -0700 (PDT), weheard...@aol.com
wrote:

>Bud, when the true gospel is preached throughout the world, look for the signs of the end.

Which "true Gospel"? The JW's have quite a few doctrines that other
Christians would consider rather odd indeed.

> We are now at that time.

Considering your track record of failed predictions, pardon me if I
take that with a grain of salt or ten.

[Malcolm McMahon]

The only thing I can think is that each generation of Christians
interprets this as referring to _their_ generation, not Christ's.

Nonsensical of course.

[weheard...@aol.com]

Smiley, only Jesus Christ preached the true gospel at first, teaching us to send his message throughout the world, not with man's interpretation. Once that was accomplished, we're told by Christ, to then watch for the signs that would indicate the end.

May 21, 2011 could've be used as an indicator to find who the true believer was'. There was the one who prepared, the one who scoffed, the one who was doubtful but wary, the one who was scared and hoped nothing would happen, and the one who didn't know what was going on. I found it very educational, and I received insight on people that showed me their strength of faith, or lack thereof.

[Andy W]

On Sep 25, 10:56 pm, weheardthen...@aol.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 24, 2012 4:38:49 PM UTC-7, Smiler wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:36:23 -0700, weheardthenews wrote:
>
> > > Bud, when the true gospel is preached throughout the world, look for the
>
> > > signs of the end.  We are now at that time.
>
> > So, when you were preaching the Rapture on May 21 2011, the 'end of the
>
> > world' on October 21 2011 and the 'end of the world' by the end of 2011
>
> > you weren't preaching the true gospel. Why should anyone believe you now,
>
> > false prophet vapidpeepee?
>
> Smiley, only Jesus Christ preached the true gospel at first, teaching us to send his message throughout the world, not with man's interpretation.  Once that was accomplished, we're told by Christ, to then watch for the signs that would indicate the end.
>
> May 21, 2011 could've be used as an indicator to find who the true believer was'.

Which was necessary why exactly?

> There was the one who prepared, the one who scoffed, the one who was doubtful but wary, the one who was scared and hoped nothing would happen, and the one who didn't know what was going on.  I found it very educational, and I received insight on people that showed me their strength of faith, or lack thereof.
>

Where "strength of faith" means "massive gullibility". I suppose it is
educational in a sense to watch people throw away everything they have
on the basis of a prophecy that was doomed to fail, and then do it
again, and again. But fail they did. As did you.

[Budikka666]

I ain't your bud, jackass, and you and your pissant god both can kiss
my ass right in the crack. Got that straight now?

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Sep 25, 4:56 pm, weheardthen...@aol.com wrote:
> Smiley, only Jesus Christ

Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
working son of a god?

Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
have a handle on the mind of your creator god?

Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
*objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
NT, and let's go at it, you and me. Let's have everyone see if you
have the guts to witness for this god of yours or if you're nothing
but yet another in an endlessly long line of limp Peters at the
passion, shrinking away instead of standing up for Bebe Jesu™.

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
> working son of a god?
>
> Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
> right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
> have a handle on the mind of your creator god?
>
> Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
> *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
> NT, and let's go at it, you and me.

You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.

Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
you remains unchanged.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Sep 26, 8:56 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

So this deity for which you have no supporting evidence, supposedly
loves even those who deny its existence.

That contradicts what your bible has to say about what your deity will
do to those who deny its existence.

Either you're lying, or the human authors of the bible are lying.

Perhaps both of you are lying.

You're one screwed up bunny.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:56:56 UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:

>
> Smiley, only Jesus Christ preached the true gospel at first, teaching us to send his message throughout the world, not with man's interpretation. Once that was accomplished, we're told by Christ, to then watch for the signs that would indicate the end.
>

No, Mathew 13 clearly says "_This_ generation shall not pass away until these things have come to pass."

The odd thing is that this prophecy would _already_ have failed when Mathew wrote it down.

[thomas p.]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:o96dnXanl7SBKP_N...@earthlink.com...

Andy continues to avoid admitting that he has no evidence. Honesty is,
after all, a sin for good Christians.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5062da8c$0$56790$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,

He's a lot like Jason there. When he knows he's lost, he obviously can't
admit it, so he pulls out the jeebus loves you routine. It's so
blatantly passive aggressive.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Devils Advocaat]

On 26 Sep, 11:58, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <5062da8c$0$56790$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
>  "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen

> >news:o96dnXanl7SBKP_N...@earthlink.com...
> > > "Budikka666" wrote in message
> > >news:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
> > >> working son of a god?
>
> > >> Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
> > >> right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
> > >> have a handle on the mind of your creator god?
>
> > >> Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
> > >> *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
> > >> NT, and let's go at it, you and me.
>
> > > You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.
>
> > > Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
> > > you remains unchanged.
>
> > Andy continues to avoid admitting that he has no evidence.  Honesty is,
> > after all, a sin for good Christians.
>
> He's a lot like Jason there. When he knows he's lost, he obviously can't
> admit it, so he pulls out the jeebus loves you routine. It's so
> blatantly passive aggressive.

What route does Jee-bus follow?

[The Magpie]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 26/09/2012 08:57, Andrew wrote:
>
> You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.
>
> Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love
> for you remains unchanged.
>

Andrew, why do you *persist* in offering to supply "evidence" for
your ludicrous claims and then when asked for it *always* resort to
such ridiculous religious claims?

It really is childish, you know.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQYx2QAAoJEKy1URILypCG3TcH/3/s0vXc8UfJWDt2L8Naoz7o
jHaIryUcF0zcUYA1kfO5j0HRG8C7qZ8Yd7EKQXPcWluDA4naN460jhRnm6WYjnCY
pyZEjmMJ2S1kxxm1uAQQUSfkJ2Wami+90n3rprn/KSQkRmdwrE5xzSzud6E6cvME
heA1kcur/OVvLm7/3q0+o2oJq1RPmvZQ/9a5J3pSIPOf1wahaYnjiVE7K1+HvAgj
JWvAVo2T3jI0DGhRJhEj6GD2M0j+TXU306aEqixJ8fZn09SDjoiNZ4xde28WnOjU
aiCg+0tWLclwQDrif/4leenfThUHxmQlC2wlhkr0PoTdYP5BQldAkdowYv+m+No=
=Sgy0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[thomas p.]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hlwdjsd2-2C42A0...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

They are both very silly and pathetic.

>
> --
> JD
>
> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Andy W]

On Sep 26, 8:56 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

Wow... so you were asked for objective evidence, and this empty,
unsupported, unpersuasive assertion is the best you could come up
with. Try just admitting that you've got nothing, you'll feel so much
better.

[Ken]

On Sep 26, 12:56 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

BULLCRAP That's ALL you ever bring to the table

[Devils Advocaat]

If he delivered bullcrap it would at least be useful.

[Ken]

True....

[Ralph]

That is *independent*, *objective* evidence???????? That's your problem
Andrew,
you aren't too bright.

[Uirgil]

In article <o96dnXanl7SBKP_N...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
> > working son of a god?
> >
> > Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
> > right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
> > have a handle on the mind of your creator god?
> >
> > Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
> > *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicted in the
> > NT, and let's go at it, you and me.
>
> You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.

What evidence do you have of that? Note that only objective physical
evidence is conslusive.

>
> Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
> you remains unchanged.

It certainly remains unproven!

[Budikka666]

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&

Budikka

[Budikka666]

Budikka

[John Locke]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:57:50 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

...and your" loving" spook will send you to hell if you don't accept
its psychotic benevolence, even if you've led a good and humble life.
What manner of insanity is this ? Christianity insanity I would
presume. No thanks.

[John Locke]

...hey, I need some for my garlic beds. 3 yards please. I'll be
thinking about religion with every shovel full !

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:490fe349-3391-4ec0...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
> http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
> http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
> http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
>

> Budikka

Now here is the good news:

"And whosoever speaketh a word against
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him."
~ Matthew 12:32 ~

You see, God is a God of compassion.

There is forgiveness with Him.

Just come to Him as you are.

Repent and receive full salvation.

He loves you sooooo much!

He wants to share the awesome
glories of His creation with you
throughout all the future ages
of eternity, without end. Amen.



Andrew

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<17df8a13-4b58-4f55...@p5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

It's one of the chief "tells" of the trolls.

[Smiler]

Obviously, not route 666 or 69 ;-)

[Smiler]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:38:59 -0700, Andrew wrote:

> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:490fe349-3391-4ec0...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Coward-For-Christ� Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
>> http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
>> http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
>> http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
>>
>> Budikka
>
> Now here is the good news:

Sorry, Skippy, but beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
You have NO evidence!

<snip biblebabble>

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:25:17 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

>On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:38:59 -0700, Andrew wrote:
>
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> news:490fe349-3391-4ec0...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
>>> http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
>>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>> Now here is the good news:
>
>Sorry, Skippy, but beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>You have NO evidence!
>
><snip biblebabble>

Andrew knows that he is lying to us.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <a-WdnfR1PokJ6P7N...@earthlink.com>,

There's that tell again--Andrew knows he can't provide any evidence for
his assertions so he defaults to his silly god loves you nonsense.

Of course, that gives us the opportunity to remind everyone what a
genocidal torturing psychopathic monster his god is.

[Caranx latus]

I've gotten to the point where I see the "God loves you" message as a
passive-agressive pseudo-Christian "piss off". That *might* change if
ever I run into a Creationist that's capable of using his/her intellect.
(I know, I know... contradiction in terms. Even so.)

> Of course, that gives us the opportunity to remind everyone what a
> genocidal torturing psychopathic monster his god is.

Just a reminder that his "god" is nothing more than a projection of
himself onto the universe. It knows what he knows. It has *precisely*
the same values and ethics.

[Uirgil]

In article <a-WdnfR1PokJ6P7N...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:490fe349-3391-4ec0...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
> > http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
> > http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
> > http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
> >
> > Budikka
>
> Now here is the good news:
>
> "And whosoever speaketh a word against
> the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him."
> ~ Matthew 12:32 ~
>
> You see, God is a God of compassion.

Your "god" is a god of illusion, as you cannot provide any objective
physical evidence whatsoever of its existence!

> Andrew

[Seth lePod]

On Sep 26, 12:56 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> > Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
> > working son of a god?
>
> > Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
> > right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
> > have a handle on the mind of your creator god?

:
> > Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
> > *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
> > NT, and let's go at it, you and me.

:
> You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.

:
> Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
> you remains unchanged.

And if you don't buy into His deal, He will demonstrate
this unchanging love by condemning you to the
"everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels", where you will know "everlasting punishment".
[Matthew 25]

In other words, torture worse than any ever devised by
the most sadistic human psychopath who ever lived.

And yet Andrew thinks you should want to live, and live
forever, in the endless presence of this monstrosity.


One imagines Jeffrey Dahmer meeting God: "I cannot
BEGIN to tell you how much I admire your work!"


Seth

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<08de71af-7a2d-4640...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

It's be like living in Caligula's court or the inner circle of Stalin's
dictatorship--never knowing when you might do or say something perfectly
innocent on a day when the leader is feeling especially pissy, and
ending up being tortured or killed.

[Devils Advocaat]

Well it could be route 666 as some folk believe Jee-bus to be Sun-tan.

[Dakota]

The Son of man is a pedophile and a cannibal! Gee. I'm forgiven. Cool.

[Dakota]

The Dahmer bit was great. Thanks, Seth.

[Andrew]

"Seth lePod" wrote in message news:08de71af-7a2d-4640...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
>> > working son of a god?
>>
>> > Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
>> > right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
>> > have a handle on the mind of your creator god?
>
>> > Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
>> > *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
>> > NT, and let's go at it, you and me.
>
>> You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.
>
>> Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
>> you remains unchanged.
>
>
> And if you don't buy into His deal, He will demonstrate this
> unchanging love by condemning you to the "everlasting fire,
> prepared for the devil and his angels", where you will know
> "everlasting punishment". [Matthew 25]

Notice that it will be "everlasting punishment", not "everlasting
punishing".... and that this punishment will be--> death (by fire).

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God
is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Romans 6:23

> In other words, torture worse than any ever devised by
> the most sadistic human psychopath who ever lived.

No. Please consider that you have had a false understanding
of the final punishment of the lost. And then repent of these
false charges that you have made against your Maker.

Andrew

[Devils Advocaat]

On 27 Sep, 19:02, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:08de71af-7a2d-4640...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Hang on Andrew, if your Jesus loves even sinners, why would he want to
punish them?

[Andy W]

On Sep 27, 7:02 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:08de71af-7a2d-4640...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

And so, instead of the world's most sadistic psychopath, you would
cast God in the role of the world's worst mass murderer.

Er... again.

Not much of an improvement really, is it?

[Ralph]

Andrew, you're more full of shit than a Thanksgiving turkey. Imaginary
beings
can't love anything in reality.

[Uirgil]

In article <-q6dnQWHmodRCfnN...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Notice that it will be "everlasting punishment", not "everlasting
> punishing".... and that this punishment will be--> death (by fire).
>

What about those sinners who manage to die othe than by fire?

Such as those who de peacefully in their sleep?

They will be dead and gone long before any alleged fire can get to them.

[Smiler]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:06:40 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:

> On Sep 27, 12:17Ā am, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 07:08:16 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> > On 26 Sep, 11:58, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>> >> In article <5062da8c$0$56790$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>, Ā

>> >> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
>> >> >news:o96dnXanl7SBKP_N...@earthlink.com...
>> >> > > "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> >> > >news:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > >> Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
>> >> > >> miracle- working son of a god?
>>
>> >> > >> Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his
>> >> > >> existence right here in this thread since you're blasphemous
>> >> > >> enough to claim you have a handle on the mind of your creator
>> >> > >> god?
>>
>> >> > >> Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of
>> >> > >> *independent* *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the
>> >> > >> jesus depicte din the NT, and let's go at it, you and me.
>>
>> >> > > You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.
>>
>> >> > > Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
>> >> > > you remains unchanged.
>>

>> >> > Andy continues to avoid admitting that he has no evidence. Ā

>> >> > Honesty is, after all, a sin for good Christians.
>>
>> >> He's a lot like Jason there. When he knows he's lost, he obviously
>> >> can't admit it, so he pulls out the jeebus loves you routine. It's so
>> >> blatantly passive aggressive.
>>
>> > What route does Jee-bus follow?
>>
>> Obviously, not route 666 or 69 ;-)
>
> Well it could be route 666 as some folk believe Jee-bus to be Sun-tan.

Wherever did they get that lotion?

[Seth lePod]

On Sep 27, 11:02 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:08de71af-7a2d-4640...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
> >> > working son of a god?
>
> >> > Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
> >> > right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
> >> > have a handle on the mind of your creator god?
>
> >> > Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
> >> > *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
> >> > NT, and let's go at it, you and me.
>
> >> You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.
>
> >> Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
> >> you remains unchanged.
>


:
> > And if you don't buy into His deal, He will demonstrate this
> > unchanging love by condemning you to the "everlasting fire,
> > prepared for the devil and his angels", where you will know
> > "everlasting punishment". [Matthew 25]

:
> Notice that it will be "everlasting punishment", not "everlasting
> punishing".... and that this punishment will be--> death (by fire).

Did I say otherwise? Did I?

I carefully chose those verses, quoting verbatim, for
precisely that reason -- I've heard that excuse before.
Understand? Good. Now let us consider:

If this were a "loving" human father who, on being
rejected by his son or daughter, reacted to that
rejection by burning them to death -- you know, you've
seen this enacted on television too many times, the
pouring of gasoline over the helpless child, the
striking of the match, the shrieking, the doomed
thrashing, the smell of charred flesh -- tell us: how
would you, sitting on the jury at his trial, react to
this father's excuse -- "They rejected me, they didn't
have to do that, did they? I was left with no choice. I
had to burn them to death."

Are you voting to acquit now?

And of course any thinking person would expect your god
to be MORE moral, more benign, more loving than our
psychopathic human father, more gracious in aspect,
more caring in action... so don't even think of trying
that sad threadbare "You can't judge god by human
standards" excuse. Of course you can: if it's evil when
done by man, it's even a greater evil when done by a
god.

:

> "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God
> is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
> Romans 6:23

And for some reason you imagine there could be only
those two alternatives? Gee, I can instantly think of
a third path. Is your god not even as smart as I am?
Can't you think of another way?

Sonny, don't. Just don't. Don't try your amateur
apologetics on me: being brought up evangelical, I was
listening to these drearily tortured excuses for your
god's monstrous ways long before you were born, I
suspect. They didn't work then, and time has not
improved them any.

But do consider this: instead of your god's global
genocide by flood, or its promised immolation of most
of its children, if instead of that we were talking
about Artemis' slaughter of Niobe's children, or Zeus'
molesting of human women, or Grendel's cannibalism at
the mead hall, you wouldn't have the slightest problem
seeing that these were stories made up by humans -- and
thus require no tortuous justification by anyone.


But instead of those myths, we're talking about YOUR
myths, and so you embarrass yourself and anyone reading
these attempts to find some excuse for the inexcusable.


That's it. I will say I apologize for my tone: in truth,
I really do hope you can get better.


Seth

[Seth lePod]

If you think carefully about all the excuses that have
been offered in response to that obvious question, you
will notice one subtle thing -- there's an unstated
implication that god has no choice, that he cannot do
otherwise and still remain god. He has to act in that
way.

Which of course implicitly assumes that there is a
moral code that exists independently of god, one that
god is bound to live up to.

The alternative being that god just wants to punish
those that don't accept his take-it-or-leave-it deal,
and he can get away with that because he's the biggest
meanest muhfo on the block.

Seth

[Seth lePod]

:

> The Dahmer bit was great. Thanks, Seth.

Inspired by the bit in "Con Air" where the malignant
Cyrus the Virus (John Malkovich) tells serial
killer (Steve Buscemi) Garland the Mangler Greene what
a huge fan he is.


Seth

[Andrew]

"Seth lePod" wrote in message news:1d54b708-1bab-44ed...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 27, 12:03 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Sep, 19:02, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

"Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth."
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom
the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers,
then ye are bastards and not sons."
Hebrews 12:6-8

[Andrew]

"Andy W" wrote in message news:230c048a-f976-4c38...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
"Andrew" wrote:

-
- And so, instead of the world's most sadistic psychopath, you
- would cast God in the role of the world's worst mass murderer.

I thought that atheists wanted to die, and not live eternally.

Now you are complaining.

"The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Sep, 10:11, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:1d54b708-1bab-44ed...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

So beating a child is a good way of showing how much you love them?

That is utterly ridiculous, abnormal, and unacceptable behaviour for
mature and rational adults.

But then maturity and rationality rarely walk hand in hand with
extreme religious attitudes.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Sep, 10:21, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:230c048a-f976-4c38...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

I'm not aware of any atheists wanting to die.

But I've noticed plenty of religious types are terrified of dying.

[thomas p.]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:jaKdnQHZ371h9vjN...@earthlink.com...

Don't you ever get tired of your transparent dishonesty? Seriously, it must
be depressing to be like you.

>
> Now you are complaining.
>
> "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God
> is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
> Romans 6:23
>

And your evidence for that would be? Oh, I forgot, you have none; you just
enjoy being an ass. Carry on.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[thomas p.]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen

news:a9WdnbcTcYct9PjN...@earthlink.com...

Of course, as we both know, it is just a fairy tale.

[Malcolm McMahon]

No. It's just that we expect dead to be dead, and can't conceive of any kind of paradise that would be tolerable for more than a short time.

[Andy W]

On Sep 28, 10:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:230c048a-f976-4c38...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

"Wanted to die"? Where on Earth did you get such a stupid idea? I'm in
no hurry to die. I just have no expectation of lasting forever. You
get over it.

>
> Now you are complaining.
>
> "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God
>  is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
>                            Romans 6:23

Wow, so... no objection to God being the worst mass murderer of all
time, just an idiotic quip to showcase your ignorance to anyone who
might have somehow missed it. Very revealing. I guess you're fine with
worshiping a mass murderer then.

Are you actually a JW? You sound a lot like one.

Andy

[Seth lePod]

On Sep 28, 2:11 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:1d54b708-1bab-44ed...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

:

> > > Notice that it will be "everlasting punishment", not "everlasting
> > > punishing".... and that this punishment will be--> death (by fire).

:
> > > "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God
> > > is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
> > > Romans 6:23

:
> > > > In other words, torture worse than any ever devised by
> > > > the most sadistic human psychopath who ever lived.

:
> > > No. Please consider that you have had a false understanding
> > > of the final punishment of the lost. And then repent of these
> > > false charges that you have made against your Maker.

:

> > Hang on Andrew, if your Jesus loves even sinners, why would he want to punish
> > them?

:
> "Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth."
> If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom
> the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers,
> then ye are bastards and not sons."
> Hebrews 12:6-8

Do note, DA, that Andrew now appears to be telling us
that in the end, God demonstrates his love of us by a
doting act of chastisment, in particular, by burning us
to death.

One hopes, if Andrew does have children of his own,
he's really good at compartmentalizing.


Seth

[Seth lePod]

On Sep 28, 2:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:230c048a-f976-4c38...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

That would of course depend on what living eternally
might be like.

What sorts of situations can you describe which you
would be overjoyed to find yourself in, given that you
would be in that situation for ever and ever and ever
and ever and ever and ever and ever, no end, no way
out, no overs, no going back?

The Bible, I have noted, is quite short on specifics
when it comes telling us what heaven is actually
like, and why we would want to end up there.

(note: "Because it's not hell" is the sign
of one with nothing good to say about heaven)

Seth

[Budikka666]

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&

Budikka

[Andrew]

Folks, I warned you that if you deny Christ that Budikka
will take note of it, and then report you. In fact one time
she even tried to catch me as noted in her post here. But
the truth is that God is merciful and will accept us if we
will simply come to Him

"Budikka666" wrote in message
news:917d7bd6-0e31-4047...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> Coward-For-ChristT Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:

>
> http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
> http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
> http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
>

> Budikka

[Andrew]

"Andy W" wrote in message news:57d3e212-61ef-4c8b...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

-
- "Wanted to die"? Where on Earth did you get such a stupid idea?
- I'm in no hurry to die.

Yes, yes.. you want to live a few more short years here.

THEN faced with eternal life in glory, or eternal death,

You want to die at that time.

Isn't that correct?

[Budikka666]

You and your ilk are reported for your *hateful* messages, not for
your *stupid* ones, which means that you, Blank Boy are almost never
reported, since pretty much everything you post is painfully stupid.
You can mock it all you want; that's no more than what I expect of
creationist scum like you. But rest assured that no amount of mockery
will change the fact that I will *not* countenance you, BrailJOB and
others of your ilk posting messages picking on minorities, pickign on
gays, or trying to dictate to people what to do with their bodies.

But you know what *I* find most interesting? It's that none of your
so-called Christians *ever* condemn your own people for posting such
messages, which forces me to assume that you support them, louse-bound
hypocrites that you are.

Now as long as we're here, why don't we review once more your shameful
record of denying the very Christ whom you would try to force onto the
rest of us, shall we?

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:

http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

[Uirgil]

In article <p96dnfyOYc7XbPvN...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> > > No. Please consider that you have had a false understanding
> > > of the final punishment of the lost. And then repent of these
> > > false charges that you have made against your Maker.
> >
> > > Andrew

There is no objective physical evidence that there is any "Maker".

[Devils Advocaat]

On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:57d3e212-61ef-4c8b...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

Andrew, atheists don't want to die.

They know that they will die.

And they've accepted that.

It's a cold, hard fact.

Every funeral I've attended.

I've not seen one happy theist.

They've all been crying.

Surely they should be happy?

They should be celebrating.

But they're not.

I'll tell you why.

They don't know what happens next.

They believe they do.

But they're full of doubt.

And they're scared.

[Caranx latus]

Surely not.

Most people know that funerals aren't actually for the deceased. The
funeral is for the attendees. Funerals mark the conclusions of
relationships between the attendees and the deceased. If attendees are
crying, it's entirely due to that lost relationship.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:00:19 -0400, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Serious believers don't think so.

For the last few months I've seen this from the Catholic side.

I spent a couple of moths at the bed side of the father of The Most
Important Person In My Life while she was at work, getting ready for
work and eating. Perhaps a fourteen or sixteen hour day.

She worked during the day and slept on a pad on the floor of his room
at night.

She prayed over him, said the rosary with him etc every day.

I was there for the last rites, during which he flat-lined.

These weren't just for the bereaved but to comfort his last moments -
after he had been convinced of hell since he converted, and they saw
it as making sure he went to heaven instead of hell.

Similarly the memorial service at the funeral home and the mass the
next day were to do the same.

They believed it all right - because some of her circle was talking
about it afterwards, I made some remark about the funeral being for
the bereaved and got taken to task because it was for the dead.

I said it went some way towards providing closure for the family and
friend. He had to think about it and then said he supposed I was
right.

But they do seriously believe in heaven and hell, and in doing their
part to make sure the deceased goes to heaven instead of hell.

Which comforts them - about something the church has foisted on them
in the first place.

[Andy W]

On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:57d3e212-61ef-4c8b...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

No, that is flat-out wrong, no surprise there. It's not a matter of
when I want to die. What I'm expecting to happen is this: Die;
nothing. There's no choice of eternal life. In the monumentally
unlikely event that I'm wrong, well I'll just have to take it from
there.

And for a second time, not one word about God being the world's worst
mass murderer ever. You're actually happy about that idea, aren't you?

[Budikka666]

I guess it's "Run Awayyyyyy" yet again for Andrew-Another-Blank.

Kepe running you Chickenshit for Christt™, it's what you do best,
after all.

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Andy W" wrote in message news:a90b5279-71e2-44c9...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Andy W" wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:

Explain.

> It's not a matter of when I want to die.
> What I'm expecting to happen is this:
>
> Die; nothing.

No, you don't got off that easy.

> There's no choice of eternal life.

This atheist found out that we have
a choice...... http://www.p2l.it/1dd

> In the monumentally unlikely event that
> I'm wrong, well I'll just have to take it
> from there.

Except that now is when we decide.

> And for a second time, not one word about
> God being the world's worst mass murderer
> ever.

Murderer is a sin.

God never sinned.

God loves you.

[SkyEyes]

On Oct 1, 12:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:a90b5279-71e2-44c9...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

Unfortunately, that's the direction where all the evidence points:
death = oblivion.

>
> > There's no choice of eternal life.
>
> This atheist found out that we have
> a choice......  http://www.p2l.it/1dd

NDEs are *not* evidence of life after death, no matter what this
gentleman feels he experienced. If they were, they would all have a
common experience, but they don't. Hindus have experiences of the
Hindu gods, Jews have experiences of Yahweh, Buddhists see The Buddha,
Traditional Native Americans see their ancestral spirits, etc. This
is all I need to tell me that an NDE is nothing more than a brain
starved of oxygen reliving experiences tinged with the culture in
which the anoxic brain was brought up.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[BroilJAB]

Who among you will choose a fiery brass coffin
instead of a wonderful new life and His Peace?
The same willful ignorant who believe in 10^4000.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 1, 8:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:a90b5279-71e2-44c9...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> Murder is a sin.

No, murder is a crime.

[Andrew]

"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:b53aaacd-4b8a-4209...@j2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...

"It is appointed unto men once to
die, but after this the judgment"

>> > There's no choice of eternal life.
>>
>> This atheist found out that we have
>> a choice...... http://www.p2l.it/1dd
>
> NDEs are *not* evidence of life after death, no matter what this
> gentleman feels he experienced. If they were, they would all have a
> common experience, but they don't. Hindus have experiences of the
> Hindu gods, Jews have experiences of Yahweh, Buddhists see The Buddha,
> Traditional Native Americans see their ancestral spirits, etc.

This atheist was in the morgue, dead; and was not at all
religious. Listen to his experience http://www.p2l.it/1dd .

[Devils Advocaat]

On 1 Oct, 08:21, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:a90b5279-71e2-44c9...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

Do you have any evidence that Ian McCormack was always an atheist
before his NDE?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <9qidncTn7_AJOvTN...@earthlink.com>,

He was NOT dead. Had he actually been dead, his brain would have been so
deteriorated that he never would have awakened.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Andy W]

On Oct 1, 8:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Andy W" wrote in messagenews:a90b5279-71e2-44c9...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

<sigh>

This choice of eternal life is a fiction of you godbots that I do not
share. Suggesting that I want to die at an event I do not believe is
going to even happen is... what's the word... oh, yes: stupid.

>
> > It's not a matter of when I want to die.
> > What I'm expecting to  happen is this:
>
> > Die; nothing.
>
> No, you don't got off that easy.

Ah, more thinly veiled threats, how very Christian of you.

>
> > There's no choice of eternal life.
>
> This atheist found out that we have
> a choice......  http://www.p2l.it/1dd

Near-death experiences become a lot less convincing when you find that
you don't have to be near death to have one.

http://near-death.com/experiences/paranormal12.html

>
> > In the monumentally unlikely event that
> > I'm wrong, well I'll just have to take it
> > from there.
>
> Except that now is when we decide.
>
> > And for a second time, not one word about
> > God being the world's worst mass murderer
> > ever.
>
> Murderer is a sin.
>
> God never sinned.

If it is wrong for me to kill, it is so much more wrong for an
omnipotent deity to do so, who should be able to find a non-killing
alternative so easily, and more so again when that deity kills in such
vast numbers. I've never killed anyone. It seems I'm more moral than
your god who, according to the Bible, kills all the time.

>
> God loves you.

But he still plans to kill me, right? What kind of loving is that? Me
and... how many billion others,would you say? Six? Ten? And you still
haven't refuted this at all.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-3FE26A...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Andy W" wrote:
>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> "Andy W" wrote:
>> >> >> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> > "Andy W" wrote:
>> >> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> > > "Seth lePod" wrote:
>> >> >> > > > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> > Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,

>> >> >> > > >> > miracle-working son of a god?

Doctors do not send bodies to the morgue unless they are *dead*.

morgue (môrg) n.

A place in which the bodies of persons found dead are kept until
identified and claimed or until arrangements for burial have been
made.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <_4qdnX8A78HTsPfN...@earthlink.com>,

There ARE mistakes.

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128032/Analia-Bouter-finds-stil
lborn-baby-ALIVE-morgue-12-hours-pronounced-dead.html>

<http://www.huliq.com/12079/man-wakes-morgue-day-after-hes-pronounced-dea
d>

<http://www.weirdasianews.com/2009/01/31/indian-police-send-living-man-au
topsy/>

[Seth lePod]

On Oct 1, 4:54 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-3FE26A...@news.giganews.com...

> >> >> a choice......http://www.p2l.it/1dd

>
> >> > NDEs are *not* evidence of life after death, no matter what this
> >> > gentleman feels he experienced.  If they were, they would all have a
> >> > common experience, but they don't.  Hindus have experiences of the
> >> > Hindu gods, Jews have experiences of Yahweh, Buddhists see The Buddha,
> >> > Traditional Native Americans see their ancestral spirits, etc.
>
> >> This atheist was in the morgue, dead; and was not at all
> >> religious. Listen to his experiencehttp://www.p2l.it/1dd.
>
>

:

> > He was NOT dead. Had he actually been dead, his brain would
> > have been so deteriorated that he never would have awakened.

:
> Doctors do not send bodies to the morgue unless they are *dead*.

> morgue (m?rg) n.

> A place in which the bodies of persons found dead are kept until
> identified and claimed or until arrangements for burial have been
> made.

Good point -- after all, dictionaries define reality,
and doctors never make mistakes.

Well...



http://www.stylist.co.uk/life/corpse-found-alive-in-brazilian-morgue

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/04/12/stillborn-baby-found-alive-in-morgue.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/46775-dead-man-found-alive-in-morgue

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1090779/

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/186756/20110726/zombie-attack-dead-man-found-alive-in-morgue-after-21-hours.htm



Seth

[Seth lePod]

On Oct 1, 7:24 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:b53aaacd-4b8a-4209...@j2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...

> >> a choice......http://www.p2l.it/1dd

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

:
> > NDEs are *not* evidence of life after death, no matter what this
> > gentleman feels he experienced. If they were, they would all have a
> > common experience, but they don't. Hindus have experiences of the
> > Hindu gods, Jews have experiences of Yahweh, Buddhists see The Buddha,
> > Traditional Native Americans see their ancestral spirits, etc.

:
> This atheist was in the morgue, dead; and was not at all
> religious. Listen to his experience http://www.p2l.it/1dd .

Wow. What do you know: it DOES turn out that the
phenomena of the near-death experience proves that one
should become a Christian.

Or a Hindu.

Or a Muslim.

Or a Japanese Buddhist.

Or a Mormon.


http://www.p2l.it/1dd

In case you get bored before reaching Fillipo's
Conclusion section, here's the bit I find salient:


Throughout history Buddhists and Hindus, Muslims,
Jews, Christians, and Mormons have all reported
having near-death experiences. These experiences
are similar to some of the visions or journeys into
the afterlife that are described in some of the
sacred texts of their religions. The descriptions
of the near-death experiences by members of these
religious groups are believed, by many, to be a
glimpse into life after death, and appear to be
consistent with each religious group's
interpretation of the afterlife.


Seth

[Budikka666]

Coward-For-Christ™ Calvin Ramsey Denying Christ Thrice:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e789f4adad4e8fad?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/5ddc9354493b62b3?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/5cfb83a18dbc7442?scoring=d&

[Ralph]

He wasn't dead Andrew, give it up!

[Winslow]

On 9/26/2012 3:57 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>
>> Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
>> working son of a god?
>>
>> Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
>> right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
>> have a handle on the mind of your creator god?
>>
>> Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
>> *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
>> NT, and let's go at it, you and me.
>
> You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.
>
> Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
> you remains unchanged.
>

My question is, what could be seen as possible evidence creation?
I am agnostic, in that I do not know whether there was a
creation/creator or not. I've seen no proof either way.
I use the word agnostic in the same sense as I don't know whether or not
intelligent life exist anywhere in the universe other than the Earth.

What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?

Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?

>
>

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:19:41 -0500, Winslow <"Don L.
Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>On 9/26/2012 3:57 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
>>> working son of a god?
>>>
>>> Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
>>> right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
>>> have a handle on the mind of your creator god?
>>>
>>> Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
>>> *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
>>> NT, and let's go at it, you and me.
>>
>> You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.
>>
>> Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
>> you remains unchanged.
>>
>My question is, what could be seen as possible evidence creation?

That is the responsibility of those trying to develop a hypothesis that
creation happened.

>I am agnostic, in that I do not know whether there was a
>creation/creator or not. I've seen no proof either way.

A common fallacy for those who make excuses for the failure of fantasy
claims. The only valid null hypothesis is that a creator does not exist.
The duty of creationists is to disprove the null hypothesis if they want
to be taken seriously. They have failed.

>I use the word agnostic in the same sense as I don't know whether or not
>intelligent life exist anywhere in the universe other than the Earth.

That may actually be a valid viewpoint. To apply it to a creator is not
valid.

>What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?

There is none.

>Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?

No need. The failure of those claiming that a creator god exists leaves
us with the null hypothesis, that there is no creator god.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:28:04 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:19:41 -0500, Winslow <"Don L.
>Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>>I am agnostic, in that I do not know whether there was a
>>creation/creator or not. I've seen no proof either way.
>
>A common fallacy for those who make excuses for the failure of fantasy
>claims. The only valid null hypothesis is that a creator does not exist.
>The duty of creationists is to disprove the null hypothesis if they want
>to be taken seriously. They have failed.

There is no reason even to postulate one apart from having a
pre-existing belief in it.

>>I use the word agnostic in the same sense as I don't know whether or not
>>intelligent life exist anywhere in the universe other than the Earth.
>
>That may actually be a valid viewpoint. To apply it to a creator is not
>valid.

Because we know of one planet with life, we know of other solar
systems with planets, and abiogenesis research has shown that the
formation of the basic building blocks is inevitable given the right
conditions.

But there is no reason whatsoever to postulate a god.

>>What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?
>
>There is none.
>
>>Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?
>
>No need. The failure of those claiming that a creator god exists leaves
>us with the null hypothesis, that there is no creator god.

Fazakerley.

[Tom McDonald]

On Dec 31, 2:04 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>

wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:28:04 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:19:41 -0500, Winslow <"Don L.
> >Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >>I am agnostic, in that I do not know whether there was a
> >>creation/creator or not. I've seen no proof either way.
>
> >A common fallacy for those who make excuses for the failure of fantasy
> >claims. The only valid null hypothesis is that a creator does not exist.
> >The duty of creationists is to disprove the null hypothesis if they want
> >to be taken seriously. They have failed.
>
> There is no reason even to postulate one apart from having a
> pre-existing belief in it.

I disagree, at least for the very start of religious ideas. It's a
'god of the gaps' thing, IMO. When you have lots of questions that you
just can't answer (what is thunder? what are those different lights in
the sky? why do we get sick? etc.), you have lots of gaps in your
understanding. Since we make a living by solving problems, these sorts
of problems are left begging for solutions. So folks come up with
answers that, in their frame of reference, make sense to them.

Then, as we all know, with science and exploration some old questions
get new answers--and the new answers invariably do not require a god.
But, of course, our knowledge is always partial, so there's always a
god-shaped gap for the god-minded to fall back on. It's just that, in
these days of modern times, the not-god answers seem to be the way to
bet in any remaining unexplained knowledge gaps. Thus we advance, and
thus god(s) recede.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has some excellent riffs on this. Even his idol,
Newton, resorted to the god of the gaps when, if he'd used the tools
and knowledge he already had, he'd have been able to push god into an
even smaller role. I guess he got tired after he invented calculus--on
a dare.

<snip>

[Winslow]

A null hypothesis can never be proven. The alternative hypothesis,
however, may be valid.

>
>> I use the word agnostic in the same sense as I don't know whether or not
>> intelligent life exist anywhere in the universe other than the Earth.
>
> That may actually be a valid viewpoint. To apply it to a creator is not
> valid.
>

If the first statement is valid, then except for a priori position which
negates the second, it must be an equally valid point of view.

>
>> What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?
>
> There is none.
>

Is this a verifiable fact? Does a widely accept authoritative
explanation rule out any other possible explanation such as a
supernatural explanation?
If so, does this not put science in a naturalistic straight jacket?

>
>> Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?
>
> No need. The failure of those claiming that a creator god exists leaves
> us with the null hypothesis, that there is no creator god.
>

The the question is: do you _know_ there is no creator god? Do you'know
for an absolute fact that no God exist? (God is a general, all-inclusive
generic term)

[Christopher A. Lee]

I thought you were leaving.

The methodology is that the null hypothesis stands until it is
DISproven.

It's the way even agnostics treat other extraordinary claims - "No it
isn't, prove it".

People were doing this long before Popper formalised it.

>>> I use the word agnostic in the same sense as I don't know whether or not
>>> intelligent life exist anywhere in the universe other than the Earth.
>>
>> That may actually be a valid viewpoint. To apply it to a creator is not
>> valid.
> >
>If the first statement is valid, then except for a priori position which
>negates the second, it must be an equally valid point of view.

If you had provided the kind of reasons to consider a god as there are
for considering life on other planets, you might have had a point.

We know life exists on at least one planet.

We know of planets in other solar systems.

We know that the basic building blocks of life can form naturally
under a wide variety of conditions.

We know that simple proto-cells can form from these building blocks
using natural processes.

On the other hand there is nothing whatsoever that suggests a god -
indeed the only reason to come up with it is one's pre-existing
religious belief.

Which has now been explained to you several times.

>>> What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?
>>
>> There is none.
> >
>Is this a verifiable fact? Does a widely accept authoritative
>explanation rule out any other possible explanation such as a
>supernatural explanation?

It is a fact.

Nothing remotely points in that direction, If there were,
philosophical "proofs" that try to generate information where there is
none, wouldn't be needed.

>If so, does this not put science in a naturalistic straight jacket?

Idiot.

>>> Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?
>>
>> No need. The failure of those claiming that a creator god exists leaves
>> us with the null hypothesis, that there is no creator god.
>>
>The the question is: do you _know_ there is no creator god? Do you'know
>for an absolute fact that no God exist? (God is a general, all-inclusive
>generic term)

You still can't think outside your theist box, no matter how often
this is explained...

This question doesn't even come up outside the theist's religion.

Because outside it, this hypothetical creator God is merely somebody
else's religious belief.

Do you have a mental block about this?

[Winslow]

I did. I was tired of "Jail Time....". So, I moved on to another
topic.

>
> The methodology is that the null hypothesis stands until it is
> DISproven.
>
> It's the way even agnostics treat other extraordinary claims - "No it
> isn't, prove it".
>
> People were doing this long before Popper formalised it.
>
>>>> I use the word agnostic in the same sense as I don't know whether or not
>>>> intelligent life exist anywhere in the universe other than the Earth.
>>>
>>> That may actually be a valid viewpoint. To apply it to a creator is not
>>> valid.
>>>
>> If the first statement is valid, then except for a priori position which
>> negates the second, it must be an equally valid point of view.
>
> If you had provided the kind of reasons to consider a god as there are
> for considering life on other planets, you might have had a point.
>

You somehow miss the point, that it isn't about the existence of God
but about agnosticism. One can be agnostic about intelligent life on
other planets, or bigfoot, or UFOs. I don't know, and do not pretend
to have knowledge I don't have. This is simple enough. Why don't you
understand this?

>
> We know life exists on at least one planet.
>
> We know of planets in other solar systems.
>
> We know that the basic building blocks of life can form naturally
> under a wide variety of conditions.
>
> We know that simple proto-cells can form from these building blocks
> using natural processes.
>

There is no evidence that these _proto-cells ever were present in the
pre Cambrian. They are lab creations with no possible way to posit
them as the fore-runners of modern living cells. These lab creations
only demonstrate what is possible given the right lab conditions and
the education and intelligence to create these conditions.

>
> On the other hand there is nothing whatsoever that suggests a god -
> indeed the only reason to come up with it is one's pre-existing
> religious belief.
>

No one has suggested a God actually exist.

>
> Which has now been explained to you several times.
>

Explanations are opinions which can be accepted as valid or
frivolous.

>
>>>> What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?
>>>
>>> There is none.
>>>
>> Is this a verifiable fact? Does a widely accept authoritative
>> explanation rule out any other possible explanation such as a
>> supernatural explanation?
>
> It is a fact.
>
> Nothing remotely points in that direction, If there were,
> philosophical "proofs" that try to generate information where there is
> none, wouldn't be needed.
>
>> If so, does this not put science in a naturalistic straight jacket?
>
> Idiot.
>

I asked a question! If you continue this name calling I will refuse to
read or respond to you.

>
>>>> Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?
>>>
>>> No need. The failure of those claiming that a creator god exists leaves
>>> us with the null hypothesis, that there is no creator god.
>>>
>> The the question is: do you _know_ there is no creator god? Do you'know
>> for an absolute fact that no God exist? (God is a general, all-inclusive
>> generic term)
>
> You still can't think outside your theist box, no matter how often
> this is explained...
>

My box is open, but you cannot think outside of your tightly closed
materalistic box. Neither air nor light can get into your naturalistic box.

>
> This question doesn't even come up outside the theist's religion.
>

I should! Do you think you know everything? What percent (%) of
what's known or will be discovered do you know: 90%, 50%, 25%, or less?
If you don't know everything, then you cannot know whether or not God
exist. This is where I stand.

>
> Because outside it, this hypothetical creator God is merely somebody
> else's religious belief.
>
> Do you have a mental block about this?
>

No, but I need to see positive proof that there is no Creator god.
Because one can never be sure! These clever arguments, I see are
merely a defense mechanisms. I have used them myself when confronting
theists.

[Andrew]

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote in message news:nfc4e8p3ja3s09ba0...@4ax.com...
> "Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote:

>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> "Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>>>> Andrew wrote:

Yes.

> We know of planets in other solar systems.

Lots.

> We know that the basic building blocks of life can form naturally
> under a wide variety of conditions.

Building blocks of all things that were ever built by humans
exist on this planet, but they required intelligent human input
before anything was built.

Do they self assemble without any intelligent input? Only a
self deceived fool would dare suggest such a foolish thing.

> We know that simple proto-cells can form from these building
> blocks using natural processes.

"Proto cells" do not exist, except in the fantasies of fools who do
not understand the super complexity, or structure of a living cell.

> On the other hand there is nothing whatsoever that suggests a god -
> indeed the only reason to come up with it is one's pre-existing
> religious belief.
>
> Which has now been explained to you several times.
>
>>>> What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?
>>>
>>> There is none.

This is true, in your mind.

>>Is this a verifiable fact? Does a widely accept authoritative
>>explanation rule out any other possible explanation such as a
>>supernatural explanation?
>
> It is a fact.

This is true, in your mind.

> Nothing remotely points in that direction, If there were,
> philosophical "proofs" that try to generate information where there is
> none, wouldn't be needed.
>
>>If so, does this not put science in a naturalistic straight jacket?
>
> Idiot.

Says the fool to the thinker, who challenges the fools false paradigm.

>>>> Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?
>>>
>>> No need. The failure of those claiming that a creator god exists leaves
>>> us with the null hypothesis, that there is no creator god.
>>>
>>The the question is: do you _know_ there is no creator god? Do you'know
>>for an absolute fact that no God exist? (God is a general, all-inclusive
>>generic term)
>
> You still can't think outside your theist box, no matter how often
> this is explained...
>
> This question doesn't even come up outside the theist's religion.

Einstein sure thought about it, apart from any theistic religion.

> Because outside it, this hypothetical creator God is merely somebody
> else's religious belief.

Or, the actual Creator of Heaven and Earth.

> Do you have a mental block about this?

All of you will have if you cannot think outside of your atheistic box

[SkyEyes]

On Dec 31, 7:58 pm, Winslow <"Don L. Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote:

> I should! Do you think you know everything? What percent (%) of
> what's known or will be discovered do you know: 90%, 50%, 25%, or less?
> If you don't know everything, then you cannot know whether or not God
> exist. This is where I stand.

So...what do you want us to do about it? Do you want us to behave *as
if* a god exists, despite the fact that we have no knowledge of it?
Or do you want us to behave *as if* "god" is a fiction, inasmuch as we
have no knowledge of any such thing? It sounds like a trivial
question, but in reality it isn't. You'd be surprised at the number
of so-called agnostics who think that we should behave as if as god
exists, even though they admit they have no knowledge of any such
creature.

I say that the default position for any claim, in the absence of
evidence, is "I don't believe you," which is pretty much the position
of the regulars in alt.atheism.

And as for science being "in a box" of materialism, what else do you
propose? Humans found out a looooooooooong time ago that the only
knowledge you can actually depend upon, in a practical sense, is
empirical. Science *can't* address anything non-material; that's what
makes it "science" and not "philosophy." You can depend upon science,
it *works*. Philosophy...not so much.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:58:35 -0500, Winslow <"Don L.

Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote:

>On 12/31/2012 8:09 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:42:47 -0500, Winslow <"Don L.
>> Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/31/2012 2:28 PM, Free Lunch wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:19:41 -0500, Winslow <"Don L.r

>>>> Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/26/2012 3:57 AM, Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:3304b2f3-eca0-4c75...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where's your evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-
>>>>>>> working son of a god?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you and I formally debate the evidence for his existence
>>>>>>> right here in this thread since you're blasphemous enough to claim you
>>>>>>> have a handle on the mind of your creator god?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go ahead and post your five absolute best examples of *independent*
>>>>>>> *objective* evidence for the existenc eof the jesus depicte din the
>>>>>>> NT, and let's go at it, you and me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should know that He is, since He is the One who loves you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although you may foolishly try to deny or resist it, His love for
>>>>>> you remains unchanged.
>>>>>>
>>>>> My question is, what could be seen as possible evidence creation?
>>>>
>>>> That is the responsibility of those trying to develop a hypothesis that
>>>> creation happened.
>>>>
>>>>> I am agnostic, in that I do not know whether there was a
>>>>> creation/creator or not. I've seen no proof either way.

There is no "either way" - that implies an unjustified equivalence
that gives the utterly baseless undeserved status.

>>>> A common fallacy for those who make excuses for the failure of fantasy
>>>> claims. The only valid null hypothesis is that a creator does not exist.
>>>> The duty of creationists is to disprove the null hypothesis if they want
>>>> to be taken seriously. They have failed.
>>>>
>>> A null hypothesis can never be proven. The alternative hypothesis,
>>> however, may be valid.
>>
>> I thought you were leaving.
> >
>I did. I was tired of "Jail Time....". So, I moved on to another
>topic.

Weaseling noted.

>> The methodology is that the null hypothesis stands until it is
>> DISproven.
>>
>> It's the way even agnostics treat other extraordinary claims - "No it
>> isn't, prove it".
>>
>> People were doing this long before Popper formalised it.
>>
>>>>> I use the word agnostic in the same sense as I don't know whether or not
>>>>> intelligent life exist anywhere in the universe other than the Earth.
>>>>
>>>> That may actually be a valid viewpoint. To apply it to a creator is not
>>>> valid.
>>>>
>>> If the first statement is valid, then except for a priori position which
>>> negates the second, it must be an equally valid point of view.
>>
>> If you had provided the kind of reasons to consider a god as there are
>> for considering life on other planets, you might have had a point.
> >
>You somehow miss the point, that it isn't about the existence of God
>but about agnosticism. One can be agnostic about intelligent life on
>other planets, or bigfoot, or UFOs. I don't know, and do not pretend
>to have knowledge I don't have. This is simple enough. Why don't you
>understand this?

I do not miss the point - which is that you claim to be agnostic about
things there is no reason even to consider, using "either way" as if
there were any equivalence between believing something extraordinary
when there is no reason to, and not even giving it a thought.

Why don't you understand this?

You miss the point.

You claim to be agnostic about things there is no reason even to
postulate.

>> We know life exists on at least one planet.
>>
>> We know of planets in other solar systems.
>>
>> We know that the basic building blocks of life can form naturally
>> under a wide variety of conditions.
>>
>> We know that simple proto-cells can form from these building blocks
>> using natural processes.
> >
>There is no evidence that these _proto-cells ever were present in the
>pre Cambrian.

But others were.

> They are lab creations with no possible way to posit
>them as the fore-runners of modern living cells. These lab creations
>only demonstrate what is possible given the right lab conditions and
>the education and intelligence to create these conditions.

They show that a supernatural creator isn't required.

And they were not the result of education and intelligence - the
simple processes were the application first of heat to amino acids and
then immersion of the residue in salt water.

They were discovered by happy accident not by planning.

>> On the other hand there is nothing whatsoever that suggests a god -
>> indeed the only reason to come up with it is one's pre-existing
>> religious belief.
> >
>No one has suggested a God actually exist.

You have yet to explain why you even give it a thought, let alone
elevate it to such a level that you give equal credence to "there is"
and "there isn't".

And why you imagine this is the only reasonable position.

>> Which has now been explained to you several times.
> >
>Explanations are opinions which can be accepted as valid or
>frivolous.

Bullshit.

>>>>> What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?
>>>>
>>>> There is none.
>>>>
>>> Is this a verifiable fact? Does a widely accept authoritative
>>> explanation rule out any other possible explanation such as a
>>> supernatural explanation?
>>
>> It is a fact.
>>
>> Nothing remotely points in that direction, If there were,
>> philosophical "proofs" that try to generate information where there is
>> none, wouldn't be needed.
>>
>>> If so, does this not put science in a naturalistic straight jacket?
>>
>> Idiot.
> >
>I asked a question! If you continue this name calling I will refuse to
>read or respond to you.

Show some honesty for a change and actually address what you are told
instead of repeating the same old bullshit.

>>>>> Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?
>>>>
>>>> No need. The failure of those claiming that a creator god exists leaves
>>>> us with the null hypothesis, that there is no creator god.
>>>>
>>> The the question is: do you _know_ there is no creator god? Do you'know
>>> for an absolute fact that no God exist? (God is a general, all-inclusive
>>> generic term)
>>
>> You still can't think outside your theist box, no matter how often
>> this is explained...
> >
>My box is open, but you cannot think outside of your tightly closed
>materalistic box. Neither air nor light can get into your naturalistic box.

You really do need to stop lying.

>> This question doesn't even come up outside the theist's religion.
> >
>I should! Do you think you know everything? What percent (%) of
>what's known or will be discovered do you know: 90%, 50%, 25%, or less?
>If you don't know everything, then you cannot know whether or not God
>exist. This is where I stand.

Idiot.

>> Because outside it, this hypothetical creator God is merely somebody
>> else's religious belief.
>>
>> Do you have a mental block about this?
>>
>No, but I need to see positive proof that there is no Creator god.

Why do you imagine that is our problem, imbecile?

>Because one can never be sure!

In exactly the same way one can never be sure there isn't a teapot
orbiting Pluto, imbecile.

> These clever arguments, I see are
>merely a defense mechanisms. I have used them myself when confronting
>theists.

What "defence mechanisms" are you lying about, liar?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <q4SdnX4Oe4cdHn_N...@earthlink.com>,

Unevidenced assertion. No need to read past this until you've provided
that evidence.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 1 Jan, 00:42, Winslow <"Don L. Winslow"@pac.bell.net> wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 2:28 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>

[snipped for brevity and focus]

>  >
> A null hypothesis can never be proven.

The null hypothesis is the default position in any situation.

Results from observation and experiment can be used to reject the null
hypothesis.

So if you reject the null hypothesis, you have to demonstrate why you
reject it.

With observation and experiment that support your rejection.

> The alternative hypothesis,
> however, may be valid.

Is there an alternative to a null hypothesis?
>
[snipped for brevity and focus]

[thomas p.]

"Winslow" <"Don L. Winslow"@pac.bell.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:ciqEs.1377657$ti6.8...@fx20.am4...

Nothing can be proven. Without any evidence at all the assumption on
non-existence is the only logical conclusion. That does not, in any way,
deny the possibility of evidence.

>>
>>> I use the word agnostic in the same sense as I don't know whether or not
>>> intelligent life exist anywhere in the universe other than the Earth.
>>
>> That may actually be a valid viewpoint. To apply it to a creator is not
>> valid.
> >
> If the first statement is valid, then except for a priori position which
> negates the second, it must be an equally valid point of view.
>>
>>> What is the best evidence for the existence of a Creator god?
>>
>> There is none.
> >
> Is this a verifiable fact? Does a widely accept authoritative explanation
> rule out any other possible explanation such as a
> supernatural explanation?
> If so, does this not put science in a naturalistic straight jacket?

Nobody is denying the possibility of evidence, only that none has ever been
presented.

>>
>>> Can the existence of a creator god be falsified?
>>
>> No need. The failure of those claiming that a creator god exists leaves
>> us with the null hypothesis, that there is no creator god.
>>
> The the question is: do you _know_ there is no creator god? Do you'know
> for an absolute fact that no God exist? (God is a general, all-inclusive
> generic term)
>

No, the question is is there any evidence to consider. Without evidence to
consider for a creator it remains just as likely as the existence of magic
lamps. It is not, as you have suggested, analogous to life on other
planets, since we do have evidence that life exists in the universe - ie
here on Earth.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume