Religions > Atheism > AA challenge - Richard Hanson - Day 1 - Famous scientists and process metaphysics.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"wcb" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2006 09:27:10 PM |
| Object: |
AA challenge - Richard Hanson - Day 1 - Famous scientists and process metaphysics. |
Hanson says lots of famous physicists tell us that Whiteheads
moronic process metaphysics is the foundation of modern physics!
Richard Gooseboy Hanson:
"Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy
behind modern science."
-------------
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12g9o031p4jkfb2@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
------------------
1. Whitehead's process philosophy is not equivalent to Whitehead's
process
theology. Hence it is possible to accept the one without accepting the
other. Hence there are process philosophers and process theologians.
What does that have to do with your blatant lie that the "PT crew
admitted
their PT god didn't exactly work"??????
The sucker never really got his PT theology or PT god worked out.
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Bwahahahahahahahahahhah! Only by process theology Dweebs!
There is not a single well known leading scientist that
can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all.
When I last challenged you brazen lies on this, you to back
that up, sprayed AA down with crap you dredged
from google, not a single one which showed this claim!
You didn't read anything, just slapped ***** from google it it
had Whithead, Feynman etc in the headers! If some college
freshmen wrote a blog article that mentioned Feynmen and Whitehead
and not necessarily on process theology, you spewed it here!
Unread!
If some bozo had babbled ***** and quoted from Whitehead and then from
Feynman, it got put here even when it these quotes had nothing to do with
each other!
You did this three times you deeply incompetent, lying, stupid, moron!
Of the numerous bits of crap you spewed here, not one, not one
had anything to do with any well known physicists accepting
process *****.
You lied and got caught and got laughed at as a lying and
incompetent fool!
Again, the challenge stands!
Show us a quote from any really famous scentists that say that;
"Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy
behind modern science."
Show us any really great, well known working physicists this day who say
that!
NO! Do not spam us with crap you google up and spray here without ever
reading that turns out to ALL have nothing to do with process stupidity and
science.
SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM PHYSICISTS!
Put them here.
---------------->
I will post this challenge ever day until you comply to show you are
a lying, stupid *****.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA challenge - Barney Barwell - Day 1 - Critics and "Crews" |
12 Sep 2006 12:35:53 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gc6pn6ooss367@corp.supernews.com...
Barwell states:
When I dug up articles where the PT crew admitted
their PT god didn't exactly work,
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
This is equivalent to saying that when Stephen Jay Gould proposed the theory
of punctuated equilibrium as a better explanation of evolution and Jerry
Falwell said that he didn't believe in Evolution that meant that "the
evolution crew admitted their theory doesn't work."
An obvious and blatant lie, and one that well-read atheists know is used by
the creationist/Intelligent Design Fundamentalistsall the time.
Yet on exactly the same kind of evidence, Barwell states that the "PT crew
admitted their PT god didn't exactly work." An almost perfect copy of a
blatant fundamentalist tactical lie.
Since when do critics of a subject constitute the proponents of a subject?
I.e., a "crew."?
I'll be posting this in response to any of Bawell's bogus 'challenges' or
until he admits that he lied through his teeth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gandy challenge - day 02 - Process metaphysics ***** is basis of science? |
12 Sep 2006 08:31:53 AM |
|
|
Gandy challenge - day 01 - Process metaphysics is basis of science?
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
There is not a single well known leading scientist that
can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all.
Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that
say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the
philosophy behind modern science."
Or admit you are wrong and had no idea what you were babbling
about when you posted you foolish and false claim!
SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM PHYSICISTS! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS!
Put them here.
---------------->
I will post this challenge ever day until you comply to show you are
a lying, stupid *****. Or until you admit you shot your intellectually
incompetent mouth off with having any reason to have made your foolish
claim.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barney Barwell challenge - day 02 - Barwell's Creationist Techniques |
12 Sep 2006 12:07:41 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gddnmhmhmptb7@corp.supernews.com...
Gandy
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gc6pn6ooss367@corp.supernews.com...
Barwell states:
When I dug up articles where the PT crew admitted
their PT god didn't exactly work,
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
This is equivalent to saying that when Stephen Jay Gould proposed the theory
of punctuated equilibrium as a better explanation of evolution and Jerry
Falwell said that he didn't believe in Evolution that meant that "the
evolution crew admitted their theory doesn't work."
An obvious and blatant lie, and one that well-read atheists know is used by
the creationist/Intelligent Design Fundamentalistsall the time.
Yet on exactly the same kind of evidence, Barwell states that the "PT crew
admitted their PT god didn't exactly work." An almost perfect copy of a
blatant fundamentalist tactical lie.
Since when do critics of a subject constitute the proponents of a subject?
I.e., a "crew."?
I'll be posting this in response to any of Bawell's bogus 'challenges' or
until he admits that he lied through his teeth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gandy is a liar. |
12 Sep 2006 07:36:42 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders and Richard Hanson,
pathological liar lies.
lies, lies and MORE lies
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
No credibility for Hanson.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell is a liar. |
12 Sep 2006 08:21:03 PM |
|
|
Let's check some more of those Barwell lies
wcb wrote:
Gandalf Grey wrote:
No it's not. You said you had a proof that god cannot exist.
See, there you go LYING again.
:Gods do not exist and its provable. - wcb
:All viable particular gods are thus
:disproven. God cannot exist. - wcb
:I KNOW gods do not exist and prove
:that fact. - wcb
:No god can exist. Proof follows. - wcb
:You were the one who stated "Atheists cannot
:disprove god". We can. And I have. -wcb
:No gods at all fuckwit. ... No OEC class
:gods. Immanent gods, transcedent gods, no
:Deist gods. - wcb
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Richard Hanson, intellectual fraud, process theology fanatic |
12 Sep 2006 10:33:14 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders and Richard Hanson,
pathological liar lies.
lies, lies and MORE lies
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journa
No credibility for Hanson.
-------
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barney Barwell, intellectual fraud, process theology fanatic |
13 Sep 2006 12:21:17 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gev16nlb0gtca@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Hanson - intellectual fraud, process theology fanatic, his lies debunked. |
13 Sep 2006 12:37:43 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gev16nlb0gtca@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell - intellectual fraud, his lies debunked. |
13 Sep 2006 12:23:27 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gf6auatrb4d6a@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gev16nlb0gtca@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Read the last sentence again, MORON. The paper is a defense of the subject,
not a critique.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
That's right, moron. The criticisms you came up with weren't from process
theologians.
So how does any of that equal "the PT Crew"???????
When are you going to stop lying, Barney.?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gandy tries to trick people with lies - intellectual fraud, his lies debunked. |
13 Sep 2006 02:42:15 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
Gandy challenge - day 01 - Process metaphysics is basis of science?
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
There is not a single well known leading scientist that
can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all.
Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that
say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the
philosophy behind modern science."
Or admit you are wrong and had no idea what you were babbling
about when you posted you foolish and false claim!
SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS!
Put them here.
---------------->
I will post this challenge ever day until you comply, to show you are
a lying, stupid *****. Or until you admit you shot your intellectually
incompetent mouth off with having any reason to have made your foolish
claim and admit this was a gross error on your part.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell tries to trick people with lies - intellectual fraud, his lies debunked. |
13 Sep 2006 03:10:53 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggnq392a2ncd9@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Which is a paper defending Process Theology. Don't make me repost Griffin's
conclusions and make you look like a fool again, Barwell.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gandy is desperate. |
13 Sep 2006 02:46:34 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell's is desperate. |
13 Sep 2006 03:33:54 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggo27ep3ohf80@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barney Barwell, intellectual fraud |
12 Sep 2006 11:45:21 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gev16nlb0gtca@corp.supernews.com...
Let's check some more of those Barwell lies
wcb wrote:
Gandalf Grey wrote:
No it's not. You said you had a proof that god cannot exist.
See, there you go LYING again.
:Gods do not exist and its provable. - wcb
:All viable particular gods are thus
:disproven. God cannot exist. - wcb
:I KNOW gods do not exist and prove
:that fact. - wcb
:No god can exist. Proof follows. - wcb
:You were the one who stated "Atheists cannot
:disprove god". We can. And I have. -wcb
:No gods at all fuckwit. ... No OEC class
:gods. Immanent gods, transcedent gods, no
:Deist gods. - wcb
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Hansons deperate lies - process theology critics are process theology leading proponents |
13 Sep 2006 12:39:57 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell's deperate lies |
13 Sep 2006 12:23:22 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gf6eoqimr1ja9@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying
I'm not. I leave that up to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Richard Hansons deperate lies |
13 Sep 2006 02:41:15 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barney Barwell's desparate lies |
13 Sep 2006 03:09:53 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggno6hp36utb2@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Which is a defense of Process Theology by Dr. Griffin.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: gandys idiocy expoesed again. |
13 Sep 2006 09:00:20 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
This is equivalent to saying that when Stephen Jay Gould proposed the
theory of punctuated equilibrium as a better explanation of evolution and
Jerry Falwell said that he didn't believe in Evolution that meant that
"the evolution crew admitted their theory doesn't work."
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
---------
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologys own journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell's idiocy expoesed again. |
13 Sep 2006 12:22:42 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gg3p06elvmj18@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
This is equivalent to saying that when Stephen Jay Gould proposed the
theory of punctuated equilibrium as a better explanation of evolution and
Jerry Falwell said that he didn't believe in Evolution that meant that
"the evolution crew admitted their theory doesn't work."
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And found an article DEFENDING PT by David Ray Griffin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Gandy repeats old canned lies gets spanked again. |
13 Sep 2006 04:16:23 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell repeats old canned lies gets spanked again. |
13 Sep 2006 04:41:57 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12ggo27ep3ohf80@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Gandy challenge - day 02 - Process metaphysics ***** is basis of science? |
12 Sep 2006 11:54:16 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Gandy challenge - day 01 - Process metaphysics is basis of science?
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
There is not a single well known leading scientist that
can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all.
Show us a quote from any really famous physicists that
say that; "Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the
philosophy behind modern science."
I don't think anyone would claim that Whitehead's, or anyone else's
philosophy, was 'acclaimed' (believed without dispute) as *the*
philosophy behind all of modern science. Here's a more balanced view
of Whitehead's influence:
<quote>
Process philosophy since Whitehead
Several fields of science and especially medicine seem to make liberal
use of ideas in process philosophy, notably the theory of pain and
healing of the late 20th century. The philosophy of medicine began to
deviate somewhat from scientific method and an emphasis on repeatable
results very late 20th century by embracing population thinking, and a
more pragmatic approach to issues in public health, environmental
health and especially mental health. In this latter field, R. D. Laing,
Thomas Szasz and Michel Foucault were instrumental in moving medicine
away from emphasis on "cures" and towards concepts of individuals in
balance with their society, both of which are changing, and against
which no benchmarks or finished "cures" were very likely to be
measureable.
In psychology the subject of imagination was again explored more
extensively since Whitehead, and the question of feasibility or
"eternal objects" of thought became central to the impaired theory of
mind explorations that framed postmodern cognitive science. A
biological understanding of the most eternal object, that being the
emerging of similar but independent cognitive apparatus, led to an
obsession with the process "embodiment", that being, the emergence of
these cognitions. Like Whitehead's God, especially as elaborated in J.
J. Gibson's perceptual psychology emphasizing affordances, by ordering
the relevance of eternal objects (especially the cognitions of other
such actors), the world becomes. Or, it becomes simple enough for human
beings to begin to make choices, and to prehend what happens as a
result. These experiences may be summed in some sense but can only
approximately be shared, even among very similar cognitions with
identical DNA. An early explorer of this view was Alan Turing who
sought to prove the limits of expressive complexity of human genes in
the late 1940s, to put bounds on the complexity of human intelligence
and so assess the feasibility of artificial intelligence emerging.
In the philosophy of mathematics, some of Whitehead's ideas re-emerged
in combination with cognitivism as the cognitive science of mathematics
and embodied mind theses.
</q>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
Or admit you are wrong and had no idea what you were babbling
about when you posted you foolish and false claim!
SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM PHYSICISTS! FROM WELL KNOWN WORKING SCIENTISTS!
Put them here.
---------------->
I will post this challenge ever day until you comply to show you are
a lying, stupid *****. Or until you admit you shot your intellectually
incompetent mouth off with having any reason to have made your foolish
claim.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: AA challenge - Richard Hanson - Day 1 - Famous scientists and process metaphysics. |
12 Sep 2006 04:03:20 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Hanson says lots of famous physicists tell us that Whiteheads
moronic process metaphysics is the foundation of modern physics!
Richard Gooseboy Hanson:
"Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy
behind modern science."
-------------
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12g9o031p4jkfb2@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
------------------
1. Whitehead's process philosophy is not equivalent to Whitehead's
process
theology. Hence it is possible to accept the one without accepting the
other. Hence there are process philosophers and process theologians.
What does that have to do with your blatant lie that the "PT crew
admitted
their PT god didn't exactly work"??????
The sucker never really got his PT theology or PT god worked out.
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Bwahahahahahahahahahhah! Only by process theology Dweebs!
There is not a single well known leading scientist that
can be quoted with a specific quote that says that at all.
When I last challenged you brazen lies on this, you to back
that up, sprayed AA down with crap you dredged
from google, not a single one which showed this claim!
You didn't read anything, just slapped ***** from google it it
had Whithead, Feynman etc in the headers! If some college
freshmen wrote a blog article that mentioned Feynmen and Whitehead
and not necessarily on process theology, you spewed it here!
Unread!
If some bozo had babbled ***** and quoted from Whitehead and then from
Feynman, it got put here even when it these quotes had nothing to do with
each other!
You did this three times you deeply incompetent, lying, stupid, moron!
Of the numerous bits of crap you spewed here, not one, not one
had anything to do with any well known physicists accepting
process *****.
You lied and got caught and got laughed at as a lying and
incompetent fool!
Again, the challenge stands!
Show us a quote from any really famous scentists that say that;
"Whitehead's philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy
behind modern science."
Show us any really great, well known working physicists this day who say
that!
NO! Do not spam us with crap you google up and spray here without ever
reading that turns out to ALL have nothing to do with process stupidity and
science.
SPECIFIC QUOTES! FROM PHYSICISTS!
Put them here.
---------------->
I will post this challenge ever day until you comply to show you are
a lying, stupid *****.
As a physicst who has specialized in QM, I would say that Whitehead's
process philosophy in particular is completely incompatible with modern
physics let alone being some kind of foundation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA challenge - Richard Hanson - Day 1 - Famous scientists and process metaphysics. |
12 Sep 2006 07:11:28 PM |
|
|
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
I will post this challenge ever day until you comply to show you are
a lying, stupid *****.
As a physicst who has specialized in QM, I would say that Whitehead's
process philosophy in particular is completely incompatible with modern
physics let alone being some kind of foundation.
True. Whitehead's metaphysics claimed event consisted
of small, short events where particles came into and event
out of existance.
However in real phsics, some particles are very short lived, some
intermediately so such as neutrons with a halflife of 11 minutes,
and many particles like electrons have as far as we known,
eternal existance. Protons and other baryons are very long lived.
Made of quarks they are persistant.
Physics just does not work as Whitehead guessed.
This is the problem with metaphysical systems like this.
You can never, ever outguess nature.
Whiteheads process theology god has a problem in
that there is no cosmic now in a relative uninverse.
Its never 10 O'clock everywhere in the Universe.
This plays havoc with Whitehead's defined metaphysical god.
Much of his metaphysics is defined.
Once you make your guess and the facts turn out to be
otherwise, you may find yourself with an unpatchable
metaphysical system.
Embaressments like this is why physics is basically and
empirical science formost. And not an exercise
in definitial metaphysics.
All reality is energy, being composed of a complex combination of energy
events. There is no such thing as spiritual matter versus physical matter.
God and our spirits are energy events, just as is everything else.
http://www.ctr4process.org/about/process/GodUniverse.shtml
The building blocks of the universe are bursts of energy, each coming into
being and fading away in a split second. Whitehead calls them energy events
or actual occasions of experience.
Each energy event has a physical pole and a mental pole.
The physical pole is that aspect of it which is purely a repeat of past
energy events.
The mental pole is an element of subjectivity and, therefore, of limited but
genuine freedom that enables the energy event, in the process of becoming,
to have some determination over the shape it will take, and to receive new
possibilities from God, the initial aim (#4).
Rock, water, flesh, air, are all incredibly complex combinations of these
energy events (societies of occasions).
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA challenge - Barney Barwell - Day 1 - |
12 Sep 2006 08:23:08 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gej78k3i45bd3@corp.supernews.com...
Let's check some more of those Barwell lies
wcb wrote:
Gandalf Grey wrote:
No it's not. You said you had a proof that god cannot exist.
See, there you go LYING again.
:Gods do not exist and its provable. - wcb
:All viable particular gods are thus
:disproven. God cannot exist. - wcb
:I KNOW gods do not exist and prove
:that fact. - wcb
:No god can exist. Proof follows. - wcb
:You were the one who stated "Atheists cannot
:disprove god". We can. And I have. -wcb
:No gods at all fuckwit. ... No OEC class
:gods. Immanent gods, transcedent gods, no
:Deist gods. - wcb
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: AA challenge - Hanson sucks it up - Day 2 - process metaphysics lie |
12 Sep 2006 10:30:38 PM |
|
|
No liar, you cannot brazen this out with lies and diversions.
You cannot get away with savage hate attacks and ad hominems.
Prove your assertions or admit you lied.
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Prove your claims or shut up all together.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: AA challenge - Barwell Lies |
12 Sep 2006 11:44:14 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12geusa1v4r1m76@corp.supernews.com...
No liar, you cannot brazen this out with lies and diversions.
Took the words right out of my mouth, Barney
We have to probably call this A Mass of Lies.
When are you going to retract them all, Barney?
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12eq0glflosh03d@corp.supernews.com...
I tweaked my essay a bit to put things more
accurately. Over 35 years the mainstream religions
failed to utilize their large numbers to effectively
draw a line in the sand and end these policies of
supporting genocide and evil.
They were at best feeble and uncertain
where they should most certainly been
uncompromising and resolute.
TRANSLATION: Your original essay was sheer crap. And this newest version
continues to contain a mass of blatant lies.
***********************************************************
The Failure of Christianity in America
W. C . Barwell 3-8-05
***********************************************************
1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an
uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
Since Nixon, this nation has rapidly moved quite far to the
right, taken there mainly by christian right wingers who have
fully supported the GOP, as it has moved specifically to
gain support of christian right wingers. This started when
Nixon played the racist Southern Strategy card building on
civil rights era resentments by far right Southerners.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172743.shtml
Conservative Southerners were very religious. Among other
things, after desegregation many religious groups started their
ownprivate segregated schools. White Citizens Councils
were formed,many meeting in churches.
The turn towards Christian conservatives accelerated
under Reagan, who skillfully played the religious card, and the
religious right joined the GOP-Reagan revolution that still
is a major influence. That has given the GOP control of Congress
for years, especially thanks to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott
who gained control of the Congress, House and Senate in 1995
with full support of the politicized religious right.
So we now have had a essentially a christian-GOP government
for 30 years.
That's a lie. What we have is a Fundamentalist-GOP government.
We had large right wing Christian movements
who were formed expressedly for political reasons to move
America right and to empower America conservative religionists,
and they have been largely successful.
RICHARD M. NIXON - GERALD FORD.
Christian denominations largely supported incompetent
and corrupt Vietnamese politicians. And a senseless war
in Vietnam that accomplished nothing, run by incompetents.
That's a lie. The world and national council of churches opposed the war.
Not many Christian denominations respected life here.
Or freedom. But supported Nixon heartily despite the
horrors we committed in Vietnam and Cambodia and Chile
and winked at support for others mentioned above.
Another lie. Many denominations opposed all of the above.
Not many major religious denominations nor their leaders
spoke out and drew a line at any of this.
That's a lie.
RONALD REAGAN 1981 - 1989
Ronald Reagan came to power largely because of the
religious right's politicization and support.
Throughout his administration Ronald Reagan supported
Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as the official government
of note in Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge delegation
as the official UN delegation of Cambodia to the UN.
Aid is funneled to the Khmer Rouge including $81 million
dollars, and food and uniforms funneled through aid
organizations. Reagan winked as China rearmed Pol Pot,
and leaned on nations not to send aid to Cambodia despite
the devastation of nearly 1/3 of Cambodia's population
killed by Pol Pot's genocidal regime.
Early in his administration Reagan lead the GOP in
support for military aid to the genocidal Rios Montt
of Guatemala, who practiced wholesale mass torture,
mass rape mass murder and genocide on the Mayan Indians
of Guatemala.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/guatemala11.htm
Reagan and the GOP supported the mass murdering ex-Somoza
Guards of Nicaragua.
Reagan and the GOP supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
Reagan and the GOP supported the murderous Robert
D'Aubisson of El Salvador, a known far right death
squad leader.
The El Salvadoran government was involved in numerous
murders, and massacres, such as the killing of 400
villagers at a small village called El Mezote, most
of them young women and children.
http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_chron1.html
Reagan and the GOP supported Noriega of Panama.
Reagan and the GOP supported a number of murdering
far right extremist guerrilla movements in Africa including
the genocidal RENAMO in Mozambique.
The Christian and religious right heavily supported Reagan
and the GOP despite numerous examples of such evils as
listed above.
Another lie. You're again conflating any and all Christian denominations
with the religious right.
They're not the same.
The leaders of the religious right never cared
nor complained, and rarely did the religious leaders of the
main stream christian denominations make any effort
to stand up and denounce these outrageous policies.
No more rarely than atheists, Barwell.
The members of major denominations made little effort to
complain and demand their religious leaders react to
support for genocidal mass murderers.
Another lie.
Despite having 100 + millions of members, the main stream
denominations made little difference to Reagan and GOP
policies, vigorously supported by the religious right.
As did the atheists make little difference.
There was and is little real respect for life in organized
American christianity as these wholesale and repeat failures of
America christianity collectively over 35 years shows.
Another lie. Liberation theology alone has been instrumental in opposing
right wing dictatorships around the world and particularly in South America.
Action was mainly confined to small liberal denominations.
Another lie. The world council and national council of churches have both
liberal and conservative members.
What main stream denomination action was taken was feeble
and half hearted at best.
Another lie.
Many churches and denominations whole-heartedly support
Reagan and the GOP despite these horrors, and many
actively worked for Reagan's re-election and support of GOP
candidates, passing out tens of millions of voters' guides
slanted to support of far right GOP candiates and policies.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Bush continued support for the evil dictators above,
including Pinochet, Pol Pot and others. However,
Saddam screwed us and invaded Kuwait, mainly because
Bush screwed up and did not warn him to not do so
as Hussein repeatedly threatened to invade Kuwait
for nearly two months and coolly noted Bush's lack
of much response.
Bush did not act in case of genocide by Yugoslavia's
Milosevic, and Bush and the GOP's loud and obnoxious
foot-dragging here allowed Milosevic to kill
hundreds of thousands with near impunity.
The leaders of the GOP, House and Senate, and religious
leaders of the right
and mainstream denominations never
cared about any of this.
Another lie.
The main stream denominations
rarely made much of an issue out of it, and what was done
was as usual,feeble.
Another lie.
Few Christian leaders of either far right or mainstream
denominations cared, nor brought Bush and the GOP leadership
of House and Senate to task for this genocide of innocents.
Anothe lie as any search on the subject will show.
The voters' guides pushed in many churches still were demanding
parishioners vote GOP despite these horrors and mass murders.
In many fundamentalist churches.
Few leaders of large, powerful and influential denominations
ever stood up and denounced these mass murders.
Another lie.
Christians
underneath did not push dilatory and feebly responsive denominational
leaders to speak out, act and lead against these mass murders
and war crimes.
Another lie.
Nor the support early in Bush's career for
Saddam and Pop Pot and other genocidal monsters.
The far right churches as usual made no almost no efforts at all.
Duh!
Clinton:
Under Clinton this Iraq policy continued. Again, Christians
did not care.
Another lie.
All many Christians cared about was Clinton's
don't-ask-don't-tell gays in military policy and Clinton's
sex life and Whitewater. $47 million spent investigating
Whitewater while the Christian right roared with naked hate.
Money spent investigation mass murder in Iraq caused by
our purposeful by our sanctions? $0.
Roars of disprovable from Christian America over these mass
murders? Not much.
Roars from Atheist America? Just as few.
From the large far right religious
denominations there was next to no effort at all.
Duh!
No large denominations ever made these war crimes and
mass murders an issue
A blatant lie.
nor took the GOP or president to
task over these horrors in a manner tha ever made a
difference.
What has 35 years of right winged GOP government and right
winger christianity got us?
Sliding again, I see. Right winger christianity is not "christianity"
Barwell. Like the true demagogue you are, I can understand your feverish
desire to obscure that fact.
Mass murder, genocide,
Nothing but callousness, disregard for human life,
support for dictators, a near total moral failure of
religion, Christianity, GOP and the American right.
And atheists.
Not once did the large mass of religious christian
Americans, either leadership or rank and file ever
find any of these evils unacceptable
A blatant lie.
or punish any
who supported any of this by using their large
memberships to draw a distinct line and make it an
unavoidable issue despite having numbers to do just
that. Not the christian right nor leaders of
major US religious denominations made a real difference.
Nor atheists.
Most GOP House and Senate members were people who
did these things claimed to be christians.
and many are atheists.
Not one
cares, not many christian denominations care that
they did not care or act.
That's because they DID act, moron.
Christians posture as moral,
So do atheists.
American christians
have a very bad track records when it comes to
morality,
So do atheists.
Christianity thus can only be called a moral failure,
Under the terms of your argument, atheism can also be called a complete
moral failure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Again, Gandy challenged on science-process metaphysics lie. |
13 Sep 2006 08:58:36 AM |
|
|
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Gandy, your flurry of lies and hate and attempted
diversions do not work.
They simply accentuate your incredible dishonesty.
You made a stupid claim you cannot support and will
not admit was false.
You try to slide around my challenge to do one or the
other with a sloppy lie and hate campaign.
Diversions.
They do not work.
You have no credibility.
You are intellectually feebleminded and utterly
lack any trace of personal honesty.
I am laughing at you as is almost everybody
who reads what you posted.
When did that moron, Whiteheads feebleminded metaphysical
codswallop become the basis of modern science?
Put your answwer here!
------------------------->
Liar!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Again, Barwell challenged on Lies |
13 Sep 2006 12:22:45 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gf51pcjn3h361@corp.supernews.com...
On the peace movement during the vietnam war....
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12f6pbesv6ltr97@corp.supernews.com...
Basically, it was not the churches that did anything,
You're a liar as history shows.
http://encyclopedia.com/html/p/pacifism.asp
Motivations
One of the strongest motivations in the promotion of peace has been
religion, the objection to war being, in general, based on the belief that
the willful taking of human life is wrong. The Eastern religions, especially
Buddhism, decry war and advocate nonresistance. There has also been a strong
pacifistic element in Judaism and Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount, in
particular, contains a strong exhortation to peace. The church generally
voiced opposition to war as such (with the notable exception of the
Crusades); in the Middle Ages the truce of God was the outcome of
ecclesiastical attempts to halt private warfare. Some later sects-especially
the Anabaptists, Quakers, Moravians, Dukhobors, and Mennonites-have elevated
nonresistance to a doctrinal position.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project: Encyclopedia King formally
announced his opposition to the Vietnam War during the Ninth ... Addressing
a crowd of 3000 people in Riverside Church in New York City, ...
www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/vietnam.htm - 8k -
Cached - Similar pages
1965-1973: GI opposition the Vietnam War - Howard Zinn | libcom.org
Historian Howard Zinn on the opposition to the Vietnam War by American
soldiers. ... the military authorities by taking "sanctuary" in churches,
where, ...
libcom.org/library/soldiers-opposition-to-vietnam-war-zinn - 24k -
Cached - Similar pages
Left and Vietnam War Accommodating to church and liberal opposition to the
War amongst students and academics, commentary on foreign policy and Vietnam
from late 1965 gave ...
www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/leftvietnam.htm - 88k -
Cached - Similar pages
Conscientious Objection: Information From Answers.com Members of peace
churches who refused to fight or help build fortifications ... During the
Vietnam War, Selective Service denied exemption to conscientious ...
www.answers.com/topic/conscientious-objection - 43k - Cached - Similar
pages
[ More results from www.answers.com ]
H-Net Editors Directory - Mitchell K. Hall "CALCAV and Religious Opposition
to the Vietnam War," in Melvin Small and ... "A Withdrawal from Peace: The
Historical Response to War of the Church of God ...
www.h-net.org/people/editors/show.cgi?ID=124514 - 10k - Cached -
Similar pages
Legendary liberal WW Finlator fought segregation, poverty, war Finlator,
longtime pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, ... including
opposition to the Vietnam War, support for women's rights, ...
www.abpnews.com/1307.article - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker Movement ... Dorothy Day,
Prophet of Pacifism for the Catholic Church ... The influence of the
Catholic Worker during the Vietnam War is explored in detail in American ...
www.cjd.org/paper/pacifism.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Roman Catholic Mary Moylan (Vietnam War resister) a nurse who in 1968
participated in the ... and corporate actions that awakened Catholic
opposition to the Vietnam War. ...
www.soulforce.org/article/95 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
United Church of Christ News - John Thomas: 'A United Church
That ...
In the twentieth century our church gave formal support to
conscientious objectors, not just during the Vietnam conflict, but during
the Second World War as ...
news.ucc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=580&Itemid=56
- 42k - Cached - Similar pages
TIME.com: Speaking Out on Foreign Policy -- Jul 30, 1965 -- Page
1 Recently, a "Clergymen's Emergency Committee for Vietnam," representing
3000 ... A radical minority would commit the churches to total opposition to
war. ...
www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,834069,00.html -
Similar pages
HOLY OBEDIENCE: Corporate Discipline and Individual Leading
Friends were increasingly willing as the Vietnam War progressed to join with
a wide variety of church, pacifist and other antiwar groups in attempting to
....
www.hwcn.org/link/hmm/nl/archive/d1.htm - 27k - Cached -
Similar pages
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|