Why do Catholics believe
Patrick
by, and is governed by, an all-powerful Spirit Being called God? What actual
proof is there of God's existence and omnipotence?
Catholics believe that the universe is the creation, and the exclusive
dominion, of an infinitely powerful Spirit Being, called God, because the
evidence which points to that conclusion is so overwhelming that there is no
room left for even the slightest vestige of doubt. First, there is the
evidence of logic. Through the process of simple mathematical-type
reasoning, man inevitably comes face to face with certain indisputable
principles: Everything has a cause; nothing can bring itself into existence.
Obviously there is a long chain of causes in the universe, but ultimately
there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause we call
``God.'' (The theory of evolution, even if it could be proved, would not
explain the origin of anything; evolution simply deals with what may have
happened after matter came into existence.) Further, 1) personal creation
(man) presupposes a superior Personal Creator, 2) universal order
presupposes a Universal Orderer, 3) cosmic energy presupposes a Cosmic
Energizer, 4) natural law presupposes a Universal Law Maker. Basic
principles of reason such as these explain why so many of the world's
leading scientists are firm believers in God.
Then, there is the evidence of divine revelation--on countless occasions God
has revealed Himself by voice, vision and apparition (by means which are
receptive to the human senses), and demonstrated His Omnipotence by
stupendous, obviously supernatural miracles. Many of these revelations are a
matter of authenticated historical record. The Scriptures, for example, are
full of such accounts; and in modern times the world has been witness to
such Heaven-sent miracles as those at Fatima, Lourdes, and St. Anne de
Beaupr� in Quebec, Canada, where the cured have left a forest of crutches in
testimony. (The Lourdes Medical Bureau is open for examination by any
doctor.) In addition, there is the liquefaction of the blood of St.
Januarius which still takes place in Naples each year on September 19, his
feastday; the incorruption of the bodies of many Catholic saints (such as
St. Bernadette, who died in 1879); and the miraculous Eucharistic Host of
Lanciano, Italy, which has been scientifically proven to be human flesh and
human blood, type AB--to mention only a few of the miracles still on-going
in the 20th century, which point to the existence of a God.
And lastly there is the evidence of human intuition. Psychologists have long
known that every human being--the atheist included--intuitively seeks God's
help in times of great calamity, and instinctively pleads for God's mercy
when death is imminent. Hence the renowned Voltaire, who was so eloquent in
his denial of God while he enjoyed health, fame and fortune, repudiated all
of his atheistic writings on his deathbed and frantically sought the
ministrations of a Catholic priest. Nikolai Lenin, as he lay on his
deathbed, looked around him and frantically asked pardon of the tables and
chairs in the room. For as hunger for food proclaims the existence of food,
man's intuitive hunger for God proclaims the Reality, the Omnipotence and
the Justice of God. Catholic belief in God, therefore, is purely and simply
an expression of intellectual sanity.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html
mani deli
learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
thinking.
Bill M
"mani deli" <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote in message
news:ofanj51h01l84fjc8...@4ax.com...
duke
Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
volunteers.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
IT Helpdesk
> learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> thinking.
"Sunday School"?
Perhaps you are thinking of a different Christian denomination?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
mani deli
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
>>learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
>>thinking.
>
>Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
>volunteers.
No god ever said anything.
God is the immature man's Santa Claus
tirebiter
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >thinking.
>
> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
> volunteers.
>
You mean people have claimed that an alleged god said that. No god
has ever said anything, ever.
---
a.a. #2273
Kenny McCormack
mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
...
>No god ever said anything.
Indeed.
>God is the immature man's Santa Claus
Probably more accurate to say that He
is the mature child's Santa Claus.
For the child who has matured physically, but not mentally.
duke
You'll make a good volunteer for satanville.
duke
wrote:
Can you support that statement?
tirebiter
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:14:40 -0800 (PST), tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 31, 7:08 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
> >> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >> >thinking.
>
> >> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
> >> volunteers.
>
> >You mean people have claimed that an alleged god said that. No god
> >has ever said anything, ever.
>
> Can you support that statement?
>
Yes. Not a single person in the history of the world who has made the
claim that their imaginary god said something has ever produced first
hand proof of such. You certainly don't have first hand proof of
anything you claim your god ever said.
---
a.a. #2273
SkyEyes
In other words, for the same reasons Baptists believe. <G> Or
Mormons, or Muslims, or Congregationalists, or Lutherans, etc.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >thinking.
>
> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
> volunteers.
To whom did your alleged god say that?
All humans are born non-theists and no human becomes a theist without
being brainwashed into it.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:13:20 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:08:50 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >>>learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >>>thinking.
> >>
> >>Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
> >>volunteers.
> >
> >No god ever said anything.
>
> You'll make a good volunteer for satanville.
Except that there is no evidence that such a place even exists.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:14:40 -0800 (PST), tirebiter
> <dontsp...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 31, 7:08�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >> >thinking.
> >>
> >> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
> >> volunteers.
> >>
> >
> >You mean people have claimed that an alleged god said that. No god
> >has ever said anything, ever.
>
> Can you support that statement?
It is as supportable as claims that some sort of god has said things.
There is no more evidence for any god than against any god, so they
should all exist equally or none exist. I do not believe that all of
them can exist.
bam
mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
>>learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
>>thinking.
Did your mother tell you that?
BAM
mani deli
>>No god ever said anything.
>
>You'll make a good volunteer for satanville.
You are bugged by imaginary devils daily. Satanville is your mental
home town.
Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime.
There goes your proof!
duke
Can you prove you have thoughts?
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 31, 2:24�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:14:40 -0800 (PST), tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 31, 7:08 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>> >> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
>> >> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
>> >> >thinking.
>>
>> >> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
>> >> volunteers.
>>
>> >You mean people have claimed that an alleged god said that. �No god
>> >has ever said anything, ever.
>>
>> Can you support that statement?
>Yes. Not a single person in the history of the world who has made the
>claim that their imaginary god said something has ever produced first
>hand proof of such.
No, that's not support. Can you prove you have thoughts?
> You certainly don't have first hand proof of
>anything you claim your god ever said.
Touche'.
duke
>In article <h15pj5tje4qgpgt3u...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
>> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
>> >thinking.
>>
>> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
>> volunteers.
>To whom did your alleged god say that?
All of us, including you. But alas, you won't listen.
>All humans are born non-theists and no human becomes a theist without
>being brainwashed into it.
All humans are born with mommie having to change their diaper.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> Can you prove you have thoughts?
Can you define what thoughts are?
Absent an agreed upon definition, what would constitute a proof?
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:09:29 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> >All humans are born non-theists and no human becomes a theist without
> >being brainwashed into it.
>
> All humans are born with mommie having to change their diaper.
Some are born to dead mommies who can't change their diaper.
But the vast majority of those babies raised by members of any sect
within a religion become members of that sect.
This evidence suggests that religion is a matter of culture rather than
fact, i.e., any form of religion whatsoever is highly likely to be
believed and accepted if one is raised by believers in it.
So that unless Duke was raised by non-RC members and later converted, he
is merely regurgitating his acculturation here.
livvy
Really? That may have been your life....I liked Sunday School, school
in general, learned my religion's history in Sunday School, learned
history in my secular education through college. If you have a
brain, the critical thinking is built-in, and you can sort out and
dismiss all you want. It's not a prison, higher education and use
of the brain you have is encouraged. You got a problem with
that....t'would be yours.
Father Haskell
They were frightened by a giant penguin.
duke
>In article <hqprj5d1qhp9pas44...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Can you prove you have thoughts?
>
>Can you define what thoughts are?
If you don't know by now, you will NEVER be able to prove you have them.
mani deli
wrote:
>On Dec 30 2009, 2:31�pm, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>> �Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
>> learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
>> thinking.
>
>Really? That may have been your life....I liked Sunday School, school
>in general, learned my religion's history in Sunday School, learned
>history in my secular education through college.
and you saw no contradiction between the two?
> If you have a
>brain, the critical thinking is built-in, and you can sort out and
>dismiss all you want.
You aren't born with critical thinking it is learned.
> It's not a prison, higher education and use
>of the brain you have is encouraged. You got a problem with
>that....t'would be yours.
?
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:16:07 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> >In article <hqprj5d1qhp9pas44...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Can you prove you have thoughts?
> >
> >Can you define what thoughts are?
>
> If you don't know by now, you will NEVER be able to prove you have them.
And unless YOU can define them, you can never prove anything about them.
Which is where theists are now, unable to prove anything about any gods.
I can prove that I have certain patterns of electrical activity in my
brain which match up to those in other brains when the people involved
say they are having thoughts.
Which is immensely greater evidence for the existence of those thoughts
that anyone has ever come up with as evidence for existence of gods.
duke
>In article <uvhuj5tne0od4ujjf...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:16:07 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <hqprj5d1qhp9pas44...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Can you prove you have thoughts?
>> >
>> >Can you define what thoughts are?
>> If you don't know by now, you will NEVER be able to prove you have them.
>And unless YOU can define them, you can never prove anything about them.
>Which is where theists are now, unable to prove anything about any gods.
I have them. I have evidence.
>I can prove that I have certain patterns of electrical activity in my
>brain which match up to those in other brains when the people involved
>say they are having thoughts.
??? Sounds like evidence of something, not proof. Maybe the evidence that you
have an electrical reaction when around watermelon.
bam
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-B1BF3B....@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
All human beings are born non - everything then. If your point is that we
learn as we grow, then yes, that's a truism.
What is the purpose of life? Could you answer the first three question in
the Baltimore Catechism?
1. Who made us?
God made us.
2. Who is God?
God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps
them in existence.
3. Why did God make us?
God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting
happiness in heaven.
BAM
Logan
> In article <1tprj5t66t86g73v0uvbgnvo436u831...@4ax.com>,
Your misconception about babies should be corrected. It's true that
these babies are baptized as infants, however, they are given the
chance to confirm their faith when they are in the age that they can
make decisions of their own. Have you heard of "Confirmation" in the
RCC?
Olrik
How many do not "confirm"? How many say "thanks, but no"? Any stats on
that?
Olrik
Teresita
> Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Science are compatible.
Not really. Science says no Adam, no fall of man, thus no original sin
and nothing for our souls to be saved from. Science says there's no
evidence for souls and no evidence a supernatural designer guides
everything.
Logan
> Le 2010-01-03 14:45, Logan a �crit :
I don't have stats on that. When I do find out, I'll be glad to convey
them to you.
Olrik
I'm sure you will.
Smiler
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> news:Virgil-B1BF3B....@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
>> In article <h15pj5tje4qgpgt3u...@4ax.com>,
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
>>>> learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
>>>> thinking.
>>>
>>> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled
>>> with volunteers.
>>
>> To whom did your alleged god say that?
>>
>> All humans are born non-theists and no human becomes a theist without
>> being brainwashed into it.
>
> All human beings are born non - everything then. If your point is
> that we learn as we grow, then yes, that's a truism.
>
> What is the purpose of life? Could you answer the first three
> question in the Baltimore Catechism?
>
> 1. Who made us?
Assuming your conclusion!
Why do you assume it's a 'who'?
Why do you assume that we were 'made'?
> God made us.
You have no evidence of any god.
It's a well known property of non-existent 'beings' that they never make
anything.
>
> 2. Who is God?
An invisible, unevidenced superbeing believed in by some deluded people.
> God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and
> keeps them in existence.
Again, you have no evidence.
>
> 3. Why did God make us?
With no evidence of any gods, that is a stupid question.
A more accurate one would be: Why did mankind invent gods?
> God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His
> everlasting happiness in heaven.
Nonsense and babble.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
bam
"Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote in message
news:L1a0n.54498$Qp7....@newsfe25.ams2...
But you as an atheist don't have the answers to the simplest of life's
questions. You are visionary retards.
BAM
bam
"Teresita" <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01.03....@newsguy.com...
Science says no Adam? Science says nothing. Persons say things; science is a
method. Please learn how to articulate.
Secondly. The absence of evidence is irrelevant. We all agree that this is
our faith; not our science. Secondly, science has not disproven the
existence of God and never will.
Third. You might want to check out the famous scientists who were Christians
throughout the centuries before parading your bigotry.
BAM
�R.L.Measures
<blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
� "To hear many religious people talk, one would think God created the
torso, head, legs and arms, but the devil slapped on the genitals."
- - - Don Schrader
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
Where does science deny the presence of our soul or of creation of the universe?
duke
>On Jan 2, 12:27?am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> In article <1tprj5t66t86g73v0uvbgnvo436u831...@4ax.com>,
>>
v-boy doesn't have a clue.
Dakota
I was confirmed at the age of 11 or 12. That was clearly before I was able
to make decisions on my own. Confirmation was simply what Catholic kids did
at that age. No decisions involved. Fortunately, by the time I reached the
age of 15, I realized that, despite trying in earnest, I had never believed
in the bible stories and other trappings of religion. It was at that time
that I announced my disbelief in God and never looked back. I do miss the
incense though.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>I was confirmed at the age of 11 or 12. That was clearly before I was able
>to make decisions on my own. Confirmation was simply what Catholic kids did
>at that age. No decisions involved. Fortunately, by the time I reached the
>age of 15, I realized that, despite trying in earnest, I had never believed
>in the bible stories and other trappings of religion. It was at that time
>that I announced my disbelief in God and never looked back. I do miss the
>incense though.
You're probably still on their list though .
I sometimes wonder just how genuine the numbers are, and how many
ex-Catholics are still counted.
Dakota
If the Catholic church lies about pedophile priests, I have no doubt that
they lie about the number of Catholics. I do recall something about
confirmation making a person a Catholic for eternity. Sort of like the
indelible mark on the soul as a result of baptism. Strange stuff now but
for a sixth or seventh grader, it was all good. Religion was something the
kids played at but grownups did for real we thought back then. First
communion and confirmation also involved gifts to keep the kids interested.
�R.L.Measures
<ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
� The RCC undoubtedly has the best presentation in the salvation business.
�R.L.Measures
ca...@optonline.net wrote:
� No surprise there since the LdS / Mormon church apparently counts
members that came to their senses and walked.
Christopher A. Lee
At least the RCC doesn't posthumously baptise people into it. Which is
the reason the LDS do world wide genealogy reasearch, not just its own
members.
They even took the Bristish government contract for this, which means
they did it to every dead Brit they could identify.
While it can't offend the dead, it is arrogant as well as offensive to
the survivors' memory of their loved ones.
Logan
Soul is inside you, It simply means the principle of life.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Jan 3, 12:14?am, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Whit:
>>
>> > Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Science are compatible.
>>
>> Not really. ?Science says no Adam, no fall of man, thus no original sin
>> and nothing for our souls to be saved from. ?Science says there's no
>> evidence for souls and no evidence a supernatural designer guides
>> everything.
>
>Soul is inside you, It simply means the principle of life.
Does that mean something?
Kenny McCormack
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
...
>You're probably still on their list though .
>
>I sometimes wonder just how genuine the numbers are, and how many
>ex-Catholics are still counted.
In my experience, growing up in a small town that was heavily Catholic
(on paper, anyway), very few men (*) actually believe it. The female is
definitely the carrier of this disease. Men, unless they are
accompanied by their wives, basically come to Church late, sit in the
back, and leave early. And while they are there, they're thinking about
deer hunting.
So, if you didn't count the men, the numbers would really drop.
(*) The men who *do* believe, tend to be lunatics about it, as we see on
these newsgroups.
Kenny McCormack
...
>� No surprise there since the LdS / Mormon church apparently counts
>members that came to their senses and walked.
They also convert dead people (even people who lived before the LDS came
into existence). Presumably, they are counted as well.
Kenny McCormack
bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
...
>Secondly. The absence of evidence is irrelevant. We all agree that this is
>our faith; not our science. Secondly, science has not disproven the
>existence of God and never will.
In the same way that science has not and never will disprove the
existence of unicorns.
The fact is that people who believe religious claims believe for one
simple reason - because someone else says it is true (and, by extension,
because bad things will happen to them if they don't [claim to] believe).
In science this is just about the worst possible reason to believe
something (because someone else says it is true).
Kenny McCormack
>I was confirmed at the age of 11 or 12. That was clearly before I was able
>to make decisions on my own. Confirmation was simply what Catholic kids did
>at that age. No decisions involved. Fortunately, by the time I reached the
>age of 15, I realized that, despite trying in earnest, I had never believed
>in the bible stories and other trappings of religion. It was at that time
>that I announced my disbelief in God and never looked back. I do miss the
>incense though.
Exactly so. Well put.
In fact, when I was in 8th grade, I *was* sentient enough to elect not
to go through with it (and I had understanding parents). Most of my
classmates thought I was nuts to give up on the gifts they were all
getting. That's all they saw it as.
Jimbo
> In article <1ixv1ncnk7yp9.8w1f1ugy3yl8....@40tude.net>, Dakota
True, the RCC is very good at preaching, too bad it sucks so bad at
practicing.
Jimbo
Now, scientifically prove it.
�R.L.Measures
ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:46:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <slq3k5hkj9sjc87c6...@4ax.com>,
> >ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:10:11 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I was confirmed at the age of 11 or 12. That was clearly before I was able
> >> >to make decisions on my own. Confirmation was simply what Catholic
kids did
> >> >at that age. No decisions involved. Fortunately, by the time I reached the
> >> >age of 15, I realized that, despite trying in earnest, I had never
believed
> >> >in the bible stories and other trappings of religion. It was at that time
> >> >that I announced my disbelief in God and never looked back. I do miss the
> >> >incense though.
> >>
> >> You're probably still on their list though .
> >>
> >> I sometimes wonder just how genuine the numbers are, and how many
> >> ex-Catholics are still counted.
> >
> >
> >� No surprise there since the LdS / Mormon church apparently counts
> >members that came to their senses and walked.
>
> At least the RCC doesn't posthumously baptise people into it.
� Do you see something wrong wth baptising Adolph Hitler into the Mormon
church?
ref [Adolf Hitler was "baptized" and "endowed" on December 10, 1993,
and "sealed" to his parents on March 12, 1994. These events took place in
the London Temple, England.]
>Which is
> the reason the LDS do world wide genealogy reasearch, not just its own
> members.
>
> They even took the Bristish government contract for this, which means
> they did it to every dead Brit they could identify.
>
> While it can't offend the dead, it is arrogant as well as offensive to
> the survivors' memory of their loved ones.
� Agreed. The LdS church has no shortage of hubris.
Logan
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 08:11:44 -0800 (PST), Logan <loganbranf...@gmail.com>
When you're dead, it doesn't. But soul is the principle of life. Do
you understand what life is?
�R.L.Measures
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:
� Bizarre. It is unfathomable why a man would want possibly hundreds of
receptive wives in the hereafter.
Logan
Prove what life is? You must be kidding.
�R.L.Measures
<773b4f3f-3fc8-42be...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Jimbo
<ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:43=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article <1ixv1ncnk7yp9.8w1f1ugy3yl8....@40tude.net>, Dakota
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:47:51 -0600, duke wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:45:31 -0800 (PST), Logan
> > <loganbranf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>On Jan 2, 12:27?am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > >>> In article <1tprj5t66t86g73v0uvbgnvo436u831...@4ax.com>,
> >
> > > >>> ?duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >>> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:09:29 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrot=
> e:
> >
> > > >>> > >All humans are born non-theists and no human becomes a theist wi=
> thout
> > > >>> > >being brainwashed into it.
> >
> > > >>> > All humans are born with mommie having to change their diaper.
> >
> > > >>> Some are born to dead mommies who can't change their diaper.
> >
> > > >>> But the vast majority of those babies raised by members of any sect
> > > >>> within a religion become members of that sect.
> >
> > > >>> This evidence suggests that religion is a matter of culture rather =
> than
> > > >>> fact, i.e., any form of religion whatsoever is highly likely to be
> > > >>> believed and accepted if one is raised by believers in it.
> >
> > > >>> So that unless Duke was raised by non-RC members and later converte=
> d, he
> > > >>> is merely regurgitating his acculturation here.
> >
> > > >>Your misconception about babies should be corrected. It's true that
> > > >>these babies are baptized as infants, however, =A0they are given the
> > > >>chance to confirm their faith when they are in the age that they can
> > > >>make decisions of their own. Have you heard of "Confirmation" in the
> > > >>RCC?
> >
> > > > v-boy doesn't have a clue.
> >
> > > > The Dukester, American-American
> > > > *****
> > > > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> > > > Pope Paul VI
> > > > *****
> >
> > > I was confirmed at the age of 11 or 12. That was clearly before I was a=
> ble
> > > to make decisions on my own. Confirmation was simply what Catholic kids=
> did
> > > at that age. No decisions involved. Fortunately, by the time I reached =
> the
> > > age of 15, I realized that, despite trying in earnest, I had never beli=
> eved
> > > in the bible stories and other trappings of religion. It was at that ti=
> me
> > > that I announced my disbelief in God and never looked back. I do miss t=
> he
> > > incense though.
> >
> > =95 =A0 The RCC undoubtedly has the best presentation in the salvation bu=
> siness.
> >
>
> True, the RCC is very good at preaching, too bad it sucks so bad at
> practicing.
** Are you perhaps talking about priests felating altar-boys?
Logan
wrote:
> In article <gZCdnTpuQZBl59zWnZ2dnUVZ_hadn...@giganews.com>,bam <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Secondly. The absence of evidence is irrelevant. We all agree that this is
> >our faith; not our science. Secondly, science has not disproven the
> >existence of God and never will.
>
> In the same way that science has not and never will disprove the
> existence of unicorns.
Yes and that's our point!
> The fact is that people who believe religious claims believe for one
> simple reason - because someone else says it is true (and, by extension,
> because bad things will happen to them if they don't [claim to] believe).
> In science this is just about the worst possible reason to believe
> something (because someone else says it is true).
Antony Flew says no, there is a Supreme Being who created the
universe.
Logan
wrote:
That's our main point. In the RCC, you will have the right to choose,
so the "babies" argument is refuted.
Christopher A. Lee
From what I've seen most aren't allowed a choice.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Fundy mode: "you can't prove it isn't".
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
I understand what life is, but I've never seen soul defined as life.
It's nice that someone thinks that bacteria have soul.
AZ Nomad
I had something like that w/ deciding wether or not to go through with
the jewish bar mitzvah. I was always atheist and recall basically
asking "If I don't go through with it, will I get all that money and
gifts?" I went through it, a complete sham.
AZ Nomad
You clearly do not understand the words principle or life.
There isn't life when you're dead; why do you find this so hard to
grasp?
Logan
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:20:23 -0800 (PST), Logan <loganbranf...@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 4, 10:18?am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 08:11:44 -0800 (PST), Logan <loganbranf...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >On Jan 3, 12:14?am, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> >> Whit:
>
> >> >> > Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Science are compatible.
>
> >> >> Not really. ?Science says no Adam, no fall of man, thus no original sin
> >> >> and nothing for our souls to be saved from. ?Science says there's no
> >> >> evidence for souls and no evidence a supernatural designer guides
> >> >> everything.
>
> >> >Soul is inside you, It simply means the principle of life.
>
> >> Does that mean something?
>
> >When you're dead, it doesn't. But soul is the principle of life. Do
> >you understand what life is?
>
> I understand what life is, but I've never seen soul defined as life.
It's the principle of life in humans.
Logan
Yes, tell Free Lunch.
Jimbo
What a bizarre way to avoid a real explanation. Wave your hand and
give some ludicrous bullshit answer.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 1:50�pm, Logan <loganbranf...@gmail.com> wrote:
They have to say something no matter what, and they don't even bother
to think how unconvincing it is.
Jimbo
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:53:08 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or apparently, how ridiculous it is. It's like asking what is heat,
and getting ""It's the principle of fire..." as an answer.
Philosophical, but not useful.
Jimbo
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >thinking.
>
> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
> volunteers.
In other words, you live in morbid fear of not believing because you
think a cosmic boogieman will send you to a bad place, is that
right? What a poor existence you describe.
Jimbo
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:14:40 -0800 (PST), tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 31, 7:08 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
> >> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >> >thinking.
>
> >> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
> >> volunteers.
>
> >has ever said anything, ever.
>
> Can you support that statement?
>
Can you support your statement that he did?
Jimbo
> mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>
> >> Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >>learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >>thinking.
>
>
It's observable in the glassy-eyed sycophants that Sunday Schools
produce.
Jimbo
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:09:29 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >In article <h15pj5tje4qgpgt3u5hrltegdkqvhio...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >> >thinking.
>
> >> volunteers.
>
> All of us,
Another blind assertion you can't prove.
Jimbo
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:16:07 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >In article <hqprj5d1qhp9pas44el8qbon5sr5brp...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Can you prove you have thoughts?
>
> >Can you define what thoughts are?
>
> If you don't know by now,
In other words, you can't provide the definition. Same thing with
your religion it seems.
Jimbo
> On Jan 2, 12:27 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1tprj5t66t86g73v0uvbgnvo436u831...@4ax.com>,
>
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:09:29 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> > > >being brainwashed into it.
>
> > > All humans are born with mommie having to change their diaper.
>
> > Some are born to dead mommies who can't change their diaper.
>
> > But the vast majority of those babies raised by members of any sect
> > within a religion become members of that sect.
>
> > fact, i.e., any form of religion whatsoever is highly likely to be
> > believed and accepted if one is raised by believers in it.
>
> > is merely regurgitating his acculturation here.
>
> Your misconception about babies should be corrected. It's true that
> chance to confirm their faith when they are in the age that they can
> make decisions of their own. Have you heard of "Confirmation" in the
After years of careful indoctrination, did they really have a choice?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
What's the difference? All life on earth works the same way.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>> There isn't life when you're dead; ?why do you find this so hard to
>> grasp?
>
>Yes, tell Free Lunch.
AZ Nomad and I have no problems understanding each other. You, on the
other hand, have a private definition for soul and for life and are
doing a terrible job of explaining what you actually mean to any of us.
AZ Nomad
He's not dead! He's only mostly dead!
Only one thing you can do when they're all dead. Go through their
pockets, look for loose change.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:14:42 +0800, Teresita <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >Whit:
> >
> >> Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Science are compatible.
>
> >Not really. Science says no Adam, no fall of man, thus no original sin
> >and nothing for our souls to be saved from. Science says there's no
> >evidence for souls and no evidence a supernatural designer guides
> >everything.
>
> Where does science deny the presence of our soul or of creation of the
> universe?
Science says that sufficient absence of evidence becomes evidence of
absence.
Kenny McCormack
Exactly so. Well put.
You have to sort of read between the lines to get it, but the real point
I was making is that my classmates couldn't even conceive of having a
choice in the matter. So, both the fact that I *could* choose not to do
it and the fact that I did do so (and give up the presents) were
completely foreign to them.
tirebiter
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:28:46 -0800 (PST), tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 31, 2:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:14:40 -0800 (PST), tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids who
> >> >> >learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of critical
> >> >> >thinking.
>
> >> >> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled with
> >> >> volunteers.
>
> >> >has ever said anything, ever.
>
> >> Can you support that statement?
> >claim that their imaginary god said something has ever produced first
> >hand proof of such.
>
> No, that's not support. Can you prove you have thoughts?
>
Sure. That can be done empirically and by use of medical devices.
And while my support of the statement might not meet the scientific
method's standards, it's been 100% reliable so far. Until you or some
other godbot provides first hand proof that any god has ever uttered a
single word, I'll continue to use it as my trusty standard. You could
put an end to it today by being the first person in recorded history
to bring that proof forward.
> > You certainly don't have first hand proof of
> >anything you claim your god ever said.
>
> Touche'.
>
Are you admitting defeat?
---
a.a. #2273
tirebiter
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:40:15 +0000 (UTC), gaze...@shell.xmission.com
>
>
>
>
>
> (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> >In article <1ixv1ncnk7yp9.8w1f1ugy3yl8....@40tude.net>,
> >Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >...
> >>I was confirmed at the age of 11 or 12. That was clearly before I was able
> >>to make decisions on my own. Confirmation was simply what Catholic kids did
> >>at that age. No decisions involved. Fortunately, by the time I reached the
> >>age of 15, I realized that, despite trying in earnest, I had never believed
> >>in the bible stories and other trappings of religion. It was at that time
> >>that I announced my disbelief in God and never looked back. I do miss the
> >>incense though.
>
> >Exactly so. Well put.
>
> >In fact, when I was in 8th grade, I *was* sentient enough to elect not
> >to go through with it (and I had understanding parents). Most of my
> >classmates thought I was nuts to give up on the gifts they were all
> >getting. That's all they saw it as.
>
> From what I've seen most aren't allowed a choice
It was interesting to watch the Julia Sweeney's video about her
confirmation. Her parents never told her a thing about it or what it
meant. Only afterwards did her father explain that it marked the
begining of when this so-called "all loving" god would begin to judge
her directly for everything she did.
Boy, was she pissed off about that.
---
a.a. #2273
Smiler
Hurl Weber admit defeat? Are you kidding!
The only defeat he'll admit to is de feet at de end of his legs.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Smiler
> "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote in message
> news:L1a0n.54498$Qp7....@newsfe25.ams2...
>> bam wrote:
>>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>> news:Virgil-B1BF3B....@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
>>>> In article <h15pj5tje4qgpgt3u...@4ax.com>,
>>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:31:33 -0500, mani deli
>>>>> <nob...@rinterlog.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do Catholics believe? Because the were brainwashed as kids
>>>>>> who learned history in Sunday School and are incapable of
>>>>>> critical thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because God said that there is life after life, and hell is filled
>>>>> with volunteers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> without being brainwashed into it.
>>>
>>> that we learn as we grow, then yes, that's a truism.
>>>
>>> What is the purpose of life? Could you answer the first three
>>> question in the Baltimore Catechism?
>>>
>>> 1. Who made us?
>>
>> Assuming your conclusion!
>> Why do you assume it's a 'who'?
>> Why do you assume that we were 'made'?
>>
>>> God made us.
>>
>> You have no evidence of any god.
>> It's a well known property of non-existent 'beings' that they never
>> make anything.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Who is God?
>>
>> An invisible, unevidenced superbeing believed in by some deluded
>> people.
>>> God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things
>>> and keeps them in existence.
>>
>> Again, you have no evidence.
>>
>>>
>>> 3. Why did God make us?
>>
>> With no evidence of any gods, that is a stupid question.
>> A more accurate one would be: Why did mankind invent gods?
>>
>>> God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His
>>> everlasting happiness in heaven.
>>
>> Nonsense and babble.
>
> But you as an atheist don't have the answers to the simplest of life's
> questions. You are visionary retards.
>
What questions?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
He's just another moron who thinks the world revolves around his
doctrinal beliefs and is too stupid to understand that the
presumptions behind his loaded questions don't apply outside them.
bam
"Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:hht5hd$ias$5...@news.xmission.com...
> In article <gZCdnTpuQZBl59zW...@giganews.com>,
> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> ...
>>Secondly. The absence of evidence is irrelevant. We all agree that this is
>>our faith; not our science. Secondly, science has not disproven the
>>existence of God and never will.
>
> In the same way that science has not and never will disprove the
> existence of unicorns.
No argument there...........
>
> The fact is that people who believe religious claims believe for one
> simple reason - because someone else says it is true (and, by extension,
> because bad things will happen to them if they don't [claim to] believe).
> In science this is just about the worst possible reason to believe
> something (because someone else says it is true).
I'm not a scientist. I cannot verify every fact I'm told and neither can
you. To say that you have never taken anyone's word on any scientific issue
is silly. As if you have walked around the earth to verify its roundness.
BAM
bam
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
That is impossible. Science can only rely on observation. If there's nothing
to observe, it is outside the realm of science.
BAM
Yap
Free Lunch knows what life is, but you don't.
You don't even know you have been conned to have a soul.
Kenny McCormack
bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
...
>I'm not a scientist. I cannot verify every fact I'm told and neither can
>you. To say that you have never taken anyone's word on any scientific issue
>is silly. As if you have walked around the earth to verify its roundness.
I figured you'd raise that objection.
Suffice it to say that if you're too stupid to see why that objection is
bogus, I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
Andre Lieven
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>
> news:Virgil-C71D19....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:14:42 +0800, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Whit:
>
> >> >> Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Science are compatible.
>
> >> >Not really. Science says no Adam, no fall of man, thus no original sin
> >> >and nothing for our souls to be saved from. Science says there's no
> >> >evidence for souls and no evidence a supernatural designer guides
> >> >everything.
>
> >> Where does science deny the presence of our soul or of creation of the
> >> universe?
>
> > Science says that sufficient absence of evidence becomes evidence of
> > absence.
>
> That is impossible. Science can only rely on observation. If there's nothing
> to observe, it is outside the realm of science.
You clearly do NOT understand what "observe" means in the sciences.
Just as forensic science can show, from the scientific examination of
evidence,
what happened where only a murder victim and the killer were present,
so
can the archeological and related sciences show what lived on the
Earth
hundreds of millions years ago.
Now, while a supernatural being cannot be directly examined by
science,
any and all of the *actions alleged to have been committed by said
being in the natural Universe CAN be examined*, by the evidence that
exists, and that such actions would have had to leave behind.
Claims that "our sky pixie is so powerful as to leave no evidence"
are pure apologetics bullshit. By preventing evidence, such a
being would be committing a LIE.
So, claims, for example, that a sky pixie flooded the Earth CAN
be examined, by the geological evidence in the Earth, and the
evidence 100% falsifies that claim. So, any claimed sky pixie
who is supposed to have flooded the Earth CAN safely and
accurately be said to be a fiction, because that claim of it's
action has been proven to be false.
A supernatural being who refuses to interact with the natural
Universe is a meaningless construct. A supernatural being,
thus, *has to* interact with the natural Universe, and THOSE
interactions WILL leave natural and thus examinable evidence.
Andre
bam
Fine by me.
BAM
bam
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:6bdfe4c4-0c1d-4d34...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 4, 9:53 pm, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> flubs:
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>
> news:Virgil-C71D19....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > In article <qno3k51fbg1731i2vgf9vc2ebpsuprv...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:14:42 +0800, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Whit:
>
> >> >> Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Science are compatible.
>
> >> >Not really. Science says no Adam, no fall of man, thus no original sin
> >> >and nothing for our souls to be saved from. Science says there's no
> >> >evidence for souls and no evidence a supernatural designer guides
> >> >everything.
>
> >> Where does science deny the presence of our soul or of creation of the
> >> universe?
>
> > Science says that sufficient absence of evidence becomes evidence of
> > absence.
>
> That is impossible. Science can only rely on observation. If there's
> nothing
> to observe, it is outside the realm of science.
>You clearly do NOT understand what "observe" means in the sciences.
Ahhh, science now defines itsown words? Is that also not outside the scope
of science?
>Just as forensic science can show, from the scientific examination of
>evidence,
>what happened where only a murder victim and the killer were present,
.......based upon the existence of evidence.
>so
>can the archeological and related sciences show what lived on the
>Earth
>hundreds of millions years ago.
...based upon evidence and the belief that carbon testing is always accurate
and that samples cannot be contaminated by external events.............
>Now, while a supernatural being cannot be directly examined by
>science,
zzzzzzzz...no progress yet.............
>any and all of the *actions alleged to have been committed by said
>being in the natural Universe CAN be examined*, by the evidence that
>exists, and that such actions would have had to leave behind.
You lost it here. This is neither a sentence, now sensible. Ran out of
bullshit?
>Claims that "our sky pixie is so powerful as to leave no evidence"
>are pure apologetics bullshit. By preventing evidence, such a
>being would be committing a LIE.
Now you've gone off the deep end. (and you know it)
>So, claims, for example, that a sky pixie flooded the Earth CAN
>be examined, by the geological evidence in the Earth, and the
>evidence 100% falsifies that claim.
HAhahahahah!!!!! Says who? You? This is absurd. You are absurd.
>So, any claimed sky pixie
>who is supposed to have flooded the Earth CAN safely and
>accurately be said to be a fiction, because that claim of it's
>action has been proven to be false.
You need to verify your facts, and take some serious lessons in logc.
>A supernatural being who refuses to interact with the natural
>Universe is a meaningless construct.
Great idea - you're going to Hell. Then you'll see what a meaningless
construct you chose to be.
>A supernatural being,
>thus, *has to* interact with the natural Universe, and THOSE
>interactions WILL leave natural and thus examinable evidence.
What a bunch of baloney. Who are you to make such impertinetn statements?
BAM
Mitchell Holman
news:MdGdnTCNJrjWq97W...@giganews.com:
>
> "Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:6bdfe4c4-0c1d-4d34...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com..
> . On Jan 4, 9:53 pm, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> flubs:
>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>
>
>>So, any claimed sky pixie
>>who is supposed to have flooded the Earth CAN safely and
>>accurately be said to be a fiction, because that claim of it's
>>action has been proven to be false.
>
> You need to verify your facts, and take some serious lessons in logc.
So, like, where did all that water come from?
And where did it go?
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:6bdfe4c4-0c1d-4d34...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 9:53 pm, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> flubs:
>
> > "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>
> >news:Virgil-C71D19....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > > In article <qno3k51fbg1731i2vgf9vc2ebpsuprv...@4ax.com>,
> > > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:14:42 +0800, Teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >Whit:
>
> > >> >> Contrary to popular belief, Christians and Science are compatible.
>
> > >> >Not really. Science says no Adam, no fall of man, thus no original sin
> > >> >and nothing for our souls to be saved from. Science says there's no
> > >> >evidence for souls and no evidence a supernatural designer guides
> > >> >everything.
>
> > >> Where does science deny the presence of our soul or of creation of the
> > >> universe?
>
> > > Science says that sufficient absence of evidence becomes evidence of
> > > absence.
>
> > That is impossible. Science can only rely on observation. If there's
> > nothing to observe, it is outside the realm of science.
> >You clearly do NOT understand what "observe" means in the sciences.
>
> Ahhh, science now defines itsown words?
Yep. For example, the word "theory" has a PRECISE meaning in
science, quite different than the MISuse of that word by common
idiots.
> Is that also not outside the scope of science?
No.
> >Just as forensic science can show, from the scientific examination of
> >evidence,
> >what happened where only a murder victim and the killer were present,
>
> .......based upon the existence of evidence.
... Which has been shown to exist, UNlike for claims of world-creating
sky pixies...
> >so
> >can the archeological and related sciences show what lived on the
> >Earth hundreds of millions years ago.
>
> ...based upon evidence and the belief that carbon testing is always accurate
You are a willfully ignorant idiot:
# 2 Modern dating methods
* 2.1 Uranium-lead dating method
* 2.2 Samarium-neodymium dating method
* 2.3 Potassium-argon dating method
* 2.4 Rubidium-strontium dating method
* 2.5 Uranium-thorium dating method
* 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
* 2.7 Fission track dating method
* 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
* 2.9 Optically stimulated luminescence dating method
* 2.10 Other methods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Thus, you LIED. Violating Commandment 9. You are thus
going to your "hell"...
> and that samples cannot be contaminated by external events.............
Your claim, YOUR Burden Of Proof. <foot tapping>
> >Now, while a supernatural being cannot be directly examined by
> >science,
>
> zzzzzzzz...no progress yet.............
...In your puny mind...
> >any and all of the *actions alleged to have been committed by said
> >being in the natural Universe CAN be examined*, by the evidence that
> >exists, and that such actions would have had to leave behind.
>
> You lost it here. This is neither a sentence, now sensible. Ran out of
> bullshit?
<Massive Loon Projection>
> >Claims that "our sky pixie is so powerful as to leave no evidence"
> >are pure apologetics bullshit. By preventing evidence, such a
> >being would be committing a LIE.
>
> Now you've gone off the deep end. (and you know it)
<Massive Loon Projection>
> >So, claims, for example, that a sky pixie flooded the Earth CAN
> >be examined, by the geological evidence in the Earth, and the
> >evidence 100% falsifies that claim.
>
> HAhahahahah!!!!! Says who? You? This is absurd. You are absurd.
<Massive Loon Projection>
> >So, any claimed sky pixie
> >who is supposed to have flooded the Earth CAN safely and
> >accurately be said to be a fiction, because that claim of it's
> >action has been proven to be false.
>
> You need to verify your facts, and take some serious lessons in logc.
<Massive Loon Projection>
> >A supernatural being who refuses to interact with the natural
> >Universe is a meaningless construct.
>
> Great idea - you're going to Hell. Then you'll see what a meaningless
> construct you chose to be.
"That which is asserted *without evidence* can be dismissed
without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
Dismissed; Next !
> >A supernatural being,
> >thus, *has to* interact with the natural Universe, and THOSE
> >interactions WILL leave natural and thus examinable evidence.
>
> What a bunch of baloney. Who are you to make such impertinetn statements?
Someone who is MUCH smarter and FAR better educated than you. Then
again, a broken stick is also your superior on both points.
I also note that you offer NO support for your loony and bullshit
soaked claims.
Thank you for your concession that you have NO actual argument.
Please die last week. The result would be that the average
intelligence
of humanity would *thus increase*.
Oh, and thanks for the additional proof that religion = mental
disease.
Andre
Smiler
I know, but I was trying to get him to be more specific and, thus, 'queer
his own pitch'.
Patrick
PB -- There exists, within this material universe, three types of energy:
gross material, subtle material and spiritual. The gross material energy
consists of earth, water, fire, air and ether [defined as the "space" within
the universe]. The subtle material energy consists of mind, intelligence and
false-ego [defined as the identification of the body as the self]. The
spiritual energy consists of the soul [the individual living entities] and
the supersoul The presence of the soul in any living entity is indicated by
consciousness. Although we cannot actually see the soul, we can see its
symptoms. We cannot "see" electricity but when we see an illuminated
light-globe we can see the symptom of the presence of electricity. Similarly
when we see consciousness we see the symptom of the soul.
Father Haskell
>
> PB -- There exists, within this material universe, three types of energy:
> gross material, subtle material and spiritual. The gross material energy
> consists of earth, water, fire, air and ether
Don't let the door smack you on the way out.
haiku jones
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
Aaaaand...we have a winner!
It's not easy to be off by over three orders of magnitude,
you know
However, since you seem to want to talk about
carbon dating, irrelevant though it may be
to the situation at hand, let's have a little pop quiz!
Ready? Good:
The apparent ages given by the radiocarbon method
can be affected by a number of phenomena. These
potential sources of error were discovered, and
publicized, by:
a) divine revelation
b) Papal decree
c) Pat Robertson, on getting a Word
d) scientists, who investigated, quantified, and
established methods of correction for the
various relevant factors.
You have one hour. Good luck.
Haiku Jones