His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated

Religions > Atheism > His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"J Young"
Date:	14 Mar 2006 12:30:30 PM
Object:	His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated

Science has no answer for what happened; the RCC attributes it to a miracle.
Common sense goes with the miracle.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/13/D8GAR8A83.html
His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated
An official inquiry will begin this week into whether a French nun's
apparently inexplicable recovery from Parkinson's disease was a miracle that
can be attributed to Pope John Paul II, a distinction needed to put the late
pontiff on the road to sainthood, a cleric said Monday.
Monsignor Slawomir Oder, a Pole who is leading the case for John Paul's
sainthood, said he was asking the French bishop in whose diocese the alleged
miracle occurred to begin gathering testimony and documentation.
"Exactly two months after the death of the pope, from one minute to another,
the nun didn't show the symptoms of the illness anymore," Oder told The
Associated Press in one of his most extensive descriptions of the supposed
miracle.
"According to the criteria of human science, the doctor couldn't give an
explanation of what happened."
A miracle is required for beatification, the last formal step before a
person is considered for sainthood. A second miracle is needed for someone
to be declared a saint
--
" The truth shall set you free "
.

User: "Bonnie Bitch"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	19 Mar 2006 12:07:02 AM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:18:13 -0600, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:kc2n1259v1tcsqgfrfsbq82p9a754qk0f3@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:09:44 -0600, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:esuk121knd21i6rv7om5ncikul2u5diuqm@4ax.com...

On 16 Mar 2006 17:17:05 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Hugh
Betcha" <gemond@canada.com>

You people not only ignore but also reject how the world actually
works so that you can keep up the abjectly ignorant, wide-eyed,
child-like "wonderment" at "the creation of Gawd all-barfy."
And then y'all want to enforce that fucked-up ***** on everyone
else, but that's for another post.

Knowing how the world around you works will open your mind to reality.
Sadly for your cult, it will end your and its egotistical
superimpositions on reality, but hey -- the truth shall set your
christstain ***** free.

Go read some Spong to figure out how to reconcile abandoning
"Goddidit" with embracing modern scholarship. Personally, it would be
hypocritical and intellectually irresponsible of me to figure out and
explain that notion for you ('cause Tefnut knows you're too god-soaked
to do it for yourself), so I leave you to your own devices.

Damn, if that is an accurate caricature

you misspelled "depiction."

that's nothing new.

Glad you could admit that. There's hope for you yet.

of your former religious thinking

And, no, lying christstain. It's how *you* assholes think.

wow!!

Kinda sucks when you get a glimpse of your christstain self in the
mirror. But you can change that, if you want.

an intolerant stereo-typing liberal......that's nothing new.

Then you should change yourself.

can see way you left religion. I'd leave too.

Anyone with a brain would, did, and do.

Go read some Spong. It'll open your eyes for you.

I have. He didn't impress me, either.

Then it's your loss.
Ya know -- I just find it amusing that when a Christian actually
preaches what your cult is really about, you christstains complain
bitterly. Is there some cogent reason for that?

http://www.starcourse.org/spong/cenreview.html That much in the Bible is
allegory? Duh. that's a catholic tradition going back to Saint Augustine.

That's not all Spong has written about. Your admission of ignorance of
Spong's work reveals that you lied above. Typical christstain -- lie,
deny, and lie some more, all the while remaining ignorant.
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	19 Mar 2006 04:43:22 PM

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:nvsp12t7e12873fm75luso1v0ti5ihlrrb@4ax.com...

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:kc2n1259v1tcsqgfrfsbq82p9a754qk0f3@4ax.com...

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:esuk121knd21i6rv7om5ncikul2u5diuqm@4ax.com...

Damn, if that is an accurate caricature

you misspelled "depiction."

that's nothing new.

Glad you could admit that. There's hope for you yet.

of your former religious thinking

And, no, lying christstain. It's how *you* assholes think.

wow!!

Kinda sucks when you get a glimpse of your christstain self in the
mirror. But you can change that, if you want.

an intolerant stereo-typing liberal......that's nothing new.

Then you should change yourself.

can see way you left religion. I'd leave too.

Anyone with a brain would, did, and do.

Go read some Spong. It'll open your eyes for you.

I have. He didn't impress me, either.

And see this is your problem. You and he have a strawman's view of
Christianity general. Not all Christians are fundies.
Ok let's take me for example. I'm an evolutionist, I trust what science can
verify. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. etc. etc. You'll find
that when it comes to the material side of meta-reality I'm no different
than most in a.a. So on that end of things, I see no conflict. But that's
were the similarity ends. I don't believe in the meta-monism, materialism,
that most in a.a. only *claim* to believe in. And I do mean "only claim" to.
I understand materialism better than most of them do. There is no such thing
as a god in materialism and there is no such thing as a correct morality
either. You'd be hard pressed to find a so-called materialist who can grasp
just what that "no correct morality" actually means. Most western atheists'
moral concepts come from being imbued with a Christian concept of ethics.
Anthropologists term that ethnocentrism. They argue for a correct morality -
human rights for example. If you're like Spong, you in no way could call
yourself an honest materialist. Spong may not believe in theism anymore but
he most certainly still believes in moral truth. That belief kicks his *****
right out of being a materialists. There are NO REAL morals in materialism
just as there are no REAL evils either. A materialist arguing for a better
moral code is a hypocrit.

http://www.starcourse.org/spong/cenreview.html That much in the Bible is
allegory? Duh. that's a catholic tradition going back to Saint Augustine.

That's not all Spong has written about. Your admission of ignorance of
Spong's work reveals that you lied above. Typical christstain -- lie,
deny, and lie some more, all the while remaining ignorant.

wrong. The book I read (and there may have been the next one he wrote too)
was "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In
Exile" I saw it as only a rebuttal to fundies.
Scott
.

User: "Bonnie Bitch"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	19 Mar 2006 05:40:18 PM

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:43:22 -0600, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:nvsp12t7e12873fm75luso1v0ti5ihlrrb@4ax.com...

And see this is your problem.

I'm not a christstain. That's your problem. Please stop talking to
yourself.
<snip christstain crap and lies>

Most western atheists'
moral concepts come from being imbued with a Christian concept of ethics.

Christstains have no ethics.
Plus, you are very confused. Plato and Socrates were not christstains.

Anthropologists term that ethnocentrism. They argue for a correct morality -

Describes you christstains very nicely.

human rights for example.

Christstains only support human rights when the christstains are the
only ones allowed to exercise those rights. Remember the christstain
mantra: "***** thy neighbor."

If you're like Spong, you in no way could call
yourself an honest materialist.

Another christstain lie.
I can like Spong all I want. Doesn't mean I follow his religion.
I also like liturgical music. Doesn't mean I follow any religion.
As for my being a materialist --- if you had ever demonstrated that
you know what it means, I would engage you on a meaningful discussion
thereof. However, you have proven yourself to be nothing more than an
arrogant, self-aggrandizing, christstain sycophant.
What kind of *****-***** are you that you arrogantly presume to
tell others how and what they believe? Oh, that's right -- you're a
christstain. It's what you assloaves do.

Spong may not believe in theism anymore

Another christstain lie.
John Spong is a cleric in the Episcopalian church. Last time I
checked, that was a denomination of christ-stain-insanity.
Spong is therefore a Christian, which makes him a theist.
What kind of *****-***** are you that you arrogantly presume to
tell others how and what they believe? Oh, that's right -- you're a
christstain. It's what you assloaves do.
<snip more christstain lies>

http://www.starcourse.org/spong/cenreview.html That much in the Bible is
allegory? Duh. that's a catholic tradition going back to Saint Augustine.

That's not all Spong has written about. Your admission of ignorance of
Spong's work reveals that you lied above. Typical christstain -- lie,
deny, and lie some more, all the while remaining ignorant.

wrong.

Another christstain lie.

The book I read (and there may have been the next one he wrote too)
was "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In
Exile" I saw it as only a rebuttal to fundies.

Thank you for admitting again that you are ignorant of Spong's works.
"Let me say this carefully, but clearly. Anyone who elevates their
prejudices to the position where they are defended as the will of God
is evil. Anybody who justifies their denigration of another person's
being based upon a quotation from an ancient sacred text called the
Word of God is simply out of touch with contemporary scholarship.
Anybody who will not open themselves to the new knowledge readily
available in medical and scientific circles because it calls into
question their uninformed attitudes is profoundly ignorant." -- John
Spong
.

User: "Scott"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	19 Mar 2006 09:06:22 PM

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:74qr12ddg8qu4v62h75j7t99hn3gdq6ojg@4ax.com...

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:nvsp12t7e12873fm75luso1v0ti5ihlrrb@4ax.com...

And see this is your problem.

I'm not a christstain. That's your problem. Please stop talking to
yourself.

actually I think it's the other way around. You think all christians are
what you once were and now you ***** to that image.

Most western atheists'
moral concepts come from being imbued with a Christian concept of ethics.

Christstains have no ethics.
Plus, you are very confused. Plato and Socrates were not christstains.

I think you are confused. to materialism all societies have
ethics....they're just diverse and different.
Plus, Plato and Socrates influenced scholasticism.

Anthropologists term that ethnocentrism. They argue for a correct
morality -

Describes you christstains very nicely.

discribes you.

human rights for example.

Christstains only support human rights when the christstains are the
only ones allowed to exercise those rights. Remember the christstain
mantra: "***** thy neighbor."

to materialism, human rights are as much the stuff of inventive, fantasizing
minds as are their gods. to materialism, neither are real. To materialism,
humans only live out their lives pretending their gods and morals are
universally real.

If you're like Spong, you in no way could call
yourself an honest materialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism "In philosophy, materialism is that
form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said
to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material
and all phenomena are the result of material interactions. Science uses a
working assumption, sometimes known as methodological naturalism, that
observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without
assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. As a theory,
materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is
different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. In terms
of singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism stands in
sharp contrast to idealism."
where do you go in science to observe an inherent dignity in humans?
Inherent dignity is derived from medieval Christian theology
I would engage you on a meaningful discussion

thereof. However, you have proven yourself to be nothing more than an
arrogant, self-aggrandizing, christstain sycophant.

What kind of *****-***** are you that you arrogantly presume to
tell others how and what they believe? Oh, that's right -- you're a
christstain. It's what you assloaves do.

look asswhipe, how does saying "if you're like spong" translate to my saying
what you *do* believe?

Spong may not believe in theism anymore

Another christstain lie.
John Spong is a cleric in the Episcopalian church. Last time I
checked, that was a denomination of christ-stain-insanity.
Spong is therefore a Christian, which makes him a theist.

What kind of *****-***** are you that you arrogantly presume to
tell others how and what they believe? Oh, that's right -- you're a
christstain. It's what you assloaves do.

<snip more christstain lies>

http://www.starcourse.org/spong/cenreview.html That much in the Bible is
allegory? Duh. that's a catholic tradition going back to Saint
Augustine.

That's not all Spong has written about. Your admission of ignorance of
Spong's work reveals that you lied above. Typical christstain -- lie,
deny, and lie some more, all the while remaining ignorant.

wrong.

Another christstain lie.

The book I read (and there may have been the next one he wrote too)
was "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In
Exile" I saw it as only a rebuttal to fundies.

no such thing as a factual evil in materialism. Conclusion: Spong is
factually not a materialist; He factually rejects the monism.
Anybody who justifies their denigration of another person's

being based upon a quotation from an ancient sacred text called the
Word of God is simply out of touch with contemporary scholarship.

That is a statment against fundamentalism. what do you think he means by
"contemporary scholarship"? Science? He's referring to modern theological
scholarship

Anybody who will not open themselves to the new knowledge readily
available in medical and scientific circles because it calls into
question their uninformed attitudes is profoundly ignorant."

and you think that applies to ALL chirstians? You are out of touch.
-- John

Spong

User: "Bonnie Bitch"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	20 Mar 2006 04:18:29 AM

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:06:22 -0600, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Scott"
<scott@nospam.net>

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:74qr12ddg8qu4v62h75j7t99hn3gdq6ojg@4ax.com...

"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:nvsp12t7e12873fm75luso1v0ti5ihlrrb@4ax.com...

And see this is your problem.

I'm not a christstain. That's your problem. Please stop talking to
yourself.

actually I think it's the other way around.

Then put the mirror down.

You think all christians are
what you once were and now you ***** to that image.

Nice try, christstain.

Most western atheists'
moral concepts come from being imbued with a Christian concept of ethics.

Christstains have no ethics.
Plus, you are very confused. Plato and Socrates were not christstains.

I think you are confused.

Not at all.
Plato, Socrates, and the great Greek scholars of antiquity (before you
people invented christ-stain-insanity) developed the concept of ethics
-- the idea that behaving in manners beneficial and "good" to/for
one's self and for others is a constant across the human race.
The christstains did not.
Christstains use a system of "morals," which are the malleable,
changeable, changing, and subjective whims of one particular culture
at one particular time.
Morality is relative to culture. Ethics are not.
Christstains did not invent or copyright ethics, as ethics were
conceived of long before christ-stain-insanity was around.
Christstains, on the whole, have no ethics. They rely on their
subjective, capricious, whimsical, temporally-based "morals," much to
the chagrin and detriment of the world as a whole.

to materialism
all societies have
ethics....they're just diverse and different.

And to you ignorant christstains, anyone who doesn't believe as you do
is somehow evil, as evidenced by your misused pejorative
"materialist."

Plus, Plato and Socrates influenced scholasticism.

So?
Christ-stain-insanity put Europe into the Dark Ages and wanted to keep
it there.

Anthropologists term that ethnocentrism. They argue for a correct
morality -

Describes you christstains very nicely.

discribes you.

Quit talking to yourself.
Christstains firmly believe that it is their god-mandated duty to
"baptize all the nations" and convert all the heathens. You people
have done that throughout your bloody history by genocidal force, so
you could impose your culture upon others, most often under penalty of
death.
Anthropologists term that ethnocentrism. You christstains impose your
subjective version of "a correct morality" by force.
Project much, bunky?

human rights for example.

Christstains only support human rights when the christstains are the
only ones allowed to exercise those rights. Remember the christstain
mantra: "***** thy neighbor."

to materialism,

And to you ignorant christstains, anyone who doesn't believe as you do
is somehow evil, as evidenced by your misused pejorative
"materialist."

human rights are as much the stuff of inventive, fantasizing
minds as are their gods.
to materialism, neither are real. To materialism,
humans only live out their lives pretending their gods and morals are
universally real.

Your christstain morals are neither universal nor moral.
Your mythological sky boogers simply don't exist.
Christstains like you will always lie about what others believe and
label them in whatever derogatory way they want, so long as they can
keep lying.
And that, bunky, is why I call you arrogant gits christstains.

If you're like Spong, you in no way could call
yourself an honest materialist.

Your cut and paste proves nothing, except that you have a website
bookmarked. Big whoo.

where do you go in science to observe an inherent dignity in humans?

The same place you go in philosophy to observe quantum mechanics in
action -- up your butt. Why do you need to ask?

Inherent dignity is derived from medieval Christian theology

The christstains copied that from the ancient Greeks and Romans, as
the christstains plagiarized, borrowed, lifted, forged, and copied all
their crap.
And don't forget that the christstains never practiced that particular
preaching. They still don't, to this very day.

I would engage you on a meaningful discussion
thereof. However, you have proven yourself to be nothing more than an
arrogant, self-aggrandizing, christstain sycophant.

That's my name, hope your fingers fall off wearing it out.
Oh, and Squat -- your borrowed definition of materialism does not
preclude intangible concepts.
So your blustering about materialists not having inherent anything --
it's just so much fetid christstain farting.

What kind of *****-***** are you that you arrogantly presume to
tell others how and what they believe? Oh, that's right -- you're a
christstain. It's what you assloaves do.

look asswhipe,

You brought your mommy along. How nice.

how does saying "if you're like spong" translate to my saying
what you *do* believe?

Ask your therapist, dip. You're the one leaping from "Bonnie read some
Spong and liked it" to "Bonnie's a materialist *****."

Spong may not believe in theism anymore

Another christstain lie.
John Spong is a cleric in the Episcopalian church. Last time I
checked, that was a denomination of christ-stain-insanity.
Spong is therefore a Christian, which makes him a theist.

What kind of *****-***** are you that you arrogantly presume to
tell others how and what they believe? Oh, that's right -- you're a
christstain. It's what you assloaves do.

<snip more christstain lies>

http://www.starcourse.org/spong/cenreview.html That much in the Bible is
allegory? Duh. that's a catholic tradition going back to Saint
Augustine.

That's not all Spong has written about. Your admission of ignorance of
Spong's work reveals that you lied above. Typical christstain -- lie,
deny, and lie some more, all the while remaining ignorant.

wrong.

Another christstain lie.

The book I read (and there may have been the next one he wrote too)
was "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In
Exile" I saw it as only a rebuttal to fundies.

no such thing as a factual evil in materialism.

Spong's not a materialist, dumbass.
But hey -- thanks for admitting again that you are ignorant of Spong,
his philosophy, and his writings.

Conclusion: Spong is
factually not a materialist; He factually rejects the monism.

So?
Oh, wait for it -- Squat's now going to claim that anyone who reads
and likes Spong is a materialist and isn't allowed to read or like
Spong because Squat said so.

Anybody who justifies their denigration of another person's
being based upon a quotation from an ancient sacred text called the
Word of God is simply out of touch with contemporary scholarship.

That is a statment against fundamentalism. what do you think he means by
"contemporary scholarship"? Science?

Among other things, yes.

He's referring to modern theological
scholarship

Among other things.
Typical christstain ploy -- others' words can have only one meaning,
which the christstains determine. Everyone else, including the author
of those words, is wrong, a priori.
Christstains' words are allowed -- magnanimously by themselves -- to
have multiple meanings and layers, through which the christstain will
backpedal, lie, deny, and re-define, until the christstain feels
sufficiently justified in its intellectual dishonesty.

Anybody who will not open themselves to the new knowledge readily
available in medical and scientific circles because it calls into
question their uninformed attitudes is profoundly ignorant."

and you think that applies to ALL chirstians?

Yes.
The only reason that quote bothers you so is because you are one of
the people being described.
If it did not apply to you, christstain, then you would not be so
upset by it, to the point where you lie, deny, and lie some more.

You are out of touch.

Not at all.
I am well aware of the horrors you christstains have perpetrated upon
humankind in your 2000 year history of blood, guts, gore, incest,
rape, and murder.
Your cult's members' non- and anti-intellectual hijinks are just so
much frosting on that cake of blood and mayhem.
And you continue your crap to this day.
Enjoy, for the denigration of those outside your sick, fucked up cult
is, in the end, all you have.
.

User: "Bonnie Bitch"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	16 Mar 2006 04:53:29 AM

On 15 Mar 2006 22:17:53 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Hugh
Betcha" <gemond@canada.com>

You have to decide for yourself; but I think life is better with miracles
than without.

So you admit this is mere wishfulness...

Which is wishfulness... that science will explain everything, or that
miracles are wonderful things?

Prove that miracles happen.
Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of miracle.
Until then, my money's on #1 above. I do so enjoy reality.
.

User: "Hugh Betcha"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	16 Mar 2006 07:13:30 PM

Bonnie ***** wrote:

You have to decide for yourself; but I think life is better with miracles
than without.

So you admit this is mere wishfulness...

Which is wishfulness... that science will explain everything, or that
miracles are wonderful things?

Prove that miracles happen.
Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of miracle.

A miracle? Well, let's see... It's is an event or occurrence that is
both above nature and above man. It hints of a power that is not
restricted by the laws of matter and energy, a power that can
'override' these laws.

Until then, my money's on #1 above. I do so enjoy reality.

I'll bet you do. Clearly, though, we can't proceed with a more thorough
definition of 'miracle' until you define that...
Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of reality.
H.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	16 Mar 2006 10:30:42 PM

In <1142558010.692306.174720@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "Hugh Betcha"
<gemond@canada.com> wrote:

Bonnie ***** wrote:

You have to decide for yourself; but I think life is better with
miracles than without.

So you admit this is mere wishfulness...

Which is wishfulness... that science will explain everything, or that
miracles are wonderful things?

Prove that miracles happen.
Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of miracle.

A miracle? Well, let's see... It's is an event or occurrence that is both
above nature and above man. It hints of a power that is not restricted by
the laws of matter and energy, a power that can 'override' these laws.

Which is just a convoluted way of saying, "Duh, I dunno."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Bonnie Bitch"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	17 Mar 2006 03:04:04 AM

On 16 Mar 2006 17:13:30 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Hugh
Betcha" <gemond@canada.com>

Bonnie ***** wrote:

You have to decide for yourself; but I think life is better with miracles
than without.

So you admit this is mere wishfulness...

Which is wishfulness... that science will explain everything, or that
miracles are wonderful things?

Prove that miracles happen.
Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of miracle.

You've just described hang gliding, gravity, airplanes, flying
squirrels, and UHF (non-cable) broadcast television.
Praise-a-llujah, flying squirrels are miracles. (They're such cute
little critters, despite them being vicious little rabies-infested
bastards).
Now, one is unable to rule out real-world explanation (not chalking
things up to "miracles") unless one already has complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena.
Do you have that knowledge? Hell, no, you don't. *****, dude, you
graduated with honors in biology and you couldn't even explain why
your own daughter is left-handed, despite her two right-handed
parents. So don't even try.
I would outline all your errors in your above attempt for you, but due
to time constraints, I'm picking my favorite:
"restricted by the laws of matter and energy" -- nothing is being
restricted. The laws to which you refer are the rules by which
real-world phenomena are OBSERVED to occur, not the dictates by which
they must need operate. This phrasing alone implies your bias that you
imagine that there is a controlling force (most likely your
imaginary, non-existent sky *****) in charge of and running
everything.
As you have not proven the big sky *****'s existence (in keeping with
your avoidance/inability to define "miracle" cogently and
meaningfully), you have added yet another element of fantasy to your
attempt to define "miracle."

Until then, my money's on #1 above. I do so enjoy reality.

I'll bet you do.

Every day, AAMOF. You should try it sometime. It beats sitting on
one's tushie waiting for the big imaginary sky ***** to take charge,
lemme tell ya.

Clearly, though, we can't proceed with a more thorough
definition of 'miracle' until you define that...

No, Hugh, that was your job, and you failed.

Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of reality.

If you insist:
Reality -- the set of perceived experiences and/or phenomena for one
or more persons which are then transmitted to/ communicated to/
imparted to/shared with and subsequently verified by another or
others.
My existence would qualify, as would the poo-poo my dog made tonight
and the fact that the library in downtown Portland closed at 6 PM (I
thought it was 8) so I didn't get to find the scores I needed.
Mircales would not qualify as reality, along with your sky ***** and
dead savior on a stick.
I'm sure that you are bright enough and capable of figuring out why
the aforementioned do not qualify as reality, all on your own.
.

User: "Hugh Betcha"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	17 Mar 2006 06:00:49 AM

Bonnie ***** wrote:

You have to decide for yourself; but I think life is better with miracles
than without.

So you admit this is mere wishfulness...

Which is wishfulness... that science will explain everything, or that
miracles are wonderful things?

Prove that miracles happen.
Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of miracle.

Well, yes, I see your point, that was a pretty lame definition.

Now, one is unable to rule out real-world explanation (not chalking
things up to "miracles") unless one already has complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena.
Do you have that knowledge? Hell, no, you don't. *****, dude, you
graduated with honors in biology and you couldn't even explain why
your own daughter is left-handed, despite her two right-handed
parents. So don't even try.

God *is* a natural phenomena; so, not having complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena; (face it - we can't even explain
how fridge magnets work) I feel that it would be, oh, just a tad
irrational to rule out that possibility.

I would outline all your errors in your above attempt for you, but due
to time constraints, I'm picking my favorite:

"restricted by the laws of matter and energy" -- nothing is being
restricted. The laws to which you refer are the rules by which
real-world phenomena are OBSERVED to occur, not the dictates by which
they must need operate. This phrasing alone implies your bias that you
imagine that there is a controlling force (most likely your
imaginary, non-existent sky *****) in charge of and running
everything.

Phenomena are observed to occur according to predictable patterns;
sometimes they are so predictable that we call them 'laws' Occasionally
we observe phenomena that are in glaring opposition to those laws. Now
I'm not suggesting that all unexplained physical phenomena are
'miracles'. Miracles are of a personal nature between one and God. The
nun in the original post who prayed for the intercession of John Paul
II and had her incurable disease cured and her irreversable neurologic
damage reversed - that's a miracle. Human footprints found in mesozoic
strata would still be an anomoly; not a miracle (IMHO)

As you have not proven the big sky *****'s existence (in keeping with
your avoidance/inability to define "miracle" cogently and
meaningfully), you have added yet another element of fantasy to your
attempt to define "miracle."

Until then, my money's on #1 above. I do so enjoy reality.

I'll bet you do.

Every day, AAMOF. You should try it sometime. It beats sitting on
one's tushie waiting for the big imaginary sky ***** to take charge,
lemme tell ya.

Well, nobody is sitting around waiting for God to take charge. Sloth is
one of the deadly sins dontcha know.

Clearly, though, we can't proceed with a more thorough
definition of 'miracle' until you define that...

No, Hugh, that was your job, and you failed.

Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of reality.

Sort of like the miracles at Lourdes?

My existence would qualify, as would the poo-poo my dog made tonight
and the fact that the library in downtown Portland closed at 6 PM (I
thought it was 8) so I didn't get to find the scores I needed.

...um, okay... what about the 4 Guinness' I drank? They were real
weren't they? It's hard to tell anymore. Happy St. Patty's day, by the
way.

Mircales would not qualify as reality, along with your sky ***** and
dead savior on a stick.

Alright, fine. Call them shared hallucinations, mass hysteria,
magnetic anomolies, conspiracies, lens flare, or cover your ears and
say: "BLAHBLAHBLAHI'MNOTLISTENING" whatever makes you comfortable.

I'm sure that you are bright enough and capable of figuring out why
the aforementioned do not qualify as reality, all on your own.

By your definition, reality is determined by general consensus (good to
know that it's democratic) That doesn't rule out ANYTHING as being
real... unless the majority votes that it is not real, I suppose.
However, some people can vote against the reality of something because
they are certain that it is not real; while others will vote against it
being real because it insults their personal sensitivities and they'd
really rather it not be real. It's just human nature.
.

User: "Bonnie Bitch"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	17 Mar 2006 07:29:36 AM

On 17 Mar 2006 04:00:49 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Hugh
Betcha" <gemond@canada.com>

Bonnie ***** wrote:

You have to decide for yourself; but I think life is better with miracles
than without.

So you admit this is mere wishfulness...

Which is wishfulness... that science will explain everything, or that
miracles are wonderful things?

Prove that miracles happen.
Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of miracle.

Well, yes, I see your point, that was a pretty lame definition.

So? Try again. I have absolutely nothing against do-overs. I'm a
musician, remember?

Now, one is unable to rule out real-world explanation (not chalking
things up to "miracles") unless one already has complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena.

Do you have that knowledge? Hell, no, you don't. *****, dude, you
graduated with honors in biology and you couldn't even explain why
your own daughter is left-handed, despite her two right-handed
parents. So don't even try.

God *is* a natural phenomena;

Your use of the g-o-d letter string bears no referential value and is
therefore meaningless.
Next time, please name the deity in question, by name, that your
meaning will be clear.
Oh, and FYI -- you just refuted your own claims that your deity works
outside of the natural world. Thank you for doing my work for me.
Of course, to clear up this latest vagrity, you could always define
this g-o-d letter string in a cogent, meaningful manner, which would
put you way ahead of all the christstains who have preceded you in the
last 2000 years.

so, not having complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena; (face it - we can't even explain
how fridge magnets work)

The Scarlet Witch hexed them on the assembly line. I read that in a
book somewhere, and lots of people say it's true. <eye roll>
In certain metals, the domains of atoms are permanently (or for a long
period of time) lined up so that the atoms create a field similar to
an electrical field. This field is called a magnetic field. Magnetic
fields have two ends called poles -- north and south. These poles will
attract their opposites and repel their like.
A magnet that attached to a fridge has a magnetic field that is
opposed to the metal on the fridge so that the two metals will appear
to stick together. How? The magnet creates a field when the domain of
atoms along the metal strip of the magnet are aligned properly.
Anything else you slept through in science class, because I'm good to
go here.

I feel that it would be, oh, just a tad
irrational to rule out that possibility.

Nah, irrational is blaming the big invisible, never-seen, imaginary
sky ***** you call YHVH.

Phenomena are observed to occur according to predictable patterns;

Yup.

sometimes they are so predictable that we call them 'laws'

Yup.

Occasionally
we observe phenomena that are in glaring opposition to those laws.

Yup.
Different phenomena, different observations, different laws.
Example: what does water do when released from a container into an
environment with gravity?
How about into an environment without gravity?
Same water, different observation, different phenomena, different
laws.

Now
I'm not suggesting that all unexplained physical phenomena are
'miracles'.

Wise choice.

Miracles are of a personal nature between one and God.

And as you have failed to identify this deity by name, it is highly
suspect -- nah, let's say intellectually dishonest -- to claim that
something which exists only in your imagination as a vague,
unidentified concept is responsible for an alleged phenomenon which
you also and consequently can not prove.
So much for your oh-so-effin'-rational wishful thinking, there, Hoss.

The
nun in the original post who prayed for the intercession of John Paul
II and had her incurable disease cured and her irreversable neurologic
damage reversed - that's a miracle.

Nah. That's the ability of the human immune system, coupled with a
possible and highly likely misdiagnosis.
And what with no proof that your sky ***** had anything to do with
it, you're SOL again.

Human footprints found in mesozoic
strata would still be an anomoly; not a miracle (IMHO)

Yup. A miracle would be a christstain who regularly tells the truth.

Until then, my money's on #1 above. I do so enjoy reality.

I'll bet you do.

Every day, AAMOF. You should try it sometime. It beats sitting on
one's tushie waiting for the big imaginary sky ***** to take charge,
lemme tell ya.

Well, nobody is sitting around waiting for God to take charge.

Just you and the 899,999,999 other christstains on the planet.

Sloth is
one of the deadly sins dontcha know.

Didn't you know? It was downgraded to "boo-boo" a few years back,
right around the time y'all started griping about homosexuality being
a sin and lying about GLBT folks and denying us our civil right to
legal marriage and claiming that your religious crap gives you the
right to discriminate against us and your cult started lying about how
gays molest children and blaming us for the "little problem" in your
cult............
Greed's back in, too. Just ask Kaiser Georgie the Last of Bushistan.

Clearly, though, we can't proceed with a more thorough
definition of 'miracle' until you define that...

No, Hugh, that was your job, and you failed.

Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of reality.

Sort of like the miracles at Lourdes?

The ones that only work about .00001% of the time, due to wishful
thinking kicking starting people's immune systems?
Or are you perhaps claiming that one's person's delusion is reality
because they said so? (rhetorical -- that's exactly what you're doing,
and you know it).
Remember -- reality has to be subsequently verified after a claim for
reality has been made.
I knew that definition would somehow slip through that steel trap of a
brain you don't have.

...um, okay... what about the 4 Guinness' I drank?

What about them?
You perceived them (and consumed them, I'm guessing, and four at one
sitting? When's your next AA meeting?).
You just imparted that bit of info to me, and I am willing to accept
that as reality, as drinking on St. Patrick's Day is a common enough
experience for you good christstain folks.
Of course, if I really wanted to verify it, I could ask the bartender
who served you, peek at your credit card receipts (if you paid by
credit), look at the bartender's invoices and track the lot of
Guinness back to the factory and ask the nice people who made it if
the beer existed, take a peek at the security footage from the bar
where you consumed your British motor oil, ask any of the other
patrons who might have seen you.....
Or, we could ask the doctor who drew your blood sample from when you
got pulled over on the way home for DUI about the chemical content of
the alcohol in your blood stream..........
Nice try, but yes indeed, Hugh, the beer you claim you had this
evening can be proven as real.
Oh, and save your vomit for chemical analysis.

They were real
weren't they? It's hard to tell anymore. Happy St. Patty's day, by the
way.

Yeahyeahyeah, and Happy Alban Eiler (in advance, it's not for another
5 or 6 days yet).

Mircales would not qualify as reality, along with your sky ***** and
dead savior on a stick.

Alright, fine. Call them shared hallucinations, mass hysteria,
magnetic anomolies, conspiracies, lens flare,

.... gullibility, coercion, spiritual blackmail.......

or cover your ears and
say: "BLAHBLAHBLAHI'MNOTLISTENING" whatever makes you comfortable.

No, that's what you christstains do when confronted with Reality.
Don't project -- it's so "1990's gauche" anyway.

I'm sure that you are bright enough and capable of figuring out why
the aforementioned do not qualify as reality, all on your own.

By your definition, reality is determined by general consensus

No, that's your *****-poor paraphrase, Oh, wait -- that's just you
lying about what you refuse to grasp, like a good little christstain.
(Can you tell that I've really had it with you jerks this week on the
whole gay rights issue?)
I do admit to being sorry that I overestimated you, though, since you
didn't go the obvious route of proving your sky ***** using my own
definition of reality.
Of course, I could refute that easily too, but one step at a time, eh?

(good to
know that it's democratic) That doesn't rule out ANYTHING as being
real... unless the majority votes that it is not real, I suppose.

As usual, you suppose wrong.

However, some people can vote against the reality of something because
they are certain that it is not real; while others will vote against it
being real because it insults their personal sensitivities and they'd
really rather it not be real. It's just human nature.

Only a christstain could take a linear proposition and twist into
their favorite shape -- a circle.
Try again, Hugh. You failed yet again.
.

User: "Hugh Betcha"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	18 Mar 2006 12:20:55 AM

Which is wishfulness... that science will explain everything, or that
miracles are wonderful things?

Prove that miracles happen.
Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of miracle.

Well, yes, I see your point, that was a pretty lame definition.

So? Try again. I have absolutely nothing against do-overs. I'm a
musician, remember?

well, maybe we should work on reality before we get into miracles.

Now, one is unable to rule out real-world explanation (not chalking
things up to "miracles") unless one already has complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena.

God *is* a natural phenomena;

The whole 'which g-o-d are you referring to?' thing is really lame;
don't even go there. Almost as lame as the 'I can't see God... there
musn't be a God." argument. We agree that our sensory and cognitive
perception is not up to task of grasping the whole universe. God is a
natural phenomena but He exists outside of our narrow perception.

so, not having complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena; (face it - we can't even explain
how fridge magnets work)

The Scarlet Witch hexed them on the assembly line. I read that in a
book somewhere, and lots of people say it's true. <eye roll>

In certain metals, the domains of atoms are permanently (or for a long
period of time) lined up so that the atoms create a field similar to
an electrical field. This field is called a magnetic field. Magnetic
fields have two ends called poles -- north and south. These poles will
attract their opposites and repel their like.
A magnet that attached to a fridge has a magnetic field that is
opposed to the metal on the fridge so that the two metals will appear
to stick together. How? The magnet creates a field when the domain of
atoms along the metal strip of the magnet are aligned properly.

Anything else you slept through in science class, because I'm good to
go here.

Yes, sure, I know all that. But what is the power source for the
magnetic field that allows it to overcome the downward pull of gravity
and remain adhered to to the side of the fridge? Don't tell me that
since w = f * d; w is zero because d is zero; that's BS. You have to
use f = m * a; whereas m is the mass of the magnet plus Mrs. Betcha's
grocery list, and a is the gravitational force: (mm)/r2.... f is
therefore the energy that is somehow created in perpetuity by the
magnet. Knowing that energy is neither created nor destroyed we must
conclude that... it's a miracle.

I feel that it would be, oh, just a tad
irrational to rule out that possibility.

Nah, irrational is blaming the big invisible, never-seen, imaginary
sky ***** you call YHVH.

Phenomena are observed to occur according to predictable patterns;

Yup.

sometimes they are so predictable that we call them 'laws'

Yup.

Occasionally
we observe phenomena that are in glaring opposition to those laws.

Yup.

Different phenomena, different observations, different laws.
Example: what does water do when released from a container into an
environment with gravity?
How about into an environment without gravity?
Same water, different observation, different phenomena, different
laws.

Same universe same laws everywhere; else they're not laws.

Now
I'm not suggesting that all unexplained physical phenomena are
'miracles'.

Wise choice.

Miracles are of a personal nature between one and God.

Not disimilar to using a vague, unidentified concept such as 'gravity'
(don't get me started) knowing that it leaves 90% of the universe
unaccounted for.

The
nun in the original post who prayed for the intercession of John Paul
II and had her incurable disease cured and her irreversable neurologic
damage reversed - that's a miracle.

Nah. That's the ability of the human immune system, coupled with a
possible and highly likely misdiagnosis.
And what with no proof that your sky ***** had anything to do with
it, you're SOL again.

Human footprints found in mesozoic
strata would still be an anomoly; not a miracle (IMHO)

Yup. A miracle would be a christstain who regularly tells the truth.

Until then, my money's on #1 above. I do so enjoy reality.

I'll bet you do.

Every day, AAMOF. You should try it sometime. It beats sitting on
one's tushie waiting for the big imaginary sky ***** to take charge,
lemme tell ya.

Well, nobody is sitting around waiting for God to take charge.

Just you and the 899,999,999 other christstains on the planet.

Sloth is
one of the deadly sins dontcha know.

Uh - 'boo-boo' is not an official term used by the Magesterium (You
might be thinking of Pentecostals) and sloth was never downgraded as
far I know. Homosexuality was never a sin, either; but fornication
always was (I don't need to explain *that* do I?) The state has no
authority to define marriage and certainly none to RE-define it. If it
MUST, then it has to define it by what it is; a natural, permanent bond
between a man and a woman. Nobody lied about the 'little problem'; a
number of children were victimized... most of them, as it turns out, by
gay priests... you can draw your own conclusions... oh wait, I guess
you have. As for President Bush: I think he's seriously
misunderestimated (!) I'm not American, but I like to follow your
politics (it's more interesting than the banana republic I live in) and
it seems to me that George Jr. despite his flaws is the best man for
the job-- considering the raft of complete idiots that the Democrats
had to sift through before the last election (Howard Dean? I mean-
really, let's be serious about this.) One thing is true; that there are
many men and woman in Congress and the Senate of impressive talent and
integrity (I here that there are some Democrats, too) but they don't
seem to step foreward.

Clearly, though, we can't proceed with a more thorough
definition of 'miracle' until you define that...

No, Hugh, that was your job, and you failed.

Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of reality.

Sort of like the miracles at Lourdes?

The ones that only work about .00001% of the time, due to wishful
thinking kicking starting people's immune systems?

Yes, yes, yes, that or a misdiagnosis in the first place...anything but
the obvious.

Or are you perhaps claiming that one's person's delusion is reality
because they said so? (rhetorical -- that's exactly what you're doing,
and you know it).
Remember -- reality has to be subsequently verified after a claim for
reality has been made.
I knew that definition would somehow slip through that steel trap of a
brain you don't have.

The Loudres 'events' have been verified by many witnesses. My point is;
you can write it off to mass hysteria; but they still meet your
definition of reality. Let's suppose we lock 100 schizophrenia
sufferers in room and tell them to reach a consensus on what reality
is. If they do, then we should let them run the country - no,
seriously, if they do, by your definition you can't tell them that
they're wrong.

...um, okay... what about the 4 Guinness' I drank?

What about them?
You perceived them (and consumed them, I'm guessing, and four at one
sitting? When's your next AA meeting?).

What? There was just 3- er.. 4 of them. Wtf's the big deal?

You just imparted that bit of info to me, and I am willing to accept
that as reality, as drinking on St. Patrick's Day is a common enough
experience for you good christstain folks.

Yeah, we have red wine at least once a week, too. Are you sure you
don't want to be a Catholic?

Of course, if I really wanted to verify it, I could ask the bartender
who served you, peek at your credit card receipts (if you paid by
credit), look at the bartender's invoices and track the lot of
Guinness back to the factory and ask the nice people who made it if
the beer existed, take a peek at the security footage from the bar
where you consumed your British motor oil, ask any of the other
patrons who might have seen you.....
Or, we could ask the doctor who drew your blood sample from when you
got pulled over on the way home for DUI about the chemical content of
the alcohol in your blood stream..........

Okay, let's suppose that all my Irish buddies cover for me; from the
local pub to Arthur's in Dublin right to Constable O'Brian who pulled
me over last night; everyone denies seeing me. That's a general
consensus, so that must be reality.

Nice try, but yes indeed, Hugh, the beer you claim you had this
evening can be proven as real.
Oh, and save your vomit for chemical analysis.

They were real
weren't they? It's hard to tell anymore. Happy St. Patty's day, by the
way.

Yeahyeahyeah, and Happy Alban Eiler (in advance, it's not for another
5 or 6 days yet).

Oh, that reminds me, I have to leave something out for the leprechauns.

Mircales would not qualify as reality, along with your sky ***** and
dead savior on a stick.

Alright, fine. Call them shared hallucinations, mass hysteria,
magnetic anomolies, conspiracies, lens flare,

... gullibility, coercion, spiritual blackmail.......

or cover your ears and
say: "BLAHBLAHBLAHI'MNOTLISTENING" whatever makes you comfortable.

No, that's what you christstains do when confronted with Reality.
Don't project -- it's so "1990's gauche" anyway.

I'm sure that you are bright enough and capable of figuring out why
the aforementioned do not qualify as reality, all on your own.

By your definition, reality is determined by general consensus

Oh hell, now what? The marriage thing again? I don't get it, why do
gays want 'mariages'? That's like me wanting a Bar-Mitzvah.

I do admit to being sorry that I overestimated you, though, since you
didn't go the obvious route of proving your sky ***** using my own
definition of reality.
Of course, I could refute that easily too, but one step at a time, eh?

All you've refuted so far is my assumption that you knew what you were
talking about.

(good to
know that it's democratic) That doesn't rule out ANYTHING as being
real... unless the majority votes that it is not real, I suppose.

As usual, you suppose wrong.

Yeah, well, okay, you're going to have to clarify, then.

Only a christstain could take a linear proposition and twist into
their favorite shape -- a circle.
Try again, Hugh. You failed yet again.

Actually, a circle more fittingly describes the true nature of the
universe than a straight line.
.

User: "Bonnie Bitch"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	18 Mar 2006 04:01:43 AM

On 17 Mar 2006 22:20:55 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Hugh
Betcha" <gemond@canada.com>

<snip>

Well, yes, I see your point, that was a pretty lame definition.

So? Try again. I have absolutely nothing against do-overs. I'm a
musician, remember?

well, maybe we should work on reality before we get into miracles.

I already provided that definition for you. Besides, you mentioned
"miracles " first, so perhaps when you feel up to discussing, rather
than playing your usual childish games, you will add something
relevant to the conversation.
<snip>

God *is* a natural phenomena;

The whole 'which g-o-d are you referring to?' thing is really lame;

Since you admit you are unable to specify which deity you are trying
to write about and unable to define that deity, then perhaps you
should avoid that sub-topic.
Besides, you haven;t defined miracle yet, so you are behind in the
discussion.
<flush word salad>

so, not having complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena; (face it - we can't even explain
how fridge magnets work)

In certain metals, the domains of atoms are permanently (or for a long
period of time) lined up so that the atoms create a field similar to
an electrical field. This field is called a magnetic field. Magnetic
fields have two ends called poles -- north and south. These poles will
attract their opposites and repel their like.
A magnet that attached to a fridge has a magnetic field that is
opposed to the metal on the fridge so that the two metals will appear
to stick together. How? The magnet creates a field when the domain of
atoms along the metal strip of the magnet are aligned properly.

Anything else you slept through in science class, because I'm good to
go here.

Yes, sure, I know all that.

No, you did not. You admitted that above. Please stop lying about what
you yourself wrote.

But what is the power source for the
magnetic field that allows it to overcome the downward pull of gravity
and remain adhered to to the side of the fridge?

Asked and answered.
You do know what atoms, protons, neutrons, and electrons are, right?
I'll be happy to explain those to you, if you ask politely.

Don't tell me that
since w = f * d; w is zero because d is zero; that's BS.

No, that would be basic 5th grade math.
I see you are also deficient in that area as well.
zero = anything times zero.
Of course, that is a red herring, because there is f, as already
explained to you.

You have to
use f = m * a; whereas m is the mass of the magnet plus Mrs. Betcha's
grocery list,

Ah, typical christstain ploy -- change the parameters and lie.
I'm not playing that game today. I leave you to play thusly with
yourself.
<flush more word salad>

Phenomena are observed to occur according to predictable patterns;

Yup.

sometimes they are so predictable that we call them 'laws'

Yup.

Occasionally
we observe phenomena that are in glaring opposition to those laws.

Yup.

Different phenomena, different observations, different laws.
Example: what does water do when released from a container into an
environment with gravity?
How about into an environment without gravity?
Same water, different observation, different phenomena, different
laws.

Same universe same laws everywhere; else they're not laws.

Only you are saying differently.

Not disimilar to using a vague, unidentified concept such as 'gravity'

Oh, goody! You got off on the gravity red herring. I love that one.
Gravity is the force of attraction between all masses in the universe.
Nothing the least bit vague or unidentified about that.
Your lack of comprehension of the term, however, is another matter.
Oh lookie -- I made a science pun!! LOL

(don't get me started) knowing that it leaves 90% of the universe
unaccounted for.

Much like your alleged "knowledge" of basic science.

Sloth is
one of the deadly sins dontcha know.

Uh - 'boo-boo' is not an official term used by the Magesterium

So?
Would you prefer "venial mistake" or "spiritual gaffe"?
Either way, sloth was downgraded many moons ago by the cult of
christ-stain-insanity, leaving y'all more time to gripe about them
thar important sins, like homosexuality, being gay, and homosexuality.

Homosexuality was never a sin,

And yet, you people never miss a chance to tell gay folks how evil
they are, how bad they are, how they should "change," how they're so
yucky that they shouldn't raise the children you breeding sickos
produced and refused to care for, how we don't deserve equality under
the law..........
"By their works ye shall know them....."

The state has no
authority to define marriage

But the state does, sorry to burst your bubble. The ***REALITY*** is
that marriage has historically been a secular institution/function,
which your cult co-opted in the 11th century as a money-making scheme.
Your religious poofery is unnecessary and irrelevant to secular, civil
marriage. Kind of ironic that your cult masters have to be licensed by
the state to perform valid marriage ceremonies, though.
Your dogmatic drivel has no place in the state-sanctioned and codified
definition of marriage.

and certainly none to RE-define it.

The only people running around re-defining marriage are the
christstains, such as yourself, who lose so badly in the legal arena
that you must circumvent the court to re-define a civil right and
exclude those whom you nonsensically deem "unworthy."
Of course, the Canadian legal system and legislature had the cajones
to stand up to you people and say, "No, civil rights apply to ALL
citizens equally, so screw your religious crap in matters of civil
rights."
Besides, marriage has been re-defined so many times throughout history
that it bears little resemblance to its original function --the
exchange of property and goods.
And once again, you christstains are choosing to ignore the portion of
your history where y'all did your religious voodoo over same-sex
marriages. Curious, that.

Nobody lied about the 'little problem'; a
number of children were victimized... most of them, as it turns out, by
gay priests...

Another christstain lie.
Did you ever read the John Jay report, which made no inquiries or
mention of sexual orientation? Of course not, because that would force
you to face ***REALITY***.
Remember, sweetie -- you've been shown that the act does not define
the orientation.
<flush more of Hugh's crap>

As for President Bush: I think he's seriously
misunderestimated (!) I'm not American, but I like to follow your
politics (it's more interesting than the banana republic I live in) and
it seems to me that George Jr. despite his flaws is the best man for
the job--

His flaws include bankrupting the national treasury, running up a NINE
TRILLION dollar national debt, lying us into a faked-up war, allowing
American citizens to die unaided after a natural disaster, lying
repeatedly to the American people......
Oh, and that Dubai ports deal -- it was just revealed that the Dubai
consortium was going to turn over the ports to Halliburton. Guess who
owns Halliburton?
And let's not forget that the only time this buttplug has used his
veto power is to veto legislation prohibiting torture of political
prisoners.
Then there's the secret, unauthorized wire-tapping of US citizens, to
boot.
If that's your conception of "the best 'man' for the job," then you
don't have the brains Thor endowed to plankton.
<flush more of Hugh's "I wish I could be a republiCUNT too" screed>

Clearly, though, we can't proceed with a more thorough
definition of 'miracle' until you define that...

No, Hugh, that was your job, and you failed.

Start with a cogent, meaningful definition of reality.

Sort of like the miracles at Lourdes?

The ones that only work about .00001% of the time, due to wishful
thinking kicking starting people's immune systems?

Yes, yes, yes, that or a misdiagnosis in the first place...anything but
the obvious.

Well, of course most of those people are deluded, but one could excuse
them from the obvious -- they lied -- due to overwhelming christstain
religious fervor.
And you still haven't been able to define "miracle" in a cogent,
meaningful way, so we must discount that.

The Loudres 'events' have been verified by many witnesses.

Fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
"He said that she said that his second cousin's ex-wife's
brother-in-law's step-niece's great-grandmother's dog's previous
owner's third cousin was healed at Lourdes." Yeah, right -- that's the
same process through which the whole bag o' ***** that is
christ-stain-insanity got started anyway.

My point is;
you can write it off to mass hysteria; but they still meet your
definition of reality.

Nope. You are wrong.
Someone saying that someone else said so is not verification.
<flush Hugh's typical christstain ploy -- change the parameters and
lie>
<flush more of Hugh's already refuted irrelevant crap>

Yeah, we have red wine at least once a week, too. Are you sure you
don't want to be a Catholic?

Been there, done that, and the last alcoholic beverage I had was in
March of '05.
<flush more of Hugh's already refuted irrelevant crap>

Okay, let's suppose

No. You got refuted, babe. And since I am apparently the referee for
this delightful conversation, I'm not letting you trot your
christstain butt out of bounds anymore. Sorry, but I still have a few
more things to do before I go judge a science fair tomorrow.
Oh, yeah -- I'm judging a college level science fair.
It seems that one of the fields of entry was acoustics, and four teams
built musical instruments by hand. I get to judge them. (There will be
three other judges, who are actual scientists but not musicians. And
then there's me -- an actual musician but nowhere close to being a
scientist.)
Go figure!!!
<flush more of Hugh's already refuted irrelevant crap>

By your definition, reality is determined by general consensus

Oh hell, now what?

Read it again slowly.

I don't get it, why do
gays want 'mariages'?

In the US, there are 1045 rights and privileges associated with
marriage, among which are:
-ability to make medical decisions for the spouse in case of
catastrophic accident or injury
- joint ownership of property
- ability to inherit without being taxed to hell and back
That's why.
There's also that pesky little thing about "love," but you wouldn't
know about that, obviously, since you had to ask.

That's like me wanting a Bar-Mitzvah.

No, it's more like you wanting the right to vote but being denied that
right because you're right-handed.
Remember -- marriage is a civil, secular contract, not some bizarre,
antiquated, useless religious ritual.

All you've refuted so far is my assumption that you knew what you were
talking about.

Oh, you're talking to yourself again. How cute.

(good to
know that it's democratic) That doesn't rule out ANYTHING as being
real... unless the majority votes that it is not real, I suppose.

As usual, you suppose wrong.

Yeah, well, okay, you're going to have to clarify, then.

You got it wrong.
You lied about what I wrote.
It doesn't need to be clearer than that.

Only a christstain could take a linear proposition and twist into
their favorite shape -- a circle.
Try again, Hugh. You failed yet again.

Actually, a circle more fittingly describes the true nature of the
universe than a straight line.

You got that wrong too.
The universe is not a circle.
That's how (hypothetically) you can start at planet Earth and fly al
the way across the universe and then end up (eventually) back at
Earth.
Ya know -- this would go a lot smoother if you actually had some
knowledge whereof you blither.

.

User: "Hugh Betcha"
Title: Re: His Holiness Pope John Paul II Miracle Investigated	18 Mar 2006 06:45:37 AM

Bonnie ***** wrote:

Well, yes, I see your point, that was a pretty lame definition.

So? Try again. I have absolutely nothing against do-overs. I'm a
musician, remember?

well, maybe we should work on reality before we get into miracles.

What? Your definition of reality is something that two or more people
consider real. What am I misinterpreting here?

<snip>

God *is* a natural phenomena;

The whole 'which g-o-d are you referring to?' thing is really lame;

Oh for goodness' sake. You know full well what I'm talking about;
unless the fact that I'm Catholic just slipped by you; not likely.
You're just dodging the issue.

so, not having complete and perfect
knowledge of ALL natural phenomena; (face it - we can't even explain
how fridge magnets work)

Yes, sure, I know all that.

No, you did not. You admitted that above. Please stop lying about what
you yourself wrote.

But what is the power source for the
magnetic field that allows it to overcome the downward pull of gravity
and remain adhered to to the side of the fridge?

Asked and answered.