| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2005 03:30:37 PM |
| Object: |
Are the Atheists Right? |
Are the Atheists Right?
The atheists...
They love to tell you how Christianity has taken
more lives than anything else. This is NOT TRUE!
1) It is not "Christian" to murder people because
they do not believe in Christ as Savior.
2) Stop looking at what fallible man does and then
turn around and blame Christianity. Man killing people
and doing it in the name of Christ, does not mean that
there is a problem with Christianity. It means that
there is a problem with man.
The atheists, who are and have to be evolutionists,
love to ask the following question...
"If there's a God, how come there is so many bad things
happening in the world?". If you want to know the
answer to that, why don't you look in the mirror? Man
loves to do evil and then blame God for the results!
Here is the whole issue, summed up, because you see,
the atheist actually likes to ask a question that has a
"no win" situation. Let me explain...
1) If God allows man to do what man decides to do,
that is called "free will" and the atheist complains.
Yet, if God stopped all evil from happening, then man
(if he could), would point his finger at God and say,
"If you loved me, you would let me make my own
decisions and learn from my own mistakes!".
2) If God allows man to make his own decisions
and his own mistakes, man points at God and says,
"If you really are God, how can you allow all of this
evil to exist?!".
You see what I mean? The atheist asks a rigged
question and tries to stack the deck. Thus, his/her
question is not honest to begin with.
As far as Creation and evolution, they love to say
the following...
"Creation is NOT science and no REAL scientist
believes in Creation! It does not offer any
testable theory!"
They also love to compare it to gravity, yet,
Sir Isaac Newton was a six day Creationist!
They also love to say that if you don't believe
in evolution as a scientific fact, how do you
explain using your computer, which is based
on evolutionary science?
Huh?! That isn't anywhere NEAR being true!
It is NOT based on "evolutionary science",
nor is science even evolution.
In fact, the inventors of computer science
and electronics, were six day Creationists!
The next time someone tells you that "Creation
scientists are not real scientists", you provide
them with this message, which shows that not
only was the founder of the scientific method
a creationist, but many of the branches of
science, were invented by creationists, who
all believed in a literal six day creation. To deny
evolution is not to deny God, nor nature, nor
science. In fact, to deny evolution, is to uphold
science, the truth of God and the nature that
God created. And the greatest scientists in
the world knew that. In fact, the greatest
scientific philosopher of all time, Dr. Karl Popper,
said that evolution is not a law, nor a theory
and that it doesn't even rise to the level of an
hypothesis. He said it is nothing more than a
metaphysical research program.
Here is some information, for those who are
interested in THE TRUTH...
From: The Root of the Problem - Dr. James Kennedy
WHAT IS TRUE?
Let us take a little deeper look. First of all, who
invented science? It was Francis Bacon, who is
credited with having been the inventor of the
scientific method, that combination of induction
and deduction, of hypothesis and proof (empirical
proof). Bacon was a devout Christian. He believed
in God. He believed in Christ, he believed in the
Bible, and he believed in Creation. He said that
God had given us two books. He has given us
the book of nature to understand the world, and
the book of Scriptures-and we are to read both
of them, said the founder of science. Wasn't a
Christian? Hardly.
Who was the greatest scientist that ever lived?
A poll taken of scientists just a few years ago
concluded that the greatest scientist that ever
lived was Sir Isaac Newton. If you read a list of
the things that he discovered, it is awesome.
The mathematical laws of gravity are just one
piece of that huge puzzle from this gigantic intellect.
He was, also, among other things, the co-discoverer
of calculus. Sir Isaac Newton. Newton believed in
God, he believed in Christ, he believed in the Bible,
and he believed in creation. To the utter chagrin
of modern evolutionary scientists, he wrote more
books on theology than he did on science. He still
became the greatest scientist that has ever lived,
according to them.
CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS
If the scientific method was invented by a Christian
and the greatest scientist that ever lived was a
Christian, what about the people that gave us all
of the various branches of science? Who were they?
Let me tell you about them. They were all men that
believed in God, believed in Christ, believed in the
Bible, and believed in creation. Not an evolutionist
among them. Who were they:
The inventor of Antiseptic Surgery was Joseph Lister,
who was all of the above.
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur - all of the above.
Calculus - Sir Isaac Newton, as I've said.
Celestial Mechanics - Johann Kepler, who said that
science was thinking God's thoughts after Him.
Chemistry - Robert Boyle, who left a large sum of
money in his will that a series of lectures should
be taught in his university in England defending
the Christian faith. An unbeliever? Hardly.
Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier.
Computer Science - Charles Babbage.
Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh.
Dynamics - Isaac Newton.
Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell.
Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday, who had
about twenty-two honorary doctorates. He was
being given a huge award by the king at a banquet
on a Wednesday night. After the banquet, the
people talked for a while, and then he was called
up to receive his award, and they found that he had
slipped out to go to prayer meeting. That is what
you would have done, isn't it? After all, what is an
award from the king compared to worshiping God.
Electronics - Ambrose Fleming.
Energetics - Lord Kelvin, a great Christian.
Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre.
Field Theory - Michael Faraday.
Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes.
Galactic Astronomy - William Herschel.
Gas Dynamcs - Robert Boyle.
Genetics - Gregor Mendel.
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz of Harvard,
a great Christian man.
Gynecology - James Simpson
Hydraulics - Leonardo da Vinci
Hydrography - Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal.
Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz.
Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsay.
Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh.
Natural History - John Ray.
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernhard Riemann.
Oceanography - Matthew Maury.
Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster.
Paleontology - John Woodward.
Pathology - Rudolph Virchow.
Physical Astronomy - Johann Kepler.
Reversible Thermodynamics - James Joule.
Statistical Thermodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell.
Stratigraphy - Nicholas Steno.
Systematic Biology - Carolus Linnaeus.
Thermodynamics - Lord Kelvin.
Thermokinetics - Humphrey Davy.
Vertebrate Paleontology - George Cuvier.
They were Christians, all believers in creation.
We actually had an evolutionist in a debate
here many years ago who made this astounding
statement: "Creation is not scientific, and therefore,
anyone who believes in creation is not a scientist."
How's that again? He had better go back and
read a little of his own history to find out if that
is true.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
29 Aug 2005 04:16:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:14:08 -0400, "In Christ" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Keep your sermon to yourself, stop lying about atheists and stop being
so in-your-face stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
29 Aug 2005 04:50:46 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:pmu6h11q1g87nsjngq8p8ecdtikd9jb8q2@4ax.com:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:14:08 -0400, "In Christ" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Keep your sermon to yourself, stop lying about atheists and stop being
so in-your-face stupid.
Uhmm . . . read that again. He's one of us.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"The joy I felt as the prospect before me of being the instrument destined
to take away from the world one of its greatest calamities [smallpox] was
so excessive that I found myself in a kind of reverie."
* Edward Jenner
(05/17/1749 - 01/26/1823)
English doctor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
29 Aug 2005 04:38:26 PM |
|
|
Hehe. I think you've gotten a little *too* ready to attack. Look at the
language:
Nothing can better put
you in touch with your family, make you appreciate
your family more than being old without a job and
without a pension. Nothing can make you appreciate
the gift of life more than having a gravely injured
or sick child and no healthcare.
That has to be satire. Not even the morons that troll here could
believe that. That would take a spectacular brand of stupidity not
witnessed since the Circumcellions
(http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/heresy/circumcellions/).
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
29 Aug 2005 10:19:03 PM |
|
|
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote
Nothing can better put
you in touch with your family, make you appreciate
your family more than being old without a job and
without a pension. Nothing can make you appreciate
the gift of life more than having a gravely injured
or sick child and no healthcare.
That has to be satire. Not even the morons that troll here could
believe that.
I certainly hope that every so-called "Christian" in America
believes it, because it's true. What's more, they're helping to
make it happen.
The number of Americans without healthcare has skyrocketed
under their "Christian" approved, pro-family Republicans. Millions
of jobs have been exported. Private companies have been told
that it is perfectly acceptable to cancel pension plans, even as
the drive has been on to privatize Social Security.
As far as education goes, Bush's every-child-left-behind is a
mandate, a burden that he placed on public schools. It IS NOT
fully funded (requiring states to either slash budgets or raise
taxes), and, long term, it's demands can not be met by ANY
school, and must (as it was written) eventually lead to ALL
federal funding being withdrawn from ALL schools.... one by
one.
As a result of all of Bush's "Christian" approved policies,
divorce & abortion are both UP over their levels under Bill
Clinton, along with crime.
If the so-called "Christians" of America aren't aware of their
part in hurting American families, someone needs to tell them.
They have to be given an opportunity to take responsibility
for the harmful policies that they have been supporting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 08:31:14 PM |
|
|
Woops. That should have read:
Not even the morons that troll here could
support that.
Must have fixed up half a sentence and not the other.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 11:14:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:16:14 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:14:08 -0400, "In Christ" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Keep your sermon to yourself, stop lying about atheists and stop being
so in-your-face stupid.
Is it totally impossible to recognise satire even when it is so
obvious? Read it again.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 08:20:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:14:08 -0400, "In Christ" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Somehow, I think a lot of people in this group are *not* going to catch on that
this is satire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 08:22:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:20:32 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:14:08 -0400, "In Christ" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Somehow, I think a lot of people in this group are *not* going to catch on that
this is satire.
There's not much a satirist or troll can say that the real loonies
haven't already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 04:14:30 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
There's not much a satirist or troll can say that the real
loonies haven't already.
It's worse than that.
Satire/spoofing is really just taking their own position
and running with it. It's really only a matter of going to
their logical conclusions, or voicing out loud the
contradictions they ignore. In this case, it was voicing
support for the results of their actions, rather than
supporting the actions (and the results) in the name of
some other result we will never see.
The fact is, "Christian" approved "conservatives" now
control all three branches of the U.S. government. What
policies we have -- and what has resulted from those
policies -- are 100% "Christian" approved. In fact, the
so-called "Christian" Reich in America even takes credit
for them! They claim that it's all their doing, that Bush
and the "conservatives" owe their political success to
them.
And families are suffering. Costs are up, wages are down
and a record number of people are without health insurance.
A recent study that rawstory reported revealed that if
the minimum wage had kept up with rises in "executive
compensation" (what CEOs pay themselves) since 1990,
it would be a little over $23 per hour right now.
But, it's a little over $5 per hour right now.
Abortion is up. Why? Because of rank mismanagement
of our government, the poisoning of our economy, the
exporting of our jobs (with Bush's wholehearted approval,
I might add), more & more people dare not even dream
of adding another mouth to feed.
Pro family?
America's so-called "Christians" have destroyed more
American families than all the terrorist attacks on
American combined. This is their legacy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 10:35:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:22:38 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:20:32 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:14:08 -0400, "In Christ" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Somehow, I think a lot of people in this group are *not* going to catch on that
this is satire.
There's not much a satirist or troll can say that the real loonies
haven't already.
This is very true. <G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
29 Aug 2005 04:06:41 PM |
|
|
People like "In Christ" shouldn't be allowed to pollute the gene-pool.
"In Christ" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:xoGdnQbipbnc5Y7eRVn-
jQ@comcast.com:
It's about families. That's what's important. It's not
about decent jobs, healthcare or preserving the
retirement money for the elderly. We started to do
these things FOR the family, not as goals unto
themselves. And somewhere along the line we
lost our way, lost sight of what's important. We
have to change, re-aquire our values, start from
scratch.
The best way to start from scratch, get in touch
with what's important, is to get rid of all the things
that aren't important. We have to get rid of the
distractions. It'll be difficult, I'm not saying it
won't be, but we have to do it. We have to get rid
of the education for our kids. We have to dispose
of the idea that everybody should have healthcare.
We have to rid ourselves of the notion that a
decent job is important. We have to open our eyes
to the fact that old people really don't deserve
their pensions & Social Security money simply
because they got old, and that they paid into the
systems all their lives.
Again, it'll be hard. Many of us have been
brainwashed into the idea that these false goals,
these distractions are important. Many have even
been brainwashed to think that denying healthcare
to the sick & injured, and taking pensions away
from the elderly is uncompassionate, or even
unChristian. Don't believe these lies.
The haters want you to believe that we have an
agenda quite apart from our love of familes and
trational family values. They point to the rapidly
dropping standard of living, the fact that wages,
after inflation, have dropped in recent years,
the huge rise in the number of Americans without
healthcare and the fact that so many private
companies have taken away pension plans even
as the President want to "privatize" Social Security.
They, the haters, say these things aren't good for the
family, that families suffer because of them. They
say that the fact that we're doing all this even as
we've increased spending beyond all record levels
proves we aren't really pro-family, that us
conservative Christians are neithier conservative
nor Christian.
They lie.
Nothing, and I'll repeat: Nothing can better put
you in touch with your family, make you appreciate
your family more than being old without a job and
without a pension. Nothing can make you appreciate
the gift of life more than having a gravely injured
or sick child and no healthcare. And forget video
games, iPods and the latest music video, nothing
will bring more joy to a child than a rag doll or
a baseball, if all they can do is dream of one day
owning a rag doll.
And, of course, we'll have God. Without education
you won't be able to do things like actually read
the bible, but you'll have us. We'll read it for you.
We'll select all the passages that should have meaning
in your life, and we'll read them to you.
Join us. You don't hate families, do you? You want
to promote family values, don't you? Help us. Help
God. Vote Republican.
Thank you & God bless.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 08:21:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:06:41 GMT, Dave Lister <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
People like "In Christ" shouldn't be allowed to pollute the gene-pool.
It's a parody, Dave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 10:57:15 AM |
|
|
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
news:m9n8h116bv8ma4v0bd73ck9t1mr5b7mosq@4ax.com:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:06:41 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
People like "In Christ" shouldn't be allowed to pollute the gene-pool.
It's a parody, Dave.
Ooops. I've seen people like that giggling moron Michael post much the same
though.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 04:16:05 PM |
|
|
Dave Lister wrote:
It's a parody, Dave.
Ooops. I've seen people like that giggling moron Michael post much the same
though.
Hard to tell sometimes, innit?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermoemtrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: It's about families |
30 Aug 2005 08:01:49 PM |
|
|
On 30 Aug 2005 14:16:05 -0700, "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
It's a parody, Dave.
Ooops. I've seen people like that giggling moron Michael post much the same
though.
Hard to tell sometimes, innit?
It is indeed. This one is so over the top I figured it would be
obvious, though. But I guess when you think about it, a lot of the
*real* fundies are just as over the top. It's hard to parody something
that's already a self-parody. <G>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermoemtrics and Cat-Herding
Religion is sort of like wearing lifts in your shoes. If it
makes you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear
your shoes.
~ George Carlin ~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
27 Aug 2005 12:20:34 AM |
|
|
Ok, civility out the window then, eh?
Can you really have 'civil' abuse and dismissal?
Do you believe there is no significant fundamental difference between
fables and religions?
Sure there's a difference: a religion is a collection of fables.
(Though not all fables are part of a religion.)
The Santa Claus reference is abusive and, I
think, disingenuous, though I really don't want to get into the
fundamental differences - that would seem silly and require much
typing.
You would think it's disingenuous, what with you being a theist and
all. But the point is that to us (or me at least, I can't truly speak
for all atheists) it is a valid comparison. Though, if you're up to a
conversation, I'd be interested in seeing the fundamental differences.
That is, besides their dispositions. We all know that Santa is wrathful
and God is jolly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 04:48:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:05:17 GMT, Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
Do you believe there is no significant fundamental difference between
Why use dishonest loaded language?
fables and religions? The Santa Claus reference is abusive and, I
No, liar - it's a direct substitution that you yourself shold have
made, of something YOU don't believe, to show YOU exactly how YOU
sound.
Your talking at atheists as though your deity were any more than that
is abusive, after all, you know it is not mutually granted.
think, disingenuous, though I really don't want to get into the
fundamental differences - that would seem silly and require much
typing.
The differences are subjective, not objective. They're both of them
merely cultural beliefs - not matter how seriously you take yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric R" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 09:19:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:48:56 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:05:17 GMT, Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
Do you believe there is no significant fundamental difference between
Why use dishonest loaded language?
fables and religions? The Santa Claus reference is abusive and, I
No, liar - it's a direct substitution that you yourself shold have
made, of something YOU don't believe, to show YOU exactly how YOU
sound.
Your talking at atheists as though your deity were any more than that
is abusive, after all, you know it is not mutually granted.
think, disingenuous, though I really don't want to get into the
fundamental differences - that would seem silly and require much
typing.
The differences are subjective, not objective. They're both of them
merely cultural beliefs - not matter how seriously you take yours.
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him. Religious belief
in a God is not falsifiable because most don't believe God is a
physical being living in a physical location in this world but rather
in some other sphere of existence beyond the natural world.
God Loves You
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 09:56:53 AM |
|
|
"Eric R" <epic@odyssy.net> wrote in message
news:3s56h11varppfu4puladmlgge6d0226jnm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:48:56 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:05:17 GMT, Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
Do you believe there is no significant fundamental difference between
Why use dishonest loaded language?
fables and religions? The Santa Claus reference is abusive and, I
No, liar - it's a direct substitution that you yourself shold have
made, of something YOU don't believe, to show YOU exactly how YOU
sound.
Your talking at atheists as though your deity were any more than that
is abusive, after all, you know it is not mutually granted.
think, disingenuous, though I really don't want to get into the
fundamental differences - that would seem silly and require much
typing.
The differences are subjective, not objective. They're both of them
merely cultural beliefs - not matter how seriously you take yours.
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him.
Hey, maybe he's invisible! You know, like gods appear to be?
Religious belief
in a God is not falsifiable because most don't believe God is a
physical being living in a physical location in this world but rather
in some other sphere of existence beyond the natural world.
So what? That doesn't prove that a god does exist.
God Loves You
Prove it ;P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 12:26:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:56:53 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Eric R" <epic@odyssy.net> wrote in message
news:3s56h11varppfu4puladmlgge6d0226jnm@4ax.com...
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him.
Hey, maybe he's invisible! You know, like gods appear to be?
ITYM "like gods don't appear to be".
Slippery stuff, theology.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Grim Reaper" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 11:37:11 AM |
|
|
"Eric R" <epic@odyssy.net> wrote in message
news:3s56h11varppfu4puladmlgge6d0226jnm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:48:56 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:05:17 GMT, Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
Do you believe there is no significant fundamental difference between
Why use dishonest loaded language?
fables and religions? The Santa Claus reference is abusive and, I
No, liar - it's a direct substitution that you yourself shold have
made, of something YOU don't believe, to show YOU exactly how YOU
sound.
Your talking at atheists as though your deity were any more than that
is abusive, after all, you know it is not mutually granted.
think, disingenuous, though I really don't want to get into the
fundamental differences - that would seem silly and require much
typing.
The differences are subjective, not objective. They're both of them
merely cultural beliefs - not matter how seriously you take yours.
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him. Religious belief
in a God is not falsifiable because most don't believe God is a
physical being living in a physical location in this world but rather
in some other sphere of existence beyond the natural world.
God Loves You
Well, Jesus was a physical being and he was supposed to be God, the son.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Dolan" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 10:41:08 AM |
|
|
Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him.
The fact that we haven't discovered Santa's workshop doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Maybe "North Pole" is code for "some other sphere of
existence beyond the natural world". Maybe Santa lives in an underwater
lair, protected by sharks with laser beams...
Religious belief
in a God is not falsifiable because most don't believe God is a
physical being living in a physical location in this world but rather
in some other sphere of existence beyond the natural world.
God Loves You
Saying that God lives "in some other sphere of existence beyond the
natural world" (Fresno?) is a flimsy rationalization by someone who
clings to the God fairy tale. Trying to define deities as "not
falsifiable" by locating them outside the realm of the physical universe
is a transparent defense mechanism by those who are uncomfortable with
the idea of the fallacy of God, and who feel threatened whenever asked
to provide proof.
"Not falsifiable" is entirely different than "verifiable", and when
applied to existence, is completely meaningless (see leprechaun,
unicorn, etc.) And like leprachauns, unicorns, and Santa Claus, the only
"other sphere" where God exists is in the minds of believers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric R" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 11:16:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:41:08 -0700, (Ben Dolan)
wrote:
Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him.
The fact that we haven't discovered Santa's workshop doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Maybe "North Pole" is code for "some other sphere of
existence beyond the natural world". Maybe Santa lives in an underwater
lair, protected by sharks with laser beams...
Other than the lack of evidence do you have any reason to believe that
"North Pole" is code?
Maybe *all* the data you perceive through your senses is some kind of
an illusion or simply wrong. I suppose, within the realm of "anything
is possible", that the only falsifiable fact is, "I think therefore I
am". Is this the standard you apply? Does belief in anything else
require a degree of faith?
Religious belief
in a God is not falsifiable because most don't believe God is a
physical being living in a physical location in this world but rather
in some other sphere of existence beyond the natural world.
God Loves You
Saying that God lives "in some other sphere of existence beyond the
natural world" (Fresno?) is a flimsy rationalization by someone who
clings to the God fairy tale. Trying to define deities as "not
falsifiable" by locating them outside the realm of the physical universe
is a transparent defense mechanism by those who are uncomfortable with
the idea of the fallacy of God, and who feel threatened whenever asked
to provide proof.
It's not a rationalization but a common and fundamental belief that
God does not reside within his creation but I understand why you
characterize it as such.
"Not falsifiable" is entirely different than "verifiable", and when
applied to existence, is completely meaningless (see leprechaun,
unicorn, etc.) And like leprachauns, unicorns, and Santa Claus, the only
"other sphere" where God exists is in the minds of believers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Dolan" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 11:29:16 AM |
|
|
Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
Maybe *all* the data you perceive through your senses is some kind of
an illusion or simply wrong. I suppose, within the realm of "anything
is possible", that the only falsifiable fact is, "I think therefore I
am". Is this the standard you apply? Does belief in anything else
require a degree of faith?
Keanu? Is that you?
It's not a rationalization but a common and fundamental belief that
God does not reside within his creation but I understand why you
characterize it as such.
Yes, it is a common and fundamental aspect of deity worship to deflect
the hard questions by constructing an elaborate alternate universe in
which the deity resides. That fits within the accepted definition of
rationalization.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric R" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 12:06:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:29:16 -0700, (Ben Dolan)
wrote:
Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
Maybe *all* the data you perceive through your senses is some kind of
an illusion or simply wrong. I suppose, within the realm of "anything
is possible", that the only falsifiable fact is, "I think therefore I
am". Is this the standard you apply? Does belief in anything else
require a degree of faith?
Keanu? Is that you?
It's not a rationalization but a common and fundamental belief that
God does not reside within his creation but I understand why you
characterize it as such.
Yes, it is a common and fundamental aspect of deity worship to deflect
the hard questions by constructing an elaborate alternate universe in
which the deity resides. That fits within the accepted definition of
rationalization.
I think it's a common and basic and starting belief that there is a
Creator and a Creation and that they are separate so it's not a
rationalization(as in, a construct used to explain away an objection
to a previous belief- this is what I mean anyway) - it's almost the
starting belief.
If I start with a basic belief that there is an existence other than
the one we can perceive it's not a rationalization.
Anyway, I understand that you think it too convenient that it's not
falsifiable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 02:40:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:16:37 GMT, Eric R
<epic@odyssy.net> spake thusly:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:41:08 -0700, (Ben Dolan)
wrote:
Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him.
The fact that we haven't discovered Santa's workshop doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Maybe "North Pole" is code for "some other sphere of
existence beyond the natural world". Maybe Santa lives in an underwater
lair, protected by sharks with laser beams...
Other than the lack of evidence do you have any reason to believe that
"North Pole" is code?
Well, it is code, Eric.
A long time ago, I happened to catch Santa,
when he was trying to steal my cookies.
I said, "Yo! Fatso! Those are mine, you thief!
Yours are over there. You know, the
fat free ones! Do you want to die from
'el poundage, el toomucho'?!"
Well, he was SO GRATEFUL for saving his life
that year, that he made me privy to the secret
Santa code. He indeed did tell me that the
"North Pole" is actually a code for something
else. I wondered what?
So I asked him... I said, "So what does the code
translate out to?".
He said, "Oh, that's easy. It translates to the name
of a city. That city is, 'El coldo, el freezo de la
privato el partsos offa.".
Thus, I was made privy to the secret Santa code.
I am now trying to crack the code for "Rudolph".
I am getting close. I believe it translates to...
"El toomucho el drinko, el mako de noso reddo".
I don't know. I'll have to keep working on it.
I'll let you know if I get the correct answer.
I'll have to run it by Santa. I'll put some more
high fat cookies out. He's always a sucker
for those! :)
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Grim Reaper" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 04:20:16 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:omo6h19tpjquu7579g6hb5o20jgbncgkv1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:16:37 GMT, Eric R
<epic@odyssy.net> spake thusly:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:41:08 -0700, (Ben Dolan)
wrote:
Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him.
The fact that we haven't discovered Santa's workshop doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Maybe "North Pole" is code for "some other sphere of
existence beyond the natural world". Maybe Santa lives in an underwater
lair, protected by sharks with laser beams...
Other than the lack of evidence do you have any reason to believe that
"North Pole" is code?
Well, it is code, Eric.
A long time ago, I happened to catch Santa,
when he was trying to steal my cookies.
I said, "Yo! Fatso! Those are mine, you thief!
Yours are over there. You know, the
fat free ones! Do you want to die from
'el poundage, el toomucho'?!"
Well, he was SO GRATEFUL for saving his life
that year, that he made me privy to the secret
Santa code. He indeed did tell me that the
"North Pole" is actually a code for something
else. I wondered what?
So I asked him... I said, "So what does the code
translate out to?".
He said, "Oh, that's easy. It translates to the name
of a city. That city is, 'El coldo, el freezo de la
privato el partsos offa.".
Thus, I was made privy to the secret Santa code.
I am now trying to crack the code for "Rudolph".
I am getting close. I believe it translates to...
"El toomucho el drinko, el mako de noso reddo".
I don't know. I'll have to keep working on it.
I'll let you know if I get the correct answer.
I'll have to run it by Santa. I'll put some more
high fat cookies out. He's always a sucker
for those! :)
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
Pastor, well it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that a person who
"speaks" to God also "speaks" to Santa. Do you often get abducted by aliens
as well, by any chance?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 11:47:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:16:37 GMT, Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:41:08 -0700, (Ben Dolan)
wrote:
Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him.
The fact that we haven't discovered Santa's workshop doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Maybe "North Pole" is code for "some other sphere of
existence beyond the natural world". Maybe Santa lives in an underwater
lair, protected by sharks with laser beams...
Other than the lack of evidence do you have any reason to believe that
"North Pole" is code?
Maybe *all* the data you perceive through your senses is some kind of
an illusion or simply wrong. I suppose, within the realm of "anything
is possible", that the only falsifiable fact is, "I think therefore I
am". Is this the standard you apply? Does belief in anything else
require a degree of faith?
The dishonest lapse into solipsism, followed by the invention of a
falsehood to attack.
We know it's hard for you, being an in-your-face Christian who neither
puts up nor shuts up, but at least try to be honest next time.
Religious belief
in a God is not falsifiable because most don't believe God is a
physical being living in a physical location in this world but rather
in some other sphere of existence beyond the natural world.
God Loves You
Saying that God lives "in some other sphere of existence beyond the
natural world" (Fresno?) is a flimsy rationalization by someone who
clings to the God fairy tale. Trying to define deities as "not
falsifiable" by locating them outside the realm of the physical universe
is a transparent defense mechanism by those who are uncomfortable with
the idea of the fallacy of God, and who feel threatened whenever asked
to provide proof.
It's not a rationalization but a common and fundamental belief that
God does not reside within his creation but I understand why you
characterize it as such.
It's a rationalisation turned into a belief and used as another cop
out.
"Not falsifiable" is entirely different than "verifiable", and when
applied to existence, is completely meaningless (see leprechaun,
unicorn, etc.) And like leprachauns, unicorns, and Santa Claus, the only
"other sphere" where God exists is in the minds of believers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 04:25:03 PM |
|
|
Eric R wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:48:56 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:05:17 GMT, Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
Do you believe there is no significant fundamental difference between
Why use dishonest loaded language?
fables and religions? The Santa Claus reference is abusive and, I
No, liar - it's a direct substitution that you yourself shold have
made, of something YOU don't believe, to show YOU exactly how YOU
sound.
Your talking at atheists as though your deity were any more than that
is abusive, after all, you know it is not mutually granted.
think, disingenuous, though I really don't want to get into the
fundamental differences - that would seem silly and require much
typing.
The differences are subjective, not objective. They're both of them
merely cultural beliefs - not matter how seriously you take yours.
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him.
But, remember, those looking for Santa, his workshop, or the elves
working there, will never find them, because Santa is able to hide all
of it from searchers.
Religious belief
in a God is not falsifiable because most don't believe God is a
physical being living in a physical location in this world but rather
in some other sphere of existence beyond the natural world.
Like where Santa's workshop goes when people search for it?
God Loves You
Santa Loves You
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Are the Atheists Right? |
29 Aug 2005 10:23:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:19:58 GMT, Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:48:56 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:05:17 GMT, Eric R <epic@odyssy.net> wrote:
Do you believe there is no significant fundamental difference between
Why use dishonest loaded language?
fables and religions? The Santa Claus reference is abusive and, I
No, liar - it's a direct substitution that you yourself shold have
made, of something YOU don't believe, to show YOU exactly how YOU
sound.
Your talking at atheists as though your deity were any more than that
is abusive, after all, you know it is not mutually granted.
think, disingenuous, though I really don't want to get into the
fundamental differences - that would seem silly and require much
typing.
The differences are subjective, not objective. They're both of them
merely cultural beliefs - not matter how seriously you take yours.
The Santa Claus fable is falsifiable because it includes the belief
that Santa is a physical being living with his wife and elves at the
North Pole with a workshop. We are able to examine the whole of the
North Pole and find no Santa and no evidence of him. Religious belief
in a God is not falsifiable because most don't believe God is a
physical being living in a physical location in this world but rather
in some other sphere of existence beyond the natural world.
All of which is irrelevant.
What part of THEY AR?E BOTH SOMEBODY ELSE'S CULTURAL BELIEF are you
pretending you don't understand.
But in any case, if you apply the same litmus test to both, WHICH
INCLUDES ALL THE COPOUTS YOU ALLOW YOUR DEITY, there is no substantive
difference.
God Loves You
The deliberate rudeness of the sociopathic believer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
