"Who created your Creator?"

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...

>> Now, answer the simple question.
>
> "Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.

It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.

THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.

Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created......
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
than this.... ----> . <----

In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:xdidnVxmzZzZaKzL...@earthlink.com:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>
>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>
>> "Who created your Creator?"
>
> This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
> take note.
>
> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
> exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>
> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
>

So who created this Creator?

> There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
> not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
> see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
> still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
> question which you keep asking repeatedly.
>
> THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
> existent.

So who created this Creator?

>
> Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
> Creator who purposefully and actively created......
> ~ or ~
> that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
> complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
> *explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
> than this.... ----> . <----
>
> In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
> position requires far more faith than the creationists.

Restating that your Creator created the
universe doesn't answer the question.

[John Locke]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 03:30:27 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

...wrong again...

There is sufficient evidence at present to indicate that the universe
came into existence without being caused to do so. This evidence
includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced
Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. Claiming that
some god did it is irresponsible and an indignation to nature and
science. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider at Cern will
most likely yield real answers...your god is a dead-end and no
credible research group would ever consider it for a second.

[lucaspa]

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>
> >> Now, answer the simple question.
> >
> > "Who created your Creator?"

Don't know, Mitchell, and at this point it is irrelevant.

The question is bad science. What caused the Big Bang? We don't know. Does that negate the Big Bang?

What causes stem cells to persist into adulthood? Don't know. Does that negate the existence of adult stem cells?

Mitchell, science works in layers. As soon as you answer one question, 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. You can't use an inability to answer the new questions as a means of denying the answer you've got.

Question: is there a being that created the universe (a Creator)? Science doesn't know at the moment. IF we ever get the answer, THEN we can ask "what is the origin of the Creator?"

Theists believe they already have the answer. However, they don't know the answer to "what is the origin of the Creator?" But, they don't HAVE to know that answer, either.

Now, Andrew has discussed the concept of First Cause. In the chain of cause and effect, logic dictates that there must have been an uncaused Cause to start the chain. This is known as First Cause.

>
> Scientists know and agree that the
> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>
> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

That, Andrew is being a bit disingenuous. "our Creator" refers to deity (God). There are other causal agents proposed for the cause of the universe. For instance, Hawking proposes that the laws governing the behavior of the universe had the power to cause such a universe to come into existence. In the list of First Cause, this is referred to as Logical and Mathematical Necessity.

However, I don't know of anyone -- atheist, agnostic, or deist/theist -- that would refer to this as "our Creator".

>

> Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
> Creator who purposefully and actively created......
> ~ or ~
> that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
> complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
> *explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
> than this.... ---->

1. Those are not mutually exclusive. Cannot God be the cause behind Big Bang? What you are doing is confusing HOW the Creator worked with the existence of a Creator. The implication in what you wrote is that a Creator had to manufacture "this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly complex life forms" in its present form. However, can not "a Creator" create the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution? And yes, Darwinian selection can make "irreducibly complex" structures. Shoot, according to Behe, even CHANCE can make irreducibly complex structures.

Bottom line: you should not make "a Creator" be limited to a particular HOW of creation. This is particularly true if "a Creator" = God, since it is the height of religious folly to dictate to God how He MUST do things.

2. You have made a false dichotomy. There are other candidates for First Cause. Right now there are at least 5 possible candidates for First Cause to get the universe. They are, in no particular order:

1. Logical and mathematical necessity. The equations and laws of the universe are so compelling that they forced the formation of a universe for them to describe.

2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.

3. Quantum fluctuation. Events at the quantum level are uncaused. The universe is a huge quantum event.

4. No Boundary. This is a proposal by Stephen Hawking and updated with Turok. If all the dimensions of the universe were the same shortly after the Big Bang, you get a universe that doesn't have a beginning and therefore was never "created". It just IS.

5. Ekpyrotic. The universe is the result of a random collision between two quantum membranes in 11 dimensions. The 11 dimension 'brane is equivalent to deity in that it has always existed.

It is a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses with insufficient data to choose between them. None have been falsified, so all are still on the table as far as science is concerned.

> In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
> position requires far more faith than the creationists.

Since the factors are wrong, the conclusion is wrong. Besides, I'd like to see how you quantify "faith" to say that atheists have "more".

I agree that atheists have faith, but "more"?

[lucaspa]

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 8:52:41 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman wrote:

> Restating that your Creator created the
> universe doesn't answer the question.

And restating your question doesn't make it relevant. If Andrew's "Creator" created the universe, that means it exists and created the universe. How the Creator came into existence is irrelevant to those.

This what, Mitchell, is called a Red Herring.

The ONLY time the question "So who created the Creator?" has meaning is IF someone has claimed that EVERYTHING needs a creator. Then logically, the "Creator" needs a creator.

But Andrew in particular, and any argument that deity is First Cause, is NOT making the claim. They are allowing an uncreated Creator to create everything else.

[Aerion E.]

On 10/29/2015 8:52 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
> news:xdidnVxmzZzZaKzL...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>> news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>>
>>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>>
>>> "Who created your Creator?"
>>
>> This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
>> take note.
>>
>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>> exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
>> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
>> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
>> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>>
>> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
>>
>
> So who created this Creator?
>

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?
>
><snip>

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[lucaspa]

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 12:12:38 PM UTC-4, John Locke wrote:

> There is sufficient evidence at present to indicate that the universe
> came into existence without being caused to do so. This evidence
> includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on
> Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced
> Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe.

Let's go into that "sufficient evidence". Hawking-Penrose still breaks down at Planck time, doesn't it? So it can help understand black holes, but won't work at Big Bang.

There are 2 competing Quantum Cosmological Models I am aware of: string theory and loop quantum gravity. Quantum cosmology trys to explain the evolution of the universe from the initial state, but they don't explain the initial state. IOW, they don't give us a universe to evolve. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/qg_qc.html

So, it seems "sufficient evidence" is too strong. I would strongly agree that there alternatives to deity as First Cause. I would even agree that quantum fluctation is one candidate. A major problem with quantum fluctuation is getting a spacetime by quantum fluctuation.

> Claiming that
> some god did it is irresponsible and an indignation to nature and
> science. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider at Cern will
> most likely yield real answers...your god is a dead-end and no
> credible research group would ever consider it for a second.

Actually, physicists have considered it. Hawking did in A Brief History of Time:
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe?"
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg 174.

The problem is that physicists have been unable to find a testable prediction that would only be true if the universe were created by deity.

I fail to see how saying God created the universe via the Big Bang is an "indignation to nature", since that is where "nature" begins.

[raven1]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 03:30:27 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>
>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>
>> "Who created your Creator?"
>
>This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
>take note.
>
>It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>exist has a cause.

That appears to be false in QM.

> Scientists know and agree that the
>universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
>a cause and a reason to exist.

Shaky ground at best there: you're using "cause" to smuggle "reason"
in through the gate. Of course, you're pulling that sleight of hand so
you can justify where you were going with it.

> Implying that there of
>necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

See? I was right.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Besides which, he has to demonstrate this creator scientifically
before claiming in the scientific arena that it did anything.

What is truly puzzling, is why he keeps repeating this mindless
stupidity so regularly, after we have been explaining it to him for so
many years.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:48:36 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/29/2015 8:52 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
>> news:xdidnVxmzZzZaKzL...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>>>
>>>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>>>
>>>> "Who created your Creator?"
>>>
>>> This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
>>> take note.
>>>
>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>> exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
>>> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
>>> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
>>> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>>>
>>> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
>>>
>>
>> So who created this Creator?
> >
>If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
>was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
>no creator,

Distortion noted.

Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.

Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:00:11 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 03:30:27 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>>
>>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>>
>>> "Who created your Creator?"
>>
>>This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
>>take note.
>>
>>It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>exist has a cause.
>
>That appears to be false in QM.

He knows, because this has been pointed out to him every time he
repeats the same nonsense.

>> Scientists know and agree that the
>>universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
>>a cause and a reason to exist.
>
>Shaky ground at best there: you're using "cause" to smuggle "reason"
>in through the gate. Of course, you're pulling that sleight of hand so
>you can justify where you were going with it.
>
>> Implying that there of
>>necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>
>See? I was right.

Yep.

Having been corrected so often, this is deliberate dishonesty.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA542501EFE2...@216.166.97.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>
>>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>>
>>> "Who created your Creator?"
>>
>> This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
>> take note.
>>
>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>> exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
>> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
>> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
>> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>>
>> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
>
> So who created this Creator?
>
>> There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
>> not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
>> see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
>> still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
>> question which you keep asking repeatedly.
>>
>> THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
>> existent.
>
> So who created this Creator?
>
>> Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a

>> Creator who purposefully and actively created...... <--- option # 1

>> ~ or ~
>> that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
>> complex life forms are all the result of a primordial

>> *explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller <--- option # 2

>> than this.... ----> . <----
>>
>> In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
>> position requires far more faith than the creationists.
>
> Restating that your Creator created the
> universe doesn't answer the question.

You have option # 1 above, or option # 2. Choose one.

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:grg43b16fmm6d97qk...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>

New theories and models must constantly be introduced because
under closer examination, every one of them is eventually found
to be unworkable . http://alturl.com/wsifm

> Claiming that some god did it

No, there is no "god", but there is an awesome Creator.

> is irresponsible and an indignation to nature

Rather it is an indignation to nature to disavow her Creator.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:GNOdnQxHd4XewK_L...@earthlink.com:

1 You said that everything that exists was created.

+

2 You said us that this Creator exists.

----------------------------------------------------

=

3 Therefore this Creator was created.





By whom?

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 03:30:27 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>
>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>
>> "Who created your Creator?"
>
>This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
>take note.
>
>It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the

uhh no, you are an idiot for thinking so

>universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
>a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
>necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>
>This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
>
>There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
>not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
>see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
>still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
>question which you keep asking repeatedly.

where do you get this dumb ass shit from? are you forgetting what
group you are in? are you forgetting that we are not stupid like you
are

>
>THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
>existent.

no only existent in your imagination

[Dale]

On 10/29/2015 06:30 AM, Andrew wrote:
> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
> exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Andrew]

"Dale" wrote in message news:8sqqig....@news.alt.net...

> On 10/29/2015 06:30 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>> exist has a cause
>
> what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

[Dale]

what science?

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Aerion E.]

On 10/29/2015 1:07 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:48:36 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2015 8:52 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
>>> news:xdidnVxmzZzZaKzL...@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>>> news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>>>>
>>>>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Who created your Creator?"
>>>>
>>>> This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
>>>> take note.
>>>>
>>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>>> exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
>>>> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
>>>> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
>>>> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>>>>
>>>> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So who created this Creator?
>>>
>> If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
>> was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
>> no creator,
>
> Distortion noted.
>

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory


"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

>
> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>
> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
>

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

>
>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>> unacceptable?
>
> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:52:39 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/29/2015 1:07 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:48:36 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/29/2015 8:52 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
>>>> news:xdidnVxmzZzZaKzL...@earthlink.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>>>> news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, answer the simple question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Who created your Creator?"
>>>>>
>>>>> This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
>>>>> take note.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>>>> exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
>>>>> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
>>>>> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
>>>>> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

False. Several times over.

>>>>> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

>>>> So who created this Creator?
>>>>
>>> If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
>>> was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
>>> no creator,
>>
>> Distortion noted.
>>
>No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
>Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

>"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
>it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
>scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
>space between them.)
> Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
>could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
>chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
>many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena, you fisrt have to justify
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Why is this so hard to understand?

> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.
> >
>> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
>> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>>
>> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
> >
>You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
>had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
>or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
>with saying God had no beginning?

WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
being so stupid.

>>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>> unacceptable?
>>
>> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>>
>If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>to you.

Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
don't have.

Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
outside your religion.

Grow up.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in news:otmdnYs3xo5XJK_LnZ2dnUU7-
UGd...@earthlink.com:

So you believe in science?

Like evolution, cosmology, archeology
immunology, biology, geology...........

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:52:39 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>

I am confused are you saying that you believe that the steady state is
a proven and correct theroy??

If not, then what does it have to do with the price of tea in china.

> >
>> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
>> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>>
>> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
> >
>You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
>had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
>or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
>with saying God had no beginning?

ya see this is actually where the steady state theroy is more like the
god theroy, they are both incorrect.

>>
>>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>> unacceptable?
>>
>> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>>
>If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>to you.

but there isnt, and there never will be so there is no use in saying
IF IF IF, ya know I could say if you had half a brain you would not be
supporting fairy tales. Did you ever think if that? I mean someone
with at least a quater of a brain would have considered that, but I
guess it means that you do not have that much

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:28:57 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Yeah so has god...
Damn shame you cant figure that out

[bil...@m.nu]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:11:15 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net>
wrote:

He believes what ever his church tells him, if his church said science
is correct today but in 3.78 days science will be incorrect for only
56 minutes then he would believe it.

[Aerion E.]

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.
>
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

>
> There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
> the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
> was still just a well-supported hypothesis.
>

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

>
>> "holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
>> it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
>> scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
>> space between them.)
>> Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
>> could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
>> chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
>> many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
>
> Wrong.
>

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

>
> Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
> and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
> rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.
>

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

>
> But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
> particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
> population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
> up.
>

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

>
> If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,
>

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

you fisrt have to justify
> it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
> whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
> being taught it inchildhood..
>

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

>
> Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.
>>>
>>> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
>>> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>>>
>>> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
>>>
>> You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
>> had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
>> or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
>> with saying God had no beginning?
>
> WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?
>

The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
recorded in New Testament.

>
> Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
> for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
> being so stupid.
>

I don't need to prove God to anyone. Either you believe in God or you
don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
God. So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

>
>>>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>>> unacceptable?
>>>
>>> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>>>
>> If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>> whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>> to you.
>
> Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
> unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
> invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
> don't have.
>

Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

>
> Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
> admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
> outside your religion.
>

Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an
atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
your atheism.

>
> Grow up.

[Aerion E.]

No, I'm not!

>
> If not, then what does it have to do with the price of tea in china.
>

Nothing about the tea in China, but there is a corollary between
an eternal universe that needed no creator and the eternal god that
needed no creator. Before Hubble and the Big Bang falsified it, the
universe was widely held by scientists, including A. Einstein to be
eternal without a beginning or an end.

>>>
>>> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
>>> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>>>
>>> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
>>>
>> You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
>> had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
>> or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
>> with saying God had no beginning?
>
>
> ya see this is actually where the steady state theroy is more like the
> god theroy, they are both incorrect.
>

There was no problem with the steady state universe being accepted
as eternal by scientists. The God theory is not scientific nor is
it falsifiable. Either you believe in God or you don't.

>>>
>>>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>>> unacceptable?
>>>
>>> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>>>
>> If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>> whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>> to you.
>
>
> but there isnt, and there never will be so there is no use in saying
> IF IF IF, ya know I could say if you had half a brain you would not be
> supporting fairy tales. Did you ever think if that? I mean someone
> with at least a quater of a brain would have considered that, but I
> guess it means that you do not have that much
>

Why do you feel the need to insult me? You have no cause to do so.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:27 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>

This is a lie on your part.

There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

It wasn't even a theory.

But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.

Because science doesn't work that way.

>There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
>never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
>He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

Nobody even gave a thought to it.

>> There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
>> the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
>> was still just a well-supported hypothesis.
> >
>Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.
>>
>>> "holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
>>> it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
>>> scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
>>> space between them.)
>>> Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
>>> could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
>>> chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
>>> many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
>>
>> Wrong.
> >
>You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
>general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
>recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
>mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
>Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
>theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
>Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
>the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
>a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

>> Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
>> and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
>> rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.
> >
>True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
>cubic mile of space.
>>
>> But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
>> particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
>> population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
>> up.
> >
>I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
>question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

Is this really so hard to understand?

On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact, in the real
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

>> If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,
> >
>Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
>atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

> you fisrt have to justify
>> it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
>> whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
>> being taught it inchildhood..
> >
>Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
>my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
>provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
>no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>>
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.
>>>>
>>>> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
>>>> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
>>>>
>>> You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
>>> had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
>>> or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
>>> with saying God had no beginning?
>>
>> WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?
> >
>The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
>recorded in New Testament.

OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.

Provide the same kind of real world evidence for it as there is for
the universe.

Instead of stupidly treating it as if it were just as real.

You might imagine it is, but until you demonstrate otherwise, it
remains merely a religious belief with no basis in fact.

>> Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
>> for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
>> being so stupid.
> >
>I don't need to prove God to anyone.

THEN KEEP IT INSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.

Instead of asking a ridiculous question outside it, that presumes it
is as real outside it as the universe is.

Never heard of "put up or shut up"?

> Either you believe in God or you
>don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
>God.

So why did you ask such a ridiculous question outside your religion,
which presumed it was as real as the universe.

Do that, and you either have to prove it or stop being so stupid.

> So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
>isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

THEN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, imbecile.

>>>>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>>>> unacceptable?
>>>>
>>>> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>>>>
>>> If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>>> whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>>> to you.
>>
>> Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
>> unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
>> invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
>> don't have.
> >
>Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

Was it some other lying theist who wrote " If there was evidence, you

could never accept it, so it doesn't matter whether there is evidence

for God or not. It could make no difference to you"?

It matters because you presumed it in a question that only a moron
would ask atheists.

Are you honestly so stupid you can't grasp that the question asked of
Andrew was simply the logical response to his fallacious remarks?

It's a question I asked when I was eight, the first time I even heard
the "God created everything" nonsense after my class teacher realised
I hadn't been raised to be theist and asked the usual stupid "who
created all this then?" question and couldn't understand my puzzled
"why did it need somebody to do it?".

>> Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
>> admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
>> outside your religion.
> >
>Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an
>atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
>your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
>While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
>your atheism.

What "view"?

All it means to be an atheist, it not being theist.

It's no different than not believing in Father Christmas, not
collecting stamps, or any of the other things you don't spend any time
and effort not doing.

And it still takes a frikking moron to ask an atheist, a scientist or
any non-Christian such a stupid question as "So, why is there a
problem with saying God had no beginning?".

BECAUSE YOU ASK IT OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.

Which word was too hard to understand?

Alt.talk.creationism was added to the newsgroups by one of the more
stupid, dishonest creationists who regularly posts unsolicited
nonsense and outright lies to alt.atheism,

He regularly uses the dishonest first cause argument which starts off
with "everything has a cause" and then finishes up with "and this
cause is God".

But if everything requires a cause then so does his god.

A more honest rephrasing of the argument would instead start with
"everything except the god I'm supposed to be proving needs a cause".

But this would show just how worthless the argument was.

And if you are so stupid you thing "what created God" AS A RESPONSE TO
THIS ARGUMENT is a stupid question, that says plenty about you - and
none of it is particularly flattering.

But then so does asking questions outside your religion that presume
it is as real as the universe.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:27 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >

>Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
>I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
>then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
>understandable mistake.

Einstein said a lot about it, he actually incorrectly said it was not
expanding

>There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
>never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
>He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

oh so wrong

>You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's

you need to learn what falsified means, first

>general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
>recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian

you seem to9 be confusing steady state theory with a static universe,
VERY BIG DIFFERENCE

>mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
>Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
>theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
>Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
>the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
>a "big bang".

you can read all you want and then plagiarize it without posting your
source <which BTW when you don't post your source your words are
meaningless. Also as I was saying that you can read all you want but
if you do not fully comprehend what you are reading then you go and
post dumb ass shit like you just did

>I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
>question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Your POV <sic> is conflicted with real life, because you believe in
fairies... Did you fully understand what I just said... let me say it
again, YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES, how fucked up is that?

> >
>Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
>my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
>provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
>no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

boo fucking hoo..... Everyone has got a sob story It has no bearing on
this topic, Noone is going to feel sorry for you

>>
>> WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?
> >
>The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
>recorded in New Testament.

You do realize that everytime you play the fairy card you are just
hurting your argument worse and worse

>>
>> Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
>> for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
>> being so stupid.
> >
>I don't need to prove God to anyone. Either you believe in God or you
>don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
>God. So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
>isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

so since you habe a belief in the fairy folk, tell me how is harry
potter doing? and are you friends with tinkerbell? Because if you
believe in one then you must believe in them all, so let me hear you
say that you dont believe that all the characters in the lord of the
rings are not real..

>>
>> Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
>> unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
>> invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
>> don't have.
> >
>Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

What do you not understand about your POV <sic> not having any meaning
whatsoever in the real world, in the world of matter and energy? your
POV holds no weight except in the imagination, so it is only relevant
to you and those you have forced your beliefs onto

>>
>> Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
>> admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
>> outside your religion.
> >
>Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an

no belief in a god <any god> is a theist belief. belief that there are
some humans that are "closer" to this imaginary god and blindly
following them, listening to them, giving them your time and money -
is a religous belief.

obviously you have not realized in all of your years that you are a
sucker

>atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
>your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
>While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
>your atheism.

Please dont ever defend atheism, because eventually you will reach
into your pocket and pull out your fairy card as though it actually
means something to anyone besides you

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:16:21 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/29/2015 11:33 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:52:39 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
>>> it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
>>> scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
>>> space between them.)
>>> Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
>>> could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
>>> chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
>>> many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.
>>
>>
>> I am confused are you saying that you believe that the steady state is
>> a proven and correct theroy??
> >
>No, I'm not!
>>
>> If not, then what does it have to do with the price of tea in china.
>>
>Nothing about the tea in China, but there is a corollary between

I guess you are not famaliar with that saying...point is you dont know
what you are talking about so what you said means nothing to everyone

>an eternal universe that needed no creator and the eternal god that

the universe is not eternal

>needed no creator. Before Hubble and the Big Bang falsified it, the
>universe was widely held by scientists, including A. Einstein to be
>eternal without a beginning or an end.

No I do not think that is true at all
maybe perhaps from 1917 to 1926 but it has never actually been
confirmed that he ever thought it was eternal. Einstein was agnostic
perhaps even atheist so he would not have said anything about a
universe having a creator or being eternal

>>
>> ya see this is actually where the steady state theroy is more like the
>> god theroy, they are both incorrect.
>>
>There was no problem with the steady state universe being accepted
>as eternal by scientists. The God theory is not scientific nor is
>it falsifiable. Either you believe in God or you don't.

you still have steady state confused with static or even cosmological
constant

>>>>
>>> If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>>> whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>>> to you.
>>
>>
>> but there isnt, and there never will be so there is no use in saying
>> IF IF IF, ya know I could say if you had half a brain you would not be
>> supporting fairy tales. Did you ever think if that? I mean someone
>> with at least a quater of a brain would have considered that, but I
>> guess it means that you do not have that much
>>
>Why do you feel the need to insult me? You have no cause to do so.

I insult because it is not a matter of you being intelligent or if you
are or are not well read, it is not even a matter of ignorance, You
just simply REFUSE to see the paint on the wall even though it is neon
pink. you have to ask youself WHY THE HELL DO YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES?

I mean are you so scared that when you die you wont go to heaven? I
mean alot of people fear death but it is utterly pointless, dude when
you die you are DEAD.... there is no heaven or hell.... I mean do you
think the egyptian mummies will one day come back to life? Do you
think the Norse worshiped thunder because it sounded pretty? They even
personified it into a god. So tell me is Thor real? If you were to go
back to that time and speak of an all powerful god that created
everything you would have been a heritic.

in another 2000 years when the god is called jehovazoid and that god
bot actually created everything through computers and robots and that
people live in the matrix, would that faith be incorrect?

use your brain for something useful instead of being scared of going
to hell <which according to your bible that you so devoutly worship>
would be MUCH MUCH better than any heaven

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:16:21 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>

>Why do you feel the need to insult me? You have no cause to do so.

Thing is you dont see it or you have just simply blocked out the fact
that you are so brain washed that you just simply cant think for
yourself. You have had the fear of god rooted to deep in you that you
will not ever ever know what the truth is and what life is. You are in
an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards. If you
dont like or you cant understand then I would recommend that you talk
to andrew and told that loser not to crosspost his crap. Becaue that
is ALL he EVER spews is crap.

I mean if you like your stories about magical beings and fairies then
stay in alt.talk.creationism and dont post to this group, after all
that is what that group is for <I guess I have never read the chater>

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:52:39 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/29/2015 1:07 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
>> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>>
>> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
> >
>You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
>had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
>or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
>with saying God had no beginning?

Because the nature of a being is to have a temporal beginning
and a temporal end. You'd have to re-define a being into something it
isn't in order to get a god with no beginning.

>>
>>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>> unacceptable?
>>
>> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>>
>If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>to you.

Which, of course, is a cop-out.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 04:34:32 -0500, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:16:21 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/29/2015 11:33 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:52:39 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
>>>> it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
>>>> scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
>>>> space between them.)
>>>> Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
>>>> could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
>>>> chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
>>>> many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
>>>> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am confused are you saying that you believe that the steady state is
>>> a proven and correct theroy??
>> >
>>No, I'm not!
>>>
>>> If not, then what does it have to do with the price of tea in china.
>>>
>>Nothing about the tea in China, but there is a corollary between
>
>I guess you are not famaliar with that saying...point is you dont know
>what you are talking about so what you said means nothing to everyone

Bilgat knows more that you do about the real world.

>>an eternal universe that needed no creator and the eternal god that

WHAT FUCKING "THE ETERNAL GOD" IN THE WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS?

>the universe is not eternal
>
>>needed no creator. Before Hubble and the Big Bang falsified it, the
>>universe was widely held by scientists, including A. Einstein to be
>>eternal without a beginning or an end.
>
>No I do not think that is true at all
>maybe perhaps from 1917 to 1926 but it has never actually been
>confirmed that he ever thought it was eternal. Einstein was agnostic
>perhaps even atheist so he would not have said anything about a
>universe having a creator or being eternal

As I said, until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and others, the universe
was just the universe.

Nobody thought it was expanding or as large as it is.

Let alone had the strawman beliefs he attributes to them,

This is all a red herring though...

Mitch asked Andrew "who created your God then" in response to Andrew
saying everything was created.

Which just applies Andrew's own reasoning to his hypothetical God.

This moron asked a remarkably stupid question along the lines of "if
the universe can nave been considered eternal. why can't God?".

And he's too stupid to understand just how stupid it was.

Intelligent theists understand that only members of their religion
believe in it.

And that a question like that should never be asked outside it, as
well as why.

We are dealing leading edge physics and cosmology - so before he can
invoke what is merely his religious belief, he has to demonstrate it
scientifically.

But like Mad Joe, he imagines it is exempt from the rules and methods

used in the real world.

In his mind, he can talk about it as if it were real, but he doesn't
have to prove it.

I've never understood what makes so many fundamentalist theists so
mind-numbingly and rudely stupid.

There are places where it is OK to bring it up - ie inside their
religion.

But he asked his ridiculous question outside it - saying that Mitch's
response to Andrew was just as stupid to him, even though it showed
the fallacy in Andrew's "everything has a cause" argument.

Because if everything has a cause, then so does his hypothetical god.

Basic logic.

[Andrew]

<bil...@m.nu> wrote in message news:r9p53bhuqjjgaom15...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>"Dale" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>>> exist has a cause
>>>
>>> what about a continuum?
>>
>>Has been rejected by science.
>
> Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

Also, there are no 'gods', but there_is_an awesome
Creator.

Therefore prepare now to meet Him in peace.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA542D7845C2...@216.166.97.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Dale" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>>> exist has a cause
>>>
>>> what about a continuum?
>>
>> Has been rejected by science.
>
>
> So you believe in science?
>
> Like evolution, cosmology, archeology
> immunology, biology, geology...........

There is a difference between hard science and soft
science. All that comes under the name of "science"
is not, and can not possibly be empirical truth.

[Andrew]

<bil...@m.nu> wrote in message news:24f63bhi4p401s08l...@4ax.com...

>You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
> that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I was raised an atheist. Utterly godless. Not even agnostic. No gods.. Fairies..
Santa's or bunnies... Believed nothing at all. I saw all the trouble and confusion
it caused and wanted nothing to do with it. I see Christians always fighting and
debating and being hypocrites all the time. I see new agers not really having a
clue what it is they actually believe in, and going in circles. I see all the other
religions all banging their head on a wall but achieving nothing but headaches.
I wanted no part in it..

I was 15... Still a kid.. But wondering what it was all about, seeing as everything
was so totally pointless and without a reason or a goal. Being an atheist is the
most pointless life one can live.. So empty of purpose or meaning. And like all
kids I needed purpose and meaning.

So the dream./ vision...

It was September the 28th 1984.... A day I will never forget, because its the day
my life was taken right OUT of my hands, and I realized that none of us really
have a choice... Only a will directed by the one who makes the choices. I remember
so clearly.. Sitting on my bed that night... Looking out the window at the stars.
Wondering why they were there.. What purpose they served.. If any at all. I
remember asking the same thing of myself.. What was my purpose.. Did I have a
purpose... Or was it all pointless.. An illusion.. Meaningless and dead? That night
I lay down on my bed.. Still wondering what it was all about... And I had a dream....
Or a vision.. Not sure which but it was incredibly vivid.. I was there.. Could feel..
Hear.. Smell....Where was I?

(Keep in mind up UNTIL that point I had never even looked into a bible or any
religious book.. So what I saw was not previously planted in there)

One moment I was on my bed.. In a half awake half sleep state.. A trance you
might call it. That zone you are in where you are still aware but also.. Not aware.
I found myself about 200 meters in the air... An air that was NOT air as we know
it. I looked around in shock... I was there.. This was no dream.. I panicked at first
cause I thought I was dead.. And for all I know.. I was.

After adjusting to this "Shock" I was able to look around me.. Where I was...
And what I saw.... Spreading around me in every direction to a horizon that just
was not there.. Was THE most incredible landscape I have ever seen. No majestic
scene on earth comes close to this.. Awesome.. The SCOPE of it... Endless..
And solid and real... ......

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/mans-trip-to-heaven-story-going-viral-2-2939846.html

[tippy2tim]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:48:36 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 10/29/2015 8:52 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
> >> news:xdidnVxmzZzZaKzL...@earthlink.com:
> > >

> >>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message

> >>> news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
> > > >
> >>>>> Now, answer the simple question.
> > > > >
> >>>> "Who created your Creator?"
> > > >
> >>> This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
> >>> take note.
> > > >

> >>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to

> >>> exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
> >>> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
> >>> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
> >>> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
> > > >

> >>> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
> > > >
> > >

> >> So who created this Creator?
> > >
> > If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
> > was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
> > no creator,
>
> Distortion noted.
>

> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>
> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
>

> > then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
> > God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
> > unacceptable?
>
> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

lol your a athiets imbecile lol

[Aerion E.]

On 10/30/2015 3:26 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:27 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

<snip>

>>>>>>>> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
>>>
>>> Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
>>> belief.
>>>
>>>>>>> So who created this Creator?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
>>>>>> was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
>>>>>> no creator,
>>>>>
>>>>> Distortion noted.
>>>>>
>>>> No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
>>>> Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory
>>>
>>> Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
>>> propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?
>>>
>> Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
>> I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
>> then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
>> understandable mistake.
>
> This is a lie on your part.
>
> There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
> imbecile.
>

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

>
> It wasn't even a theory.
>

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

>
> But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
> and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
>
> Because science doesn't work that way.
>

Nor did I claim otherwise.

>
>> There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
>> never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
>> He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.
>
> Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
> was proposed.
>

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

>
> Nobody even gave a thought to it.
>

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

>>> There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
>>> the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
>>> was still just a well-supported hypothesis.
>>>
>> Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.
>>>
>>>> "holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
>>>> it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
>>>> scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
>>>> space between them.)
>>>> Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
>>>> could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
>>>> chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
>>>> many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>> You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
>> general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
>> recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
>> mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
>> Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
>> theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
>> Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
>> the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
>> a "big bang".
>
> However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
> no reason to assume anything else.
>

It was called a theory.

>
>>> Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
>>> and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
>>> rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.
>>>
>> True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
>> cubic mile of space.
>>>
>>> But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
>>> particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
>>> population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
>>> up.
>>>
>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
>> question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.
>
> It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
> creator, and is hardly stupid.
>

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

>
> Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.
>

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

>
> Is this really so hard to understand?
>
> On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
> brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,
>

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

>
in the real
> world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
> justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
> the real world.
>

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

>
>>> If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,
>>>
>> Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
>> atheism a scientific arena.
>
> Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
> the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.
>

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

>
>> you fisrt have to justify
>>> it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
>>> whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
>>> being taught it inchildhood..
>>>
>> Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
>> my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
>> provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
>> no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.
>
> And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.
>

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

>
> But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
> religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
> known objectively.
>

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

>
> Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
> there is for the universe - then you might have a point.
>

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

>
>>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>>>
>>>> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
>>>>> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
>>>>>
>>>> You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
>>>> had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
>>>> or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
>>>> with saying God had no beginning?
>>>
>>> WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?
>>>
>> The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
>> recorded in New Testament.
>
> OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.
>
> Provide the same kind of real world evidence for it as there is for
> the universe.
>
> Instead of stupidly treating it as if it were just as real.
>

I'm sure God is not real to you. And I'm not surprised.

>
> You might imagine it is, but until you demonstrate otherwise, it
> remains merely a religious belief with no basis in fact.
>

Why is it not obvious to you that I accept that religious beliefs
are not based upon fact? They are beliefs. I don't know that my
late mother loved me, but I believe she did. I don't know that
God is real, but I have the same belief that he is.

>
>>> Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
>>> for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
>>> being so stupid.
>>>
>> I don't need to prove God to anyone.
>
> THEN KEEP IT INSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.
>
> Instead of asking a ridiculous question outside it, that presumes it
> is as real outside it as the universe is.
>

I presume no such thing. You are asserting thoughts to me that are alien
to me.

>
> Never heard of "put up or shut up"?
>

I responded to the question "who created the creator".
address a post to you first.

>> Either you believe in God or you
>> don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
>> God.
>
> So why did you ask such a ridiculous question outside your religion,
> which presumed it was as real as the universe.
>

I responded to a question about the creator of the creator. This was _not_
in response to you. You jumped in and responded to me. You didn't
have to do this.

>
> Do that, and you either have to prove it or stop being so stupid.
>

Want to talk about stupid. When will you understand that religion and
belief in God is _not_ based upon science. It's faith.

>
>> So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
>> isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.
>
> THEN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, imbecile.
>

Ok Mr. Lee you can just bow out. You had no business jumping in if you
are not prepared to accept what you are told by me about my own personal
beliefs. You have no right impugne me with this strawman you've
assigned to me.

>
>>>>>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>>>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>>>>> unacceptable?
>>>>>
>>>>> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>>>>>
>>>> If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>>>> whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>>>> to you.
>>>
>>> Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
>>> unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
>>> invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
>>> don't have.
>>>
>> Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.
>
> Was it some other lying theist who wrote " If there was evidence, you
> could never accept it, so it doesn't matter whether there is evidence
> for God or not. It could make no difference to you"?
>

It was a general statement which was addressed to _you_. And I've seen
no reason to think the statement was wrong.

>
> It matters because you presumed it in a question that only a moron
> would ask atheists.
>

The only person making presumptions is you about my belief, of which
your presumptions are totally wrong. You can't comprehend the idea
that beliefs are _not_ fact based. And this is you strawman argument.
IOW you are condemning me on false assumptions of your own.

>
> Are you honestly so stupid you can't grasp that the question asked of
> Andrew was simply the logical response to his fallacious remarks?
>
> It's a question I asked when I was eight, the first time I even heard
> the "God created everything" nonsense after my class teacher realised
> I hadn't been raised to be theist and asked the usual stupid "who
> created all this then?" question and couldn't understand my puzzled
> "why did it need somebody to do it?".
>

That's all right for you.

>
>>> Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
>>> admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
>>> outside your religion.
>>>
>> Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an
>> atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
>> your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
>> While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
>> your atheism.
>
> What "view"?
>

Atheism!

>
> All it means to be an atheist, it not being theist.
>
> It's no different than not believing in Father Christmas, not
> collecting stamps, or any of the other things you don't spend any time
> and effort not doing.
>
> And it still takes a frikking moron to ask an atheist, a scientist or
> any non-Christian such a stupid question as "So, why is there a
> problem with saying God had no beginning?".
>
> BECAUSE YOU ASK IT OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.
>

It was in response to a question asked by an anti-religious person.
There was no need to address it to a religious person

.
> Which word was too hard to understand?
>

Apparently it is for you. If an atheist ask a question, why shouldn't
the answer be addressed to the atheist asking the question?

>
> Alt.talk.creationism was added to the newsgroups by one of the more
> stupid, dishonest creationists who regularly posts unsolicited
> nonsense and outright lies to alt.atheism,
>
> He regularly uses the dishonest first cause argument which starts off
> with "everything has a cause" and then finishes up with "and this
> cause is God".
>
> But if everything requires a cause then so does his god.
>
> A more honest rephrasing of the argument would instead start with
> "everything except the god I'm supposed to be proving needs a cause".
>

Don't know who this refers to, but I doubt he thinks of God as a _thing_.

>
> But this would show just how worthless the argument was.
>
> And if you are so stupid you thing "what created God" AS A RESPONSE TO
> THIS ARGUMENT is a stupid question, that says plenty about you - and
> none of it is particularly flattering.
>

Does this make any sense to you. It's so scrambled as to be meaningless.

>
> But then so does asking questions outside your religion that presume
> it is as real as the universe.
>

You cannot presume anything for me. So, get off your strawman.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:TICdnU_4ptvfaK7L...@earthlink.com:

> <bil...@m.nu> wrote in message
> news:r9p53bhuqjjgaom15...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Dale" wrote:
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>>>> exist has a cause
>>>>
>>>> what about a continuum?
>>>
>>>Has been rejected by science.
>>
>> Yeah so has god...
>
> The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.

Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:n1103n$1kpr$1...@adenine.netfront.net:

Then why are you posting here?

>>
>> Never heard of "put up or shut up"?
>>
> I responded to the question "who created the creator".
> address a post to you first.

You responded by reasserting your claim that your
god created the universe. So tell us who created your
god.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:58:10 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

><bil...@m.nu> wrote in message news:24f63bhi4p401s08l...@4ax.com...
>
>>You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
>> that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"I was raised an atheist

sorry that is about as far as I got and realized that it is a total
lie, so I read no more

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:54:57 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

><bil...@m.nu> wrote in message news:r9p53bhuqjjgaom15...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Dale" wrote:
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>>>> exist has a cause
>>>>
>>>> what about a continuum?
>>>
>>>Has been rejected by science.
>>
>> Yeah so has god...
>
>The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.
>

name three

>Also, there are no 'gods', but there_is_an awesome
>Creator.

tell that to the Norse, Egyptians, Greeks, pretty much the entire
world a few thousand years ago, they would have laughed at you

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:55:28 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.

Let alone because it didn't require a creator.

Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought

For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

>> Nobody even gave a thought to it.
> >
>Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
>advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

Because science isn't about beliefs.

He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding. But once the
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

>>>> Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
>>>> and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
>>>> rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.
>>>>
>>> True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
>>> cubic mile of space.
>>>>
>>>> But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
>>>> particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
>>>> population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
>>> question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.
>>
>> It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
>> creator, and is hardly stupid.
> >
>That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
>_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

>> Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.
> >
>To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
>it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".

Look up the word "hypothetical".

And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religiopn.

>> Is this really so hard to understand?
>>
>> On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
>> brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,
> >
>Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed

no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal

God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is

unacceptable?".

But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

> in the real
>> world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
>> justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
>> the real world.
> >
>I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

>>>> If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,
>>>>
>>> Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
>>> atheism a scientific arena.
>>
>> Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
>> the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.
> >
>Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
>It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed

no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal

God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

>>> you fisrt have to justify
>>>> it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
>>>> whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
>>>> being taught it inchildhood..
>>>>
>>> Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
>>> my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
>>> provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
>>> no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.
>>
>> And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.
> >
>What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
>don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
>minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
>forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
>But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

>> But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
>> religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
>> known objectively.
> >
>To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
>to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.

Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

>> Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
>> there is for the universe - then you might have a point.
> >
>How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
>evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
>view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
>out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.

How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.

And what "my belief"?

Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

>>>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
>>>>>> time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?
>>>>>>
>>>>> You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
>>>>> had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
>>>>> or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
>>>>> with saying God had no beginning?
>>>>
>>>> WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?
>>>>
>>> The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
>>> recorded in New Testament.
>>
>> OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.
>>
>> Provide the same kind of real world evidence for it as there is for
>> the universe.
>>
>> Instead of stupidly treating it as if it were just as real.
> >
>I'm sure God is not real to you. And I'm not surprised.

Translation... You can't, but needed to say anything, however stupid.

>> You might imagine it is, but until you demonstrate otherwise, it
>> remains merely a religious belief with no basis in fact.
> >
>Why is it not obvious to you that I accept that religious beliefs
>are not based upon fact? They are beliefs. I don't know that my
>late mother loved me, but I believe she did. I don't know that
>God is real, but I have the same belief that he is.

Was it some other Liar For God who asked this ridiculous question that
presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed

no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal

God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

>>>> Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
>>>> for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
>>>> being so stupid.
>>>>
>>> I don't need to prove God to anyone.
>>
>> THEN KEEP IT INSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.
>>
>> Instead of asking a ridiculous question outside it, that presumes it
>> is as real outside it as the universe is.
> >
>I presume no such thing. You are asserting thoughts to me that are alien
>to me.

Was it some other Liar For God who asked this ridiculous question that
presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed

no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal

God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

>> Never heard of "put up or shut up"?
>>
>I responded to the question "who created the creator".
>address a post to you first.

WHICH WAS SIMPLY A LOGICAL PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO ANDREW
EVERY TIME HE HAS RUDELY AND STUPIDLY POSTED HIS UNSOLICITED FIRST
CAUSE NONSENSE IN AN ATHEIST NEWS GROUP.

THIS IS OUTSIDE HIS RELIGION - SO IT IS SUBJECT TO THE METHODS OF THE
REAL WORLD.

>>> Either you believe in God or you
>>> don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
>>> God.
>>
>> So why did you ask such a ridiculous question outside your religion,
>> which presumed it was as real as the universe.
> >
>I responded to a question about the creator of the creator. This was _not_
> in response to you. You jumped in and responded to me. You didn't
>have to do this.

With mindless nonsense that presumed it was as real as the universe -
and it is utterly irrelevant that you believe it is.

You made that claim outside your religion so you have to back it up
outside it.

Otherwise you should have kept it inside your religion.

>> Do that, and you either have to prove it or stop being so stupid.
> >
>Want to talk about stupid. When will you understand that religion and
>belief in God is _not_ based upon science. It's faith.

THEN KEEP IT WHERE IT BELONGS INSTEAD OF TALKING OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION
AS IF EVERYBODY ELSE SHARED YOUR FAITH.

Which word is too hard to understand?

>>> So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
>>> isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.
>>
>> THEN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, imbecile.
> >
>Ok Mr. Lee you can just bow out. You had no business jumping in if you
>are not prepared to accept what you are told by me about my own personal
>beliefs. You have no right impugne me with this strawman you've
>assigned to me.

Was it some other Liar For God who asked this ridiculous question that
presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed

no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal

God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

>>>>>>> then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>>>>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>>>>>> unacceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
>>>>> whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
>>>>> to you.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
>>>> unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
>>>> invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
>>>> don't have.
>>>>
>>> Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.
>>
>> Was it some other lying theist who wrote " If there was evidence, you
>> could never accept it, so it doesn't matter whether there is evidence
>> for God or not. It could make no difference to you"?
> >
>It was a general statement which was addressed to _you_. And I've seen
>no reason to think the statement was wrong.

Because the world doesn't revolve around the hypothetical object of
your religious belief, imbecile.

And you are incapable of understanding the point of view of people who
don't share that religious belief, so you invent things about them
which presume it.

>> It matters because you presumed it in a question that only a moron
>> would ask atheists.
> >
>The only person making presumptions is you about my belief, of which
>your presumptions are totally wrong. You can't comprehend the idea
>that beliefs are _not_ fact based. And this is you strawman argument.
>IOW you are condemning me on false assumptions of your own.

Was it some other Liar For Gosd who asked this riduculous question
that presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed

no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal

God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

>> Are you honestly so stupid you can't grasp that the question asked of
>> Andrew was simply the logical response to his fallacious remarks?
>>
>> It's a question I asked when I was eight, the first time I even heard
>> the "God created everything" nonsense after my class teacher realised
>> I hadn't been raised to be theist and asked the usual stupid "who
>> created all this then?" question and couldn't understand my puzzled
>> "why did it need somebody to do it?".
> >
>That's all right for you.

Nothing about "right for me". I live in the real woprld, not one of
religious belief whose followers can't think outside of it.

>>>> Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
>>>> admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
>>>> outside your religion.
>>>>
>>> Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an
>>> atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
>>> your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
>>> While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
>>> your atheism.
>>
>> What "view"?
> >
>Atheism!

That's not a view, imbecile - it's the simple absence of the theist's
belief.

>> All it means to be an atheist, it not being theist.
>>
>> It's no different than not believing in Father Christmas, not
>> collecting stamps, or any of the other things you don't spend any time
>> and effort not doing.

Well?

>> And it still takes a frikking moron to ask an atheist, a scientist or
>> any non-Christian such a stupid question as "So, why is there a
>> problem with saying God had no beginning?".
> >
>> BECAUSE YOU ASK IT OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.
>>
>It was in response to a question asked by an anti-religious person.
>There was no need to address it to a religious person

No, liar. Mitch simply applied Andrew;s own reasoning to his
unsolicited nonsense.

And if you morons kept your beliefs inside your religion, there would
not be the reaction you liars rationalise as "ant-religion".

>> Which word was too hard to understand?
> >
>Apparently it is for you. If an atheist ask a question, why shouldn't
>the answer be addressed to the atheist asking the question?

Mitch was treating it as the "X" in an abstract logic equation - it
could have been anything, but it just happened to be this hypothetical
creator Andrew can't keep his trap shut about where it is neither
wanted nor needed.

OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.

>> Alt.talk.creationism was added to the newsgroups by one of the more
>> stupid, dishonest creationists who regularly posts unsolicited
>> nonsense and outright lies to alt.atheism,
>>
>> He regularly uses the dishonest first cause argument which starts off
>> with "everything has a cause" and then finishes up with "and this
>> cause is God".
>>
>> But if everything requires a cause then so does his god.
>>
>> A more honest rephrasing of the argument would instead start with
>> "everything except the god I'm supposed to be proving needs a cause".
> >
>Don't know who this refers to, but I doubt he thinks of God as a _thing_.

That's his problem.

>> But this would show just how worthless the argument was.
>>
>>
> >

>Does this make any sense to you. It's so scrambled as to be meaningless.

"Thing" is a common typo for "think", imbecile, and the spelling
checker doesn't pick it up.

I'll say it again...

And if you are so stupid you thinK "what created God" AS A RESPONSE TO

THIS ARGUMENT is a stupid question, that says plenty about you - and
none of it is particularly flattering.

>> But then so does asking questions outside your religion that presume
>> it is as real as the universe.
> >
>You cannot presume anything for me. So, get off your strawman.
>>

I don't - I observe it.

Or was it some other Liar For God who asked this ridiculous question
that presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed

no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:37:22 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net>
wrote:

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?

But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.

For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.

Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.

If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:41:52 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@att.net>
wrote:

You don't understand - it's immune from logic, because he says so.

If those like Andrew who use the first cause arguments, had any
intelligence or honesty they would rephrase their premise before
making it.

So they wouldn't have to change "everything requires a cause" to
"everything except what I'm trying to prove, requires a cause" part
way through the argument.

Butt his would make the argument worthless immediately and the rubes
wouldn't fall for it.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <6ia83b5h3mg8ic1ij...@4ax.com>,

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

--

JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA543D1C66E5...@216.166.97.131...
> "Andrew" wrote: >

>> <bil...@m.nu> wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Dale" wrote:
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>>>>> exist has a cause
>>>>>
>>>>> what about a continuum?
>>>>
>>>>Has been rejected by science.
>>>
>>> Yeah so has god...
>>
>> The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.
>
> When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
>
> Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
> publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

"To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His
wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree,
the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be
a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most
High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than
knowledge." ~ Copernicus

[Andrew]

<bil...@m.nu> wrote in message news:c0983b9s09arlkp3u...@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:

><bil...@m.nu> wrote:
>
>>You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
>> that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"I was raised an atheist

- sorry that is about as far as I got and realized that it is a total lie, so I read no
- more

[John Locke]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:58:10 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Disneyland ???

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:41:40 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

><bil...@m.nu> wrote in message news:c0983b9s09arlkp3u...@4ax.com...
>"Andrew" wrote:
>><bil...@m.nu> wrote:
>>
>>>You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
>>> that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>"I was raised an atheist
>
>- sorry that is about as far as I got and realized that it is a total lie, so I read no
>- more
>

are you freakin serious? do you think I would read your lies this
time? Just how retarded are you

[bil...@m.nu]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:41:28 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

All the people you assume were theists and great scientists were also
the same people that lived in a time when you would be tortured or
murdered for thinking something different, mind you the people
ordering the torture and murder were the theists
>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:54:44 -0700, John Locke
<johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:58:10 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote:
>
>><bil...@m.nu> wrote in message news:24f63bhi4p401s08l...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
>>> that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>"I was raised an atheist. Utterly godless. Not even agnostic. No gods.. Fairies..
>>Santa's or bunnies... Believed nothing at all. I saw all the trouble and confusion
>>it caused and wanted nothing to do with it. I see Christians always fighting and
>>debating and being hypocrites all the time. I see new agers not really having a
>>clue what it is they actually believe in, and going in circles. I see all the other
>>religions all banging their head on a wall but achieving nothing but headaches.
>>I wanted no part in it..
>>
>>I was 15... Still a kid.. But wondering what it was all about, seeing as everything
>>was so totally pointless and without a reason or a goal. Being an atheist is the
>>most pointless life one can live.. So empty of purpose or meaning. And like all
>>kids I needed purpose and meaning.

The proven serial liar still pretends he doesn't know that atheism is
a non-event that is pretty much ythe same as not believing in Santa
Claus.

So he needs to pretend t hat dot doing something unimportant, is
pointless.

>>So the dream./ vision...
>>
>>It was September the 28th 1984.... A day I will never forget, because its the day
>>my life was taken right OUT of my hands, and I realized that none of us really
>>have a choice... Only a will directed by the one who makes the choices. I remember

What "the one who makes the choices"?

Hint" the moron already believed in it in order to interpret his
hallucination in terms of it.

>>so clearly.. Sitting on my bed that night... Looking out the window at the stars.
>>Wondering why they were there.. What purpose they served.. If any at all. I
>>remember asking the same thing of myself.. What was my purpose.. Did I have a
>>purpose... Or was it all pointless.. An illusion.. Meaningless and dead? That night
>>I lay down on my bed.. Still wondering what it was all about... And I had a dream....
>>Or a vision.. Not sure which but it was incredibly vivid.. I was there.. Could feel..
>>Hear.. Smell....Where was I?
>>
>>(Keep in mind up UNTIL that point I had never even looked into a bible or any
>>religious book.. So what I saw was not previously planted in there)

He's lying.

Because "the one who makes the choices" was already implanted.

>>One moment I was on my bed.. In a half awake half sleep state.. A trance you
>>might call it. That zone you are in where you are still aware but also.. Not aware.
>>I found myself about 200 meters in the air... An air that was NOT air as we know
>>it. I looked around in shock... I was there.. This was no dream.. I panicked at first
>>cause I thought I was dead.. And for all I know.. I was.

We've all had dreams like that, to be wrenced back to reality with a
falling sensation.

>>After adjusting to this "Shock" I was able to look around me.. Where I was...
>>And what I saw.... Spreading around me in every direction to a horizon that just
>>was not there.. Was THE most incredible landscape I have ever seen. No majestic
>>scene on earth comes close to this.. Awesome.. The SCOPE of it... Endless..
>>And solid and real... ......

Lysergic acid diethylamide.

>Disneyland ???

A hallucination or an epileptic fit.

But none of that bullshit suggests a god.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Everybody was raised to be theist. But this was a time when if they
spoke out against church doctrine, they were punished as heretics.

It is extremely dishonest to say "Copernicus was theist" as though
that meant anything special, or that (As the in-your-face moron seems
to think) it means everybody else should be, a few hundred years
later.

Yes, he was theist. But in terms of the results of his research, so
what?

It is these results which count.

And once again, Anne Drool ignores them - but he's got a history of
ignoring whether scientists who happen to be theist, say something
because of their research or their religious belief.

But then he's thoroughly dishonest, stupid and pig-ignorant.

[Andrew]

<bil...@m.nu> wrote in message news:73983bdtftm084isk...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>><bil...@m.nu> wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Dale" wrote:
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
>>>>>> exist has a cause
>>>>>
>>>>> what about a continuum?
>>>>
>>>>Has been rejected by science.
>>>
>>> Yeah so has god...
>>
>>The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.
>
> name three

1. Isaac Newton

2. Robert Boyle

3. Gregor Mendel

>>Also, there are no 'gods', but there_is_an awesome
>>Creator.
>
> tell that to the Norse, Egyptians, Greeks, pretty much
> the entire world a few thousand years ago, they would
> have laughed at you

It is unfortunate that they would be deceived.

The truth however remains, that there are no
'gods, but there_is_an awesome Creator.

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

--
Try God!
Don

See you in church.

[harry k]

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 3:30:29 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA541D379F6A...@216.166.97.131...
>
> >> Now, answer the simple question.
> >
> > "Who created your Creator?"
>
> This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
> take note.
>

> It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to

> exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
> universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
> a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
> necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
>

> This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
>

> There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
> not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
> see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
> still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
> question which you keep asking repeatedly.
>
> THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
> existent.
>
> Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
> Creator who purposefully and actively created......
> ~ or ~
> that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
> complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
> *explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
> than this.... ----> . <----
>
> In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
> position requires far more faith than the creationists.

>"It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause"

"> There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
> not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
> see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause".

Are you so moronic that you don't see that you shot down your dissertation before it even got off the ground?

Harry K

[Aerion E.]

On 10/30/2015 5:14 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:27 -0400, "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com>

> wrote:

>

>>>

>> Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,

>> I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion

>> then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an

>> understandable mistake.

>

> Einstein said a lot about it, he actually incorrectly said it was not

> expanding

>

This is true.

>

>> There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle

>> never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.

>> He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific
acceptance.

>

> oh so wrong

>

You are wrong. Fred Hoyle who supported the Steady state universe called

the expansion a big bang which he meant as a pejorative. He held on to
this belief after the big bang was accepted by the scientific community.

>

>> You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's

>

> you need to learn what falsified means, first

>

If you question that, then you don't know what falsified means. It was
falsified since a "steady state" universe could not be a expanding
universe and Hubble proved it was expanding.

>

>> general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not

>> recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian

>

> you seem to9 be confusing steady state theory with a static universe,

> VERY BIG DIFFERENCE

>

From this, it's apparent that you don't know what the steady state
theory was about.
What do you think is the difference?

>

>> mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the

>> Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's

>> theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was

>> Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called

>> the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion

>> a "big bang".

>

> you can read all you want and then plagiarize it without posting your

> source <which BTW when you don't post your source your words are

> meaningless. Also as I was saying that you can read all you want but

> if you do not fully comprehend what you are reading then you go and

> post dumb ass shit like you just did

>

Unless you point out what you think I plagiarized and from it came from,
then you don't know what plagiarize means. The words were mine. When I
quote someone, I provide reverences.
I don't plagiarize.

>

>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid

>> question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

>

>

> Your POV <sic>

>

POV is for "Point Of View"!
This is for your information.


is conflicted with real life, because you believe in

> fairies... Did you fully understand what I just said... let me say it

> again, YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES, how fucked up is that?

>

Since, I do not believe in fairies, you are misrepresenting my views.

You have no right to co this!

>>>

>> Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost

>> my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was

>> provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have

>> no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

>

> boo fucking hoo..... Everyone has got a sob story It has no bearing on

> this topic, Noone is going to feel sorry for you

>

Nobody is asking for sympathy. In fact I felt blessed that I had food,

warm clothing and a place to stay since, without them, I was alone in
the world.

>>>

>>> WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

>>>

>> The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as

>> recorded in New Testament.

>

> You do realize that everytime you play the fairy card you are just

> hurting your argument worse and worse

>

I have no idea what a fairy card is. But since you are discussing
fairies, this must mean you believe in them otherwise you have no
need to bring them into a discussion?

>>>

>>> Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION

>>> for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop

>>> being so stupid.

>>>

>> I don't need to prove God to anyone. Either you believe in God or you

>> don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in

>> God. So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It

>> isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

>

> so since you habe a belief in the fairy folk, tell me how is harry

> potter doing? and are you friends with tinkerbell? Because if you

> believe in one then you must believe in them all, so let me hear you

> say that you dont believe that all the characters in the lord of the

> rings are not real..

>

Why are you so intolerant? You don't have any power. If you did, the

question is: would you treat Christians different than ISIS? Just
curious. In case you don't know ISIS decapitates Christians. And

decapitate means chop their heads off.
If you had the power would
you do the same? Just curious!

>

>>>

>>> Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and

>>> unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he

>>> invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it

>>> don't have.

>>>

>> Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

>

> What do you not understand about your POV <sic> not having any meaning

> whatsoever in the real world, in the world of matter and energy? your

> POV holds no weight except in the imagination, so it is only relevant

> to you and those you have forced your beliefs onto

>

You're projecting. I've never tried forcing my beliefs on anyone, unlike

certain atheist who would force us all to be atheist if they had the

power to do so.
And they do try though lawsuits.

>

>>>

>>> Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or

>>> admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence

>>> outside your religion.

>>>

>> Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an

>

> no belief in a god <any god> is a theist belief. belief that there are

> some humans that are "closer" to this imaginary god and blindly

> following them, listening to them, giving them your time and money -

> is a religous belief.

>

> obviously you have not realized in all of your years that you are a

> sucker

>

How do I pay back the people that took me in and raised me when I had no

one. I'm sure no "atheist orphanage" would have done that. Is there

an atheist supported orphanage? Never heard of one.
Atheism is a
selfish mental state. .

>

>> atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have

>> your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.

>> While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to

>> your atheism.

>

> Please dont ever defend atheism, because eventually you will reach

> into your pocket and pull out your fairy card as though it actually

> means something to anyone besides you

>

You are misrepresenting me and my POV (point of view)! Why do you
insist on doing this?



You are a waste of time: don't bother responding to this, since it
takes too much of my valuable time.

[Aerion E.]

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

>
>>>> There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
>>>> never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
>>>> He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.
>>>
>>> Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
>>> was proposed.
>>>
>> You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
>> theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.
>
> You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
> was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
> consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
>
> Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
>
> Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
>
> For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
> reason to posit one.
>
>>> Nobody even gave a thought to it.
>>>
>> Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
>> advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
>> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
>
> Sigh. You're reading too much into it.
<

I gave reference.

>
> Because science isn't about beliefs.
>

This was about Einstein, the man.

>
> He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
> himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.
>

Because he was committed to a static universe.

>
But once the

> evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the

> biggest mistake of his life.
>

This is true.

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
>
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

>
>>>>> Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
>>>>> and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
>>>>> rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.
>>>>>
>>>> True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
>>>> cubic mile of space.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
>>>>> particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
>>>>> population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
>>>> question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.
>>>
>>> It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
>>> creator, and is hardly stupid.
>>>
>> That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
>> _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.
>
> Weasel words.
>

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

>
> Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
> nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.
>
>>> Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.
>>>
>> To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
>> it.
>
> No, liar - that is not "my belief".
>
> Look up the word "hypothetical".
>

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

>
> And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
> demonstrates it.
>

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

>
> In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
> no more than just a religious belief.
>

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

>
> If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
> then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
> this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
> the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two

> were equivalent outside your religion.
>
What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

>
>>> Is this really so hard to understand?
>>>
>>> On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
>>> brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,
>>>
>> Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.
>
> Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
>
> "If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
> was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
> no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
> unacceptable?".
>
> But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.
>

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

>
>> in the real
>>> world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
>>> justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
>>> the real world.
>>>
>> I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.
>
> You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
> is as real as the universe, outside your religion.
>

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

>
>>>>> If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,
>>>>>
>>>> Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
>>>> atheism a scientific arena.
>>>
>>> Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
>>> the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.
>>>
>> Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
>> It's a religious belief.
>
> Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
>
> "If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
> was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
> no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
> unacceptable?"
>
> Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.
>

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

>
>>>> you fisrt have to justify
>>>>> it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
>>>>> whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
>>>>> being taught it inchildhood..
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
>>>> my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
>>>> provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
>>>> no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.
>>>
>>> And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.
>>>
>> What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
>> don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
>> minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
>> forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
>> But I had to get up in time to attend public school.
>
> I didn't say it was forced to take you in.
>

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

>
> But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.
>
>>> But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
>>> religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
>>> known objectively.
>>>
>> To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
>> to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.
>
> WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?
>

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

>
> And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
> way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
>
> Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
> people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
> were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
> that also presume it is.
>
>>> Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
>>> there is for the universe - then you might have a point.
>>>
>> How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
>> evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
>> view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
>> out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.
>
> Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
>
> How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
> PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
> BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
>
> And what "my belief"?
>

It is your belief absence of proof!

>
> Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
> exempt from the rules of the outside world?
>

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

[bil...@m.nu]

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

[walksalone]

"Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:Jg9Zx.25265$lf3....@fx40.am4:

> On 10/30/2015 10:40 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

snip. think of the electrons, BTW, SBT Chris.

>>>>>> Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
>>>>>> bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
>>>>>> sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
>>>>> time a cubic mile of space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
>>>>>> about one particular god that only about a quarter to a third of
>>>>>> the world's population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant
>>>>>> where you bring it up.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
>>>>> stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

>>>> It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs
>>>> a creator, and is hardly stupid.
>>>>
>>> That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
>>> as a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.
>>
>> Weasel words.
> >
> A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

They do, they just don't say it out loud. Preacher m1ght kick them out of
the choir, or something like that. You see, a concept can be conceived as
a thing, or a persona, or just about any title you want to give it. After
all, it's just a word. Like god.
Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor. &
to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting to.
One of two news groups I sub to.

>> Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
>> nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.
>>
>>>> Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.
>>>>
>>> To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome
>>> to it.
>>
>> No, liar - that is not "my belief".
>>
>> Look up the word "hypothetical".
> >
> I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
> that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

>> And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
>> demonstrates it.
> >
> When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.

Truth as defined by whom? You? If you are a theist of any stripe, are you
an atheist? Or don't you like that truth. BTW, all humans are atheists
for a simple reason. You can't believe in gods you've never heard of.

> You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
> hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush. You
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset me.
Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with here. But
told her she should have included the preacher that started the shit. & I
even agree with those that call me a bastard. Legally, & by archaic
definition, I am. Of course, they don't like it when I ask them what their
excuse is.

>> In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
>> no more than just a religious belief.

> I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

You, or it? Presuming a typo there.

>> If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
>> then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods.
>> In this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is
>> for the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the
>> two were equivalent outside your religion.

> What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
> It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
> outside religion, it could also apply within.

The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods. Of
which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them parallel the
gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the last god of the
Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate the Hebrew version. In
the case of the missing messiah, had he existed, he would have been a
failed messiah.


snip

>>> Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
>>> fact. It's a religious belief.
>>
>> Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
>>
>> "If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
>> was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
>> no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>> unacceptable?"
>>
>> Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the
>> universe.
> >
> No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
> which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
> secular world. It's beyond you.

I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors. there
is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms. However,
logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge when no one
notices.

snip

>>>> But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
>>>> religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
>>>> is known objectively.
>>>>
>>> To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
>>> to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.
>>
>> WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

> It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven

Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods that
it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler. The original
god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region from aprx. -600 to -
400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to ba'al. & then, once the
priesthood had the backing of Korash, & returned from Babylon, they had
yahweh rammed up their ass's. After they settled back down,. there were no
more revealed gods until the missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify
as a failed messiah had he existed.

> that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic. Don't
worry, you are not alone.
You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, & claim it
is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to you to support
that claim with evidence if you want to be taken seriously by those that
have studied the myth, or have a real education. BTW, there are xians that
have real educations. Those I've met were always indoctrinated as children
under the age of eight. When they were most vulnerable.

> absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
> a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided. Then the evidence needs
examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is the
creator, just not a god.
It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba. After
all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note, should a god
exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods don't exist.

>> And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
>> way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
>>
>> Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
>> people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
>> were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
>> that also presume it is.
>>
>>>> Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
>>>> there is for the universe - then you might have a point.
>>>>
>>> How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,

Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

>>> not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
>>> view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've
>>> pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.
>>
>> Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
>>
>> How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
>> PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
>> BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
>>
>> And what "my belief"?
> >
> It is your belief absence of proof!

Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of reasoning
or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid standards.

>> Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
>> exempt from the rules of the outside world?
> >
> The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a

Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to believe that
just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia Jock Straps are the
worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team, everyone else believes that to
be true. I don't.

> religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it matters
not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours. That is, until you
try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or imposed
on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years defending the
US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also defended your right to
believe in any magic fairy you want, not have to. I could care less.
AAMOF< I've a small library where religious types have a chance of
obtaining writings that support their view. Hell, I've even got the
Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.

> are the minority, as such you are the outside.

That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the majority.
Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now considering they
follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group that thinks. Even if
it is a minority.

> <snip more of the same>

Thanks for demonstrating, xians, as a group are long on wind. & have a
negative supply of facts based on evidence.

walksalone who sadly accepts, not everyone can walk their life's journey
with the help of loved ones & acquaintances.



If, in any culture, children are taught, 'We are all equally
unworthy in the sight of God'
If, in any culture, children are taught, 'You are born in sin
and are sinful by nature'
If children are given a message that amounts to 'Don't think,
don't question, *believe*'
If children are given a message that amounts to 'Who are you to
place your mind above that of the priest, the minister, the rabbi?'
If children are told, 'If you have value it is not because of anything
you have done or could ever do, it is only because God loves you'
If children are told, 'Submission to what you cannot understand
is the beginning of morality'
If children are instructed, 'Do not be willful, self-assertiveness
is the sin of pride'
If children are instructed, 'Never think that you belong to yourself'
If children are informed, 'In any clash between your judgement and that
of your religious authorities, it is your authorities you must believe',
If children are informed, 'Self-sacrifice is the foremost
virtue and the noblest duty'
then *consider what will be the likely consequences for the
practice of living consciously, or the practice of self-assertiveness,
or any of the other pillars of healthy self-esteem*.
[Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem ,
Bantam Books, (New York, 1994), p. 295-296]

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Jg9Zx.25265$lf3....@fx40.am4>,

So fucking what?

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

Fatty, have a Ding-Dong.

[bil...@m.nu]

well there are 2 ways to look at it, personally I tend to think of a
god as the second, thier god is either a thing or thier god is a
nothing. Whoever Aerion E is I can most assuredly say that they are
not too smart, I guess that explains thier belief in the nothing god

>all, it's just a word. Like god.
>Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
>manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor. &
>to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting to.
>One of two news groups I sub to.
>

I wonder if they ever considered the why the word everything is
inclusive of all. A god is a thing an idea is a thing and the idea of
a god is still a thing

>
>Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
>belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
>sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
>life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
>& I will still be alive.

That last part is not a belief. You know that the sun will not rise
unless a black hole or otherwise dark star crosses our orbit and pulls
the earth out of the ecliptical of the sunh

[Christopher A. Lee]

They are incapable of applying abstract logic to it, because in their
minds it is exempt from critical thought.

>>Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
>>belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
>>sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
>>life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
>>& I will still be alive.

Stupid theists need it to be one, even though it isn't.

>That last part is not a belief. You know that the sun will not rise
>unless a black hole or otherwise dark star crosses our orbit and pulls
>the earth out of the ecliptical of the sunh

The last part is a belief, but it illustrates why the word should not
be used around theists - it carries too wide a spectrum of meanings,
and theists reduce them all to the same thing.

That the sun will ride in the East, is a reasoned expectation based on
a lifetime's experience.

It is clearly not a baseless religious belief.

But theists use dumbed down language with overly broad meanings that
obstruct communication.

On the other hand, atheism is _not_ a belief, because not believing
something is no more a belief than not speaking Swahili is a language,
not collecting stamps is a hobby or not playing baseball is a sport.

>>>> And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
>>>> demonstrates it.
>>> >
>>> When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.

What fucking "truth"?

It's a lie twice over, but the liar threw a hissy the last time he was
called a liar for lying.

For starters, I do not "close my eyes to the truth".

And it is a lie to call what are merely religious beliefs "the truth".

That is the kind of personal lie from the hypocrite who throws a hissy
when treated as a liar for it.

"Truth" is one of the many words that has been dishonestly redefined
by Christians, to mean "what my religion tells me to believe".

>>Truth as defined by whom? You? If you are a theist of any stripe, are you
>>an atheist? Or don't you like that truth. BTW, all humans are atheists
>>for a simple reason. You can't believe in gods you've never heard of.

It's one of the many words Christianity has redefined to exert an
almost Orwellian newspeak and doublethink mind control on its
followers.

It no longer carries the original meaning of something's
correspondance with reality, but means "what my religion tells me to
believe".

But it still carries the emotional or subconscious impact of the
original meaning.

>>> You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
>>> hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

When he resorts to this kind of personal lie, he has no right to throw
a hissy when he's treated as a liar for it.

But what do you expect from a theist who is so stupid he asks a
question of an atheist, that if the universe can have been around for
ever, why can't his god?

>>That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush. You
>>see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset me.
>>Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with here. But
>>told her she should have included the preacher that started the shit. & I
>>even agree with those that call me a bastard. Legally, & by archaic
>>definition, I am. Of course, they don't like it when I ask them what their
>>excuse is.

It's their brainwashing - it blocks out reality to prevent them
questioning their religion, but a consequence of this is that they
cannot relate to others. Hence his ridiculous question that if the
universe could have been around for ever, why couldn't God?

>>>> In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
>>>> no more than just a religious belief.
>>
>>> I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.
>>
>>You, or it? Presuming a typo there.

He's lying. He asked a question which assumed it was as real as the
universe.

>>>> If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
>>>> then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods.
>>>> In this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is
>>>> for the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the
>>>> two were equivalent outside your religion.
>>
>>> What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
>>> It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
>>> outside religion, it could also apply within.

Stupid bullshit.

The moron's hypothetical god doesn't apply outside his religion, let
alone asking a ridiculous question that presumes it is as real as the

Mitch's question was the logical response to Andrew's "everything has
a cause" and his non-sequitur "conclusion" that his hypothetical god
was the cause.

This moves the goalposts a,d invalidates the original premise.

Which becomes blindingly obvious is you alter it from "everything has
a cause" to "everything except the God I am supposed to be proving".

But if apologists used that one, even the rubes would see why the
argument failed.

They don't, because they gave been conditioned to believe their god
created everything, and they can't apply critical thought to it.

>>snip
>>
>>>>>> But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
>>>>>> religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
>>>>>> is known objectively.
>>>>>>
>>>>> To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
>>>>> to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?
>>
>>> It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
>>
>>Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods that
>>it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler. The original
>>god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region from aprx. -600 to -
>>400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to ba'al. & then, once the
>>priesthood had the backing of Korash, & returned from Babylon, they had
>>yahweh rammed up their ass's. After they settled back down,. there were no
>>more revealed gods until the missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify
>>as a failed messiah had he existed.

This has been explained to him several times, and he still gets it
wrong - and nastily so when he tells us what is "really" in our minds.

Gods remain merely a religious belief until their claimants
demonstrate otherwise.

This isn't a belief, it's simply the methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims.

>>> that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

The first time could have been an honest mistake, But repetition after
he has been corrected, makes it something else.

He's not a mind reader, but like most theists, he arrogantly and
nastily lectures us on what our POV "really" is after he got it wrong
and we corrected him.

>>I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic. Don't
>>worry, you are not alone.

He's clearly not.

>>You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, & claim it
>>is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to you to support
>>that claim with evidence if you want to be taken seriously by those that
>>have studied the myth, or have a real education. BTW, there are xians that
>>have real educations. Those I've met were always indoctrinated as children
>>under the age of eight. When they were most vulnerable.

Just like Mad Joe, he tries to cop out by hiding behind faith - but he
doesn't realise that this excuse is worthless because he made his
claim outside his religion where faith counts for nothing.

>>> absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
>>> a belief. Otherwise it's belief!
>>
>>No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided. Then the evidence needs
>>examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is the
>>creator, just not a god.

He's had this explained several times - and ignored it.

>>It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba. After
>>all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note, should a god
>>exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods don't exist.
>>
>>>> And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
>>>> way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
>>>>
>>>> Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
>>>> people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
>>>> were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
>>>> that also presume it is.
>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
>>>>>> there is for the universe - then you might have a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,
>>
>>Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

When he makes his claim ion the world beyond his religion, it becomes
subject to the rules and methods of the real world - in this case, t
he burden of proof.

Imagine his trying to hide behind faith in a PhD dissertation, or in a
courtroom.

>>>>> not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
>>>>> view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've
>>>>> pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.
>>>>
>>>> Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
>>>>
>>>> How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
>>>> PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
>>>> BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
>>>>
>>>> And what "my belief"?
>>> >
>>> It is your belief absence of proof!

Again, not a belief but a falsifiable conclusion based on a lifetime
of dealing with theists since I was eight and didn't even know what
theists or theism were.

>>Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of reasoning
>>or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid standards.

So do they, most of the time. If someone were to try and sell him a
Porsche for $500, he's demand to see proof of ownership.

>>>> Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
>>>> exempt from the rules of the outside world?
>>> >
>>> The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
>>
>>Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to believe that
>>just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia Jock Straps are the
>>worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team, everyone else believes that to
>>be true. I don't.
>>
>>> religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Another lie, because he is incapable of understanding the world and
people beyond his religion.

>>Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it matters
>>not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours. That is, until you
>>try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or imposed
>>on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years defending the
>>US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also defended your right to
>>believe in any magic fairy you want, not have to. I could care less.
>>AAMOF< I've a small library where religious types have a chance of
>>obtaining writings that support their view. Hell, I've even got the
>>Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.
>>
>>> are the minority, as such you are the outside.
>>
>>That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the majority.
>>Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now considering they
>>follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group that thinks. Even if
>>it is a minority.
>>
>>
>>> <snip more of the same>
>>
>>Thanks for demonstrating, xians, as a group are long on wind. & have a
>>negative supply of facts based on evidence.

Most Christians aren't as bad as their American brethren.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:10:09 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

confirmation of what I said

[Aerion E.]

On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:
> "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Jg9Zx.25265$lf3....@fx40.am4:
>
>> On 10/30/2015 10:40 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> snip. think of the electrons, BTW, SBT Chris.
>
>
>>>>>>> Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
>>>>>>> bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
>>>>>>> sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
>>>>>> time a cubic mile of space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
>>>>>>> about one particular god that only about a quarter to a third of
>>>>>>> the world's population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant
>>>>>>> where you bring it up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
>>>>>> stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.
>
> Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.
>

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

>
>>>>> It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs
>>>>> a creator, and is hardly stupid.
>>>>>
>>>> That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
>>>> as a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.
>>>
>>> Weasel words.
>>>
>> A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".
>
> They do, they just don't say it out loud. Preacher m1ght kick them out of
> the choir, or something like that. You see, a concept can be conceived as
> a thing, or a persona, or just about any title you want to give it. After
> all, it's just a word. Like god.
> Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
> manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor. &
> to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting to.
> One of two news groups I sub to.
>

I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party newsgroup.

>
>
>>> Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
>>> nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.
>>>
>>>>> Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.
>>>>>
>>>> To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome
>>>> to it.
>>>
>>> No, liar - that is not "my belief".
>>>
>>> Look up the word "hypothetical".
>>>
>> I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
>> that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!
>
> Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
> belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
> sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
> life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
> & I will still be alive.
>

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

>
>>> And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
>>> demonstrates it.
>>>
>> When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
>
> Truth as defined by whom? You? If you are a theist of any stripe, are you
> an atheist? Or don't you like that truth. BTW, all humans are atheists
> for a simple reason. You can't believe in gods you've never heard of.
>
>> You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
>> hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.
>
>
> That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush.
>

I didn't apply this to others (plural) just one.

You
> see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset me.
> Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with here. But
> told her she should have included the preacher that started the shit. & I
> even agree with those that call me a bastard. Legally, & by archaic
> definition, I am. Of course, they don't like it when I ask them what their
> excuse is.
>

In a sense you knew who your parents were.

>
>>> In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
>>> no more than just a religious belief.
>
>> I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.
>
> You, or it? Presuming a typo there.
>

Yes, thank you.

>
>>> If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
>>> then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods.
>>> In this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is
>>> for the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the
>>> two were equivalent outside your religion.
>
>> What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
>> It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
>> outside religion, it could also apply within.
>
> The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods. Of
> which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them parallel the
> gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the last god of the
> Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate the Hebrew version. In
> the case of the missing messiah, had he existed, he would have been a
> failed messiah.
>

No, only one.

>
> snip
>>>> Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
>>>> fact. It's a religious belief.
>>>
>>> Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
>>>
>>> "If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
>>> was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
>>> no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
>>> God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
>>> unacceptable?"
>>>
>>> Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the
>>> universe.
>>>
>> No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
>> which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
>> secular world. It's beyond you.
>
> I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors. there
> is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms. However,
> logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge when no one
> notices.
>

I suspect you missed the corollary as well.

>
> snip
>
>>>>> But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
>>>>> religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
>>>>> is known objectively.
>>>>>
>>>> To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
>>>> to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.
>>>
>>> WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?
>
>> It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
>
> Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods that
> it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler. The original
> god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region from aprx. -600 to -
> 400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to ba'al. & then, once the
> priesthood had the backing of Korash, & returned from Babylon, they had
> yahweh rammed up their ass's. After they settled back down,. there were no
> more revealed gods until the missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify
> as a failed messiah had he existed.
>

One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

>
>> that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
>
> I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic. Don't
> worry, you are not alone.
> You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, & claim it
> is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to you to support
> that claim with evidence if you want to be taken seriously by those that
> have studied the myth, or have a real education. BTW, there are xians that
> have real educations. Those I've met were always indoctrinated as children
> under the age of eight. When they were most vulnerable.
>

Atheist don't indoctrinate children? Of course they do.

>
>> absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
>> a belief. Otherwise it's belief!
>
> No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided.
>

Neither can be proven, therefore both are beliefs. That is neither
can God existence be proven, neither can it's absence. So, both
are beliefs.

Then the evidence needs
> examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is the
> creator, just not a god.
>

Atheism, by it's very nature is a position not supported by facts.
Furthermore, it is not inactive, they try to dictate through courts
of law the dis-establishment of religious symbols, values, morals etc.
With nothing.

> It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba. After
> all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note, should a god
> exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods don't exist.
>

Here again staying power.

>
>>> And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
>>> way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
>>>
>>> Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
>>> people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
>>> were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
>>> that also presume it is.
>>>
>>>>> Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
>>>>> there is for the universe - then you might have a point.
>>>>>
>>>> How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,
>
> Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.
>

I subscribe to alt.talk creationism. The question is how do you come
into the discussion? Are you crossposting?

>
>>>> not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
>>>> view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've
>>>> pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.
>>>
>>> Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
>>>
>>> How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
>>> PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
>>> BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
>>>
>>> And what "my belief"?
>>>
>> It is your belief absence of proof!
>
> Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of reasoning
> or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid standards.
>

If you don't have proof, whether you like it or not, all you have is
belief!

>
>>> Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
>>> exempt from the rules of the outside world?
>>>
>> The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
>
> Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to believe that
> just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia Jock Straps are the
> worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team, everyone else believes that to
> be true. I don't.
>
>> religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
>
> Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it matters
> not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours.
>

I have been the tooth fairy to mine, so I have proof there is no other
real tooth proof. IOW only my dime ever is found under the pillow of
my kids. :)

>
That is, until you
> try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or imposed
> on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years defending the
> US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also defended your right to
> believe in any magic fairy you want, not have to. I could care less.
> AAMOF< I've a small library where religious types have a chance of
> obtaining writings that support their view. Hell, I've even got the
> Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.
>

Good. If the overwhelming majority want a U.S. Flag on millitary
cemetery and a small minority don't because they are offended, who
should have the right upheld. Replace the flag with a cross.

>
>> are the minority, as such you are the outside.
>
> That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the majority.
> Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now considering they
> follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group that thinks. Even if
> it is a minority.
">

Your "non-thinking" people don't build skyscrapers, rockets to the moon,
write books design build computers or design ships etc. These are the
thinking people most of whom are religious. What have your thinking
people contributed to society that wasn't determent and destructive?
I can name a few, destruction of morality which brings illegimate
offspring, wellfare, murders, cheating, hatred etc.

>
>> <snip more of the same>

<further nonsense>

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

You really need to get your gluten intake under control.

>
> confirmation of what I said
>

[Aerion E.]

It makes you a freak!

[walksalone]

bil...@m.nu wrote in news:6ila3b58rnq5bjq74...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:48:54 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
> <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

snip minorus firstus

>>all, it's just a word. Like god.
>>Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
>>manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor.
> &
>>to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting
to.
>
>>One of two news groups I sub to.
>>
>
> I wonder if they ever considered the why the word everything is
> inclusive of all. A god is a thing an idea is a thing and the idea of
> a god is still a thing
>
>>
>>Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
>>belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
> the
>>sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be
> any
>>life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the
> east
>>& I will still be alive.
>
> That last part is not a belief. You know that the sun will not rise
> unless a black hole or otherwise dark star crosses our orbit and pulls
> the earth out of the ecliptical of the sunh

But it is. It is based of facts & observations, but a belief for all
that. Just not one based on a WAG. Of course, the majority, self
included, don't think of it that way.
& even in the case of the black hole, there would be warning.

walksalone who hates to think of the blistered knees should a black hole
come our way. The perfect excuse to pretend their imaginary friend is
real, so there.



Snip, secondus minorus


No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always
convinced that it says what he means.

George Bernard Shaw

[walksalone]

"Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:sVfZx.49097$_w5....@fx41.am4:

[Alex W.]

On 01/11/2015 03:45, Aerion E. wrote:
> On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:


>>
>> Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
>> belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
>> sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be
>> any
>> life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the
>> east
>> & I will still be alive.
>>
> If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
> have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
> belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
> There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
> right.

Let's go back to basics.

You make an assertion: "god exists".
This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
Them's the rules of the game.

In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".

Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
This is not an assertion.
An assertion is always positive.
Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence of
a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of the
existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.

For that matter, any absolute proof would require the replacement of
"belief" with "knowledge": that for which there is evidence or proof is
something that is known, not believed in.

> One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
> they had _no_ staying power.

Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.

Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.

So much for "staying power".

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <cXfZx.49098$_w5....@fx41.am4>,

How does it make me a freak?

Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

--

JD

I靶e officially given up trying to find the bottom

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:47:11 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

sorry already gluten free, you are a moron

[harry k]

And, according to polls, is dropping the percentage of people claiming ot be Christian every year.

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

Then what is your excuse?

[Alex W.]

On 01/11/2015 15:13, walksalone wrote:
> "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

> news:sVfZx.49097$_w5....@fx41.am4:

>
>> On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:
>

> snip

>
>>>>>>>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
>>>>>>>> a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.
>>>
>>> Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.
>>>
>> Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
>> atheism.
>
>

> As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
> much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
> believers] can not match.
> Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
> be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
> like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
> could overcome that.

Shuld there be genuine incontrovertible evidence for a deity, an atheist
could and would admit it.

But then the real fun would start: how to worship that god. Which
prayers to say. How to formulate his divine nature. Decyphering his
divine will. What version of his revealed word to adopt. Which
followers of false teachings to persecute.

In the end, actual proof of a god would not change much in real terms...

[Aerion E.]

On 11/1/2015 5:57 AM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 01/11/2015 03:45, Aerion E. wrote:
>> On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
>>> belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
>>> the
>>> sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be
>>> any
>>> life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the
>>> east
>>> & I will still be alive.
>>>
>> If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
>> have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
>> belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
>> There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
>> right.
>
> Let's go back to basics.
>
> You make an assertion: "god exists".
>

No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God
exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
matter of faith, not evidence.

>
> This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
> Them's the rules of the game.
>

If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.

>
> In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".
>

I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.

>
> Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
> This is not an assertion.
> An assertion is always positive.
> Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence of
> a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of the
> existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.
>

You cannot point to any statement where I've claimed "there is a God"!
I have always understood that religion is based upon faith.

>
> For that matter, any absolute proof would require the replacement of
> "belief" with "knowledge": that for which there is evidence or proof is
> something that is known, not believed in.
>

We are trying to make the _same_ case. Arguing the same points.

>
>
>> One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
>> they had _no_ staying power.
>
> Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
> 2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
> Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.
>

It still died out.

>
> Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.
>
> So much for "staying power".
>

Christianity is still around. It branched off from Judaism, which is
still around.
Judaism had greater staying power than Ra. According to
Wikipedia Ra by the 25 and 24 centuries BC had become a
major religion. But the article doesn't say low long it
survived. I haven't been able to document more than
two thousand years.
>
>

[Aerion E.]

It's a mind thing.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:30:56 -0500, Bishop Don Kool - A National

My excuse would be that I have to put up with child molesting bishops
and the people that support them, so tell me bob or whatever your name
is have you fondled any young boys lately?

[walksalone]

"Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in news:y6vZx.32529$Zs.4014
@fx38.am4:

> On 11/1/2015 5:57 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>> On 01/11/2015 03:45, Aerion E. wrote:

Snip

>> You make an assertion: "god exists".
> >
> No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God

I see your problem. It's the english language. When you say I believe,
there is an implication due to the fact you are not brain dead. It
equates to there is. Bit like my belief, & I can provide convincing
evidence that meet my criteria, I have the most beautiful daughters in
the world. Do you see the problem. I damn well understand that there
are mistaken fathers out there that don't accept my assertions. & they
are wrong, but right in doing so.

> exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
> matter of faith, not evidence.

Which should tell you something important about yourself. Do you believe
in the yeti. If not, why not. That is a question only you can answer.
But if you say no, why do you not apply the same standards to your gods?

>> This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with
proof.
>> Them's the rules of the game.
> >
> If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.

But you do, without realising it. English sucks as a communications
media. It steals words from all over the world, & frequently, as hidden
meanings that are not deliberate. Remember that logic thing? Logic does

not have to be true, just logical.
>

>> In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".
> >
> I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
> without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.

Maybe for your brand of apologetics. What do you call it when Someone
says there are no unicorns? A religion. How about if that is a response
to someone claiming there are unicorns? Is it still a religion. It
might help you to realise your problem if you think about it like this.
Religions, brand immaterial, have their own drill & ceremony's. Until
the subject is brought up, atheists have nothing to say about gods. They
are just someone's fantasy. After all, you don't believe in Kerunos, in
spite of the historical evidence. Such as the Gunderstrap[sp] cauldron.

>> Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
>> This is not an assertion.
>> An assertion is always positive.
>> Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence
>> of a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of
the
>> existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.
> >
> You cannot point to any statement where I've claimed "there is a God"!

Sorry, it's that damned English language again.

> I have always understood that religion is based upon faith.

A faith based on the assumption that Bumba does exist.

>> For that matter, any absolute proof would require the replacement of
>> "belief" with "knowledge": that for which there is evidence or proof
is
>> something that is known, not believed in.

You are starting to recognise your problem in the atheist news group.

> We are trying to make the _same_ case. Arguing the same points.

No, that we are not. You are assuming our lack of belief is as active as
your belief. It isn't in this case. Nor by the definition of atheism

Noun: atheism
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

[WordWeb.info]

Definition number one is popular usage, which dictionary's track. #2, is
the word as used by the originators of it. The Greeks. & they too would
kill an atheist.

>>> One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
>>> they had _no_ staying power.
>>
>> Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
>> 2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
>> Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.
> >
> It still died out.

Died out, or was forced out due to xians gaining the power to kill with
impunity.

By way of:
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Hypatia
An early manifestation of the religious divide of the time was the razing
of the Serapeum, the temple of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis, by
Theophilus, Alexandria’s bishop until his death in 412 ce. This event was
perhaps the final end of the great Library of Alexandria, since the
Serapeum may have contained some of the Library’s books. Theophilus,
however, was friendly with Synesius, an ardent admirer and pupil of
Hypatia, so she was not herself affected by this development but was
permitted to pursue her intellectual endeavours unimpeded. With the
deaths of Synesius and Theophilus and the accession of Cyril to the
bishopric of Alexandria, however, this climate of tolerance lapsed, and
shortly afterward Hypatia became the victim of a particularly brutal
murder at the hands of a gang of Christian zealots. It remains a matter
of vigorous debate how much the guilt of this atrocity is Cyril’s, but
the affair made Hypatia a powerful feminist symbol and a figure of
affirmation for intellectual endeavour in the face of ignorant prejudice.
Her intellectual accomplishments alone were quite sufficient to merit the
preservation and respect of her name, but sadly, the manner of her death
added to it an even greater emphasis.

Fortunately, xians no longer have the power to kill in the name of their
gods with impunity.

>> Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.
>>
>> So much for "staying power".
>>
> Christianity is still around. It branched off from Judaism, which is
> still around.

And? People believe many foolish things. But in the case of xianity, it
is a bloodstained kill the others type history. All the way from the 1st
cent, ce to the 16th cent ce. After the *enlightenment*, bishops had a
hard time getting the mobs to kill in the name of their gods. Weird, the
most violent wars of the time were between xians.

> Judaism had greater staying power than Ra. According to
> Wikipedia Ra by the 25 and 24 centuries BC had become a
> major religion. But the article doesn't say low long it
> survived. I haven't been able to document more than
> two thousand years.

Good starting point. Do you want to get into the pissing contest of when
was Judaism founded. The Judaism that is referred to became law of the
land when?

-400 BCE,
-500 BCe
-501 BCE
-600 BCE
or after a failed prophesy?

Surprise me, get it right & back up your information.

So, Judaism as understood by xians is not 4000+ yeas old. it is almost
as young as xianity.

BTW, once you answer the above, we get to play a fun game. When did the
Judeans become Israel. Hint, there is a good chance they never did.

walksalone who does realise, very few xians can do the study. It might
make them question their faith. & thereby, their salvation.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian




10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical
claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women,
children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy
Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in
the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you
find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen
sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the
exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in
all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet consider your religion
the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor
speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove"
Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers.
You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that
the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do
about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call
yourself a Christian.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <7cvZx.32530$Zs....@fx38.am4>,

Why do you think that's an answer to my question?

Please try again.

--

JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <y6vZx.32529$Zs....@fx38.am4>,

What do we believe?

[Christopher A. Lee]

The binary thinking, paranoid religious fanatic imagines that if
you're not "for" his religion, you're against it.

And like most religious fanatics he imagines the number of people who
believe something, somehow makes it true.

So when a majority of people believed the Earth was flat, it really
was - then one day it sprung into a sphere when enough people stopped
believing that.

>> >>> So fucking what?
>> >>>
>> >> It makes you a freak!
>> >
>> > How does it make me a freak?
>> >
>> > Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".
>> >
>> It's a mind thing.
>
>Why do you think that's an answer to my question?
>
>Please try again.

They would save themselves a heck of a lot of acrimony and
embarrassment if they learned to think outside their religion.

[Christopher A. Lee]

He's lying.

It might once have been an honest mistake, but we've now corrected him
several times, so its repetition amounts to lying about us, to us.

I've never understood the sheer, arrogant nastiness of this kind of
theist.
>What do we believe?

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

I see you are projecting again. Please seek counseling.

[Aerion E.]

It's a mindset that is alien or grossly "out of step" with the
overwhelming majority of humanity. But why did you jump in
uninvited to this discussion. Get lost!
>
> Please try again.
>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <lECZx.51060$lf3....@fx40.am4>,

How is not being the same as everyone else being a "freak"?

> But why did you jump in
> uninvited to this discussion. Get lost!

This is posted in alt.atheism. I am a member of alt.atheism. That means
I was most definitely invited to the discussion. If you wish to have a
private conversation, you have to do it in email.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3yCZx.51059$lf3....@fx40.am4>,
"Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/1/2015 10:13 AM, walksalone wrote:
> > "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

> > news:sVfZx.49097$_w5....@fx41.am4:

> >
> >> On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:
> >

> > snip

> >
> >>>>>>>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
> >>>>>>>> a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.
> >>>
> >>> Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.
> >>>
> >> Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
> >> atheism.
> >
> >

> > As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
> > much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
> > believers] can not match.
> > Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
> > be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
> > like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
> > could overcome that.
> >

> Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
> anyone. You have free agency.
> >>,SNip>

> >> I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
> >> creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party
> >> newsgroup.
> >
> >

> > And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it is OT,
> > as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.
> >
> That's odd. I subscribe to alt.talk.creationism yet I'm reading
> your words. Also I respond on the same site. How do you explain
> that?

> >
> >>>>> Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
> >>>>> nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
> >>>>>> welcome to it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, liar - that is not "my belief".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Look up the word "hypothetical".
> >>>>>
> >>>> I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
> >>>> that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!
> >>>
> >>> Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
> >>> belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
> >>> the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
> >>> would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
> >>> will rise in the east & I will still be alive.
> >>>
> >> If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
> >

> > What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
> > your gods are real.
> >
> NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
> broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
> upon evidence.
>
> The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we
> > take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
> > Another lesson from the US Military.
> >
> Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
> can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.


Why? What is it, precisely, that convinced you?

[Alex W.]

On 02/11/2015 05:30, Aerion E. wrote:

> On 11/1/2015 10:13 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

>> news:sVfZx.49097$_w5....@fx41.am4:

>>
>>> On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:
>>

>> snip

>>
>>>>>>>>> I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
>>>>>>>>> a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.
>>>>
>>>> Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.
>>>>
>>> Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
>>> atheism.
>>
>>

>> As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
>> much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real
>> true
>> believers] can not match.
>> Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no
>> longer
>> be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with
>> god
>> like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
>> could overcome that.
> >
> Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
> anyone. You have free agency.

If your god is omniscient, we cannot have free agency.

If we do have free agency, your god cannot punish us for exercising it.

>>>>
>>>> Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
>>>> belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
>>>> the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
>>>> would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
>>>> will rise in the east & I will still be alive.
>>>>
>>> If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
>>

>> What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
>> your gods are real.
> >
> NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
> broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
> upon evidence.

If it is based in faith, you have no evidence or logic beyond the power
of persuasion inherent in your person. Given your behaviour and your
attitude, those powers are pretty miniscule....

>
> The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we
>> take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as
>> such.
>> Another lesson from the US Military.
>>
> Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
> can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

That IS a claim.

[Alex W.]

On 01/11/2015 21:03, Aerion E. wrote:
> On 11/1/2015 5:57 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>> On 01/11/2015 03:45, Aerion E. wrote:
>>> On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
>>>> belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
>>>> the
>>>> sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be
>>>> any
>>>> life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the
>>>> east
>>>> & I will still be alive.
>>>>
>>> If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
>>> have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
>>> belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
>>> There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
>>> right.
>>
>> Let's go back to basics.
>>
>> You make an assertion: "god exists".
> >
> No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God
> exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
> matter of faith, not evidence.

In order to persuade us of the truth of your belief and further, to
share your belief, you cannot help but make that claim. It is
impossible to make an argument as to the existence of your god without
making a positive assertion to that effect.

Every time you dispute our position that we do not accept your belief,
you reiterate your assertion.

> >
>> This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
>> Them's the rules of the game.
> >
> If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.

You do, every time you state it.

Slapping "I believe" in front does not change the nature of the statement.

>>
>> In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".
> >
> I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
> without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.

Note the tiny little word "not".
We espouse an ABSENCE of a belief.
We decline to make an assertion.

If I were to phrase it differently and state that "I believe there is no
god", you would have a point. Since I do not do so (nor most of the
others in a.a.), there is no basis for your position.

>>
>> Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
>> This is not an assertion.
>> An assertion is always positive.
>> Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence of
>> a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of the
>> existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.
> >
> You cannot point to any statement where I've claimed "there is a God"!
> I have always understood that religion is based upon faith.

As before: simply sticking "I believe" in front of the statement does
not make it any less a positive assertion. There is no material
differnece between the statements that "there are leprechauns" and "I
believe there are leprechauns".

>>
>>> One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
>>> they had _no_ staying power.
>>
>> Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
>> 2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
>> Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.
> >
> It still died out.

Eventually, it did.
But to date, it still has one more millennium of staying power than
Christianity, so it's a stupid point to make.

>>
>> Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.
>>
>> So much for "staying power".
>>
> Christianity is still around. It branched off from Judaism, which is
> still around.
> Judaism had greater staying power than Ra. According to
> Wikipedia Ra by the 25 and 24 centuries BC had become a
> major religion. But the article doesn't say low long it
> survived. I haven't been able to document more than
> two thousand years.

And Australian Aboriginal religious beliefs have been around for at
least 40,000 years. That is documented and provable with hard
archaeological and anthorpological evidence. So what's the point of
your comment?

[walksalone]

"Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:3yCZx.51059$lf3....@fx40.am4:

> On 11/1/2015 10:13 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> "Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

>> news:sVfZx.49097$_w5....@fx41.am4:

>>
>>> On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:

snip

>>>> Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.
>>>>
>>> Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
>>> atheism.

>> As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere
>> as much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's
>> [real true believers] can not match.
>> Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no
>> longer be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural
>> entity with god like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might
>> kick in but a real god could overcome that.

> Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
> anyone. You have free agency.

So, you can read your gods minds. Even the archaic Hebrews could not do
that. Or at least, the Hebrew Bible says that.
No one has free agency. We do get choices, but free agency is an
apologetic ploy of believers of the revealed god of the desert. Do you
have free agency to avoid painful death? Say cancer? No you don't. You
may seek medical help, which was not provided by any god, including the
Greek God of medicine. Or any other one.
Can you prevent a miscarriage, aka holy abortion? I doubt it. At least
not without the help of medicine & the research it has done on the
problem.

>>>,SNip>

>>> I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
>>> creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party
>>> newsgroup.
>>
>>

>> And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it
>> is OT, as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.
> >
> That's odd. I subscribe to alt.talk.creationism yet I'm reading
> your words. Also I respond on the same site. How do you explain
> that?

Because you are the one composting. When you or I respond to a message,
it is sent to all groups in the newsgroups bloc, line, or however they
are displayed on your system.

snip

>>>>> I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete
>>>>> proof that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!
>>>>
>>>> Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not
>>>> a belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe
>>>> that the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, &
>>>> there would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence,
>>>> that it will rise in the east & I will still be alive.
>>>>
>>> If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all
>>> you
>>

>> What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive
>> claim, your gods are real.
> >
> NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
> broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
> upon evidence.

When in a discussion, you say a rattlesnake is in your lap, no one will
believe you for practical reasons. But, say god, & you make a
declaration. One you expect to be taken seriously. Almost like you
didn't realise how ignorant that makes anyone sound. It's not that you
should not have beliefs that differ, or coincide with others, but you can
keep it in your pants.
And the sad part to me, you are subconsciously unwilling to actually
study your beliefs, let alone question them.
Example, I had a neighbor that was raises xian. he was in his 50's or
later. He no longer believed, but the indoctrination still kicked in.
We found out when he asked to borrow a book. The Bible Unearthed. Has
nothing to do with the god question & isn't concerned with it. It took
him at least six months to read the book. Seems he would get started, &
never later than 20 minutes, would put it down, without marking the page,
& go do something that did not need done. Even his kids noticed it.

> The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we
>> take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as
>> such. Another lesson from the US Military.
>>
> Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
> can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

It's an implication. After all, there are gods you don't believe exist.
But your god, well it must be real for you would not willingly believe a
lie. Sorry, human nature has just bit you in the ass. You are starting
from an undeclared position. Just like I do when my daughters get
involved. I know they are the most beautiful women in the world has no
practical difference from I believe they are the most beautiful women in
the world. & they are.
Did you notice, I didn't qualify my belief? Ever wonder why.

snip

>> It's not a concern until someone like you shows up, declares they
>> know more than others, in your case, there are gods even though you
>> don't know that, for it's not a matter of concern. Bit like your
>> atheism where Anat is concerned. & the nice thing, you don't have to
>> use those exact words. Your conduct & attempts to get others to do
>> your work tell on you. Hum, this trend towards the deception of
>> themselves & others may explain politics around the world.
> >
> I neither need or want others to do 'work' for me.

You can avoid it for yourself, but when you show up in any atheist
newsgroup, well, it's already been done. & for you, it's onna the
pagoda.

>>> There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
>>> right.
>>
>>

>> Consider xianity is a death cult, like Judaism & Islam, Why would you
>> want others to suffer just because you are required to.
> >
> This is utter insanity, I'm _not_ required to suffer, nor do I want
> others to suffer.

Good, glad there is some part of the myth you don't willingly accept. I
take it you don't accept the hell of the early church, as described in
Revelation? Or is your version just as impossible. That is the absence
of a god that is everywhere. hell, he is nosier than Santa if you buy
into the myth.

You don't get it both ways, Nor are you allowed to change the meaning of
the text. But if the text is not reinterpreted, then people with morals
would never buy it today.

& yes, you are required to suffer in this life so you earn the privilege
of entering a eternal torture. That of standing around all day braying
praises to a god you probably wouldn't be able to see. All that radiance
you see.
Then of course, you may be, according to Revelation, denied access. It's
reservations only. 144,000 Jewish male virgins.

> I have noted that it was Christians who took me in, fed clothed and
> raised me. They cared for me. There were no atheist who offered to do
> the same.

& so, you give them your loyalty. Well that makes sense. & as far as
atheists not taking you in. Maybe they were not allowed. When I adopted
my three step kids, one of the questions the person sent to check me out
was, was I a atheist or did I act like one. Now there was a church at
the crossroads, & I never went. I would have not have known that if my
neighbors hadn't told me. Hopefully it is different in other states, &
no longer the case in Alabama. But even today, there have been reports
of atheists & homosexual/lesbian couples being given a hard time trying
to adapt war orphans, or kids in the US.
So you see, the law may have been the reason no atheist couple could take
you in. Or, like me, you were hard on the eyes.

>> snip

>>
>>>>> You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no
>>>>> truth, hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush.
>>
>>> I didn't apply this to others (plural) just one.
>>

>> When you denigrate any member of a group, you denigrate the others by
>> implication. That's from the tribal side of humanity.
> >
> I respond in kind, when a smart ass denigrates me or mine I return
> the "compliment".

Ah, I understand. It's that turn the other cheek syndrome.

>>> You
>>>> see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not
>>>> upset me. Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed
>>>> with here. But told her she should have included the preacher that
>>>> started the shit. & I even agree with those that call me a
>>>> bastard. Legally, & by archaic definition, I am. Of course, they
>>>> don't like it when I ask them what their excuse is.
>>>>
>>> In a sense you knew who your parents were.
>>

>> Which has nothing to do with the terms, ass hole & bastard. Your
>> point of confusion is yours.
> >
> No, but you were lucky in that. I have no known family.

It could be worse. You may have known your family, & that was not good.
My case, all early memories, say before the first grade, of my mother are
blocked out. Even hynotists can't dig it up. And according to one
hypnotist, he is glad. He said, & i believe him, I was getting so
aggitated he wa afraid for his own safety. & yet, I get accused of being
a decent person by several that one would not expect that from. Hell,
I've even been acused of being a xian. talk about hurt feelings.

>>>>>> If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your
>>>>>> religion, then you have to back them up using
>>>>>> outside-your-religion methods. In this case by providing the kind
>>>>>> of evidence for it that there is for the universe - because
>>>>>> that's your stupid question claimed the two were equivalent
>>>>>> outside your religion.
>>>>
>>>>> What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
>>>>> It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
>>>>> outside religion, it could also apply within.
>>

>> Noun: corollary
>> 1. A practical consequence that follows naturally
>> 2. (logic) an inference that follows directly from the proof of
>> another proposition
>>
>> [WordWeb.info]
>>
> I used it as an analogy and in keeping with what is defined as a
> mathematical concept.
> http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/corollary?s=t
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corollary?s=t

So it is no longer a corollary? Good, you are learning. Backpedaling,
but learning. Or, maybe that is what you were told the error was. Xian
apologetics as well known for twisting words & redefining them.
But, if it was an analogy, then it was so subtle only you saw it. BTW,
you might want to look at that word, analogy::))) Break it down to it's
components & it's the study of ass holes.

>>>> The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your
>>>> gods.
>>>> Of which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them
>>>> parallel the gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the
>>>> last god of the Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate
>>>> the Hebrew version. In the case of the missing messiah, had he
>>>> existed, he would have been a failed messiah.
>>>>
>>> No, only one.
>>

>> Really? I take it the knowledge of your myth & it's claimed
>> authority are somewhat below microscopic.
>> Hint, in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no evidence for a
>> historical jesus ben joseph. Given the era & location, there should
>> have been. Bit like the missing works of King David & King Solomon.
>> & before you try the old lack of evidence weasel out. Lack of
>> evidence when there should be evidence is evidence of lack.
>>
>> As you don't know what a messiah was at that time, read & learn.
>> References on request after you pass the quiz.
> >
> I read some of this, but there is no way I'm going to take time
> or the effort to respond to this colloquy. Most of it is without
> references or from the obsoleted Old Testament. I have neither the
> time nor the inclination to do so.

Of course your're not going to examine anything that may show your faith
to be, shall we say, misplaced. After all, you know you are right.
Well, you think you do, & for you that's good enough. & as long as you
are not pedaling the error in the atheist group, it's more than good
enough for me.


> However, if you didn't copy and past, this took a huge amount of
> your time. I appreciate that. And I will one day come back to this.

I keep it on file. Feel free to ask for information of that nature.

>> Prerequisites To Recognize the Messiah
>>
>>
>> The Tanach (composed of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim) is
>> transparent on the subject of the role of the messiah. It should be
>> noted that, although there are many sections throughout the Tanach
>> that vividly describe how the world will be forever transformed with
>> the arrival of the messiah, very few are about the messiah
>> personally. The vast quantity of messianic scripture in the Tanach
>> (Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim) depicts the state of perfection that
>> the world will achieve at the end of days. It is quite clear from the
>> vantage point of the Tanach that the significance of the messiah
>> himself pales in comparison to the utopian age that his arrival will
>> usher in. In Jeremiah, chapter 33, verse 17, G-d says that the royal
>> House of David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel.
>>
>> The reason Jews and Noahides don't accept the messiah of Christendom
>> is because Jesus did not fulfill any of the clear messianic
>> prophecies foretold in the Tanach. In addition, the Tanach never
>> tells of believing in the messiah because either the events leading
>> to his advent will be so undeniable, or his reign will be a
>> historically verifiable reality and self-evident to anyone. Because
>> no person has ever fulfilled the prophecies in the Tanach given of
>> this future King, the Jewish people still await the coming of the
>> messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus, have
>> ultimately been rejected by the Jewish people simply because they did
>> not measure up to the prophecies.

Snip, those poor electrons need a break.

>> All Warfare Will Cease
>>
>> "And He shall judge among the nations and decide for many peoples;
>> and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears
>> into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
>> neither shall they learn war anymore." -- Isaiah 2:4

That right there tells me there has been no messiah as claimed by the
xians.

snip

>> Now the Jews did recognize a messiah. Care to name him?

snip

>>> Atheist don't indoctrinate children? Of course they do.
>>

>> As in deliberate indoctrination via xianity. Never seen it. So your
>> verifiable reference will be, with references. Post them here or
>> withdraw your lie.

snip

>>>>> absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not
>>>>> be a belief. Otherwise it's belief!
>>>>
>>>> No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided.
>>>>
>>> Neither can be proven, therefore both are beliefs. That is neither
>>

>> Assuming existence of your god, yes it could. True, no autographs,
>> no photos, but things that interact with our time space physical
>> location leave evidence. Take the parting of the Red Sea. yes, I
>> know it never happed for the exodus & moses are fiction according to
>> the evidence. When xians go to the location, in spite of Ron Wyatt,
>> there is no evidence of the violent motions of the waters, no
>> footprints, no chariot tracks or parts.
>> The evidence shows it to be a just so story. BTW, I've seen videos
>> that show how it could have happened. But again, no physical
>> evidence.

>>
>>> can God existence be proven, neither can it's absence. So, both
>>> are beliefs.
>>

>> There is that three letter word again. Until you can define a word,
>> it is meaningless in a medium of this nature.
>>
>> Try this for starters.
>>
>> Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities
>> of the human species. [Incomplete]
>>
>> Anthropomorphic
>> A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
>> B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the
>> Greek
>> pantheon as an example]
>> C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
>> D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
>> concerned.
>> E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
>> victim
>> of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these types
>> of gods.]
>> Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
>> lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less
>> powerful than others.
>> Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
>> worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
>> Germanic in origin.
>> Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the European
>> ones.
>> Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything
>> from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red
>> Hat, are not.
>> Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world,
>> they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
>> understand the term.
>> Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
>> Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of
>> humans or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are
>> entitled to go.
>> Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
>> Astral/solar All heavenly bodies


Sincere & heart felt snip.

Thank gosh that is over for now. Now I can attend to something
important. making a cup pa coffee.


walksalone who suspects that the OP is hooked for life. I can only hope
he keeps his apparent decent streak & never degrades to fundy level.

[walksalone]

"Aerion E." <Aer...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:lECZx.51060$lf3....@fx40.am4:

> On 11/1/2015 8:39 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <7cvZx.32530$Zs....@fx38.am4>,

snip

>>>>>>> The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
>>>>>>> religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
>>>>>>> are the minority, as such you are the outside.
>>>>>>> <snip more of the same>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So fucking what?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It makes you a freak!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does it make me a freak?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".
>>>>
>>> It's a mind thing.
>>
>> Why do you think that's an answer to my question?

> It's a mindset that is alien or grossly "out of step" with the
> overwhelming majority of humanity. But why did you jump in
> uninvited to this discussion. Get lost!

Oh boy. You just screwed the pooch. Jeanne is a long time member of the
group. Not to mention, xians are supposed to be civil to others. No
matter how they act according to the Greek testaments. It's an extension
of that turn the other cheek thing.

Now as a member of the group, she has every right to join a conversation.
No usenet message is private. that's what email is for.

>> Please try again.

No, you need to try again, starting with an apology & them actually
reading the information provided at:

http://netghost.narod.ru/gff/graphics/book/appa_03.htm
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Now this is not a moderated group, but civility is considered good form.
Especially if you wish to be taken seriously.

So loosen up your jock strap & return to the real world of usenet.

walksalone who does wish he could say he was startled by the outburst.
But in truth I can't willingly tell a lie. So no, I am not.

Scriptures: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished
from the false and profane writings on which all other
faiths are based.
Ambrose Bierce

[Aerion E.]

All right, but how is it that I'm not reading it alt.atheism, but
instead on alt.talk creationism?

[Aerion E.]

I cannot explain what convinced me in a sentence or two.

[Aerion E.]

Yes, where our free agency begins is where God's omniscience ends.
As far as exercising free agency, there has to be restrictions such as
stealing, cheating, murder, bearing false witnessing and lying. Free
agency doesn't provide us cover to commit such as this.
>
>>>>>
<snip>

>>> What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
>>> your gods are real.
>> >
>> NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
>> broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
>> upon evidence.
>
> If it is based in faith, you have no evidence or logic beyond the power
> of persuasion inherent in your person. Given your behaviour and your
> attitude, those powers are pretty miniscule....
>

I'm not trying to convince you to believe as I do. The fact is I don't
know you and furthermore, I don't care for you, so why should I care
and be concerned about you? Just so you know.

>
>>
>> The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we
>>> take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as
>>> such.
>>> Another lesson from the US Military.
>>>
>> Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
>> can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.
>
> That IS a claim.
>

No, it's a personal view.
>

[Alex W.]

Sorry, but omniscience does not work that way. An omniscient deity is
literally all-knowing. Not "all-knowing but only up to a certain
point". Not "i know everything that was, is, and will be ... except for
this bit here, and that bit over there, and some bits over yonder".
Omniscience is by its definition an absolute.

> As far as exercising free agency, there has to be restrictions such as
> stealing, cheating, murder, bearing false witnessing and lying. Free
> agency doesn't provide us cover to commit such as this.

None of these have much to do with your god. They are the cornerstones
of human morality whatever one's deity or ideology. But your god tells
you the believer that I, exercising my free agency to not believe in his
existence, will be punished with everlasting damnation and hellfire.

> >
>>>>>>
> <snip>
>>>> What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive
>>>> claim,
>>>> your gods are real.
>>> >
>>> NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
>>> broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
>>> upon evidence.
>>
>> If it is based in faith, you have no evidence or logic beyond the power
>> of persuasion inherent in your person. Given your behaviour and your
>> attitude, those powers are pretty miniscule....
>>
> I'm not trying to convince you to believe as I do. The fact is I don't
> know you and furthermore, I don't care for you, so why should I care
> and be concerned about you? Just so you know.

Actually, if you read your scripture you should know better. It is your
duty to care for your fellow man. And no, that does not just mean the
shlub warming a barstool next to you. Matthew 22:39 and Leviticus
19:18, if you wish to refresh your memory.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <W3OZx.217703$gD7.1...@fx34.am4>,

Try. Try 5 sentences or 6.

--

JD

I靶e officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <00OZx.217702$gD7....@fx34.am4>,

Because it's cross-posted. Are you actually stupid?

--

JD

Išve officially given up trying to find the bottom

[bil...@m.nu]

Oh Oh wait let me help. I can do it in one word....

Stupidity, Desperation, Gullibility,

sorry that was three, but hey whos counting

[bil...@m.nu]

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:08:00 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>> > This is posted in alt.atheism. I am a member of alt.atheism. That means
>> > I was most definitely invited to the discussion. If you wish to have a
>> > private conversation, you have to do it in email.
>> >
>> All right, but how is it that I'm not reading it alt.atheism, but
>> instead on alt.talk creationism?
>
>Because it's cross-posted. Are you actually stupid?

ding ding ding...

JD you know that they are, I know that they are, even they have a
feeling that they are because they believe in fairies.

JD let me ask you something and give me your honest opinion so that
everyone can see exactly what I mean....

If I believed the "Man in the Moon" was a real being and I worshiped
and prayed to it, had millions of people killed because of it, would
that be incredibly stupid of me? Do you thing that this Aerion E.
would think I was stupid?

[Aerion E.]

On 11/2/2015 6:35 AM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 01/11/2015 21:03, Aerion E. wrote:
>> On 11/1/2015 5:57 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2015 03:45, Aerion E. wrote:
>>>> On 10/31/2015 7:48 PM, walksalone wrote:

<snip>

>>>>>
>>>> If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
>>>> have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
>>>> belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
>>>> There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> Let's go back to basics.
>>>
>>> You make an assertion: "god exists".
>> >
>> No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God
>> exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
>> matter of faith, not evidence.
>
> In order to persuade us of the truth of your belief and further, to
> share your belief,
>

I'm no crusader, I don't care whether you believe or not. It means
absolutely nothing to me.
>
It is you cannot help but make that claim.

>
> impossible to make an argument as to the existence of your god without
> making a positive assertion to that effect.
>
> Every time you dispute our position that we do not accept your belief,
> you reiterate your assertion.
>

As someone stated earlier, we ore on opposite sides of the same coin. I
cannot prove my POV, neither can you. And without absolute proof,
it can only be trust, faith and belief.

>
>> >
>>> This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
>>> Them's the rules of the game.
>> >
>> If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.
>
> You do, every time you state it.
>
> Slapping "I believe" in front does not change the nature of the statement.
>

It certainly does. There _is_ a difference between _knowing_ something
to be true, and _believing_ it to be true.

>
>>>
>>> In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".
>> >
>> I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
>> without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.
>
> Note the tiny little word "not".
> We espouse an ABSENCE of a belief.
> We decline to make an assertion.
>
> If I were to phrase it differently and state that "I believe there is no
> god", you would have a point. Since I do not do so (nor most of the
> others in a.a.), there is no basis for your position.
>
>
>>>
>>> Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
>>> This is not an assertion.
>>> An assertion is always positive.
>>> Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence of
>>> a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of the
>>> existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.
>> >
>> You cannot point to any statement where I've claimed "there is a God"!
>> I have always understood that religion is based upon faith.
>
> As before: simply sticking "I believe" in front of the statement does
> not make it any less a positive assertion. There is no material
> differnece between the statements that "there are leprechauns" and "I
> believe there are leprechauns".
>

Sorry, you are mistaken. The statement "there _are_ leprechauns" is a
statement of fact (wrong as it might be) and "I believe there are
leprechauns" is an personal opinion, _not_ a statement of fact.
Opinions are not facts!

>
>>>
>>>> One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
>>>> they had _no_ staying power.
>>>
>>> Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
>>> 2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
>>> Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.
>> >
>> It still died out.
>
> Eventually, it did.
> But to date, it still has one more millennium of staying power than
> Christianity, so it's a stupid point to make.
>

Can you say that Christianity won't be around another 2000 years? No:
nobody can.

>
>>>
>>> Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.
>>>
>>> So much for "staying power".
>>>
>> Christianity is still around. It branched off from Judaism, which is
>> still around.
>> Judaism had greater staying power than Ra. According to
>> Wikipedia Ra by the 25 and 24 centuries BC had become a
>> major religion. But the article doesn't say low long it
>> survived. I haven't been able to document more than
>> two thousand years.
>
> And Australian Aboriginal religious beliefs have been around for at
> least 40,000 years. That is documented and provable with hard
> archaeological and anthorpological evidence. So what's the point of
> your comment?
>

What is their religion?