info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
a PROOF of God's EXISTENCE
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Dale
Dec 31, 2013, 12:09:28 PM12/31/13
to
A TESTABLE THEORY
if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
EXISTENTIAL too
also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
individual mind set or conscious
if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
--
Dale
if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
EXISTENTIAL too
also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
individual mind set or conscious
if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
--
Dale
Bobbie Sellers
Dec 31, 2013, 12:22:41 PM12/31/13
to
with meaningless anti-grammatical twaddle. My filter grow ever
longer as he changes e-mail addresses.
b.
THE COLONEL
Dec 31, 2013, 1:12:00 PM12/31/13
to
I think someone should "reinterpret" yer brain, pickle face.
LOL
LOL
bil...@m.nu
Dec 31, 2013, 3:03:02 PM12/31/13
to
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 12:09:28 -0500, Dale
Theroy is quickly proven false by this rational.
1. The definition of existential that applies to your use of the word
is this. <b : having being in time and space>
2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
doesnt.
3.Learn what words actually mean before you actually believe what some
preacher/priest tells you.
1. The definition of existential that applies to your use of the word
is this. <b : having being in time and space>
2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
doesnt.
3.Learn what words actually mean before you actually believe what some
preacher/priest tells you.
Dale
Dec 31, 2013, 7:05:21 PM12/31/13
to
On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> 2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
> doesnt.
my point is that thoughts and thinking ARE part of the brain as a whole,
> 2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
> doesnt.
which is existential, so the PARTS of the whole, like thoughts and
thinking are therefore existential TOO
unless you are saying that "thinking" exists outside of the brain in
some type of central server like a God's mind, I would entertain a
discussion like this
On 12/31/2013 12:39 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> Problem is of course that this approach gives you_all_ the gods, and
> elves, unicorns, Cthulhu etc too. "X exists" becomes simply a trivial and
> uninteresting statement, true for (almost all?) X. "How" they exist by
> contrast, and how that affects the logic of statements about them,
> becomes a quite interesting question.
the effect is the same, the stories might be different, then again if
you imagine a particular story to be true, that story IS existential as
well WITHIN the brain, AT LEAST
perhaps there is an overarching reality of God OUTSIDE THE BRAIN, but I
can't think of a proof of it
as well, even our EXPERIENCE of our senses of what is OUTSIDE THE BRAIN,
in your conscious, is your brain's INTERPRETATION AND REFLECTION of your
senses, not necessarily what is OUTSIDE THE BRAIN
can you think of a proof that anything exists outside the brain?
not that nothing does, but if you start saying that you have to PROVE
that God exists as something OUTSIDE the conscious, THEN, you have to
prove that ANYTHING exists outside the brain to maintain that critique
of God in particular
--
Dale
Sir Fred M. McNeill
Dec 31, 2013, 7:36:36 PM12/31/13
to
means). Said higher dimensional informational structures could well be messing
with the universe. In that context, 'humans' are probably epiphenomenal.
In that context 'humans' need their stories, including "God" stories. Our
hunter-gatherer evolution made us so, for pragmatic reasons.
Dale
Dec 31, 2013, 9:13:17 PM12/31/13
to
> Maybe replace existential with emergent, and you can
> expand that universal concept to, well....life, the universe
> and everything else (that matters) imho.
imho this is an true option to what I proposed
I proposed the brain was existential, and thoughts being a part of the
brain whether "real" or imaginary, are EXISTENTIAL
maybe we don't think
maybe we just "react" according to what is placed in us in conception,
our DNA, and what is stored in our brain's, etc., along the way
you could consider God the "central server" of thoughts/fate, and all of
us the "reactant" followers of God's thoughts/fate, this falsifies my
original proposal in a religious way
replace God with "the external physics" in the above statement and you
have falsified my original proposal in an atheistic way
I guess I follow your assertion when I have fear of God that we are
emergent, but anyway, my proposal is testable and falsifiable with your
proposal
--
Dale
kni...@baawa.com
Dec 31, 2013, 10:54:03 PM12/31/13
to
Isn't this fun?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Dale
Dec 31, 2013, 11:58:27 PM12/31/13
to
if they are EXISTENTIAL then we should have 8 axes instead of 4
but putting all seriousness aside, this kind of stuff does make it fun
and I am sure it is for God's sake and not ours due to the ups and downs
in mortal's lives
--
Dale
Dale
Jan 1, 2014, 12:17:52 AM1/1/14
to
On 12/31/2013 10:54 PM, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
> Isn't this fun?
to some communal type people religion and laws forthcoming are VERY serious
sometimes I wonder if the motivation of SOME atheists is to avoid
communal responsibility
personally I think fair competition is every area outside human need,
with a moderate safety net, is a better solution than socialism, as all
large implementations have shown, maybe Cuba is small enough to suceed
but to me that just makes me more communally responsible
some atheists are just plain anarchists I think, that is no fun for
anyone but God, in the long run, I AT LEAST want "my" piece of the fun
in life
--
Dale
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 1, 2014, 12:39:44 AM1/1/14
to
In article <75stv4....@news.alt.net>,
Are you really this stupid and hateful?
--
JD
"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
--
JD
"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
bil...@m.nu
Jan 1, 2014, 3:49:47 AM1/1/14
to
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:05:21 -0500, Dale
>
>unless you are saying that "thinking" exists outside of the brain in
>some type of central server like a God's mind, I would entertain a
>discussion like this
Ok I am sorry I said anything in the first place I now see you are a
theist nutjob
pretty sure stuff exists outside the brain
>
>not that nothing does, but if you start saying that you have to PROVE
>that God exists as something OUTSIDE the conscious, THEN, you have to
>prove that ANYTHING exists outside the brain to maintain that critique
>of God in particular
hey did you see santa flying th other day? Have you seen harry potter
doing his magic? have you seen the keebler elves making thier cerael?
Can you prove that any of those exist outside the brain? Can you prove
they dont?
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> 2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
>> doesnt.
>
>my point is that thoughts and thinking ARE part of the brain as a whole,
>which is existential, so the PARTS of the whole, like thoughts and
>thinking are therefore existential TOO
Ok I will say this again. Thought does NOT take up space.
>On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> 2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
>> doesnt.
>
>my point is that thoughts and thinking ARE part of the brain as a whole,
>which is existential, so the PARTS of the whole, like thoughts and
>thinking are therefore existential TOO
>
>unless you are saying that "thinking" exists outside of the brain in
>some type of central server like a God's mind, I would entertain a
>discussion like this
theist nutjob
>
>On 12/31/2013 12:39 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > Problem is of course that this approach gives you_all_ the gods, and
> > elves, unicorns, Cthulhu etc too. "X exists" becomes simply a trivial and
> > uninteresting statement, true for (almost all?) X. "How" they exist by
> > contrast, and how that affects the logic of statements about them,
> > becomes a quite interesting question.
>
>the effect is the same, the stories might be different, then again if
>you imagine a particular story to be true, that story IS existential as
>well WITHIN the brain, AT LEAST
>
>perhaps there is an overarching reality of God OUTSIDE THE BRAIN, but I
>can't think of a proof of it
yup total nutjob
>On 12/31/2013 12:39 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > Problem is of course that this approach gives you_all_ the gods, and
> > elves, unicorns, Cthulhu etc too. "X exists" becomes simply a trivial and
> > uninteresting statement, true for (almost all?) X. "How" they exist by
> > contrast, and how that affects the logic of statements about them,
> > becomes a quite interesting question.
>
>the effect is the same, the stories might be different, then again if
>you imagine a particular story to be true, that story IS existential as
>well WITHIN the brain, AT LEAST
>
>perhaps there is an overarching reality of God OUTSIDE THE BRAIN, but I
>can't think of a proof of it
>
>as well, even our EXPERIENCE of our senses of what is OUTSIDE THE BRAIN,
>in your conscious, is your brain's INTERPRETATION AND REFLECTION of your
>senses, not necessarily what is OUTSIDE THE BRAIN
>
>can you think of a proof that anything exists outside the brain?
yeah I am looking at my desk I feel the floor I see the light. Yup
>as well, even our EXPERIENCE of our senses of what is OUTSIDE THE BRAIN,
>in your conscious, is your brain's INTERPRETATION AND REFLECTION of your
>senses, not necessarily what is OUTSIDE THE BRAIN
>
>can you think of a proof that anything exists outside the brain?
pretty sure stuff exists outside the brain
>
>not that nothing does, but if you start saying that you have to PROVE
>that God exists as something OUTSIDE the conscious, THEN, you have to
>prove that ANYTHING exists outside the brain to maintain that critique
>of God in particular
doing his magic? have you seen the keebler elves making thier cerael?
Can you prove that any of those exist outside the brain? Can you prove
they dont?
Free Lunch
Jan 1, 2014, 11:36:58 AM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 00:17:52 -0500, Dale
So you think that God was invented for communitarian purposes and to
control the sociopaths, but you attack unbelievers because they are
undermining the religious con.
Sadly, many of the sociopaths are part of the religious con.
control the sociopaths, but you attack unbelievers because they are
undermining the religious con.
Sadly, many of the sociopaths are part of the religious con.
Dale
Jan 1, 2014, 12:14:13 PM1/1/14
to
On 01/01/2014 03:49 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> n Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:05:21 -0500, Dale
> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> n Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:05:21 -0500, Dale
> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM,bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>> >> 2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
>>> >> doesnt.
>> >
>> >my point is that thoughts and thinking ARE part of the brain as a whole,
>> >which is existential, so the PARTS of the whole, like thoughts and
>> >thinking are therefore existential TOO
> Ok I will say this again. Thought does NOT take up space.
>
so the brain has infinite capacity for such things?
>>> >> 2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
>>> >> doesnt.
>> >
>> >my point is that thoughts and thinking ARE part of the brain as a whole,
>> >which is existential, so the PARTS of the whole, like thoughts and
>> >thinking are therefore existential TOO
> Ok I will say this again. Thought does NOT take up space.
>
you are saying that thoughts are invisible and mystical
of course, if you are a materialist, thoughts are material and take up
space and time like all other things
--
Dale
Dale
Jan 1, 2014, 12:16:08 PM1/1/14
to
the ultimate alpha being in the realm in which such religion exists
--
Dale
Free Lunch
Jan 1, 2014, 12:24:19 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:16:08 -0500, Dale
Since you clearly have disdain for religions and don't really accept any
of their claims about gods, why do you attack atheists with such
ferocity?
of their claims about gods, why do you attack atheists with such
ferocity?
Joel
Jan 1, 2014, 12:44:01 PM1/1/14
to
Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <75stv4....@news.alt.net>,
> Dale <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> some atheists are just plain anarchists I think, that is no fun for
>> anyone but God, in the long run, I AT LEAST want "my" piece of the fun
>> in life
>
>Are you really this stupid and hateful?
Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>In article <75stv4....@news.alt.net>,
> Dale <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> some atheists are just plain anarchists I think, that is no fun for
>> anyone but God, in the long run, I AT LEAST want "my" piece of the fun
>> in life
>
>Are you really this stupid and hateful?
--
Joel Crump
Free Lunch
Jan 1, 2014, 1:02:45 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote in
alt.atheism:
Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
alt.atheism:
Joel
Jan 1, 2014, 1:26:43 PM1/1/14
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>
>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers. It's like the
>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>
>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
saying, "God helps those who help themselves" - he respects and
admires individual initiative. Atheists tend to be intelligent.
They are often very creative, efficient people.
--
Joel Crump
Sir Fred M. McNeill
Jan 1, 2014, 1:45:39 PM1/1/14
to
Dale
Jan 1, 2014, 3:42:33 PM1/1/14
to
Christian believers, maybe because they find the same ends, just
different means along the way
I pick and choose pieces and parts from the variety of religions and
philosophies for my own religion, so far
--
Dale
Free Lunch
Jan 1, 2014, 4:49:01 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:42:33 -0500, Dale
Syncretism is the one way to get every believer to hate you even more
than they hate atheists. Atheists are merely unbelievers. Syncretists
are heretics.
than they hate atheists. Atheists are merely unbelievers. Syncretists
are heretics.
Y-Knot
Jan 1, 2014, 5:02:32 PM1/1/14
to
Who fucking cares...
***************************************************
"Dale" wrote in message news:75u7u7....@news.alt.net...
***************************************************
"Dale" wrote in message news:75u7u7....@news.alt.net...
duke
Jan 1, 2014, 5:09:01 PM1/1/14
to
duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****
duke
Jan 1, 2014, 5:10:02 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>
>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>
>
>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>
>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>
>
>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
It's like the
>saying, "God helps those who help themselves" - he respects and
>admires individual initiative. Atheists tend to be intelligent.
>They are often very creative, efficient people.
Free Lunch
Jan 1, 2014, 5:17:46 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>
>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>
>>
>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>
>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>
>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>
>>
>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>
>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
bil...@m.nu
Jan 1, 2014, 5:36:24 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:14:13 -0500, Dale
It is very possible that the same cell can store more than one memory
noone may ever know. No I am saying that a thought can occupy the same
area as say another thought. havent you ever thought of 2 things at
one time? in order for something to occupy time it must age. Does an
actual thought age? Sure the nurons age and the cells age but the
actual thought does it age? how is it an old man can remember
something that he did when he was 5 just like it happend yesterday but
he may have trouble remembering what he had for dinner last night.
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On 01/01/2014 03:49 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> n Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:05:21 -0500, Dale
>> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM,bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>>> >> 2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
>>>> >> doesnt.
>>> >
>>> >my point is that thoughts and thinking ARE part of the brain as a whole,
>>> >which is existential, so the PARTS of the whole, like thoughts and
>>> >thinking are therefore existential TOO
>
>> Ok I will say this again. Thought does NOT take up space.
>>
>
>so the brain has infinite capacity for such things?
>
>you are saying that thoughts are invisible and mystical
>
>of course, if you are a materialist, thoughts are material and take up
>space and time like all other things
well to be honest noone knows the max storage capacity of the brain.
>On 01/01/2014 03:49 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> n Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:05:21 -0500, Dale
>> <dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >On 12/31/2013 03:03 PM,bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>>> >> 2.The brain does infact exist in time and space; however, thinking
>>>> >> doesnt.
>>> >
>>> >my point is that thoughts and thinking ARE part of the brain as a whole,
>>> >which is existential, so the PARTS of the whole, like thoughts and
>>> >thinking are therefore existential TOO
>
>> Ok I will say this again. Thought does NOT take up space.
>>
>
>so the brain has infinite capacity for such things?
>
>you are saying that thoughts are invisible and mystical
>
>of course, if you are a materialist, thoughts are material and take up
>space and time like all other things
It is very possible that the same cell can store more than one memory
noone may ever know. No I am saying that a thought can occupy the same
area as say another thought. havent you ever thought of 2 things at
one time? in order for something to occupy time it must age. Does an
actual thought age? Sure the nurons age and the cells age but the
actual thought does it age? how is it an old man can remember
something that he did when he was 5 just like it happend yesterday but
he may have trouble remembering what he had for dinner last night.
bil...@m.nu
Jan 1, 2014, 5:38:15 PM1/1/14
to
everday they wake up
bil...@m.nu
Jan 1, 2014, 5:41:45 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>
>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>
>>
>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>
>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>
>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>
>>
>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>
>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
saying. I apologize
ATTENTION:
EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
linuxgal
Jan 1, 2014, 6:05:09 PM1/1/14
to
duke wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
> They make great fuel for the fires.
Duke's malevolent god delights in burning people at the stake, and their
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
> They make great fuel for the fires.
souls for eternity.
Free Lunch
Jan 1, 2014, 7:47:26 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:05:09 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
It's hard to believe that duke could possibly be as evil as the god he
invents for himself.
wrote in alt.atheism:
invents for himself.
Dale
Jan 1, 2014, 9:10:49 PM1/1/14
to
--
Dale
linuxgal
Jan 1, 2014, 9:18:23 PM1/1/14
to
Free Lunch wrote:
> It's hard to believe that duke could possibly be as evil as the god he
> invents for himself.
And he's proud to portray his god so, without regard to the number of
> It's hard to believe that duke could possibly be as evil as the god he
> invents for himself.
potential converts he's driving away.
Free Lunch
Jan 1, 2014, 9:45:15 PM1/1/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 18:18:23 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
There seem to be a large number of self-described Christians who glory
in the fact that they expect a huge number of their acquaintances to go
to hell. I have no idea why they think they will not.
wrote in alt.atheism:
in the fact that they expect a huge number of their acquaintances to go
to hell. I have no idea why they think they will not.
August Rode
Jan 1, 2014, 10:23:54 PM1/1/14
to
of God, one that happens by sheer chance to reflect their own attitudes
and prejudices.
Dale
Jan 2, 2014, 12:23:12 AM1/2/14
to
minded individuals
--
Dale
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 2, 2014, 5:06:48 AM1/2/14
to
In article <njk9c9tlvott4gp1b...@4ax.com>,
Delusion.
--
JD
"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
--
JD
"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
The Magpie
Jan 2, 2014, 11:35:40 AM1/2/14
to
On 31/12/2013 17:09, Dale wrote:> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL[...snip]
>
So you don't know what "testable theory" means, eh?
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL[...snip]
>
So you don't know what "testable theory" means, eh?
The Magpie
Jan 2, 2014, 11:33:45 AM1/2/14
to
Dale
Jan 2, 2014, 12:43:47 PM1/2/14
to
On 12/31/2013 12:09 PM, Dale wrote:
> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
> EXISTENTIAL too
>
> also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
> within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
> individual mind set or conscious
>
> if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
> in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
>
> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
> conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
> interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
>
I will admit a way I could be wrong
> EXISTENTIAL too
>
> also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
> within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
> individual mind set or conscious
>
> if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
> in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
>
> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
> conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
> interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
>
thoughts might be "models" of what is true
for instance, a 4d animated model of a baby doll isn't a an EXISTENTIAL
baby, but to the mind, inside the mind, the effect is the same
so God may not exist when you think of him in your existential mind, but
a 4d model might be instantiated that effects the same thing TO THE
MIND, so God's influence exists
--
Dale
duke
Jan 2, 2014, 1:09:05 PM1/2/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>
>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>
>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>
>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>
>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>
>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>
>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
God does not exist.
duke
Jan 2, 2014, 1:09:52 PM1/2/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:41:45 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>
>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>
>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>
>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>saying. I apologize
Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>
>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>
>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>
>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>saying. I apologize
>ATTENTION:
>
>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
duke
Jan 2, 2014, 1:10:31 PM1/2/14
to
Les Hellawell
Jan 2, 2014, 1:29:41 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>>
>>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>>
>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
>
>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>God does not exist.
So the only solution to this dilemma is to hold np beliefs about gods.
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>>
>>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>>
>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
>
>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>God does not exist.
the standard atheist solution
Neither a theist nor a contratheist be
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Free Lunch
Jan 2, 2014, 1:55:44 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
unsupported by evidence?
alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>>
>>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>>
>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
>
>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>God does not exist.
Why do I need to support my lack of belief in all of the gods that are
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>>
>>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>>
>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
>
>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>God does not exist.
unsupported by evidence?
Free Lunch
Jan 2, 2014, 1:56:38 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:10:31 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:05:09 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>> They make great fuel for the fires.
>>
>>Duke's malevolent god delights in burning people at the stake, and their
>>souls for eternity.
>
>Nope, that's what people like you say is your preference to eternity with God.
There is absolutely no evidence that eternity with God is an option.
alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:05:09 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>> They make great fuel for the fires.
>>
>>Duke's malevolent god delights in burning people at the stake, and their
>>souls for eternity.
>
>Nope, that's what people like you say is your preference to eternity with God.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jan 2, 2014, 2:44:40 PM1/2/14
to
In article <75rj9a....@news.alt.net>,
Dale <dale2011...@hushmail.com> posted:
Let me write briefly about "Paramatma". The word is made
up of "param" - supreme, and "aatmaa" - soul (approximate
translations). So Paramatma means Supreme Soul.
When writing in English we who follow Sanaatan Dharm,
also known as Hinduism, often use the terms "Paramatma"
and "God" interchangeably though not accurately.
Sanskrit, Hindi and other languages of Bharat (India)
came long before English, so the latter often lacks
backward compatibility in translation.
I am looking at the beautiful blue and turquoise ocean as
I write this.
Consider the ocean to be Paramatma, the Supreme Soul, in
this exercise. Now take an empty cup and immerse it in
the ocean. Keep it submerged. The cup is now filled with
water. Let's call it "individual soul". And the cup is
surrounded on all sides by the ocean or the Supreme Soul.
So although the cup does not contain the entire ocean, it
does contain the essence of the ocean.
Each of us is that cup, the "individual soul", and each
of us has in us the essence of Paramatma, or Supreme
Soul.
Thus Paramatma, or God if you will, exists within each
being.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
Dale <dale2011...@hushmail.com> posted:
>
> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN
> the brain is EXISTENTIAL too
>
> also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things
> that EXIST within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL,
> AT LEAST within the individual mind set or conscious
>
> if there is a collective conscious, then, all things
> thought of, exist in the mind set of ALL individuals,
> EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
>
> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions
> and influence conceptions and the brain, not far off is
> conceiving of God and interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
The term "God" is of Judeo-Christian construct.
> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN
> the brain is EXISTENTIAL too
>
> also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things
> that EXIST within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL,
> AT LEAST within the individual mind set or conscious
>
> if there is a collective conscious, then, all things
> thought of, exist in the mind set of ALL individuals,
> EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
>
> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions
> and influence conceptions and the brain, not far off is
> conceiving of God and interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
Let me write briefly about "Paramatma". The word is made
up of "param" - supreme, and "aatmaa" - soul (approximate
translations). So Paramatma means Supreme Soul.
When writing in English we who follow Sanaatan Dharm,
also known as Hinduism, often use the terms "Paramatma"
and "God" interchangeably though not accurately.
Sanskrit, Hindi and other languages of Bharat (India)
came long before English, so the latter often lacks
backward compatibility in translation.
I am looking at the beautiful blue and turquoise ocean as
I write this.
Consider the ocean to be Paramatma, the Supreme Soul, in
this exercise. Now take an empty cup and immerse it in
the ocean. Keep it submerged. The cup is now filled with
water. Let's call it "individual soul". And the cup is
surrounded on all sides by the ocean or the Supreme Soul.
So although the cup does not contain the entire ocean, it
does contain the essence of the ocean.
Each of us is that cup, the "individual soul", and each
of us has in us the essence of Paramatma, or Supreme
Soul.
Thus Paramatma, or God if you will, exists within each
being.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
bil...@m.nu
Jan 2, 2014, 2:58:48 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>saying. I apologize
>
>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>
>>ATTENTION:
>>
>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>
actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>saying. I apologize
>
>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>
>>ATTENTION:
>>
>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>
since there is no evidence that a god does exist. So you give me your
beswt evidence for the reasons that god exists then I will give you
proof that it doesnt. and after you have compiled all your data be
sure to add in an explanation of why is it your god exists and the
greek gods dont and the egyptian gods and the norse gods and the
native american gods.
Then after you are done with that part of the response then I want you
to explain to me why that guy next to you in church has a different
god than you do. Also please explain which of those 2 are actually the
real gods or do you count them both as real? and after that pleease
explain why is it the god that your priest believes in is actually
different than the god yyou believe in and which of those are real and
then lastly explain to me why when your dumb ass religon says do not
worship any other god but the one true god you people <chathicks>
acknowledge at least 4 seperate beings as idols and deitys that are
prayed to and worshiped
bil...@m.nu
Jan 2, 2014, 3:00:16 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:10:31 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:05:09 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>> They make great fuel for the fires.
>>
>>Duke's malevolent god delights in burning people at the stake, and their
>>souls for eternity.
>
>Nope, that's what people like you say is your preference to eternity with God.
you stupid fucker it was your priests bishops and popes that did that
>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:05:09 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>> They make great fuel for the fires.
>>
>>Duke's malevolent god delights in burning people at the stake, and their
>>souls for eternity.
>
>Nope, that's what people like you say is your preference to eternity with God.
shit hundreds of years ago when someone did not believe what they did.
Man you are an ignorant fuck
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jan 2, 2014, 3:01:14 PM1/2/14
to
In article <la4g03$9v3$2...@dont-email.me>,
bl...@overtherainbow.not posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> > A fine and beautiful belief but show some evidence please.
> >
> > bliss - hag of Eris, disciple of Discordia
Thank you. People have varying requirements for what they
consider to be evidence in such matters. What are yours?
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj
bl...@overtherainbow.not posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > bliss - hag of Eris, disciple of Discordia
Thank you. People have varying requirements for what they
consider to be evidence in such matters. What are yours?
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
bil...@m.nu
Jan 2, 2014, 3:03:41 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:43:47 -0500, Dale
lets say that god did have influence. Which god wouold that be out of
the billions and billions and billions of gods that are believed to
exist today which one exactly would be the influencer?
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>so God may not exist when you think of him in your existential mind, but
>a 4d model might be instantiated that effects the same thing TO THE
>MIND, so God's influence exists
no you stupid fuck god has no influence because god doesnt exist. BUT
>
>so God may not exist when you think of him in your existential mind, but
>a 4d model might be instantiated that effects the same thing TO THE
>MIND, so God's influence exists
lets say that god did have influence. Which god wouold that be out of
the billions and billions and billions of gods that are believed to
exist today which one exactly would be the influencer?
Dale
Jan 2, 2014, 8:48:25 PM1/2/14
to
--
Dale
Dale
Jan 2, 2014, 8:52:53 PM1/2/14
to
On 01/02/2014 02:44 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Let me write briefly about "Paramatma". The word is made
> up of "param" - supreme, and "aatmaa" - soul (approximate
> translations). So Paramatma means Supreme Soul.
yes, I am familiar with this term, I prefer it's definition, but use the
> Let me write briefly about "Paramatma". The word is made
> up of "param" - supreme, and "aatmaa" - soul (approximate
> translations). So Paramatma means Supreme Soul.
term God that most would be familiar without getting it to a war over
religion instead of just getting my point across, I think I will try to
use Paramatma more often and equate it with the word God, since I pick
and choose from various religions to form my own, Vedanta seems to be
the most detailed, although some others have a lot of good Dharma I add
to my collection too
thanks Dr. Jai
--
Dale
Dale
Jan 2, 2014, 8:54:13 PM1/2/14
to
brain, then thoughts are AT LEAST existential and material
this is not to say that thoughts should be equated with anything else,
an intersection of sets
they might be disjoint from other sets of things, not the same as other
realities
but in my opinion, they have the same EFFECT on the conscious as if they
were intersected
so if you think of God your conscious experience in effected by that
thought, THE SAME, since the thought is in your conscious and an
existential and material part of your conscious experience
for instance, if you think or imagine a perfect baby doll that is
EXACTLY the same thing as a baby, then it is a EXACT baby in your
conscious experience
I don't think our mortal conscious can distinguish
--
Dale
Dale
Jan 2, 2014, 8:58:08 PM1/2/14
to
On 12/31/2013 12:09 PM, Dale wrote:
> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
> EXISTENTIAL too
>
> also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
> within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
> individual mind set or conscious
>
> if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
> in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
>
> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
> conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
> interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
>
what about the same effect? like a hallucination? how can you tell if
> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
> EXISTENTIAL too
>
> also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
> within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
> individual mind set or conscious
>
> if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
> in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
>
> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
> conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
> interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
>
your whole life is not just a long hallucination?
--
Dale
bil...@m.nu
Jan 2, 2014, 10:55:33 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:48:25 -0500, Dale
as I said what god is it youi believe in. there are hundreds of named
gods and billions of personal gods. just wondering which is the one
you believe does the influencing
gods and billions of personal gods. just wondering which is the one
you believe does the influencing
bil...@m.nu
Jan 2, 2014, 10:57:36 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:54:13 -0500, Dale
fair question WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>for instance, if you think or imagine a perfect baby doll that is
>EXACTLY the same thing as a baby, then it is a EXACT baby in your
>conscious experience
>
>I don't think our mortal conscious can distinguish
I did not read the entire reply you made however I think this is a
>
>for instance, if you think or imagine a perfect baby doll that is
>EXACTLY the same thing as a baby, then it is a EXACT baby in your
>conscious experience
>
>I don't think our mortal conscious can distinguish
fair question WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
bil...@m.nu
Jan 2, 2014, 10:59:08 PM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:58:08 -0500, Dale
I just thought I would sau ,uuuhhhh AHEM!!!
<dale2011...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
>> conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
>> interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
>>
>
>
>what about the same effect? like a hallucination? how can you tell if
>your whole life is not just a long hallucination?
I realize I should let you finish this conversation with yourself but
>> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
>> conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
>> interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
>>
>
>
>what about the same effect? like a hallucination? how can you tell if
>your whole life is not just a long hallucination?
I just thought I would sau ,uuuhhhh AHEM!!!
Dale
Jan 3, 2014, 12:38:07 AM1/3/14
to
--
Dale
Dale
Jan 3, 2014, 12:38:56 AM1/3/14
to
--
Dale
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 3, 2014, 3:36:44 AM1/3/14
to
Dale
Jan 3, 2014, 5:26:50 PM1/3/14
to
--
Dale
Malcolm McMahon
Jan 4, 2014, 4:46:38 AM1/4/14
to
On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 12:09:28 -0500, Dale wrote:
> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
> EXISTENTIAL too
>
> also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
> within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
> individual mind set or conscious
True enough. But it's a different order of existence. The map is not the
> A TESTABLE THEORY
>
> if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
> EXISTENTIAL too
>
> also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
> within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
> individual mind set or conscious
territory. You can posses a detailed map which does not correspond to any
real territory. You can imagine all kinds of things which exist only
within the sphere of information.
>
> if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
> in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT
> LEAST
>
And, if there was such a thing, it implies no special status for your
favourite god concept. It would be no more real or significant than, say,
Father Christmas.
> science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
> conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
> interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
without the need for any real God or gods to exist.
duke
Jan 5, 2014, 12:19:45 PM1/5/14
to
>Les Hellawell
>Greetings from
>YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
duke
Jan 5, 2014, 12:20:24 PM1/5/14
to
duke
Jan 5, 2014, 12:21:43 PM1/5/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:58:48 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>>saying. I apologize
>>
>>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>>
>>>ATTENTION:
>>>
>>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>>
>
>actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>since there is no evidence that a god does exist.
I have it.
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>>saying. I apologize
>>
>>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>>
>>>ATTENTION:
>>>
>>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>>
>
>actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>since there is no evidence that a god does exist.
>So you give me your
>beswt evidence for the reasons that god exists then I will give you
>proof that it doesnt.
and after you have compiled all your data be
>sure to add in an explanation of why is it your god exists and the
>greek gods dont and the egyptian gods and the norse gods and the
>native american gods.
>Then after you are done with that part of the response then I want you
>to explain to me why that guy next to you in church has a different
>god than you do. Also please explain which of those 2 are actually the
>real gods or do you count them both as real? and after that pleease
>explain why is it the god that your priest believes in is actually
>different than the god yyou believe in and which of those are real and
>then lastly explain to me why when your dumb ass religon says do not
>worship any other god but the one true god you people <chathicks>
>acknowledge at least 4 seperate beings as idols and deitys that are
>prayed to and worshiped
duke
Jan 5, 2014, 12:23:11 PM1/5/14
to
duke
Jan 5, 2014, 12:24:41 PM1/5/14
to
Can you offer me any support, any at all, that there is no God?
Les Hellawell
Jan 5, 2014, 1:20:06 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:19:45 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:29:41 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com> wrote:
<there be snipage>
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:29:41 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com> wrote:
>>Neither a theist nor a contratheist be
>
>Faith in almighty God and his teachings is the key.
--
Free Lunch
Jan 5, 2014, 1:52:22 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:19:45 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:29:41 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>>>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>>>>
>>>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>>>>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
>>>
>>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>>>God does not exist.
>>
>>So the only solution to this dilemma is to hold np beliefs about gods.
>>the standard atheist solution
>>
>>Neither a theist nor a contratheist be
>
>Faith in almighty God and his teachings is the key.
because nothing taught about that god can be supported by evidence.
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:29:41 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>>>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>>>>
>>>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>>>>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
>>>
>>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>>>God does not exist.
>>
>>So the only solution to this dilemma is to hold np beliefs about gods.
>>the standard atheist solution
>>
>>Neither a theist nor a contratheist be
>
>Faith in almighty God and his teachings is the key.
Free Lunch
Jan 5, 2014, 1:54:06 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:20:24 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods.
alt.atheism:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:55:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>>>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>>>>
>>>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>>>>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
>>>
>>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>>>God does not exist.
>>
>>Why do I need to support my lack of belief in all of the gods that are
>>unsupported by evidence?
>
>Answer: You can't. That's why your claim to be an atheist is so silly.
I see you are still lying to yourself about the definition of atheist.
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:55:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:17:46 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 16:10:02 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 13:26:43 -0500, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is that because they never blame God for the evil they do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, atheists tend to be rational, logical thinkers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really!! They proudly pronounce there is no God, but lack so much as a smidgen
>>>>>of evidence to make that statement. They lie.
>>>>
>>>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no evidence that your
>>>>god exists. Why do you try to change the subject?
>>>
>>>You have made it absolutely clear that you have no support what so ever that
>>>God does not exist.
>>
>>Why do I need to support my lack of belief in all of the gods that are
>>unsupported by evidence?
>
>Answer: You can't. That's why your claim to be an atheist is so silly.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods.
Free Lunch
Jan 5, 2014, 1:54:42 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:21:43 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:58:48 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>>>saying. I apologize
>>>
>>>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>>>
>>>>ATTENTION:
>>>>
>>>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>>>
>>
>>actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>>since there is no evidence that a god does exist.
>
>I have it.
You repeat that falsehood a lot, but you know that you are lying to us.
>>So you give me your
>>beswt evidence for the reasons that god exists then I will give you
>>proof that it doesnt.
>
>Ok. Creation of all things including the universe. Your turn.
No evidence exists for creation.
alt.atheism:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:58:48 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>>>saying. I apologize
>>>
>>>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>>>
>>>>ATTENTION:
>>>>
>>>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>>>
>>
>>actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>>since there is no evidence that a god does exist.
>
>I have it.
>>So you give me your
>>beswt evidence for the reasons that god exists then I will give you
>>proof that it doesnt.
>
>Ok. Creation of all things including the universe. Your turn.
Free Lunch
Jan 5, 2014, 2:00:13 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:23:11 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:56:38 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:10:31 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:05:09 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>> They make great fuel for the fires.
>>>>
>>>>Duke's malevolent god delights in burning people at the stake, and their
>>>>souls for eternity.
>>>
>>>Nope, that's what people like you say is your preference to eternity with God.
>>
>>There is absolutely no evidence that eternity with God is an option.
>
>Out of ammo?
Your stories are unsubstantiated. I don't need any ammo.
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:56:38 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:10:31 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:05:09 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:44:01 -0500, Joel<joel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >Atheists are some of God's favorite people.
>>>>> They make great fuel for the fires.
>>>>
>>>>Duke's malevolent god delights in burning people at the stake, and their
>>>>souls for eternity.
>>>
>>>Nope, that's what people like you say is your preference to eternity with God.
>>
>>There is absolutely no evidence that eternity with God is an option.
>
>Out of ammo?
bil...@m.nu
Jan 5, 2014, 3:17:16 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:19:45 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Faith in almighty God and his teachings is the key.
>
DUKE YOU STUPID FAT FUCK NOONE GAVE YOU PERMISSION TO TALK. When it is
>
>Faith in almighty God and his teachings is the key.
>
your turn to talk we will all let you know. UNTIL THEN STFU
bil...@m.nu
Jan 5, 2014, 3:20:05 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:20:24 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Answer: You can't. That's why your claim to be an atheist is so silly.
NOONE GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY>>> BTW STILL NOT YOUR TURN TO
>
>Answer: You can't. That's why your claim to be an atheist is so silly.
TALK
bil...@m.nu
Jan 5, 2014, 3:22:35 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:21:43 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:58:48 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>>>saying. I apologize
>>>
>>>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>>>
>>>>ATTENTION:
>>>>
>>>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>>>
>>
>>actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>>since there is no evidence that a god does exist.
>
>I have it.
still waiting for your evidence
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:58:48 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>>>saying. I apologize
>>>
>>>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>>>
>>>>ATTENTION:
>>>>
>>>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>>>
>>
>>actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>>since there is no evidence that a god does exist.
>
>I have it.
>
>Ok. Creation of all things including the universe. Your turn.
times. However I will justcounter by saying if god creaated alll thing
what created god
Ok duke you may speak now
bil...@m.nu
Jan 5, 2014, 3:27:02 PM1/5/14
to
bil...@m.nu
Jan 5, 2014, 3:29:52 PM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:24:41 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Can you offer me any support, any at all, that there is no God?
I can offer you this. IF god were real it would have never ever
>
>Can you offer me any support, any at all, that there is no God?
created you. You are an embarassment to your faith.
since you are here.... there is no god
duke
Jan 7, 2014, 5:57:56 PM1/7/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:20:06 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:19:45 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:29:41 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com> wrote:
>
><there be snipage>
>>>Neither a theist nor a contratheist be
>>Faith in almighty God and his teachings is the key.
>Since it is the key to stupidity
Don't say I didn't warn you.
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:19:45 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:29:41 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@shant-tell.com> wrote:
>
><there be snipage>
>>>Neither a theist nor a contratheist be
>>Faith in almighty God and his teachings is the key.
>Since it is the key to stupidity
duke
Jan 7, 2014, 5:58:58 PM1/7/14
to
duke
Jan 7, 2014, 5:59:25 PM1/7/14
to
duke
Jan 7, 2014, 6:00:19 PM1/7/14
to
duke
Jan 7, 2014, 6:01:45 PM1/7/14
to
duke
Jan 7, 2014, 6:02:59 PM1/7/14
to
duke
Jan 7, 2014, 6:03:44 PM1/7/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:29:52 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:24:41 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Can you offer me any support, any at all, that there is no God?
>
>
>I can offer you this. IF god were real it would have never ever
>created you. You are an embarassment to your faith.
Nah, he took care of the "embarrassment" issue when he created you.
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:24:41 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Can you offer me any support, any at all, that there is no God?
>
>
>I can offer you this. IF god were real it would have never ever
>created you. You are an embarassment to your faith.
Free Lunch
Jan 7, 2014, 6:38:42 PM1/7/14
to
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:58:58 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
Aside from your unsubstantiated assertions, you have never made any
effort to tie your claim that God exists to the existence of the
universe or life on earth.
You have not made an argument. You have no supporting evidence.
effort to tie your claim that God exists to the existence of the
universe or life on earth.
You have not made an argument. You have no supporting evidence.
Free Lunch
Jan 7, 2014, 6:39:18 PM1/7/14
to
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:00:19 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
You have been misled and repeat this falsehood for no valid reason.
Free Lunch
Jan 7, 2014, 6:41:47 PM1/7/14
to
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:01:45 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:22:35 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:21:43 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:58:48 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>>>>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>>>>>saying. I apologize
>>>>>
>>>>>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>>>>>
>>>>>>ATTENTION:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>>>>since there is no evidence that a god does exist.
>>>
>>>I have it.
>>
>>still waiting for your evidence
>
>Ok. Creation of all things including the universe. Your turn.
You have asserted a claim that you have never attempted to show is true.
The universe exists, but there is no evidence that it was created.
Do try again.
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:22:35 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:21:43 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:58:48 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:09:52 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>oh you poor little man. you are all mixed up... I am sorry I guess
>>>>>>they used the big words and you did actually grasp what they were
>>>>>>saying. I apologize
>>>>>
>>>>>Then show a little evidence that God does not exist. I'm waiting.
>>>>>
>>>>>>ATTENTION:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>EVERYONE PLEASE USE SMALL WORDS FOR POOR LITTLE DOOKIE POOP
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>actually ass hat I dont need to provide evidence that god doesnt exist
>>>>since there is no evidence that a god does exist.
>>>
>>>I have it.
>>
>>still waiting for your evidence
>
>Ok. Creation of all things including the universe. Your turn.
The universe exists, but there is no evidence that it was created.
Do try again.
bil...@m.nu
Jan 7, 2014, 7:58:52 PM1/7/14
to
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:00:19 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>No, an atheist believes there is NO God.
Ok dune first let me say you are an idiot and then I will inform you
>No, an atheist believes there is NO God.
that once a gain you are speaking out of turn. NOONE SAID THE STUPID
PEOPLE IN TH CROWD COULD TALK.
now that has been said I will tell you what exactly an atheist is.
since I have told you this exact definitioin before I am sure it will
not be the last time. After all your god likes to keep its slaves
stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence
of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position
that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of
belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism,
which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity
exists.
belief requires faith. atheists REJECT A BELIEF...... did you read
that shit face REFECT BELIEF........
FUCKING IDIOT
bil...@m.nu
Jan 7, 2014, 8:01:33 PM1/7/14
to
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:01:45 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Ok. Creation of all things including the universe. Your turn.
>
>>dumbass go back and read other threads this has been done so many
>>times. However I will justcounter by saying if god creaated alll thing
>>what created god
>
>Don't know.
since you can not answer my question about what created your god then
>
>Ok. Creation of all things including the universe. Your turn.
>
>>dumbass go back and read other threads this has been done so many
>>times. However I will justcounter by saying if god creaated alll thing
>>what created god
>
>Don't know.
it therefore nullifies you response. ya see my theroy of the creation
of the universe is far more accurate than a response of "I DONT KNOW"
bil...@m.nu
Jan 7, 2014, 8:04:31 PM1/7/14
to
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:03:44 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:29:52 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:24:41 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Can you offer me any support, any at all, that there is no God?
>>
>>
>>I can offer you this. IF god were real it would have never ever
>>created you. You are an embarassment to your faith.
>
>Nah, he took care of the "embarrassment" issue when he created you.
>
Dookie poop strikes again.. Making no sense whatsoever... Duke you
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:29:52 -0600, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:24:41 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Can you offer me any support, any at all, that there is no God?
>>
>>
>>I can offer you this. IF god were real it would have never ever
>>created you. You are an embarassment to your faith.
>
>Nah, he took care of the "embarrassment" issue when he created you.
>
should have said.. i am rubber and you are glue...... it would have
been much more intelligent that what you just said
Y-Knot
Jan 7, 2014, 9:17:33 PM1/7/14
to
Either believe in a Higher Power or don't...
No proof either way is needed --
That's why it's called FAITH.
Freaking bunch of over-thinking idiots
...wasted bandwidth...
***************************************************888
"Dale" wrote in message news:75rj9a....@news.alt.net...
A TESTABLE THEORY
if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
EXISTENTIAL too
also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
individual mind set or conscious
if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
--
Dale
No proof either way is needed --
That's why it's called FAITH.
Freaking bunch of over-thinking idiots
...wasted bandwidth...
***************************************************888
"Dale" wrote in message news:75rj9a....@news.alt.net...
A TESTABLE THEORY
if the WHOLE brain is EXISTENTIAL, then, everything IN the brain is
EXISTENTIAL too
also, ALL fictional/mythical/imaginary/religious things that EXIST
within the brain, like God, are EXISTENTIAL, AT LEAST within the
individual mind set or conscious
if there is a collective conscious, then, all things thought of, exist
in the mind set of ALL individuals, EVERYWHERE THERE IS A BRAIN, AT LEAST
science can been able to crudely interpret conceptions and influence
conceptions and the brain, not far off is conceiving of God and
interpreting it IN/FROM the brain
--
Dale
thomas p.
Jan 8, 2014, 2:44:44 AM1/8/14
to
"Y-Knot" <Beac...@cyber-rights.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:ez2zu.152408$Rt7....@fx27.iad...
snip
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:ez2zu.152408$Rt7....@fx27.iad...
> Either believe in a Higher Power or don't...
>
> No proof either way is needed -- That's why it's called FAITH.
>
No faith is required to not believe something. That should be obvious.
>
> No proof either way is needed -- That's why it's called FAITH.
>
snip
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
Bobbie Sellers
Jan 8, 2014, 10:28:46 AM1/8/14
to
On 01/07/2014 11:44 PM, thomas p. wrote:
> "Y-Knot" <Beac...@cyber-rights.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:ez2zu.152408$Rt7....@fx27.iad...
>> Either believe in a Higher Power or don't...
>>
>> No proof either way is needed -- That's why it's called FAITH.
>>
>
>
> No faith is required to not believe something. That should be obvious.
>
>
> snip
>
Well people have to have faith in their own processes which deny the
> "Y-Knot" <Beac...@cyber-rights.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:ez2zu.152408$Rt7....@fx27.iad...
>> Either believe in a Higher Power or don't...
>>
>> No proof either way is needed -- That's why it's called FAITH.
>>
>
>
> No faith is required to not believe something. That should be obvious.
>
>
> snip
>
existence of the object of faith of others. Or maybe they have never
made mistakes in the objective (no faith required) world
and so never had a reason to question their own capacity for rational
decision.
bliss - "let you and him fight"
Dakota
Jan 8, 2014, 5:14:55 PM1/8/14
to
world and in the subjective world. I constantly question my capacity
for rational decision. When it comes to "the object of faith of
others," I must admit I haven't considered all of them. The countless
gods mankind has invented throughout history makes doing so an
impossible task. Even if I were to restrict my consideration to the
god of today's three most common monotheistic religions - the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic god - I'd have to confront tens of thousands
of conflicting and incompatible beliefs held by their adherents. Given
that there is no credible verifiable objective evidence to assist me
in such consideration, I am forced to withhold belief in any of them.
As has often been said, they can't all be right but they can all be wrong.
I'm keen to learn how you chose between all of those beliefs before
choosing one. What evidence convinced you that you made the correct
choice? After all, people have to have faith in their own processes
which deny the existence of the object of faith of others. Maybe they
Bobbie Sellers
Jan 8, 2014, 6:18:49 PM1/8/14
to
whereupon it became clear to me that the Goddess of Discord rules
all especially those with fixed belief systems. You can call her Eris
or Discordia makes no difference to Her. All over the world people
shed blood because they disagree with their cousins as to the exact
nature of whatever divinity they bother.
Don't bother Eris as She will treat you no better than
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.
bliss - avatar of Eris, disciple of Discordia...
Are you having a good time in the Kali Yuga?
Then praise Kali!
Hare Kali, Hare Kali, Kali, Kali, Hare Kali!
to be repeated ad lib until you are satisfied.
Some Westerners think Kali is merely a witch but she is
the supreme personification of Time much like Cronus,
but more vivid in her inactive activity.
And remember "Eat no Hot dog Buns on Fridays"
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 8, 2014, 9:36:17 PM1/8/14
to
In article <lajqrf$1df$1...@dont-email.me>,
We just don't believe.
--
JD
"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
Bobbie Sellers <bliss-...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 01/07/2014 11:44 PM, thomas p. wrote:
> > "Y-Knot" <Beac...@cyber-rights.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> > news:ez2zu.152408$Rt7....@fx27.iad...
> >> Either believe in a Higher Power or don't...
> >>
> >> No proof either way is needed -- That's why it's called FAITH.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No faith is required to not believe something. That should be obvious.
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
>
> Well people have to have faith in their own processes which deny the
> existence of the object of faith of others.
We deny nothing.
> On 01/07/2014 11:44 PM, thomas p. wrote:
> > "Y-Knot" <Beac...@cyber-rights.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> > news:ez2zu.152408$Rt7....@fx27.iad...
> >> Either believe in a Higher Power or don't...
> >>
> >> No proof either way is needed -- That's why it's called FAITH.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No faith is required to not believe something. That should be obvious.
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
>
> Well people have to have faith in their own processes which deny the
> existence of the object of faith of others.
We just don't believe.
--
JD
"If our country is going broke, let it be from
feeding the poor and caring for the elderly.
And not from pampering the rich and fighting
wars for them."--Living Blue in a Red State (seen on Facebook)
bil...@m.nu
Jan 9, 2014, 12:47:57 AM1/9/14
to
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:36:17 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> Well people have to have faith in their own processes which deny the
>> existence of the object of faith of others.
>
>We deny nothing.
>
>We just don't believe.
why are people like this so bereft of knowledge about life in general.
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> Well people have to have faith in their own processes which deny the
>> existence of the object of faith of others.
>
>We deny nothing.
>
>We just don't believe.
They think everyones brain must be as slow and ill mannered as thiers.
Then reason because they cant think we cant think either.
Idiots alll of them.
thomas p.
Jan 9, 2014, 5:17:56 AM1/9/14
to
"Bobbie Sellers" <bliss-...@dslextreme.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:lajqrf$1df$1...@dont-email.me...
As usual, the "mistake" made above is thinking that not believing something
exists something is the same as having a positive belief that it does not
exist. I do not deny the existence of a god, ie I do not claim to know that
none exists; I simply do not believe in any in the same way that I do not
believe in the existence of giant rabbits living under the surface of the
planet Mars. Neither position requires faith only the total lack of any
evidence ever being presented to me. In short your accusation is based on a
strawman, one that many theists seem incapable of giving up.
news:lajqrf$1df$1...@dont-email.me...
exists something is the same as having a positive belief that it does not
exist. I do not deny the existence of a god, ie I do not claim to know that
none exists; I simply do not believe in any in the same way that I do not
believe in the existence of giant rabbits living under the surface of the
planet Mars. Neither position requires faith only the total lack of any
evidence ever being presented to me. In short your accusation is based on a
strawman, one that many theists seem incapable of giving up.
R. Dean
Jan 10, 2014, 5:45:11 PM1/10/14
to
On 1/8/2014 9:36 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <lajqrf$1df$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Bobbie Sellers <bliss-...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/07/2014 11:44 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>>> "Y-Knot" <Beac...@cyber-rights.net> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:ez2zu.152408$Rt7....@fx27.iad...
>>>> Either believe in a Higher Power or don't...
>>>>
>>>> No proof either way is needed -- That's why it's called FAITH.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No faith is required to not believe something. That should be obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>
>> Well people have to have faith in their own processes which deny the
>> existence of the object of faith of others.
>
> We deny nothing.
>
> We just don't believe.
>
Does the fact that god's existence is beyond proof mean god doesn't
> In article <lajqrf$1df$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Bobbie Sellers <bliss-...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/07/2014 11:44 PM, thomas p. wrote:
>>> "Y-Knot" <Beac...@cyber-rights.net> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:ez2zu.152408$Rt7....@fx27.iad...
>>>> Either believe in a Higher Power or don't...
>>>>
>>>> No proof either way is needed -- That's why it's called FAITH.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No faith is required to not believe something. That should be obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>
>> Well people have to have faith in their own processes which deny the
>> existence of the object of faith of others.
>
> We deny nothing.
>
> We just don't believe.
>
exist? Is it necessary to prove the existence of god?
If so _why_? To whom?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages