science vs. faith in WSJ
RichD
Lawrence Krauss, to the effect that god has no place
in science; "God did it" is not an acceptable theory
or explanation. It made no statement regarding religion
in the wider society.
Letters poured in, check them yourself:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
What do they all have in common?
hint: who was the first character Dorothy
met on the Yellow Brick Road?
--
Rich
Marvin the Martian
> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
> religion in the wider society.
>
> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
< snip snide comment >
True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
can't prove scientifically that God exists.
However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non-
existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is irrational.
The only scientific stand is to be agnostic; "I don't know" is
fundamental to science.
What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human.
Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need a
god.
What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural
selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to changing
conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow. The atheist seem to not
understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of
evolution just as the religious people did with creationism.
Christopher A. Lee
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>
>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>> religion in the wider society.
>>
>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>
> < snip snide comment >
>
>True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>
>IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
>can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>
>However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
Which is utterly irrelevant.
It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
Marvin the Martian
Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.
There are some things science can't do.
Olrik
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>
>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>
>>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>
>>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>>> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>>
>>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>> Which is utterly irrelevant.
>>
>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
>
> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
> measure it, you can't detect it.
Hint : we can play with it with drugs.
Olrik
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>
>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>> religion in the wider society.
>>
>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>
> < snip snide comment >
>
> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>
> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
> can't prove scientifically that God exists.
We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this
"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the
desert a few thousands years back, let it have its big come back! Go "god"!
(Although I'm not going to wait...)
Olrik
Christopher A. Lee
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>
>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>
>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>
>>>True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>
>>>IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>>>I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>>
>>>However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>>
>> Which is utterly irrelevant.
>>
>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
Well?
>Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
>measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
>our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.
Where did I say it was, imbecile?
And it's not my problem.
What has it got to do with anything that was being discussed>
Or was it a red herring because you couldn't address mey point?
If you had demonstrated this hypothetical god of yours to the same
level as consciousness you might have had a point.
But you didn't, and you haven't.
>There are some things science can't do.
There is nothing that religion can do apart from making people
incapable of dealing with reality.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss,
>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not
>>>>> an acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>>
>>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>>
>>>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not
>>>> repeatable. I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>>>
>>>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>>> Which is utterly irrelevant.
>>>
>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
>>
>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
>> measure it, you can't detect it.
>
> Hint : we can play with it with drugs.
And it shows up on a voltmeter? No it doesn't There is no scientific way
to measure it. And your method of evading the question is a fallacy. You
can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can not be
detected except as a personal experience remains.
There are some things that science can't do.
Since 'god' cannot be disproved, and humans need it, if god didn't exist
we'd have to invent him. So, the point is moot. The Science of
anthropology has shown that those without science are damned to
extinction.
So, welcome to Darwin's dustbin! You do believe in evolution and science,
don't you?
Christopher A. Lee
>Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>
>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>
>> < snip snide comment >
>>
>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>
>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
>> can't prove scientifically that God exists.
There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
It is merely somebody else's religious belief.
>We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this
>"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the
>desert a few thousands years back, let it have its big come back! Go "god"!
I'll never understand these morons. This is the real world outside
their religion.
Do they honestly imagine people would give a toss about its
deity-belief if they had the sense to keep it inside their religion?
Or that when they don't, the intellectually dishonest "you can't prove
it doesn't exist" is somehow a satisfactory answer?
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>
>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>
>> < snip snide comment >
>>
>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>
>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>
> We don't have to prove anything.
If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the position
of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. To believe in
something that you cannot prove is a religious belief.
As long as we're going to be religious, may as well pick a religion that
has been validated by natural selection and Darwin's principles.
Since science started in the western culture, and science has enabled the
population to expand by a factor of a thousand and is thus wildly
successful, the rational choice would be to start with a basis of
Christianity as practiced. I'm not talking about "Christianity" of the
modern era where they depend upon the teachings of Jesus; oh no! This was
tried 2000 years ago and those people became extinct. Any philosophy that
leads to the extinction of the people who practice it is a philosophy to
be rejected.
I'm talking about the Roman Religion of enlightenment, based on the old
Greek/Roman gods and perverted to a monotheistic religion. The work
ethic, the development of rational thought, a culture that valued the
scientific method.
The atheist belief has lead them to a negative growth rate; these people
and their degenerate culture are already in Darwin's dust bin. It is
foolish to take advice on how to live from a people who are already
doomed.
Marvin the Martian
Ah! The atheist, who claims to be rational, makes a fallacy!
You are not a rational person, but a hateful beast. Why would I try and
reason with animal, especially since you CHOSE to be an animal with your
irrational, emotional behavior and not choose to be human?
If you cannot detect consciousness, then you cannot detect the
consciousness of god. So, you don't know. Ergo, agnostic.
Welcome to darwin's dustbin, extinct one!
Marvin the Martian
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:53:55 -0400, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>
>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>
>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>
>>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>
>>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not
>>> repeatable. I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>
> There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Yes. You are making the "appeal to ignorance fallacy"; you're claiming
that since we can't know if there is a thing, that there is no thing.
That's illogical. Don't know means you don't know.
> It is merely somebody else's religious belief.
>>We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this
>>"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the
>>desert a few thousands years back, let it have its big come back! Go
>>"god"!
>
> I'll never understand these morons. This is the real world outside their
> religion.
Irrelvant argumentum ad hominem, and appeal to your own ignorance, is
noted and amusing.
> Do they honestly imagine people would give a toss about its deity-belief
> if they had the sense to keep it inside their religion?
>
> Or that when they don't, the intellectually dishonest "you can't prove
> it doesn't exist" is somehow a satisfactory answer?
Don't know is the scientific answer. Your choice is to be irrational and
hateful. I'm good with that. I like dogs, too.
You're mistaken if you think I'm a Christian. Not at all. I know,
scientifically, however, that Christianity has been wildly successful
evolution wise.
But I can't have a rational discussion with a liberal wack-job.
Enkidu
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>
>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>> religion in the wider society.
>>
>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>
> < snip snide comment >
>
> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>
> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>
> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you
sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they
do.
"No one can prove X doesn't exist" is no reason to believe X does exist,
whatever X may be.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to
create him." - Arthur C. Clarke
Enkidu
Yet.
Olrik
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:50:20 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>>>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss,
>>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not
>>>>>> an acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>>>
>>>>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not
>>>>> repeatable. I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>>>> Which is utterly irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
>>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
>>> measure it, you can't detect it.
>> Hint : we can play with it with drugs.
>
> And it shows up on a voltmeter?
Are you daft? Cancer does not show up on a voltmeter either, are you
telling me it does not exist?
> No it doesn't There is no scientific way
> to measure it.
So are a lot of brain activities.
> And your method of evading the question is a fallacy.
I answered it perfectly. Consciousness is made up in our brain, like
anything we feel.
> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can not be
> detected except as a personal experience remains.
So are dreams. What the fuck is your point, by the way?
> There are some things that science can't do.
Absolutely. So don't ask it for them.
> Since 'god' cannot be disproved,
It certainly could is you'd care to define it for us :
(I'll leave some space here for your definition)
> and humans need it,
Really?
> if god didn't exist we'd have to invent him.
And, BY JOVE, we *DID*!
> So, the point is moot. The Science of
> anthropology has shown that those without science are damned to
> extinction.
>
> So, welcome to Darwin's dustbin! You do believe in evolution and science,
> don't you?
These are not beliefs.
Olrik
Olrik
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>
>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>> < snip snide comment >
>>
>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>
>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>
>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>
> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you
> sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they
> do.
That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
Olrik
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
God doesn't have to prove He exists.
Mitch Raemsch
Olrik
How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing...
Olrik
> Mitch Raemsch
polymer
<snippage>
> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
> measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
> our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.
No:
Most of us claim to _have_ consciousness, but really
quite a few of us do not claim to observe it.
I can identify many internal states, but
not one of them is identifiable as My Consciousness
itself.
Interest, fear, aggression, attraction, confusion,
elation, depression, remembering,
---- just a few of thousands
of internal states we have access to ---- yet not
any of these can be identified as "consciousness."
At least not by many of us.
This has a close parallel in Hume's relply to Descartes.
Treatise of Human Nature (I, IV, vi): “For my part, when I enter most
intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular
perception or other… I never can catch myself without a perception, and
never can observe anything but the perception.”
So, when you say we all observe consciousness,
I say "whaddya mean we?"
Pink Freud
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cff1f033-d08d-4cc3...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You're right.
That particular onus is on... whoever wants to talk about God with any
degree of credence, to anyone outside of their particular belief system.
And that would be you, I guess?
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:50:20 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>
>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
>>>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You
>>>> can't measure it, you can't detect it.
>>> Hint : we can play with it with drugs.
>>
>> And it shows up on a voltmeter?
>
> Are you daft? Cancer does not show up on a voltmeter either, are you
> telling me it does not exist?
I can find cancer with an X-ray or a microscope. You can't do that with
consciousness. There is no way to measure it. It is outside the realm of
science.
So, if we KNOW we have it, and we can't measure it except for within
ourselves, how do we know that other things don't have it? WE don't. WE
don't know.
Now, it is here I'd like to point out your hateful demeanor. A Christian
would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. If they
did lose their temper, they would feel guilty and ashamed for doing so.
You atheist tend to feel ENTITLED to hate and spew at anyone you disagree
with, and to slander them without mercy. It is one of the anti-social
traits of the atheist that has damned you and your kind to Darwin's
Dustbin of evolution.
>> No it doesn't There is no scientific way to measure it.
>
> So are a lot of brain activities.
>
>> And your method of evading the question is a fallacy.
>
> I answered it perfectly. Consciousness is made up in our brain, like
> anything we feel.
Prove it. Scientifically. Measure it and prove it. Point to a
measurement. How much, what does it weigh, what energy does it have?
You can't.
>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can
>> not be detected except as a personal experience remains.
>
> So are dreams. What the fuck is your point, by the way?
That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if you
were religious and that in any culture save the Christian one, some one
would have offed you for being socially unacceptable.
Funny thing, that. You hate the only culture in which you can exist. Like
I said, you and your fellows are already in Darwin's dustbin.
< snip snide "aint so" posting. >
Marvin the Martian
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:41:40 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss,
>>>>> to the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not
>>>>> an acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>>
>>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>>
>>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>>
>>>>True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not
>>>>repeatable. I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>>>
>>>>However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>>>
>>> Which is utterly irrelevant.
>>>
>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
>>
>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
>> measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
>> our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.
>>
>> There are some things science can't do.
>
> Yet.
Or at all, even in theory. If you think otherwise, then you're ignorant
of science.
I would like to see a religion created with certain ground rules; like
the religion can only address areas where science cannot go. These
Christians get upset because evolution or the physics of the big bang
conflict with their religious belief.
Quite frankly, the bible is a book written by humans, like all the other
religious books out there. Now, the universe, that MUST be written by
"God" if God exists. God's laws and the laws of mathematics and physical
law are one and the same.
To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask
God a question and God gives us answers.
Like I've said, atheist are damned to Darwin's dustbin. Their birth rate
is below their replacement rate, their behavior is anti-social and
hateful, and their beliefs irrational. They really BELIEVE that there are
too many people and they WANT to die off. How stupid is that? They feel
that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with,
particularly if they are Christian.
Drop these same folks into a Moslem society, and they would have their
heads cut off in short order. Few cultures would tolerate their anti-
social behaviors. The only culture that would put up with them is the
modern christian one, and the atheist are trying to take the Christians
down with them.
Marvin the Martian
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:41:40 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote: <snippage>
>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
>> measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
>> our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.
> <snippage>
>
> No:
> Most of us claim to _have_ consciousness, but really quite a few of us
> do not claim to observe it.
I'll take your word for it that you're not living.
Pink Freud
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:26:48 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>
Snip
>>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can
>>> not be detected except as a personal experience remains.
>>
>> So are dreams. What the fuck is your point, by the way?
>
> That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if you
> were religious
Woah. Stop.
Here's where you need to present a little evidence of your own.
Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than the
religious? That's a pretty bold and sweeping claim. Care to back it up, or
was it just a little snide insult back from yourself? It's ok if it was. But
I think we should know.
Enkidu
> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the
> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist.
I believe giant invisible rats crawl out of your butt every night as you
sleep. I can't *prove* they do, but you can't *prove* they don't. So you
must be an agnostic with regard to the giant invisible butt-rats, right?
After all, you can't simply lack the belief because I lack evidence to
support my butt-rat theory.
It sounds stupid when it's somebody else's stupid beliefs. But your Jesus
makes as much sense to me at the butt-rats do to you.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B.
Anthony
Pink Freud
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
How's this for hateful?
Go fuck yourself, you arrogant prick.
You say "They feel
> that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with,
> particularly if they are Christian. "
...about a very broad group of people who just don't happen to share your
beliefs and you cant see the irony there?
>
Benj
> Enkidu wrote:
> > No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you
> > sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they
> > do.
>
> That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
> about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
1. To say that something is "impossible" is identical to saying "I'm a
moron".
[In order to actually KNOW something is impossible, one would have to
possess knowledge of all possible things in the entire universe...in
other words you'd have to BE "god"]
2. "no reason" has different levels. It might be that YOU have never
seen any evidence of giant invisible rats in the morning. Or it might
be that while you haven't seen any evidence yourself, various people
have reported evidence, or it might be that "science" has simply not
yet invented the rat-viewer needed to see them. All these things may
raise doubts about the "invisible butt-rat" theory. But the point is
not are the rats 100% true or 100% false, but rather an assessment of
the probability of each case. To round up either view to 100% is an
act of faith not science.
3. But what is interesting is that the final statement above shows
that you want to turn the rat-theory into a religion. It's all about
BELIEF! Why should anyone believe or disbelieve in butt-rats based on
no evidence or at best incomplete evidence? That is quite
unscientific.
4. Which means that Agnostics have the "scientific view" by demanding
proof of everything. Where evidence is incomplete, their belief is
incomplete. The atheists (the No-butt-rat believers in this case) may
find comfort from their faith, but as pointed out above logically they
are the ones who are stooopid.
polymer
It is you who is failing to pass the Turing test here.
Marvin the Martian
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>
>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>
>> < snip snide comment >
>>
>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>
>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>
>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>
> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as
> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that
> they do.
The ironic thing is, the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that you're
using here is the same illogic that lead to religion in the first place!
The only difference between you is, when the religious got to the part
where they don't know, they said ignorance means they know it exists, and
you said ignorance means you know it doesn't exist.
Despite the claim otherwise, we should be unconscious matter, and yet we
are not. That hints at god.
But I'm NOT saying God exists. I'm saying that:
- I don't know one way or the other.
- Religious belief is pan human, the science of anthropology has shown
this. If we want a functional society, then we MUST have a religion. Look
at how sociopathic you atheist are. I'd much rather live with Christians
than you hate filled folks.
- IF there is a god, then his word is physical law, and we can ask
questions of him through scientific experiments.
Enkidu
God doesn't have to exist.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
Marvin the Martian
>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as
>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that
>> they do.
>
> That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
> about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say
"I don't know" precludes the use of science.
It is irrelevant if god exists, and I don't know if he/she/it does. The
fact remains humans need religion least we end up as pathetic hate filled
sociopaths as seen here in this thread.
Enkidu
So you know what can be known and what cannot be known? You know what is
unknowable? How can you know the unknowable?
Such omniscience . . . care to back it up?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
Pink Freud
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
You insulted me first. Along with most of the posters on alt.atheism.
What exactly were you expecting?
Marvin the Martian
> God doesn't have to prove He exists.
Indeed! I can't prove that Olrik isn't anything more than animated meat.
I take it as a matter of faith that he is a living human being with
consciousness.
One may as well take it as faith that God exists as well. given the order
and consistency of physical law we find in the universe and the fact that
we can, by experiment, know God's laws. We need it, least we all become
hate filled Olriks that spew insults at everyone and feeling entitled to
do so.
Christopher A. Lee
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:05:09 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:53:55 -0400, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>>
>>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>>
>>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>>
>>>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not
>>>> repeatable. I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>
>> There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
>
>Yes. You are making the "appeal to ignorance fallacy"; you're claiming
I am doing no such thing, moron.
If you idiots had any you wouldn't resort to the dishonest fallacies
that fool nobody.
>that since we can't know if there is a thing, that there is no thing.
There is no reason whatsoever even to give it a though.
>That's illogical. Don't know means you don't know.
What is there to "not know", moron?
>> It is merely somebody else's religious belief.
Well?
>>>We don't have to prove anything. All we have to do is wait for this
>>>"god" thing to manifest itself. After all, it was quite busy in the
>>>desert a few thousands years back, let it have its big come back! Go
>>>"god"!
>>
>> I'll never understand these morons. This is the real world outside their
>> religion.
Well, moron?
>Irrelvant argumentum ad hominem, and appeal to your own ignorance, is
>noted and amusing.
What "appeal to my own ignorance" are you lying about?
>> Do they honestly imagine people would give a toss about its deity-belief
>> if they had the sense to keep it inside their religion?
>>
>> Or that when they don't, the intellectually dishonest "you can't prove
>> it doesn't exist" is somehow a satisfactory answer?
>
>Don't know is the scientific answer.
To what, moron? Until you demonstrate otherwise it is no different
than a teapot orbitibng Pluto. Is "don't know" the scientific answer
to that as well?
> Your choice is to be irrational and
>hateful.
No liar. Just treating a moron posting his stupidity and dishonesty in
an atheist newsgroup, as a stupid and dishonest moron.
> I'm good with that. I like dogs, too.
Idiot.
>You're mistaken if you think I'm a Christian. Not at all. I know,
>scientifically, however, that Christianity has been wildly successful
>evolution wise.
II don't care what you are - just that you imagine transparent
dishonesty sgould fool anybody.
>But I can't have a rational discussion with a liberal wack-job.
You can't hold a rational discussion, period.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>
>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>
>> < snip snide comment >
>>
>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>
>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>
>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>
>No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you
>sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they
>do.
>
>"No one can prove X doesn't exist" is no reason to believe X does exist,
>whatever X may be.
Does he seriously imagine it fools anybody? Or that it is a
satisfactory answer when theists beg the question?
Marvin the Martian
>> God doesn't have to prove He exists.
>
> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing...
I can, by your logic, disbelieve that YOU are more than a hunk of meat on
the hoof, a mindless automaton, a simple biological machine without
consciousness.
Pink Freud
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
God posts on usenet, does he now? Because I'm pretty sure Olrik has been.
Enkidu
> A Christian
> would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself.
Ever hear of VenomFangX? He's a Christian, and a hateful little weasel
just like you.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:41:40 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>>
>>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>>
>>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>>
>>>>True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>>>>I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>>>
>>>>However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>>>
>>> Which is utterly irrelevant.
>>>
>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
>>
>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
>> measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
>> our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.
Somebody tell the dishonest imbecile I never said consciousness was
invented.
It's a label given to an observed phenomenon.
And his red herring.
>> There are some things science can't do.
>
>Yet.
The imbecile used a standard dishonest bait'n'switch from the
unevidenced and disputes, to something evidenced and undisputed. As
though they were equivalent.
It's hiding behind solipsism - you can't prove anything therefore my
unsupported claim is as valid as anything else.
Do they really expect this kind of dishonest cop out to satisfy
anybody?
Christopher A. Lee
>BURT wrote:
>> God doesn't have to prove He exists.
>
>How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing...
It's another standard theist donesty.
Nobody is asking it to prove it exists - we're asking these dishonest
wankers to either put up or shut up.
And all dishonest idiots like him do, is reinforce the conclusions
made long ago about both them and their beliefs.
>Olrik
>
>> Mitch Raemsch
Enkidu
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:23:52 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>
>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>
>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>
>>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>
>>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not
>>> repeatable. I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>>
>>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>>
>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as
>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that
>> they do.
>
> The ironic thing is, the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that you're
> using here is the same illogic that lead to religion in the first place!
>
> The only difference between you is, when the religious got to the part
> where they don't know, they said ignorance means they know it exists,
> and you said ignorance means you know it doesn't exist.
*WRONG* I never said I know no god exists. I said "Based on the lack of
evidence that any god exists, I am unconvinced - faced with the choice of
believing or not believing, I don't believe. If you have evidence,
present it."
Do you believe Thor exists? The evidence is either compelling or it is
not. If it is not, then you don't believe. That doesn't mean Thor can't
exist . . . just that the evidence is to weak to be convincing.
Olrik
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:26:48 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:50:20 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>>>>> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
>>>>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You
>>>>> can't measure it, you can't detect it.
>>>> Hint : we can play with it with drugs.
>>> And it shows up on a voltmeter?
>> Are you daft? Cancer does not show up on a voltmeter either, are you
>> telling me it does not exist?
>
> I can find cancer with an X-ray or a microscope. You can't do that with
> consciousness.
That's why your example of the voltmeter was flawed. As I wrote, you
*can* play with consciousness with drugs. Consciousness is no more
measurable than other human emotions and perceptions.
> There is no way to measure it. It is outside the realm of science.
> So, if we KNOW we have it, and we can't measure it except for within
> ourselves, how do we know that other things don't have it? WE don't. WE
> don't know.
So?
> Now, it is here I'd like to point out your hateful demeanor. A Christian
> would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself. If they
> did lose their temper, they would feel guilty and ashamed for doing so.
> You atheist tend to feel ENTITLED to hate and spew at anyone you disagree
> with, and to slander them without mercy. It is one of the anti-social
> traits of the atheist that has damned you and your kind to Darwin's
> Dustbin of evolution.
Wow.
>>> No it doesn't There is no scientific way to measure it.
>> So are a lot of brain activities.
>>
>>> And your method of evading the question is a fallacy.
>> I answered it perfectly. Consciousness is made up in our brain, like
>> anything we feel.
>
> Prove it. Scientifically. Measure it and prove it. Point to a
> measurement. How much, what does it weigh, what energy does it have?
How much weight dreams? Ambition? Sense of orientation? Those are
idiotic questions.
> You can't.
Sure :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaesthetic_drugs
With those drugs, you lose consciousness, i.e. you're not aware of
anything anymore, proving that consciousness is a product of the human
brain.
>>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness can
>>> not be detected except as a personal experience remains.
>> So are dreams. What the fuck is your point, by the way?
>
> That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if you
> were religious and that in any culture save the Christian one, some one
> would have offed you for being socially unacceptable.
>
> Funny thing, that. You hate the only culture in which you can exist. Like
> I said, you and your fellows are already in Darwin's dustbin.
You sure like that "Darwin's dustbin" expression.
Olrik
Christopher A. Lee
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
What a fucking moron.
>I would like to see a religion created with certain ground rules; like
>the religion can only address areas where science cannot go. These
>Christians get upset because evolution or the physics of the big bang
>conflict with their religious belief.
And nobody would give a flying fuck if they had the sense to keep
their religion t o themselves.
>Quite frankly, the bible is a book written by humans, like all the other
>religious books out there. Now, the universe, that MUST be written by
>"God" if God exists. God's laws and the laws of mathematics and physical
>law are one and the same.
Which is irrelevant outside the virtual reality of Christianity.
>To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask
>God a question and God gives us answers.
Only in the deluded fantasies of theists out of touch with reality.
>Like I've said, atheist are damned to Darwin's dustbin.
Liar.
> Their birth rate
>is below their replacement rate, their behavior is anti-social and
>hateful, and their beliefs irrational.
Liar.
And what "beliefs"?
> They really BELIEVE that there are
>too many people and they WANT to die off.
Liar.
> How stupid is that?
It's your stupid fabrication.
> They feel
>that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with,
>particularly if they are Christian.
Only the stupid or dishonest ones who wipe it in people's faces, liar.
>Drop these same folks into a Moslem society, and they would have their
>heads cut off in short order. Few cultures would tolerate their anti-
>social behaviors. The only culture that would put up with them is the
>modern christian one, and the atheist are trying to take the Christians
>down with them.
Liar.
Enkidu
Don't like atheist? Leave alt.atheism.
Christopher A. Lee
What a fucking moron.
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:26:48 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>
>>
> Snip
>
>>>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness
>>>> can not be detected except as a personal experience remains.
>>>
>>> So are dreams. What the fuck is your point, by the way?
>>
>> That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if
>> you were religious
>
> Woah. Stop.
>
> Here's where you need to present a little evidence of your own.
>
> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than the
> religious?
I don't see any Christians here flaming me, but the first three or four
atheist have gleefully done so and they feel quite justified in doing so.
Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they make it a sin
to display such hatred.
You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology
shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart.
Marvin the Martian
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:58:22 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> A Christian
>> would feel it would be sin to be a flame-boy such as yourself.
>
> Ever hear of VenomFangX? He's a Christian, and a hateful little weasel
> just like you.
Flames noted. Nope, never heard of that person, and your neglectful
induction fallacy proves you're irrational.
Marvin the Martian
> How's this for hateful?
>
> Go fuck yourself, you arrogant prick.
Q.E.D.
Christopher A. Lee
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:23:52 +0000, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>>
>>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>>
>>> < snip snide comment >
>>>
>>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>>
>>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>>> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>>
>>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>>
>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as
>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that
>> they do.
>
>The ironic thing is, the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that you're
>using here is the same illogic that lead to religion in the first place!
What "appeal to ignorance" were yuou pretending he made, liar?
>The only difference between you is, when the religious got to the part
>where they don't know, they said ignorance means they know it exists, and
>you said ignorance means you know it doesn't exist.
Why don't you learn to read for comprehension, moron?
>Despite the claim otherwise, we should be unconscious matter, and yet we
>are not. That hints at god.
Only in the deluded fantasies of those already brainwashed to believe
in it.
>But I'm NOT saying God exists. I'm saying that:
>- I don't know one way or the other.
WHAT IS THERE TO NOT KNOW "ONE WAY OR THE OTHER", IMBECILE?
>- Religious belief is pan human, the science of anthropology has shown
>this. If we want a functional society, then we MUST have a religion. Look
No, moron.
>at how sociopathic you atheist are.
Theonly sociopath here is yourself, who is incapable of seeing the
real world outside theistic religion.
> I'd much rather live with Christians
>than you hate filled folks.
Oh, the irony.
>- IF there is a god, then his word is physical law, and we can ask
>questions of him through scientific experiments.
Give us a reason to postulate one when there is nothing even to
suggest one apart from pre-existing belief due to childhood
brainwashing.
Christopher A. Lee
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:31:11 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>
>
>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as
>>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that
>>> they do.
>>
>> That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
>> about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
>
>Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say
>"I don't know" precludes the use of science.
Yet another straw man.
WHAT IS THERE TO SAY "I DON'T KNOW" ABOUT?
>It is irrelevant if god exists, and I don't know if he/she/it does. The
So what?
>fact remains humans need religion least we end up as pathetic hate filled
>sociopaths as seen here in this thread.
Liar.
Olrik
It is your prerogative to believe or disbelieve anything. What is *NOT*
your prerogative is to tell people what to believe or disbelieve.
Olrik
Olrik
Good one!
Olrik
Christopher A. Lee
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:34:14 -0700, BURT wrote:
>
>
>> God doesn't have to prove He exists.
>
>Indeed! I can't prove that Olrik isn't anything more than animated meat.
>I take it as a matter of faith that he is a living human being with
>consciousness.
Nobody is asking it to prove it exists, imbecile.
Just that its followers either put up or shut up.
Are you even capable of understanding the difference?
>One may as well take it as faith that God exists as well. given the order
>and consistency of physical law we find in the universe and the fact that
>we can, by experiment, know God's laws. We need it, least we all become
>hate filled Olriks that spew insults at everyone and feeling entitled to
>do so.
What's God, moron?
Pink Freud
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:06:50 +0100, Pink Freud wrote:
>
>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:26:48 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Snip
>>
>>>>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness
>>>>> can not be detected except as a personal experience remains.
>>>>
>>>> So are dreams. What the fuck is your point, by the way?
>>>
>>> That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if
>>> you were religious
>>
>> Woah. Stop.
>>
>> Here's where you need to present a little evidence of your own.
>>
>> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than the
>> religious?
>
> I don't see any Christians here flaming me, but the first three or four
> atheist have gleefully done so and they feel quite justified in doing so.
> Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they make it a sin
> to display such hatred.
>
You seem to take it as a cultural value to sweepingly generalise, not caring
who you insult in the process.
I know of plenty of hate-filled Christians.
> You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths.
And again, fuck you too.
>Anthropology
> shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart.
>
You really are an arrogant fool. Try posting something objective, rather
than your own predjudices.
Pink Freud
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
Bullshit.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>
> > Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
> > the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
> > acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
> > religion in the wider society.
> >
> > Letters poured in, check them yourself:
> > http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>
> < snip snide comment >
>
> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>
> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
> can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>
> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
Why is this relevant? You can not prove that the tooth fairy does not
exist.
> Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non-
> existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is irrational.
> The only scientific stand is to be agnostic; "I don't know" is
> fundamental to science.
You have a misunderstanding about what atheism is. It is not a belief
that god(s) do not exist. It is a lack of belief in god(s).
> What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human.
> Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need a
> god.
Not exactly true. Mostly people have believe in animist spirits in every
rock, tree and blade of grass or in a large number of gods. A belief in
a monotheist god is not universal.
Through out history slavery has been a nearly universal fact. You could
extend the logic of your statement to say that "if you're going to have
a functional society, humans need slavery". You are confusing the
universal with the with necessary.
> What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural
> selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to changing
> conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow.
Do you have proof of a "god gene"? Here you are confusing genes with
memes.
I ask you has there been a biological evolution in the last couple of
hundred years resulting in fewer people believing in god(s) or has there
been a cultural evolution?
> The atheist seem to not
> understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of
> evolution just as the religious people did with creationism.
There's that bloody Marxist strawman again. Give him a rest. I've got to
tell you that I get bloody sick and tired of that cheap shot.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened.
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Marvin the Martian
> So you know what can be known and what cannot be known? You know what is
> unknowable? How can you know the unknowable?
>
> Such omniscience . . . care to back it up?
Again, dumping fallacies at me only proves you're irrational. This
fallacy is called the "straw man" fallacy; you fabricate (read you lied)
a false argument that I didn't present, then you attack that and pretend
that you've attacked my argument.
I said somethings were NOT knowable. You laughingly misconstrued that to
say that I'm claiming to be omniscience.
What goes on inside of a black hole is unphysical. What goes on outside
the universe is unphysical. There are many things that are not knowable.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:27:11 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
> > <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
> >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
> >>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
> >>> religion in the wider society.
> >>>
> >>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
> >>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
> >>
> >> < snip snide comment >
> >>
> >>True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
> >>
> >>IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
> >>I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
> >>
> >>However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
> >
> > Which is utterly irrelevant.
> >
> > It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
>
> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
> measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
> our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.
>
> There are some things science can't do.
Religion can not explain these things either. What you have used is the
"god of the gaps" argument. An oldie but a goodie among believers.
Olrik
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:34:14 -0700, BURT wrote:
>
>
>> God doesn't have to prove He exists.
>
> Indeed! I can't prove that Olrik isn't anything more than animated meat.
> I take it as a matter of faith that he is a living human being with
> consciousness.
You abuse the word "faith".
You can use the word "trust", for example.
> One may as well take it as faith that God exists as well. given the order
> and consistency of physical law we find in the universe and the fact that
> we can, by experiment, know God's laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
> We need it, least we all become
> hate filled Olriks that spew insults at everyone and feeling entitled to
> do so.
Don't take this debate personally. It's not about winning, it's about
participating.
You're doing very well.
Olrik
Marvin the Martian
> Somebody tell the dishonest imbecile
> The imbecile
More evidence that atheist are sociopaths.
Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold
religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is wrong.
A sociopath would out of necessity reject all moral values, and thus
cannot be religious. This particular sociopath feels ENTITLED and
rightful to be hateful and mean spirited. There is no way this individual
can be a party to a functional society.
Marvin the Martian
How do I know you're not a figment of my imagination? How do I know Olrik
isn't anything more than a meat puppet? I don't. I take it as a matter of
faith, not for HIS miserable sake, but for MINE.
Olrik
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:06:50 +0100, Pink Freud wrote:
>
>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:26:48 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Snip
>>
>>>>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness
>>>>> can not be detected except as a personal experience remains.
>>>> So are dreams. What the fuck is your point, by the way?
>>> That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if
>>> you were religious
>> Woah. Stop.
>>
>> Here's where you need to present a little evidence of your own.
>>
>> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than the
>> religious?
>
> I don't see any Christians here flaming me,
> but the first three or four
> atheist have gleefully done so and they feel quite justified in doing so.
We do not suffer fools.
> Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they make it a sin
> to display such hatred.
>
> You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology
> shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart.
What "culture"?
Olrik
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> If you cannot detect consciousness, then you cannot detect the
> consciousness of god. So, you don't know. Ergo, agnostic.
The existence of god(s) does not depend on explaining consciousness. But
the reality is that religion has no explanation either. What you are
doing is using the "god of the gaps" fallacy.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask
> God a question and God gives us answers.
Try to get results without the instruments and use ONLY a prayer. You
can't. Your god does not exist except with scientific experimentation
and when you isolate the science part to test for the god part you are
left with nothing.
Olrik
My existence is not controversial, nor exceptional. You experience other
people every day.
Olrik
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:31:11 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as
>>>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe
>>>> that they do.
>>>
>>> That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
>>> about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
>>
>> Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say
>> "I don't know" precludes the use of science.
>>
>> It is irrelevant if god exists, and I don't know if he/she/it does. The
>> fact remains humans need religion least we end up as pathetic hate
>> filled sociopaths as seen here in this thread.
>
> You insulted me first. Along with most of the posters on alt.atheism.
>
> What exactly were you expecting?
I see... you think you know everything and thus when I said "only idiots
and fools think they know everything", you felt I called you and idiot
and a fool and that is insulting.
If the shoe fits...
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> Drop these same folks into a Moslem society, and they would have their
> heads cut off in short order. Few cultures would tolerate their anti-
> social behaviors. The only culture that would put up with them is the
> modern christian one, and the atheist are trying to take the Christians
> down with them.
This is bone stupid. Most "modern christian cultures" are barely Xian
and barely religious at all. The more Xian cultures are the more
intolerant cultures.
Olrik
> On Jul 3, 10:31 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you
>>> sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they
>>> do.
>> That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
>> about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
>
> moron".
> [In order to actually KNOW something is impossible, one would have to
> possess knowledge of all possible things in the entire universe...in
> other words you'd have to BE "god"]
>
> 2. "no reason" has different levels. It might be that YOU have never
> seen any evidence of giant invisible rats in the morning. Or it might
> be that while you haven't seen any evidence yourself, various people
> have reported evidence, or it might be that "science" has simply not
> yet invented the rat-viewer needed to see them. All these things may
> raise doubts about the "invisible butt-rat" theory. But the point is
> not are the rats 100% true or 100% false, but rather an assessment of
> the probability of each case. To round up either view to 100% is an
> act of faith not science.
>
> 3. But what is interesting is that the final statement above shows
> that you want to turn the rat-theory into a religion. It's all about
> BELIEF! Why should anyone believe or disbelieve in butt-rats based on
> no evidence or at best incomplete evidence? That is quite
> unscientific.
>
> 4. Which means that Agnostics have the "scientific view" by demanding
> proof of everything. Where evidence is incomplete, their belief is
> incomplete.
But about their knowledge?
The atheists (the No-butt-rat believers in this case) may
> find comfort from their faith, but as pointed out above logically they
> are the ones who are stooopid.
Psst : You're not required to write like a kid to make a point.
Enkidu
>> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than
>> the religious?
>
> I don't see any Christians here flaming me . . . .
You're pushing God in alt.atheism! What the fuck did you expect?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus
Enkidu
He wouldn't have anything to post.
Enkidu
You wouldn't know rational if it bit you on the ass.
Enkidu
> I said somethings were NOT knowable.
Give an example.
Pink Freud
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:19:14 +0100, Pink Freud wrote:
>
>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:31:11 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as
>>>>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe
>>>>> that they do.
>>>>
>>>> That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
>>>> about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
>>>
>>> Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say
>>> "I don't know" precludes the use of science.
>>>
>>> It is irrelevant if god exists, and I don't know if he/she/it does. The
>>> fact remains humans need religion least we end up as pathetic hate
>>> filled sociopaths as seen here in this thread.
>>
>> You insulted me first. Along with most of the posters on alt.atheism.
>>
>> What exactly were you expecting?
>
> I see... you think you know everything
No. I have never said that. Is it not 'hateful' to lie about people?
> and thus when I said "only idiots
> and fools think they know everything", you felt I called you and idiot
> and a fool and that is insulting.
>
No. When you said: "> Like I've said, atheist are damned to Darwin's
dustbin. Their birth rate
> is below their replacement rate, their behavior is anti-social and
> hateful, and their beliefs irrational. They really BELIEVE that there are
> too many people and they WANT to die off. How stupid is that? They feel
> that they are ENTITLED to insult and hate anyone who they disagree with,
> particularly if they are Christian."
I felt THAT was pretty insulting. And bigoted. Replace 'atheist' with any
religion, gender, sexual orientation or race, is it still acceptable
comment?
> If the shoe fits...
Marvin the Martian
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:12:07 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the
>> position of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist.
>
> I believe giant invisible rats crawl out of your butt every night as you
> sleep. I can't *prove* they do, but you can't *prove* they don't. So you
> must be an agnostic with regard to the giant invisible butt-rats, right?
> After all, you can't simply lack the belief because I lack evidence to
> support my butt-rat theory.
>
> It sounds stupid when it's somebody else's stupid beliefs. But your
> Jesus makes as much sense to me at the butt-rats do to you.
Your anal fixation and bestiality perversions are noted. No wonder you
rejected Christianity.
I see no reason to believe in your butt rats.
I see reason to believe in God.
My Jesus?! You're presumption is that I'm a Christian, but there is no
frackin' way that Jesus guy is God! Too much of what he says conflicts
with the way the universe is made. It has been shown mathematically that
the BEST rule is "the silver rule", not the golden rule. The silver rule
being "treat others the way they treat you" or "you scratch my back and
I'll scratch yours".
And that "turn the other cheek" and give up all your belongings stuff and
live like a bird without working is just plain old suicide.
That 'slaves obey your masters" order was just insane. No way should
someone treat themselves so poorly as to accept a life of slavery.
Nope. I'm sure that Jesus and God are not acquainted. Jesus started a
death cult. Don't breed, don't own anything, let others take your tools
(humans are tool users by nature...), don't defend yourself!
Luckily, the Romans took over his religion and changed it; they added a
work ethic, the right to self defense, and made some sense out of it. And
their religion WORKED. It was wildly successful and not just lead to the
success of western culture but the entire world.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> Yes. You are making the "appeal to ignorance fallacy"; you're claiming
> that since we can't know if there is a thing, that there is no thing.
> That's illogical. Don't know means you don't know.
But this is exactly what YOU are doing. You are making an appeal to
ignorance. We don't know where consciousness comes from, therefore God
exists.
Enkidu
> Stop and think about it; people who have a religious belief and hold
> religious moral values have to know that such hateful behavior is wrong.
Yep . . . religious people never commit crimes, never lie, cheat, steal,
commit adultery, etc. Except they do. Atheists are underrepresented in
U.S. prisons and in divorce courts. Why is that, if religion makes people
better?
Olrik
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:31:11 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>
>
>>> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as
>>> you sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that
>>> they do.
>> That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
>> about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
>
> Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say
> "I don't know" precludes the use of science.
It's a matter of probability.
If I say that there's a green dragon at the center of the moon, part of
you *has* to think that it might be so, and part of you *has* to think
it's not true.
> It is irrelevant if god exists, and I don't know if he/she/it does. The
> fact remains humans need religion
Humans need conformity within the group.
Olrik
Enkidu
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:23:36 +0100, Pink Freud wrote:
>
>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:38:50 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists.
>>>>
>>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing...
>>>
>>> I can, by your logic, disbelieve that YOU are more than a hunk of meat
>>> on the hoof, a mindless automaton, a simple biological machine without
>>> consciousness.
>>>
>>>
>> God posts on usenet, does he now? Because I'm pretty sure Olrik has
>> been.
>
> How do I know you're not a figment of my imagination?
If you don't believe your senses, then there's no sense in you trying to
communicate. An attempt to communicate assumes an external world
accurately perceived.
polymer
<snippage>
> You wouldn't know rational if it bit you on the ass.
In fact it has, which is making it very difficult for
him to argue by the seat of his pants.
Marvin the Martian
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:06:50 +0100, Pink Freud wrote:
>>
>>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:26:48 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Snip
>>>
>>>>>> You can make snide little "hints" all you want, but self awareness
>>>>>> can not be detected except as a personal experience remains.
>>>>>
>>>>> So are dreams. What the fuck is your point, by the way?
>>>>
>>>> That you're a sociopath, that you probably wouldn't be a sociopath if
>>>> you were religious
>>>
>>> Woah. Stop.
>>>
>>> Here's where you need to present a little evidence of your own.
>>>
>>> Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to be sociopaths than
>>> the religious?
>>
>> I don't see any Christians here flaming me, but the first three or four
>> atheist have gleefully done so and they feel quite justified in doing
>> so. Christians take it as a cultural value to be nice, and they make it
>> a sin to display such hatred.
>>
>>
> You seem to take it as a cultural value to sweepingly generalise, not
> caring who you insult in the process.
I made the point that there are many things I don't know. I made a
statement about how people who think they know everything were foolish.
You found that offensive.
I stand by the fact that people who think they know everything are
foolish. IF that offends you, then you are a fool. What can I say? Not
many people would question the if... then premise I made.
> I know of plenty of hate-filled Christians.
There is no culture where everyone meets the cultural ideal. The
difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate
filled is a sin.
You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating people.
>> You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths.
>
> And again, fuck you too.
And again, you prove my point by example.
>>Anthropology
>> shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart.
>>
>>
> You really are an arrogant fool. Try posting something objective, rather
> than your own predjudices.
Ironic.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:53:55 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>
> > Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
> >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
> >>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
> >>> religion in the wider society.
> >>>
> >>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
> >>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
> >>
> >> < snip snide comment >
> >>
> >> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
> >>
> >> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
> >> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
> >
> > We don't have to prove anything.
>
> If you cannot prove it scientifically, then you have to take the position
> of an agnostic and you cannot rationally be an atheist. To believe in
> something that you cannot prove is a religious belief.
You do not understand what atheism is. A-theism is a lack of belief in
god(s)as in amoral. It is NOT a belief that there is/are no god(s). That
would be im-theism as in immoral. Agnosticism is not about belief. It is
about knowledge of god(s). An agnostic does not have KNOWLEDGE of god
(s). An agnostic can be an atheist or a theist.
> As long as we're going to be religious, may as well pick a religion that
> has been validated by natural selection and Darwin's principles.
Religions evolve by cultural evolution, not biological evolution.
> Since science started in the western culture, and science has enabled the
> population to expand by a factor of a thousand and is thus wildly
> successful, the rational choice would be to start with a basis of
> Christianity as practiced. I'm not talking about "Christianity" of the
> modern era where they depend upon the teachings of Jesus; oh no! This was
> tried 2000 years ago and those people became extinct. Any philosophy that
> leads to the extinction of the people who practice it is a philosophy to
> be rejected.
That is a very narrow criteria for judging philosophy.
> I'm talking about the Roman Religion of enlightenment, based on the old
> Greek/Roman gods and perverted to a monotheistic religion. The work
> ethic, the development of rational thought, a culture that valued the
> scientific method.
One that has no use for religion.
> The atheist belief has lead them to a negative growth rate; these people
> and their degenerate culture are already in Darwin's dust bin. It is
> foolish to take advice on how to live from a people who are already
> doomed.
Now you're talking nonsense. Negative growth of what? When. What's the
connection? You really are very confused about your thinking. You defend
religion and yet you value the very enlightenment values which have
shown religion the back door with a boot.
Meteorite Debris
> On Jul 3, 6:31 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Enkidu wrote:
> > > On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >
> > >> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
> >
> > >>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
> > >>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
> > >>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
> > >>> religion in the wider society.
> >
> > >>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
> > >>>http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
> > >> < snip snide comment >
> >
> > >> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
> >
> > >> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
> > >> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
> >
> > >> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
> >
> > > No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you
> > > sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they
> > > do.
> >
> > That's the point that destroys agnosticism. You have to be agnostic
> > about *everything* conceivable. It's just plain stupid.
> >
> > Olrik
> >
> >
> >
> > > "No one can prove X doesn't exist" is no reason to believe X does exist,
> > > whatever X may be.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> God doesn't have to prove He exists.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
But you have to if you're going to talk to me about god(s).
Meteorite Debris
> One may as well take it as faith that God exists as well.
You may as well take it on faith that the Great Cosmic Cat exists and
destroyed your god.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> Only idiots and fools think they know everything. The incapacity to say
> "I don't know" precludes the use of science.
The incapacity to say "I don't know" is universal among theists. They
imagine their own certainty through fear of doubt.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>
> The ironic thing is, the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that you're
> using here is the same illogic that lead to religion in the first place!
You have being that very fallacy yourself. You have said in effect we do
not what consciousness is, therefore god(s) exist.
What the posters have been saying to you is that you can not prove a
negative and that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive
assertion. You can not prove that pink rats exist anymore than god(s).
Why would anyone want to disprove pink rats or god(s)? Just a waste of
time.
Pink Freud
No. You made a statement that 'atheists', a group of people you seem to
think you are very familiar with, are mostly hate-filled fools who are also
sociopaths.
If I called you a sociopathic, hate-filled fool I think you might find it
more offensive than a simple 'fuck you'.
You insulted me first, and yet you describe me as hateful when I react to
that. So much for the 'silver rule', eh.
> I stand by the fact that people who think they know everything are
> foolish.
And on this, at least, we agree. Now show me someone who thinks they know
everything. *I* certainly don't, and I have never claimed to. It just seems
to me that if there is a total absence of evidence for something, it makes
sense to live one's life as if that something does not exist. There is
evidence for consciousness, as already noted in this thread. Take one room.
Put an unconscious and a conscious person in there. Please tell me you can
tell the difference between them? Scientists have designed and built devices
that can take input from electrodes attached to a person's head. We can now
identify 'thoughts'.
>IF that offends you, then you are a fool. What can I say? Not
> many people would question the if... then premise I made.
>
>> I know of plenty of hate-filled Christians.
>
> There is no culture where everyone meets the cultural ideal. The
> difference is that if they are Christians, they know that being hate
> filled is a sin.
This has to be the most ludicrous argument yet.
Here's a refutation in the form of a URL:
www.godhatesfags.com
And please, please don't reply with the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
>
> You and many non-religious types have NO PROBLEM or guilt hating people.
>
You don't know anything about me other than I don't take kindly to being
insulted, so how can you possibly make the above statement?
>>> You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths.
>>
>> And again, fuck you too.
>
> And again, you prove my point by example.
>
And again, you seem blissfully unaware of when you are actually insulting
somebody, and where their response is perfectly justified.
Would you describe yourself as an agnostic? If so, would you take offensive
if I was to say "Most agnostics are ignorant, cowardly, patronising jerks.
Any culture which is primarily agnostic is doomed to failure. They are
hateful."
>>>Anthropology
>>> shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart.
>>>
>>>
>> You really are an arrogant fool. Try posting something objective, rather
>> than your own predjudices.
>
> Ironic.
I said something objective. You know, something with evidence, that backs up
your bigoted claims.
DAVID GREENE
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:51 -0500, Marvin the Martian
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>>> the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>>> acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>>> religion in the wider society.
>>>
>>> Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>
>> < snip snide comment >
>>
>>True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>
>>IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable. I
>>can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>
>>However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>
> It puts it on the same level of millions of other invented things.
OK, Chris! Invented things are irrelevant! It might be time to start up
the "Nutbar Nominations" again.
Anyway, so science has a method. Among other things, the scientific method
includes the testing of hypotheses and the results need to be repeatable for
them to be accepted by science. Good so far? Good! I am so glad we are
all on the same page.
OK, so let's say, for sake of argument, God is up there somewhere doing some
miracles and stuff but science says miracles are not in the realm of science
as they are not testable and repeatable. And so some folks say "God does
not exist, if he does then where is the evidence? If He exists then He
should show Himself." So God says to Himself "Gee whiz, man, these miracles
are not gettin' folks to believe in Me, what am I gonna do about that?" So
after a while He says "I know, I'll do something repeatable so they can have
evidence that I exist. Yes, that is the ticket, a repeatable miracle; then
they will believe in me!"
So God fires up his brand new repeatable miracle machine and, voil�, the
repeatable miracle occurs and reocurrs and reoccurs yet again... Then some
scientist notices this reoccuring miracle and checks it out. Every time it
comes up the same. Then he publishes a paper and other scientists check it
out and confirm the repeatable miracle. The next thing you know the
headlines scream "Scientists discover a new law of physics!" The first
scientist gets the Nobel prize. Later, at home sipping a fine brandy with a
few friends, the conversation turns again to religion - "God does not exist,
if he does then where is the evidence? If He exists He should show himself
..."
Dave Greene
Marvin the Martian
> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:00:55 -0700, RichD wrote:
>>
>> > Wall St. Journal published an essay last week, by Lawrence Krauss, to
>> > the effect that god has no place in science; "God did it" is not an
>> > acceptable theory or explanation. It made no statement regarding
>> > religion in the wider society.
>> >
>> > Letters poured in, check them yourself:
>> > http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
>>
>> < snip snide comment >
>>
>> True enough, "god did it" is not an acceptable theory.
>>
>> IMHO, all the evidence for God is either untestable, or not repeatable.
>> I can't prove scientifically that God exists.
>>
>> However, no one can prove that God doesn't exist, either.
>
> Why is this relevant? You can not prove that the tooth fairy does not
> exist.
Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
>> Thus, not only are the atheists wrong as they can't prove the non-
>> existence of god, but their belief that god does not exist is
>> irrational. The only scientific stand is to be agnostic; "I don't know"
>> is fundamental to science.
>
> You have a misunderstanding about what atheism is. It is not a belief
> that god(s) do not exist. It is a lack of belief in god(s).
You have made a semantic fallacy.
>> What anthropology does show is that some concept of "god" is pan-human.
>> Real or not, if you're going to have a functional society, humans need
>> a god.
>
> Not exactly true. Mostly people have believe in animist spirits in every
> rock, tree and blade of grass or in a large number of gods. A belief in
> a monotheist god is not universal.
Red herring fallacy, or straw man fallacy. Entirely not relevant. Belief
in multiple gods means belief in at least one god.
> Through out history slavery has been a nearly universal fact.
Actually, it hasn't been. You labor under a false premise. Most hunter
gatherers didn't do slavery. Slavery is a post-agriculture thing. Sending
your "slave" out to hunt or gather almost always lead to the slave
running away. Slavery isn't practical until agriculture is developed.
And with the industrial age and the mercantile cultures, slavery was no
longer needed.
< snip more bad logic >
>> What is also a fact is that religious beliefs were shaped by natural
>> selection. Religion gives humans the ability to quickly adapt to
>> changing conditions; far more quickly than genetics allow.
>
> Do you have proof of a "god gene"? Here you are confusing genes with
> memes.
See, for example, Dean Hamer's book "The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired
into our Genes".
> I ask you has there been a biological evolution in the last couple of
> hundred years resulting in fewer people believing in god(s) or has there
> been a cultural evolution?
Many people don't have the god gene. I don't. However, in the past even
those who didn't have the god gene had to give lip service to religion.
Now they don't.
>> The atheist seem to not
>> understand evolution, and they invent their own Marxist version of
>> evolution just as the religious people did with creationism.
>
> There's that bloody Marxist strawman again. Give him a rest. I've got to
> tell you that I get bloody sick and tired of that cheap shot.
So, Marx wasn't an atheist, and the communist/socialist didn't call
religion the opiate of the masses.
And Stalin didn't murder 20 million Ukranians, and Mao didn't kill 60
million chinese, and the Yellow river didn't run red.
Marxist are atheists, but not all atheists are Marxist. They are damn
few, but not all.
Marvin the Martian
>> Come back when you can scientifically explain consciousness. You can't
>> measure it, you can't detect it. You ignore it, but we can all observe
>> our own consciousness. This is NOT invented.
>>
>> There are some things science can't do.
>
> Religion can not explain these things either. What you have used is the
> "god of the gaps" argument. An oldie but a goodie among believers.
Religion does to explain these thing. It's all made up and the judge of
the worthiness of their made up explanation is how natural selection
works on the religion.
Natural selection DOES work on religion, you know.
http://www.physorg.com/news122577140.html
Begin quote
The process of natural selection can act on human culture as well as on
genes, a new study finds. Scientists at Stanford University have shown
for the first time that cultural traits affecting survival and
reproduction evolve at a different rate than other cultural attributes.
Speeded or slowed rates of evolution typically indicate the action of
natural selection in analyses of the human genome.
End Quote
So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive, and
the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to cook pork
more than beef, but the "god kills pork eaters" works as well as the real
explanation.
DAVID GREENE
news:7b7spoF...@mid.individual.net...
> No one can prove giant invisible rats don't crawl out of your butt as you
> sleep, but with no reason to believe they do, I don't believe that they
> do.
Actually, it would probably be an easy thing to prove.
Dave Greene
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> I made the point that there are many things I don't know. I made a
> statement about how people who think they know everything were foolish.
> You found that offensive.
Religious people believe they know everything.
Marvin the Martian
> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>
>> If you cannot detect consciousness, then you cannot detect the
>> consciousness of god. So, you don't know. Ergo, agnostic.
>
> The existence of god(s) does not depend on explaining consciousness.
I can't tell if you can't understand, or if you're making straw dogs.
Either way, you didn't get it right. Exactly backwards.
> But
> the reality is that religion has no explanation either. What you are
> doing is using the "god of the gaps" fallacy.
There is no "god of the gaps" fallacy. You made that up. I can tell you
are not acquainted with logic at all.
My point was that religion should stay the hell out of areas where
science can operate, and should be used only in those areas where science
can't operate.
Marvin the Martian
> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>
>> To me, a good scientific experiment is a prayer, where we literally ask
>> God a question and God gives us answers.
>
> Try to get results without the instruments and use ONLY a prayer.
Since I said that experiments are prayers, I've already gotten good
results, and they will be published. :-)
What? You think if you verbally ask a question, god's going to answer
you? How lame is that? Did that ever work for you? of course not.
Experiments work, however.
> You
> can't. Your god does not exist except with scientific experimentation
> and when you isolate the science part to test for the god part you are
> left with nothing.
My god? You don't know diddly about my god. You're assuming I'm a
christian. Like I said, no fracken' way is that Jesus and his death cult
anything close to about God.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> You bet I'm claiming that atheists tend to be sociopaths. Anthropology
> shows that when the religion goes, the culture falls apart.
You're confusing cause and effect. Take Easter Island. The gods did not
deliver more trees after the islanders cut them all down. Result. The
Easter Island culture declined, people blamed and deserted their gods,
stopped working on the ones they were building and toppled many others.
The decline of the gods happened after - not before the decline of
Easter Island.
Enkidu
>> Why is this relevant? You can not prove that the tooth fairy does not
>> exist.
>
> Actually, you can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Let's see you do it.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:23:36 +0100, Pink Freud wrote:
>>
>>> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2009.07...@ontomars.org...
>>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:38:50 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> God doesn't have to prove He exists.
>>>>> How convenient. It's also very "shy", isn't it? The poor thing...
>>>> I can, by your logic, disbelieve that YOU are more than a hunk of
>>>> meat on the hoof, a mindless automaton, a simple biological machine
>>>> without consciousness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> God posts on usenet, does he now? Because I'm pretty sure Olrik has
>>> been.
>>
>> How do I know you're not a figment of my imagination? How do I know
>> Olrik isn't anything more than a meat puppet? I don't. I take it as a
>> matter of faith, not for HIS miserable sake, but for MINE.
>
> My existence is not controversial, nor exceptional. You experience other
> people every day.
You can't PROVE you exist and that you are not a figment of my
imagination. I take it as a matter of faith that you're a being like
myself and not a meat puppet or even less.
Enkidu
> So, "God doesn't want us to eat pork" enabled one culture to survive,
> and the pig eaters died off. They didn't know that they needed to cook
> pork more than beef, but the "god kills pork eaters" works as well as
> the real explanation.
No, the real explanation leads to more and safer food.
Marvin the Martian
> Last time that great scribe Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
> chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>
>> Drop these same folks into a Moslem society, and they would have their
>> heads cut off in short order. Few cultures would tolerate their anti-
>> social behaviors. The only culture that would put up with them is the
>> modern christian one, and the atheist are trying to take the Christians
>> down with them.
>
> This is bone stupid. Most "modern christian cultures" are barely Xian
> and barely religious at all. The more Xian cultures are the more
> intolerant cultures.
Why do you spew irrelevant gibberish? I don't care about your opinion of
the Christian cultures.
Considering how much flaming is going on in this thread on the side of
the atheists, talking about "tolerant" seems very hypocritical.
Meteorite Debris
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
> There are many things that are not knowable.
This is NOT the position of religions. For them everything is known and
certain. They make their business to push it onto everyone else.