this is the time to pray
Ro
They are logic thus there was a mind that had to think them.
Where do came from physics laws? They come from chance?
If you think otherwise you are not logic at all.
See what happen in the world, the only answer is to looking for
God and so *pray*. There is no excuse for not doing this(pray).
The money, the arrogance, and other idols of now-days can not save
anybody. To searching God for find Jesus and his wonderful pray:
The "Padre nostro"
Evenbit
Bottom line: You spoke, but didn't say anything.
I, for one, would much prefer if you describe your oppinion, stance, or
arguement in a more thought-out, clear, concise, and reasoned manner so
that I may gain some value from reading it.
Nathan.
Betov
4ax.com:
:)
Unfortunately for you, Ro, there is no medication able
to cure human believes systems. The only question is
why do you need to believe in something that does not
exist in order to bear what exist. Sure, life is not
easy and the earth is not a paradise, but you will be
a real man the day you will be able to walk without
your religous absurd cruch, and you will have a real
working brain the day you will survive without any
answer to your "Why?" absurd questions.
:)
Betov.
Donkey
religion. It has brought us war, death and suffering beyond
comprehension. Unfortunately, too many people are blinded by the
propaganda they were fed as children and still believe that tripe.
Hopefully we will grow beyond the need to explain things metaphysically
but like Betov, I don't see that day coming soon. On this issue at least
I can say that I agree with Betov 100%.
Betov, I have always held this view and it is well documented in the
forums so please, don't bother with the usual shit you come up with
every time I post a reply I will just append it to the bottom of this
post and save you some time...
Donkey
Who I am by Betov (annotated by me)
> Donkey is one of the most active Anti-GPL bastards.
> Ar least, this one, as opposed to Randall Hyde, does
> not hide in any way his point of view, and is does
> not refrain from claiming publicly (on MASM Board,
> mainly), that he will do his best to damage the
> GPL Mouvement, as much as he could).
Yup that's me
> Donkey is one of the ass-holes who contributed
> and helped Randall Hyde to build his famous
> "Assemblers BenchMarkings" thingies, designed
> to prove that RosAsm is not faster than MASM,
> on the base of on purpose biaized tests.
Which I stopped doing once I decided the tests could not be fair
> Donkey is the guy who initiated the "Boycott
> ReactOS Petition", on the Net, which subject
> was to force the ReactOS Pages to not list RosAsm
> in its Applications List. To stop the noise, i
> have had to ask the ReactOS Developers to remove
> the Link they gently provided to RosAsm Pages.
Something I appologized for, I was wrong and admitted it
> Nedless to say, this sub-shit started his
> professional life as a professional killer, in
> the Canadian army aviation. Coherent. :)
Yes, I was in the same armed forces that invented Peace Keeping, I must
have killed people loading relief supplies onto planes, which was mainly
what I did.
> Unfortunately, this sub-shit is also a GoAsm
> user with some evident talent at writting
> real things, and is also very active at
> helping beginners in an effective manner,
> what makes him the third dangerous knife,
> after Randall Hyde and Hutch.
I never expected that helping people and promoting assembler would be
"unfortunate". I don't ever promote any assembler except GoAsm, not MASM
or HLA. Besides that I am actively against the introduction of C type
crap in assembler and also high level constructs where they are not
needed. Assembler should be able to stand on it's own merit, that is all
I ever say.
> There is no other reason why he is actually
> trying to look nice with "Betov", but to
> prepare one another public attack, after he
> will have succeeded to push either you or/and
> me in one another trap. This is exactely
> what he already did before the "Boycott
> ReactOS Petition". Take care. :) Also, take
> the most "carefull care" of not having private
> Mails exchanges with that individual, where
> you could use a different tone and style than
> the public one, because he would not refrain
> from using them publicly to damage you.
Don't really care about you enough to try to damage you, you go your way
I go mine.
Robert Redelmeier
> The only thing worth praying for is an end to the
> absurd idea of religion. It has brought us war,
> death and suffering beyond comprehension.
Yes. But what we don't know is how much would
have occurred in the absence of organized religion.
Particularly small scale voilence.
I am hardly a fan of religious organizations, but I believe
that on balance throughout the ages they have alleviated
more suffering than they caused. Otherwise, they would
have vanished (Darwinian selection).
-- Robert
Phil Carmody
> Every sentence above is a non-sequitur that commits a logic fallacy.
Technically correct, but as you don't actually quote any sentences
at all, you're talking about the empty set.
Or do you believe that everyone reads usenet looking over your shoulder
at your monitor and knows what else you have on-screen?
Phil
--
The answer to life's mystery is simple and direct:
Sex and death. -- Ian 'Lemmy' Kilminster.
Donkey
Actually the funny thing is that I thought you had a good argument there
for proving god does not exist but you threw me a loop. Since we can
derive a set of rules from our observation of the universe, and we call
that process logic, it stands to reason that the thing we extrapolated
the rules from would also follow those rules. The only way that it would
not is through some outside intervention, like say a god. Since as you
say, the universe sticks stubbornly to the rules of logic, the only
conclusion that you can make is that there is no outside influence,
hence no god. For example, if I threw a pebble into a calm pond, I could
logically assume that the ripples would travel out in circles, the only
way they would not is if there was someone or something to disturb them.
So I guess that you have made a very good point, if the universe is
logical (within the bounds of the uncertainty principle) then there is
no god.
Evenbit
Phil Carmody wrote:
> "Evenbit" <nbake...@charter.net> writes:
>
> > Every sentence above is a non-sequitur that commits a logic
fallacy.
>
>
> Technically correct, but as you don't actually quote any sentences
> at all, you're talking about the empty set.
It is obvious to all readers that my posting was a response to Ro's
posting, so no quoting was required.
For those of us who can follow Usenet threads (if you can't, then get a
new newsreader), quoting is rarely required.
Nathan.
Frank Kotler
> >>The prove of existence of God is in the physics laws.
Let me say that I'm a devout Agnostic. I don't know, and I'm pretty sure
I don't know. I differentiate between "spirituality" and "religion"
thusly...
Spirituality: "... Oh, my God!"
Religion: "My God is better than your God."
What we see coming to political power in the US is "religion", not
"spirituality", IMO, and it's a very disturbing development!
...
> Who I am by Betov (annotated by me)
...
> > Donkey is one of the ass-holes who contributed
> > and helped Randall Hyde to build his famous
> > "Assemblers BenchMarkings" thingies, designed
> > to prove that RosAsm is not faster than MASM,
> > on the base of on purpose biaized tests.
Well, thanks anyway. The Nasm development team is using some of Randy's
"benchmark thingies", and I expect the LuxAsm development team will,
too. We're not trying to "prove" anything, but to "discover" something.
It's a well-known fact that Nasm is "slower than a gut-shot wolf bitch
with nine suckling pups dragging a number five trap uphill in a
snowstorm". Why and where, exactly, is of interest. Mostly, it's memory
management. Nasm is still designed to run on a 16-bit system. I think
we're about to abandon "nasm16", which should help a lot. We don't
expect it to be the "Fastest Actual Assembler in the Known Universe"
(FAAKU) :)
> > Nedless to say, this sub-shit started his
> > professional life as a professional killer, in
> > the Canadian army aviation. Coherent. :)
>
> Yes, I was in the same armed forces that invented Peace Keeping, I must
> have killed people loading relief supplies onto planes, which was mainly
> what I did.
Ah yes, the well-known Canadian jack-booted thugs :) Wasn't my fault,
but let me apologize for the "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan -
an inexcuseable screw-up!
...
> > Unfortunately, this sub-shit is also a GoAsm
> > user with some evident talent at writting
> > real things, and is also very active at
> > helping beginners in an effective manner,
What a bastard!!! :)
Best,
Frank
wolfgang kern
"Ro" wasted my time and my money:
[snipped the weird logic]
This is an ASM forum.
Would you please pray silent or in another forum?
__
wolfgang
Don't reply,
I wont answer on religious/politcal/elseshit matters.
Percival
> The only thing worth praying for is an end to the absurd idea of
> religion. It has brought us war, death and suffering beyond
> comprehension. Unfortunately, too many people are blinded by the
> propaganda they were fed as children and still believe that tripe.
> Hopefully we will grow beyond the need to explain things metaphysically
> but like Betov, I don't see that day coming soon. On this issue at least
> I can say that I agree with Betov 100%.
Luke 16:13
You cannot serve both God and money
Yes, I am just about saying that Crusades and etc were all a big mistake,
because they were driven by people who had power and trust of the people
so that they could gain money. This was not precisely because of religion
itself.
Matt. 7:15
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly are ravenous wolves
The way I see it, the mistakes of the past were driven by greed, and
"false prophets" that people believed in. Religion itself hasn't brought
us war, it is the people at the top, the ones that we trusted but didn't
know, that brought war. I see no solution however to the situation, though
there are many things that I have seen that cannot be explained by
"coincidence" or luck.
Well, thats my opinion. :) I'll let you guys have the last word.
[snippet]
Percival
Percival
>
> "Ro" wasted my time and my money:
>
> [snipped the weird logic]
>
> This is an ASM forum.
> Would you please pray silent or in another forum?
>
Lol, though i have responded to his posts :)
I very much agree. I have no clue why religion keeps being brought up here.
Percival
Donkey
Hi Percival,
Yes, I see that you have read the #1 best selling fantasy novel of all
time. The sheeps clothing line is a good one, how is Jesus refered to in
revelations, The Lamb I beleive. I like Matthew but you stopped 1
passage short of his most damning statement against religion..
Matthew 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes
from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Matthew 7:17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree
bears bad fruit.
Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear
good fruit.
Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
thrown into the fire.
Matthew 7:20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
Thank Jesus for the tip, we have seen the fruits of religion and the are
covered in the blood of innocents. If Chrsitianity was truly a "good
tree" no evil or "bad fruit" could have been done in it's name because a
good tree cannot bear bad fruit.
Also I love how the religious types always quote the bible when they
need to "prove" something, the bible is at most a bit of fact mixed in
with a whole lot of lies and exagerations, if anything in it can be
proven by present day observation than that one thing is acceptable as a
point of argument. But the book as a whole is fantasy and passages from
it are proof of nothing other than the gullibility of man, yes, Jonah
was inside a whale (I'm rolling my eyes).
By the way, yes, I have read the bible and most of the other religions
dogma manuals. I read them because it is only a stupid man who will say
he doesn't believe something if he has not studied it. I have devoted
much of my life to laughing my way though those stories. With the
exception of the Good Samaritan, which is the only object lesson in the
bible that means anything important, that is that religion doesn't
matter, only deeds do.
Donkey
joh...@eskimo.com
> Actually the funny thing is that I thought you had a good argument
there
> for proving god does not exist but you threw me a loop. Since we can
> derive a set of rules from our observation of the universe, and we
call
> that process logic, it stands to reason that the thing we
extrapolated
> the rules from would also follow those rules. The only way that it
would
> not is through some outside intervention, like say a god. Since as
you
> say, the universe sticks stubbornly to the rules of logic, the only
> conclusion that you can make is that there is no outside influence,
> hence no god. For example, if I threw a pebble into a calm pond, I
could
> logically assume that the ripples would travel out in circles, the
only
> way they would not is if there was someone or something to disturb
them.
> So I guess that you have made a very good point, if the universe is
> logical (within the bounds of the uncertainty principle) then there
is
> no god.
Of course, if materialism is true, then logic is impossible.
Think of the word "because". It has two meanings. If I say, "you like
assembly programming because it is the best use of your time", what I'm
saying is that assembly programming is logical and reasonable, and your
liking it is a logical consequent of that. However, if I say "you like
assembly programming because your dad was an assembly programmer", then
I'm saying that you are not acting reasonably, but instead acting in a
programmed matter. "Because" can either mean "follows logically" or
"is a natural reaction from", but not both.
The problem is that materialism asserts that everything only exists as
natural reactions. Therefore, _all_ becauses are the result of
action-effects, not the result of logical reasonings. Materialism
gives us no way to believe in materialism, because, according to
materialism, everything is simply the result of action-effects,
including our ideas about materialism. Therefore, you believe in
materialism not because its rational, but because you literally could
not believe otherwise. If that is true, then there is no rational
basis for materialism, because materialism undercuts rationality at its
core.
As for the rules of the universe, you missed the fact that
extrapolating rules can only occur for the parts of existence that
obeys rules. This is one of the primary philosphical fallacies of
modern science. Science is essentially the analysis of repeatable,
observable events. Therefore, many scientists want to say that science
describes everything. However, science can ONLY describe repeatable,
observable events. Other events are, by definition, outside of
science, and science by definition cannot see them. Many believe that
this is a validation of materialism, but really it is not. Just
because a metal detector can only find metals does not mean that there
aren't other types of elements. Likewise just because science is not
made to detect non-repeatable aspects of nature does not mean that such
do not exist.
Beth
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Evenbit writes:
> > > Every sentence above is a non-sequitur that commits a logic
> > > fallacy.
> >
> > Technically correct, but as you don't actually quote any sentences
> > at all, you're talking about the empty set.
>
> It is obvious to all readers that my posting was a response to Ro's
> posting, so no quoting was required.
>
> For those of us who can follow Usenet threads (if you can't, then get a
> new newsreader), quoting is rarely required.
Possibly; But it's "strongly advisable"...USENET postings don't necessarily
arrive in the order they are sent, due to propogation (and this _has_
caused a problem before - believing someone to be "inconsistent" when, in
fact, you're just reading their posts out-of-order from how they sent them
(such as a person changing their opinion - a rare sight, indeed, true...but
it can happen - but when read "out of order", it's confusing that they
argue one thing, then another, then seem to go back to the old opinion,
then back to the new one, etc. ;)...apparently, some newreaders (or
something along the "chain", anyway) don't deal with a change of subject
line or even attaching posts to what they are responding to (Annie's posts
used to do this a lot...perhaps a previous ISP or something was responsible
for that, doesn't seem to happen anymore...but, anyway, as they often
weren't appearing in the right places, her quotation was basically about
the only thing available to know what she was responding to)...
And so forth...plus, simply, the conversational "quote / reply" style is
the most easiest post to read...it's all there in the post and doesn't
require flipping back and forth between one post and another to work out
what's being said...in the longer posts - or any posts with "bullet points"
or a number of many different things to say - it would be a complete
nightmare to work out what's being said...
This _ISN'T_ a "newsreader technology" issue alone and don't make the
mistake of thinking it is...
1. Posts propogate and, thus, do not necessarily arrive in the order sent
(hence, it's quite possible I see your reply appear before the post you're
replying to and, without context, it appears to make no sense...you are
talking to "phantoms" or something ;)...
2. Posts sometimes get dropped, pure and simple (perhaps because an ISP
misdiagnoses it as "spam", maybe? Stupid but has been known to happen...the
CLAX "black hole" was probably due to this mixing with the need to
"approve" posts at the same time...for a while, some ISPs were moronically
stupid and started "blacklisting" other servers that sent too much
"spam"...they seem to forget that not everything is "spam" and totally
ruined their service for everything else by ignoring particular ISPs
"wholesale"...this is simply idiocy and not quite comprehending how things
actually work but, regardless, they are problems that posters encounter and
suffer by)...if Ro's original post was dropped then your reply doesn't help
in the slightest...indeed, you often discover that posts have been dropped
_because_ you get quotation (and I _have_, once or twice, picked up
someone's comment via a quotation because I somehow couldn't see the
original)...
3. Viewing posts in a thread "hierarchy" can cause subtle differences in
interpretation...for example, I tend to start at the top of the threads and
work my way down (UNLESS I'm very far behind what's going on in the threads
that I have to "catch up"...in those cases, I start at the bottom and work
up instead (yes, I order by date which puts the newest _bottom_, not top,
as might be expected...no particular reason for that...got set that way,
one day, and now I've gotten used to that order...it probably makes more
logical sense to have newest top? I don't know...I suppose like
"endianness", it doesn't actually matter, so long as it's "consistent"
;))...I open up a thread to look at the posts inside and then it's, of
course, quite natural to start at the top "unread" post and then work down
one-by-one in reading them...other people may have different approaches
(indeed, my own approach varies...mostly downwards but sometimes upwards
when I'm trying to "catch up" to jump to the newest postings
first..."back-tracking", if necessary, to get more context...sometimes I
immediately want to reply to something and make the reply then and there as
I'm reading...other times I remember that it's usually wise to read the
rest of the replies first - no sense posting what it turns out someone else
already posted before you - and then "go back" to reply, if it still makes
sense to do so)...
What's the trouble here? Well, the order one reads things following the
"hierarchy" isn't necessarily the order that the posts were written...this
can cause the odd confusion or misunderstanding if one post says "it's like
I just said in my last post"...which is the previous posting? It's not
necessarily the one just before it in the "tree", you see...if a reply is
depending too much upon the posts being listed in the order they see on
their screen (which, as noted before, isn't universal because posts
"propogate" and can reach news servers and machines at different times),
then it's very easy for all hell to break loose in the thread...there
_WAS_ - which is why I'm noting this for you - a problem before with "but
you said!" / "No, I said then I said" / "No, you didn't!" / "Oh, yes, I
did" / *look at time stamps* "Oh, ummm, yes, you did, didn't you? Sorry!"
(and, note, not even "time stamps" are necessarily reliable when posts are
sent very close together because they typically are the "arrival" time at a
news server, not necessarily the "send" time from the machine)...
This becomes even more complicated if some people have "send posts
immediately" set and others have "send all posts together at end of
session"...then, if replying to lots of posts, then the whole lot of them
can be sent simultaneously, making "time stamps" useless to work out what
"order" someone read / replied something...
4. If one relies solely on the last posting and not quotation, then a long
posting with many points would become a total nightmare to read..."what you
say in point 1 is true but"...point 1? What on Earth was point 1? Time to
search through previous postings...ah, okay, that's point 1...back to the
reply..."but point 2 is even more interesting"...point 2?!? Oh crap! Back
to that post again...ah, right, that's what point 2 was...back to the
reply..."because point 2 in the context of point 3 means"...oh, bloody
hell, are you taking the piss here!? Back to that other post...okay, right,
that's point 3...understood...back to the reply..."means that Randy's point
5 and Rene's point 37 and Annie's point 3 are inconsistent with Herbert's
point 7"...right, you're clearly taking the piss! I'm NOT reading any
further...it'll take forever to bounce around from post to post to pick up
all the context for understanding that sentence completely! ;)
5. Last but not least, there _are_ technical reasons with newsreaders as
well...this is NOT the only reason why quotations make sense (just given 4
possible reasons that have NOTHING to do with any "technology" previously)
but it is another reason to provide "context"...and if we are doing so for
the reasons of the other points, then, even if you are going to be an arse
with some Microsoft "Upgrade! Upgrade! Upgrade!" chanting, you should still
do this for the other reasons and it naturally "coincidentally" aids people
with "lesser technology"...
6. The "conversation" style of reply is the most logical and easiest to
read...insert your reply in the correct places in the quotation...as simple
as that...it reads like a "conversation"...the "context" is all there (and,
thus, even "out of order" you still know what they are replying to because
it's _included_ in the message itself)...as newsreader software
automatically quotes (with the default settings typically) then it's no
extra effort - indeed, it's _useful_ because you can see exactly what
you're replying to in the quotation - to just tap ENTER to make a space and
then slot in your reply in the relevent places...the style most people use
because, simply, it's the easiest, most logical and reads well...
[ 7. Another possibility is wanting to demonstrate some "inconsistency" in
the previous post...the easiest way? Grab two quotes, put them side-by-side
and then query how the two can both make sense...trying to do that without
quotation? It just wouldn't work at all... ]
Right, if you want proof of these points being correct, then just try
replying to them point-by-point without quoting any "context" beyond "your
point 3 says" or whatever...your post would be quite unreadable doing so
without constantly referring back to previous postings...if you're forcing
people to "flip" back and forth between posts to comprehend "context" then
guess what'll happen to your post? It'll be ignored because it's just far
too much hard work to read...heck, I have my posts ignored simply for being
too long...if you're actually asking people to "dance" around a hierarchy
of posts reading one line here, one line there and so forth, no-one's going
to be bothered to read it...
Indeed, so, so often we see people get so wrapped up in "technology" issues
that they forget that these aren't the only things at play here...point 8
would be "courtesy and politeness"...point 9 would be "make your post
user-friendly for reading"...point 10 would be...and so forth...if you only
aim for some "technical" correctness, then you might end up sitting there
confused...why, you're being so "technically correct", so why is everyone
snubbing making a response? Ah, simple, really: In all "non-technical"
ways, you're being a bit of an arse...indeed, I'd happily put money on
people being much more happy with a _useful_ but possibly "technical
inaccurate" post from me than a million "pedantically technically accurate"
posts where the poster is simply being a complete arse while doing
so...now, if you were conversing with robots or something, that might be
different...but you're not...so it isn't ;)...
"Use the quote, Luke!"
Beth :)
Betov
@comcast.net:
> Well, thanks anyway. The Nasm development team is using some of Randy's
> "benchmark thingies", and I expect the LuxAsm development team will,
> too. We're not trying to "prove" anything, but to "discover" something.
>
If so, i am going to tell you:
Instead of falling into Randall Hyde traps, lies
and swindling, read the Time and Date Counter,
in between each significative computation of
a real life App Source.
Betov.
Frank Kotler
> ... read the Time and Date Counter,
> in between each significative computation of
> a real life App Source.
Okay. Good tip. Thank you.
Best,
Frank
Jonathan Bartlett
> it are proof of nothing other than the gullibility of man, yes, Jonah
> was inside a whale (I'm rolling my eyes).
If you're going to pick a story to roll your eyes at, this is not really
the one. While not a common occurrence, this certainly has happened,
and the description of Jonah's skin matches that of others' with the
experience. Likewise, it's interesting that the first known account of
agnosia comes from one of Jesus' healings. (Compare Mark 8:22–25 to
clinical accounts of agnosia)
Jon
----
Learn to program using Linux assembly language
http://www.cafeshops.com/bartlettpublish.8640017
Percival
>> But the book as a whole is fantasy and passages from
>> it are proof of nothing other than the gullibility of man, yes, Jonah
>> was inside a whale (I'm rolling my eyes).
>
> If you're going to pick a story to roll your eyes at, this is not really
> the one. While not a common occurrence, this certainly has happened,
> and the description of Jonah's skin matches that of others' with the
> experience. Likewise, it's interesting that the first known account of
> agnosia comes from one of Jesus' healings. (Compare Mark 8:22-25 to
> clinical accounts of agnosia)
Lol, really? Tell ya the truth, Jonah was one of those stories i thought
was in there as just a story, to give a point. Or maybe had some deeper
meaning that i wasn't thinking about.
But if it happened before, then it could have happened :)
Percival
Frank Kotler
> Lol, really? Tell ya the truth, Jonah was one of those stories
Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm not a Bible scholar) the Good Book actually
says "a great fish", not "a whale". May depend on which translation. I
don't know if this alters anything...
Best,
Frank
Randall Hyde
"Jonathan Bartlett" <joh...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:41e6...@news.tulsaconnect.com...
> > But the book as a whole is fantasy and passages from
> > it are proof of nothing other than the gullibility of man, yes, Jonah
> > was inside a whale (I'm rolling my eyes).
>
> If you're going to pick a story to roll your eyes at, this is not really
> the one. While not a common occurrence, this certainly has happened,
> and the description of Jonah's skin matches that of others' with the
> experience. Likewise, it's interesting that the first known account of
> agnosia comes from one of Jesus' healings. (Compare Mark 8:22–25 to
> clinical accounts of agnosia)
>
Actually, Jonah is down the list of "unbelivable" Bible stories.
Creation is #1 on the list (of course).
Noah's flood is #2.
Christ's resurrection is #3.
While the field of apologetics has made great strides at
showing the Bible to be true, the bottom line is that it still
requires faith to accept it 100%. And that's a good thing.
For without faith, the Bible would be nothing, anyway.
The truely amusing part is how so many naysayers claim the
Bible couldn't possibly be true, without having dones so much
as to really go in and prove the Bible to be incorrect. The only
problem with that approach is that *most* people who go in
and seriously try to disprove the Bible wind up coming to the
conclusion that it's quite true.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Percival
It makes it a tiny bit more believable, because the chance of it
happening went from .000001% to .000002%
:)
Percival
JGCASEY
joh...@eskimo.com wrote:
>
> Of course, if materialism is true, then logic is impossible.
>
> Think of the word "because". It has two meanings. If I say,
> "you like assembly programming because it is the best use of
> your time", what I'm saying is that assembly programming is
> logical and reasonable, and your liking it is a logical
> consequent of that. However, if I say "you like assembly
> programming because your dad was an assembly programmer",
> then I'm saying that you are not acting reasonably, but
> instead acting in a programmed matter. "Because" can
> either mean "follows logically" or "is a natural reaction
> from", but not both.
"Logical reasoning" *is* "action-effects" but not all
"action-effects" are "logical reasoning".
But, just because your metal detector doesn't detect
something, doesn't make that something non material.
JC
Randall Hyde
"Percival" <dragont...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.01.14....@yahoo.com...
> It makes it a tiny bit more believable, because the chance of it
> happening went from .000001% to .000002%
There is nothing in the Bible less believable than the creation
story. Once you're willing to accept that (on faith, which is the
only way one *can* accept that), then accepting everything
else in the Bible is a trivial issue.
As for creation, for all the arguments about evolution, big bang,
etc., the fact is the Universe *was* created. Time cannot be
infinite (at best, it's only semi-infinite). Therefore, the Universe
*had* to be created at some instance back in time. This begs
the question "who, or what, created it?" Believing that it "just
came into being" takes a *much* greater leap of faith than
believing that God created it.
And if God created the universe, then doing things like
keeping Jonah safe in the aquatic creature (or covering the
Earth with water) is small peanuts to such a being.
Bottom line is this: science *cannot* prove anything
about the creation of the Universe. Philosophically,
there must be some being that started the whole thing
off.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Donkey
Sorry, there are only three seriously documented accounts of someone
getting swallowed by a whale, of the three the only one that actually
lives is the Star Of the East tale of 1891, which has been thoroughly
proven to be a scam, just another urban legend later admitted to by the
people involved. Of the other two, one had just surmised that a whale
had eaten some sailors as they were not found after a shipwreck, that
was the Essex in 1820. And finally, the only other account on record is
the only believable one, a sailor off of Cape Cod in 1863 was caught in
a whales mouth and sustained serious injury necessitating the amputation
of a leg. Jonah == BullHooey (my eyes still roll).
Donkey
Donkey
You are a man of faith and I respect that, perhaps not the religion but
at least the act of faith. I cannot argue against faith and would not
attempt to. I can simply say that I disagree or that my faith is placed
elsewhere. I can respect someone who does not try to convince me with
science that something he believes to be beyond science exists. I just
have little to no tolerance of people who try to prove apples exist by
showing me oranges.
Edgar
Percival
> And if God created the universe, then doing things like
> keeping Jonah safe in the aquatic creature (or covering the
> Earth with water) is small peanuts to such a being.
Probably just me then. I find that the creation of the universe was rather
simple to believe compared to a fish eating a man for a couple of days,
let alone getting spit out safe and sound.
Felt a bit too much like "Finding Nemo" or something :)
However, I do not like taking a ~5000 year old book too literally, when
countless translations have taken place in between them. (Especially
though the religious "dark ages" as I call them, where you can buy your
way out of hell) I try to find the general messages.
And Donkey, if you took those quotes too seriously, I was trying to show
that in essence to the book, the Catholic faith was not exactly the best
faith in the world. My posting of those quotes was an emphasis on my
frustrations on the history of my faith.
Percival
Percival
> You are a man of faith and I respect that, perhaps not the religion but
> at least the act of faith. I cannot argue against faith and would not
> attempt to. I can simply say that I disagree or that my faith is placed
> elsewhere. I can respect someone who does not try to convince me with
> science that something he believes to be beyond science exists. I just
> have little to no tolerance of people who try to prove apples exist by
> showing me oranges.
>
> Edgar
I'll assume that person to be me :)
Again, I said that quote to say that religion was not the cause of the
crusades, but human greed. As your quotes have said,
Matthew 7:20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
Just like the parable about the sower and the seeds, not all the seeds
were good, and it was unfortunate that most of the seeds were bad at the
time.
Percival
The /\\o//\annabee
<rand...@earthlink.net>:
Seems to me.... HLA and God, have something in common, they need you to
belive, as facts are not available :-)).
The /\\o//\annabee
<dragont...@yahoo.com>:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:44:49 +0000, Donkey wrote:
>
>> You are a man of faith and I respect that, perhaps not the religion but
>> at least the act of faith. I cannot argue against faith and would not
>> attempt to. I can simply say that I disagree or that my faith is placed
>> elsewhere. I can respect someone who does not try to convince me with
>> science that something he believes to be beyond science exists. I just
>> have little to no tolerance of people who try to prove apples exist by
>> showing me oranges.
>>
>> Edgar
>
> I'll assume that person to be me :)
Show me you fruits :)
>
> Matthew 7:20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
I have big fruits :) Releativly speaking, of course:)
> Just like the parable about the sower and the seeds, not all the seeds
> were good, and it was unfortunate that most of the seeds were bad at the
> time.
My seeds are plentiful, more than I will ever need, my fruits are still
strong and healthy.
Now show me yours :)
>
> Percival
Percival
> Seems to me.... HLA and God, have something in common, they need you to
> belive, as facts are not available :-)).
You must always criticize what you are told.
And I am criticizing the belief that everything in this world can be
discovered and thought out though facts.
However, finding out where someone lives can be proved out by fact :)
Percival
JGCASEY
Randall Hyde wrote:
[...]
> Philosophically, there must be some being that
> started the whole thing off.
>
> Cheers,
> Randy Hyde
I think you know more about assembler than you do
about philosophy. I would stick to what you know.
Cheers,
John Casey
Robert Redelmeier
> There is nothing in the Bible less believable than the
> creation story. Once you're willing to accept that
> (on faith, which is the only way one *can* accept that),
Why is Genesis unbelievable? Perhaps literally, if one profanely
considers God's days as equivalent to ours. But what if His days
are ~2 billion of our years? And the "created", "image", ... of
the ancient Hebrew were more accuritely rendered in English as
"set down the path to evolve into", "design", ... ?
-- Robert
Evenbit
Thank You for the baby brother, but I think you got confused
because what I prayed for was a puppy.
The /\\o//\annabee
<dragont...@yahoo.com>:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:20:08 +0100, The /\\o//\annabee wrote:
>
>> Seems to me.... HLA and God, have something in common, they need you to
>> belive, as facts are not available :-)).
>
> You must always criticize what you are told.
Yes, I always seem to see an oposed view to what many people see. In fact
I cant see the oposed angle before I discover the other peoples view. So I
need you Percival.
> And I am criticizing the belief that everything in this world can be
> discovered and thought out through facts.
That is absolutly true. Its also complete nonsence. In the duality lies
the answer. And its not to be confirmed. It lies within, meaning its
between you and yourself. You do belive in yourself ?
Tell you what. I just now got some woman telling me how thankful she is
that I could do something to her, that she had never deared ask anyone to
do. Thats why I am so snug, btw. I just "ate". Nesting the reasons why she
would never dear to ask for it, I find religion to be the cause.
Religion is killing to the human spirit. The human spirit must be free, or
it cannot find God, because God is not that easily defined. God is a
hooker, and a saint, Percival. And She doesnt mind me saying so.
Life is a celebration, not a preparation. Its not to be wasted on prayer.
If you need to bend over and pray, make sure your altar is a woman, and
that you pray using tonguetalk. :)) And never never fear God. Because if
theres a God, it is absolutly in love with you.
> However, finding out where someone lives can be proved out by fact :)
:)) Sure. Not a problem.
> Percival
Sorry for beeing so absurd, but this God stuff really brings out the
worst/best in me :)
And for God sakes, dont take yourself so seriously.
The /\\o//\annabee
Dear God : Thanks for the many orgasms and for sigarettes and coffie and
puters.
Thanks for my big brother. Tell him, if he want a puppy, he should maybe
consider buying one.
Randall Hyde
>
> > And if God created the universe, then doing things like
> > keeping Jonah safe in the aquatic creature (or covering the
> > Earth with water) is small peanuts to such a being.
>
> Probably just me then. I find that the creation of the universe was rather
> simple to believe compared to a fish eating a man for a couple of days,
> let alone getting spit out safe and sound.
>
> Felt a bit too much like "Finding Nemo" or something :)
>
> However, I do not like taking a ~5000 year old book too literally, when
> countless translations have taken place in between them. (Especially
> though the religious "dark ages" as I call them, where you can buy your
> way out of hell) I try to find the general messages.
This is a common phallacy concerning the Bible.
There are not "countless translations" between the original writings
and the Bible we have today. Most modern translations are based
upon material taken from the *original* writings. This is why it's
a good idea to take a look at apologetics. You learn to debunk
certain myths like the "telephone tag game" myth. Indeed, there
are something like 25,000 portions of the original manuscripts
available to us today -- far more than any other text from antiquity
(in second place is Homer's Illiad, with something like 650 pieces).
There are only two passages in the modern Bible that we're not
100% sure were in the original manuscripts. This makes the Bible
"purer" than Ivory Soap :-).
You can rest assured that today's translations are as close to
the original as you can get in whatever native language you read
(that is, there is one level of translation, unless, of course, you
read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek).
>
> And Donkey, if you took those quotes too seriously, I was trying to show
> that in essence to the book, the Catholic faith was not exactly the best
> faith in the world. My posting of those quotes was an emphasis on my
> frustrations on the history of my faith.
The premise that religion is the cause of all wars, bad things, etc., in
history is completely ridiculous. There is nothing in the way of a
controlled
study (i.e., the absense of *any* religion). Indeed, in the areas where
*Christianity* was not practiced, there tended to be even more hostilities.
Individuals like Napolean, Atilla the Hun, and so on were not driven by
religious fanaticism. Unless, of course, you consider humanism a religion.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"JGCASEY" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1105681717.3...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Really, John?
Then explain how the Universe was created.
Or try and explain that it always existed (a simple
philosophical argument can show that time is semi-infinite;
as you're implying that you know more about philosophy
than me, feel free to debunk that argument).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"Donkey" <contact_no...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:62IFd.71308
> Sorry, there are only three seriously documented accounts of someone
> getting swallowed by a whale, of the three the only one that actually
> lives is the Star Of the East tale of 1891, which has been thoroughly
> proven to be a scam, just another urban legend later admitted to by the
> people involved. Of the other two, one had just surmised that a whale
> had eaten some sailors as they were not found after a shipwreck, that
> was the Essex in 1820. And finally, the only other account on record is
> the only believable one, a sailor off of Cape Cod in 1863 was caught in
> a whales mouth and sustained serious injury necessitating the amputation
> of a leg. Jonah == BullHooey (my eyes still roll).
>
> Donkey
Edgar, the issue isn't one of "can a 'great fish' *naturally* transport
a human being for three days. Clearly this requires supernatural
intervention. Were there to be other documented examples of this,
then the story wouldn't be very interesting, now, would it?
For more fun, look here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
T.M. Sommers
>
> Probably just me then. I find that the creation of the universe was rather
> simple to believe compared to a fish eating a man for a couple of days,
> let alone getting spit out safe and sound.
You can't keep a good man down.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
T.M. Sommers
>
> Why is Genesis unbelievable?
For one thing, it contains two mutually exclusive versions of
creation.
Annie
On 2005-01-14 rand...@earthlink.net said:
> "Percival" wrote:
>
> > However, I do not like taking a ~5000 year old book too
> > literally, when countless translations have taken place
> > in between them. (Especially though the religious "dark
> > ages" as I call them, where you can buy your way out of
> > hell) I try to find the general messages.
>
> This is a common phallacy concerning the Bible.
^^^^^^^^ _____
Dreadful Freudian slip, there, ((( `\
Randy. Hehe! _ _`\ )
(^ ) )
Not that you'll ever see this, ~-( )
since I'm in your killfile... _'((,,,)))
but I hope you're better at ,-' \_/ `\
assembly mnemonics than you ( , |
are at English prose. Hehehe! `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
\ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
Evenbit
Beth, I quoted your diatribe enumerating various reasons to quote, but
then, I SNIPPED the entire text! Guess I wasted the computer's time
with all that quoting, huh?
Notice in the above paragraph that I said, "your diatribe enumerating
various reasons to quote," which is PLENTY enough information for the
regulars around here to get the gist of what you said even if they
never (for some reason) get to actually read your post {perhaps they've
deleted it as a natural reflex whenever any post from you is more than
50 lines long}...and they will fully understand my paragraph above.
Nathan.
Ro
<contact_no...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Ro wrote:
>> The prove of existence of God is in the physics laws.
>> They are logic thus there was a mind that had to think them.
>> Where do came from physics laws? They come from chance?
>> If you think otherwise you are not logic at all.
>>
>> See what happen in the world, the only answer is to looking for
>> God and so *pray*. There is no excuse for not doing this(pray).
>> The money, the arrogance, and other idols of now-days can not save
>> anybody. To searching God for find Jesus and his wonderful pray:
>> The "Padre nostro"
>>
>Hi Ro,
>
>Actually the funny thing is that I thought you had a good argument there
>for proving god does not exist but you threw me a loop. Since we can
>derive a set of rules from our observation of the universe, and we call
>that process logic, it stands to reason that the thing we extrapolated
>the rules from would also follow those rules. The only way that it would
>not is through some outside intervention, like say a god. Since as you
>say, the universe sticks stubbornly to the rules of logic, the only
>conclusion that you can make is that there is no outside influence,
>hence no god. For example, if I threw a pebble into a calm pond, I could
>logically assume that the ripples would travel out in circles, the only
>way they would not is if there was someone or something to disturb them.
>So I guess that you have made a very good point, if the universe is
>logical (within the bounds of the uncertainty principle) then there is
>no god.
So there is a logic and not the mind that had thought that, that had
invented that? Someone that want, compute and see what is good and
what not.
Ro
<contact_no...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Betov wrote:
>> Ro <inp...@sim.tim> écrivait news:sq0au0p84kkpagorr8vnum8634lobb8178@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>The prove of existence of God is in the physics laws.
>>>They are logic thus there was a mind that had to think them.
>>>Where do came from physics laws? They come from chance?
>>>If you think otherwise you are not logic at all.
>>>
>>>See what happen in the world, the only answer is to looking for
>>>God and so *pray*. There is no excuse for not doing this(pray).
>>>The money, the arrogance, and other idols of now-days can not save
>>>anybody. To searching God for find Jesus and his wonderful pray:
>>>The "Padre nostro"
>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, Ro, there is no medication able
>> to cure human believes systems. The only question is
>> why do you need to believe in something that does not
>> exist in order to bear what exist. Sure, life is not
>> easy and the earth is not a paradise, but you will be
>> a real man the day you will be able to walk without
>> your religous absurd cruch, and you will have a real
>> working brain the day you will survive without any
>> answer to your "Why?" absurd questions.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Betov.
>>
>> < http://rosasm.org/ >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>The only thing worth praying for is an end to the absurd idea of
>religion. It has brought us war, death and suffering beyond
>comprehension.
The religion that is for war is not a religion. Bible is against the
homicide so against wars.
>Unfortunately, too many people are blinded by the
>propaganda they were fed as children and still believe that tripe.
>Hopefully we will grow beyond the need to explain things metaphysically
>but like Betov, I don't see that day coming soon. On this issue at least
>I can say that I agree with Betov 100%.
To be blinded come from ignorance and from no study
Ro
<contact_no...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Yes, I see that you have read the #1 best selling fantasy novel of all
>time. The sheeps clothing line is a good one, how is Jesus refered to in
>revelations, The Lamb I beleive. I like Matthew but you stopped 1
>passage short of his most damning statement against religion..
>
>Matthew 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes
>from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
>
>Matthew 7:17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree
>bears bad fruit.
>
>Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear
>good fruit.
>
>Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
>thrown into the fire.
>
>Matthew 7:20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
>
>covered in the blood of innocents.
if you say that the fruit of religions is war I say that religions
that are for war and homicide are not religions
>If Chrsitianity was truly a "good
>tree" no evil or "bad fruit" could have been done in it's name because a
>good tree cannot bear bad fruit.
There are good fruit, you will see saints and the missionaries in
India and Africa
>Also I love how the religious types always quote the bible when they
>need to "prove" something, the bible is at most a bit of fact mixed in
>with a whole lot of lies and exagerations,
only for superficial people
>if anything in it can be
>proven by present day observation than that one thing is acceptable as a
>point of argument. But the book as a whole is fantasy and passages from
>it are proof of nothing other than the gullibility of man, yes, Jonah
>was inside a whale (I'm rolling my eyes).
only for superficial people
>By the way, yes, I have read the bible and most of the other religions
>dogma manuals. I read them because it is only a stupid man who will say
>he doesn't believe something if he has not studied it. I have devoted
>much of my life to laughing my way though those stories.
every single word of Bible worth more that every gold in the world
>With the
>exception of the Good Samaritan, which is the only object lesson in the
>bible that means anything important, that is that religion doesn't
>matter, only deeds do.
>
>Donkey
Ro
<fbko...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Donkey wrote:
>
>> >>The prove of existence of God is in the physics laws.
>
>I don't know. I differentiate between "spirituality" and "religion"
>thusly...
so we are not agree there because I think it is possible to prove the
existence of God if we see the thoughts inside universe
>Spirituality: "... Oh, my God!"
>Religion: "My God is better than your God."
>What we see coming to political power in the US is "religion", not
>"spirituality", IMO, and it's a very disturbing development!
the 'religion' of war says: "My god said me to kill you because you
have a different God"
Betov
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Wrong:
He does not know a thing about Assembly either.
Betov.
Betov
$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Edgar, the issue isn't one of "can a 'great fish' *naturally* transport
> a human being for three days. Clearly this requires supernatural
> intervention. Were there to be other documented examples of this,
> then the story wouldn't be very interesting, now, would it?
You will also need some supranatural intervention
to convince the Assembly Programmers that HLA is
an Assembler.
Please go on praying silently and, in between save
us from your insane bullshits.
Betov.
Betov
i...@seanet.com:
Too bad: He is way worse at Asm than at english.
The good point with this freudian slip is that
we now know why Master Pdf is writing so called
AsmBible.pdf(s): He is masturbating!
:)
Betov.
JGCASEY
Perhaps I was hasty in my comments. You may be more
familiar with these philosophical arguments than me?
What is this philosophical argument that shows time
is semi-infinite?
As I understand physics, space and time are part of
the Universe. There is no meaning to "before time"
when some creator could have created anything.
Cheers,
John Casey
Phil Carmody
...
> As for creation, for all the arguments about evolution, big bang,
> etc., the fact is the Universe *was* created. Time cannot be
> infinite (at best, it's only semi-infinite). Therefore, the Universe
> *had* to be created at some instance back in time. This begs
> the question "who, or what, created it?" Believing that it "just
> came into being" takes a *much* greater leap of faith than
> believing that God created it.
I disagree. It's just a cusp.
...
> Bottom line is this: science *cannot* prove anything
> about the creation of the Universe. Philosophically,
> there must be some being that started the whole thing
> off.
Now _that_ is begging the question.
Phil
--
The answer to life's mystery is simple and direct:
Sex and death. -- Ian 'Lemmy' Kilminster.
Phil Carmody
> This is a common phallacy concerning the Bible.
> There are not "countless translations" between the original writings
> and the Bible we have today. Most modern translations are based
> upon material taken from the *original* writings. This is why it's
> a good idea to take a look at apologetics. You learn to debunk
> certain myths like the "telephone tag game" myth. Indeed, there
> are something like 25,000 portions of the original manuscripts
> available to us today -- far more than any other text from antiquity
> (in second place is Homer's Illiad, with something like 650 pieces).
> There are only two passages in the modern Bible that we're not
> 100% sure were in the original manuscripts. This makes the Bible
> "purer" than Ivory Soap :-).
Tosh. How much of "Q" and "P", "J" etc. are extant?
Betov
$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> As for creation, for all the arguments about evolution, big bang,
> etc., the fact is the Universe *was* created. Time cannot be
> infinite (at best, it's only semi-infinite). Therefore, the Universe
> *had* to be created at some instance back in time. This begs
> the question "who, or what, created it?" Believing that it "just
> came into being" takes a *much* greater leap of faith than
> believing that God created it.
>
> And if God created the universe, then doing things like
> keeping Jonah safe in the aquatic creature (or covering the
> Earth with water) is small peanuts to such a being.
>
> Bottom line is this: science *cannot* prove anything
> about the creation of the Universe. Philosophically,
> there must be some being that started the whole thing
> off.
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Pathetic ass-hole, how is it that you do not
have any Link to < Webster > for explaining
to the amaized people, how the universe was
first created?
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Betov.
Betov
$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> There are not "countless translations" between the original writings
> and the Bible we have today. Most modern translations are based
> upon material taken from the *original* writings. This is why it's
> a good idea to take a look at apologetics. You learn to debunk
> certain myths like the "telephone tag game" myth. Indeed, there
> are something like 25,000 portions of the original manuscripts
> available to us today -- far more than any other text from antiquity
> (in second place is Homer's Illiad, with something like 650 pieces).
> There are only two passages in the modern Bible that we're not
> 100% sure were in the original manuscripts. This makes the Bible
> "purer" than Ivory Soap :-).
>
> You can rest assured that today's translations are as close to
> the original as you can get in whatever native language you read
> (that is, there is one level of translation, unless, of course, you
> read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek).
Pathetic ass-hole, too bad you never studied the
history of religions. You would have known that
the religious deliriums you are talking about have
been written many times under many forms, with as
many variants (like the in between Kumran scripts),
collecting diverse sources, as diverging as the
Egyptian ones, the Babylonian ones, the Celtics ones,
the Indian ones, and so on, for about one millenium,
and that, so forth, talking of "original manuscripts"
sounds like a joke.
Don't you even know that the absurd "Amen" you claim
each Sunday in your gays' church is nothing but the
egytian "Amon" claim? Don't you even know that your
"Jesus" existed in the celtic countries ages before
"Joe Cooker", under the name of "Esus"? Don't you
even know that most of your Bible Myths come from
the country you actually call Irak? and so on...
Betov.
Betov
$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Really, John?
> Then explain how the Universe was created.
> Or try and explain that it always existed (a simple
> philosophical argument can show that time is semi-infinite;
> as you're implying that you know more about philosophy
> than me, feel free to debunk that argument).
Why would have John to explain to an idiot how the
universe was created? Why would John be supposed to
know? Was he there? If yes, i am afraid you have
really found your God!
Robert Redelmeier
> This is a common phallacy concerning the Bible.
I think you mean "fallacy". Normally, misspellings
are not worth pointing out, but this one is too funny.
> There are not "countless translations" between the original
> writings and the Bible we have today. Most modern translations
> are based upon material taken from the *original* writings.
Agreed. This is one of the key findings from the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Ancient [re]scribes were remarkably faithful.
> You can rest assured that today's translations are as close
> to the original as you can get in whatever native language
> you read (that is, there is one level of translation, unless,
> of course, you read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek).
Agreed. However, we are still stuck with the limitations
of the original language (like using FORTRAN for strings,
COBOL for scientific calcs) and context. No ASM :(
-- Robert
Robert Redelmeier
> For one thing, it contains two mutually
> exclusive versions of creation.
I presume you're referring to the Six Days
versus Garden of Eden. I would defer to various
religious organizations on this an other internal
inconsistancies. I'm sure they've been looked at.
-- Robert
Betov
$iC4....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
>> There are not "countless translations" between the original
>> writings and the Bible we have today. Most modern translations
>> are based upon material taken from the *original* writings.
>
> Agreed. This is one of the key findings from the Dead Sea
> Scrolls. Ancient [re]scribes were remarkably faithful.
Vile propaganda. All you show, here, Robert, is
either that you are as un-honnest as the ones
propagating this lie, or that you to not have
read the Kumran Scripts.
The Kumran scripts _much_ differ from what you
call the "the *original* writings", whatever that
stupid expression could ever mean. There are only
a few cases when some text can be compared between
these two sources, with some matching rate success.
Also, even if the Kumran Sources were closer to
what you call "the *original* writings", it
would not be impressive _at all_ as there is no
much time gone in between the Kumran Script and
what you call the "the *original* writings".
Plus, considering the Kumran scripts as some
"antique source" of the Jewish shit does not
make any sense, as the real sources are perfectely
known. They are in the Egytian, Irakian, Celtic,
and so on, antiquities, as anyone having read a
bit of history of the religions easily knows.
Betov.
Betov
$iC4....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
> I presume you're referring to the Six Days
> versus Garden of Eden. I would defer to various
> religious organizations on this an other internal
> inconsistancies. I'm sure they've been looked at.
Why don't you ask my ass?
Betov.
Randall Hyde
>
de
>
> Perhaps I was hasty in my comments. You may be more
> familiar with these philosophical arguments than me?
> What is this philosophical argument that shows time
> is semi-infinite?
The argument is this. If time were infinite in the backwards
direction, then we couldn't have reached "today" because
time moves along in relatively fixed increments (at least, at
one location in space). If time extended backwards an
infinite amount, then there could never have passed enough
time to reach today. Therefore, there was a *beginning* to
time.
> As I understand physics, space and time are part of
> the Universe. There is no meaning to "before time"
> when some creator could have created anything.
Obviously, the creator exists outside the notion of
physical laws and time. That's why attempts to "prove"
or "disprove" the existence of God using only physical
laws is doomed to failure. It's like trying to prove
a mathematical law without the appropriate theorem system.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Robert Redelmeier
> Vile propaganda. All you show, here, Robert, is
> either that you are as un-honnest as the ones
Excessive language is a good indicator of a lack of
confidence in a still fervently held belief.
> propagating this lie, or that you to not have
> read the Kumran Scripts.
I have _seen_ and read them. They are on exhibit here
in Houston. The usual english spelling is Qumran, and
those _are_ the Dead Sea Scrolls.
> Also, even if the Kumran Sources were closer to
> what you call "the *original* writings", it
> would not be impressive _at all_ as there is no
> much time gone in between the Kumran Script and
> what you call the "the *original* writings".
Ah, but it is the match between those 2000+ year
old scrolls and modern texts that is so striking.
Extrapolating, there wasn't much change since the
original.
-- Robert
Robert Redelmeier
> Why don't you ask my ass?
Irresistible: I didn't know you had a donkey.
Or considered it superior to you in answering questions.
PLONK!
-- Robert
Betov
$iC4....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
> I have _seen_ and read them. They are on exhibit here
> in Houston. The usual english spelling is Qumran, and
> those _are_ the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Not sure how dead is the sea, but you should verify
your sources.
>> Also, even if the Kumran Sources were closer to
>> what you call "the *original* writings", it
>> would not be impressive _at all_ as there is no
>> much time gone in between the Kumran Script and
>> what you call the "the *original* writings".
>
> Ah, but it is the match between those 2000+ year
> old scrolls and modern texts that is so striking.
> Extrapolating, there wasn't much change since the
> original.
You should also verify seriously your dates
before making yourself ridicoulous.
Betov.
LGC
Everyone has faith in something. There are only two "options" for the
origins of the world. Either an all-powerful God created the world or that
matter came into existence on it's own. Neither case can be proven by
science.
All evidence exits in the present. It is in the interpretation of the of
the evidence where there is a difference. It is impossible to approach the
evidence without making assumptions based on your belief system.
Creationists will interpret the evidence through there belief system and
evolutionists (theistic evolutionists included) will interpret the evidence
through their belief system. What model does the evidence best fit-
evolution or Biblical creation? Evolutionists generally enterpret millions
of years into the evidence while (Biblical) creationists see evidence for a
young earth.
There is a distinction between origins science and operational science.
Operational science is the science of medecine, space exploration, and
technology. It can be observed and repeated. Origins science is the study
of the past and requires making assumptions based on a belief system. There
are many scientific 'laws' that are used in operational science today that
are opposed to evolutionistic theory. (The laws of thermodynamics, for
example.)
There are radically different outcomes that naturally stem from either
belief system. Taken to it's logical conclusiton, if evolution is true,
then we are nothing more than a cosmic accident. There is no such thing as
right and wrong. If creation is true, then we are subject to a higher
authority and are accountible to Him.
I am a Biblical creationists. Though I believe in God by faith alone, I
believe that the evidence that we see today more aptly fits the creationists
model.
Take a look at these sites for more informaiton:
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/
LaVern
Betov
$pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> The argument is this. If time were infinite in the backwards
> direction, then we couldn't have reached "today" because
> time moves along in relatively fixed increments (at least, at
> one location in space). If time extended backwards an
> infinite amount, then there could never have passed enough
> time to reach today. Therefore, there was a *beginning* to
> time.
This is with such a funny argumentation that an antiquity
greeck did the demonstration that an arrow can never reach
its target.
> Obviously, the creator exists outside the notion of
> physical laws and time. That's why attempts to "prove"
> or "disprove" the existence of God using only physical
> laws is doomed to failure. It's like trying to prove
> a mathematical law without the appropriate theorem system.
True: Proving that something that does not exist,
does not exist, is impossible too. So, why don't
you shut up, and go and pray your fucky God in
silence.
Betov.
Betov
$iC4....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
If you mean to "defer to various religious
organizations on this an other internal
inconsistancies", yes, my ass is superior
to me in answering the question, and, for
sure, way superior to your 'organizations",
that have zero legitimity, compared to my
ass.
Betov.
Betov
news:34q5bjF...@individual.net:
> Randall's comments are well said.
>
> [...]
>
> I am a Biblical creationists.
Glad to see you!
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))))))))))))))
Betov.
JGCASEY
Randall Hyde wrote:
> "JGCASEY" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1105697705....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> de
> >
> > Perhaps I was hasty in my comments. You may be more
> > familiar with these philosophical arguments than me?
> > What is this philosophical argument that shows time
> > is semi-infinite?
>
> The argument is this. If time were infinite in the backwards
> direction, then we couldn't have reached "today" because
> time moves along in relatively fixed increments (at least, at
> one location in space). If time extended backwards an
> infinite amount, then there could never have passed enough
> time to reach today. Therefore, there was a *beginning* to
> time.
I have seen this argument before and indeed have
wondered about it myself. Shades of Zeno I think.
Time is a strange beast and so is infinity.
> > As I understand physics, space and time are part of
> > the Universe. There is no meaning to "before time"
> > when some creator could have created anything.
>
> Obviously, the creator exists outside the notion of
> physical laws and time.
Doesn't "exist" imply space and time to have meaning?
> That's why attempts to "prove"
> or "disprove" the existence of God using only physical
> laws is doomed to failure. It's like trying to prove
> a mathematical law without the appropriate theorem system.
Nothing more to be said then.
Cheers,
John Casey
Evenbit
Phil Carmody wrote:
>
> Tosh. How much of "Q" and "P", "J" etc. are extant?
I agree with you here. It is clear from all the repetitions in Genesis
that it was formed by combining (and weaving together) at least two
earlier documents (that we have no independent record of): one
supposedly a version from the northern kingdom; the other from the
southern kingdom.
Nathan.
LGC
"Evenbit" <nbake...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1105725696....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp
Percival
> "Randall Hyde" <rand...@earthlink.net> écrivait news:0nQFd.6504
> $pZ4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> The argument is this. If time were infinite in the backwards
>> direction, then we couldn't have reached "today" because
>> time moves along in relatively fixed increments (at least, at
>> one location in space). If time extended backwards an
>> infinite amount, then there could never have passed enough
>> time to reach today. Therefore, there was a *beginning* to
>> time.
>
> This is with such a funny argumentation that an antiquity
> greeck did the demonstration that an arrow can never reach
> its target.
Thus, neither time nor space is infinite, there has to be discreet steps,
and a beginning and an end. (as the arrow stops when it hits the target,
and it starts when it is launched)
Now, if the arrow was infinite meters from the target, then it would never
hit.
This is different from infinite points between two points, because a point
is infinitely small, while a meter or second is a real measurement.
> True: Proving that something that does not exist,
> does not exist, is impossible too. So, why don't
> you shut up, and go and pray your fucky God in
> silence.
Lets see, i can prove that no number exists between 1 and .999~ (where
.999~ means 9 repeating forever).
N = .99~
10 N = 9.99~
10N - N = 9
9N = 9
N = 1
And thus, because .99~ and 1 are the same number, no number exists between
them.
In math, we can prove that there are no points of intersection between two
lines if they are parallel, and thus we can prove that points of
intersection do not exist, how can you not prove that God does not exist?
Percival
Percival
> Robert Redelmeier <red...@ev1.net.invalid> écrivait news:FYQFd.17604
> $iC4....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> I have _seen_ and read them. They are on exhibit here
>> in Houston. The usual english spelling is Qumran, and
>> those _are_ the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>
> Not sure how dead is the sea, but you should verify
> your sources.
Ignorance of Geography is not very cool in an argument :)
Percival
Betov
news:pan.2005.01.14....@yahoo.com:
>> Not sure how dead is the sea, but you should verify
>> your sources.
>
> Ignorance of Geography is not very cool in an argument :)
No sense of humour at all? Percival? And could
you really believe that a European could ignore
geography as well as a US citizen?
Betov.
Betov
> [...]
One of the not lesser funny thing coming with
mentaly deseased religious believers, is when
they begin arguing by using logic and/or the
historical sources, in their twisted ways.
Mind you, i spent a significative number of
years of my school days in a religious school,
and i have, later, studied the history of
Religions in deepth. So, i know in advance all
of your bullshits by heart, and you'd better
play that kind of tune with anybody but me. :))
_You_ have a problem. Several problems, in fact:
* You believe in something that does not exist.
So forth, you are a schysophren.
* As you know that your believes are nothing but
insane bullshits, you need to reinforce them by
sharing them with other idiots.
* To defend yourselves against reality, you need
a social organization, which typical achievement
is what can be found, nowadays, in the American
religious Nazism, and/or, in the Islamic AlQuaida
type delirium. Nothing new, in fact...
Now, let me tell you the crual truth about time:
Your life had a begining, and it will have an end.
Given the length of the measurable time of the earth
planet life, the time of your life, on this planet,
counts for nope. You are a sand grain in the ocean
of space and of time, and you existence has no
meaning at all. Your opinions about time, gods,
religions and other bullshits, have less importance
than the opinion a Neolitic rabbit had about the
good corns to eat.
For your hazardous speculation about "times", the
less stupid ones, i have read, was the one given
in the Brahmanism, under the name of "the breathes
of Brahma", that, by the way _included_ the actual
famous Big-Bang of the actual scientific cosmology,
... ages and ages and ages before the actual times,
and long before the oncoming of your gays' religion.
Betov.
JGCASEY
Betov wrote:
> Percival <dragont...@yahoo.com> écrivait
> news:pan.2005.01.14....@yahoo.com:
>
> > [...]
>
> Now, let me tell you the crual truth about time:
>
> Your life had a begining, and it will have an end.
> Given the length of the measurable time of the earth
> planet life, the time of your life, on this planet,
> counts for nope. You are a sand grain in the ocean
> meaning at all.
[...]
> Betov.
Does this apply to your existence also Betov?
John Casey
Evenbit
Whoever wrote that page committed a great deal of "technical
inaccuracies" and has no understanding of literary and archeological
research.
Nathan.
Percival
> Percival <dragont...@yahoo.com> écrivait
> news:pan.2005.01.14....@yahoo.com:
>
>> [...]
>
> One of the not lesser funny thing coming with mentaly deseased religious
> believers, is when they begin arguing by using logic and/or the
> historical sources, in their twisted ways.
> Mind you, i spent a significative number of years of my school days in a
> religious school, and i have, later, studied the history of Religions in
> deepth. So, i know in advance all of your bullshits by heart, and you'd
> better play that kind of tune with anybody but me. :))
How do you know MINE, when you have never met me before? Are you one to so
believe that all men think the same?
> _You_ have a problem. Several problems, in fact:
>
> * You believe in something that does not exist. So forth, you are a
> schysophren.
Do the people a schizophrenic believes in exist? Are they not real? What
is reality to you, may not be reality to me. For all I know, you are
neither living nor breathing.
The line between reality and mentality is blurred, There is no reality,
there is nothing real.
Are dreams real, and how would we know if they were? Should we be dreaming
right now, we would be trapped in a dream, and none of this would really
matter.
> * As you know that your believes are nothing but insane bullshits, you
> need to reinforce them by sharing them with other idiots.
As you know that your lack of beliefs is causing you pain, you enforce
bullshits on others, in an otherwise peaceful and fully debated
discussion.
Look into yourself before seeing who is crazy here, Why would YOU require
to force us to believe that we are crazy, if you truly are superior in
thought to us, why would you even bother?
It is well known that only idiots argue with idiots, because those who
watch them argue know who is wrong and who is right. So why do I argue?
Mostly for fun :) And yes, while I am young, I should learn how truly
dumb I am before I can advanced in life. That way, when I am no longer
dumb, I can look back on my past of when I was dumb so I have an example
of what was idiotic and what I shouldn't do when I become wise :)
> * To defend yourselves against reality, you need a social organization,
> which typical achievement is what can be found, nowadays, in the
> American religious Nazism, and/or, in the Islamic AlQuaida type
> delirium. Nothing new, in fact...
To defend your lack of life, and the failures in life, you force yourself
to believe that there are no true goals in life so that everyone around
you feels the same you do. The problem is, we know better than you and
you take no effect on us, thus your reason for responding so harshly in
an otherwise peaceful debate. Heck, it wasn't even a "response" you
started this one Betov.
> Now, let me tell you the crual truth about time:
>
> Your life had a begining, and it will have an end. Given the length of
> the measurable time of the earth planet life, the time of your life, on
> this planet, counts for nope. You are a sand grain in the ocean of space
> and of time, and you existence has no meaning at all. Your opinions
> about time, gods, religions and other bullshits, have less importance
> than the opinion a Neolitic rabbit had about the good corns to eat.
Is it not obvious? God does not even need me, and thus the reason we are
here is still debated. You are exactly right, we are dust and nothing but
dust. We will turn into dust when we die, and we were dust when we began.
What was your point?
Oh yeah, to make us feel just like you do. Worthless.
(P.S. Sorry Betov. But when you piss me off, you piss me off. Always
claiming that others are "Bullshitting" me, when in fact you just throw
in your bullshits with the rest of them. The difference is that you are
the one who claim the others are bullshitting me, while the others just
give it like it is, without offering shit about another's views. Though I
should not get mad at your posts, it just shows how stupid I am to be
doing this, so no need to point it out. I'd like a vent sometimes)
Percival
Percival
> Percival <dragont...@yahoo.com> écrivait
> news:pan.2005.01.14....@yahoo.com:
>
>> Ignorance of Geography is not very cool in an argument :)
>
>
> No sense of humour at all? Percival? And could
> you really believe that a European could ignore
> geography as well as a US citizen?
You must have missed the smiley face. Lemme point it out.
Percival
wolfgang kern
Percival wrote:
[snip]
| Now, if the arrow was infinite meters from the target,
| then it would never hit.
Yes.
| Lets see, i can prove that no number exists between 1 and .999~ (where
| .999~ means 9 repeating forever).
[..]
| And thus, because .99~ and 1 are the same number,
| no number exists between them.
Yes, infinite periodic figures are used that way,
but only in infinitesimal calculations.
So this two numbers will always differ unless the not existing
but calculated 'infinity-point' is reached.
Same for the parallel lines which cross at the 'infinity point'.
If you extend your theory, you might figure out that PI and all
other transcendentals become 'finally' just periodic.
And if it happens before infinity is reached then I'll change my mind:
'my universe is infinitive in terms of time and space' and
'creation wasn't required as the whole thing was there all the time'.
Perhaps we humans got a creator,
but I rather believe in a Gen-Lab where our ancestors played silly games,
which may way better explain the illogical human behaviour,
than on any mystic gods.
| In math, we can prove that there are no points of intersection between two
| lines if they are parallel, and thus we can prove that points of
| intersection do not exist,
<>
| how can you not prove that God does not exist?
</>
:) now if this is a proof, I'm mot sure for you meant it that way.
__
wolfgang
john chung
<rand...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Jonathan Bartlett" <joh...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
>news:41e6...@news.tulsaconnect.com...
>> > But the book as a whole is fantasy and passages from
>> > it are proof of nothing other than the gullibility of man, yes, Jonah
>> > was inside a whale (I'm rolling my eyes).
>>
>> If you're going to pick a story to roll your eyes at, this is not really
>> the one. While not a common occurrence, this certainly has happened,
>> and the description of Jonah's skin matches that of others' with the
>> experience. Likewise, it's interesting that the first known account of
>> agnosia comes from one of Jesus' healings. (Compare Mark 8:22–25 to
>> clinical accounts of agnosia)
>>
>
>
>Actually, Jonah is down the list of "unbelivable" Bible stories.
>Creation is #1 on the list (of course).
>Noah's flood is #2.
>Christ's resurrection is #3.
>
>While the field of apologetics has made great strides at
>showing the Bible to be true, the bottom line is that it still
>requires faith to accept it 100%. And that's a good thing.
>For without faith, the Bible would be nothing, anyway.
>
>The truely amusing part is how so many naysayers claim the
>Bible couldn't possibly be true, without having dones so much
>as to really go in and prove the Bible to be incorrect. The only
>problem with that approach is that *most* people who go in
>and seriously try to disprove the Bible wind up coming to the
>conclusion that it's quite true.
>Cheers,
>Randy Hyde
B'cos it is true. The amazing love of GOD.
John
>
>
>
Percival
Well, the illogical human behavior is from free will. Now the true
question is, do we have free will at all? :p
This is a hole that just keeps getting deeper.
> | In math, we can prove that there are no points of intersection between two
> | lines if they are parallel, and thus we can prove that points of
> | intersection do not exist,
> <>
> | how can you not prove that God does not exist?
> </>
> :) now if this is a proof, I'm mot sure for you meant it that way.
Nah, just emphasizing on how silly Betov's argument was.
Percival
Randall Hyde
"JGCASEY" <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> I have seen this argument before and indeed have
> wondered about it myself. Shades of Zeno I think.
Yes, it is quite philosophical :-).
>
> Time is a strange beast and so is infinity.
Just remember, at one time humans thought the concept
of "zero" was beyond their comprehension...
>
> > > As I understand physics, space and time are part of
> > > the Universe. There is no meaning to "before time"
> > > when some creator could have created anything.
> >
> > Obviously, the creator exists outside the notion of
> > physical laws and time.
>
> Doesn't "exist" imply space and time to have meaning?
No. As Spock once said (at least in the movies)"
"...without the proper reference..."
IOW, it is hard for four-dimensional beings like ourselves
to comprehend how things can operate outside our
personal frame of reference. Such is the mystery of
God. If God were a physical being, bound by the
same laws of nature God drafted for us, God wouldn't
be a very impressive being.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"Robert Redelmeier" <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:e_QFd.17605$iC4....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Sure. It's Baalam's donkey (you know, the one that talked
to Baalam?). See Numbers. Chapter 21 or 22 IIRC. :-)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"Betov" <be...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:XnF95DE82E1F9...@212.27.42.71...
>
> Pathetic ass-hole, how is it that you do not
> have any Link to < Webster > for explaining
> to the amaized people, how the universe was
> first created?
>
> :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
>
Well, I'm not sure about the Universe, but here's a link
on Webster that discusses the creation of Man :-)
http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/Page_Christian/GreatestHits/Volume06/GodCreatedAMan.mp3
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
>
> You will also need some supranatural intervention
> to convince the Assembly Programmers that HLA is
> an Assembler.
>
> Please go on praying silently and, in between save
> us from your insane bullshits.
Ah yes.
"He who never *starts* a thread."
But tries to convert every other thread in this newsgroup to
one about HLA. Thanks for promoting the product, even in
threads where the discussion has nothing to do with HLA.
Interested parties, of course, can learn all about that great
High-Level Assembler on Webster at http://webster.cs.ucr.edu
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Ro
<dragont...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Is it not obvious? God does not even need me, and thus the reason we are
>here is still debated. You are exactly right, we are dust and nothing but
>dust. We will turn into dust when we die, and we were dust when we began.
We are immortal souls not dust
Betov
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Of course yes. Are you expecting i am a mentaly
deffective believing he is a god?
Betov.
Betov
4ax.com:
> We are immortal souls not dust
May i have the pill?
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Betov.
Betov
news:pan.2005.01.15....@yahoo.com:
> This is a hole that just keeps getting deeper.
Sure, but stop being a fashion victim for fuck,
and it will reduce by itself.
Betov
news:nr3Gd.7862$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> "Betov" <be...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:XnF95DE82E1F9...@212.27.42.71...
>
>>
>> Pathetic ass-hole, how is it that you do not
>> have any Link to < Webster > for explaining
>> to the amaized people, how the universe was
>> first created?
>>
>> :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
>>
>
> Well, I'm not sure about the Universe, but here's a link
> on Webster that discusses the creation of Man :-)
Well, i have no sound card, on my actual computer,
but i suppose that others will be interrested in
learning that master Pdf, the swindler who calls
a text pre-parser an Assembler is also an expert
in History of species, in archeology, in paleotology,
in... everything. :))
Betov.
Betov
@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Ah yes.
> "He who never *starts* a thread."
> But tries to convert every other thread in this newsgroup to
> one about HLA. Thanks for promoting the product, even in
> threads where the discussion has nothing to do with HLA.
> Interested parties, of course, can learn all about that great
> High-Level Assembler on Webster at http://webster.cs.ucr.edu
Save yourself from confusing me with your God.
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Betov.
Donkey
Ro wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:42:55 GMT, Donkey
> <contact_no...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Ro wrote:
>>
>>>The prove of existence of God is in the physics laws.
>>>They are logic thus there was a mind that had to think them.
>>>Where do came from physics laws? They come from chance?
>>>If you think otherwise you are not logic at all.
>>>
>>>See what happen in the world, the only answer is to looking for
>>>God and so *pray*. There is no excuse for not doing this(pray).
>>>The money, the arrogance, and other idols of now-days can not save
>>>anybody. To searching God for find Jesus and his wonderful pray:
>>>The "Padre nostro"
>>>
>>
>>Hi Ro,
>>
>>Actually the funny thing is that I thought you had a good argument there
>>for proving god does not exist but you threw me a loop. Since we can
>>derive a set of rules from our observation of the universe, and we call
>>that process logic, it stands to reason that the thing we extrapolated
>>the rules from would also follow those rules. The only way that it would
>>not is through some outside intervention, like say a god. Since as you
>>say, the universe sticks stubbornly to the rules of logic, the only
>>conclusion that you can make is that there is no outside influence,
>>hence no god. For example, if I threw a pebble into a calm pond, I could
>>logically assume that the ripples would travel out in circles, the only
>>way they would not is if there was someone or something to disturb them.
>>So I guess that you have made a very good point, if the universe is
>>logical (within the bounds of the uncertainty principle) then there is
>>no god.
>
>
> So there is a logic and not the mind that had thought that, that had
> invented that? Someone that want, compute and see what is good and
> what not.
Ro,
Once again you fail to grasp the fact that your argument is proof that
there is no god. Logic is a method used to develop theory, not a thing
that is invented, it is a series of steps, each following the other that
allows you to draw conclusions and perhaps postulate rules based on
those conclusions. If the universe always follows the same pattern,
without fail, and we can explain all the forces necessary to recreate
that pattern, then we can assume that there are no unkown outside
influences. It is only when the rules of "logic" (to use it in your
sense) are broken that we must accept that there is something beyond our
understanding acting upon the universe.
As Randy pointed out, it is not the adherence to the rules of physics
that proves there is a god, it is when the universe does not follow the
rules that is the definitive proof that there is one. It is the
exceptions that prove the rule, that prove the existence of god.
However, I have not seen any event that would lead me to believe that we
will ultimately fail in developping a true model of the forces acting
upon the universe except those of scale, which can be estimated. So from
my point of view I cannot accept that god exists, but being a reasonable
person I leave this opinion open to change, this is because if I don't I
am as stubborn and intransigent as those who say there is one in
defiance of reason.
But I have noticed that if you watch history, the frequency and enormity
of "miracles" tends to drop with each advance in science, as we shine
the light of reason on that hogwash, it disappears quickly. We have gone
from stopping the sun and turning people to salt, to the Virgin Mary's
face in a box of Cheerio's
Good and evil are meaningless, if you accept that God created the
universe you must also accept that. If God created everything, then He
also created evil or he is not God. Because if something entered into
His creation that He did not have control over, it His defies
omnipotence, a prerequisite of being God. So you must either accept the
fact that God is fallable or that He did not create either good or evil,
that they are concepts invented by man to explain something we do not
understand and in God's reality they do not exist.
Donkey
Randall Hyde wrote:
> The argument is this. If time were infinite in the backwards
> direction, then we couldn't have reached "today" because
> time moves along in relatively fixed increments (at least, at
> one location in space). If time extended backwards an
> infinite amount, then there could never have passed enough
> time to reach today. Therefore, there was a *beginning* to
> time.....
> Cheers,
> Randy Hyde
>
Hi Randy,
Time is a dimension,like up or down. To say that it is infinite or
finite does not make any sense to me. Time is simply a vector, it's like
saying left is inifite. It requires context in order to have meaning,
that context is the universe, and like left it has no starting point or
ending point it is simply a direction of travel. Asking when time
started is like asking where left starts, it is a non-sensical question
on it's surface.
Donkey
LGC wrote:
> I am a Biblical creationists. Though I believe in God by faith alone, I
> believe that the evidence that we see today more aptly fits the creationists
> model.
>
> Take a look at these sites for more informaiton:
>
> http://www.icr.org/
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/
> http://www.creationresearch.org/
> http://www.talkorigins.org/
>
> LaVern
Nothing makes me smile more than creationists. There is no single fact
that has hurt religion more than the absolute fact of evolution. The
creationists doggedly stand by their children's stories and continue to
paint religion for what it is, a group of made up stories that are now
looking as old and faded as the hope that if you stay up late enough
Santa will actually come down the chimney. Ever since the great French
scientist Jean Baptiste Lamark and later Charles Darwin put forward the
Fact of Evolution, it has been ridiculed by the creationists, but like
all true things, time bore it out and the evidence became to enormous to
ignore. The creationists however choose to ignore it anyway, well OK,
they are unfortunately a dying breed, because nothing is helping more to
accelerate the end of the curse of religion than the creationists. But I
do hope that the christian story of creation is not lost as so many of
the others when their religions die, it does provide light reading and a
really good laugh when I am in need of a bit of humour.
Donkey
Betov
news:pan.2005.01.15...@yahoo.com:
> As you know that your lack of beliefs is causing you pain, you enforce
> bullshits on others, in an otherwise peaceful and fully debated
> discussion.
The one with a "life pain" is _you_, Percival. Not me.
I do not need to believe in something that does not
exist to bear my life, and, in that matter, i am some
kind of real _adult_ animal, whereas you are a child
who needs to be told fairy tails.
The ones "inforcing bullshits on others" have never been
the ones who do not believe in any god, but, all the
contrary, as shown so many times by history, the religious
believers. The situation is not at all symetric: On one
hand _you_ need to "inforce your bullshits on others",
because the more people believing in your bullshits, the
more confident you will feel about it. On the other hand,
would it not be a constant aggressions of believers upon
sane individuals, the sane individuals would never start
talking about something that does not exist.
The ones not able to have "a peaceful and fully debated
discussion" are the ones who need to believe in something
that does not exist. We have never seen, along the human
history, sane individuals killing and torturing to death
believers so that they could turn sane back. We have seen
the opposite quite often.
> Look into yourself before seeing who is crazy here, Why
> would YOU require to force us to believe that we are crazy,
> if you truly are superior in thought to us, why would you
> even bother?
When the doctor of a pshychiatric hospital meets his
patients, he does not discuss with them about how
well the doctor feels. I _am_ superior to you, on that
point, that i am _sane_ and that you are _diseased_.
Why i _must_ bother, is because, i belong to a civilization
that had to suffer from christianism for more than 1000
years. Now, we are hopefully getting out of that religious
shit, by the grace of science. This had been a _LONG_ war,
that we have won against obscurantism, and this is why i
cannot let you spread your mental disease on our heads
again, without reacting, without trying to defend _my_
civilization against such a demential and out of date
aggression.
You are ill. Cure yourself. Learn out to live with doubt
and with uncertain things. Learn how to live without
"knowing" everything. Learn how to walk without cruches.
After having done this, if you still have some mystical
aspiration, experiment by yourself without the deadfull
"help" of the fucky religions. The way to yourself, in
such experimentations, cannot be given to you, in full
words, in any book. Even the greatest myticals having
lived on earth (the oriental mysticals and the occidental
alchymists) have never succeeded anything best than poor
indications on the experimental road, and these "soul heros"
have _never_ talked about any "God" that you could "pray".
Betov.
Betov
@pd7tw2no:
> Hi Randy,
>
> Time is a dimension,like up or down. To say that it is infinite or
> finite does not make any sense to me. Time is simply a vector, it's
like
> saying left is inifite. It requires context in order to have meaning,
> that context is the universe, and like left it has no starting point or
> ending point it is simply a direction of travel. Asking when time
> started is like asking where left starts, it is a non-sensical question
> on it's surface.
Using logic to argue against a religious believer
is as stupis as using it to argue with any mentaly
deseased patient, in a pshychiatric hospital.
There is no question about what the mentaly deseased
person believes. There are some about why and how
this desease came out.
In that perspective, Randall Hyde, the famous swindler,
is quite close to the perfect attitude, as long as he
keeps carefully below the line of faith. This is the
only position where a religious believer may keep "out
of control". He just did a minor strategic error, with
his stupid digression about time. If, another day, he
can make up his deseased mind that "time" is a function
of "mouvement", he will just keep carefully away from
such argumentation and will keep with _faith_.
Betov.
wolfgang kern
"Betov" wrote:
| > We are immortal souls not dust
| May i have the pill?
|
| :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Oh yes, are we done with praying yet ?
To all:
repeat after me: AMEN. Just to end this thread.
__
wolfgang (on the way back to serious work)
Randall Hyde
"Donkey" <contact_no...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:0g6Gd.84974$6l.30705@pd7tw2no...
>
> Hi Randy,
>
> Time is a dimension,like up or down. To say that it is infinite or
> finite does not make any sense to me. Time is simply a vector, it's like
> saying left is inifite. It requires context in order to have meaning,
> that context is the universe, and like left it has no starting point or
> ending point it is simply a direction of travel. Asking when time
> started is like asking where left starts, it is a non-sensical question
> on it's surface.
The question isn't so much *where* time began, but rather, how
did we get to today if time did not have a beginning? As time (at
one location in space) tends to move along at a consistent rate,
there is no way to reach the current point on the time line if time
extends backwards an infinite amount.
Asking when time began is just as sensical as asking
"how did we get here?" Because the two questions are
inexorably tied together. The analogy with "left" doesn't
work here, because linear dimensions don't support the
concept of "history".
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
>
>
> LGC wrote:
> > I am a Biblical creationists. Though I believe in God by faith alone, I
> > believe that the evidence that we see today more aptly fits the
creationists
> > model.
> >
> > Take a look at these sites for more informaiton:
> >
> > http://www.icr.org/
> > http://www.answersingenesis.org/
> > http://www.creationresearch.org/
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/
> >
> > LaVern
>
> Nothing makes me smile more than creationists. There is no single fact
> that has hurt religion more than the absolute fact of evolution.
There is nothing that hurts science more than people who claim
theories to be absolute fact :-)
Interestingly enough, just this past week there was a very interesting
article in the paper. It seems that some archaeologists dug up some
fossils in China where a mammal had eaten a baby dinosaur. This was
very exciting news in the scientific community, because the assumption
to that point was that large mammals did not coexist with the dinosaurs.
The "creationists" have argued all along that dinosaurs and mammals
*did* coexist, while evolutionists always argued that this was not the
case (well, that *large* mammals did not coexist, anyway).
The problem with evolutionary theory is that it is *woefully*
incomplete. And as bits and pieces of information come in,
we keep finding out that "absolute facts" that have been touted
by the "anti-creation" crowd in the past have not held up.
Personally, I don't care one way or another how God created
man. Evolution, even if proven 100% (which, of course, it
never will be) does not deny the existence of a creator. It simply
pushes the creation point back in time (Who created the
heavens and the Earth *before* life existed, for example?).
This is the fundamental problem with humanism - they try to
disprove the existence of God by claiming we evolved rather than
were created instantaneously. But the very materials from which
life first sprang forward could not have existed without some
sort of "Universe creation" (i.e., Genesis 1:1). Scientists, with
their powerful telescopes and other observation devices are
getting us closer and closer to the moment of the "big bang"
by studying the far reaches of space. But one thing they will
*never* be able to do, is look back a moment *before*
the big bang (which, presumably, is when it all began). For if
they could, then they would simply have disproven the
big bang theory. Ultimately, that may very well be what happens.
But assuming they can't do that, and they prove that there
is nothing to see back in time before the big bang, how are
they going to explain how it all happened in the first place?
Whether man was created in an instant by the hand of
code, or by lightening striking some pond scum (i.e.,
"from the dust of the Earth") is only a trivial, ego-centric,
philosophical question. The real question is "how was
the universe created" and science will *never* be able
to answer that question because it involves measurements
that must be made beyond this physical universe.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde