"insaner" wrote in message
news:fara9v$opu$1@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca...
>
>>>>>
>>>> Your accusations are inane as well as hollow...you claim that it's
>>>> the atheists that refuse to acknowledge possibilities but you, PF and
>>>> other theists are actually the worst offenders.
>>> ok, but you are still not denying that you refuse to acknowledge the
>>> possibility of God's existence which was my point. and still stands.
>>
>> Just as you refuse to accept the possibility that your god doesn't exist
>>
>
> mmhmm.. and, when exactly did i refuse to accept that possibility, pray
> tell?? or are you just assuming again? by the way, its kinda ridiculous
> that you would point to me when asked something from you. is that what you
> tell the cops when you break the law? "ohh, sure, officer, but what about
> YOU, huh? dont YOU do things you shouldnt do as well??"
>
> ANSWER THE QUESTION!
We will accept any objective, verifiable and repeatable evidence.
>
>>>> You mix science and religion when you feel defensive about your stance
>>>> on scientific issues, but your science is wholly suspect and /or
>>>> missing.
>>> oh is it? ok, then, show me examples of where my science has been
>>> suspect and/or missing? if you are right, ill correct myself, otherwise
>>> the same on your behalf would be kindly accepted
>>
>> You've given us plenty of your 'evidence' (opinion) that evolution is
>> wrong = negative evidence.
>
> "opinion".. hmm.. you mean that same thing upon which that same theory is
> based? so it should be enough for you then!
Did Satan 'plant' those fossils to confuse us?
Are you identical to either of your parents?
>
>> Now provide some positive scientific evidence for creation.
>
> heres one, we cannot have arrived at this moment in time, if there were an
> infinite amount of events leading up to it.
Depends on your definition of infinite.
Number without end or an uncountable number?
How many grains of sand are there on the seashore?
(otherwise we'd still be
> going through events to get to now) therefore, there mustve been only a
> finite number of events to reach this moment.
Agreed.
>so therefore, there mustve been a first event. therefore, the universe had
>a point where it started.
Possibly.
> the law of non-self-creation establishes that nothing can self-create,
Where's this law? Who defined it?
I've never heard of it.
> therefore the universe must have been externally created.
If that law does exist.
> creation needs a creating agent, and that creating agent must not be
> subject to time nor space, ie, the agent must be eternal and not composed
> of tangible matter of any sort, and have the capacity to exist of its own.
> ie, that creating agent is who we call God. who, to be able to create must
> have that almightiness we attribute to Him, and must be infinite.
>
By your own 'law of non-self-creation', your god must have been created by a
creator and that creator created by another creator, ad infinitum.
To say otherwise is 'Special Pleading', a logical falacy.
> and please, dont tell me the universe is eternal, or has always existed,
I won't because science doesn't know for certain, yet.
> because if it did, that violates the premise of the impossibility of the
> negative infinity of time.
Another premise that I've never heard of. Who postulated it?
>
>>
>>>> It's just not important where your religion takes you...its the
>>>> science that is important to us(atheists).
>>> the problem with your precious science, which is what i have been trying
>>> to say here all along, is that it is like a water hose with the tap open
>>> full blast.. have you seen that kind of thing in action? it goes
>>> everywhere, flipping around wildly. and thats what science is. its not
>>> precise, its only the "right now we assert this, as strongly as we will
>>> assert the complete opposite a few years from now when it is shown to be
>>> completely wrong".. science keeps changing and changing.. correcting
>>> itself all the time, and hence can never be deemed "correct" or even
>>> "dependable" at any given time. or ever at all.. it can only be at most
>>> used as a guide or a "we have observed that.. " but never asserting.
>>> however, the bible remains as is, for more than 1500 years now.. not
>>> changing at all (again, unless you are a JW or something) so you dont
>>> have to worry that you will suddenly have to throw everything out the
>>> window and believe something completely opposite tomorrow.. because, oh
>>> yeah, we were wrong.. but now we are right.. oh wait, no we were
>>> slightly off that last time, but THIS time, this time for sure.. oh
>>> wait..
>>
>> Religion never changes huh?
>> Limbo and the RCC?
>
> um.. please read what i wrote before attributing text to me that i did not
> write, nor do i believe. i said THE BIBLE does not change.. see? if you
> paid attention to what i said, maybe we'd have a better discourse, but,
> ah, that wouldnt be interesting to you, now would it? because then you
> wouldnt be able to straw-man me constantly..
If the bible doesn't change, why are there so many versions of it, and all
different?
Where are the originals (in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek) to compare with the
modern bible?
>
>> Blaming the Jews for crucifying jesus and the RCC?
>
> rcc again.. not bible..
>
>> How many unruly children have you stoned to death recently?
>> How many brides that were not virgins on their wedding day have you
>> stoned to death recently?
>> How many farmers that grew 2 different crops in the same field have you
>> stoned to death recently?
>> How many people who wear clothes made from 2 or more types of material
>> have you stoned to death recently?
>
>
> as many as ive been allowed to under the covenant i fall under, which is
> drawn in blood, the blood of Jesus.. (ie, none. not to mention that
> whole.. "thou shallt not murder" dilly)
>
So your bible _has_ changed since the OT was written.
> you are of course quoting from the mosaic law (ah to be atheist and
> ignorant), which is the law established for THOSE people in that time..
>
>> Now tell me that the bible remains 'as is'...not changing at all.
>
> the bible, as text, is not changing,
Again, where are the original texts, so that I can compare them to the
modern bible?
How many translations have these original texts gone through.
Are you sure that there were no errors in translation (Red Sea should be
Reed Sea)?
God's dealing with man does..
Because man has changed and, therefore, man's definition of his god has
changed or because your omnipotent, omnicient god has changed?
Not so omniscient and omnipotent if he has to change, is he?
Isn't it telling that believers always agree with their god? I've never
heard of a believer disagreeing with his god(s).
Maybe that's because his god(s) are all in his mind and if he disagreed,
he'd be disagreeing with himself.
He
> dealt with adam differently than He dealt with noah, than He dealt with
> abraham, than He dealt with moses, than He dealt with jeremiah, than He
> dealt with John than He dealt with me.. that doesnt mean that theres a
> different set of rules for each individual person and that i get to say
> "God told me i can now kill".. however, certain things were established as
> temporal things.. the mosaic pact is the atheist favorite. others were to
> be fulfilled, abraham's for example.. others allowed for more, ie, noah
> was now allowed to eat meat.. and now christians allowed to eat pork and
> shellfish.. however, all those laws had a purpose and a reason, and only
> someone unwilling to explore the reason behind them will not find them.. i
> asked myself too, in conversing with someone once who brought up that two
> fiber clothes, and i thought "why would a nation of nomads, who carry all
> their belongings off which they live with them, in a dry, warm desert
> land, not be allowed to mix two fibers?" then simple logic and not very
> much arduous thought gave me the answer, "well, walk on a rug with your
> socks, and touch another person.." *BZZT* static. now think of all your
> stuff made of highly flammable material (cloth, sheepskin, tents, etc) and
> in a very dry, warm environment, and the fact that they lived off all
> that.. and the fact that a desert at night becomes extremely cold.. and oh
> my, whats this? a spark that can light a fire to their liveliness, and
> 100,000 people would die cuz some idiot mixed two different fibers.. and
> yeah, it makes sense to make it such a harshly punishable rule.
Did they not cook their food over open fires?
Did they not make fires to keep themselves warm during those cold desert
nights?
I'd have thought that a spark from static electricity would be the least of
their worries about fire.
>
> the rest, i have either not heard of (the two crops thing.. but that could
> have an equivalently reasonable explanation) or have to do with the
> degradation of society..
??????
How on earth could growing two crops in the same field degrade society?
which, considering the people we were
> dealing with, was basically always on the verge of occurring, remember the
> revolt?
Which revolt are you talking about?
There's been hundreds of them throughout history.
yeah, how many people died then? so some things have harsh
> penalties due to the seriousness of the consequences of breaking them.. of
> course, you atheists loooooove your lack of accountability, so i dont
> expect you to understand.. you are all about the "i do what i feel like,
> if i feel like it, and when i feel like it.. and _i_ decide what is right
> or wrong".. even though you cant even agree on what those right and wrongs
> are..
Do you agree that keeping slaves is wrong?
If you do, you would surely disagree with the slavemasters of 200 years ago.
Right and wrong are dependent on time and place.
>
>>
>>>> If you want to propose a data based opinion an any alternative
>>>> theory for the creation, and evolution of mankind, I'm all ears, we all
>>>> are-can't wait....but that;s the point. I'm still waiting...
>>> all ears, but cant hear? what then is YOUR data based opinion on the
>>> creation and evolution of mankind? by the way, the theory of
>>> [macro]evolution is based purely on conjecture and assumption..
>>>
>>> alright fine, ill bite, data based? how about lack of transitional
>>> fossils for one, of which darwin said we would basically need an over
>>> abundance of to even contemplate his new proposed view of biology.
>>> creation? well, i dont know what data i could give you, well, there is
>>> that whole polonium radio-halos stuff.. which show the earth cannot be
>>> as old as evolutionists require it to be.. also, the appearance of
>>> entire beaches full of jellyfish fossils in australia.. you know, those
>>> living beings that basically dissolve soon after they die.. leaving no
>>> hard parts to make those fossils that require "millions and jillions" of
>>> years to form
>>
>> Unlike you, if given the referrence, I will try to find the answer.
>> You, OTOH, will blame it on your god.
>
> ?? dont see how thats an answer to the text you wrote under..
>
>
>>
>>>> The pulpit is a great place to spin philosophically about how your
>>>> feelings affect you world view. Atheists just want the facts-and when
>>>> no facts are available, we don't fill in the blanks with what feels
>>>> good.
>>> except you do. saying "there is no God" is exactly filling the blank.
>>> minimal honesty would demand a more open position of at least "there
>>> might be, but i dont believe it so"
>>
>> If there's a blank we say we don't know, not goddidit.
>
> ah, sorry to correct you once again, if you are standing here as an
> atheist, thats exactly NOT what you say. if you said "i dont know" that
> would make you an agnostic.. you my friend, are an atheist (unless i am
> wrong, and you are an agnostic, which would mean all your other answers
> are out of character..) the atheist credo is "there is no God"
Wrong.
"There is no evidence for any god(s)" is what we say.
This, of course, leaves the door open for objective, repeatable, verifiable
evidence to change our minds.
> and thats the assumption you part from to move anywhere.. thats not
> honest, firstly, and secondly definitely NOT scientific.. and no, youre
> right, you are unable to say "goddidit" because what you say is
> "theresnogodsoidonthavetolistentoyoustupidtheistsnomatterhowmuchsensewhatyousaymakes"
> or, in short,
> "goddidntdidit"
Provide some objective, repeatable, verifiable evidence for any god's
existence and I will consider it.
>
>> Minimal honesty on your part would demand a more open position of at
>> least "there might not be a god".
>
> what the hell is wrong with you atheists and assuming i dont allow for
> that possibility? of course, its as possible as "we are all stuck in the
> matrix".. but hey, its possible too, right?
>
>>
>>>> We keep looking for facts. Give us facts or stop accusing us of not
>>>> listening-just give us something to listen to...we're all still
>>>> waiting.
>>> ill tell you what i told (and have heard from) all the atheists ive met
>>> that have later realized they were wrong (about their atheism)
>>>
>>> ask God to show Himself to you, with an open heart, and no demands. just
>>> say "ok God, im ready to find out who you are. show me." guaranteed, if
>>> your heart is open, and willing to accept whatever God decides to show
>>> you, you wont need me to spew more dry data at you.. or any at all..
>>> suddenly you will realize that there it was all the time, staring you in
>>> the face, but you just didnt see it ("it" being the data or facts)
>>>
>>
>> If you truly believe in Ra, I'm sure you'll see the chariot he uses to
>> carry the sun across the sky every day.
>> That's how ridiculous your claim sounds to us.
>
> thats great.. i didnt ask you to believe in ra, or anyone, i asked you to
> open yourself up to it.
OK then.
Open yourself up to the belief that Ra carries the sun across the sky every
day in his golden chariot.
Can you do it? I bet you can't.
When you understand why you can't, you'll understand why atheists can't
"open themselves" to believing in your god(s)
Clue...You can't "open yourself up to" the above because it's too ridiculous
to contemplate.
and its because of this refusal to do so,
> that you will never know.. because you dont want to know.. so how can i
> show you something you refuse to see? i cant! which is why its ridiculous
> for you bigoted atheists to ask me for proof/evidence, when you are just
> going to reject it no matter how valid it is, based solely on your
> "thereisnogod" credo.
Have you, or any other theist who comes to this NG, ever provided objective,
repeatable, verifiable evidence?
> so, there is no god, therefore the evidence you have shown me is clearly
> not correct/inexistent/invalid, therefore you have not proved that there
> is a god.. pfft.. gimme a break.. wheres the honesty in that?? wheres the
> "science" in that? geeze.. what a joke.
Yes. The 'evidence' we've been asked to accept is a joke.
When presented with non-scientific 'evidence', what do you expect us to do
with it?
'Warm fuzzies', bible quotes, feelings, voices in either the head or heart
and subjective evidence are not objective, verifiable and repeatable
evidence.
>
>>
>>>> Are you waiting for our facts? Or has your conversion (I seem to
>>>> remember an aside from one or more of your posts about a conversion to
>>>> christianity-forgive me if I'm wrong),
>>> yeah you are very right, anyone who claims to be a christian must have
>>> done so by their own choice, you cant be forced into it. so therefore
>>> everyone who claims to be a christian must have accepted Christ at some
>>> point in their life.
>>
>> You conveniently forget about all the children of xians who have no
>> choice other than be indoctrinated by their parents.
>
> or the children of atheists who have no choice but to be indoctrinated by
> THEIR parents.. or the friends/peers/students of atheists who have no
> choice but to be harassed and ridiculed by them for their beliefs to
> submission.. please, give me a break and step off your hypocrisy for even
> a second.. you people have SUCH a love for double standards, its
> unbelievable..
This doesn't answer my point about your statement "you can't be forced into
it [xianity]."
Do you now accept that you CAN be forced into xianity, even if sometimes
it's only temporarily?
>
>> If that's not being forced, I don't know what is.
>
> ditto.. plus, by the way, you can be forced to make a decision.. you make
> it yourself, whether its hard or not.. its still upto you.. hence why we
> have atheists that grew up in theist homes.. obviously its not soo
> forceful is it..
>
>> Talking of being forced into xianity, you also conveniently forgot the
>> inquisition.
>
> ok, dood, for once, you atheists need to find yourself a new set of
> fallacies to apply. the inquisition was perpetrated by CATHOLICS..
Catholics are xtians, idiot.
Have you never noticed the statues of Jesus in all their churches?
Just because they're a different cult to your's doesn't make them non-xtian.
who
> by the way, killed many-a-christian.. so be a little less ignorant, and
> try to get your facts straight.. you are not talking to a catholic.. im
> not your mom, nor your priest.
But you are a xian, as are catholics.
>
>>
>>>> blinded you to alternatives to christ
>>> but how does 19 years of alternatives to Christ read then? how was i
>>> blinded to those? how many more years did i have to live a suicidal
>>> manic depressive life devoid of love so that you can be satisfied that i
>>> "explored my options" enough for my accepting Christ to be valid??
>>
>> So now, instead of being a suicidal manic depressive, you talk to an
>> imaginary invisible being that only exists inside your head and for which
>> you have absolutely no physical evidence. Hmmmm. Whatever makes you
>> happy, but don't expect us to believe you.
>
> "thereisnogod"... "thereisnogod".. "thereisnogod".. *rocks back and
> forth*.. is that you??
Nope. "There is no objective, verifiable, repeatable evidence for any gods"
is me.
Unless you'd be so kind as to provide some.
>
> lets depart from your little mantra there, and for a second, if you are
> mentally able, assume that there IS a God..
Tried that over 40 years ago. Laughed so much I hurt myself.
> not so crazy anymore, right?
You think?
> and it makes me happy to know Him, too..
Good on you, but don't expect me to believe you.
thats a two-fer, i dont want
> to kill myself anymore, AND im happy! yaaay! and no medicine involved, no
> trip to the psych-ward, i didnt even make it to jail! wow.. hmm.. if only
> more people could be as stupidly delusional as me, to talk to their
> creator, right? oh but wait, secular humanism offers the same, right? uh.
> no.
Do you go to a doctor when you're ill, or do you just pray to your god(s) to
make you better?
>
> if God is soooo inexistent, then how could my will power alone have led me
> out of where i was, and permanently so??
You said it yourself. Willpower.
No god(s) necessary.
how is it that a person such
> as myself, who is soo incapable of even controlling his sleep patterns, be
> soo super-humanly capable of reversing his entire mental chemistry (czu
> thats what you people attribute mental problems to, right?) and outlook on
> life, in just one fell swoop of a magical utterance to himself?
See above.
holey crap, you people should be following ME! im like david
> blaine or something here!!! AMAZING!
David Blaine isn't amazing...well he does have an amazing 'cheek'.
>>
>>>> and whatever else fills the supernatural void in your life?
>>>> I seem to remember a myth moral about not casting stones...now
>>>> where was that from?....
>>>> Atheists will stand up in the midst of the most fervent atheist crowd
>>>> and ask for any alternative opinions that will disprove the theories
>>>> that seem to fit the the most recent data-we will actively look for
>>>> more data and proof that we're dead wrong. You don't . Period.
>>> i disagree on both counts.. i dont see atheists questioning their
>>> beliefs, EVER..
>>
>> Mainly because atheists don't have any beliefs to question.
>
> how about the belief that there is no god?
No belief, only no evidence for the existence of any god(s).
how about the belief that we
> all come from apes?
Scientifically proven.
how about the belief that life "just happened" from
> inanimate chemicals?
Science is working towards a proof.
how about the belief that the universe "just
> suddenly existed"?
That is one theory. There are others, not involving a creator.
Isn't creationism the belief that the universe "just suddenly existed"?
what about the belief that the earth is millions and
> jillions of years old?
Scientifically proven.
how about the belief that there was no world wide
> flood, despite the grand canyon, etc.?? huh?? how about those?
The worldwide flood myth has been disproven many times.
Read the "Epic of Gilgamesh" which predates the bible by 500 years.
Anything there sound familiar?
The Grand Canyon was caused by erosion.
>> We don't see theists questioning their beliefs either.
>
> well, you also dont see God, so they go hand in hand.. denying is denying
> is denying.. just cuz you cant see it, doesnt mean it aint there..
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it _is_ there.
>
>> When presented with incontrevertable evidence or a question that they
>> can't answer they just run away or spout some passage(s) from their holy
>> book(s), which have less meaning to us than Harry Potter books do to you.
>
> oh? like what? incontrovertible evidence of what exactly? throw one at me.
>
>>
>>> they just make demands of everyone for data/evidence/proof that they
>>> will not anyways accept in the first place!
>>
>> We will accept any proof as long as it's scientific, objective and
>> repeatable proof.
>
> like the repeatability of evolution right? the objectivity of
> "theresnogod" and that same science that just cant stay put and keeps
> changing and contradicting-- err, i mean "correcting" itself, alllll the
> time..
It's called having an open mind, something which you accused us of not
having, above.
(so how do you know at any given moment that what you believe in
> right now is true at all??)
No belief is necessary if there is objective, verifiable, repeatable
evidence.
>
> by the way, no, you wont accept any proof.. not as long as it rejects your
> "theresnogod"
>
>
>> Bet you can't provide any.
>
> nop, not any that can withstand the "science" of the universal
> "theresnogod".. you cant disprove an axiom.. if we parted from the
> possibility of the existence of God, we might get somewhere.. but not as
> long as you part from the assumption that He doesnt exist.
Without evidence, there is no alternative assumption that makes sense.
>>
>> and i live my daily life surrounded by all manner of christians
>>> and theists.. i know that not one of them doesnt question at least
>>> something in their beliefs..
>>
>> They don't come here with their doubts.
>
> cuz they have lives.. unlike apparently me. they interact in the social
> world instead of on a nerdy 20+ year old system of communication.. most do
> it on youtube now..
If it's so 'nerdy', why are you here?
>
>> All that come here are, like you, so sure of their religion that they
>> think they have some sort of proof.
>
> you mean all 3 of us? greeeeeat, so you are basing your entire set of
> opinions on me, omj, and pf?
You obviously haven't been lurking here long.
We get theist idiots with their insults, bible quotes and 'warm fuzzies' on
a daily basis.
There are about 20 'regulars' who are under the delusion, like you, that
they can convert us.
I could list them, but that would be just a waste of time.
>
> and none of us started our lives as christians, or in christian homes
> (actually im not sure about omj, he doesnt answer posts does he?)
Neither did I.
> proof of what? oh, one thing, if you ask me for proof that the wind
> exists.. what could i show you as proof?
An anemometer.
lets say you dont believe in
> gaseous molecules that move "on their own" and carry stuff with them.. how
> do i prove to you that the wind exists?
By showing us the scientific evidence of how air movements occur.
and if you deny everything i
> show you? if i point to stuff moving, and you say "no way, those trees
> move on their own, by random chance..
Just like you say about evolution "No way, goddidit"?
through a process that has had
> millions and jillions of years to develop".. thats what you sound like..
And you would say the trees are moving "because goddidit" because you don't
like or won't accept the scientific evidence.
>
>> Unfortunately, none of them have any scientific, objective and repeatable
>> proof.
>
> but you dont either for any of your evolutionary beliefs!
We do, but you don't like or won't accept it.
and you
> forget, i didnt go to a christian school.. i was indoctrinated in
> evolutionary religion from a very early age.. it just became more and more
> ridiculous the more i thought about it.. and the more i learned how to
> think..
That's exactly how I feel about gods.
Smiler,
The godless obe
