| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jack" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2006 05:10:52 PM |
| Object: |
A Fork in the Road |
If you've been following my posts, you'll see I've tried to show
how God is proved impossible by impossible definition [1] and how
definitions of God indeed exist which are logical [2].
Nevertheless, some have chosen to stick to the illogical definitions of
things like Omnipotence for many reasons. I can't help feeling that
the main reason is an deep-seated fear that God might actually exist.
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence. The
fervent battles to maintain illogical definitions in spite of all
argument would seem to indicate that these definitions were all that
were holding back the floodgates and must be guarded against at all
cost.
As a theist, I am sure that this is not the case. Just because my God
is logically possible, it does not make Him actually probable,
necessary or extant. Possibility is just that, possible, logically
consistent, a base for further investigation. I have seen that some
atheists are able to admit even this much.
I wonder if any atheist would accept an illogical definition in any
other life science as proof that an entity did not exist. If I were to
define an entity called Omnipizza as "all the pizza" and say no
more, would we really get educated people saying that this could not
exist because "all the pizza" MUST include non-pizzas and that this
logical breakdown proved the non-existence of Omnipizza. It's really
no different to people saying that "Omnipotent" - "can do all
things" - includes non-things like "lifting the unliftable".
The argument that God cannot do everything because I define everything
to include non-things (which God cannot do) is a conundrum, fun while
the illusion lasts but merely the result of an internal inconsistency
in using the word "thing" in two different conflicting senses.
In the interests of progress I must therefore press on, leaving those
who choose to cling to illogical definitions to continue beating a dead
horse, winning a battle against theists which has been won a thousand
times. I only wish there were a few more atheists willing to continue
- I recall meeting 5 or so out of about 20 people.
If you choose to define Omnipotence and other properties of God in
illogical ways then the discussion is over, you've proved that God
cannot exist. Congratulations. For those who see through this logical
fallacy, there may be hope yet.
I would propose that the rest of us continue in the understanding that
Omnipotence has hitherto been interpreted illogically and that it has a
logical interpretation [2]. I think we should move on to greener
pastures and see if other attributes of God have similar difficulties.
We have the "Omni's" as well as a host of attributes which I
would like to list before tackling:
Spirituality, Invisibility, Knowledge, Wisdom, Truthfulness, Goodness,
Love, Mercy, Holiness, Peace, Righteousness, Jealousy, Wrath, Will,
Freedom, Power, Perfection, Blessedness, Beauty, Glory [3].
I propose we attempt to define and describe each attribute in turn
before seeing how they fit together. Instead of just defining them as
we see fit, we should attempt to draw only from the objective source of
God's description: the Bible. I can hear the scornful cries of
disdain already but we have no choice in the matter. The Bible is the
only objective source we have and the object of this exercise is not to
discover it's external Truth but to discover if it is intrinsically
consistent.
We have all heard improbable and conflicting descriptions of God. The
opportunity now is to determine if any reasonable, logical description
can be obtained from the literature we have. If that is the case, and
we find a description we can agree on and accept (without granting
existence of any being matching that description) we can proceed to
analyzing the historical correctness of the book, and looking for any
evidence of total mass delusion.
[1] The Problem of Evil (http://tinyurl.com/qez6u)
[2] Making God Impossibly by Definition (http://tinyurl.com/jaxxh)
[3] Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem (Ch 12 & 13)
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
15 Jun 2006 11:15:37 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> said:
If you've been following my posts, you'll see I've tried to show
how God is proved impossible by impossible definition [1] and how
definitions of God indeed exist which are logical [2].
Nevertheless, some have chosen to stick to the illogical definitions of
things like Omnipotence for many reasons. I can't help feeling that
the main reason is an deep-seated fear that God might actually exist.
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence. The
fervent battles to maintain illogical definitions in spite of all
argument would seem to indicate that these definitions were all that
were holding back the floodgates and must be guarded against at all
cost.
As a theist, I am sure that this is not the case. Just because my God
is logically possible, it does not make Him actually probable,
necessary or extant. Possibility is just that, possible, logically
consistent, a base for further investigation. I have seen that some
atheists are able to admit even this much.
I wonder if any atheist would accept an illogical definition in any
other life science as proof that an entity did not exist. If I were to
define an entity called Omnipizza as "all the pizza" and say no
more, would we really get educated people saying that this could not
exist because "all the pizza" MUST include non-pizzas and that this
logical breakdown proved the non-existence of Omnipizza. It's really
no different to people saying that "Omnipotent" - "can do all
things" - includes non-things like "lifting the unliftable".
The argument that God cannot do everything because I define everything
to include non-things (which God cannot do) is a conundrum, fun while
the illusion lasts but merely the result of an internal inconsistency
in using the word "thing" in two different conflicting senses.
In the interests of progress I must therefore press on, leaving those
who choose to cling to illogical definitions to continue beating a dead
horse, winning a battle against theists which has been won a thousand
times. I only wish there were a few more atheists willing to continue
- I recall meeting 5 or so out of about 20 people.
If you choose to define Omnipotence and other properties of God in
illogical ways then the discussion is over, you've proved that God
cannot exist. Congratulations. For those who see through this logical
fallacy, there may be hope yet.
I would propose that the rest of us continue in the understanding that
Omnipotence has hitherto been interpreted illogically and that it has a
logical interpretation [2]. I think we should move on to greener
pastures and see if other attributes of God have similar difficulties.
We have the "Omni's" as well as a host of attributes which I
would like to list before tackling:
Spirituality, Invisibility, Knowledge, Wisdom, Truthfulness, Goodness,
Love, Mercy, Holiness, Peace, Righteousness, Jealousy, Wrath, Will,
Freedom, Power, Perfection, Blessedness, Beauty, Glory [3].
I propose we attempt to define and describe each attribute in turn
before seeing how they fit together. Instead of just defining them as
we see fit, we should attempt to draw only from the objective source of
God's description: the Bible. I can hear the scornful cries of
disdain already but we have no choice in the matter. The Bible is the
only objective source we have and the object of this exercise is not to
discover it's external Truth but to discover if it is intrinsically
consistent.
We have all heard improbable and conflicting descriptions of God. The
opportunity now is to determine if any reasonable, logical description
can be obtained from the literature we have. If that is the case, and
we find a description we can agree on and accept (without granting
existence of any being matching that description) we can proceed to
analyzing the historical correctness of the book, and looking for any
evidence of total mass delusion.
[1] The Problem of Evil (http://tinyurl.com/qez6u)
[2] Making God Impossibly by Definition (http://tinyurl.com/jaxxh)
[3] Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem (Ch 12 & 13)
You are now officially a troll, as you do not reply to replies.
<Plonk>
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 09:27:50 AM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
You are now officially a troll, as you do not reply to replies.
<Plonk>
--- Jim07D6
I've posted 4 or 5 essays looking for debate plus 2 or 3 posts with
questions for atheists. I've tried to read all the answers given to the
questions and have responded where I could - these posts were not aimed
at generating debate, only in collecting feedback.
As regards the essays I've posted, I've counted almost 170 replies
which I have made and I hardly ever give 1-liners. In most threads it's
been 1 theist against 30 to 40 atheists and that takes time. It's easy
to see how one person feels rejected when I don't answer their post.
What I have realised is that a response is not always warranted and
with certain people, a response is a major waste of time (Christopher
et al). The discussions are often circular and you see that the person
doesn't want to understand. I would be overjoyed if these folks would
ignore my posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed. Stoebenau" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
17 Jun 2006 12:11:21 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 07:27:50 -0700, "Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
I've posted 4 or 5 essays looking for debate plus 2 or 3 posts with
questions for atheists. I've tried to read all the answers given to the
questions and have responded where I could - these posts were not aimed
at generating debate, only in collecting feedback.
Oh please, posting long-winded, strongly anti-atheist, especially
in assuming us to be closed minded, near substanceless essays
with unagreed upon off-the-wall assumptions is not "looking for
debate" by any meaningful definition.
BTW, if you had shown _any_ inkling of actually being familiar
with any philosophical literature of atheism (your repeated
strawmen about atheist definitions of omnipotence shows this all
to clear), you might have had a chance here. Instead, *PLONK*.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 10:19:30 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 07:27:50 -0700, "Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim07D6 wrote:
You are now officially a troll, as you do not reply to replies.
<Plonk>
--- Jim07D6
I've posted 4 or 5 essays looking for debate plus 2 or 3 posts with
questions for atheists. I've tried to read all the answers given to the
questions and have responded where I could - these posts were not aimed
at generating debate, only in collecting feedback.
Liar.
You're not interested in debate - just monolog that ignores what you
have been told.
As regards the essays I've posted, I've counted almost 170 replies
which I have made and I hardly ever give 1-liners. In most threads it's
been 1 theist against 30 to 40 atheists and that takes time. It's easy
to see how one person feels rejected when I don't answer their post.
You haven't said anything sensible.
You beg questions you refuse even to acknowledge.
What I have realised is that a response is not always warranted and
with certain people, a response is a major waste of time (Christopher
et al). The discussions are often circular and you see that the person
Liar. You never responded to what I told you. And resorted to personal
slanders instead.
They're only circular because that's all you've got.
doesn't want to understand. I would be overjoyed if these folks would
Yet another of your lies, liar.
You haven't given anything to understand.
ignore my posts.
Then stop making them, arrogantly stupid jerk. You came here - we
didn't go looking for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
15 Jun 2006 06:45:22 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150409452.656447.190090@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If you've been following my posts, you'll see I've tried to show
how God is proved impossible by impossible definition [1] and how
definitions of God indeed exist which are logical [2].
Nevertheless, some have chosen to stick to the illogical definitions of
things like Omnipotence for many reasons. I can't help feeling that
the main reason is an deep-seated fear that God might actually exist.
First of all, it was a 'theist' who asserted that there was a 'God' in the
first place. And that goof-ball and every subsequent theist goof-ball has
been unable to demonstrate proof of 'His' existence. We atheists have been
pushed to prove that 'God' *doesn't* exist, instead.
Now let me ask you, Who was it that first said that 'God' was 'omni'
*anything? Why, the theists of course! And where was *their* proof of this?
Why, they just *said* that this is so, and that's that. Now more to the
point, Why in the world do you assume that atheists have a 'deep-seated'
fear of God? Is that because *you* believe in a 'God' that is going to
consign we atheists to the flames of hell for eternity? Well, that's *your*
take on things, then. We atheists don't believe a 'God' even exists, have
seen nothing to indicate that its even *possible* for 'God' to exist, and
certainly have no reason to believe that *any* kind of deity would be as
hateful, spiteful, stupid, and just downright *mean* as this 'God' *you*
apparently believe exists, does! He sounds like something straight out of a
comic book.
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God
Oh contraire, mon ami. But you *would* be looking for 'logical defintions of
God'. That way you could zero in more precisely on what 'God' actually *is*
and take it from there. 'illogical definitions of 'God' are just that,
'illogical', and have no room in any meaningful debate about 'God'.
for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
Hey! You know what? That's a pretty good starting point. Lets keep the ball
rolling here.
The
fervent battles to maintain illogical definitions
And *who* came up with these 'illogical definitons' in the first place?
in spite of all
argument would seem to indicate that these definitions were all that
were holding back the floodgates and must be guarded against at all
cost.
As a theist, I am sure that this is not the case. Just because my God
is logically possible,
'Logically possible'? Do you mean as 'logically possible for me to travel
back in time? If so, that's asking an awful lot to accept without proof. And
let us not forget that the theists have maintained that 'God' exists from
the 'git-go' and have never been able to back that claim up. Your 'God'
exists only in your mind and nowhere else. You can plead that he's logically
possible all you want. That doesn't make it true.
it does not make Him actually probable,
necessary or extant. Possibility is just that, possible, logically
consistent, a base for further investigation.
No. No. NO. Using the word 'possible' is of no use here because what you are
trying to do -- essentially -- is *wish* something into existence. Its
'possible' that a meteor may crash into my home sometime this evening and
kill me. It's *highly* unlikely that that is going to happen -- but it's
'possible'. The possibility that there is a 'God' somewhere *out there*
running the universe is a whooooole different matter. There isn't a single
thing to even *hint* that that could be true. Again -- and I'm going to beat
you theists mercilessly with this -- it's your side that started this whole
'God exists' business and have never been able to back up the claim. The
fact that your side has to resort to the pathetic stand that it is incumbent
upon we atheists to *disprove* the existence of 'God' *shows* how lacking
your assertion is. The emperor is wearing no clothes!
I have seen that some
atheists are able to admit even this much.
Are you sure that's 'atheists' and not 'agnostics'?
I wonder if any atheist would accept an illogical definition in any
other life science as proof that an entity did not exist. If I were to
define an entity called Omnipizza as "all the pizza" and say no
more, would we really get educated people saying that this could not
exist because "all the pizza" MUST include non-pizzas and that this
logical breakdown proved the non-existence of Omnipizza.
Have you *any* idea how ridiculous the above mess is?
It's really
no different to people saying that "Omnipotent" - "can do all
things" - includes non-things like "lifting the unliftable".
Radio in the medi-vac people, Elizabeth. We got a really bad one here!
The argument that God cannot do everything because I define everything
to include non-things (which God cannot do) is a conundrum, fun while
the illusion lasts but merely the result of an internal inconsistency
in using the word "thing" in two different conflicting senses.
In the interests of progress I must therefore press on, leaving those
who choose to cling to illogical definitions to continue beating a dead
horse,
Whew! Thank 'God' for that, eh' partner?
winning a battle against theists which has been won a thousand
times. I only wish there were a few more atheists willing to continue
- I recall meeting 5 or so out of about 20 people.
If you choose to define Omnipotence and other properties of God in
illogical ways then the discussion is over, you've proved that God
cannot exist. Congratulations. For those who see through this logical
fallacy, there may be hope yet.
I would propose that the rest of us continue in the understanding that
Omnipotence has hitherto been interpreted illogically and that it has a
logical interpretation [2]. I think we should move on to greener
pastures and see if other attributes of God have similar difficulties.
We have the "Omni's" as well as a host of attributes which I
would like to list before tackling:
Spirituality, Invisibility, Knowledge, Wisdom, Truthfulness, Goodness,
Love, Mercy, Holiness, Peace, Righteousness, Jealousy, Wrath, Will,
Freedom, Power, Perfection, Blessedness, Beauty, Glory [3].
I propose we attempt to define and describe each attribute in turn
before seeing how they fit together. Instead of just defining them as
we see fit, we should attempt to draw only from the objective source of
God's description: the Bible.
The *WHATTTTTTT*!!!!!!! Did someone roast your brain at medium heat inside a
roasting pan in a convection oven, or something???? What are you
*completely* nuts???
I can hear the scornful cries of
disdain already but we have no choice in the matter.
Scornful? What would ever lead you to *that* conclusion?
The Bible is the
only objective source
we have and the object of this exercise is not to
discover it's external Truth but to discover if it is intrinsically
consistent.
Wow! All that previous pseudo-intellectual stuff to arrive at *this*. Okay
Elizabeth, you oughta turn off the oven now. This guy's brain has been
seriously over-baked.
We have all heard improbable and conflicting descriptions of God. The
opportunity now is to determine if any reasonable, logical description
can be obtained from the literature we have. If that is the case, and
we find a description we can agree on and accept (without granting
existence of any being matching that description) we can proceed to
analyzing the historical correctness of the book, and looking for any
evidence of total mass delusion.
Believe me partner, we need not look any further than *you*. You are a
poster-child for what has gone wrong with a certain segment in the family of
man. Where's that damn 'Outer Limits' and 'Twilight Zone' theme music when
you need it????
[1] The Problem of Evil (http://tinyurl.com/qez6u)
[2] Making God Impossibly by Definition (http://tinyurl.com/jaxxh)
[3] Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem (Ch 12 & 13)
Horseshit in Alt.Atheism by ... Oh, who cares?
*That* is scary.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
15 Jun 2006 05:44:18 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Now Playing:
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
-- Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 03:08:05 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 07:33:27 AM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Now Playing:
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of
the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the
Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 09:29:03 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 04:17:47 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1150468143.322424.156900@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does
not exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical
evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of
evidence or "indicator" as I refer to in this post
(http://tinyurl.com/l3caj). Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I
see) causes us to miss important things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
I try to read for content. There was none.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Now Playing:
"The longer I have been an atheist, the more amazed I am that I ever
believed Christian notions."
-Dan Barker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
17 Jun 2006 06:00:52 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 21:17:47 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1150468143.322424.156900@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does
not exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical
evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of
evidence or "indicator" as I refer to in this post
(http://tinyurl.com/l3caj). Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I
see) causes us to miss important things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
I try to read for content. There was none.
He's an example of how fundamentalism destroys a thinking mind and
removes any understanding for either the real world or how to deal
with people outside his fantasy world.
It sends them out to evangelise and doesn't equip them for it.
He daren't consider the other guy's point of view let alone think
about it because if he did he'd realise he has nothing to tell us
about, even though he's rudely wasting a heck of a lot of time doing
it.
The doesn't even realise the most obvious things like when he puts
himself in somebody else's space the only perspective that matters is
theirs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 10:35:49 PM |
|
|
Jack wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
How does one distinguish between revelation and hallucination?
As for instinct, are we born *knowing* how to breathe, or do we just
breathe? Are we born *knowing* the role of a mother's nipple, or do
we just seek it? We don't *know* how to perform reflex actions, we
do them unknowingly.
As for testimony, we must have the name of the witness, and the
witness is subject to cross-examination. How do these apply?
As for "indirect sensation", how do we get an awareness of God
from it?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
17 Jun 2006 03:50:13 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
How does one distinguish between revelation and hallucination?
As for instinct, are we born *knowing* how to breathe, or do we just
breathe? Are we born *knowing* the role of a mother's nipple, or do
we just seek it? We don't *know* how to perform reflex actions, we
do them unknowingly.
As for testimony, we must have the name of the witness, and the
witness is subject to cross-examination. How do these apply?
As for "indirect sensation", how do we get an awareness of God
from it?
Colin Day aa #1500
I've posted a response to your questions back in the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/708d42ec7a1e3f1e
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
17 Jun 2006 09:03:08 PM |
|
|
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
How does one distinguish between revelation and hallucination?
As for instinct, are we born *knowing* how to breathe, or do we just
breathe? Are we born *knowing* the role of a mother's nipple, or do
we just seek it? We don't *know* how to perform reflex actions, we
do them unknowingly.
As for testimony, we must have the name of the witness, and the
witness is subject to cross-examination. How do these apply?
As for "indirect sensation", how do we get an awareness of God
from it?
Colin Day aa #1500
I've posted a response to your questions back in the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/708d42ec7a1e3f1e
And I'm supposed to go to Google groups every time?
OK, how do you know that revelation occurs when the subject is healthy?
I don't trust myself with such a distinction, I'm not going to trust you.
As for instinct, you are simply wrong in viewing it as knowledge.
As for tesimony, am I allowed to cross-examine these "witnesses"?
And doe prayer work? How would one know?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
22 Jun 2006 02:54:28 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
How does one distinguish between revelation and hallucination?
As for instinct, are we born *knowing* how to breathe, or do we just
breathe? Are we born *knowing* the role of a mother's nipple, or do
we just seek it? We don't *know* how to perform reflex actions, we
do them unknowingly.
As for testimony, we must have the name of the witness, and the
witness is subject to cross-examination. How do these apply?
As for "indirect sensation", how do we get an awareness of God
from it?
Colin Day aa #1500
I've posted a response to your questions back in the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/708d42ec7a1e3f1e
And I'm supposed to go to Google groups every time?
OK, how do you know that revelation occurs when the subject is healthy?
I don't trust myself with such a distinction, I'm not going to trust you.
Since I have had both revelation and hallucination I feel I know the
difference. Hallucinations occur when the mind plays tricks, thinking
is unclear and the result is often illogical. I think I know what
you're gonna say to that ;-)
As for instinct, you are simply wrong in viewing it as knowledge.
Really, is that perhaps simply a result of your definition of
knowledge. For me, knowledge is the collection of things I know. I know
how to breathe, I know how to stop breathing and start it again.
As for tesimony, am I allowed to cross-examine these "witnesses"?
Sure, if you're lucky you'll find a good witness and really get
something out of it.
And doe prayer work? How would one know?
Quite simple, you pray for something and it happens. The natural
instinct, even for theists, is to assume the thing which then happened,
would have happened anywasy but sometimes it's just too unlikely to
hold water. Other times you just pray and you get a revelation,
answering some question you had or revealing more of God's nature.
Prayer is not like Aladdin's Genie - you don't always get what you
want, but you nearly always get what you need.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
23 Jun 2006 02:19:39 PM |
|
|
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
How does one distinguish between revelation and hallucination?
As for instinct, are we born *knowing* how to breathe, or do we just
breathe? Are we born *knowing* the role of a mother's nipple, or do
we just seek it? We don't *know* how to perform reflex actions, we
do them unknowingly.
As for testimony, we must have the name of the witness, and the
witness is subject to cross-examination. How do these apply?
As for "indirect sensation", how do we get an awareness of God
from it?
Colin Day aa #1500
I've posted a response to your questions back in the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/708d42ec7a1e3f1e
And I'm supposed to go to Google groups every time?
OK, how do you know that revelation occurs when the subject is healthy?
I don't trust myself with such a distinction, I'm not going to trust you.
Since I have had both revelation and hallucination I feel I know the
difference. Hallucinations occur when the mind plays tricks, thinking
is unclear and the result is often illogical. I think I know what
you're gonna say to that ;-)
And revelation isn't your mind playing tricks?
As for instinct, you are simply wrong in viewing it as knowledge.
Really, is that perhaps simply a result of your definition of
knowledge. For me, knowledge is the collection of things I know. I know
how to breathe, I know how to stop breathing and start it again.
Does breathing require knowledge?
As for tesimony, am I allowed to cross-examine these "witnesses"?
Sure, if you're lucky you'll find a good witness and really get
something out of it.
A witness to what? I doubt that anyone alive today was living in 29 AD.
And doe prayer work? How would one know?
Quite simple, you pray for something and it happens. The natural
instinct, even for theists, is to assume the thing which then happened,
would have happened anywasy but sometimes it's just too unlikely to
hold water. Other times you just pray and you get a revelation,
answering some question you had or revealing more of God's nature.
Prayer is not like Aladdin's Genie - you don't always get what you
want, but you nearly always get what you need.
OK. I don't pray, and something happens anyway. The natural
instinct, even for atheists, is to assume that things don't require
prayer.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
26 Jun 2006 09:37:30 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
How does one distinguish between revelation and hallucination?
As for instinct, are we born *knowing* how to breathe, or do we just
breathe? Are we born *knowing* the role of a mother's nipple, or do
we just seek it? We don't *know* how to perform reflex actions, we
do them unknowingly.
As for testimony, we must have the name of the witness, and the
witness is subject to cross-examination. How do these apply?
As for "indirect sensation", how do we get an awareness of God
from it?
Colin Day aa #1500
I've posted a response to your questions back in the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/708d42ec7a1e3f1e
And I'm supposed to go to Google groups every time?
OK, how do you know that revelation occurs when the subject is healthy?
I don't trust myself with such a distinction, I'm not going to trust you.
Since I have had both revelation and hallucination I feel I know the
difference. Hallucinations occur when the mind plays tricks, thinking
is unclear and the result is often illogical. I think I know what
you're gonna say to that ;-)
And revelation isn't your mind playing tricks?
It doesn't seem to be. Of you can take the view that our whole
existence is an illusion, one big Matrix simulation with us as the
unwitting participants. Somewhere along the line you have to believe
something. That my revelation ties up with the Bible and what others
have experienced is evidence that the trick (if it is one) is not
arbitrary.
As for instinct, you are simply wrong in viewing it as knowledge.
Really, is that perhaps simply a result of your definition of
knowledge. For me, knowledge is the collection of things I know. I know
how to breathe, I know how to stop breathing and start it again.
Does breathing require knowledge?
Of course, we all know how to breathe.
As for tesimony, am I allowed to cross-examine these "witnesses"?
Sure, if you're lucky you'll find a good witness and really get
something out of it.
A witness to what? I doubt that anyone alive today was living in 29 AD.
I didn't mean a first-hand witness - but I'm sure you knew that
already.
And doe prayer work? How would one know?
Quite simple, you pray for something and it happens. The natural
instinct, even for theists, is to assume the thing which then happened,
would have happened anywasy but sometimes it's just too unlikely to
hold water. Other times you just pray and you get a revelation,
answering some question you had or revealing more of God's nature.
Prayer is not like Aladdin's Genie - you don't always get what you
want, but you nearly always get what you need.
OK. I don't pray, and something happens anyway. The natural
instinct, even for atheists, is to assume that things don't require
prayer.
What do you mean here? "Things" don't require prayer, nature doesn't
require prayer for it to operate. If you want something out of the
ordinary, which you cannot influence, you pray for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
01 Jul 2006 08:28:17 PM |
|
|
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
And revelation isn't your mind playing tricks?
It doesn't seem to be. Of you can take the view that our whole
existence is an illusion, one big Matrix simulation with us as the
I'll take neither, thank you.
unwitting participants. Somewhere along the line you have to believe
something. That my revelation ties up with the Bible and what others
have experienced is evidence that the trick (if it is one) is not
arbitrary.
How literally have they matched the Bible, and was this among people
who had never read it?
Sure, if you're lucky you'll find a good witness and really get
something out of it.
A witness to what? I doubt that anyone alive today was living in 29 AD.
I didn't mean a first-hand witness - but I'm sure you knew that
already.
And what is a second-hand witness?
OK. I don't pray, and something happens anyway. The natural
instinct, even for atheists, is to assume that things don't require
prayer.
What do you mean here? "Things" don't require prayer, nature doesn't
require prayer for it to operate. If you want something out of the
ordinary, which you cannot influence, you pray for it.
And how does one know that the prayer wa decisive?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
27 Jun 2006 09:29:31 AM |
|
|
On 26 Jun 2006 07:37:30 -0700, "Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
snip
As for tesimony, am I allowed to cross-examine these "witnesses"?
Sure, if you're lucky you'll find a good witness and really get
something out of it.
A witness to what? I doubt that anyone alive today was living in 29 AD.
I didn't mean a first-hand witness - but I'm sure you knew that
already.
Oh, you mean hear-say.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
22 Jun 2006 03:42:11 AM |
|
|
On 22 Jun 2006 00:54:28 -0700, "Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
How does one distinguish between revelation and hallucination?
As for instinct, are we born *knowing* how to breathe, or do we just
breathe? Are we born *knowing* the role of a mother's nipple, or do
we just seek it? We don't *know* how to perform reflex actions, we
do them unknowingly.
As for testimony, we must have the name of the witness, and the
witness is subject to cross-examination. How do these apply?
As for "indirect sensation", how do we get an awareness of God
from it?
Colin Day aa #1500
I've posted a response to your questions back in the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/708d42ec7a1e3f1e
And I'm supposed to go to Google groups every time?
OK, how do you know that revelation occurs when the subject is healthy?
I don't trust myself with such a distinction, I'm not going to trust you.
Since I have had both revelation and hallucination I feel I know the
difference. Hallucinations occur when the mind plays tricks, thinking
is unclear and the result is often illogical. I think I know what
you're gonna say to that ;-)
The difference between two delusions for different reasons?
As for instinct, you are simply wrong in viewing it as knowledge.
Really, is that perhaps simply a result of your definition of
knowledge. For me, knowledge is the collection of things I know. I know
how to breathe, I know how to stop breathing and start it again.
Except that yous includes things you don't know.
As for testimony, am I allowed to cross-examine these "witnesses"?
Sure, if you're lucky you'll find a good witness and really get
something out of it.
More arrogant stupidity.
Are they all as dishonest as you are? Copping out of what they are
supposed to answer, lying about evidence, etc?
And doe prayer work? How would one know?
Quite simple, you pray for something and it happens. The natural
instinct, even for theists, is to assume the thing which then happened,
would have happened anywasy but sometimes it's just too unlikely to
hold water. Other times you just pray and you get a revelation,
answering some question you had or revealing more of God's nature.
Prayer is not like Aladdin's Genie - you don't always get what you
want, but you nearly always get what you need.
Demonstrate it exists to be prayed to, moron.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
17 Jun 2006 05:24:59 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2006 13:50:13 -0700, "Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
Jack wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
How does one distinguish between revelation and hallucination?
As for instinct, are we born *knowing* how to breathe, or do we just
breathe? Are we born *knowing* the role of a mother's nipple, or do
we just seek it? We don't *know* how to perform reflex actions, we
do them unknowingly.
As for testimony, we must have the name of the witness, and the
witness is subject to cross-examination. How do these apply?
As for "indirect sensation", how do we get an awareness of God
from it?
Colin Day aa #1500
I've posted a response to your questions back in the original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/708d42ec7a1e3f1e
And it's still the same worthless ***** it was first time around.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 10:21:04 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 07:29:03 -0700, "Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150445285.175639.295320
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Like the tooth fairy?
I see you havent bothered to read the post.
You never bother to read what you are told, about the question begging
and othert fallacies in your monologs.
When you ignore everything and resort to lies, why do you expect
people to read the same old same old?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
16 Jun 2006 04:37:45 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 01:08:05 -0700, "Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
Because objective empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence
or "indicator" as I refer to in this post (http://tinyurl.com/l3caj).
Prove it instead of just saying so, moron.
Pure skepticism (I'll believe when I see) causes us to miss important
things.
Prove it instead of just saying so, moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
15 Jun 2006 05:59:08 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 22:44:18 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
The guy is arrogantly, nastily stupid. Just who the ***** does he
imagine he is, coming to atheists and insisting he discuss something
irrelevant to us, on his terms, granting both his unjustified
presumptions about it and his redefinition of the English language to
fit those presumptions, and then lying about us?
And why does he imagine that he gets to decide when he's crossed the
first bridge, when he hasn't even provided the definition and evidence
for whatever it is he is talking about, before "discussing" subsidiary
properties.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Plonk Jack-***** |
15 Jun 2006 06:55:23 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 22:44:18 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
The guy is arrogantly, nastily stupid. Just who the ***** does he
imagine he is, coming to atheists and insisting he discuss something
irrelevant to us, on his terms, granting both his unjustified
presumptions about it and his redefinition of the English language to
fit those presumptions, and then lying about us?
And why does he imagine that he gets to decide when he's crossed the
first bridge, when he hasn't even provided the definition and evidence
for whatever it is he is talking about, before "discussing" subsidiary
properties.
Jackass is a cowardly piece of worthless *****. He pretends he wants a
"discussion" but ignores everything our side says, flits to another
thread and blythely starts off on his next topic as though all the
previous ones have been completely and satisfactorily resolved.
Does that sound like anyone you know? Duke, for example?
I submit he's not worth any more effort. Plonk him!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Jack-***** |
15 Jun 2006 08:26:56 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 16:55:23 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1150415723.166934.36170@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 22:44:18 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
The guy is arrogantly, nastily stupid. Just who the ***** does he
imagine he is, coming to atheists and insisting he discuss something
irrelevant to us, on his terms, granting both his unjustified
presumptions about it and his redefinition of the English language to
fit those presumptions, and then lying about us?
And why does he imagine that he gets to decide when he's crossed the
first bridge, when he hasn't even provided the definition and evidence
for whatever it is he is talking about, before "discussing" subsidiary
properties.
Jackass is a cowardly piece of worthless *****. He pretends he wants a
"discussion" but ignores everything our side says, flits to another
thread and blythely starts off on his next topic as though all the
previous ones have been completely and satisfactorily resolved.
Does that sound like anyone you know? Duke, for example?
I submit he's not worth any more effort. Plonk him!
And join the growing club of those who have cut their losses...
The indoctrobot has a read-only memory.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Jack-***** |
15 Jun 2006 08:11:25 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 16:55:23 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 22:44:18 GMT, Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I were a convinced atheist I wouldn't be struggling against
logical definitions of God for I would be certain that He does not
exist based on the killer criterion - lack of empirical evidence.
That works for me. So why aren't you a convinced atheist?
The guy is arrogantly, nastily stupid. Just who the ***** does he
imagine he is, coming to atheists and insisting he discuss something
irrelevant to us, on his terms, granting both his unjustified
presumptions about it and his redefinition of the English language to
fit those presumptions, and then lying about us?
And why does he imagine that he gets to decide when he's crossed the
first bridge, when he hasn't even provided the definition and evidence
for whatever it is he is talking about, before "discussing" subsidiary
properties.
Jackass is a cowardly piece of worthless *****.
Yeah. He's not cool like me, that's for sure. Right, Budikka?
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that
whosever would believe in him would believe just about anything.
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Plonk Jack-***** |
17 Jun 2006 07:37:02 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 16:55:23 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Jackass is a cowardly piece of worthless *****. He pretends he wants a
"discussion" but ignores everything our side says, flits to another
thread and blythely starts off on his next topic as though all the
previous ones have been completely and satisfactorily resolved.
Does that sound like anyone you know? Duke, for example?
I submit he's not worth any more effort. Plonk him!
Budikka
Bud the dud, why do you run away from any and all discussions?
And, no, I'm not your latest antagonist jack(*****). If you tried to discuss
things, this wouldn't happen to you.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
15 Jun 2006 06:30:55 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If you've been following my posts, you'll see I've tried to show
how God is proved impossible by impossible definition [1] and how
definitions of God indeed exist which are logical [2].
1. The definitions of gods are provided by theists, usually theologians.
The fact that they can't come up with any non contradictory ones is their
problem not ours. Indeed there are thousands upon thousands of gods
proposed and I am not really interested other than as an excercise when the
mood strikes.
2. Haven't seen any. Wouldn't be relevant anyway.
3. Present the verifiable empirical evidence or shut up already.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A Fork in the Road |
15 Jun 2006 06:47:34 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 11:30:55 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in news:1150409452.656447.190090
@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If you've been following my posts, you'll see I've tried to show
how God is proved impossible by impossible definition [1] and how
definitions of God indeed exist which are logical [2].
1. The definitions of gods are provided by theists, usually theologians.
The fact that they can't come up with any non contradictory ones is their
problem not ours. Indeed there are thousands upon thousands of gods
proposed and I am not really interested other than as an excercise when the
mood strikes.
2. Haven't seen any. Wouldn't be relevant anyway.
3. Present the verifiable empirical evidence or shut up already.
He does neither.
He's a Mor(m)on on a mission.
Q: What do you get when you cross a Mor(m)on with a Hell's Angel?
A: Somebody who knocks on your door and tells you to *****.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
