| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jeremy" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2003 08:27:43 PM |
| Object: |
Evidences of God - Preface |
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
--- Jeremy
.
|
|
| User: "Ronald Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
22 Aug 2003 12:13:49 PM |
|
|
"Jeremy" <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01...
Evidences of God - Preface
Evidences for God? What would be acceptable as evidence?
What you or I might accept as _evidence_, would be totally
unacceptable to others. I believe it was in his book *The
Blind Watchmaker* that Richard Dawkins writting about
evidence of design labeled it *appearant design*. I take
evidence of design at face value. I see design as real - not
*appearant*or illusionary.
Ron
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
--- Jeremy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
23 Aug 2003 07:10:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:13:49 -0400, "Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Jeremy" <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01...
Evidences of God - Preface
Evidences for God? What would be acceptable as evidence?
What you or I might accept as _evidence_, would be totally
unacceptable to others. I believe it was in his book *The
Blind Watchmaker* that Richard Dawkins writting about
evidence of design labeled it *appearant design*. I take
evidence of design at face value. I see design as real - not
*appearant*or illusionary.
That is however subjective pre-eexisting belief. There is no way to
determine design and from that a designer. It puts the cart before the
horse.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
20 Aug 2003 09:41:40 PM |
|
|
"Jeremy" <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01...
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Ok...
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
You have posted EVIDENCE that god exists? Why wasn't it all over the news?
Seriously.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Discussion? I thought you were going to post evidence.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
Beliefs and opinions? What happened to the evidence you were talking about?
Beliefs and opinions aren't evidence.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value.
That's no problem. Why would that be a problem?
We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
I can believe that people believe things, I do not necessarily have to
respect those beliefs.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
I'll not flame unless insulted.
You are already off to a rocky start, however. You hint at evidence, yet say
that you will offer only belief and opinion. I suggest that before you post,
you check the definition of the word "evidence". If indeed you post only
belief and opinion, and insist that it's evidence, you will be flamed.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pope Dilbert" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
20 Aug 2003 10:39:11 PM |
|
|
"Jeremy" <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01...
Evidences of God - Preface
There is no evidence foir god ......any god.
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
Since it is all based on your beliefs, that means your claims about evidence
are fraudulent.
Which is no big surprise.
BTW .. I have no problem with your beliefs.
I DO have a major problem with you fraudulently claiming you have evidence!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doubting Thomas Doubting Thomas @ no god.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
21 Aug 2003 12:48:11 AM |
|
|
"Pope Dilbert" <pope@nyc.com> wrote in message
news:z9X0b.61934$2x.21778@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
"Jeremy" <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01...
Evidences of God - Preface
There is no evidence foir god ......any god.
Agreed. In the 2000 years of Christianity and 4000 years beforehand, body
has ever shown one shred of evidence that God exists. The only thing we
have to go on is an old book and faith that it is correct. If there were
one solitary shred of evidence that God exists, nobody would need faith. We
would all believe it as matter of fact.
DT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
21 Aug 2003 08:25:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:21:49 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:06:05 -0400, Alex <support@microsoft.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:39:11 GMT, "Pope Dilbert" <pope@nyc.com> wrote:
"Jeremy" <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01...
Evidences of God - Preface
There is no evidence foir god ......any god.
Wait until you see his evidence (or, at least, what he calls evidence)
before you dismiss it. Replies like that show atheists as stubborn and
close-minded.
There isn't. If there had been an evangelising religion like
Christianity would have made sure everybody knew it.
That's not the point - we should listen *first* before dismissing.
Otherwise you look like a jerk and it doesn't help atheist's image
especially when we're already considered to be jerks just for
existing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
22 Aug 2003 07:04:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 03:13:50 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
The only jerk here is yourself. We've heard all this before -
I know, I've been here for years.
so many
times it's no longer funny. He has come here to give us this alleged
So, if people are so tired of listening to the same old crap: Don't
participate in the thread. What a concept!
WHY THE FORK SHOULD WE "LISTEN" TO THE SAME OLD CRAP YET AGAIN? WHEN
HE BLEATS ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES *INSTEAD* OF PROVIDING THIS ALLEGED
EVIDENCE?
You don't have to, see above.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
22 Aug 2003 12:33:20 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 03:13:50 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
We've heard all this before - so many
times it's no longer funny. He has come here to give us this alleged
evidence. Not to tell us his beliefs yet again.
Its very simple. The jerk doesn't know what evidence is and will
babble about unrelated subjects and imagine he has come to a
conclusion.
The tragedy is that the nation is filled with this sort who might
stick us with a totalitarian theocracy.
....no skill no art!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: the history of religion |
22 Aug 2003 10:28:42 AM |
|
|
"Do you believe in god?
No!.. Bang! .. Dead!
Do you believe in god? Yes!
Do you believe in my god?
No!.. Bang!.. Dead!
My god has a bigger ***** than your god! "
&
"God is a leading cause of death"
George Carlin
....no skill no art!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
21 Aug 2003 12:56:49 AM |
|
|
In article <jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01>,
Jeremy <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote:
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
Fine. And I trust that you will provide plenty of demonstrable,
objective, verifiable, and measurable evidence for your diety.
--- Jeremy
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
21 Aug 2003 09:29:56 AM |
|
|
In article <jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01>, Jeremy says...
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
Well, well, well. This is just all fine and dandy, but where's the evidence you
claimed to have?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
21 Aug 2003 02:45:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:29:56 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01>, Jeremy says...
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
Well, well, well. This is just all fine and dandy, but where's the evidence you
claimed to have?
ITS COMING!
VERY SOON!
ANY DAY NOW!
EVIDENCE - YES EVIDENCE - SOON - HONEST!
In the meantime we will have a very long discussion about Jeremy's
beliefs and his ground rules for the very long discussion that will
precede Jeremy's announcement that he will soon be ready to present
the evidence. We will then have a long discussion concerning the
ground rules for presenting the evidence. I do not expect my present
computer will still be functioning at that time.
Thomas P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
26 Aug 2003 11:01:50 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<SQ91b.16712$cJ5.1701@www.newsranger.com>...
In article <a08akvsknq2utfvei0f8ljkijt487ssdmg@4ax.com>, Thomas P. says...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:29:56 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01>, Jeremy says...
Evidences of God - Preface
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
Well, well, well. This is just all fine and dandy, but where's the evidence you
claimed to have?
ITS COMING!
VERY SOON!
ANY DAY NOW!
EVIDENCE - YES EVIDENCE - SOON - HONEST!
In the meantime we will have a very long discussion about Jeremy's
beliefs and his ground rules for the very long discussion that will
precede Jeremy's announcement that he will soon be ready to present
the evidence. We will then have a long discussion concerning the
ground rules for presenting the evidence. I do not expect my present
computer will still be functioning at that time.
Well, phooey. I don't have time for this! Ding dang it - and here I got my
hopes up and everything! <sob!> ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
If his computer goes down on him, well. But if he can't get it up,
that's going to be a problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan C. Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
28 Aug 2003 03:55:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:15:05 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <54de13e7.0308262001.40543857@posting.google.com>, J.R. says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<SQ91b.16712$cJ5.1701@www.newsranger.com>...
In article <a08akvsknq2utfvei0f8ljkijt487ssdmg@4ax.com>, Thomas P. says...
snippage
In the meantime we will have a very long discussion about Jeremy's
beliefs and his ground rules for the very long discussion that will
precede Jeremy's announcement that he will soon be ready to present
the evidence. We will then have a long discussion concerning the
ground rules for presenting the evidence. I do not expect my present
computer will still be functioning at that time.
Well, phooey. I don't have time for this! Ding dang it - and here I got my
hopes up and everything! <sob!> ;)
If his computer goes down on him, well.
Goodness! I didn't know they would do that!
But if he can't get it up,
that's going to be a problem.
Viagra? ;)
Invoke Priapus.
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
=============== Remove what you find annoying in my address ==============
"Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious libel
dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
28 Aug 2003 04:45:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:55:16 GMT in alt.atheism, Susan C. Mitchell
(Susan C. Mitchell <susancm@earthannoyancelink.net>) said, directing
the reply to alt.atheism
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:15:05 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <54de13e7.0308262001.40543857@posting.google.com>, J.R. says...
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<SQ91b.16712$cJ5.1701@www.newsranger.com>...
In article <a08akvsknq2utfvei0f8ljkijt487ssdmg@4ax.com>, Thomas P. says...
snippage
In the meantime we will have a very long discussion about Jeremy's
beliefs and his ground rules for the very long discussion that will
precede Jeremy's announcement that he will soon be ready to present
the evidence. We will then have a long discussion concerning the
ground rules for presenting the evidence. I do not expect my present
computer will still be functioning at that time.
Well, phooey. I don't have time for this! Ding dang it - and here I got my
hopes up and everything! <sob!> ;)
If his computer goes down on him, well.
Goodness! I didn't know they would do that!
But if he can't get it up,
that's going to be a problem.
Viagra? ;)
Invoke Priapus.
Easy to do a few times, but you just can't keep it up.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
30 Aug 2003 03:50:52 PM |
|
|
Jeremy <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote
news:<jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01>
Well it looks like Jeremy went AWOL.
I'll take the next one over here please....
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
30 Aug 2003 10:12:26 PM |
|
|
On 30 Aug 2003 13:50:52 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
Jeremy <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote
news:<jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01>
Well it looks like Jeremy went AWOL.
I'll take the next one over here please....
The donkey train going for the hills... all aboard!
Your tickets please! Thanks, Mr. Jeremy.
He left riding backwards, I guess.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
26 Aug 2003 05:56:56 PM |
|
|
Jeremy <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote
news:<jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01>...
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
If you had simply listed your evidences to begin with, we could have
eliminated them summarily and ended this whole charade. As it is you
are using up bandwidth treading water that has been stagnant for
decades.
Why don't you quit saying what you are going to say and actually say
it? Briefly list your evidences and email same to me. I will dismiss
them speedily we can all get on with newer and more interesting
business.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
20 Aug 2003 09:43:30 PM |
|
|
Jeremy <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01:
Evidences of God - Preface
Ok. If you succeed in providing some real evidence, you'd be the first
person in 10,000 (give or take a few) years of religious beliefs.
I have recently been involved in discussions that have been crossposted
in several newsgroups. Because, in all of these newsgroups, people have
asked me for my evidence that God exists, I am cross posting this thread
to all of these newsgroups, so that everyone who has been discussing on
the other threads will see and be able to converse in this thread.
Yeah, and it's fun to start crossposting flame wars too.
Some of the items that I will be posting will be items that I have
posted before. I know this, but everyone may not have read them that
will be in this discussion, so I am reposting it.
Because of the amount of information that I plan on posting for this
discussion, I would like to make a suggestion. If you plan on posting a
reply to a single point made in the discussion, please append a suffix
(or change an existing one) to the subject line of the post. It will
make it easier to follow the threads.
Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings will be
based on my beliefs. I know that there will be other people who have
differing beliefs and opinions, and that is fine.
So why would we care about your beliefs then?
In summary, I want to be able to have an honest, open minded discussion
on the subject. By open minded I simply mean that we look at each post,
regardless of the author, at face value. We should at least try to
understand what the author is saying before replying. I am not saying
that anyone needs to believe or accept anything that is posted, I would
just ask that we respect each other's views as being valid in their eyes.
Why should someone accept a silly belief as valid or anything other than
imaginary? Or respect it?
Now I know asking Usenet posters to behave can be like asking a dog to
quit chasing cats, but at least I made the attempt.
Why bother? Dogs wouldn't have near as much fun if they didn't have cats
to chase.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
21 Aug 2003 04:38:38 AM |
|
|
Jeremy <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<jeV0b.211986$YN5.146419@sccrnsc01>...
Evidences of God - Preface
Dear Jeremy,
Just to let you know that I have followed your other thread and will
be following this one with interest.
You have taken on quite a task, which you may find stressful simply
because of the time and energy needed to keep up with it. On top of
that, there is the risk that you might have to change your views;
whether you appreciate that or not, it is real, so keep it in mind. It
is in fact, the only way a person can benefit from discussion.
You will of course face a certain amount of hostility. I will be
posting from alt.atheism, where there is a gale of theistic abuse and
lies, and it's not surprising that some atheists have a robust
attitude. Just ignore disrespectful posts, keep your eye on the ball
and take whatever time you need before you respond. There is no hurry.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
21 Aug 2003 09:49:48 AM |
|
|
Jeremy <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote:
--snip--
=Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my postings
=will be based on my beliefs.
So much for "evidence", then.
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel
should be put to death, whether small or great,
whether man or woman." - 2 Chr.15:13
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidences of God - Preface |
20 Aug 2003 11:28:55 PM |
|
|
Jeremy wrote:
Evidences of God - Preface
... Also please note that, unless I state otherwise, my
postings will be based on my beliefs.
Your beliefs do not represent "evidence" for any god.
Instead of posting your beliefs, post the facts.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
dave@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: the stupidest Bible story |
20 Aug 2003 10:10:37 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2003 16:07:25 -0700,
() wrote:
According to the story, Adam and Eve have two sons, one of which kills
the other. So there are three people, Adam, Eve, and Cain. The authors
then tell us that Cain "knew" his "wife." Where did SHE come from?
Let's ditch this trash and move on. - Bob.
As the originator of this thread I occasionally repeat this message in
order to hear more flames and curses. I enjoy them. Its always
amusing when a good thread raises the swellings of holy hemorrhoids
and threats of hell..
Everyone should caste their vote for the stupidest Bible story.
The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.
Unlike the absurdity of Adam and Eve, belief which has caused so much
discomfort and evil, Noahâs tale is entertaining and lacks any
sensible message. Indeed, it personifies God as a nasty vindictive
grouch (most fairy tales have a villain) and serves as an interesting
subject for fairy tale illustrators.
Noah has no real lessons for religious proselytizers to rant about. In
the tale, God just got upset and bumped off most everything he
considered offensive which he apparently would do more often. Perhaps
the authors had, not scaring children too much in mind, so that they
could graduate more easily to the truly horrible stuff in store for
them later in the book.
Iâm sure the authors never imagined how much this story would also
bend the minds of impressionable adults; especially those who label
doubters of this tall tale abysmally immoral and condemn them as
candidates for their loving god's ovens of hell.
The Noah tale is particularly interesting because of its power to
cause ridiculous modern quests. Unlike Grail seekers which are now out
of fashion, expeditions of contemporary bimbos still occasionally look
for pieces of old wood on the side of a remote mountain. I suppose
someone eventually will find a piece of fibrous debris which will
grace another of those "proof of mystical nonsense" programs on TV.
This will excite those average yokels who need the support of ever
more absurd mystical crutches.
I might mention the Tower of Babble story which did not get my vote
because it is not really that stupid and has some metaphorical value
about the conflict between the vast numbers of religious theories. It
is interesting that no one is looking for the ruins of this construct
as stone is more likely to have survived than moldy old wood.
So which in your opinion is the stupidest and donât forget to sight
reasons?
....no skill no art!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
| User: "stephen bayzik" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
21 Aug 2003 12:54:30 PM |
|
|
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:bhd8kv8vkqu5mjdq73j887jc04fc5hd0sn@4ax.com...
On 20 Aug 2003 16:07:25 -0700,
() wrote:
According to the story, Adam and Eve have two sons, one of which kills
the other. So there are three people, Adam, Eve, and Cain. The authors
then tell us that Cain "knew" his "wife." Where did SHE come from?
Let's ditch this trash and move on. - Bob.
As the originator of this thread I occasionally repeat this message in
order to hear more flames and curses. I enjoy them. Its always
amusing when a good thread raises the swellings of holy hemorrhoids
and threats of hell..
Everyone should caste their vote for the stupidest Bible story.
The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.
Unlike the absurdity of Adam and Eve, belief which has caused so much
discomfort and evil, Noah's tale is entertaining and lacks any
sensible message. Indeed, it personifies God as a nasty vindictive
grouch (most fairy tales have a villain) and serves as an interesting
subject for fairy tale illustrators.
Noah has no real lessons for religious proselytizers to rant about. In
the tale, God just got upset and bumped off most everything he
considered offensive which he apparently would do more often. Perhaps
the authors had, not scaring children too much in mind, so that they
could graduate more easily to the truly horrible stuff in store for
them later in the book.
I'm sure the authors never imagined how much this story would also
bend the minds of impressionable adults; especially those who label
doubters of this tall tale abysmally immoral and condemn them as
candidates for their loving god's ovens of hell.
The Noah tale is particularly interesting because of its power to
cause ridiculous modern quests. Unlike Grail seekers which are now out
of fashion, expeditions of contemporary bimbos still occasionally look
for pieces of old wood on the side of a remote mountain. I suppose
someone eventually will find a piece of fibrous debris which will
grace another of those "proof of mystical nonsense" programs on TV.
This will excite those average yokels who need the support of ever
more absurd mystical crutches.
I might mention the Tower of Babble story which did not get my vote
because it is not really that stupid and has some metaphorical value
about the conflict between the vast numbers of religious theories. It
is interesting that no one is looking for the ruins of this construct
as stone is more likely to have survived than moldy old wood.
So which in your opinion is the stupidest and don't forget to sight
reasons?
Not really stupid but immature. The stories are just that; stories, legends,
myths etc. Some have ethical value, some do not. Don't take the Bible
Babblers seriously. They take their "Bible" like Linus took his blanket.
Take care,
--
Stephen Bayzik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "turk" |
|
| Title: Re: the stupidest Bible story |
21 Aug 2003 01:34:37 PM |
|
|
"duke32" <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gd0akvobps0actmm5a7n59le7vgolt5b5a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:10:37 -0400, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
Everyone should caste their vote for the stupidest Bible story.
The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.
Why do you say that? What base of evidence are you using to make that
erronous statement? What reasons are there for you to offer that
there could not have been a flood?
There could have been a local flood, but not a worldwide flood. But then,
if it was a local flood, God would not have taken out the whole of human
population, thus defeating his murderous purpose. There could also not have
been a boat large enough to fit two or seven (depending on your verse) of
each animal species on board, never mind the food and water needed to keep
them alive. And even if the boat could have been built large enough, there
is no way eight people could keep up with the maintenance and feeding
necessary to keep the animals alive along with themselves. Plus, how did
they herd Tyrannosaurs, Velociraptors, and other dangerous dinosaurs? How
did they manage to keep two Apatosaurs, two Wooly Mammoths, etc.? Or were
the dinosaurs left to drown with no mention in the Bible? Then you have the
problem of what the animals would eat after the ark found land, or did they
pack enough food on this boat to feed them for a few more years while they
waited for trees and foliage to grow (assuming they had also packed seeds of
all these different plants) and why did the carnivores not eat up the
herbivores? Then of course there is the issue of Noah having to screw his
relatives to keep the human species alive. And of course the problem with
two or seven animals of each species being genetically diverse enough to
continue survival. Also, you have the massive heat problems from a fall of
water from the sky in large enough quantities to flood the world.
And of course, there is the typical lack of evidence problematic for all
Biblical tails. Where is this enourmous boat? Creationists have claimed to
have found it dozens of different times in numerous locations, but it seems
to go missing shortly afterwards. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Or are you just blowing smoke out your butt?
Noah's tale is entertaining and lacks any
sensible message. Indeed, it personifies God as a nasty vindictive
grouch (most fairy tales have a villain) and serves as an interesting
subject for fairy tale illustrators.
The bible presents a very good reason for the flood.
Yes, a bored god who has grown tired of his creations, whose nature he
instilled, so he decided to slaughter the lot of them. And considering
Noah's first act after finding land was to get drunk and beat his son, I'd
say God granting him favor and survival is a pretty good clue as to this
deity's standards.
Noah has no real lessons for religious proselytizers to rant about. In
the tale, God just got upset and bumped off most everything he
considered offensive which he apparently would do more often.
Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all
the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth,
and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe
mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and
animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the
air-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in
the eyes of the LORD .
See, he had a very real reason for the flood.
Yep, your deity screws up his creation of the humans then decides that the
solution is to murder them all, men, women and children alike. Even
pregnant women with their poor little fetuses were drowned, which sure makes
the xian "anti-abortion" stance look silly. And this god, so worthy of our
worship went ahead and took out the animals as well, sparing only a couple
of each, since he was too stupid or too lazy to come up with a better
solution, despite his omnipotence. Exactly why is this deity worth even
acknowledging, let alone bowing down to?
...no skill no art!
That's quite right - that's exactly how I see your silly story.
We don't have silly stories of our own. We have yours to entertain us and
make fun of.
turk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doubting Thomas Doubting Thomas @ no god.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible story -- The Flood |
22 Aug 2003 12:44:55 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AvucnTesgJ_ioduiU-KYvA@comcast.com...
"Fundamentalists."
"Christians" don't necessarily believe in Noah's flood.
I agree, back when I still believed in God I didn't take everything in the
bible literally. However, you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe
in the Noah flood myth. I know many non-fundies who do. It's not that they
actively believe the story word for word, however, they just don't
critically think about the logistics involved in the story and just believe
as a matter of faith.
DT
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible story -- The Flood |
22 Aug 2003 10:45:48 PM |
|
|
"Doubting Thomas" <Doubting Thomas @ no god.com> wrote
However, you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe
in the Noah flood myth.
Yes, I realize that. It was poor phrasing on my part.
Of course a non fundamentalist "Christian" is free to believe
in Noah's flood or not. The point is, only a fundamentalist
Protestant is required to believe in Noah's flood.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible story -- The Flood |
22 Aug 2003 06:54:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:44:55 -0500, "Doubting Thomas" <Doubting Thomas
@ no god.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AvucnTesgJ_ioduiU-KYvA@comcast.com...
"Fundamentalists."
"Christians" don't necessarily believe in Noah's flood.
I agree, back when I still believed in God I didn't take everything in the
bible literally. However, you don't have to be a fundamentalist to believe
in the Noah flood myth. I know many non-fundies who do. It's not that they
actively believe the story word for word, however, they just don't
critically think about the logistics involved in the story and just believe
as a matter of faith.
In other words they believe ***** as a matter of faith.
You will notice if you ask some of the believers here whether they
actually believe some of the Bible stuff they don't answer.
Never underestimate the gullibility of the faithful.
....no skill no art!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible story -- The Flood |
22 Aug 2003 01:01:13 AM |
|
|
"Jeremy" <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote
. . . s n i p . . .
Plus, how did
they herd Tyrannosaurs, Velociraptors, and other dangerous dinosaurs?
How
did they manage to keep two Apatosaurs, two Wooly Mammoths, etc.? Or
were
the dinosaurs left to drown with no mention in the Bible?
No mention. I am not going to fathom a guess, but I would also like to
ask where the evidence is that man and the dinosaurs existed at the same
time. I thought the dinosaurs were extinct before man came.
These people can tell you: www.icr.org/ the Institute for Creation Research
in California.
Go to their web site, and in the BOOKS section (or the SPECIALS section),
look for the book titled "Noah's Ark and the Ararat Adventure." It's a
kid's book, and right on the cover they've got an interesting picture (and
actual "unretouched photo" I'm sure) of the Ark with an old man, 2
dinosaurs, an elephant and a bird on the Ark.
A Babtist friend of mine showed me a copy of the book years ago, and I
choked with amazement. "Do you actually think they tried to put two or
seven tyranosauruses on the Ark with all those other animals? And a few
brontosauruses?" Of course, he was embarrassed by the foolishness of the
book, and said, "Ah, it's just a kid's book," like it didn't matter what
manner of craziness his grandkids read. I just laughed . . . he got the
point, though . . .
Anyway, try this link:
www.icr.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=specialbooks
it should get ya there . . . and the "experts" at ICR can clue you in on
their "reseach" that "proves" that dinosaurs were on the Ark.
Sheesh . . .
--Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zed" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible story -- The Flood |
22 Aug 2003 06:34:01 PM |
|
|
David <dave@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message news:<3f462ecc@news.sti.net>...
tock@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Jeremy" <dgeproject@hotmail.com> wrote .
Plus, how did they herd Tyrannosaurs, Velociraptors,
and other dangerous dinosaurs?
How did they manage to keep two Apatosaurs, two Wooly
Mammoths, etc.? Or were the dinosaurs left to drown
with no mention in the Bible?
No mention. I am not going to fathom a guess, but I
would also like to ask where the evidence is that man
and the dinosaurs existed at the same time. I thought
the dinosaurs were extinct before man came.
These people can tell you: www.icr.org/ the Institute
for Creation Research in California.
No one at the IRC has a college degree from an accredited
university.
Anyway, here is actual photographic proof that humans and
dinosaurs existed together:
http://store1.yimg.com/I/rnrdist_1756_9830877
For the complete guide to ***** in Noah's Ark story:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
And from the same excellent site, "think like a fundy":
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/fundy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
