| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2004 03:29:15 PM |
| Object: |
If you met God? |
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> said:
Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
George Dance wrote:
We have to start with the evidence - and we all have evidence
(direct awareness) of both things and ideas
GD is asserting that we have direct awareness of non-material
things. He is (IMO) treating abstract objects as real objects.
That is not idealism.
What is it then, make believe?
It is part of his dualism.
That part being completely make-believe, or imaginary as such,
right?
I can tell you I'm not simply pretending to have ever thought or
discussed anything; I think I really have.
Same here.
That rules out ideas being 'completely make-believe.'
Whether I've ever really thought of anything, or only imagined that
I've
ever thought of anything ... well, I don't see how you tell the
difference
Why would you even consider this possibility?
Because you also suggested that ideas could be merely 'imaginary as
such'. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that.)
.
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
08 Dec 2004 03:54:40 PM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
(George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
I can tell you I'm not simply pretending to have ever thought or
discussed anything; I think I really have.
Same here.
That rules out ideas being 'completely make-believe.'
Whether I've ever really thought of anything, or only imagined that
I've ever thought of anything ... well, I don't see how you tell the
difference
Why would you even consider this possibility?
Because you also suggested that ideas could be merely 'imaginary as
such'. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that.)
What would be the conclusion of that line of reasoning, in
your opinion?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
09 Dec 2004 12:17:04 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
I can tell you I'm not simply pretending to have ever thought or
discussed anything; I think I really have.
Same here.
That rules out ideas being 'completely make-believe.'
Whether I've ever really thought of anything, or only imagined
that
I've ever thought of anything ... well, I don't see how you tell
the
difference
Why would you even consider this possibility?
Because you also suggested that ideas could be merely 'imaginary as
such'. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that.)
What would be the conclusion of that line of reasoning, in
your opinion?
I'm not sure if you'd call it 'reasoning' (since one of the conclusions
would be that there was no reasoning), but, AFAICS, the story goes:
There are no ideas, and no minds aware of them; those who think there
are have a strange delusion. People are physical entities that respond
to stimuli, period - this post of mine, eg, is a response to your post
that's fully explainable by the stimulus of your previous post (not
including what you said, because of course you didn't say anything, but
just engaged in writing behaviour) - not just the fact that I sent a
post to you, but the word sequence I used (which is not the same thing
as what I said, because of course I didn't say anything either, but
just engaged in writing behavior as well), was all caused by your
stimulus (and, of course, the "contingencies of reinforcement").
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
10 Dec 2004 04:59:01 PM |
|
|
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Why would you even consider this possibility?
Because you also suggested that ideas could be merely 'imaginary as
such'. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that.)
What would be the conclusion of that line of reasoning, in
your opinion?
I'm not sure if you'd call it 'reasoning' (since one of the conclusions
would be that there was no reasoning)
But we have our brains to reason with, which are physical, which
supports my materialistic beliefs. A biological-computer of sorts,
for lack of a better term.
but, AFAICS, the story goes:
Who is it that wrote this particular story? Some terrified dualist,
afraid of his own eventual demise?
There are no ideas, and no minds aware of them; those who think there
are have a strange delusion. People are physical entities that respond
to stimuli, period - this post of mine, eg, is a response to your post
that's fully explainable by the stimulus of your previous post
Hmm...
(not including what you said,
Wait a minute...
because of course you didn't say anything,
What?
but just engaged in writing behaviour)
So writing behaviour is not the same thing as me typing this
of my own free will, in response to your last message?
- not just the fact that I sent a post to you, but the word sequence I
used (which is not the same thing as what I said, because of course
I didn't say anything either,
Boy oh boy, you sound like you're on the sled of solipsism to
me.
You might wanna jump off before you get hurt!
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
11 Dec 2004 02:04:11 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Why would you even consider this possibility?
Because you also suggested that ideas could be merely 'imaginary
as
such'. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that.)
What would be the conclusion of that line of reasoning, in
your opinion?
I'm not sure if you'd call it 'reasoning' (since one of the
conclusions
would be that there was no reasoning)
But we have our brains to reason with, which are physical, which
supports my materialistic beliefs. A biological-computer of sorts,
for lack of a better term.
OK, you have a brain; which controls your body functions like your
breathing, and operant functions like your talking. That's no evidence
of reasoning - the process by which your brain controls your breathing
doesn't require postulating any 'reasoning' involved in brain's
control of your reasoning, and there's no evidence of anything that can
be called 'reasoning' there.
Why would you, as a materialist, assume that there is such a process as
'reasoning,' much less go on (as I'm sure you would) to invoke this
'reasoning' as something which affects physical things (by motivating
your behavior)?
but, AFAICS, the story goes:
Who is it that wrote this particular story? Some terrified dualist,
afraid of his own eventual demise?
B.F. Skinner's /Verbal Behavior/ is a paradigm example.
(And what, I've got to ask, does fear of one's demise have to do with
anything?)
There are no ideas, and no minds aware of them; those who think
there
are have a strange delusion. People are physical entities that
respond
to stimuli, period - this post of mine, eg, is a response to your
post
that's fully explainable by the stimulus of your previous post
Hmm...
(not including what you said,
Wait a minute...
because of course you didn't say anything,
What?
but just engaged in writing behaviour)
So writing behaviour is not the same thing as me typing this
of my own free will, in response to your last message?
Your 'writing behaviour' was the fact of you pressing keys on a
keyboard. You did that, on this account, because of other physical
events that caused you to press the keys. There's no evidence of 'free
will,' no need to postulate any to explain the event.
And exactly the same for 'reasoning' and the alleged 'ideas' that
so-called 'reasoning' involves. Your brain controlled your writing
behavior, in the same way your computer controlled posting it to
Usenet; but the computer's behavior was completely explainable in
physical terms - there's no reason to believe that it did any
'reasoning' or was aware of any 'ideas'. Why should your behavior
behavior be any different?
- not just the fact that I sent a post to you, but the word
sequence I
used (which is not the same thing as what I said, because of course
I didn't say anything either,
Boy oh boy, you sound like you're on the sled of solipsism to
me.
Well, now, here's some good evidence for whether we're talking about
ideas or merely responding to each other's stimuli according to our own
respective 'contingencies of reinforcement'.
On the theory that there are ideas, we're discussing an idea (which
I'll call "Extreme Materialism" (EM) just for shorthand purposes - the
thesis that there are in reality no ideas. Because of some comments
you made about ideas being just 'make-believe', I pegged you as a
believer in EM - you replied more or less that you had no idea what I
was talking about, and asked me to spell it out at greater length.
Your conclusion from all this - that I'm on the 'sled or solipsism' -
then sounds like some wild non-sequitur. It's as if you just said,
"You wear diapers" or "You're off your meds" or something of the
kind.
OTOH, if we take 'reasonable default presumption' that there aren't any
ideas, then we're not doing anything at all like that - we're merely
responding to each other's stimuli. It's most reasonable to think that
We're doing the same thing, and probably for the same reasons, as stags
locking horns, or cocks fighting.
And I think we do have to agree that a great deal of Usenet discussion
is completely inexplicable on the 'idea/reasoning' hypothesis, but
fully explainable on the behaviourist one. 8)
OTOH, if we're just
You might wanna jump off before you get hurt!
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 10:37:53 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Why would you even consider this possibility?
Because you also suggested that ideas could be merely 'imaginary
as
such'. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that.)
What would be the conclusion of that line of reasoning, in
your opinion?
I'm not sure if you'd call it 'reasoning' (since one of the
conclusions
would be that there was no reasoning)
But we have our brains to reason with, which are physical, which
supports my materialistic beliefs. A biological-computer of sorts,
for lack of a better term.
OK, you have a brain; which controls your body functions like your
breathing, and operant functions like your talking. That's no evidence
of reasoning ...
Reasoning is something we do together, when we talk about the reasons
for saying that a particular statement is known to be true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 05:05:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Why would you even consider this possibility?
Because you also suggested that ideas could be merely 'imaginary
as
such'. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that.)
What would be the conclusion of that line of reasoning, in
your opinion?
I'm not sure if you'd call it 'reasoning' (since one of the
conclusions
would be that there was no reasoning)
But we have our brains to reason with, which are physical, which
supports my materialistic beliefs. A biological-computer of
sorts, for lack of a better term.
OK, you have a brain; which controls your body functions like your
breathing, and operant functions like your talking. That's no
evidence
of reasoning ...
Reasoning is something we do together, when we talk about the reasons
for saying that a particular statement is known to be true.
Sure, you can define reasoning as behavior ("talking to each other")
that would surely continue whether anyone believed they was aware of
any ideas or not. However, I thought Elroy was asking for valid
conclusions (and of course there'd be none if validitiy, being just an
idea, was merely 'imaginary as such' or 'make believe' as both you and
he have suggested).
Similarly, I guess, materialists could agree that truth and knowledge,
being ideas, were also mere 'make-believe' but the terms were useful
words to have (as Skinnerian reinforcers, for example) and define them
in some arbitrary way - in which case they could discuss whether "a
particular statement was known to be true."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 05:45:26 PM |
|
|
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Sure, you can define reasoning as behavior ("talking to each other")
that would surely continue whether anyone believed they was aware of
any ideas or not. However, I thought Elroy was asking for valid
conclusions (and of course there'd be none if validitiy, being just an
idea, was merely 'imaginary as such' or 'make believe' as both you and
he have suggested).
Similarly, I guess, materialists could agree that truth and knowledge,
being ideas, were also mere 'make-believe' but the terms were useful
words to have (as Skinnerian reinforcers, for example) and define them
in some arbitrary way - in which case they could discuss whether "a
particular statement was known to be true."
Instead of make-believe or imaginary, perhaps I should have said
"in the brain/head" instead, because that's how I actually consider
them, until they're written out in some language for others to see.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 06:43:22 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Instead of make-believe or imaginary, perhaps I should have said
"in the brain/head" instead, because that's how I actually consider
them, until they're written out in some language for others to see.
Well, that's a claim that I have no trouble with - that they have a
merely subjective reality, no objective or mind-independent reality.
I'm aware of some good arguments that they do exist mind-independently
- Popper's theory of "knowledge," eg, and meme theory - but I don't see
them as proofs.
I'd argue that ideas are real even if they don't objectively exist,
though, on the premise that they can affect real things (things which,
uncontroversially, do objectively exist).
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 07:18:32 PM |
|
|
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Instead of make-believe or imaginary, perhaps I should have said
"in the brain/head" instead, because that's how I actually consider
them, until they're written out in some language for others to see.
Well, that's a claim that I have no trouble with - that they have a
merely subjective reality, no objective or mind-independent reality.
I'm aware of some good arguments that they do exist mind-independently
- Popper's theory of "knowledge," eg, and meme theory - but I don't see
them as proofs.
I'd argue that ideas are real even if they don't objectively exist,
though, on the premise that they can affect real things (things which,
uncontroversially, do objectively exist).
I consider them as objective or real in the sense that they're
stored in the brain, as physical connections between neurons
and in neural pathways.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
15 Dec 2004 10:23:19 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Instead of make-believe or imaginary, perhaps I should have said
"in the brain/head" instead, because that's how I actually consider
them, until they're written out in some language for others to see.
Well, that's a claim that I have no trouble with - that they have a
merely subjective reality, no objective or mind-independent reality.
I'm aware of some good arguments that they do exist mind-independently
- Popper's theory of "knowledge," eg, and meme theory - but I don't see
them as proofs.
I'd argue that ideas are real even if they don't objectively exist,
though, on the premise that they can affect real things (things which,
uncontroversially, do objectively exist).
I consider them as objective or real in the sense that they're
stored in the brain, as physical connections between neurons
and in neural pathways.
No question about that, but what George Dance is talking about are the
ideas of Idealism, 'spirit' and such (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism)
What Dance is after is agreement that the term 'spirit' refers to
something real (though not physical).
If he did in fact know that spirit is something real, and could explain
how it is that he knows it is real so that anyone could test his
observations, instead of relying on sophistry as he does here, then he
would have already collected his $1,000,000.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: "Spirit" is Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, new RED HERRING |
15 Dec 2004 02:29:04 PM |
|
|
In article <XxZvd.575111$D%.504959@attbi_s51>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Instead of make-believe or imaginary, perhaps I should have said
"in the brain/head" instead, because that's how I actually consider
them, until they're written out in some language for others to see.
Well, that's a claim that I have no trouble with - that they have a
merely subjective reality, no objective or mind-independent reality.
I'm aware of some good arguments that they do exist mind-independently
- Popper's theory of "knowledge," eg, and meme theory - but I don't see
them as proofs.
I'd argue that ideas are real even if they don't objectively exist,
though, on the premise that they can affect real things (things which,
uncontroversially, do objectively exist).
I consider them as objective or real in the sense that they're
stored in the brain, as physical connections between neurons
and in neural pathways.
No question about that, but what George Dance is talking about are the
ideas of Idealism, 'spirit' and such (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism)
NO! Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, is the only one going on about
'spirit' because he has nothing else to go on about. But even the source
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, himself cites, Wikipedia, does not
require 'spirit' as a part of idealism ( allows but does not require).
So Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's continural references to 'spirit'
are RED HERRINGS, to try and divert attention from the reality of ideas.
What Dance is after is agreement that the term 'spirit' refers to
something real (though not physical).
False! What Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, wants is to divert
attention from the idea of iddeas, which everone else is discussing, to
the idea of 'spirit', which nobody else is discussing.
Ideas have discernible effects on the physical world because humans
react to ideas.
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, cannot refute that fact, so he spends
all his energies on trying to distract attention from it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
15 Dec 2004 11:34:04 AM |
|
|
X wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Instead of make-believe or imaginary, perhaps I should have said
"in the brain/head" instead, because that's how I actually
consider
them, until they're written out in some language for others to
see.
Well, that's a claim that I have no trouble with - that they have a
merely subjective reality, no objective or mind-independent
reality.
I'm aware of some good arguments that they do exist
mind-independently
- Popper's theory of "knowledge," eg, and meme theory - but I don't
see
them as proofs.
I'd argue that ideas are real even if they don't objectively exist,
though, on the premise that they can affect real things (things
which,
uncontroversially, do objectively exist).
I consider them as objective or real in the sense that they're
stored in the brain, as physical connections between neurons
and in neural pathways.
No question about that, but what George Dance is talking about are
the
ideas of Idealism, 'spirit' and such (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism)
No, I'm talking about ideas of anything. "Spirit" was your
contribution to the discussion.
What Dance is after is agreement that the term 'spirit' refers to
something real (though not physical).
No, we haven't discussed your term 'spirit' at all. Please try to keep
up.
If he did in fact know that spirit is something real, and could
explain
how it is that he knows it is real so that anyone could test his
observations, instead of relying on sophistry as he does here, then
he
would have already collected his $1,000,000.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
We notice that you're saying a lot about 'spirit'. Do you have an idea
of what you're talking about? (If so, that's a demonstration that the
idea of 'spirit' exists, based on observations that anyone can check.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 08:59:06 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
... truth and knowledge, being ideas ...
Now you are just being equivocal with the term, 'idea' just like that
moron, Virgil. It is a fact that some statements are definitely known to
be true, and we definitely do have knowledge of the nature of lots of
things in the world, and we can demonstrate that knowledge through
control and/or prediction of real events, such experiments replicable by
anyone.
Now why don't you stop trying to create a diversion? The question is on
the ideas of the Idealists: 'spirit' and such.
"Idealism is any theory positing the primacy of spirit, mind, or
language over matter."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
If you have any public explanation of how 'spirit' can be observed, so
that anyone can test your observations, then you win $1,000,000.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html I will personally match that
with another mil out of my own pocket. Don't you like money?
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 11:00:23 PM |
|
|
In article <_z7vd.251750$R05.250989@attbi_s53>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
... truth and knowledge, being ideas ...
Now you are just being equivocal with the term, 'idea' just like that
moron, Virgil.
That master of equivocation, Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, now is
charging his own fallacies to all sorts of others.
It is a fact that some statements are definitely known to
be true.
Since statements are language, and language is the province of idealism,
according to Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's own source,
Wikipedia, Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, must be caliming to be an
idealist.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"In philosophy, Idealism is any theory positing the primacy of
spirit, mind, or LANGUAGE over matter. It includes claiming that
thought has some crucial role in making the world the way it
is--that thought and the world are made for one another, or that
they make one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 03:15:42 PM |
|
|
In article <Bt_ud.558724$D%.325305@attbi_s51>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Elroy Willis wrote:
George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Why would you even consider this possibility?
Because you also suggested that ideas could be merely 'imaginary
as
such'. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that.)
What would be the conclusion of that line of reasoning, in
your opinion?
I'm not sure if you'd call it 'reasoning' (since one of the
conclusions
would be that there was no reasoning)
But we have our brains to reason with, which are physical, which
supports my materialistic beliefs. A biological-computer of sorts,
for lack of a better term.
OK, you have a brain; which controls your body functions like your
breathing, and operant functions like your talking. That's no evidence
of reasoning ...
Reasoning is something we do together
There is that singular plural again. The 'we' here means Septic X.
Troll, the Craven Capon, by himself, as he is totally incapable of
reasoning with anybody else but his own mirror image.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 10:46:51 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
On the theory that there are ideas, we're discussing an idea (which
I'll call "Extreme Materialism" (EM) just for shorthand purposes - the
thesis that there are in reality no ideas.
You are just being equivocal with the term, 'ideas'.
What we were discussing before you began your diversion was Idealism.
"Idealism is any theory positing the primacy of spirit, mind, or
language over matter."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
Now you are just trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative of
Idealism by position an 'idea' that there are in reality no ideas like
'spirit' etc.!
Shifting the burden of proof is logical fallacy, Georgie. You have been
warned before. Keep it up and prepare to be ignored.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 03:22:59 PM |
|
|
In article <%B_ud.646484$mD.403665@attbi_s02>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
On the theory that there are ideas, we're discussing an idea (which
I'll call "Extreme Materialism" (EM) just for shorthand purposes - the
thesis that there are in reality no ideas.
You are just being equivocal with the term, 'ideas'.
False. Ideas and thought, and their influence, are a major part of
Idealism as the following makes clear:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"In philosophy, Idealism is any theory positing the primacy of
spirit, mind, or language over matter. It includes claiming that
thought has some crucial role in making the world the way it
is--that thought and the world are made for one another, or that
they make one another. (For example, Immanuel Kant held that the
mind forces the world we perceive to take the shape of
space-and-time; Georg Hegel thought that history must be rational
in something significantly like the way science is.) Finally,
"idealism" can denote the belief that abstract or mental entities
have some sort of reality "independent" of the world. (Some
philosophers think of numbers this way; Plato thought that all
properties and objects we could think of must have some such
independent existence. Confusingly, this kind of idealism was once
termed "Realism".)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealismguage over matter."
Now you are just trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative of
Idealism by position an 'idea' that there are in reality no ideas like
'spirit' etc.!
It is Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, trying to shift burdens by
bringing in the idea of 'spirit' to counterbalance the idea of '
materialsim'.
Before we need consider 'spirit', Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,
must justify that 'materialism' exists as other than a mere idea or
thought.
Shifting the burden of proof is logical fallacy, Georgie. You have been
warned before. Keep it up and prepare to be ignored.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 05:36:55 PM |
|
|
In article <%B_ud.646484$mD.403665@attbi_s02>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
On the theory that there are ideas, we're discussing an idea (which
I'll call "Extreme Materialism" (EM) just for shorthand purposes -
the
thesis that there are in reality no ideas.
You are just being equivocal with the term, 'ideas'.
Does the word 'equivocal' mean anything to you? Then please tell me
how I'm being 'equivocal, as I have no idea what you do mean.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[sorry, I didn't have your message to reply to, so I have to use
Virgil's quote here):
"In philosophy, Idealism is any theory positing the primacy of
spirit, mind, or language over matter. It includes claiming that
thought has some crucial role in making the world the way it
is--that thought and the world are made for one another, or that
they make one another. (For example, Immanuel Kant held that the
mind forces the world we perceive to take the shape of
space-and-time; Georg Hegel thought that history must be rational
in something significantly like the way science is.) Finally,
"idealism" can denote the belief that abstract or mental entities
have some sort of reality "independent" of the world. (Some
philosophers think of numbers this way; Plato thought that all
properties and objects we could think of must have some such
independent existence. Confusingly, this kind of idealism was
once
termed "Realism".)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealismguage over matter."
Now you are just trying to shift the burden of proof to the
negative of
Idealism by position an 'idea' that there are in reality no ideas
like 'spirit' etc.!
A lot of people think they're aware of an idea like 'spirit.' I think
someone wishing to convince them that there's really no such idea has
to offer them at least some counter-evidence.
Shifting the burden of proof is logical fallacy, Georgie.
Hold on, there. I've given you my reasons for thinking that there are
ideas - I'm directly aware of them; in your own words, they're "evident
to [my] understanding". Perhaps I can't *prove* that that isn't just
"make believe" on my part as Elroy insists, or "impaired contact with
reality" (delusional disorder) as you insist. But I don't see how it's
my "burden" to prove that I'm not deluded or pretending.
You have been
warned before. Keep it up and prepare to be ignored.
ROTFLMAO!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
12 Dec 2004 09:16:51 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
... I've given you my reasons for thinking that there are
ideas ...
More equivocation on the term 'idea' from Georgie. Stop trying to create
a diversion, Georgie.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
The issue is these ideas of the Idealists: 'spirit' and such.
"Idealism is any theory positing the primacy of spirit, mind, or
language over matter."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
Now, if you can publicly produce any meaningful explanation of how
'spirit' can be observed, period, much less be observed having "primacy
over matter," so that anyone can test your observations, then you win
$1,000,000. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I will personally match that with another mil out of my own pocket.
Don't you like money? Shirley you will also be awarded a Nobel Prize for
such an outstanding accomplishment in physics.
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
13 Dec 2004 11:30:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
... I've given you my reasons for thinking that there are
ideas ...
More equivocation on the term 'idea' from Georgie. Stop trying to
create
a diversion, Georgie.
Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you tell me
exactly what the alleged equivocation is, at least?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that
is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
The issue is these ideas of the Idealists: 'spirit' and such.
Oh, that's the issue that's 'genuiniely under discussion,' is it?
Who's discussing it, and what are they saying?
"Idealism is any theory positing the primacy of spirit, mind, or
language over matter."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
Now, if you can publicly produce any meaningful explanation of how
'spirit' can be observed, period, much less be observed having
"primacy
over matter," so that anyone can test your observations, then you win
$1,000,000. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
Sounds great. The observable evidence of an idea ('spirit' or anything
else) would, as I've said, be people talking or writing about it. I
don't think Randi would fork over $1,000,000 for that, though.
I will personally match that with another mil out of my own pocket.
Don't you like money? Shirley you will also be awarded a Nobel Prize
for
such an outstanding accomplishment in physics.
What does physics have to do with anything? In particular, what does
it have to do with what you're claiming is "the issue genuinely under
discussion ... the ideas of the Idealists"?
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section
8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take
even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of
their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." --Popper
Well, no duh! If an event isn't reproducible, it can't be reproduced.
What does that little tautology have to do with what you're calling
"the issue genuinely under discussion ... the ideas of the Idealists"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
14 Dec 2004 04:08:06 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
If an event isn't reproducible, it can't be reproduced.
In the alleged event in question, you allegedly having direct experience
of spirit, can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you KNOW
you had direct experience of spirit, so that anyone can test your
observations?
No? Then fugidaboutit!
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
15 Dec 2004 01:18:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In the alleged event in question, you allegedly having
direct experience
of spirit, can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you KNOW
you had direct experience of spirit, so that anyone can test your
observations?
I haven't heard these allegations. Who says I've had "direct
experience of spirit," and (just as importantly) what do they mean by
that? Without that information, it's rather hard to answer the
question. 8D
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
16 Dec 2004 03:08:01 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
In the alleged event in question, you allegedly having
direct experience
of spirit, can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you KNOW
you had direct experience of spirit, so that anyone can test your
observations?
I haven't heard these allegations. Who says I've had "direct
experience of spirit"
George Dance did. See below. We were discussing the ideas of Idealism,
'spirit' and such. You said you have 'direct experience', 'first-hand
experience', 'immediate evidence' of things not material.
The question is can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you
KNOW that you had evidence of anything not material (like 'spirit' or
whatever), so that anyone can test your observations, try to replicate
your findings?
<quote>
---
From: "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: If you met God?
Date: 11 Dec 2004 11:41:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <1102794062.895405.15600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
References: <6312c50b.0412070956.5d13f191@posting.google.com>
<5f0cr01k33dibc3bedc577a4vruhd9geb6@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.228.125.106
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1102794067 13311 127.0.0.1 (11 Dec 2004
19:41:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:41:07 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <5f0cr01k33dibc3bedc577a4vruhd9geb6@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.228.125.106;
posting-account=7-L8rQ0AAAA2aIfcbjeiOgAS66z1EqgG
Jim07D4 wrote:
georgeda...@hotmail.com (George Dance) said:
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> said:
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
George Dance wrote:
GD is asserting that we have direct awareness of non-material
things. He is (IMO) treating abstract objects as real objects.
That is
not idealism.
Well, all I meant by 'direct awareness' was 'first-hand experience' or
'immediate evidence'.
---
</quote>
Isn't there a term for the logical fallacy of treating abstractions as
real objects ('reification' is it)?
Yes, 'reification', it is one of the fallacies of ambiguity. See:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
16 Dec 2004 02:59:02 PM |
|
|
In article <Rfcwd.579113$D%.444972@attbi_s51>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
In the alleged event in question, you allegedly having
direct experience
of spirit, can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you KNOW
you had direct experience of spirit, so that anyone can test your
observations?
I haven't heard these allegations. Who says I've had "direct
experience of spirit"
George Dance did. See below.
A careful reading of the "below" does not support Septic X. Troll, the
Craven Capon's allegation that George ever said that he had any drect
experience of "spirit'.
Thus the verdict must be that George is not guilty of those charges, and
that Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, has brought a false accusation
against George.
We were discussing the ideas of Idealism,
'spirit' and such.
"We" in the above refers to the singular Septic X. Troll, the Craven
Capon, alone.
Nobody else has been "discussing" 'spirit', except to note how often
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, tries to divert the discussion from
its actual subject, the reality of ideas, to the irrelevant 'spirit'.
You said you have 'direct experience', 'first-hand
experience', 'immediate evidence' of things not material.
Ideas are non-material, and everyone, except posssibly Septic X. Troll,
the Craven Capon, himself acknowledges having had direct experiance of
ideas.
But Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,has a problem expressing the idea
that ideas cannot exist.
The question is can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you
KNOW that you had evidence of anything not material, so that anyone
can test your observations, try to replicate your findings?
Each of us, again with the possible exception of Septic X. Troll, the
Craven Capon, himself, acknowledges experiencing ideas directly and even
communicating ideas with other people, so sharing the experiencing of
ideas.
If Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, has never had any direct
experience of any ideas, except his own peculiar set of them, that is
his problem.
<quote>
---
From: "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: If you met God?
Date: 11 Dec 2004 11:41:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <1102794062.895405.15600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
References: <6312c50b.0412070956.5d13f191@posting.google.com>
<5f0cr01k33dibc3bedc577a4vruhd9geb6@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.228.125.106
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1102794067 13311 127.0.0.1 (11 Dec 2004
19:41:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:41:07 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <5f0cr01k33dibc3bedc577a4vruhd9geb6@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.228.125.106;
posting-account=7-L8rQ0AAAA2aIfcbjeiOgAS66z1EqgG
Jim07D4 wrote:
georgeda...@hotmail.com (George Dance) said:
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> said:
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
George Dance wrote:
GD is asserting that we have direct awareness of non-material
things. He is (IMO) treating abstract objects as real objects.
That is
not idealism.
Well, all I meant by 'direct awareness' was 'first-hand experience' or
'immediate evidence'.
---
</quote>
Isn't there a term for the logical fallacy of treating abstractions as
real objects ('reification' is it)?
Yes, 'reification', it is one of the fallacies of ambiguity. See:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm
And Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, seems intent on the reification
of his own idea of 'spirit' and then imposing it on others as if it were
theirs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
16 Dec 2004 10:46:38 AM |
|
|
X wrote:
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
In the alleged event in question, you allegedly having
direct experience
of spirit, can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you
KNOW
you had direct experience of spirit, so that anyone can test your
observations?
I haven't heard these allegations. Who says I've had "direct
experience of spirit"
George Dance did. See below. We were discussing the ideas of
Idealism,
'spirit' and such.
You were; but you're not even in that thread.
You said you have 'direct experience', 'first-hand
experience', 'immediate evidence' of things not material.
Of ideas, as the [unsnipped] quote makes clear.
The question is can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you
KNOW that you had evidence of anything not material (like 'spirit' or
whatever),
Certainly. Awareness of ideas is properly basic (you can look that
term up).
so that anyone can test your observations, try to replicate
your findings?
Let's try it with your term, 'spirit'. Does the word mean anything to
you - when you use it, does anything come to mind or not? If so,
that's an idea that you're aware of.
<quote>
---
From: "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: If you met God?
Date: 11 Dec 2004 11:41:02 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <1102794062.895405.15600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
References: <6312c50b.0412070956.5d13f191@posting.google.com>
<5f0cr01k33dibc3bedc577a4vruhd9geb6@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.228.125.106
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1102794067 13311 127.0.0.1 (11 Dec 2004
19:41:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:41:07 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <5f0cr01k33dibc3bedc577a4vruhd9geb6@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=64.228.125.106;
posting-account=7-L8rQ0AAAA2aIfcbjeiOgAS66z1EqgG
Jim07D4 wrote:
georgeda...@hotmail.com (George Dance) said:
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> said:
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
George Dance wrote:
[UNSNIP]
We have to start with the evidence - and we all have
evidence
(direct awareness) of both things and ideas
[/US]
GD is asserting that we have direct awareness of
non-material
things. He is (IMO) treating abstract objects as real
objects.
That is
not idealism.
Well, all I meant by 'direct awareness' was 'first-hand experience'
or 'immediate evidence'.
---
</quote>
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
16 Dec 2004 11:18:20 AM |
|
|
George, you seem to have snipped my question without answering it, the
question at the end of the message. The question is about Jim catching
you posting a logical fallacy known as 'reification':
<quote>
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
George Dance wrote:
GD is asserting that we have direct awareness of non-material
things. He is (IMO) treating abstract objects as real objects.
That is
not idealism.
Well, all I meant by 'direct awareness' was 'first-hand experience' or
'immediate evidence'.
---
</quote>
Isn't there a term for the logical fallacy of treating abstractions as
real objects ('reification' is it)?
Yes, 'reification', it is one of the fallacies of ambiguity. See:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
16 Dec 2004 03:08:27 PM |
|
|
In article <wrjwd.196617$5K2.3302@attbi_s03>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
George, you seem to have snipped my question without answering it, the
question at the end of the message. The question is about Jim catching
you posting a logical fallacy known as 'reification':
<quote>
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
George Dance wrote:
GD is asserting that we have direct awareness of non-material
things. He is (IMO) treating abstract objects as real objects.
That is
not idealism.
Well, all I meant by 'direct awareness' was 'first-hand experience' or
'immediate evidence'.
---
</quote>
Isn't there a term for the logical fallacy of treating abstractions as
real objects ('reification' is it)?
Yes, 'reification', it is one of the fallacies of ambiguity. See:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm
But it not a fallacy to say that one has direct awareness of an idea,
or first hand experience with ideas, or immediate evidence that one has
had an idea or communicated that idea to others or received that idea
from others.
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, seems to regard describing any of
these actions as somehow involving the commission of fallacies.
If ideas are so unreal to Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, why does he
keep trying to influence the ideas of others? he must grant them some
reality or, as a materialist, he would be honor bound to ignore them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
16 Dec 2004 11:43:41 AM |
|
|
X wrote:
George, you seem to have snipped my question without answering it,
the
question at the end of the message. The question is about Jim
catching
you posting a logical fallacy known as 'reification':
Actually, Jim didn't allege any 'fallacy'; that's your allegation
alone.
<quote>
Jim07D4 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
George Dance wrote:
GD is asserting that we have direct awareness of
non-material
things. He is (IMO) treating abstract objects as real
objects.
That is
not idealism.
Well, all I meant by 'direct awareness' was 'first-hand experience'
or
'immediate evidence'.
---
</quote>
Isn't there a term for the logical fallacy of treating abstractions
as
real objects ('reification' is it)?
Not exactly; 'reification' means
"to regard or treat an abstraction as if it had concrete or material
existence."
rinkworks.com/words/linguistics.shtml
Yes, 'reification', it is one of the fallacies of ambiguity. See:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_reification.htm
So you've found the term 'reification' on a list of fallacies?
Congratulations. Now all you have to do is learn what the term means.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
14 Dec 2004 07:34:18 PM |
|
|
In article <9vJvd.193513$V41.65615@attbi_s52>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
If an event isn't reproducible, it can't be reproduced.
In the alleged event in question, you allegedly having direct experience
of spirit, can you describe in detail exactly how it is that you KNOW
you had direct experience of spirit, so that anyone can test your
observations?
On the contrary, it is only Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,who
alleges anything about 'spirit'.
And what Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, alleges is clearly false,
since the definition of 'idealism' to which Septic X. Troll, the Craven
Capon, keeps referring does not require any 'spirit' (though it does
allow for the possibility of 'spirit').
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, from which Septic X. Troll, the
Craven Capon, gets his definition of 'idealism':
"Idealism is any theory positing the primacy of
spirit, mind, OR language over matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If you met God? |
14 Dec 2004 03:58:14 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
eggs@nospam.com wrote:
George Dance wrote:
... I've given you my reasons for thinking that there are
ideas ...
More equivocation on the term 'idea' from Georgie. Stop trying to
create
a diversion, Georgie.
Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you tell me
exactly what the alleged equivocation is, at least?
You aren't talking about the same ideas the rest of us in this thread
are discussing, the ideas of Idealism, 'spirit' and such, you are just
being equivocal around the term, 'ideas', and you know it. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
on evidence (was: If you met God)
If you met God?
If you met God?
Re: Do Stop Behaving As If You Are God, Professor Dawkins
Re: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father(God)(in Heaven), but by me." (John 14:6) This means that if you die without trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will die in your sins and be foreve
God became a man....Where's the line you're going to draw?
You thought "Under God" was bad...
XTC's Dear God - You've heard the song, here's the video
| AA If your family thanked God(TM) you were mentally ill, what would you do?
You insane god-damned fucking monkey!!!
=> As God Told Me ... Mel, you'll burn in Hell ... <=
You are stupid, yet God still loves you, turn back to Him.
Re: New GODPOD ! ! ! - Justice for Christ in America - ***** Terrorist Man - . . . : They'll tell you, blame the shadows in the New World Order, but don't rely on evidence to form your conclusions on who PERSONALLY is responsible for criminal acti
god loves YOU but not them!
Look, do you want to defeat the bad guys, or not? Bush gave US zero evidence to form our free thoughts on the 911 Justice issue. Treason. Simple. - If Putin is evil, surely Bush is worse than Satan himself... God, don't miss this!!!
|
|
|
