| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Roger" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2006 02:05:14 AM |
| Object: |
Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
[m-w.com]
.
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 03:48:57 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
The nature of the psychoses of most people who have religious beliefs
is not such that it renders them dysfunctional and dangerous to
themselves and to others. Among psychotics there are believers as well
as unbelievers. Some psychotics are perfectly functional. They
enjoy being crazy and they like to get laughed at and scorned by normal
people.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 02:50:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:48:57 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <Pine.NEB.4.62.0607260358490.19086@norge.freeshell.org>
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
The nature of the psychoses of most people who have religious beliefs
is not such that it renders them dysfunctional and dangerous to
themselves and to others. Among psychotics there are believers as well
as unbelievers. Some psychotics are perfectly functional. They
enjoy being crazy and they like to get laughed at and scorned by normal
people.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
The voice of experience.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 05:05:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:48:57 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
- Refer: <Pine.NEB.4.62.0607260358490.19086@norge.freeshell.org>
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
The nature of the psychoses of most people who have religious beliefs
is not such that it renders them dysfunctional and dangerous to
themselves and to others. Among psychotics there are believers as well
as unbelievers. Some psychotics are perfectly functional. They
enjoy being crazy and they like to get laughed at and scorned by normal
people.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
The voice of experience.
You have had some similar experiences. Do you want to be reminded
of that again? If not, then you had better start walking backwards
out of this one. And don't turn around and show your ***** because
everybody in these newsgroups knows how funny yours looks.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 08:18:34 PM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
You have had some similar experiences. Do you want to be reminded
of that again? If not, then you had better start walking backwards
out of this one. And don't turn around and show your ***** because
everybody in these newsgroups knows how funny yours looks.
Ah, marvelous. Juvenile insults are always a great way to make a point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 03:17:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:18:34 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
- Refer: <1hj3hcq.1zdrq4fvxp3hN%>
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
You have had some similar experiences. Do you want to be reminded
of that again? If not, then you had better start walking backwards
out of this one. And don't turn around and show your ***** because
everybody in these newsgroups knows how funny yours looks.
Ah, marvelous. Juvenile insults are always a great way to make a point.
Well, he has no evidence, and even less facts, so insults are the next
resort.
When they fail, it is back to the good old methods of the Bible, the
Inquisition, the KKK, and the Bush administration: torture and
violence.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 07:11:26 AM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
The nature of the psychoses of most people who have religious beliefs
is not such that it renders them dysfunctional and dangerous to
themselves and to others. Among psychotics there are believers as well
as unbelievers. Some psychotics are perfectly functional. They
enjoy being crazy and they like to get laughed at and scorned by normal
people.
Nowhere does that definition say anything about dysfunction.
Psychosis is the loss of contact with reality. Religion is the perfect
example.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 02:49:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
The nature of the psychoses of most people who have religious beliefs
is not such that it renders them dysfunctional and dangerous to
themselves and to others. Among psychotics there are believers as well
as unbelievers. Some psychotics are perfectly functional. They
enjoy being crazy and they like to get laughed at and scorned by normal
people.
Nowhere does that definition say anything about dysfunction.
I know that it says nothing about dysfunction. In cases where
psychosis does not manifest itself as a cause of dysfuntion, then
it isn't a problem.
Psychosis is the loss of contact with reality. Religion is the perfect
example.
In my opinion atheism is also a perfect example.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 04:08:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:49:02 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
The nature of the psychoses of most people who have religious beliefs
is not such that it renders them dysfunctional and dangerous to
themselves and to others. Among psychotics there are believers as well
as unbelievers. Some psychotics are perfectly functional. They
enjoy being crazy and they like to get laughed at and scorned by normal
people.
Nowhere does that definition say anything about dysfunction.
I know that it says nothing about dysfunction. In cases where
psychosis does not manifest itself as a cause of dysfuntion, then
it isn't a problem.
When the psychotics attempt to force their delusions to be taught as
fact in public school science classes or lobby for legislation
intended to force the rest of us to conduct our lives as though their
fantasy were real, or to ban anything their sick minds consider "evil"
or "sinful", then it is very much a problem.
When they disrupt the funeral of a gay man, carrying signs and
shouting "God hates fags" and "burn in Hell, *****", then it is very
much a problem.
Psychosis is the loss of contact with reality. Religion is the perfect
example.
In my opinion atheism is also a perfect example.
Your opinion doesn't count. Perhaps you'd care to present some real
objective evidence indicating why you're right and we're wrong.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 04:51:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:49:02 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
The nature of the psychoses of most people who have religious beliefs
is not such that it renders them dysfunctional and dangerous to
themselves and to others. Among psychotics there are believers as well
as unbelievers. Some psychotics are perfectly functional. They
enjoy being crazy and they like to get laughed at and scorned by normal
people.
Nowhere does that definition say anything about dysfunction.
I know that it says nothing about dysfunction. In cases where
psychosis does not manifest itself as a cause of dysfuntion, then
it isn't a problem.
When the psychotics attempt to force their delusions to be taught as
fact in public school science classes
That is not a problem because we know that the courts will always
prohibit them from teaching such things as creationism or intelligent
design in science classes in the public schools.
or lobby for legislation
intended to force the rest of us to conduct our lives as though their
fantasy were real, or to ban anything their sick minds consider "evil"
or "sinful", then it is very much a problem.
What they consider "evil" are the same things that many secularists
and also the believers in some non-Christian religions also consider
"evil".
When they disrupt the funeral of a gay man, carrying signs and
shouting "God hates fags" and "burn in Hell, *****", then it is very
much a problem.
I have never heard of their doing such things. Anybody who would misbehave
while attending a funeral ceremony may be asked to leave the premises. If
he refuses to leave he becomes subject to being arrested for trespassing.
So, that is not a problem.
Psychosis is the loss of contact with reality. Religion is the perfect
example.
In my opinion atheism is also a perfect example.
Your opinion doesn't count. Perhaps you'd care to present some real
objective evidence indicating why you're right and we're wrong.
One thing that makes you guys wrong is your asinine insistence that
verifiable objective evidence be presented by the believers to prove
that that they are right. They do not insist that you guys produce
some verifiable objective evidence to prove that you are right. Most
of the educated believers and the educated non-believers are aware
of the impossibility of either side to produce objective verifiable
objective evidence on this issue.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 05:02:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:51:29 -0400, Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:49:02 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Roger wrote:
psychosis: fundamental derangement of the mind (as in schizophrenia)
characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as
evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech and
behavior
The nature of the psychoses of most people who have religious beliefs
is not such that it renders them dysfunctional and dangerous to
themselves and to others. Among psychotics there are believers as well
as unbelievers. Some psychotics are perfectly functional. They
enjoy being crazy and they like to get laughed at and scorned by normal
people.
Nowhere does that definition say anything about dysfunction.
I know that it says nothing about dysfunction. In cases where
psychosis does not manifest itself as a cause of dysfuntion, then
it isn't a problem.
When the psychotics attempt to force their delusions to be taught as
fact in public school science classes
That is not a problem because we know that the courts will always
prohibit them from teaching such things as creationism or intelligent
design in science classes in the public schools.
or lobby for legislation
intended to force the rest of us to conduct our lives as though their
fantasy were real, or to ban anything their sick minds consider "evil"
or "sinful", then it is very much a problem.
What they consider "evil" are the same things that many secularists
and also the believers in some non-Christian religions also consider
"evil".
When they disrupt the funeral of a gay man, carrying signs and
shouting "God hates fags" and "burn in Hell, *****", then it is very
much a problem.
I have never heard of their doing such things. Anybody who would misbehave
while attending a funeral ceremony may be asked to leave the premises. If
he refuses to leave he becomes subject to being arrested for trespassing.
So, that is not a problem.
Psychosis is the loss of contact with reality. Religion is the perfect
example.
In my opinion atheism is also a perfect example.
Your opinion doesn't count. Perhaps you'd care to present some real
objective evidence indicating why you're right and we're wrong.
One thing that makes you guys wrong is your asinine insistence that
verifiable objective evidence be presented by the believers to prove
that that they are right. They do not insist that you guys produce
some verifiable objective evidence to prove that you are right. Most
of the educated believers and the educated non-believers are aware
of the impossibility of either side to produce objective verifiable
objective evidence on this issue.
Which is why those people who are not insane do not believe in things that
have no evidence to support them.
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 06:17:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 07:49:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:17:13 -0400, Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
Do you also need proof that there aren't pink elephants in your undies?
How *dare* you deny them. Your belief in gods in no less silly.
A sane person doesn't automatically believe everything he is told.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 06:45:08 AM |
|
|
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:17:13 -0400, Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
Do you also need proof that there aren't pink elephants in your undies?
*snork*
DON'T DO THAT!
I almost drowned in my coffee. :-D
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 a=45, m=23, f=20
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 12:01:42 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:17:13 -0400, Samuel W. Heywood
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
Do you also need proof that there aren't pink elephants in your undies?
How *dare* you deny them. Your belief in gods in no less silly.
A sane person doesn't automatically believe everything he is told.
Of course. What do you think of the first hominid to conceive of the
idea of the existence of God? Do you think he was sane? Do you think
that his idea hindered the further progress of human evolution and
the development of higher intelligence for all the future generations
of hominids? In my opinion the first hominids must have had a really
strong thing going on in their souls, not only for one of their genetic
branches to survive as a genus of species, but also to help them to
ascend against all odds to a position of dominion and power over all the
lions and tigers and bears that were out to get them.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 10:42:16 AM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
Of course. What do you think of the first hominid to conceive of the
idea of the existence of God? Do you think he was sane? Do you think
that his idea hindered the further progress of human evolution and
the development of higher intelligence for all the future generations
of hominids? In my opinion the first hominids must have had a really
strong thing going on in their souls, not only for one of their genetic
branches to survive as a genus of species, but also to help them to
ascend against all odds to a position of dominion and power over all the
lions and tigers and bears that were out to get them.
Yet another Sunday School scholar...
Apparently you don't even see the irony in your own words: "the first
hominid to conceive of the idea of the existence of God". That's an
excellent comment, because in the end, God is a figment of human
imagination, nothing more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 10:52:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:42:16 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
Of course. What do you think of the first hominid to conceive of the
idea of the existence of God? Do you think he was sane? Do you think
that his idea hindered the further progress of human evolution and
the development of higher intelligence for all the future generations
of hominids? In my opinion the first hominids must have had a really
strong thing going on in their souls, not only for one of their genetic
branches to survive as a genus of species, but also to help them to
ascend against all odds to a position of dominion and power over all the
lions and tigers and bears that were out to get them.
Yet another Sunday School scholar...
Apparently you don't even see the irony in your own words: "the first
hominid to conceive of the idea of the existence of God". That's an
excellent comment, because in the end, God is a figment of human
imagination, nothing more.
Because on their planet things don't evolve he can't grasp how it
changed over time with retelling. Or that all it took was a just-so
story used as an explanation what the unexplained and it took off from
there, most likely when it was told to kids who grew up believing it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 08:18:33 PM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
26 Jul 2006 10:30:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
Many of you atheists really do have a double standard. You say
that it is wrong to make the claim God exists unless proof is presented
to back up the claim, yet you insist that your claims to the contrary
that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
There are some of you guys who do not subscribe to this double
standard. It is their position that neither the claim that God exists
nor the claim that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 12:48:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:30:22 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
Many of you atheists really do have a double standard. You say
that it is wrong to make the claim God exists unless proof is presented
to back up the claim, yet you insist that your claims to the contrary
that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
We're not making any claims. We're just saying we don't believe yours.
There are some of you guys who do not subscribe to this double
standard. It is their position that neither the claim that God exists
nor the claim that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. That would be
you, Sam. Best get busy.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 01:38:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:30:22 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
Many of you atheists really do have a double standard. You say
that it is wrong to make the claim God exists unless proof is presented
to back up the claim, yet you insist that your claims to the contrary
that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
We're not making any claims. We're just saying we don't believe yours.
There are some of you guys who do not subscribe to this double
standard. It is their position that neither the claim that God exists
nor the claim that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. That would be
you, Sam. Best get busy.
The simple assertion that "God exists" may be simply accepted without
proof, just like the simple assertion that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 12:53:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:38:49 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:30:22 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
Many of you atheists really do have a double standard. You say
that it is wrong to make the claim God exists unless proof is presented
to back up the claim, yet you insist that your claims to the contrary
that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
We're not making any claims. We're just saying we don't believe yours.
There are some of you guys who do not subscribe to this double
standard. It is their position that neither the claim that God exists
nor the claim that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. That would be
you, Sam. Best get busy.
The simple assertion that "God exists" may be simply accepted without
proof, just like the simple assertion that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
Accepted by an utter imbecile without a scintilla of critical thinking
ability, perhaps. For the rest of us, you'll need evidence.
Like I said, best get busy.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 01:38:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:38:49 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:30:22 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
Many of you atheists really do have a double standard. You say
that it is wrong to make the claim God exists unless proof is presented
to back up the claim, yet you insist that your claims to the contrary
that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
We're not making any claims. We're just saying we don't believe yours.
There are some of you guys who do not subscribe to this double
standard. It is their position that neither the claim that God exists
nor the claim that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. That would be
you, Sam. Best get busy.
The simple assertion that "God exists" may be simply accepted without
proof, just like the simple assertion that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
Accepted by an utter imbecile without a scintilla of critical thinking
ability, perhaps. For the rest of us, you'll need evidence.
Did you pass 10th grade Plane Geometry?
I suspect that you might have been among the very few who flunked
out for reason of not being able to accept without proof the concept
that a straight line is the shortest distance beween two points.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 05:04:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:38:10 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:38:49 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:30:22 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
Many of you atheists really do have a double standard. You say
that it is wrong to make the claim God exists unless proof is presented
to back up the claim, yet you insist that your claims to the contrary
that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
We're not making any claims. We're just saying we don't believe yours.
There are some of you guys who do not subscribe to this double
standard. It is their position that neither the claim that God exists
nor the claim that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. That would be
you, Sam. Best get busy.
The simple assertion that "God exists" may be simply accepted without
proof, just like the simple assertion that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
Accepted by an utter imbecile without a scintilla of critical thinking
ability, perhaps. For the rest of us, you'll need evidence.
Did you pass 10th grade Plane Geometry?
Yes. Easily. You?
I suspect that you might have been among the very few who flunked
out for reason of not being able to accept without proof the concept
that a straight line is the shortest distance beween two points.
And I suspect you might be that utter imbecile I alluded to earlier.
The unsupported assertion "God exists" has nothing to do with the
concept of a straight line being the shortest distance between two
points, or with anything else that can be empirically demonstrated.
And by the way, Sam. The axiom that a straight line is the shortest
distance between two points doesn't always hold true. If you'd moved
on beyond Plane G, you'd have known that.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 09:47:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:38:10 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:38:49 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:30:22 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
Many of you atheists really do have a double standard. You say
that it is wrong to make the claim God exists unless proof is presented
to back up the claim, yet you insist that your claims to the contrary
that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
We're not making any claims. We're just saying we don't believe yours.
There are some of you guys who do not subscribe to this double
standard. It is their position that neither the claim that God exists
nor the claim that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. That would be
you, Sam. Best get busy.
The simple assertion that "God exists" may be simply accepted without
proof, just like the simple assertion that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
Accepted by an utter imbecile without a scintilla of critical thinking
ability, perhaps. For the rest of us, you'll need evidence.
Did you pass 10th grade Plane Geometry?
Yes. Easily. You?
I suspect that you might have been among the very few who flunked
out for reason of not being able to accept without proof the concept
that a straight line is the shortest distance beween two points.
And I suspect you might be that utter imbecile I alluded to earlier.
The unsupported assertion "God exists" has nothing to do with the
concept of a straight line being the shortest distance between two
points, or with anything else that can be empirically demonstrated.
And by the way, Sam. The axiom that a straight line is the shortest
distance between two points doesn't always hold true. If you'd moved
on beyond Plane G, you'd have known that.
Yep. I know that, but I was speaking only of Plane G.
I took Solid G too.
BTW, it isn't an axiom. It is a really a theorem subject to empirical
proof. I just looked up the five axioms of Euclidian Plane Geometry.
As it turns out we were both wrong in thinking of it as one of the
axioms. Quoted below is the fifth axiom. It cannot be proven as true.
You just have to accept it by faith:
"5. If two lines intersect a third line in such a way that the sums
of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the
two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended
far enough."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 03:36:06 PM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:38:49 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:30:22 -0400, "Samuel W. Heywood"
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
<snipped previous stuff for brevity>
Your belief that nonexistant entities really exist is a textbook case
of a delusion.
Without proof that the alleged non-existent entitiies do not exist
you cannot make a valid case that the belief in their existence is
a delusion.
You and Duke really ought to get together, since you share the same
puerile belief that it is up to atheists to prove the non-existence of
your imaginary friends. Perhaps you can google some of the 47,000
rebuttals to this idiotic argument.
Many of you atheists really do have a double standard. You say
that it is wrong to make the claim God exists unless proof is presented
to back up the claim, yet you insist that your claims to the contrary
that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
We're not making any claims. We're just saying we don't believe yours.
There are some of you guys who do not subscribe to this double
standard. It is their position that neither the claim that God exists
nor the claim that God does not exist should be accepted without proof.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. That would be
you, Sam. Best get busy.
The simple assertion that "God exists" may be simply accepted without
proof, just like the simple assertion that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
Accepted by an utter imbecile without a scintilla of critical thinking
ability, perhaps. For the rest of us, you'll need evidence.
Did you pass 10th grade Plane Geometry?
I suspect that you might have been among the very few who flunked
out for reason of not being able to accept without proof the concept
that a straight line is the shortest distance beween two points.
Huh? It was proven to me by my Math teacher that the shortest distance
between two points is a straight line. I did the measurements, I KNOW
that the theorem is true because it can be proven both mathematically
as well as objectively. It is not something I need to accept on faith.
Only morons who did not do their work had to accept the matter as
faith.
And I figure I learned about this in 5th or 6th grade.
John
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 10:34:28 AM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
The simple assertion that "God exists" may be simply accepted without
proof, just like the simple assertion that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
Apparently you've never studied non-Euclidean geometry. And in any
event, we can accept the assertion that a straight line is the shortest
distance between two points because it is provable (in the proper
context).
Your so-called "simple assertion" that God exists cannot and should not
be accepted without evidence, any more than the "simple assertion" that
Elvis is still alive should be.
Once again, your only defense seems to be "accept God without evidence".
We don't, and you shouldn't either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 09:40:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:34:28 -0700, (Scott
Richter) wrote:
- Refer: <1hj4js6.ek17cipni6v4N%>
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
The simple assertion that "God exists" may be simply accepted without
proof, just like the simple assertion that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.
Apparently you've never studied non-Euclidean geometry.
Samuel has never studied anything.
He is especially clueless when it comes to theology in general, and
the bible in particular.
As for non-euclidian geometry, forget it!
And in any
event, we can accept the assertion that a straight line is the shortest
distance between two points because it is provable (in the proper
context).
Your so-called "simple assertion" that God exists cannot and should not
be accepted without evidence, any more than the "simple assertion" that
Elvis is still alive should be.
Once again, your only defense seems to be "accept God without evidence".
We don't, and you shouldn't either.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
27 Jul 2006 10:41:35 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
<snip>
Your so-called "simple assertion" that God exists cannot and should not
be accepted without evidence,
Why?
Once again, your only defense seems to be "accept God without evidence".
We don't, and you shouldn't either.
Why?
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
29 Jul 2006 12:57:55 AM |
|
|
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0607290003590.9583@norge.freeshell.org...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:41:35 -0400, Samuel W. Heywood
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
<snip>
Your so-called "simple assertion" that God exists cannot and should not
be accepted without evidence,
Why?
Because assetions are just assertions.
I can say you owe me a million dollars. Are you going to then
start repayments?
Of course not because it would be a false assertion for you to say
that I owe you a million dollars.
Once again, your only defense seems to be "accept God without
evidence".
We don't, and you shouldn't either.
Why?
Cause it's rubbish.
That is a false assertion. A true assertion is that there is no way
one can accept the idea that God exists unless one has faith.
I have faith that you owe "AZ Nomad" a million dollars.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamentalist christians: Psychotics |
29 Jul 2006 01:12:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, monkeyhawk wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0607290003590.9583@norge.freeshell.org...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:41:35 -0400, Samuel W. Heywood
<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Scott Richter wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:
<snip>
Your so-called "simple assertion" that God exists cannot and should not
be accepted without evidence,
Why?
Because assetions are just assertions.
I can say you owe me a million dollars. Are you going to then
start repayments?
Of course not because it would be a false assertion for you to say
that I owe you a million dollars.
Once again, your only defense seems to be "accept God without
evidence".
We don't, and you shouldn't either.
Why?
Cause it's rubbish.
That is a false assertion. A true assertion is that there is no way
one can accept the idea that God exists unless one has faith.
I have faith that you owe "AZ Nomad" a million dollars.
Therefore you lose. You admitted to having faith. All your fellow
atheists will snicker at you and heap piles of scorn upon you because
you admitted that you have faith. Whom can you turn to now that they
will no longer back you up?
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
