Re: Defeat of Atheism
Andrew
> Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> learn?
>
> Budikka
All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
"For the invisible things of Him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made..so
that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
But it is not from the stars, the galaxies or
the beautiful earth that we can learn of the
character and personality of God as clearly
as it is revealed in Jesus Christ, the Son of
the Most High God.
"Christ is the visible image of the invisible
God. He existed before anything was created
and is supreme over all creation.
For through Him God created everything in
the heavenly realms and on earth. He made
the things we can see and the things we can't
see.. Everything was created through Him.."
Colossians 1:15-16
Andrew
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> > learn?
> >
> > Budikka
>
>
> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
There is a lot of evidence that doesn't point either for or against, and
absent assumptions which atheists choose not to make, there is no
evidence for.
>
> "For the invisible things of Him from the
> creation of the world are clearly seen, being
> understood by the things that are made..so
> that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Circular. Uses an assumption of the truth of the bible to prove the
truth of the bible.
>
> But it is not from the stars, the galaxies or
> the beautiful earth that we can learn of the
> character and personality of God as clearly
> as it is revealed in Jesus Christ, the Son of
> the Most High God.
Circular. Uses an assumption of the truth of the bible to claim the
truth of the bible.
>
> "Christ is the visible image of the invisible
> God. He existed before anything was created
> and is supreme over all creation.
"Christ" is no more visible than "Santa Claus", just better press.
>
> For through Him God created everything in
> the heavenly realms and on earth. He made
> the things we can see and the things we can't
> see.. Everything was created through Him.."
>
> Colossians 1:15-16
Circular. Uses an assumption of the truth of the bible to claim the
truth of the bible.
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> > learn?
>
> > Budikka
>
> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
*supply* the evidence. Where is it?
Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
[Meaningless Biblical quotes flushed where they belong]
Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
>> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
> message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
> request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
> *supply* the evidence. Where is it?
>
> Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
> decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
Even though Budikka has _no evidence_ that God does
not exist, yet he becomes spastic whenever his atheistic
falsehoods are challenged!!!
"Only fools say in their hearts,
'There is no God.'
They are corrupt, and their
actions are evil; not one of
them does good!"
Psa 53:1 NLT
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> >> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> > Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
> > message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
> > request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
> > *supply* the evidence. Where is it?
>
> > Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
> > decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
> > Budikka
>
> Even though Budikka has _no evidence_ that God does
> not exist, yet he becomes spastic whenever his atheistic
> falsehoods are challenged!!!
Who was it who stated: "All the evidence clearly points to a
wonderful, super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God."
Was that me or you?
Ever hear of Peter, Andrew? With a name like yours, I don't see how
you can have failed to hear about Peter. Peter was proud and boastful
like you, Andrew. And what happened? What happened to Peter when it
came right down to the wire and he was required to put it on the line
for his Lord? What happened, Andrew?
He did **PRECISELY** the same thing you're doing. He denied his Lord
and he turned and ran. You've denied it twice. Are you going for
that critical third time? Should we listen for the cock crow shortly?
I'm not the one who made the original claim. **YOU** are. Now you're
being required to support it. And you cannot, can you? And how truly
sad it is that you - a believer, cannot find the honesty and decency
to admit the truth: that you have no such evidence.
You're the one with this high-flying arrogant, proud, immodest claim.
You stated it in so many words.
Guess what? We both agree there's a universe, with a solar system in
it containing a planet called Earth which is home to all sorts of
life.
We're in complete agreement about that.
I stop there. I don't make any further claims.
But you do, don't you, Andrew? You make one more claim. You insist
that in addition to what we see around us - in addition to everything
we've both agreed upon without argument - that there's one more
thing. You insist that there's a creator god who made it all.
So you're the one making the extra assertion - the positive
assertion. And you went further than that, didn't you?
You didn't say this is merely a belief of yours, did you? You went
further yet. You positively asserted that "All the evidence clearly
points to a wonderful, super intelligent, all powerful Creator --
God."
And when someone asks you to provide this evidence that you insisted
exists, you cannot. Why is that, Andrew?
No, you don't get to take the cowardly route out and pretend the
challenge is the other way around. You stated in so many words that
all this evidence points to a god.
What evidence, Andrew?
Do you have any?
If you do not present a significant amount of this evidence - in your
next response, that will be the admission that you actually have none.
Or is this continued retreat already an open and complete confession
by you, in this public worldwide forum that you have absolutely no
evidence and that you in fact **LIED**?
Let's see, shall we? Before that cock crows. Let's see this evidence
of yours. And when your next message contains the same cowardly and
hypocritical excuses that we've already seen, then we'll know the
truth about you, won't we, Andrew?
The world will know that you're a liar.
[Rest flushed]
Budikka
Syd M.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> > learn?
>
> > Budikka
>
> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> Andrew
No.
PDW
Ozan Türkyılmaz
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> > learn?
>
> > Budikka
>
> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> "For the invisible things of Him from the
> creation of the world are clearly seen, being
> understood by the things that are made..so
> that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
>
> But it is not from the stars, the galaxies or
> the beautiful earth that we can learn of the
> character and personality of God as clearly
> as it is revealed in Jesus Christ, the Son of
> the Most High God.
>
Are you implaying that there is more than one God.
Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> > learn?
>
> > Budikka
>
> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> "For the invisible things of Him from the
Andrew, you remind me in a great deal of detail of a heroin addict.
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
>> threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
>> learn?
>>
>> Budikka
>
>
> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
<snork>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Only fools say in their hearts,
> 'There is no God.
Well if fools can figure it out, what's your problem?
Sugien
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
can devise a method or test to prove that thoughts exist and that they exist
inside the human mind. the human brain can be proven; but not the mind that
resides inside it nor the thoughts.
Trying to *prove* to a non-believer that God exists is like trying to
prove to a person born blind that there are colors. You can describe the
colors and such; but his never having experienced colors he will never
believe you. Such a person would have to believe by faith.
Likewise someone that was once a believer that has *lost* their faith
and became a non-believer is like someone that was born with sight but
becomes blind. Then after years in darkness they start to forget what
colors look like until in the end they fool their self into believing that
colors never existed in the first place.
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
/}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
\}
Fred Stone
news:OtudnWvc2MPqrWXY...@adelphia.com:
What you're telling us is that God is a thought or an emotion, a
subjective experience inside the head of the believer.
You know what? I agree.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq,
where there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to
protect them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular
imagination."
Ralph
"Sugien" <dino...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:OtudnWvc2MPqrWXY...@adelphia.com...
>
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 13, 5:53 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in
>>> messagenews:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
>>> > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
>>> > learn?
>>>
>>> > Budikka
>>>
>>> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
>>> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>>
>> Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
>> message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
>> request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
>> *supply* the evidence. Where is it?
>>
>> Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
>> decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>>
>> [Meaningless Biblical quotes flushed where they belong]
>>
> You can not only find the evidence but prove it , IF and only if you
> can devise a method or test to prove that thoughts exist and that they
> exist inside the human mind. the human brain can be proven; but not the
> mind that resides inside it nor the thoughts.
And that proves god's existence in what way??
> Trying to *prove* to a non-believer that God exists is like trying to
> prove to a person born blind that there are colors. You can describe the
> colors and such; but his never having experienced colors he will never
> believe you. Such a person would have to believe by faith.
> Likewise someone that was once a believer that has *lost* their faith
> and became a non-believer is like someone that was born with sight but
> becomes blind. Then after years in darkness they start to forget what
> colors look like until in the end they fool their self into believing that
> colors never existed in the first place.
Anything about god is a matter of faith.
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
If you can show how *any* of that is relevant, I'll be suitably
impressed.
Meanwhile, the bottom line remains that Andrew stated categorically
"All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful, super intelligent,
all powerful Creator -- God.".
All I have aksed him to do is supply the evidence of which he speaks.
He has failed.
It really is that simple.
Budikka
Sugien
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98F38DCF52...@194.177.96.26...
I said no such thing; but I expect nothing less from a non-beliver then to
try and twist words
> You know what? I agree.
Your atempt at doublespeak is noted and dismissed.
Sugien
all around you. You see the things around you but not the power holding all
of creation together.
--
From the Desk of Paul M. Bryant Sr. CKC
Budikka666
The problem here is not mine. The problem is Andrew's, and now
apparently it's yours, too.
I'm not interested in playing your juvenile imagination game. Fine -
you imagine you can see fairies and pixies. I don't share your
delusion.
If **YOU** have evidence of these fairies and pixies, then present
it. Do you have such evidence, or are you as impotent as Andrew,
reduced to making inane claims and being unable to support a single
one of them? If so, then you're the one with the problem along with
Andrew.
It's not my job to try to conjure up your delusion. Your "argument"
is entirely irrelevant. I'm asking for the evidence that Andrew
claims exists.
Andrew categorically stated that there *is* such evidence. I asked
him to present it. He failed.
Now you're starting an entirely new argument which is very similar to
Andrew's - that the evidence is all around me but I am blind to it.
So now the onus is on *you* in this worldwide public forum to state
what that evidence is. What is it that's all around me that I'm
missing?
Please give a short list of items that I'm failing to see, and define
what it is about them which makes them evidence of some god.
Or are you just blathering off the top of your head without thinking
about what it is you're saying - just like Andrew did?
I'm waiting.
Budikka
Al Klein
wrote:
> You can not only find the evidence but prove it , IF and only if you
>can devise a method or test to prove that thoughts exist and that they exist
>inside the human mind. the human brain can be proven; but not the mind that
>resides inside it nor the thoughts.
That would prove the SUBJECTIVE existence of God, which no one is
debating - God subjectively exists.
> Trying to *prove* to a non-believer that God exists is like trying to
>prove to a person born blind that there are colors. You can describe the
>colors and such; but his never having experienced colors he will never
>believe you. Such a person would have to believe by faith.
Color is purely subjective - it's the effect - IN THE MIND - that the
frequency of light energy produces when that light is experienced by a
person.
We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
duke
>Who was it who stated: "All the evidence clearly points to a
>wonderful, super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God."
>Was that me or you?
Actually it was me, dummy dud.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Fred Stone
news:QYydnY-js6U1zWXY...@adelphia.com:
You said *exactly* such a thing. You made the analogy yourself: God is
like thoughts or the perception of colors - both subjective things.
>> You know what? I agree.
>
> Your atempt at doublespeak is noted and dismissed.
>
Go ahead, run away from the implications of your own words. You won't be
the first theist on this group to do so.
LoneStar
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
Just a simple question: where did the initial energy/matter originate?
Energy/matter cannot be naturally created or destroyed, according to the
laws of physics. Do you have a strictly scientific answer for this?
EW
Andrew
> We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
> a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
> objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
meteorites?
Or would you rather conclude that there was an intelligent mind
with purpose involved in the creation of the book, even though
you do not understand how the book got to be where you found
it?
Would your conclusion be based on subjective, or on objective
evidence? I believe that most of us would agree that it would be
based on ~objective~ evidence.
By using the same reasoning, common sense and logic, we may
find in the natural world -objective evidence- of the involvement
of intelligence.
One place to start could be the study of the DNA molecule which
contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of
proteins. Just one human DNA molecule contains enough informa-
tion to fill a million page encyclopedia, or to fill about 1,000 books.
It would be illogical to conclude that the book you found under the
tree was the product of an intelligent mind, but that DNA is not the
product of intelligence - when it is in fact a living molecule that is
packed full of highly sophisticated intelligent code.
Coded information comes from an intelligent mind. Therefore the
large quantities of organized information in living cells is indeed
objective EVIDENCE of an intelligent Creator - God.
Andrew
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3398897723006201061
Sugien
Personally I don't care one iota what you think of me or my beliefs;
because you like all non-believers will find the error of your ways when
standing before God at judgment. The more you rant and rave at believers
the more it shows your ignorance.
Believers are required to *only tell * others of the truth, then they
can either accept it and receive God love and forgiveness or reject it. You
can accept the truth by faith or reject it because of what ever reasons you
choose to do so. I have said and continue to put forth that God is as easy
(or hard) to prove as what the very thoughts are in your mind. Likewise
proving that humans have a *mind* in which thoughts can be created is as
easy to prove as what Gods existence is.
I still wonder why non-believers even come to a group occupied mostly
by believers in the first place. I know that alt.atheism was cross posted
to and I left it in just to make sure you see this; but I will delete it
from any future posts as what I have in other threads. I don't go to
non-believing groups to try and tell them about God and I don't see their
point it coming to believing groups to try and convince believers that they
believe in error.
Neil Kelsey
> "Al Klein" wrote in messagenews:r4lgv2dfg9ghi8vv0...@4ax.com...
> > We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
> > a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
> > objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>
> OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
> happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
> showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
>
> Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
> naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
> meteorites?
Or, some other hiker lost a book, which is the right explanation.
> Or would you rather conclude that there was an intelligent mind
> with purpose involved in the creation of the book, even though
> you do not understand how the book got to be where you found
> it?
I'd conclude that a hiker lost a book and that it was created by an
intelligent mind, unless it was a book about Intelligent Design.
What's not to understand?
Your analogy didn't work, try another one.
Sugien
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:r4lgv2dfg9ghi8vv0...@4ax.com...
and your point is?
Sugien
"LoneStar" <ewyatt...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:45f87118$0$97262$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
anything about *where* life came from but only what happened to it *after*
it came into existence.
Lucifer
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> >> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> > Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
> > message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
> > request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
> > *supply* the evidence. Where is it?
>
> > Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
> > decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
> > Budikka
>
> Even though Budikka has _no evidence_ that God does
> not exist, yet he becomes spastic whenever his atheistic
> falsehoods are challenged!!!
No evidence is required to disprove a god, shitwhiskers. Without
evidence, the god is no more than another orbital teapot.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Budikka666
mindless blather, I deleted the rest of it unread, you pathetic bag of
sewage.
If you ever find the guts and the evidence, then come back and try to
take me on. Until then, why don't you shut-the-fuck-up with your
assinine and vacuous fairy tales, you pathetic little whiney-assed
baby? Huh?
Keep running, coward. You're just another limp Peter at the passion.
Budikka
Andrew
>"Andrew" wrote:
>> "Al Klein" wrote:
>>>
>> > We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
>> > a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
>> > objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>>
>>
>> OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
>> happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
>> showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
>>
>> Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
>> naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
>> meteorites?
>
> Or, some other hiker lost a book, which is the right explanation.
>
>> Or would you rather conclude that there was an intelligent mind
>> with purpose involved in the creation of the book, even though
>> you do not understand how the book got to be where you found
>> it?
>
> I'd conclude that a hiker lost a book and that it was created by an
Correct answer! Then can you see that it would be illogical to conclude
that the book was the product of an intelligent mind, but that DNA is not
the product of intelligence, when it is in fact a living molecule packed full
of highly sophisticated intelligent code?
Coded information comes only from an intelligent mind. Therefore the
large quantities of organized coded information in living cells is indeed
objective evidence of an Intelligent Creator - GOD.
Andrew
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3398897723006201061
Andrew
> As soon as I saw that your response was yet another empty sack of
> mindless blather, I deleted the rest of it unread, you pathetic bag of
> sewage.
>
> If you ever find the guts and the evidence, then come back and try to
> take me on.
The evidence is clear that without Jesus Christ, you have no peace in your
heart. He is the One who can remove the anger which torments your soul.
Neil Kelsey
> "Neil Kelsey" wrote in messagenews:1173913359....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >"Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
> >> > We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
> >> > a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
> >> > objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>
> >> OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
> >> happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
> >> showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
>
> >> Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
> >> naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
> >> meteorites?
>
> > Or, some other hiker lost a book, which is the right explanation.
>
> >> Or would you rather conclude that there was an intelligent mind
> >> with purpose involved in the creation of the book, even though
> >> you do not understand how the book got to be where you found
> >> it?
>
> > I'd conclude that a hiker lost a book and that it was created by an
> > intelligent mind..
>
> Correct answer! Then can you see that it would be illogical to conclude
> that the book was the product of an intelligent mind, but that DNA is not
> the product of intelligence, when it is in fact a living molecule packed full
> of highly sophisticated intelligent code?
DNA IS code, but there's no intelligence behind it.
> Coded information comes only from an intelligent mind.
That's not true. There's no intelligence behind the genetic code, for
instance, only natural selection. Like I said, your analogy with the
book didn't work. You need to produce something that was unequivocally
designed. There is all sorts of evidence that DNA evolved naturally,
and no evidence that there is a designer behind it.
> Therefore the
> large quantities of organized coded information in living cells is indeed
> objective evidence of an Intelligent Creator - GOD.
Therefore nothing. Your analogy doesn't work. There is nothing
supernatural about a book.
Ralph
Which is, of course, true.
Douglas Berry
<andrew....@usa.net> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
>
>> We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
>> a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
>> objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>
>
>OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
>happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
>showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
>
>Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
>naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
>meteorites?
>
>Or would you rather conclude that there was an intelligent mind
>with purpose involved in the creation of the book, even though
>you do not understand how the book got to be where you found
>it?
>
>Would your conclusion be based on subjective, or on objective
>evidence? I believe that most of us would agree that it would be
> based on ~objective~ evidence.
I would look for the author's name and publication data. Since I
write books, I am very familiar with the process of their creation. I
wouldn't assume that the book was placed there by some extra-normal
entity.
>
>By using the same reasoning, common sense and logic, we may
>find in the natural world -objective evidence- of the involvement
>of intelligence.
>
>One place to start could be the study of the DNA molecule which
>contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of
>proteins. Just one human DNA molecule contains enough informa-
>tion to fill a million page encyclopedia, or to fill about 1,000 books.
>
>It would be illogical to conclude that the book you found under the
>tree was the product of an intelligent mind, but that DNA is not the
>product of intelligence - when it is in fact a living molecule that is
>packed full of highly sophisticated intelligent code.
>
>Coded information comes from an intelligent mind. Therefore the
>large quantities of organized information in living cells is indeed
>objective EVIDENCE of an intelligent Creator - God.
Nonsense. A book is manufactured (actually, a collection of
manufactured items.) DNA is natural, and we have its precurssors (RNA
and amino acid/proteins) to examine. We can watch DNA replicate,
splice it ourselves, and take it apart. We've even spontaniously
generated amino acids in experiments that replicated conditions found
in the Earth's early days. Took *hours*
Finally, your evidence is subjective. You show DNA, and make a
comparison. Let's go back to your book. I see that it was written by
"Douglas Berry" and published by "Baen Books" (I wish!) With that
information, I can do some research. Contact Baen to see who edited
the book and its publishing history. Contact the author to confrim he
wrote the book. Read his other works to compare the styles.
How do we test your claim?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Al Klein
wrote:
That your assertions have nothing to do with any objective evidence of
any gods.
Al Klein
wrote:
>"Al Klein" wrote in message news:r4lgv2dfg9ghi8vv0...@4ax.com...
>
>> We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
>> a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
>> objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>
>
>OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
>happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
>showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
>
>Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
>naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
>meteorites?
Of course not, so just show us the book written by a god. Objective
evidence that it was written by a god, not a man, please. You'll have
to come up with something that will serve as objective evidence of a
god, first - something that will differentiate a god from a being
that's billions of years more advanced than we are, but not a god.
Get back to us when you have some actual objective evidence, okay?
Al Klein
wrote:
>Coded information comes only from an intelligent mind. Therefore the
>large quantities of organized coded information in living cells is indeed
>objective evidence of an Intelligent Creator - GOD.
Only if the DNA was coded to produce a human being. It wasn't. The
hole isn't shaped to fit the puddle that's in it, the puddle fits the
hole it's in. We're whatever our DNA evolved to be, not the other way
around.
You understand so little of information theory that the inevitable
seems miraculous to you. How could the puddle possibly be any shape
other than that of the hole?
Sugien
> As soon as I saw that your response was yet another empty sack of
> mindless blather, I deleted the rest of it unread, you pathetic bag of
> sewage.
If you deleted it unread (which I most sincerely doubt), then you only show
your self to be afraid to read it.
>
> If you ever find the guts and the evidence, then come back and try to
Why would I even need intestinal fortitude for the likes of your empty
words?
> take me on. Until then, why don't you shut-the-fuck-up with your
My my, do you kiss those you love with that mouth?
Take you on? what on earth are you on about? Why you would want to
participate in a duel of wits without your being armed is beyond me.
> assinine and vacuous fairy tales, you pathetic little whiney-assed
> baby? Huh?
Baby? I am not the one resorting to insults like a little boy on a school
yard. Are you not aware that the more you use such language the more you
show your self to be lacking not only in intellect; but also in manners.
>
> Keep running, coward. You're just another limp Peter at the passion.
>
I have found that crude people use mediocre coarseness because of an
absence of wit. You of course because of your having only a whit of wit, is
the reason your forte is mediocrity and why this post of yours abounds with
coarseness.
Why on earth would I need to run from such? because I have also found
that those that have a loud bark always have the tiniest if any bite, and
that the size of the teeth in the bite if any are inversely proportional to
the loudness of the bark.
Sugien
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
As I have said before, if you *need* objective evidence then devise a test
capable of proving that thoughts and or the human mind exists. Then after
having accomplished that feat you will most likely be able to use the same
methods in devising a way of proving God's existence. God wants us to
believe by faith. Where there is faith no evidence is needed and where
there is evidence no faith is needed.
Sugien
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
Have you never seen a puddle with a rock in the middle? I would then say
that the puddle is not shaped like the hole; but rather has the shape of the
rock in it's center. The rock isn't part of the puddle; but rather was
placed into the puddle.
Greywolf
The human 'mind' is something that *everyone*, even that 'blind' person of
yours, is aware exists. What in the hell are you trying to prove with *that*
one?
What is in dispute here is the existence of 'God'. I suggest, therefore,
that *you* devise a 'test' capable of proving that he does. After all, it is
the theist who insists he's 'real'. It is, therefore, up to the theist to
prove it. If a 'God' is 'real' there surely must be some way of proving it.
Otherwise the people who 'clearly' discern a 'real' God and are not just
some abstract construction; a 'God' who exists solely within the realm of
man's imagination, ought to be able to prove it, and quite easily, one would
assume.
That's the problem, isn't it? You just can't grab him by the scruff and drag
him out into the open for everyone to see, can you?
Then after
> having accomplished that feat you will most likely be able to use the same
> methods in devising a way of proving God's existence.
Hardly. How can one prove the existence of something that doesn't exist? And
shouldn't the theists have *already* come up with some sort of 'test'
proving the existence of 'God' by now?
God wants us to
> believe by faith.
See what I mean? Now how could you *possibly* make such an assertion?
Where's the proof for what you're asserting here? Are you claiming here that
you have the ability to read, to interpret the thoughts in the mind of a
deity? For 'real'?
Or did you just, in effect, 'lie'?
Where there is faith no evidence is needed
And tell us exactly *why* this authoritive statement should be accepted as
the truth? The ancient Jewish zealots of Jerusalem in the years 68-70 C. E.
put all their 'faith' and 'trust' in a God who they were convinced would,
through his supernatural aid, help to defeat the Roman army. I suppose you
already know the results of *that* mindless act of 'faith'.
What happened?
and where
> there is evidence no faith is needed.
>
Precisely. So what's your point?
Oh, about that blind person being unaware of the existence of 'color': How
many people of normal sight do *you* know who go around contesting the
existence of it. I would hazard to say not a one. And that's because 'color'
is something that we humans 'know' full well exists. The same cannot be said
for 'God'.
If 'faith' is all you guys have left as 'proof' for his existence. You
can't, in good conscience, expect we truth-seeking atheists and agnostics to
'buy' a claim based on so flimsy a 'proof'. C'mon. And you should
*certainly* not look down your collective noses at us atheists and regard us
with contempt and disdain. Remember, our only 'crime' is that we have a
difference of *opinion*. (Or is there something else that I'm unaware of?)
Let me repeat that: We have nothing more than a difference of ... opinion!
We are not 'evil', 'satanic', murderers, or anything of the sort. Those are
*hateful* things to say about people who happen not to share your views. You
should quit being so downright hateful and contemptuous of us. It's not
*really* how a Christian should conduct one's self. Or (in your view) is it?
Greywolf
john w <johnw
wrote:
Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>On Mar 14, 3:47 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
>> >> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>>
>> > Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
>> > message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
>> > request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
>> > *supply* the evidence. Where is it?
>>
>> > Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
>> > decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> Even though Budikka has _no evidence_ that God does
>> not exist, yet he becomes spastic whenever his atheistic
>> falsehoods are challenged!!!
>
>No evidence is required to disprove a god, shitwhiskers. Without
>evidence, the god is no more than another orbital teapot.
Shut the HELL up, Satan, and crawl back into your pit, and pull your
rock in over you!
And don't forget to clean up your slime trail!
This is a Christian group, and your sleaze TRULY isn't welcome or
needed!
john w
Sugien
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:12vhm6u...@corp.supernews.com...
Ah! Aware of and proving are two entirely different things!
>
> What is in dispute here is the existence of 'God'. I suggest, therefore,
> that *you* devise a 'test' capable of proving that he does. After all, it
> is the theist who insists he's 'real'. It is, therefore, up to the theist
> to prove it. If a 'God' is 'real' there surely must be some way of proving
> it.
Who says? Just because you say so certainly doesn't make it so.
> Otherwise the people who 'clearly' discern a 'real' God and are not just
> some abstract construction; a 'God' who exists solely within the realm of
> man's imagination, ought to be able to prove it, and quite easily, one
> would assume.
When you can devise a test to prove thoughts exist then you should be able
to prove God exists. You see *I* need no proof I already believe and it is
not incumbent upon me to prove anything to you; because each person has to
prove God to their self once they have been told the truth about Gods
existence.
>
> That's the problem, isn't it? You just can't grab him by the scruff and
> drag him out into the open for everyone to see, can you?
I don't need to and could not if I wanted to; because God is all powerfull
>
> Then after
>> having accomplished that feat you will most likely be able to use the
>> same methods in devising a way of proving God's existence.
>
> Hardly. How can one prove the existence of something that doesn't exist?
> And shouldn't the theists have *already* come up with some sort of 'test'
> proving the existence of 'God' by now?
>
> God wants us to
>> believe by faith.
>
> See what I mean? Now how could you *possibly* make such an assertion?
Hmmm, because it is true!
> Where's the proof for what you're asserting here? Are you claiming here
> that
I need no proof, I have faith
> you have the ability to read, to interpret the thoughts in the mind of a
> deity? For 'real'?
Gods thoughts are as close as the nearest bible.
>
> Or did you just, in effect, 'lie'?
Sorry; but nope, I lie not; because God IS real and no amount of your
asserting otherwise will make it so.
>
> Where there is faith no evidence is needed
>
> And tell us exactly *why* this authoritive statement should be accepted as
> the truth? The ancient Jewish zealots of Jerusalem in the years 68-70 C.
> E. put all their 'faith' and 'trust' in a God who they were convinced
> would, through his supernatural aid, help to defeat the Roman army. I
> suppose you already know the results of *that* mindless act of 'faith'.
hmmm, The roman army doesn't exist does it?
>
> What happened?
Well although it took a little while, not only the Roman army; but Rome its
self was taken over by the same God that the Jews believe in. Although it
took several hundred years Rome was *completely* taken over by the same God
of the bible that the Jews worshiped. Gods time table and mans are not the
same.
>
> and where
>> there is evidence no faith is needed.
>>
>
> Precisely. So what's your point?
That God is real, of course
>
> Oh, about that blind person being unaware of the existence of 'color': How
> many people of normal sight do *you* know who go around contesting the
> existence of it. I would hazard to say not a one. And that's because
> 'color' is something that we humans 'know' full well exists. The same
> cannot be said for 'God'.
Hmmm, you obviously don't know of any color blind people do you? sure it
can be said for God; because God exists whether you not those like you
believe in him just like the blind man not believing in colors. I guess the
allegory was lost on you; because you see the believers are those that were
not born blind and can see colors (God) and those like you are those born
blind that can not see colors (God)
>
> If 'faith' is all you guys have left as 'proof' for his existence. You
> can't, in good conscience, expect we truth-seeking atheists and agnostics
> to 'buy' a claim based on so flimsy a 'proof'. C'mon. And you should
Sure we can, after all you all want us to believe in evolution without
proof; because the proof given sure isn't proof positive; but rather only a
theory. But then the main issue is skirted; because none of you will come
out and say where life came from. You all ballyhoo about how evolution
changed life *after* it came into existence; *BUT* just where do *you* say
that life came from in the first place?
> *certainly* not look down your collective noses at us atheists and regard
> us
I certainly do NOT look down on *anyone* at all; if you think that , they
you are laboring under a misconception.
> with contempt and disdain. Remember, our only 'crime' is that we have a
> difference of *opinion*. (Or is there something else that I'm unaware of?)
see above
> Let me repeat that: We have nothing more than a difference of ... opinion!
agreed
> We are not 'evil', 'satanic', murderers, or anything of the sort. Those
> are
I never said you or anyone non-believer were, nor would I. At most you and
they in my opinion believe a lie.
> *hateful* things to say about people who happen not to share your views.
> You
I have never said anything hateful or even insulting to anyone here that
happen to not share my views; however those that don't share my view
certainly can NOT say the same!
> should quit being so downright hateful and contemptuous of us. It's not
I can NOT quit doing something which I have never done in the first place!
> *really* how a Christian should conduct one's self. Or (in your view) is
> it?
I have conducted my self as what a Christian should, and contrary to what
you have put forth I have not acted in any way like what you have tried to
assert I have. Even after being insulted, badgered and had all manner of
false accusations laid at my door I *refused* to lower my self to the same
level as those that did so to me.
Phlogeus
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Al Klein" wrote in message news:r4lgv2dfg9ghi8vv0...@4ax.com...
>
> > We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
> > a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
> > objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>
>
> OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
> happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
> showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
>
> Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
> naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
> meteorites?
>
> Or would you rather conclude that there was an intelligent mind
> with purpose involved in the creation of the book, even though
> you do not understand how the book got to be where you found
> it?
The immediate answer to how the book got there is that it was somehow
transported and left there. That is all. I would have no doubts that that
was how it got there. I would not be in the least bit puzzled.
But you seem to want to examine how it got there on the basis of its
actual nature,
Well as an artefact it evolved from marks on a wall to transportable marks
on a stone and later a clay tablet. It was evolved through sheets of
papyrus to scrolls of papyrus, parchment and even copper.
At the same time paper was being developed and was made as sheets and not
rolls for technical manufacturing reasons. From these sheets books
evolved, hinged on one side by sticking one set of edges together of pages
placed on top of each other or by interfolding them
The writing was developed from simple marks through symbol and picture
writing, heiroglyphs and cuneiform, and down varying streams of
development that led in some cases to syllabic writing and alphabets.
Printing itself developed from eastern woodblock printing to typeset
printing - moveable type.. It is all in the history books
The bottom line is we KNOW how that book came into being, both in terms of
its nature and in terms of its location. In terms of nature the
development took thousands of years of a combination of deliberate
technical improvement and evolution of the artefact.
As a biological process evolution took billions of years longer. Just as
in the case of the book it is dysfunctional to look at the finished modern
artefact and ask how it got there as a finished item in BOTh nature and
location - It didn't. Nor did modern species
Modern species have evolved from very simple life forms over colossal time
spans. sometimes the evolutionary change is quite sudden - sometimes it
is so slow as to be imperceptible. But the evolution of items such as the
brain is detectable - from single cells to fish, to reptilian, mammals and
birds and amongst apes to the more conscious primates including modern
man.
So Andrew - we have SOLVED the book question - I think to your
satisfaction - by going back into history - looking at artefacts produced
in the past. I suggest you apply similar methods to answering your
questions about creation. The evidence is there but your superstition is
blinding you from even seeking it - even opening the necessary books.
Imagine the book you referred to in your example. Imagine the finder is
lost - imagine that the book is a book of maps of the area - wouldn't the
finder be stupid not to open it but instead to take out his Bible and read
that until he died of thirst and exposure/
That is what you are doing. The Bible in this matter is NOT your map
book. It is not your guide to an answer to the question where did species
come from - by what mechanism was what I see around me created and how did
it develop.
The map book for these questions are science books
Open them.
Your Bible alone will leave you in ignorance.
Wailing the whines of the eccentric and rejected
++++++++++++++++++
Phlogeus
<johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> How about you start with nothing (NOTHING, NADA, ZERO, ZIP), and build
> us enough working DNA in all the right sequences that a human infant
> emerges from the test tube in 9 months.
>
> You COULD do that, right?
Nope and God seems to have singularly fucked up in your case with a lot
longer time to do it.
Wombat
> On 14 Mar 2007 16:13:45 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
Look at the list of cross posts. alt.atheism is included. How to
shoot oneself in the foot.
If you want to retain the 'purity' of your group you know what to do,
don't you?
Wombat
>
> john w- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
za...@emphyrio.demon.co.uk
> "Neil Kelsey" wrote in messagenews:1173913359....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >"Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
> >> > We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
> >> > a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
> >> > objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>
> >> OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
> >> happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
> >> showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
>
> >> Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
> >> naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
> >> meteorites?
>
> > Or, some other hiker lost a book, which is the right explanation.
>
> >> Or would you rather conclude that there was an intelligent mind
> >> with purpose involved in the creation of the book, even though
> >> you do not understand how the book got to be where you found
> >> it?
>
> > I'd conclude that a hiker lost a book and that it was created by an
> > intelligent mind..
>
> Correct answer! Then can you see that it would be illogical to conclude
> that the book was the product of an intelligent mind, but that DNA is not
> the product of intelligence, when it is in fact a living molecule packed full
> of highly sophisticated intelligent code?
>
DNA is not code. The concept "code" does not have any meaning to the
universe, only to humans. "Code" is part of the description that we,
as human beings, have chosen to give the arrangement of the chemical
components of DNA. This is solely because it is convenient,
linguisitically, to apply to naturally occurring things words which
have originally been coined for broadly analogous concepts in the
human-created world. But it is a fallacy to suggest that the usage
of the word, in and of itself, is implication of a nature identical in
all respects. Context is everything.
You - like pretty much all religions people I've come into contact
with - are, in semilogical terms, serial conflaters of the signifier
with the signified (as an aside, I suspect this emerges from an
inability to avoid anthropocentricism).
To put another way: are pigs clustering around a swill-trough full of
food, embodying a "code"? They will position themselves in particular
ways based on their sizes, their ages, their aggressiveness or
otherwise, their relative hunger, and, underlying all, their
motivation to eat in order to survive. We may look at them, note the
consistency of their relative positions over time, and perhaps impose
a pattern on them in our minds. It may be useful to do this because
we may wish, for example, to ensure that we put more swill at one far
end of the trough, to attract the bigger and greedier pigs away from
the smaller ones, to ensure the small ones get enough food.
Are the pigs positions a "code"? No. It's just the way they are, the
way that that environmental factors and their natures have decreed.
This pigs neither know or care about our imposition of this pattern
which we are using, as a tool to help us in a practical way.
I appreciate this is a macro example, but the point it illustrates is
still valid: *we* may superimpose a pattern on the universe for our
purposes, but it is *our* interpretation of the way things are, not an
absolute, human-external, structure.
> Coded information comes only from an intelligent mind. Therefore the
> large quantities of organized coded information in living cells is indeed
> objective evidence of an Intelligent Creator - GOD.
>
> Andrew
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3398897723006201061- Hide quoted text -
Heather Hornblower
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:gajiv2lu8b5v1isha...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>news:r4lgv2dfg9ghi8vv0...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
>>> objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>
> apologetics stuff.
>
> I sincerely believe that we are close enough to the End and the 2nd
> Coming that hearts have grown quite hard (as prophesied) "In the last
> days, the love of many will wax cold."
>
So has Andrew's brain.
Lucifer
> On 14 Mar 2007 16:13:45 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
Actually, fuckstain, I am responding to a crosspost into alt.atheism.
While I'm here, though, I thought I might get under the skin of some
of the morons. If you want to justify your belief, perhaps you should
try to offer a shred of evidence for it instead of the usual insults
and smears.
Hatter
>
> Personally I don't care one iota what you think of me or my beliefs;
> because you like all non-believers will find the error of your ways when
> standing before God at judgment. The more you rant and rave at believers
> the more it shows your ignorance.
Condecending Piety(not to mention threats)...ah yes....the delicious
taste that you are fully beaten and seeking the last refuge of the
beaten.
Hatter
Hatter
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173914468....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > As soon as I saw that your response was yet another empty sack of
> > mindless blather, I deleted the rest of it unread, you pathetic bag of
> > sewage.
>
> > If you ever find the guts and the evidence, then come back and try to
> > take me on.
>
> The evidence is clear that without Jesus Christ, you have no peace in your
> heart. He is the One who can remove the anger which torments your soul.
>
Neil Kelsey
> x-no-archive: yes
> On 14 Mar 2007 16:39:37 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How about you start with nothing (NOTHING, NADA, ZERO, ZIP), and build
> us enough working DNA in all the right sequences that a human infant
> emerges from the test tube in 9 months.
>
> You COULD do that, right?
Why are you only giving me 9 months when it took a few billion years
for life to evolve to produce humans, among other current species?
And, how is one human (me) going to reproduce each and every of the
natural conditions that led to where we are now?
Take some water, zap it with lightning, and you'll get amino acids
galore, which are the building blocks for DNA. Read the last chapter
of Dawkins' the Ancestor's Tale if you want an expert's take on how
life might have arose. Speculation backed with evidence, as opposed to
"fact" backed with no evidence but plenty of righteous indignation
(that's religion, if you didn't know). After reading what Dawkins
said, I think it's likely that life arose more than once and in
different locations.
Hatter
> x-no-archive: yes
> On 14 Mar 2007 16:39:37 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
>
>
>
>
How about the majority of scientists who do study it? Or the
outspokenly agnostic Crick who did most of the reasearch on it from
1939 to 1942? How about the process of scientific method by which it
was discovered?
Hatter
Hatter
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
> > decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
> Energy/matter cannot be naturally created or destroyed, according to the
> laws of physics. Do you have a strictly scientific answer for this?
>
If it is neither created or destroyed, the current scientific therory
is that has ALWAYS been the case, that there is time in which matter/
energy did not exist and the big bang is only the point in which the
current iteration of the organization of matter started and being a
singularity, is a threshold that might never be crossed by any test.
Which brings us back to the old basic scientific principle "Don't make
shit up if you cannot back it up" A supernatural origin story
certainly falls into that category.
Hatter
Andrew
> If you want to justify your belief, perhaps you should
> try to offer a shred of evidence for it instead of the usual insults
> --
>
> Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
> and General Purpose Igor
>
> The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
> of Doom
>
> Convicted by Earthquack
I notice that the atheists vehemently object to the concept of
God..yet are comfortable with Lucifer, the Lord of Darkness.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>I sincerely believe the Christian's time is better spent
>SEEKING those who will believe.
>
>john w
Yet you spend yours cursing Christians and calling them fakes,
pretenders and "G-- damned liars'.. as well as telling them to have
sex with themselves.......
Some 'Christian' you are.... NOT.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>> That your assertions have nothing to do with any objective evidence of
>> any gods.
>
>As I have said before, if you *need* objective evidence then devise a test
>capable of proving that thoughts and or the human mind exists.
Science does not work that way.
First there is evidence, then the evidence is tested to discover what
it means.
You want to tell us what it means, and then expect us to devise a test
to find the evidence that supports you.
Not going to happen.
The assertion for existence is yours; Provide the evidence.
When you have provided the empirical evidence, we will test it.
Wombat
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> How to
>
> >shoot oneself in the foot.
>
No, you do it so well without assistance.
Wombat
>
> ok.
>
> >If you want to retain the 'purity' of your group you know what to do,
> >don't you?
>
> Yes. Get you jerks to leave us alone and stop cross-posting!
Idiot! Sugien, one of your idiot allies, started the cross posting.
Wombat
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2007 16:13:45 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrd...@hotmail.com>
You are muddling your myths.
Satan, and Lucifer, were two totally different characters.
>
>And don't forget to clean up your slime trail!
>
And that was not even a judeo/xtian myth, but a 19th, or 20th century,
fiction.
Greywolf
Okay. Find a 'live' person who *doesn't* have a 'mind' or think 'thoughts'.
Then we can 'talk'.
>
>>
>> What is in dispute here is the existence of 'God'. I suggest, therefore,
>> that *you* devise a 'test' capable of proving that he does. After all, it
>> is the theist who insists he's 'real'. It is, therefore, up to the theist
>> to prove it. If a 'God' is 'real' there surely must be some way of
>> proving it.
>
> Who says? Just because you say so certainly doesn't make it so.
We're talking about something you theists *insist* exists, but can't prove
it to save your life. I, therefore, contend that this 'God' of yours is an
imagined one that 'lives' *only* in the land of imagination -- just where
Zeus previously 'existed'. (But from what I've read recently, 'he's' making
a come-back, believe it or not.)
>
>> Otherwise the people who 'clearly' discern a 'real' God and are not just
>> some abstract construction; a 'God' who exists solely within the realm of
>> man's imagination, ought to be able to prove it, and quite easily, one
>> would assume.
>
> When you can devise a test to prove thoughts exist then you should be able
> to prove God exists.
Are you *seriously* contending that 'thought' is not 'real'? C'mon. You're
looking pretty silly here. And think about this: Aside from dead people,
name another category of people who do *not* possess a 'mind' or think
thoughts? Go right ahead. And if you can't, I would say that *that* is
sufficient proof that peope possess a 'mind' and think thoughts.
As for we atheists having to devise a test to prove 'God' exists; isn't that
*your* job?
You see *I* need no proof
Zeus lives. The rest of the Greek gods are 'real' too. Accept this on faith,
do you? Or do you want me to supply you with 'proof' that this ridiculous
proposition is 'true'?
I already believe and it is
> not incumbent upon me to prove anything to you;
You and your fellow theists are asserting something so preposterous as to
defy belief: That a supernatural entity came into existence 'ready-made'
with unimaginable supernatural powers, super-intellect, an unbelievable
imagination, as well as being omnipotent, omniscient, and ... wait ... I
forget, you theists insist this complex creature didn't '*come* into
existence' he, and he alone, created himself ... no, that's not quite right
either, is it? Why don't *you* supply the details, and then back up your
information with 'facts' and the source of your information. And remember:
supply some 'tangible' proof. 'Faith', in this case, is worthless as a
faith. Your faith has to be based on *some* kind of evidence. Share that
evidence with us. Please.
because each person has to
> prove God to their self once they have been told the truth about Gods
> existence.
>
You know the ancient Greeks believed that Zeus was 'real' and had every bit
as much 'faith' that they were 'right' about 'him' as you are about 'God'.
And guess what? There was as much 'proof' for the existence of him, as there
is for this 'God' of *yours*. Just as much. What kind of 'truths', in your
estimation, did this 'faith' of the ancient Greeks provide them? Hmmm?
>>
>> That's the problem, isn't it? You just can't grab him by the scruff and
>> drag him out into the open for everyone to see, can you?
>
> I don't need to and could not if I wanted to; because God is all powerfull
But not 'powerful' enough to show himself to us, I take it. And just how in
the hell can you say 'God' is 'all powerful' when you can't even supply the
most *meager* of evidence to back that claim up? Sounds to me like you're
just making that up.
>>
>> Then after
>>> having accomplished that feat you will most likely be able to use the
>>> same methods in devising a way of proving God's existence.
>>
>> Hardly. How can one prove the existence of something that doesn't exist?
>> And shouldn't the theists have *already* come up with some sort of 'test'
>> proving the existence of 'God' by now?
>>
>> God wants us to
>>> believe by faith.
>>
If that's true, then why did Jesus appear to 'Doubting Thomas' in that
made-up 'risen Jesus' story? Was it because Jesus did not want 'Thomas' to
spend an eternity undergoing unspeakable torment and suffering as result of
his 'un-belief'? Is that it? And if Jesus felt the need to appear to certain
followers (and not a *single* member of his 'opposition', I might add) why
not to modern man? Hell, those people who allegedly saw the 'risen Christ'
had an unfair advantage, wouldn't you say? And what is so 'criminal' in
choosing not to believe in a 'God' that refuses to show himself to us? What
happened to 'free-will'? Do you seriously worship and adore a 'God' who
would 'punish' individuals with eternal pain, anquish, agony, torment, and
suffering simply for having a lack of belief in his existence? What kind of
a 'God' do you worship?
Having said that. Let me make it clear to you and your 'kind' that you have
every right to believe what you believe. But I just don't understand why you
people 'hate', and I mean absolutely *hate* we atheists for simply having a
different point of view; a difference of *opinion*. Why do so many of your
people hold us in such contempt? Please explain that underlying disdain for
us, if you would.
>> See what I mean? Now how could you *possibly* make such an assertion?
>
> Hmmm, because it is true!
And the proof for that is ... ? An assertion does not necessarily make the
assertion true. C'mon. You're better than that. And why this obsession with
inculcating our young with ideas that you people cannot *hope* to prove
true? Again, I'm going to bring up my imaginary 'friend', Zeus. The parents
of infant Greek children 'brainwashed' their offspring to believe in the
existence of Zeus. And the children of these ancient Greek parents believed
in the 'reality' of Zeus (and any number of *other* Greek gods) just as
fervently as any 'Jesus Camp' Christian child. Not an ounce less. Do you
catch my 'drift'?
>
>> Where's the proof for what you're asserting here? Are you claiming here
>> that
>
> I need no proof, I have faith
Pretty 'mindless', don't you think?
>
>> you have the ability to read, to interpret the thoughts in the mind of a
>> deity? For 'real'?
>
> Gods thoughts are as close as the nearest bible.
Oh puhleeeeze! There is not a single extant 'copy' of the original 'books'
of the bible. Not a one. What does that tell you? Don't you think that a
'God' would preserve the scribal-error free 'originals' if he thought they
were *that* important?
Also, you have another example of a so-called 'proof' that 'God' exists that
is 'man-made' and *claimed* to be the word of 'God' by fallible, imaginative
'man'. A 'Holy Book' is not a substitute for real, concrete, 'proof' for the
existence of a 'God' or two .. or three. The *fact* that this 'God' of yours
is incapable of revealing himself to we moderns in way similar to the way it
is claimed he appeared to the ancients tells *this* atheist that the
Jesus/God 'story' is not exactly true.
And before smoke starts coming out of your ears for me saying such a thing,
remember this: The stories are so preposterous and outright absurd that one
*must* not believe them for just that very reason. Think not? Think
'Doubting Thomas' and the reaction of the apostles upon hearing the claims
made by the women returning from their encounter with the risen 'Lord'?
Those *closest* to him in life thought the women 'nuts'. Why shouldn't we
moderns who have not had the benefit of the 'proof' the ancients had
supplied *them*, not think the same thing? The stories just *reek* of the
absurd. They actually *scream*, 'Preposterous!!'
>
>>
>> Or did you just, in effect, 'lie'?
>
> Sorry; but nope, I lie not; because God IS real and no amount of your
> asserting otherwise will make it so.
Look. You can believe what you want. But you have an obligation to provide
some evidence that what you're teaching our young is the truth. You have
none.
If you kept your beliefs to yourself and quit trying to impose them on
others through 'orchestrated', teacher-led prayer in public schools and the
like, for example, there wouldn't be this 'tension' between our schools of
thought. And need I remind you what Jesus would have to say about
teacher-led, pledge of allegiance-type prayer in public schools? Try
re-reading Matthew 6:6. For Pete's sakes, follow your 'Master's' sensible
directives on occasion.
>
>>
>> Where there is faith no evidence is needed
>>
>> And tell us exactly *why* this authoritive statement should be accepted
>> as the truth? The ancient Jewish zealots of Jerusalem in the years 68-70
>> C. E. put all their 'faith' and 'trust' in a God who they were convinced
>> would, through his supernatural aid, help to defeat the Roman army. I
>> suppose you already know the results of *that* mindless act of 'faith'.
>
> hmmm, The roman army doesn't exist does it?
Oh, puke. Who emerged the 'victor' at the end of that conflict? Where was
'God' as the Romans were mercilessly slaughtering the Jewish 'faithful' and
destroying 'God's magnificent Temple? C'mon. You aren't *that* blinded to
the facts, are you?
I must say, that was a pretty 'lame' response. But as I've already
indicated, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs. I just wish some of
you Jesus people weren't as hateful and intolerant as some of you are.
(You would not *believe* what I've experienced out here at the hands of
intolerant, hateful, pitiless, and sadistic 'Christians' out here. It would
make you feel ashamed of being a 'Christian'.)
>>
>> What happened?
>
> Well although it took a little while, not only the Roman army; but Rome
> its self was taken over by the same God that the Jews believe in.
Well hell, our 'sun' is eventually going to burn out and 'die'. Given enough
time, almost *anything* can occur.
But more to the point. Those hapless Jews that were slaughtered by the Roman
army were *firmly* convinced -- and were able to convince others around
them -- that 'God' was going to aid them; to intervene on their behalf, to
*defeat* the Roman forces arrayed against them. Not only were these pious,
faithful Jews simply massacred -- and in many instances, starved to death,
including infant babies and children -- but the very 'house of God' was
obliterated. Someone was misled and, in turn, misled others into doing
something pretty damn stupid, don't you think? 'God' did *not* intervene on
behalf of the zealous Jewish 'believers', did he?
And don't get 'ticked off' about all this. What I'm trying to do here is
provide a body of 'evidence' as to why, in small part, *this* atheist
doesn't believe in a 'God'. I feel my view is well-founded. If you were to
provide unassailable, undeniable proof that 'God exists, my 'view' could
concievably change in a matter of minutes were it to be provided me. I *am*,
unlike *you*, 'open-minded'.
Although it
> took several hundred years Rome was *completely* taken over by the same
> God of the bible that the Jews worshiped. Gods time table and mans are
> not the same.
>>
You are completely avoiding addressing the fact that Jews of enormous faith,
put their faith and trust in their 'God' that *at that time* he would
intervene on their behalf and help defeat the Roman forces arrayed against
them. Pleading that he did just *that*, only centuries later, is rather
'weak', don't you think?
>> and where
>>> there is evidence no faith is needed.
>>>
>>
>> Precisely. So what's your point?
>
> That God is real, of course
>
Do you mean *just* as 'real' as 'Zeus'? Just as real as 'Thor'?
>>
>> Oh, about that blind person being unaware of the existence of 'color':
>> How many people of normal sight do *you* know who go around contesting
>> the existence of it. I would hazard to say not a one. And that's because
>> 'color' is something that we humans 'know' full well exists. The same
>> cannot be said for 'God'.
>
> Hmmm, you obviously don't know of any color blind people do you?
The fact that some people suffer from 'color-blindness' proves that 'color'
doesn't exist? Is *that* what you're trying to assert?
sure it
> can be said for God; because God exists whether you not those like you
> believe in him just like the blind man not believing in colors. I guess
> the allegory was lost on you; because you see the believers are those that
> were not born blind and can see colors (God) and those like you are those
> born blind that can not see colors (God)
>
>>
There is no doubt that color exists. But the fact that you, nor anyone else
on this planet has ever proved that 'God' really *does*; that his
'existence' is based on a faith that has it's roots firmly planted in the
land of imagination only provides a measure of 'proof' that he *doesn't*
exist. If he did, I would be a 'believer' too. Like I said, I'm
'open-minded', unlike you.
>> If 'faith' is all you guys have left as 'proof' for his existence. You
>> can't, in good conscience, expect we truth-seeking atheists and agnostics
>> to 'buy' a claim based on so flimsy a 'proof'. C'mon. And you should
>
> Sure we can, after all you all want us to believe in evolution without
> proof; because the proof given sure isn't proof positive; but rather only
> a theory.
What year is this? What are we to do with all that convergent information
that points *directly* to evolution that the scientists have accumulated?
And bear in mind now, the evidence for evolution comes from divergent
scientific disciplines. Where's the 'science' for Creationism? Where's
'Eve's' body showing she didn't have a navel?
But then the main issue is skirted; because none of you will come
> out and say where life came from.
Be honest here. Have *you*, personally examined the 'scientific' literature
dealing with the origins of life? Have you?
You all ballyhoo about how evolution
> changed life *after* it came into existence; *BUT* just where do *you* say
> that life came from in the first place?
I refer you to the previous reply.
>
>> *certainly* not look down your collective noses at us atheists and regard
>> us
>
> I certainly do NOT look down on *anyone* at all; if you think that , they
> you are laboring under a misconception.
Well, I apologize, then. I was visualizing certain 'Christians' who are,
effectly holding me 'captive' and causing me to live under a sort of 'house
arrest' out here in northern Wisconsin. I have to bear in mind that not
*all* 'Christians' are of the same stripe as the sick, heartless, pitiless,
and 'diseased' as certain ones out my way are.
>
>> with contempt and disdain. Remember, our only 'crime' is that we have a
>> difference of *opinion*. (Or is there something else that I'm unaware
>> of?)
>
> see above
>
>> Let me repeat that: We have nothing more than a difference of ...
>> opinion!
>
> agreed
>
Well, now *that* is a refreshing response.
>> We are not 'evil', 'satanic', murderers, or anything of the sort. Those
>> are
>
> I never said you or anyone non-believer were, nor would I. At most you
> and they in my opinion believe a lie.
Yay!!!!!
>
>> *hateful* things to say about people who happen not to share your views.
>> You
>
> I have never said anything hateful or even insulting to anyone here that
> happen to not share my views; however those that don't share my view
> certainly can NOT say the same!
I *hear* you! People on *both* sides of the 'fence' can turn into nasty
'neighbors' at times. The good thing though, is that 'good' neigbors can set
aside heart-felt 'differences and concentrate on what made them 'good'
neighbors to begin with. And I think that element is the heart-felt desire
to wish only the best for each other; that 'good' shine from within us
instead of the 'bad'. We are, after all, fated to spend a relatively short
time experiencing 'life' on this planet. It is incumbent upon us to make our
'stay' as happy and joyous as we can -- and that involves looking out for
each other; to watch each other's 'back-side' -- and *not* to do greivous
injury to each other.
>
>> should quit being so downright hateful and contemptuous of us. It's not
>
> I can NOT quit doing something which I have never done in the first place!
Kudos to you, then. Take great pride in that fact.
>
>> *really* how a Christian should conduct one's self. Or (in your view) is
>> it?
>
> I have conducted my self as what a Christian should, and contrary to what
> you have put forth I have not acted in any way like what you have tried to
> assert I have. Even after being insulted, badgered and had all manner of
> false accusations laid at my door I *refused* to lower my self to the same
> level as those that did so to me.
>>
I always say, 'Class is something money can't buy. You either have it or you
don't.' Stick to your 'guns' if you feel so strongly. But bear in mind there
are those, like me, who strenuously disagree in regards to your
belief-system. But as already noted, all we have is just a difference of
*opinion*. And it is something we can, under certain circumstances, just
come to respectfully in disagreement about. The alternative is unthinkable.
We *have* to learn to co-exist in a peaceful manner. Life is hard enough as
it is.
Greywolf
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>You are going to show me how to shoot myself in the foot?
No need to, liar-johnnie... you do that EVERY TIME you post.
Andrew
That's because it IS code. It is in fact a living molecule packed full
of highly sophisticated intelligent code. Coded information comes
only from an intelligent mind. Therefore, the coded information in
living cells is evidence of an Intelligent Creator - GOD.
za...@emphyrio.demon.co.uk
> <z...@emphyrio.demon.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:1173955782.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your tautological repost of your original assertion, your non-response
to all of my points, and your uncommented snipping of them is noted.
Is that because you didn't understand the points?
Steve
Neil Kelsey
> <z...@emphyrio.demon.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:1173955782.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
You should read the post you're responding to more carefully, it is
excellent. You are equivocating yourself into confusion. Just because
people use the term "genetic code" does not mean that DNA is the
product of an intelligent mind. This reminds me of how many people
becomes conservatives politically because they associate "right" with
"correct" and "left" with "wrong." You're getting confused by the word
"code."
thomas p.
> On Mar 13, 5:53 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> > > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> > > learn?
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> > super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
> message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
> request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
> *supply* the evidence. Where is it?
>
> Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
> decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
He would be the very first theist to do so. It would be against all
tradition.
>
> [Meaningless Biblical quotes flushed where they belong]
>
> Budikka
thomas p.
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> messagenews:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> >> > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> >> > learn?
>
> >> > Budikka
>
> >> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> >> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> > Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
> > message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
> > request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
> > *supply* the evidence. Where is it?
>
> > Do you have the evidence or not? If you don't, have the honesty and
> > decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
>
> can devise a method or test to prove that thoughts exist and that they exist
> inside the human mind. the human brain can be proven; but not the mind that
> resides inside it nor the thoughts.
That would be because the mind does not exist as an objective object
like the brain. It is a word that describes a process that takes
place in the brain, one that makes it possible for me to write this
post.
> Trying to *prove* to a non-believer that God exists is like trying to
> prove to a person born blind that there are colors. You can describe the
> colors and such; but his never having experienced colors he will never
> believe you. Such a person would have to believe by faith.
That is nonsense, and it has been pointed out a number of times.
> Likewise someone that was once a believer that has *lost* their faith
> and became a non-believer is like someone that was born with sight but
> becomes blind. Then after years in darkness they start to forget what
> colors look like until in the end they fool their self into believing that
> colors never existed in the first place.
In other words you have no evidence and are reduced to silly
analogies.
thomas p.
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> >> to
> >> prove to a person born blind that there are colors. You can describe the
> >> colors and such; but his never having experienced colors he will never
> >> believe you. Such a person would have to believe by faith.
> >> faith
> >> and became a non-believer is like someone that was born with sight but
> >> becomes blind. Then after years in darkness they start to forget what
> >> colors look like until in the end they fool their self into believing
> >> that
> >> colors never existed in the first place.
>
> >> From the Desk of Paul CKC
> >> /}
> >> @###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
> >> \}
>
> > If you can show how *any* of that is relevant, I'll be suitably
> > impressed.
>
> > Meanwhile, the bottom line remains that Andrew stated categorically
> > "All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful, super intelligent,
>
> > All I have aksed him to do is supply the evidence of which he speaks.
> > He has failed.
>
> > It really is that simple.
>
> Yes it is just that simple; but your problem is that you can not see what is
> all around you. You see the things around you but not the power holding all
> of creation together.
That is your assertion, for which you have no evidence to offer.
thomas p.
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
> Energy/matter cannot be naturally created or destroyed, according to the
> laws of physics. Do you have a strictly scientific answer for this?
>
> EW
Just a simple question: Where did god originate?
thomas p.
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 1:46 pm, "Sugien" <dinos...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
>
> >> > On Mar 14, 11:27 am, "Sugien" <dinos...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> >> >> messagenews:1173827837....@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> > Andrew, didn't I talk to you about starting fundamentally idiotic
> >> >> >> > threads on Usenet? What is *wrong* with you? When will you
> >> >> >> > learn?
>
> >> >> >> > Budikka
>
> >> >> >> All the evidence clearly points to a wonderful,
> >> >> >> super intelligent, all powerful Creator -- God.
>
> >> >> > Nice of you to start your own thread to try and distract from my
> >> >> > message, but even here you're **RUNNING** from my request. I didn't
> >> >> > request that you *lie* that there's evidence but that you actually
> >> >> > *supply* the evidence. Where is it?
>
> >> >> > decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
> > apparently it's yours, too.
>
> > I'm not interested in playing your juvenile imagination game. Fine -
> > you imagine you can see fairies and pixies. I don't share your
> > delusion.
>
> > If **YOU** have evidence of these fairies and pixies, then present
> > it. Do you have such evidence, or are you as impotent as Andrew,
> > reduced to making inane claims and being unable to support a single
> > one of them? If so, then you're the one with the problem along with
> > Andrew.
>
> > It's not my job to try to conjure up your delusion. Your "argument"
> > is entirely irrelevant. I'm asking for the evidence that Andrew
> > claims exists.
>
> > Andrew categorically stated that there *is* such evidence. I asked
> > him to present it. He failed.
>
> > Now you're starting an entirely new argument which is very similar to
> > Andrew's - that the evidence is all around me but I am blind to it.
> > So now the onus is on *you* in this worldwide public forum to state
> > what that evidence is. What is it that's all around me that I'm
> > missing?
>
> > Please give a short list of items that I'm failing to see, and define
> > what it is about them which makes them evidence of some god.
>
> > Or are you just blathering off the top of your head without thinking
> > about what it is you're saying - just like Andrew did?
>
> > I'm waiting.
>
> Personally I don't care one iota what you think of me or my beliefs;
> because you like all non-believers will find the error of your ways when
> standing before God at judgment. The more you rant and rave at believers
> the more it shows your ignorance.
>
In other words you have no evidence. Why not just say so?
thomas p.
> "LoneStar" <ewyatt_del...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45f87118$0$97262$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:1173831189.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> decency to admit so. If you do have it, then present it right here.
>
> > Energy/matter cannot be naturally created or destroyed, according to the
> > laws of physics. Do you have a strictly scientific answer for this?
>
> anything about *where* life came from but only what happened to it *after*
> it came into existence.
The problem presented has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It
does, however, raise the additional question of where god came from.
thomas p.
> "Neil Kelsey" wrote in messagenews:1173913359....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >"Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Al Klein" wrote:
>
> >> > We're talking here about OBJECTIVE evidence of the OBJECTIVE existence
> >> > a god - any god. there never has been the slightest shred of
> >> > objective evidence of the objective existence of any god.
>
> >> OK, suppose you are out hiking in the deep wilderness and you
> >> happen to discover under a tree, a book. The book has writing
> >> showing intelligence and purpose and is correctly punctuated.
>
> >> Would you conjecture that perhaps this book got to be there by
> >> naturalistic processes such as wind, lightnings, earthquakes and
> >> meteorites?
>
> > Or, some other hiker lost a book, which is the right explanation.
>
> >> Or would you rather conclude that there was an intelligent mind
> >> with purpose involved in the creation of the book, even though
> >> you do not understand how the book got to be where you found
> >> it?
>
> > I'd conclude that a hiker lost a book and that it was created by an
> > intelligent mind..
>
> Correct answer! Then can you see that it would be illogical to conclude
> that the book was the product of an intelligent mind, but that DNA is not
> the product of intelligence, when it is in fact a living molecule packed full
> of highly sophisticated intelligent code?
>
> large quantities of organized coded information in living cells is indeed
> objective evidence of an Intelligent Creator - GOD.
Where did god come from?
thomas p.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173914468....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > As soon as I saw that your response was yet another empty sack of
> > mindless blather, I deleted the rest of it unread, you pathetic bag of
> > sewage.
>
> > If you ever find the guts and the evidence, then come back and try to
> > take me on.
>
> The evidence is clear that without Jesus Christ, you have no peace in your
> heart. He is the One who can remove the anger which torments your soul.
It is clear that assertions are not evidence.
>
>
>
> > Until then, why don't you shut-the-fuck-up with your
> > assinine and vacuous fairy tales, you pathetic little whiney-assed
> > baby? Huh?
>
> > Keep running, coward. You're just another limp Peter at the passion.
>
> > Budikka- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Lucifer
> "Lucifer" wrote in messagenews:1173914025....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Actually, it means bringer of light. That just shows how poorly
educated you are. In fact Lucifer is just my handle. I didn't choose
the name, the name chose me.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Sugien
"Hatter" <Hatt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173967841.7...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
The truth of the matter any you post of course have nothing in common
Sugien
gee whiz, why not come up with something original instead of copy and
pasting a pat although wrong reply into every post?
Sugien
poppycock
Sugien
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:6roiv29ppqtf23geq...@4ax.com...
I care not what evidence you want; because all that will be given is the
truth of God you can accept it and be saved or reject it and have your soul
destroyed . It is up to you, at the very least you won't be able to stand
before God and claim that you were never told the truth about him.
Sugien
Ah; but can you prove they do? That is what you are asserting belivers do
with God are you not?
>
>>
>>>
>>> What is in dispute here is the existence of 'God'. I suggest, therefore,
>>> that *you* devise a 'test' capable of proving that he does. After all,
>>> it is the theist who insists he's 'real'. It is, therefore, up to the
>>> theist to prove it. If a 'God' is 'real' there surely must be some way
>>> of proving it.
>>
>> Who says? Just because you say so certainly doesn't make it so.
>
> We're talking about something you theists *insist* exists, but can't prove
> it to save your life. I, therefore, contend that this 'God' of yours is an
> imagined one that 'lives' *only* in the land of imagination -- just where
> Zeus previously 'existed'. (But from what I've read recently, 'he's'
> making a come-back, believe it or not.)
We are NOT required to prove anything; because those that believe need NO
proof, and all we are required is to *tell* you the truth.
>
>>
>>> Otherwise the people who 'clearly' discern a 'real' God and are not just
>>> some abstract construction; a 'God' who exists solely within the realm
>>> of man's imagination, ought to be able to prove it, and quite easily,
>>> one would assume.
>>
>> When you can devise a test to prove thoughts exist then you should be
>> able to prove God exists.
>
> Are you *seriously* contending that 'thought' is not 'real'? C'mon. You're
> looking pretty silly here. And think about this: Aside from dead people,
> name another category of people who do *not* possess a 'mind' or think
> thoughts? Go right ahead. And if you can't, I would say that *that* is
> sufficient proof that peope possess a 'mind' and think thoughts.
A brain is provable; but not a mind nor thoughts. You know and are only
being trite; but the test stands.
>
> As for we atheists having to devise a test to prove 'God' exists; isn't
> that *your* job?
No, I am only required to tell you the truth which I have
>
> You see *I* need no proof
>
> Zeus lives. The rest of the Greek gods are 'real' too. Accept this on
> faith, do you? Or do you want me to supply you with 'proof' that this
> ridiculous proposition is 'true'?
You can tell God that just before you have your soul destroyed.
>
> I already believe and it is
>> not incumbent upon me to prove anything to you;
>
> You and your fellow theists are asserting something so preposterous as to
> defy belief: That a supernatural entity came into existence 'ready-made'
> with unimaginable supernatural powers, super-intellect, an unbelievable
> imagination, as well as being omnipotent, omniscient, and ... wait ... I
> forget, you theists insist this complex creature didn't '*come* into
> existence' he, and he alone, created himself ... no, that's not quite
> right either, is it? Why don't *you* supply the details, and then back up
> your information with 'facts' and the source of your information. And
> remember: supply some 'tangible' proof. 'Faith', in this case, is
> worthless as a faith. Your faith has to be based on *some* kind of
> evidence. Share that evidence with us. Please.
I am not required to prove anything; because God is baised upon faith. Here
is a question why do you keep tacking on alt.atheism to belivers groups?
>
> because each person has to
>> prove God to their self once they have been told the truth about Gods
>> existence.
>>
>
> You know the ancient Greeks believed that Zeus was 'real' and had every
> bit as much 'faith' that they were 'right' about 'him' as you are about
> 'God'. And guess what? There was as much 'proof' for the existence of him,
> as there is for this 'God' of *yours*. Just as much. What kind of
> 'truths', in your estimation, did this 'faith' of the ancient Greeks
> provide them? Hmmm?
ha ha, so what?
>
>>>
>>> That's the problem, isn't it? You just can't grab him by the scruff and
>>> drag him out into the open for everyone to see, can you?
>>
>> I don't need to and could not if I wanted to; because God is all
>> powerfull
>
> But not 'powerful' enough to show himself to us, I take it. And just how
> in the hell can you say 'God' is 'all powerful' when you can't even supply
> the most *meager* of evidence to back that claim up? Sounds to me like
> you're just making that up.
believe what you like, I and others have told you the truth you rejected it
so wallow in your disbelief until you stand before God
>
>>>
>>> Then after
>>>> having accomplished that feat you will most likely be able to use the
>>>> same methods in devising a way of proving God's existence.
>>>
>>> Hardly. How can one prove the existence of something that doesn't exist?
>>> And shouldn't the theists have *already* come up with some sort of
>>> 'test' proving the existence of 'God' by now?
>>>
>>> God wants us to
>>>> believe by faith.
>>>
>
> If that's true, then why did Jesus appear to 'Doubting Thomas' in that
> made-up 'risen Jesus' story? Was it because Jesus did not want 'Thomas' to
> spend an eternity undergoing unspeakable torment and suffering as result
> of
No one undergoes unspeakable torment or suffering; because the unbelieving
soul is *destroyed* God punishes those that don't believe in him but he does
NOT do so for ever. He simply gives the unbelieving soul what they want.
They don't want to believe in him or spend eternity with him, so the
unbeliever has their soul destroyed.
All that to say absolutely NOTHING. you don't believe so be it; because you
are the one that has to stand before God and try and tell him you don't
believe in him.
Sugien
"thomas p." <tonyo...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1173979530.9...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You are free the same as I am to believe what you like
Sugien
No evidence will ever be offered; because God wants his children to believe
by faith
Sugien
God always was
Sugien
God has always existed
cactus
Hatt...@gmail.com
> "Dubh Ghall" <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>
> news:6roiv29ppqtf23geq...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:26:32 -0400, "Sugien" <dinos...@adelphia.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> That your assertions have nothing to do with any objective evidence of
> >>> any gods.
>
> >>As I have said before, if you *need* objective evidence then devise a test
> >>capable of proving that thoughts and or the human mind exists.
>
> > Science does not work that way.
>
> > First there is evidence, then the evidence is tested to discover what
> > it means.
>
> > You want to tell us what it means, and then expect us to devise a test
> > to find the evidence that supports you.
>
> > Not going to happen.
>
> > The assertion for existence is yours; Provide the evidence.
>
> > When you have provided the empirical evidence, we will test it.
>
> I care not what evidence you want; because all that will be given is the
> truth of God you can accept it and be saved or reject it and have your soul
> destroyed . It is up to you, at the very least you won't be able to stand
>
> - Show quoted text -
Look more condecending peity and threats. Yum Yum. Beaten theists are
soooooo predictable.
Hatter
Hatt...@gmail.com
> "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
>
> believe what you like, I and others have told you the truth you rejected it
> so wallow in your disbelief until you stand before God
>
Condecending peity! Threats! Wow, you lost so badly.
Hatter
Hatt...@gmail.com
> Sugien wrote:
> > "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
And one that predates Christianity
Hatter
Hatt...@gmail.com
> "Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>From a man who thinks there is an invisible sky farie that watches
everyones actions, is all good, and acts in unprovable was. One that
sacrifice himself to himself to save his creation from his wrath.
Yeah, there's a person who I would trust to distinguish truth from
fiction.
Grow up. Faries aren't real whether they are named Yahweh or not.
Hatter
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Lucifer" wrote:
>> > If you want to justify your belief, perhaps you should
>> > try to offer a shred of evidence for it instead of the usual insults
>> > --
>> > Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
>> > and General Purpose Igor
>>
>> > The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
>> > of Doom
>>
>> God..yet are comfortable with Lucifer, the Lord of Darkness.
>
> Actually, it means bringer of light. That just shows how poorly
> educated you are. In fact Lucifer is just my handle. I didn't choose
> the name, the name chose me.
Lucifer - a fallen angel commonly associated with Satan,
the embodiment of evil and enemy of God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Hatt...@gmail.com
> "Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is poppycock about "Don't make shit up?" It is a basic principle
of science.
You can come up with a theory, but if the theory isn't testable, it
isn't science.
So believe in your Zues...I'm sorry...Yahweh...and/or faries at the
bottom of the garden, or aligning Chakras, or whatever bullshit, it
just isn't scientific.
Hatter
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Neil Kelsey" wrote:
>>
>> Coded information comes only from an intelligent mind. Therefore the
>> large quantities of organized coded information in living cells is indeed
>> objective evidence of an Intelligent Creator - GOD.
>
> Where did god come from?
He is from everlasting.
"Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had
formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to
everlasting, You are God."
Psalm 90:2
Hatt...@gmail.com
> "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
fixed
Hatter
Hatt...@gmail.com
> "thomas p." wrote in messagenews:1173980533....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Neil Kelsey" wrote:
> >> >"Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Coded information comes only from an intelligent mind. Therefore the
> >> large quantities of organized coded information in living cells is indeed
> >> objective evidence of an Intelligent Creator - GOD.
>
> > Where did god come from?
>
>
> "Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had
> formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to
> everlasting, You are God."
>
> Psalm 90:2
Fixed
Hatter
Hatt...@gmail.com
> "Lucifer" wrote in messagenews:1173914025....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > try to offer a shred of evidence for it instead of the usual insults
> > --
>
> > Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
> > and General Purpose Igor
>
> > The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
> > of Doom
>
>
> I notice that the atheists vehemently object to the concept of
> God..yet are comfortable with Lucifer, the Lord of Darkness.
No I do not vehemently object to the concept of God...or Lucifer. I
vehemently object that people still hold these obviously false bronze
age fables, complete with "good guy" and "bad guy" to be true 200
years after the Enlightenment. I vehemently object that these beliefs
stand in the way of scientific progress. I vehmently object that
mankind still intstills fear of these mythological figures in their
children. I vehemently object to the wars and terror and waste of
lives and resources.
"That" is what I vehemently object to.
Hatter
Hatter
It strikes me as interesting that a competing god, and one of
knowlege, was chosen to be recast as a villian for Judeo-Christian
propaganda purposes. Tryng to reinforce the meme "knowledge is bad;
blind faith is good" that so well serves tyrants.
Hatter
Ralph
Either that or he doesn't exist. Think about it.
Ralph
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:iahKh.127790$_73....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Sure he is, sure he is :-)).
Ralph
There is no 'truth' in god. God doesn't exist.
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1173914468....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > As soon as I saw that your response was yet another empty sack of
> > mindless blather, I deleted the rest of it unread, you pathetic bag of
> > sewage.
>
> > If you ever find the guts and the evidence, then come back and try to
> > take me on.
>
> The evidence is clear that without Jesus Christ, you have no peace in your
> heart. He is the One who can remove the anger which torments your soul.
>
> > assinine and vacuous fairy tales, you pathetic little whiney-assed
> > baby? Huh?
>
> > Keep running, coward. You're just another limp Peter at the passion.
>
> > Budikka
Keep running, you sad little excuse for a Christian. How pathetic you
are. How many lies and excuses do you have to make up in your average
week to hide this chronic cowardice, huh?
You already told one lie this week: you lied that you have evidence,
and then instead of having the guts to stand up and admit that you
lied, to admit you made a claim you can't support, here you are
running and hiding behind every assinine and patently transparent
excuse that you can think up. How sad is that?
I spit on you. And I spit on this pathetic and weak god of yours,
which won't even come to your aid no matter how desperately you pray
into the cold empty dark that is your meaningless life.
Budikka