| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Jones" |
| Date: |
28 Jun 2006 04:54:19 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.
But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.
Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.
.
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
29 Jun 2006 02:27:28 PM |
|
|
leo:
Look at this sort of argument.
I'd rather call it nonsense... but then, unless i'm seriously mistaken, you
mean that as a parody anyway, so... ;)
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
28 Jun 2006 11:40:09 AM |
|
|
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian wrote:
John Jones:
So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.
How about you suggest another usable standard then? That is, usable for more
than just preaching to the choir.
Subjective impressions cannot possibly be verified. Thus everyone can claim
whatever she wants. I can claim that I saw jehoover, and that she has six
arms and purple skin with little blue polka dots. Hey, if verififability is
out of the question, I dare you to prove me wrong! *g*
The God you speak of must be 'objectively' verifiable then, like
solids, liquids and gasses. That's rather limiting, don't you think so?
Of course you do. Like the other chaps here, you are backed up into a
tight materialist corner.
Maybe jehoover is real after all... but unless there's some objective
evidence that can be checked outside of a person's own imagination and/or
interpretation, we'll never know whether it's true or not.
You may have your own experiences. What would you say about them? And
'interpretation' only applies when reporting to others, but even
interpretation has been dismissed.
Personal beliefs are good for your personal points of view. They are utterly
_useless_ in discussions / debates. Like it or not, that's the facts.
Nobody 'has' a personal belief. For you to claim that someone has a
belief you must already have agreed with them on the grounds of their
claim. In that sense beliefs are shared.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
28 Jun 2006 07:50:55 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in
news:1151512809.497173.141650@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian wrote:
John Jones:
So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.
How about you suggest another usable standard then? That is, usable for
more than just preaching to the choir.
Subjective impressions cannot possibly be verified. Thus everyone can
claim whatever she wants. I can claim that I saw jehoover, and that she
has six arms and purple skin with little blue polka dots. Hey, if
verififability is out of the question, I dare you to prove me wrong!
*g*
The God you speak of must be 'objectively' verifiable then, like
solids, liquids and gasses. That's rather limiting, don't you think so?
Of course you do. Like the other chaps here, you are backed up into a
tight materialist corner.
Thurisaz is a theist you twit. You imagine such a thing as a materialist
corner but that corner is actually the open vistas of reality.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
28 Jun 2006 01:20:19 PM |
|
|
John Jones wrote:
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian wrote:
John Jones:
So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.
How about you suggest another usable standard then? That is, usable for more
than just preaching to the choir.
Subjective impressions cannot possibly be verified. Thus everyone can claim
whatever she wants. I can claim that I saw jehoover, and that she has six
arms and purple skin with little blue polka dots. Hey, if verififability is
out of the question, I dare you to prove me wrong! *g*
The God you speak of must be 'objectively' verifiable then, like
solids, liquids and gasses. That's rather limiting, don't you think so?
No, we don't think so.
Of course you do. Like the other chaps here, you are backed up into a
tight materialist corner.
And how are we backed up?
Maybe jehoover is real after all... but unless there's some objective
evidence that can be checked outside of a person's own imagination and/or
interpretation, we'll never know whether it's true or not.
You may have your own experiences. What would you say about them? And
'interpretation' only applies when reporting to others, but even
interpretation has been dismissed.
Personal beliefs are good for your personal points of view. They are utterly
_useless_ in discussions / debates. Like it or not, that's the facts.
Nobody 'has' a personal belief. For you to claim that someone has a
belief you must already have agreed with them on the grounds of their
claim. In that sense beliefs are shared.
Nope. I can acknowledge that someone else has a belief without sharing
that belief.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
28 Jun 2006 08:51:53 PM |
|
|
John Jones:
The God you speak of must be 'objectively' verifiable then, like
solids, liquids and gasses. That's rather limiting, don't you think so?
Absolutely yes. It's the only way discussions and debates about any deity's
existence or nonexistence can make any sense.
Of course you do. Like the other chaps here, you are backed up into a
tight materialist corner.
Totally wrong. I am not an atheist. My faith just happens to at least not be
based on absurd, bullshitty dogma. In other words, it's just not verifyable
instead of painfully obvious nonsense.
You may have your own experiences. What would you say about them?
Normally, nothing. Because I don't feel any need to go out and convert
others. The deities I honor aren't anal about "all must believe in me/us".
And
'interpretation' only applies when reporting to others, but even
interpretation has been dismissed.
And it doesn't just happen to have been dismissed as a claim that "this
_interpretation_ of mine is _literal_ truth", hmmmm?
Nobody 'has' a personal belief. For you to claim that someone has a
belief you must already have agreed with them on the grounds of their
claim. In that sense beliefs are shared.
Aaah, "this is your brain on fundyism".
The only thing one has to "agree with" in this case is that the other person
_has_ a belief of whatever kind. Doesn't say anything about the truth or
fallacy of that belief.
Gee, another christian talking nonsense. Who'd have thought? *eg*
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
28 Jun 2006 05:13:42 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1151488459.505354.167770@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.
But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.
Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.
If you have any evidence whatsoever, you should aply for the JREF $1m
prize.
If you haven't, (and you know that you are just blowing hot air), then
you should SHUT THE ***** UP.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
28 Jun 2006 09:08:51 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:agl4a25go4c4jmttqvq31f3ot7hqjat9f6@4ax.com...
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1151488459.505354.167770@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.
But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.
Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.
If you have any evidence whatsoever, you should aply for the JREF $1m
prize.
If you haven't, (and you know that you are just blowing hot air), then
you should SHUT THE ***** UP.
--
Ouch!!
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
28 Jun 2006 09:44:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:08:51 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12a53bbsk8hmbe@corp.supernews.com>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:agl4a25go4c4jmttqvq31f3ot7hqjat9f6@4ax.com...
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1151488459.505354.167770@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.
But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.
Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.
If you have any evidence whatsoever, you should aply for the JREF $1m
prize.
If you haven't, (and you know that you are just blowing hot air), then
you should SHUT THE ***** UP.
--
Ouch!!
Greywolf
Don't worry.
Out doubt that this Jones character has enough functioning braincells
to feel at level of anything above that of an an amoeba.
And a dead one at that.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
02 Jul 2006 10:35:25 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that
they might exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying
experiential 'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.
That's because it is personal evidence, *****-fer-brains.
But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered
has already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a
god' sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that
they might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential
cabbage at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when
alternative proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off,
relegated to mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the
like.
Poor mental toddler's all upset adults aren't buying his 'God Clause'
*****.
Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be
presented. But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of
a private god are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems
with the frameworks in which atheists present their questions.
No problems with the framework, liar. The problem is dickheads like
you've got nothing.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
03 Jul 2006 10:51:24 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
21 Jul 2006 02:36:54 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jul 2006 08:51:24 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
Poor deluded sot.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
21 Jul 2006 06:43:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n5b2c29buaho4nri5h3favc5cobdngg2pu@4ax.com>
On 3 Jul 2006 08:51:24 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
Poor deluded sot.
Because the voices in his head give him commands, he thinks that react
the same way to his imperatives.
The guy is a 24ct loony.
Jonestown II.
Son of Jonestown.
Out next fall.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
24 Jul 2006 09:39:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:13:28 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n5b2c29buaho4nri5h3favc5cobdngg2pu@4ax.com>
On 3 Jul 2006 08:51:24 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
Poor deluded sot.
Because the voices in his head give him commands, he thinks that react
the same way to his imperatives.
The guy is a 24ct loony.
Jonestown II.
Son of Jonestown.
Out next fall.
Stupid *****'s got a real Jones going.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
24 Jul 2006 08:00:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:39:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <trm9c2tkatdp8hiesunj43kep49c4b4f5r@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:13:28 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n5b2c29buaho4nri5h3favc5cobdngg2pu@4ax.com>
On 3 Jul 2006 08:51:24 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
Poor deluded sot.
Because the voices in his head give him commands, he thinks that react
the same way to his imperatives.
The guy is a 24ct loony.
Jonestown II.
Son of Jonestown.
Out next fall.
Stupid *****'s got a real Jones going.
If only he'd drink the Kool-Aid.
C'mon Jonesy! Skoll, skoll, skull!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
27 Jul 2006 09:51:13 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:30:31 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:39:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <trm9c2tkatdp8hiesunj43kep49c4b4f5r@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:13:28 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n5b2c29buaho4nri5h3favc5cobdngg2pu@4ax.com>
On 3 Jul 2006 08:51:24 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
Poor deluded sot.
Because the voices in his head give him commands, he thinks that react
the same way to his imperatives.
The guy is a 24ct loony.
Jonestown II.
Son of Jonestown.
Out next fall.
Stupid *****'s got a real Jones going.
If only he'd drink the Kool-Aid.
C'mon Jonesy! Skoll, skoll, skull!
It did, but not quite enough to kill the body. The brain is long gone.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
27 Jul 2006 06:28:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:51:13 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ulkhc25h7ohd8slhqefirp2vdeips59lck@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:30:31 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:39:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <trm9c2tkatdp8hiesunj43kep49c4b4f5r@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:13:28 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n5b2c29buaho4nri5h3favc5cobdngg2pu@4ax.com>
On 3 Jul 2006 08:51:24 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
Poor deluded sot.
Because the voices in his head give him commands, he thinks that react
the same way to his imperatives.
The guy is a 24ct loony.
Jonestown II.
Son of Jonestown.
Out next fall.
Stupid *****'s got a real Jones going.
If only he'd drink the Kool-Aid.
C'mon Jonesy! Skoll, skoll, skull!
It did, but not quite enough to kill the body. The brain is long gone.
The stump that is left is only capable of regurgitating random words
from the tiny list that remained after the massive loss of grey
matter.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
04 Aug 2006 05:11:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:58:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:51:13 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ulkhc25h7ohd8slhqefirp2vdeips59lck@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:30:31 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:39:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <trm9c2tkatdp8hiesunj43kep49c4b4f5r@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:13:28 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n5b2c29buaho4nri5h3favc5cobdngg2pu@4ax.com>
On 3 Jul 2006 08:51:24 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
Poor deluded sot.
Because the voices in his head give him commands, he thinks that react
the same way to his imperatives.
The guy is a 24ct loony.
Jonestown II.
Son of Jonestown.
Out next fall.
Stupid *****'s got a real Jones going.
If only he'd drink the Kool-Aid.
C'mon Jonesy! Skoll, skoll, skull!
It did, but not quite enough to kill the body. The brain is long gone.
The stump that is left is only capable of regurgitating random words
from the tiny list that remained after the massive loss of grey
matter.
Brown 25.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
04 Aug 2006 07:06:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:11:48 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <kgh7d2dm1vuftsjo1e0cn0n3flp97gl9np@4ax.com>
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:58:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:51:13 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ulkhc25h7ohd8slhqefirp2vdeips59lck@4ax.com>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:30:31 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:39:12 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <trm9c2tkatdp8hiesunj43kep49c4b4f5r@4ax.com>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:13:28 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:54 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <n5b2c29buaho4nri5h3favc5cobdngg2pu@4ax.com>
On 3 Jul 2006 08:51:24 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
stoney wrote:
On 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote
in alt.atheism
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often
asked, whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of
a god or gods,
What's a g-o-d, *****-fer-brains? A clear and concise definition that
doesn't beg many questions, handwave furiously, or lead to broken logic,
and does provide something to look for or consider.
g-o-d, as in 'I am not a theist', like that g-o-d.
Now sit still and stop banging your desk lid.
Poor deluded sot.
Because the voices in his head give him commands, he thinks that react
the same way to his imperatives.
The guy is a 24ct loony.
Jonestown II.
Son of Jonestown.
Out next fall.
Stupid *****'s got a real Jones going.
If only he'd drink the Kool-Aid.
C'mon Jonesy! Skoll, skoll, skull!
It did, but not quite enough to kill the body. The brain is long gone.
The stump that is left is only capable of regurgitating random words
from the tiny list that remained after the massive loss of grey
matter.
Brown 25.
Is that a Sodomites Collective?
Or the address of Condi's tongue?
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "socratus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
05 Jul 2006 05:59:51 AM |
|
|
Science & Philosophy. Religion & Physics. XXIc.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The laws of physics and mathematics in the different countries
of the world are identical, but religions - different.
Why?
Because the religion is not proved with the laws
of physics and mathematics.
Question:
Is it possible to unite the laws of physics with religion?
Yes. It is possible.
The time, when concepts: =E2=80=9Creligion, god, spirit=E2=80=9D are possib=
le
to explain with the formulas, equations and laws of physics, has come.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Many physicists consider, that: " The Physics is first of all Vacuum. "
P. Dirac wrote:
" =D0=A2he problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem worth now before physics.
Really, if you can=E2=80=99t correctly describe vacuum, how is it possible
to expect for the correct description of anything more complex? ".
It is completely correct.
In Vacuum physicists have groped true.
And the condition of infinite / eternal Vacuum is characterized
with one simple physical parameter Absolute Zero: T=3D0K.
The philosophy of science begins from T=3D0K.
The physics begins from T=3D0K
The religion begins from T=3D0K.
The origin of Existence begins from T=3D0K.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20
Thanks.
Socratus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "socratus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
06 Jul 2006 04:50:59 AM |
|
|
Epoches and the reference frames.
1
Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
is absolute.
2.
Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
is absolute.
3.
Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with
far stars is absolute.
4.
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
5.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years will reach T=0K.
============
Best regards.
Socratus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
06 Jul 2006 06:11:31 AM |
|
|
On 6 Jul 2006 02:50:59 -0700, "socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1152179459.225247.267010@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Epoches and the reference frames.
1
Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
is absolute.
2.
Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
is absolute.
3.
Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with
far stars is absolute.
4.
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
5.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, approximately over a period of
20 billions years will reach T=0K.
============
Best regards.
Socratus.
Who are you talking to??
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "socratus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
07 Jul 2006 03:38:59 AM |
|
|
The Structure of Nothing . According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons... gluons field ..... etc.) - was assembled in a "single
point".
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the "single
point".
EMPTINESS- NOTHING....!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a "Big Bang".
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang
).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and
decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
===================
Thanks.
Socratus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
07 Jul 2006 04:57:08 AM |
|
|
On 7 Jul 2006 01:38:59 -0700, "socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1152261539.641497.133740@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
The Structure of Nothing . According to my peasant logic: 1 + 1 = 2.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons... gluons field ..... etc.) - was assembled in a "single
point".
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the "single
point".
EMPTINESS- NOTHING....!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a "Big Bang".
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang
).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and
decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
===================
Thanks.
Socratus.
I have already asked you once: Who the ***** are you talking at??
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "socratus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
08 Jul 2006 03:54:09 AM |
|
|
Mr Michael Gray want to know:
Who are you talking to??
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
I write to the man, which wants to understand paradoxes in physics.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Two views of the Vacuum.
In modern science there are two mutually exclusive points of view
on the behaviour of particles in a Vacuum.
One point of view is the position of classical physics which says
that:
"In the vacuum at T=3D0K any movement of a particle stops."
And if in the Empire of Cold there is no movement, it is a dead empire.
But another point of view completely rejects this formulation.
This point of view is expressed in the quantum theory.
In 1911, M. Planck stated that energy does not become zero
at the approach T=3D0K.
He declared this on the 1st Solvay congress.
So, T=3D0K " became the main problem in physics "
"Physics is first of all the vacuum".
Gradually it began to appear that Vacuum at T=3D0K is not empty dead
space.
There live the "virtual" particles. These particles originally have
negative and
imaginary mass, and then make a "virtual transition " to positive
mass,
becoming real particles. But the apparently mystical "virtual
particles"
as they make "virtual transitions". explains little.
Let's rethink these "virtual" particles. Let's ask a question:
What is the geometrical form of "virtual" particles in the Vacuum at
T=3D0K?
The answer is:
According to the laws of physics :
J. Charles ( 1787), Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst ( 1910), A.
Einstein ( 1925)
particles in a Vacuum cannot have density, volume and consequently
should be flat figures.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
These laws tell, that
then closer to zero T=3D0K, then the particles lose more their volume.
The volume of these particles aspire to infinity.
And then this " infinity" comes the brain of physicists
stop to work. They refuse to think any more.
And I say when volume of the particles disappear they
become "flat phantoms".
These "flat phantoms" are not abstract particles, they are real
ones.
Quantums of light flies with speed c=3D1 have such geometrical form.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This means, particles have the geometrical form of a circle, as from
all flat figures
the circle has the most optimum form: C/D=3Dpi=3D 3,14.
What are these "virtual" circles in the vacuum?
The answer is given in the theory of radiation of absolute black
bodies.
The theory considers an area of the space which are in absolute
thermal balance.
It is possible only at T=3D0K. But it is known, that such a condition is
a
"thermal death " and is not observed in nature. Therefore Planck,
studying this area,
came to the conclusion that condition T=3D0K has changed. In this space
there should be
a radiation of a quantum of light, possessing an internal impulse
h=3DEt=3D1.
So, =AB the virtual circle =BB is transformed to quantum of light.
This quantum of light has an impulse h=3DEt=3D1 and travels with constant
speed, c=3D1.
From this assumption Quantum theory was born.
Therefore the Quantum theory is a theory only about a quantum of light
and its various transformations.
And classical theory considers all other particles.
These particles have mass much greater than a quantum of light and
move with much smaller speeds. If we understand the difference between
a quantum of light and all other particles,
then all contradictions in the physics disappear, and all of physics
becomes a
harmoniously integral science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
08 Jul 2006 05:30:33 AM |
|
|
On 8 Jul 2006 01:54:09 -0700, "socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1152348849.672534.253130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Mr Michael Gray want to know:
Who are you talking to??
==========================
I write to the man, which wants to understand paradoxes in physics.
==================================
==================================
Two views of the Vacuum.
:
I want to understand paradoxes in physics, and I am male, but nust
first understand the paradox of your lack of lucidity, and the reason
for posting physics ramblings in alt.atheism.
Quite why you do not wish to address the woman who wishes to
understand paradoxes in physics is unkown to me as well.
Are you fully "there" up top?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "socratus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
09 Jul 2006 05:51:18 AM |
|
|
When we understand paradoxes in physics then we will understand the
truth of religion.
=====================================
One of paradoxes:
Nobody knows that is Vacuum.
==============================
About Reference Systems: Vacuum and Space.
From times of Newton in classical physics the principle worked:
" Until the reference system is specified, any conversations on
movement
are completely deprived the contents."
Newton, first of all physicists realized, what a main role a reference
system has.
The choice of reference system is a central, basic question at the
commencement of any task
But the founders of the "Big Bang" theory have forgotten this.
Nowhere do they write in what reference system the "Big Bang" took
place,
and in what reference system the substance of the "single point " is
distributed.
And consequently, the theory of the "Big Bang" is constructed on a
sand.
* * *
The astronomers have established the fact of galaxy rotation
but nobody speaks of the reference system in which they rotate.
Without the inclusion of a reference system the rotation of galaxies
is deprived of any content. To avoid this problem, write:
Each Galaxy is surrounded by an "accompanying reference system",
and the "accompanying reference system" is extended.
/ The Physics of Space. is a small Soviet encyclopedia published in
1986./
This is a joke!
For example, I am at home and I am surrounded by an "accompanying
reference system";
my house. Then I go to work surrounded by an "accompanying reference
system";
And when I have arrived on the job, I am surrounded by an
"accompanying reference system", the university.
But if we do not understand that we work in the reference system of the
Earth,
and the astronomers do not understand in what reference system
the billions of galaxies rotate, any statement is meaningless.
Only when the reference system is specified, then the words "galaxies
rotate"
and "Big Bang" make sense.
The first problem in the discussion of the laws of motion is to answer
the question,
"In what reference system does this motion occur?
In what reference system are the laws of motion formulated?"
This question is most unpleasant for the amateurs in abstract
reasoning and conjecture.
God teaches man to think particularly and logically.
The Devil teaches man to speak with beautiful, general and abstract
phrases.
By such method he easily hides the truth from the people.
* * *
The main paradox in physics is not understanding reference systems.
Einstein and Infeld wrote:
"We have the laws, but are not aware what the body of reference
system they belong to,
and all our physical construction appears erected on sand".
They are right. The essence is that now there is no precise border
which divides two different frame of reference:
1) Vacuum and
2) Gravitational frame of reference.
Now these two systems are considered as though they were common.
But they are completely different systems.
There, where there is a vacuum - there is no gravitation.
In the vacuum, one set of laws - the laws of the vacuum work
( not taking into account external influences).
Where there is gravitation, there is no vacuum.
In a gravitational reference system
a complete set of other laws apply.
These laws are connected and take into account external influences.
How these two systems cooperate between themselves is explained on the
following site.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
11 Jul 2006 03:48:48 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jul 2006 04:37:08 -0700, "socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1152531428.396616.235110@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
God, Devil and physicists.
=========================
The wise God carefully collected the constants of Nature
to build our beautiful Earth.
:
Could you PLEASE take your medication, or at least stop posting your
semi-coherent unsolicited ramblings here?
Either one would do.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "socratus" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
11 Jul 2006 05:14:11 AM |
|
|
Many physicists consider that:
" The Physics is first of all Vacuum. "
But nobody knows that is Vacuum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
11 Jul 2006 08:27:57 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jul 2006 03:14:11 -0700, "socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1152612851.674896.218350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Many physicists consider that:
" The Physics is first of all Vacuum. "
But nobody knows that is Vacuum.
Name 10 of them.
No, name ONE of them.
Name one physicist who says: "The Physics is first of all Vacuum."
(Or take your medication, OK?)
And just who are you talking to?
How can we tell if you don't quote properly?
Or are you talking to yourself?
That would be at least one explanation for your continuous stream of
non-sequiturs, false sweeping generalizations and meaningless
questions.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
09 Jul 2006 05:54:13 AM |
|
|
On 9 Jul 2006 03:51:18 -0700, "socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
When we understand paradoxes in physics then we will understand the
truth of religion.
What "truth of religion", lying theist?
[rest of this in-your-face stupidity deleted]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism -- how to ask a question to get a reply |
29 Jun 2006 12:01:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:54:19 -0700, John Jones wrote:
There are a number of problems with the questions that atheism places
against theism. An atheist might ask, for example, as it is often asked,
whether there are any sustainable arguments for the existence of a god or
gods, and whether it is even conceivable or 'possible' that they might
exist. Such questions might reject replies carrying experiential
'evidence' as the posturings of personal 'opinion'.
But that sounds as though the sort of evidence that will be considered has
already been decided in absentio. Even the phrase 'existence of a god'
sniffs of a materialist commitment, and the phrase 'possible that they
might exist' seems a variation on a whiff. The odorous evidential cabbage
at the bottom of the materialist dustbin seems confirmed when alternative
proposals without a materialist commitment are shunted off, relegated to
mere 'point of view', 'attitude', 'subjectivism', and the like.
Atheism must provide a good framework in which evidence can be presented.
But it is arguable, even here, that first-person avowals of a private god
are already ruled out. So there are a lot of problems with the frameworks
in which atheists present their questions.
You want atheists to present a framework which will allow sloppy evidence
to be presented as convincing? Good luck.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason some
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
What's so great about inner peace, anyway? (Only a person that has no reckoning of inner peace would ask such a question Lisbeth)
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
Ta
I am God. Ask me any question to see if I'm right
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
| Is This A Too 'Blasphemous' Question to Ask?
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
I have a question to ask the lifelong atheist
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life...
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Good_morning_or_good_evening_de?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?pending_upon_your_location=2E_I_want_to_ask?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?_you_the_most_important_question_of_your_?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?life=2E_Your_joy_or_sorrow_for_all_eternity?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?_de
Does Prayer Work? A fun question to ask your religious co-worker
|
|
|
