Evolution is Action yet Again - New Information in the Genome
Budikka666
and we see it in action all the time:
http://tinyurl.com/yfvomx7
(http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
Budikka
ilbe...@gmail.com
Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
Creationists are lying ! >>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
. I know you dont REALLY believe you are the result of accidental
unpurposed non meaningful slimey crap known as Pond Scum . Its all
just an elaborate game of Pretend ... the making of excuses so God
doesnt have to be dealt with in ones personal life --- at least, not
yet.
Tim Miller
> On Oct 27, 5:57 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Contrary to the flagrant LIES of the creationists, evolution is a fact
>> and we see it in action all the time:http://tinyurl.com/yfvomx7
>> (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>
>> Budikka
>
> Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
> Creationists are lying
Well, yeah, they do. But you lying "quote miners" continue
to take what they say completely out of context.
Lying. Doesn't that mean YOU'RE GOIN' TO HELL???
LOL!!
Frankie Lee
wrote:
*** That's where you miss the points.Christians don't favor lies.We
believe in integrity and honesty.
Free Lunch
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a287d6c7-67d2-4672...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Oct 27, 5:57�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Contrary to the flagrant LIES of the creationists, evolution is a fact
>> and we see it in action all the time:http://tinyurl.com/yfvomx7
>> (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
>Creationists are lying ! >>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
No matter how many times you repeat to us the pathetic falsehoods that
anti-science creationists choose to tell, the facts will not change. You
will still have reality laughing at the silly stories you tell.
>. I know you dont REALLY believe you are the result of accidental
>unpurposed non meaningful slimey crap known as Pond Scum . Its all
>just an elaborate game of Pretend ... the making of excuses so God
>doesnt have to be dealt with in ones personal life --- at least, not
>yet.
Whenever you get around to providing some evidence for God, I'll start
listening to you, but we both know that you won't do that because (1)
you know there is no evidence for God and (2) you are so afraid of
learning that you would never consider trying to find out if there is
any evidence for God.
You mock God with your falsehoods and intentional ignorance. You don't
care about anything but the fact that you put your money on some
bizarre, twisted version of Christianity and you will never admit to us,
possibly not even to yourself, that your bet has gone horribly wrong.
Free Lunch
Frankie Lee <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<8e6ee2b8-5947-44db...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:
Since you've already demonstrated that you are a liar, you'll have to
explain how you could persuade anyone with a brain cell that you are a
Christian.
Uncle Vic
Then why do you harp on about evolution being a myth? Especially in the
face of mountains of physical evidence?
May I guess?
You favor integrity and honesty when you tell your despicable lies.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
> Creationists are lying ! >>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
<blink>
Robibnikoff
"Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> babbled:
*** That's where you miss the points.Christians don't favor lies.We
believe in integrity and honesty.
LOL - You're funny.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Tim Miller
> "Frankie Lee" <leea...@yahoo.com> babbled:
>
> *** That's where you miss the points.Christians don't favor lies.We
> believe in integrity and honesty.
>
> LOL - You're funny.
If by "funny" you mean "pathetic and ignorant"...
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
on nothing but lies. You clowns lie about your gods, lie about events
in history, lie about knowledge of things you can't prove.
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
All a theist knows is how to tell lies. And so far, Frankie, you've
told some whoppers here.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
polymer
...where integrity means doing what your church tells you to do,
and where honesty means saying what your church tells you to say.
"There is a very intimate connection between
hypnotic phenomena and religion."
-- Havelock Ellis
Fragments@ech.co.uk Skill Fragments
>> *** That's where you miss the points.Christians don't favor lies.We
>> believe in integrity and honesty.
>>
And yet, in all the postings I've seen in all the newsgroups across all of
the internet, I've never seen *anything* that lied as much or as
effortlessly as a Christian... It's been an astounding experience to see the
depths they sink to...
SF.
polymer
Being the biggest, most bald-faced liar gets a Christian appointed
to a lucrative church position.
Fragments@ech.co.uk Skill Fragments
>>>>
>> And yet, in all the postings I've seen in all the newsgroups across
>> all of the internet, I've never seen *anything* that lied as much or
>> as effortlessly as a Christian... It's been an astounding experience
>> to see the depths they sink to...
>>
>> SF.
>
> Being the biggest, most bald-faced liar gets a Christian appointed
> to a lucrative church position.
I bet you're mostly thinking of Pope Palpatine...? I mean, Pope Panzer
XVI...? I mean, the guy Robert Fisk once described as "anti-abortion,
anti-gay, and anti-aircaft"...?
SF.
Smiler
You owe me an Irony Meter for that.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Free Lunch
Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote in
<Xns9CB1EA37...@216.196.97.131>:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
>> Creationists are lying ! >>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>
><blink>
>
>anointed-one.net?
Some people worship themselves more than others.
thomas p.
"Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:L%3Gm.1084$tF5...@newsfe25.ams2...
> Frankie Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 9:52 am, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 27, 5:57 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>> Contrary to the flagrant LIES of the creationists, evolution is a
>>>>> fact and we see it in action all the
>>>>> time:http://tinyurl.com/yfvomx7
>>>>> (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>>
>>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>>> Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
>>>> Creationists are lying
>>>
>>> Well, yeah, they do. But you lying "quote miners" continue
>>> to take what they say completely out of context.
>>>
>>> Lying. Doesn't that mean YOU'RE GOIN' TO HELL???
>>>
>>> LOL!!
>>
>> *** That's where you miss the points.Christians don't favor lies.We
>> believe in integrity and honesty.
>
> You owe me an Irony Meter for that.
I have actually met a few Christians who were very honest and, even more
important, very compassionate people. I also noticed that they were the
ones least likely to be interested in discussing doctrine or beliefs. I
don't think their admirable qualities had anything to do with their
Christianity.
Twangman
>Frankie Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 9:52 am, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 27, 5:57 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>> Contrary to the flagrant LIES of the creationists, evolution is a
>>>>> fact and we see it in action all the
>>>>> time:http://tinyurl.com/yfvomx7
>>>>> (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>>
>>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>>> Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
>>>> Creationists are lying
>>>
>>> Well, yeah, they do. But you lying "quote miners" continue
>>> to take what they say completely out of context.
>>>
>>> Lying. Doesn't that mean YOU'RE GOIN' TO HELL???
>>>
>>> LOL!!
>>
>> *** That's where you miss the points.Christians don't favor lies.We
>> believe in integrity and honesty.
>
>You owe me an Irony Meter for that.
But what he says is true: They only use lies and dishonesty because, if they didn't, they
would have nothing to say.
Puck Greenman
Somehow, I doubt me the witchypoo, was being that polite.
Always remember, it is not the word, but the intent behind it, that makes it a swear word.
Budikka666
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>Unmet challenge #1
>The challenge I offered you in this thread:
>http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
>on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Now, now, dud, you're not exactly one to stand up under the scrutiny that we put
you through.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Unmet challenge #1
> >The challenge I offered you in this thread:
> >http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
> >on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
>
> Now, now, dud, you're not exactly one to stand up under the scrutiny that we put
> you through.
Here's where you FLED when I challenged you directly - at least once a
month for the last four months:
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/lldf56
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
End of you. Case closed.
Budikka
Cory Albrecht
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "IlBe...@gmail.com"<ilbe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
>> Creationists are lying !>>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>
> <blink>
>
> anointed-one.net?
>
Quote miner's wet dream.
Cory Albrecht
Then why do you lie, Frankie, and try to put words in my mouth?
Integrity and honesty, my Equus asinus.
Tim Miller
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Unmet challenge #1
>> The challenge I offered you in this thread:
>> http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
>> on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
>
> Now, now, dud, you're not exactly one to stand up under the scrutiny that we put
> you through.
"We"?? You still have that gerbil up your ass, duke??
Go back to your ball on a string. ONE day, you may just get it!
Ron Dean
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:36:08 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
> "IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <a287d6c7-67d2-4672...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Oct 27, 5:57 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> Contrary to the flagrant LIES of the creationists, evolution is a fact
>>> and we see it in action all the time:http://tinyurl.com/yfvomx7
>>> (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>>
>>> Budikka
>> Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
>> Creationists are lying ! >>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>
> No matter how many times you repeat to us the pathetic falsehoods that
> anti-science creationists choose to tell, the facts will not change. You
> will still have reality laughing at the silly stories you tell.
>
>> . I know you dont REALLY believe you are the result of accidental
>> unpurposed non meaningful slimey crap known as Pond Scum . Its all
>> just an elaborate game of Pretend ... the making of excuses so God
>> doesnt have to be dealt with in ones personal life --- at least, not
>> yet.
>
> Whenever you get around to providing some evidence for God, I'll start
> listening to you, but we both know that you won't do that because (1)
> you know there is no evidence for God
>
belief or disbelief in God. Death comes to us all. So, we can
revel in our own complacency while we are alive, however, if we
right, it wont matter, if we disbelieve and are wrong and there is
a God to whom we are responsible, there will be no excuse acceptable.
thomas p.
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:ppnSm.14889$_b5....@newsfe22.iad...
It would save you time if you just said that you had no evidence instead of
the above wordy equivalent.
snip
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Each person is solely responsible for his own decisions regarding
>belief or disbelief in God.
What is there to decide in the real world outside your religion,
imbecile?
> Death comes to us all. So, we can
>revel in our own complacency while we are alive, however, if we
>right, it wont matter, if we disbelieve and are wrong and there is
>a God to whom we are responsible, there will be no excuse acceptable.
What a fucking moron.
Q: What kind of idiot threatens us with what he knows we don't
believe, for not believing it instead of demonstrating it actually is
is real outside his fevered imagination?
A: Somebody who is incapable of backing it up.
So demonstrate there is, instead of rudely and stupidly begging the
same question you keep copping out of anwering.
What is it that makes so many Christians so mind-bogglingly stupid?
Free Lunch
So, you gussied up Pascal's logically defective Wager and trotted it
out. We can start out with Homer's Rejoinder "What if we chose the wrong
religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder." Homer wasn't
even thinking of the wrong god. So, let's look at the rest of the logic
space for what Pascal ignored:
1. You assume that the Christian doctrine of Hell is valid. If God is
all-loving as most Christians teach, then there is no reason for God to
send anyone to Hell. Sadly, most Christians sound more like the
self-righteous brother of the Prodigal Son, whining about how their dad
shouldn't have let the wretch come back.
2. You assume that you are worshipping the right God and that He wants
you to worship Him. You rely on an old unreliable scripture to do so.
Thousands of different sects of Christianity cannot decide the right way
to do this. Why do you assume you are correct?
3. You assume that only your faith counts. Why would it? Is God so
self-absorbed that he prefers supposed Christians like Benny Hinn or Ken
Ham who make their money scamming the faithful than Stephen Jay Gould?
I have no evidence that anything that Christianity teaches about belief
is true. You do not either. Remember that Pascal's Wager came to a
logically invalid conclusion because it ignored the vast majority of
possible outcomes.
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
But he got to throw Pascal's Wager in along with not admitting he had no
evidence.
Dutch
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:50:59 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Each person is solely responsible for his own decisions regarding
>>belief or disbelief in God.
>
> What is there to decide in the real world outside your religion,
> imbecile?
That question makes no sense. You exist in the real world, and you are
responsible for your beliefs. What is to decide is what you believe. He just
named one thing.
>> Death comes to us all. So, we can
>>revel in our own complacency while we are alive, however, if we
>>right, it wont matter, if we disbelieve and are wrong and there is
>>a God to whom we are responsible, there will be no excuse acceptable.
>
> What a fucking moron.
>
> Q: What kind of idiot threatens us with what he knows we don't
> believe, for not believing it instead of demonstrating it actually is
> is real outside his fevered imagination?
>
> A: Somebody who is incapable of backing it up.
>
> So demonstrate there is, instead of rudely and stupidly begging the
> same question you keep copping out of anwering.
>
> What is it that makes so many Christians so mind-bogglingly stupid?
What makes YOU so dense? You've been parroting this "paradigm" argument for
years and it has never made any sense.
Ron Dean
> "Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:ppnSm.14889$_b5....@newsfe22.iad...
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:36:08 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
>>> "IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> <a287d6c7-67d2-4672...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>>> On Oct 27, 5:57 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>> Contrary to the flagrant LIES of the creationists, evolution is a fact
>>>>> and we see it in action all the time:http://tinyurl.com/yfvomx7
>>>>> (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>>>>
>>>>> Budikka
>>>> Some of the most prominent Evolutionists themselves dont think
>>>> Creationists are lying ! >>> http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
>>> No matter how many times you repeat to us the pathetic falsehoods that
>>> anti-science creationists choose to tell, the facts will not change. You
>>> will still have reality laughing at the silly stories you tell.
>>>> . I know you dont REALLY believe you are the result of accidental
>>>> unpurposed non meaningful slimey crap known as Pond Scum . Its all
>>>> just an elaborate game of Pretend ... the making of excuses so God
>>>> doesnt have to be dealt with in ones personal life --- at least, not
>>>> yet.
>>> Whenever you get around to providing some evidence for God, I'll start
>>> listening to you, but we both know that you won't do that because (1)
>
>> Each person is solely responsible for his own decisions regarding
>> belief or disbelief in God. Death comes to us all. So, we can
>> revel in our own complacency while we are alive, however, if we
>> right, it wont matter, if we disbelieve and are wrong and there is
>> a God to whom we are responsible, there will be no excuse acceptable.
>
> It would save you time if you just said that you had no evidence instead of
> the above wordy equivalent.
>
demonstrated or proven. Nor do I claim that I have hard empirical
evidence for God.
But the fact that there is something instead of nothing, as far as I am
personally concerned, implies a designer. But you ignored responsibility.
Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>
> snip
>
>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Then shut the fuck up about it.
>But the fact that there is something instead of nothing, as far as I am
>personally concerned, implies a designer.
Look up "argument from ignorance".
You don't know and can't think of anything else so it must be some
kind of god.
Yeah, right.
And you insist on this to people you know don't share your religious
beliefs.
Why don't you do some reading on the current state of cosmology and
stop embarrassing yourself?
> But you ignored responsibility.
Don't claim it and you won't get told to put up or shut up.
And you won't need to show your lack of intellectual honesty.
>Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
Look up "falsifiable default", imbecile.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Good, like most Christians, you are honest about that lack of evidence.
Sadly, there are many here who claim to be Christian and then tell us
falsehoods about this.
>But the fact that there is something instead of nothing, as far as I am
>personally concerned, implies a designer.
That is not clear thinking. You make an assumption that you cannot
defend.
>But you ignored responsibility.
What responsibility?
>Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
If there are any gods, why do you think that they are completely hidden?
What responsibility do you have to us? Is it to repeat old stories?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
The dishonest wordy equivalent that leaves out all the other gods he
doesn't believe in either, that he stupidly uses to people he knows
don't believe in his one to "justify" it. Because he can't understand
that we are part of the world beyond his religion.
Which is one of the reasons so many of them get treated as the idiots
this tells us they are.
Which brings us full circle: like most serious religionists he is a
narcissist. As Laura (the excellent FactVsReligion on youtube)
describes it, everybody else's POV is an extension of his own one.
Whether this type is attracted to religion or it turns them into it,
the result is the same.
>>I cannot point to a peer reviewed article where the existence of God is
>>demonstrated or proven. Nor do I claim that I have hard empirical
>>evidence for God.
Then he shouldn't beg the question by rudely and stupidly presuming it
outside his religion.
>Good, like most Christians, you are honest about that lack of evidence.
>Sadly, there are many here who claim to be Christian and then tell us
>falsehoods about this.
Which he has done repeatedly.
>>But the fact that there is something instead of nothing, as far as I am
>>personally concerned, implies a designer.
"Arguments" from a combination of personal ignorance and personal
incredulity, to "conclude" what he already believes as a non-sequitur.
But in any case Quantum Mechanics demonstrates the appearance of
particles appearing out of nothing.
Which makes it easier to dismiss this sort of non-argument even though
it fails due to both basic logic errors and information theory.
>That is not clear thinking. You make an assumption that you cannot
>defend.
He only gets told to put up or shut up because he keeps begging the
question.
And like most theists he hasn't the honesty to do either.
As well as failing to understand that to us, outside his religion, it
is an abstract intellectual exercise in logic applied what he insists
on telling us.
>>But you ignored responsibility.
>
>What responsibility?
Because he lives in his own reality he imagines it is our job to
disprove it - using his reality's rules not those of the real world.
>>Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>>saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
The guy's out of touch with reality.
>If there are any gods, why do you think that they are completely hidden?
>What responsibility do you have to us? Is it to repeat old stories?
By even discussing it we give what remains merely somebody else's
religious belief they haven't the courtesy and common sense to keep
where it belongs, unjustified credibility.
We should not be bound by language that implicitly grants his beliefs
when the only place they are, is inside his religion.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:40:31 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote
>in alt.talk.creationism:
>>> Each person is solely responsible for his own decisions regarding
>>> belief or disbelief in God.
What is there to decide?
Again he presumes it outside his religion.
>>> Death comes to us all. So, we can
>>> revel in our own complacency while we are alive, however, if we
>>> right, it wont matter, if we disbelieve and are wrong and there is
>>> a God to whom we are responsible, there will be no excuse acceptable.
>>
>>It would save you time if you just said that you had no evidence instead of
>>the above wordy equivalent.
>
>But he got to throw Pascal's Wager in along with not admitting he had no
>evidence.
Do they honestly not understand what message it sends?
Or do they simply not care?
Free Lunch
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I think it comes down to "It's not really a lie if you lie for the Lord"
in their minds.
>Or do they simply not care?
Their gods are weak and need to have lies told on their behalf.
thomas p.
I have not assured anybody that there is no, god, nor have I assured anybody
that there are not leprechauns who will torture anyone who does not put out
milk and cookies for them each night. Suppose those leprechauns do exist,
how are you going to escape your responsibility?
You have no evidence for your claim, thus there is no reason for anyone to
worry about it one way or the other or any of the other literally millions
of
claims unsupported by any evidence. There is just as much reason to worry
about Santa or leprechauns as there is to worry about your story - none.
Dutch
> religious belief they haven't the courtesy and common sense to keep
> where it belongs, unjustified credibility.
Denial does not grant credibility.
>>Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>>saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
> We should not be bound by language that implicitly grants his beliefs
> when the only place they are, is inside his religion.
The premise was explicit, "Suppose there is a God.."
Are you incapable of dealing with a premise without feeling that your own
belief system has been compromised?
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Even if there is a God, there's no evidence that He is anything like the
God presented by Christians, Moslems or Jews and good reasons to say
that the God presented by these religions does not exist. Why worry
about it when no gods are interacting with us?
Dutch
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:40:31 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>>> Each person is solely responsible for his own decisions regarding
>>>> belief or disbelief in God.
>
> What is there to decide?
Whether or not the concept of a supreme being is valid.
> Again he presumes it outside his religion.
That is an erroneous observation.
The following statement is valid, "Each person is solely responsible for his
own decisions regarding belief or disbelief in _x_.
So all ideas and concepts can be substituted for _x_ and the statement
remains valid.
>
>>>> Death comes to us all. So, we can
>>>> revel in our own complacency while we are alive, however, if we
>>>> right, it wont matter, if we disbelieve and are wrong and there is
>>>> a God to whom we are responsible, there will be no excuse acceptable.
>>>
>>>It would save you time if you just said that you had no evidence instead
>>>of
>>>the above wordy equivalent.
>>
>>But he got to throw Pascal's Wager in along with not admitting he had no
>>evidence.
>
> Do they honestly not understand what message it sends?
>
> Or do they simply not care?
Do you care that you sound like a bitter old man?
Christopher A. Lee
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
>> By even discussing it we give what remains merely somebody else's
>> religious belief they haven't the courtesy and common sense to keep
>> where it belongs, unjustified credibility.
>
>Denial does not grant credibility.
"Deny" is a loaded word with the implicit presumption that there is
something to deny.
>>>Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>>>saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>
>> We should not be bound by language that implicitly grants his beliefs
>> when the only place they are, is inside his religion.
>
>The premise was explicit, "Suppose there is a God.."
Which is no different to his audience than "suppose there are
leprechauns". He is is also presuming it.
>Are you incapable of dealing with a premise without feeling that your own
>belief system has been compromised?
It's just how language works.
Are you capable of responding without resorting to personal lies about
"my belief system" that I don't even have, deliberately nasty liar?
James Burns
> thomas p. wrote:
>> It would save you time if you just said that you had
>> no evidence instead of the above wordy equivalent.
>
> I cannot point to a peer reviewed article where the
> existence of God is demonstrated or proven. Nor do I
> claim that I have hard empirical evidence for God.
>
> But the fact that there is something instead of nothing,
> as far as I am personally concerned, implies a designer.
Do you understand what you've written means? You write
that you would take any kind of universe at all as
evidence of a designer. You are claiming that it is
/impossible/ for the universe to be undesigned.
Surely, you can see this is unreasonable. Even if you
are granted your universe-creator for the sake of argument,
surely you agree that it is /possible/ for this being
to "design" a universe by doing nothing, and seeing what
will happen next.
I think that the reason you would claim any kind of
universe at all as one that looks created is that
you do not expect to find any more "evidence" beyond
the existence of the universe. You do not expect to
find any "tool-marks" made by the creator, and so you
prepare some hand-waving to dodge the consequences
of their absence.
> But you ignored responsibility. Suppose there is a God,
> can I pass off my responsibility to you by saying
> Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
What responsibility are you talking about? You seem to
have teleported yourself from "There is some sort of
universe-designer, of some unknown kind" to "The
specific God written of in the Bible is that designer."
How did you get yourself all the way over there?
If you go by the evidence presented by your senses,
as you seemed to want to do just a few sentences ago,
you are faced with either (1) a universe that shows
no "tool-marks", no signs of being created by some
sort of super-powered being, or (2) a universe that
has had the "tool-marks" very carefully /removed/.
The only reasonable interpretation of "tool-marks"
being removed (by the creator -- who else could it be?)
is the the creator /wants/ you not to believe in
him. Sure, God's ways may be subtle, and all that,
but if he wanted you to believe, the worst way to
do that would be to remove all evidence of his
existence. And that remains true no matter how
omniscient this creator is, no matter how /alien/
his thoughts are, because that is a truth about us
humans, not about him.
Therefore, the most that could be said about anyone's
responsibility to the (hypothetical) creator is that,
if they want to do what he wants, stop believing he
exists. Luckily, if this creator not only looks like
he doesn't exist but really does not exist, as well,
then the best strategy is still to believe he
does not exist. It's a win for the non-believer,
heads or tails.
Jim Burns
Ron Dean
Ron Dean
from nothing. The Greeks were first to argue that nothing comes from
nothing. or ever could could. If you do then please explain it.
>
>> But you ignored responsibility.
>
> What responsibility?
>
God. In the final analysis each person is responsible for his decision.
Do you disagree: why?
>
>> Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>> saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>
> If there are any gods, why do you think that they are completely hidden?
> What responsibility do you have to us? Is it to repeat old stories?
>
off to another person.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What have you ever done to earn civility starting from your paranoid
lies about atheists, to atheists?
That should be a big clue.
But thank you for admitting you still cannot address any points.
Ron Dean
The Deity is not subject to the five senses and thus not subject to
the scientific method.
>
> You have no evidence for your claim, thus there is no reason for anyone to
> worry about it one way or the other or any of the other literally millions
> of claims unsupported by any evidence. There is just as much reason to worry
> about Santa or leprechauns as there is to worry about your story - none.
>
>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Prove it, question-begging moron.
>> You have no evidence for your claim, thus there is no reason for anyone to
>> worry about it one way or the other or any of the other literally millions
>> of claims unsupported by any evidence. There is just as much reason to worry
>> about Santa or leprechauns as there is to worry about your story - none.
>>
>We know the origins of your Santa etc.
And of your pretend friend, imbecile.
thomas p.
Yes, I agree; you have no evidence.
>>
>> You have no evidence for your claim, thus there is no reason for
>> anyone to worry about it one way or the other or any of the other
>> literally millions of claims unsupported by any evidence. There is
>> just as much reason to worry about Santa or leprechauns as there is
>> to worry about your story - none.
> We know the origins of your Santa etc.
As much as we know the origins of your god stories.
Dutch
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:44mqh55o2vhc8h44t...@4ax.com...
Who said worry, you simply accepted a premise then reached a rational
conclusion about that premise.
Dutch
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:52nqh55vdhs8js9pk...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:32:31 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
>>> By even discussing it we give what remains merely somebody else's
>>> religious belief they haven't the courtesy and common sense to keep
>>> where it belongs, unjustified credibility.
>>
>>Denial does not grant credibility.
>
> "Deny" is a loaded word with the implicit presumption that there is
> something to deny.
No it isn't, you're tying yourself in knots. To deny something, in this case
"God", is to state the explicit opinion that no such thing exists. That does
not grant that it exists, it does the opposite. To use your later point, if
I say that there is no such thing as leprechauns, that does not in any way
grant that they exist, except as an idea or myth.
>>>>Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>>>>saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>>
>>> We should not be bound by language that implicitly grants his beliefs
>>> when the only place they are, is inside his religion.
>>
>>The premise was explicit, "Suppose there is a God.."
>
> Which is no different to his audience than "suppose there are
> leprechauns".
It is different in a number of ways, and perhaps similar in others, to state
the premise that God exists or that leprechauns exist. It is argumentative
and unconstructive to say that there is no difference.
> He is is also presuming it.
Not in this thread he isn't, he merely stated it as a premise. Your options
are to simply reject the premise and thus all conclusions that follow from
it, or to accept the premise for the sake of argument and make tentative
conclusions based on the premise.
>>Are you incapable of dealing with a premise without feeling that your own
>>belief system has been compromised?
>
> It's just how language works.
No it doesn't, language simply communicates ideas. Even if he was
communicating that he presumes that God exists that does not oblige you in
any way to agree with him in order to respond.
Simple example:
Him: God exists.
You: I disagree.. i.e. I believe that statement to be erroneous, lacking
credible supporting evidence, based on superstitition or wishful thinking or
other misapprehensions, etc..
> Are you capable of responding without resorting to personal lies about
> "my belief system" that I don't even have, deliberately nasty liar?
What lie did I tell about your belief system? Your belief system does not
contain a belief in any gods, but your reaction suggests that you believe
system would somehow become threatened by responding to his statement. I
don't see how that can be, unless you are emotionally unstable. That begs
the question, are you incapable of discussing your world view without
resorting to childish insults, or do you simply prefer not to?
Dan Listermann
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4B1DE8A2...@gmail.com...
> Free Lunch wrote:
> As far as _I_ am concerned. I see no way for something to simply come
> from nothing.
Great! So you see that your deities can't exist, right?
Christopher A. Lee
>> Each person is solely responsible for his own decisions regarding
>> belief or disbelief in God. Death comes to us all. So, we can
>> revel in our own complacency while we are alive, however, if we
>> right, it wont matter, if we disbelieve and are wrong and there is
>> a God to whom we are responsible, there will be no excuse acceptable.
>
>It would save you time if you just said that you had no evidence instead of
>the above wordy equivalent.
He wouldn't even need to do that if he and his fellow narcissists had
the courtesy and common sense to not beg the questions they uses this
sort of thing as a cop out to avoid answering.
Christopher A. Lee
He's already had it pointed out that this happens all the time in
Quantum Mechanics.
That at least there is evidence for both the particles and their
behaviour.
While there is none for his hypothetical god.
I have never understood why they expect their self-imposed ignorance
and incredulity to convince anybody with a functioning mind.
Who do they think they're talking to? Themselves?
Dan Listermann
Believing in deities is a huge shortcut to thinking you understand life, the
Universe and everything. I prefer 42.
Christopher A. Lee
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:51msh59kb0ufos76p...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 08:08:41 -0500, "Dan Listermann"
>> <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4B1DE8A2...@gmail.com...
>>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as _I_ am concerned. I see no way for something to simply come
>>>> from nothing.
>>>
>>>Great! So you see that your deities can't exist, right?
>>
>> He's already had it pointed out that this happens all the time in
>> Quantum Mechanics.
>>
>> That at least there is evidence for both the particles and their
>> behaviour.
>>
>> While there is none for his hypothetical god.
>>
>> I have never understood why they expect their self-imposed ignorance
>> and incredulity to convince anybody with a functioning mind.
>>
>> Who do they think they're talking to? Themselves?
>
>Believing in deities is a huge shortcut to thinking you understand life, the
>Universe and everything. I prefer 42.
Most believers, at least outside the US, understand that not everybody
else shares their belief and have the sense only to presume it among
themselves.
I've crossed swords with some I had previously thought were sensible
at Christmas and Easter though, when they think they can preach at
everybody. Like somebody I never knew was a minister, on a railway
photography group, who imagined that made him exempt from common sense
and courtesy. Poining out (mildy because it wasn't an atheist group)
that the group was for everybody not just Christians led to an
outpouring of hatred.
Free Lunch
Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in <4B1DE8A2...@gmail.com>:
What specifically are you claiming is 'something from nothing' and how
is not possible?
>>> But you ignored responsibility.
>>
>> What responsibility?
> >
>For personal decisions regarding the existence or non-existence of
>God. In the final analysis each person is responsible for his decision.
>Do you disagree: why?
I'm not responsible for God. If God exists, He clearly has hidden
Himself and does not want to be found. So, either no gods exist or they
are hiding and don't want to be bugged.
>>> Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>>> saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>>
>> If there are any gods, why do you think that they are completely hidden?
>> What responsibility do you have to us? Is it to repeat old stories?
> >
>As I stated each person is solely responsible. He/she cannot pass this
>off to another person.
Why do you blame others as part of the doctrines you preach. If you are
trying to persuade me that God is real, then show me evidence.
Free Lunch
"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in
<cb1d8$4b1e5faa$4a53bf9f$30...@FUSE.NET>:
to be found. Religion nuts don't ask questions or show any curiosity at
all.
James Burns
> thomas p. wrote:
>
>> You have no evidence for your claim, thus there
>> is no reason for anyone to worry about it one way
>> or the other or any of the other literally
>> millions of claims unsupported by any evidence.
>> There is just as much reason to worry about Santa
>> or leprechauns as there is to worry about
>> your story - none.
>
> We know the origins of your Santa etc.
It is likely that we would know a lot more today
about the origins of the Bible, if it were not
that, for thousands of years, anyone caught
questioning these stories too well risked being
burnt at the stake or otherwise tortured to death
(out of "love", of course).
That is not to say that we know nothing at all.
Twentieth and twenty-first century archeology
has been piecing together shards of information
about the times and places that gave birth to
the Bible. I recommend /The Bible Unearthed/,
by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
(2001).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
Jim Burns
One point of interest, especially relevant to
this subthread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed#Josiah_and_the_birth_of_the_Bible
:As recorded in the Book of Kings, Manasseh's grandson,
:Josiah, enacted a large religious reform soon after he
:became king; he ordered renovations to the Jerusalem
:Temple, during which the High Priest 'found' a scroll
:of the law, which insisted on monotheism with sacrifice
:centralized at a single temple�that in Jerusalem.
:Finkelstein and Silberman note that most scholars regard
:the core of Deuteronomy as being the scroll of the law
:in question, and regard it as having been written not long
:before it was 'found', rather than being an ancient missing
:scroll as characterized in the bible;[50] Deuteronomy is
:strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
:vassal-treaties, in which the rights and obligations of a
:vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
:(in this case, Yahweh).[50]
Ron Dean
> Ron Dean wrote:
>> thomas p. wrote:
>
>>> It would save you time if you just said that you had
>>> no evidence instead of the above wordy equivalent.
>>
>> I cannot point to a peer reviewed article where the
>> existence of God is demonstrated or proven. Nor do I
>> claim that I have hard empirical evidence for God.
>>
>> But the fact that there is something instead of nothing,
>> as far as I am personally concerned, implies a designer.
>
> Do you understand what you've written means? You write
> that you would take any kind of universe at all as
> evidence of a designer.
>
is a reality.
So, the first question must concern the reality of another
kind of universe. And this must be answered before any
discussion of a designer can be contemplated.
>
> /impossible/ for the universe to be undesigned.
>
from nothing everything just appeared. The question is
how?
>
> Surely, you can see this is unreasonable. Even if you
> are granted your universe-creator for the sake of argument,
> surely you agree that it is /possible/ for this being
> to "design" a universe by doing nothing, and seeing what
> will happen next.
>
would have gone into the creation of the Universe and life.
Given the fact that we live in what has been called
the "Goldilocks Universe".
>
> I think that the reason you would claim any kind of
> universe at all as one that looks created is that
> you do not expect to find any more "evidence" beyond
> the existence of the universe. You do not expect to
> find any "tool-marks" made by the creator, and so you
> prepare some hand-waving to dodge the consequences
> of their absence.
>
constants to be evidence left by a designer? Using the
laws of physics scientist can retrace the evolution
of the universe back to the first few seconds after
the big bang with a high degree of certainty. According
to Martin Rees with a 99% certainty. To do this
the universe must be highly ordered, the laws of physics
constant, stable and consistent. Otherwise nothing would
be reliably tested or testable.
>
>> But you ignored responsibility. Suppose there is a God,
>> can I pass off my responsibility to you by saying
>> Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>
> What responsibility are you talking about? You seem to
> have teleported yourself from "There is some sort of
> universe-designer, of some unknown kind" to "The
> specific God written of in the Bible is that designer."
> How did you get yourself all the way over there?
>
is a personal issue. This applies to virtually all decisions
we as adults make. One cannot pass off his responsibility to
the "authority" of another. Even where health is concerned,
I just lost a family member to lung cancer. He smoked most
of his adult life.
I would like to blame others; he gave in to peer pressure,
I know, because I was there. But in the final analysis,
his peers are not responsible for his death. The responsibility
was his and he suffered indescribable agony, even with pain
control medicines and died because of it.
It's the same if I accept another persons views of religion.
The responsibility would be all mine.
>
> If you go by the evidence presented by your senses,
> as you seemed to want to do just a few sentences ago,
> you are faced with either (1) a universe that shows
> no "tool-marks", no signs of being created by some
> sort of super-powered being, or (2) a universe that
> has had the "tool-marks" very carefully /removed/.
>
them. How would we recognize "tool marks"?
Perhaps we would be looking for the tool "marks"
when the _tools_ are under our noses. IE the
laws of physics.
>
As a very young boy, I was fascinated with ants. With
my mother's help I developed and maintained an ant
farm for a couple of years, which I kept in an unused
large glass fish bowl. In my boyish mind I often
wondered what the ants thought about me. Then one
day, I realized they had no idea of me, they could
not even imagine me. To them I didn't exist. After
that realization I lost interest in this project.
>
> The only reasonable interpretation of "tool-marks"
> being removed (by the creator -- who else could it be?)
> is the the creator /wants/ you not to believe in
> him.
>
see a reason why the Deity would not want us to _know_.
To know that God rewards for good deeds would be seen
as a selfish motivation: from a Christian prospective
this is not pleasing to God. God I believe desires that
we humans do good out of love and concern for the
welfare of our fellow man.
>
Sure, God's ways may be subtle, and all that,
> but if he wanted you to believe, the worst way to
> do that would be to remove all evidence of his
> existence. And that remains true no matter how
> omniscient this creator is, no matter how /alien/
> his thoughts are, because that is a truth about us
> humans, not about him.
>
demanding. I, personally, do not expect knowledge
of or about the Deity .
>
> Therefore, the most that could be said about anyone's
> responsibility to the (hypothetical) creator is that,
> if they want to do what he wants, stop believing he
> exists. Luckily, if this creator not only looks like
> he doesn't exist but really does not exist, as well,
> then the best strategy is still to believe he
> does not exist. It's a win for the non-believer,
> heads or tails.
>
there is no God. Otherwise, this position is
unreasonable.
>
> Jim Burns
>
Ron Dean
going to deal with your bad behavior on this NG.
Ron Dean
>
<snip>
>
>
Dan Listermann
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4B1F1566...@gmail.com...
> >
> Nor do I claim to have solid, material evidence for a spiritual being.
>>
It is good that you can admit that. So what are your superstitions based
upon?
Ron Dean
was eternal, without beginning and without end. There was no
problem, at the time, with an eternal universe, but the evidence
showed as science discovered, that the Universe indeed had a
beginning and eventually would come to an end - the eternal universe
finally fell out of favor.
As long as there was no contrary evidence, the eternal universe
was widely accepted as true.
>
Show me contrary evidence to an eternal God who is without beginning
or end.
>
Dan Listermann
> >
> To take this position, you must absolutely _know_
> there is no God. Otherwise, this position is
> unreasonable.
>
Nonsense. Outside of math, there are no things that anyone absolutely knows
does not exist. Your position of claiming that someone absolutely knows
something does not exist, is unreasonable.
Ron Dean
everyone outside their religion shares their religious beliefs?
Surely, you know better than this, so what exactly do you mean?
<snip>
Dan Listermann
Show me positive evidence of an eternal deity who is without a beginning or
ending. Your fallacy is demanding evidence of a negative. You think
something exists, you need to show evidence for it. You cannot demand
evidence against something. One cannot be everywhere, every time all at
once to eliminate all possible hiding places. But if something exists, all
you need to do to prove it, is show it. You have admitted that you are
incapable of producing such evidence. Leprechauns have the very same
problem.
Dan Listermann
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> What does this mean Chris? Are you claiming that believers think
> everyone outside their religion shares their religious beliefs?
>
I have met many Thumpers who are sure that believers in other religions, do
so only for cultural reasons, knowing full well that the religion of the
Thumpers is really correct. It is an absurd belief, but that is how tightly
they are wound around their superstition.
Ron Dean
science. According to scientist at the moment of Planck time (10^-43
seconds after the big bang, there was no oxygen, nitrogen, carbon or any
of the 100 or so natural occurring elements. IOW there _was_ nothing
now there is something.
>>>> But you ignored responsibility.
>>> What responsibility?
>>>
>> For personal decisions regarding the existence or non-existence of
>> God. In the final analysis each person is responsible for his decision.
>> Do you disagree: why?
>
> I'm not responsible for God. If God exists, He clearly has hidden
> Himself and does not want to be found. So, either no gods exist or they
> are hiding and don't want to be bugged.
>
>>>> Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>>>> saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>>> If there are any gods, why do you think that they are completely hidden?
>>> What responsibility do you have to us? Is it to repeat old stories?
>>>
>> As I stated each person is solely responsible. He/she cannot pass this
>> off to another person.
>
> Why do you blame others as part of the doctrines you preach. If you are
> trying to persuade me that God is real, then show me evidence.
>
It's nothing to me whether or not you believe or disbelieve. I only
care about examining my beliefs and defending them when I believe
they are unfairly maligned and my person vilified. This is uncalled for.
>
Ron Dean
and the New Testament, was written over centuries and had
dozen of writers and other sources taken from other cultures.
I also believe the New Testament (New Covenant) Superseded
the Old, which was fulfilled by the death and resurrection
of Jesus and set aside for the Christian.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B1DE8A2...@gmail.com...
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> As far as _I_ am concerned. I see no way for something to simply come
>>> from nothing.
>>
>> Great! So you see that your deities can't exist, right?
>>
>In resent history virtually all scientist believed the universe
>was eternal, without beginning and without end. There was no
>problem, at the time, with an eternal universe, but the evidence
>showed as science discovered, that the Universe indeed had a
>beginning and eventually would come to an end - the eternal universe
>finally fell out of favor.
Scientists "believed" no such thing.
>As long as there was no contrary evidence, the eternal universe
>was widely accepted as true.
Why not describe the actual position, not a belief you nade up for
them?
Hint: it involves falifiability not belief.
Stop pretending.
>Show me contrary evidence to an eternal God who is without beginning
>or end.
Provide as much evidence for your pretend friend as there is for the
universe, imbecile.
Then you might have a point.
Christopher A. Lee
Theists live in a black and white binary universe, not one where
things are accepted with greater or less probability and certainly not
one that uses Popperian falsifiability.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
No, moron - that they're not narcissists like you so they have the
common sense and courtesy not to talk AT people who don't already
share their beliefs. Whether their are talking to atheists or other
theists.
>Surely, you know better than this, so what exactly do you mean?
Idiot.
><snip>
Christopher A. Lee
He thinks gods are dfifferent so they must be for everybody else too.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You forgot energy, imbecile - which is all there was at Planck time.
As the universe expanded it cooled, and sub atomic particles
"condensed" originally as free quarks with too much energy to combine
with each other.
Why not address what they actually say - which is a CONCLUSION from
the known laws of physics applied to observation. Validated originally
by background radiation and since then by observation from the Hubble
orbital telescope.
>>>>> But you ignored responsibility.
>>>> What responsibility?
>>>>
>>> For personal decisions regarding the existence or non-existence of
>>> God. In the final analysis each person is responsible for his decision.
>>> Do you disagree: why?
>>
>> I'm not responsible for God. If God exists, He clearly has hidden
>> Himself and does not want to be found. So, either no gods exist or they
>> are hiding and don't want to be bugged.
>>
>>>>> Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>>>>> saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>>>> If there are any gods, why do you think that they are completely hidden?
>>>> What responsibility do you have to us? Is it to repeat old stories?
>>>>
>>> As I stated each person is solely responsible. He/she cannot pass this
>>> off to another person.
>>
>> Why do you blame others as part of the doctrines you preach. If you are
>> trying to persuade me that God is real, then show me evidence.
>
>It's nothing to me whether or not you believe or disbelieve. I only
>care about examining my beliefs and defending them when I believe
>they are unfairly maligned and my person vilified. This is uncalled for.
No, moron. You make claims that you cop out of backing up. Don't talk
AT people as though your god were universally granted when you know it
isn't and you won't get told to prove it.
Then you won't need to turn into a whining hypocrite when you can't.
You are "vilified" for your behaviour not your beliefs. Starting with
your paranoid lies about atheists and "anti-Christ movement" where you
refused to listen to why they couldn't be. In your mind we were so
that made us so, whatever we might have to say about it. Which told us
you were a narcissist.
thomas p.
Yet every time you are asked to defend your beliefs you give the answer
above,
i.e. you tell us that you do not care whether we believe or not. Where is
this
defense you talk about?
thomas p.
You certainly are glad to take advantage of it though, as you do above.
Your evasions are transparent.
thomas p.
> thomas p. wrote:
>> Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean wrote:
>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>> I have not assured anybody that there is no, god, nor have I assured
>>>> anybody that there are not leprechauns who will torture anyone who
>>>> does not put out milk and cookies for them each night. Suppose
>>>> those leprechauns do exist, how are you going to escape your
>>>> responsibility?
>>> These fables are "earth bound" and are subject to scientific study.
>>> The Deity is not subject to the five senses and thus not subject to
>>> the scientific method.
>>
>> Yes, I agree; you have no evidence.
> >
> Nor do I claim to have solid, material evidence for a spiritual being.
And there is no other kind of evidence. Thank you for the admission.
>>
> <snip>
>>
thomas p.
>> :Finkelstein and Silberman note that most scholars regard
>> :the core of Deuteronomy as being the scroll of the law
>> :in question, and regard it as having been written not long
>> :before it was 'found', rather than being an ancient missing
>> :scroll as characterized in the bible;[50] Deuteronomy is
>> :strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
>> :vassal-treaties, in which the rights and obligations of a
>> :vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
>> :(in this case, Yahweh).[50]
>>
> Thank you, I realize that the Bible, both the Old Testament
> and the New Testament, was written over centuries and had
> dozen of writers and other sources taken from other cultures.
> I also believe the New Testament (New Covenant) Superseded
> the Old, which was fulfilled by the death and resurrection
> of Jesus and set aside for the Christian.
You just admitted that you are aware that it is all made up and that
you believe it anyway.
Ron Dean
when I'm asked "to defend" my beliefs I give the answer above.
Several people who come to talk creation challenge belief in God(s).
or the Bible.
>
Ron Dean
a clue.
Ron Dean
you and some theist, such as radical Moslems share the same hatred of
Christians. These radical Moslems, like you share none of my beliefs.
>
>> <snip>
thomas p.
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:CuETm.86933$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
> James Burns wrote:
>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>
>>>> It would save you time if you just said that you had
>>>> no evidence instead of the above wordy equivalent.
>>>
>>> I cannot point to a peer reviewed article where the
>>> existence of God is demonstrated or proven. Nor do I
>>> claim that I have hard empirical evidence for God.
>>>
>>> But the fact that there is something instead of nothing,
>>> as far as I am personally concerned, implies a designer.
>>
>> Do you understand what you've written means? You write
>> that you would take any kind of universe at all as
>> evidence of a designer.
> The universe we observe and of which we are a part of -
> is a reality.
> So, the first question must concern the reality of another
> kind of universe. And this must be answered before any
> discussion of a designer can be contemplated.
> >
>> /impossible/ for the universe to be undesigned.
>>
> Not impossible, but I believe unlikely. Simply, because
> from nothing everything just appeared. The question is
> how?
Ignorance does not justify any particular answer, which
would logically require evidence.
snip
> To take this position, you must absolutely _know_
> there is no God. Otherwise, this position is
> unreasonable.
One does not absolutely know anything. Why pick one particular
belief and claim that there is a special responsibility for accepting or
rejecting it? Not only is there no evidence for your claim, you admit
that there can be no evidence for it, thus there is nothing to consider.
Ron Dean
superstition is believing that walking under a latter, or a black cat
crossing your path,is bad luck,or a barn owl screeching at night
portends death.
>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>> He thinks gods are different so they must be for everybody else too.
>>
>Who are you pretending to represent? Certainly, not me. You haven't
>a clue.
Then why do you talk AT people you know don't already believe as
though your god were real?
You're the one without a clue, who doesn't realise what this tells us
about yourself.
That you don't even understand this is why you get told to prove it,
tells us more.
And your repeated copouts, fallacies etc tell us even more.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Yet more personal lies from the narcissist.
I'm not the one who fired this off by demonstrating both his hatred
for atheists and his stupidity with paranoid lies about "anti-Christ
movement" and then whined when he reaped what he sowed.
>
>>> <snip>
Ron Dean
point I was applying to the position of another person.
>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B1F1566...@gmail.com...
>>> Nor do I claim to have solid, material evidence for a spiritual being.
>>
>> It is good that you can admit that. So what are your superstitions based
>> upon?
>>
>You have no thought, respect for the feelings or opinion of others?
And another irony meter implodes....
> A
>superstition is believing that walking under a latter, or a black cat
>crossing your path,is bad luck,or a barn owl screeching at night
>portends death.
And what makes your superstition any different?
Here's a clue: if you had the common sense and courtesy not to talk AT
us as though your beliefs were true that kind of substitution wouldn't
need to be made TO SHOW YOU WHAT IT MEANS TO US.
If you don't like it, tough. You shouldn't have put us in that
situation.
It's also what any religion is to those who don't believe it. No
matter how many sociopathic believers are incapableo f grasping this.
>
>
>>
Ron Dean
for my statement. IOW if the universe was accepted in recent history as
being eternal without a beginning, then why is there a problem with the
belief in an eternal God without a beginning?
Even Stephen Hawking in his "no boundary" universe hypothesis states,
"it (this universe) would have no beginning nor end: it would simply be.
What place, then for a creator."
The point is Hawking goes to such lengths to get rid of a creator, at
the same time he recognizes that an eternal universe could simply exist.
If Hawking's argument is logical, then so could God, with "no beginning
nor end: (be logical) "it would simply be". To quote Hawking.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Provide as much evidence for this hypothetical god as there is for the
universe and you might have a point, moron.
>Even Stephen Hawking in his "no boundary" universe hypothesis states,
>"it (this universe) would have no beginning nor end: it would simply be.
>What place, then for a creator."
>
>The point is Hawking goes to such lengths to get rid of a creator, at
>the same time he recognizes that an eternal universe could simply exist.
Nobody "goes to great lengths to get rid of a creator",moron. They
would have to believe it to do that - it would be like YOU going to
great lengths to remove the fairies from the bottom of the garden.
Is it really so difficult to think?
Bbut then you have already demonstrated you are incapable of grasping
anybody else's POV.
>If Hawking's argument is logical, then so could God, with "no beginning
>nor end: (be logical) "it would simply be". To quote Hawking.
Not until you have provided as much evidence for God as there is for
the universe, moron.
Mitchell Holman
>> :centralized at a single temple�that in Jerusalem.
>> :Finkelstein and Silberman note that most scholars regard
>> :the core of Deuteronomy as being the scroll of the law
>> :in question, and regard it as having been written not long
>> :before it was 'found', rather than being an ancient missing
>> :scroll as characterized in the bible;[50] Deuteronomy is
>> :strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
>> :vassal-treaties, in which the rights and obligations of a
>> :vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
>> :(in this case, Yahweh).[50]
>>
> Thank you, I realize that the Bible, both the Old Testament
> and the New Testament, was written over centuries and had
> dozen of writers and other sources taken from other cultures.
> I also believe the New Testament (New Covenant) Superseded
> the Old, which was fulfilled by the death and resurrection
> of Jesus and set aside for the Christian.
If the New Testament "supercedes" the old then why
all the fuss over the Ten Commandments? Don't they have
all the same irrelevacy as the quaint restrictions in
Exodus and Leviticus?
Free Lunch
Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in <4B1F1BB5...@gmail.com>:
>Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B1DE8A2...@gmail.com...
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> As far as _I_ am concerned. I see no way for something to simply come
>>> from nothing.
>>
>> Great! So you see that your deities can't exist, right?
>>
>In resent history virtually all scientist believed the universe
>was eternal, without beginning and without end. There was no
>problem, at the time, with an eternal universe, but the evidence
>showed as science discovered, that the Universe indeed had a
>beginning and eventually would come to an end - the eternal universe
>finally fell out of favor.
>As long as there was no contrary evidence, the eternal universe
>was widely accepted as true.
> >
>Show me contrary evidence to an eternal God who is without beginning
>or end.
The universe has evidence that it exists. There is no evidence that your
object of worship does.
Free Lunch
Show us the evidence that any god exists.
Free Lunch
You ignored the huge hole in your argument. The universe is known to
exist. Attributes about it can be discovered. There is no evidence at
all about any gods, not even yours. There is no way to know any
attributes of such a thing.
>Even Stephen Hawking in his "no boundary" universe hypothesis states,
>"it (this universe) would have no beginning nor end: it would simply be.
>What place, then for a creator."
>
>The point is Hawking goes to such lengths to get rid of a creator, at
>the same time he recognizes that an eternal universe could simply exist.
>
>If Hawking's argument is logical, then so could God, with "no beginning
>nor end: (be logical) "it would simply be". To quote Hawking.
Nice job misrepresenting things to defend your evidence-free claims.
Free Lunch
>>>>>> the above wordy equivalent.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot point to a peer reviewed article where the existence of God is
>>>>> demonstrated or proven. Nor do I claim that I have hard empirical
>>>>> evidence for God.
>>>> Sadly, there are many here who claim to be Christian and then tell us
>>>> falsehoods about this.
>>>>
>>>>> personally concerned, implies a designer.
>>>> defend.
>>>>
>>> nothing. or ever could could. If you do then please explain it.
>>
>> What specifically are you claiming is 'something from nothing' and how
>> is not possible?
>>
>... "not possible" is not a rational position if you accept modern
>science. According to scientist at the moment of Planck time (10^-43
>seconds after the big bang, there was no oxygen, nitrogen, carbon or any
>of the 100 or so natural occurring elements. IOW there _was_ nothing
>now there is something.
You certainly never got that claim from a physics book. Elements,
particularly those heavier than helium, may not have existed, but the
mass-energy did exist.
>>>>> But you ignored responsibility.
>>>> What responsibility?
>>>>
>>> For personal decisions regarding the existence or non-existence of
>>> God. In the final analysis each person is responsible for his decision.
>>> Do you disagree: why?
>>
>> I'm not responsible for God. If God exists, He clearly has hidden
>> Himself and does not want to be found. So, either no gods exist or they
>> are hiding and don't want to be bugged.
>>
>>>>> Suppose there is a God, can I pass off my responsibility to you by
>>>>> saying Thomas P. assured me there is no God?
>>>> If there are any gods, why do you think that they are completely hidden?
>>>> What responsibility do you have to us? Is it to repeat old stories?
>>>>
>>> As I stated each person is solely responsible. He/she cannot pass this
>>> off to another person.
>>
>> Why do you blame others as part of the doctrines you preach. If you are
>> trying to persuade me that God is real, then show me evidence.
> >
>It's nothing to me whether or not you believe or disbelieve. I only
>care about examining my beliefs and defending them when I believe
>they are unfairly maligned and my person vilified. This is uncalled for.
Then don't use falsehoods to defend your beliefs. That is uncalled for,
too.
Free Lunch
Yes. When it comes to the origins of life, the universe and everything,
the Bible is known to be wrong with its myths. The claims about gods are
all made without any evidence to back them up.
Dan Listermann
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDC49ADD2B08...@216.196.97.130...
>>> :Finkelstein and Silberman note that most scholars regard
>>> :the core of Deuteronomy as being the scroll of the law
>>> :in question, and regard it as having been written not long
>>> :before it was 'found', rather than being an ancient missing
>>> :scroll as characterized in the bible;[50] Deuteronomy is
>>> :strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
>>> :vassal-treaties, in which the rights and obligations of a
>>> :vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
>>> :(in this case, Yahweh).[50]
>>>
>> Thank you, I realize that the Bible, both the Old Testament
>> and the New Testament, was written over centuries and had
>> dozen of writers and other sources taken from other cultures.
>> I also believe the New Testament (New Covenant) Superseded
>> the Old, which was fulfilled by the death and resurrection
>> of Jesus and set aside for the Christian.
>
>
>
> If the New Testament "supercedes" the old then why
> all the fuss over the Ten Commandments? Don't they have
> all the same irrelevacy as the quaint restrictions in
> Exodus and Leviticus?
>
Free Lunch
>Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B1F1566...@gmail.com...
>>> Nor do I claim to have solid, material evidence for a spiritual being.
>>
>> It is good that you can admit that. So what are your superstitions based
>> upon?
>>
>You have no thought, respect for the feelings or opinion of others?
It depends on the kind of opinion. I respect informed opinion, even if I
arrive at a different conclusion. I have no use for ignorant opinion.
Why anyone who has no idea what they are talking about would presume to
have an opinion about what they do not know is beyond me. I despise
those who know that their opinion is based on false claims like the
folks at ICR, CRS, AIG and DI.
>A superstition is believing that walking under a latter, or a black cat
>crossing your path,is bad luck,or a barn owl screeching at night
>portends death.
Kind of like believing that you will go to heaven if you placate a god
that there is no evidence for.
Free Lunch
>> :Finkelstein and Silberman note that most scholars regard
>> :the core of Deuteronomy as being the scroll of the law
>> :in question, and regard it as having been written not long
>> :before it was 'found', rather than being an ancient missing
>> :scroll as characterized in the bible;[50] Deuteronomy is
>> :strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
>> :vassal-treaties, in which the rights and obligations of a
>> :vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
>> :(in this case, Yahweh).[50]
>>
>Thank you, I realize that the Bible, both the Old Testament
>and the New Testament, was written over centuries and had
>dozen of writers and other sources taken from other cultures.
>I also believe the New Testament (New Covenant) Superseded
>the Old, which was fulfilled by the death and resurrection
>of Jesus and set aside for the Christian.
So you claim. Not all Christians accept that claim and there's really
nothing you can point to in the gospels to defend it.