| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
02 Jun 2004 05:53:24 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The Inquisition |
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:33:15 -0500 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, duke (duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
alt.atheism added for my convenience.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:17:33 -0500, DOC <DOC@idunno.net> wrote:
Indeed, the Inquisition WAS romanist-inspired.
Uh, actually no, doc. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the Christian
Church.
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Despite their denials, the disgusting, horrible methods of torture used
against those poor, innocent people had their origins in Satan.
Poor, innocent people - you are a riot, doc.
You only approve of torturing the guilty? Oh, that's OK then. And
presumably you know they're guilty because they confess under torture
- and besides why would God have put suspicion into the minds of the
inquisitors *unless* they were guilty?
You know, you really are a total moral imbecile, either that or you're
perhaps trying to slope into Heaven by persuading God that you're one
of the "invincibly ignorant".
How ANYONE could possibly WILLINGLY remain in the clutches of that
accursed, blood-stained thing is beyond all comprehension.
Obviously, they choose spiritual death over eternity with the Lord.
To reply to that above by Doc (and I'll dupe it to that message), one
imagines it more that people have a great capacity to
compartmentalise. There were no doubt a number of people who, for
example, knew of the Nazi death camps, took no personal hand in them,
who were pleasant people, kind to animals and children and so forth,
but who never-the-less continued to support the Nazi government.
Or more recently, I've read a number of posts by people in my "home"
newsgroups that seek to justify and minimise what went on in Abu
Ghraib prison for reasons that, IMO, have more to do with a variation
of the "halo effect[1]" than any continent moral position.
What it comes down to is this: "the group I give my allegiance to did
this, so there has to be a good reason for it".
And then of course, the various Protestant Christian sects have their
own cases to answer which while not undertaken by bodies as formalised
as those of the RCC, more than made up for this by their enthusiasm.
And of course, they've had less time to get on with it before the rise
of secular society began to circumscribe to power of the various
Churches.
In some senses I think apologists for the Inquisition and it's
informal Protestant analogues miss the fundamental point of mainstream
Christianity - which is important *because* the apologists are almost
without exception adherents to one or other of those sects: confess
your sins and endeavour to sin no more.
But then, as I understand Christian theology, we are prone to deny the
most grievous of our sins and frequently do not see them as sins at
all. Which, one presumes explains Duke's attitude, to a degree.
If you want to read something interesting about this, that goes into
the whole socio-religious context behind being "put to the question",
you might take a look at:
"Trial by Fire and Water - The Medieval Judicial Ordeal"
Hardcover 192 pages (October 16, 1986)
Publisher: Oxford University Press Reprints distributed by Sandpiper
Books ISBN: 0198219733
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198219733
This is, IMO, very valuable if for no other reason than it goes to
some lengths to explain the social context where these things
happened.
[1]. This is worth looking up. It's a term used in psychology.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
02 Jun 2004 06:01:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:53:24 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Uh, actually no, doc. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the Christian
Church.
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Uh, actually no, tw. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the Christian
Church.
Despite their denials, the disgusting, horrible methods of torture used
against those poor, innocent people had their origins in Satan.
Poor, innocent people - you are a riot, doc.
You only approve of torturing the guilty? Oh, that's OK then. And
presumably you know they're guilty because they confess under torture
- and besides why would God have put suspicion into the minds of the
inquisitors *unless* they were guilty?
Do you realize that the latest estimate put the capital death total at about 3500 people?
Although no one knows the final total for sure.
As far as "guilty" is concerned, all they had to do was ask for confession. The ones that
died refused to repent.
You know, you really are a total moral imbecile, either that or you're
perhaps trying to slope into Heaven by persuading God that you're one
of the "invincibly ignorant".
Not to worry, tw. You're just embarrassed because many people know a lot more than you
do.
If you want to hang in there re facts, tw, you need to do some homework first.
How ANYONE could possibly WILLINGLY remain in the clutches of that
accursed, blood-stained thing is beyond all comprehension.
Obviously, they choose spiritual death over eternity with the Lord.
To reply to that above by Doc (and I'll dupe it to that message), one
imagines it more that people have a great capacity to
compartmentalise. There were no doubt a number of people who, for
example, knew of the Nazi death camps, took no personal hand in them,
who were pleasant people, kind to animals and children and so forth,
but who never-the-less continued to support the Nazi government.
Or more recently, I've read a number of posts by people in my "home"
newsgroups that seek to justify and minimise what went on in Abu
Ghraib prison for reasons that, IMO, have more to do with a variation
of the "halo effect[1]" than any continent moral position.
What it comes down to is this: "the group I give my allegiance to did
this, so there has to be a good reason for it".
Yes, you are doing that, all right.
And then of course, the various Protestant Christian sects have their
own cases to answer which while not undertaken by bodies as formalised
as those of the RCC, more than made up for this by their enthusiasm.
And of course, they've had less time to get on with it before the rise
of secular society began to circumscribe to power of the various
Churches.
Less time! Wow. All they did was walk away from the 1500 year old Catholic faith out of
protest. I deal with Protest_ants every day. It's very easy for them to reject what
Christ said in the 4 Gospels.
In some senses I think apologists for the Inquisition and it's
informal Protestant analogues miss the fundamental point of mainstream
Christianity - which is important *because* the apologists are almost
without exception adherents to one or other of those sects: confess
your sins and endeavour to sin no more.
Yep, that's what Christ said.
But then, as I understand Christian theology, we are prone to deny the
most grievous of our sins and frequently do not see them as sins at
all. Which, one presumes explains Duke's attitude, to a degree.
How so? I've got the bible behind me.
If you want to read something interesting about this, that goes into
the whole socio-religious context behind being "put to the question",
you might take a look at:
What for?
This is, IMO, very valuable if for no other reason than it goes to
some lengths to explain the social context where these things
happened.
[1]. This is worth looking up. It's a term used in psychology.
We already know what the inquisition was about.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
02 Jun 2004 09:12:34 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sbmsb0lvfl7850b4e7035d493dm3p5taco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:53:24 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Uh, actually no, doc. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against
the Christian
Church.
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Uh, actually no, tw. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the
Christian
Church.
Which must be why it's okay to toture those guys. Let me guess, you think
Abu Ghraib is perfectly excusable.
--
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -815 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "billu" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
03 Jun 2004 07:47:14 AM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote in message
news:P5-dnYqUsMyOFCPdRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Which must be why it's okay to toture those guys. Let me guess, you think
Abu Ghraib is perfectly excusable.
Ok let's get this point over with... torture is wrong. It was then and is
now.
The Church recognizes this and has apoligized for the excesses of that time.
OTOH torture was routinely used in the judicial systems (if they can be
called
that) of the day. There was no bill of rights... mirada etc... The
Inquisition
was different from the 'civil' courts in a couple of ways. 1) there were
actuall
limits on torture (not so outside of the Inquisition) 2) the accused was
represented
by a court appointed defender (not so in most of the world at that time).
The
inquisition would not accept tainted evidence (from personal enemies) etc...
and
lastly could not put anyone to death. The Inquisition was much more fair
than
any other court of it's day.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
03 Jun 2004 06:26:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:34 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)"
<eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sbmsb0lvfl7850b4e7035d493dm3p5taco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:53:24 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Uh, actually no, doc. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against
the Christian
Church.
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Uh, actually no, tw. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the
Christian
Church.
Which must be why it's okay to toture those guys. Let me guess, you think
Abu Ghraib is perfectly excusable.
What would have happened if her Iraqi captors had treated Jessica
Lynch that way?
After all she was an unlawful combatant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
03 Jun 2004 06:32:08 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:4j2ub0h7gbtjkusij2proca5l08q20ill3@4ax.com:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:34 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)"
<eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sbmsb0lvfl7850b4e7035d493dm3p5taco@4ax.com...
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:53:24 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Uh, actually no, doc. The inquisition was inspired by heresy
against
the Christian
Church.
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those
who ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of
moral philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Uh, actually no, tw. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against
the Christian Church.
Which must be why it's okay to toture those guys. Let me guess, you
think Abu Ghraib is perfectly excusable.
What would have happened if her Iraqi captors had treated Jessica
Lynch that way?
After all she was an unlawful combatant.
In what way? She wore a uniform with proper identifying tags and is a
member of a national army with a recognized command structure.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
03 Jun 2004 04:29:23 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:34 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com>
wrote:
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Uh, actually no, tw. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the
Christian
Church.
Which must be why it's okay to toture those guys. Let me guess, you think
Abu Ghraib is perfectly excusable.
Actually it was the secular authorities that did the torturing. And it was to extract the
confession, not to punish the guilty. Didn't know that, did you.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
03 Jun 2004 04:54:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 04:29:23 -0500 in alt.atheism, duke (duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:34 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com>
wrote:
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Uh, actually no, tw. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the
Christian
Church.
Which must be why it's okay to toture those guys. Let me guess, you think
Abu Ghraib is perfectly excusable.
Actually it was the secular authorities that did the torturing. And it was to extract the
confession, not to punish the guilty. Didn't know that, did you.
Which is presumably why the use of torture to obtain confessions and
the names of other heretics was authorized in 1252 by Innocent IV.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Ferris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
03 Jun 2004 03:52:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:54:23 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 04:29:23 -0500 in alt.atheism, duke (duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:34 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com>
wrote:
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Uh, actually no, tw. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the
Christian
Church.
Which must be why it's okay to toture those guys. Let me guess, you think
Abu Ghraib is perfectly excusable.
Actually it was the secular authorities that did the torturing. And it was to extract the
confession, not to punish the guilty. Didn't know that, did you.
Which is presumably why the use of torture to obtain confessions and
the names of other heretics was authorized in 1252 by Innocent IV.
Or confuse them by the fact that the state was not secular!
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 04:51:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:54:23 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Actually it was the secular authorities that did the torturing. And it was to extract the
confession, not to punish the guilty. Didn't know that, did you.
Which is presumably why the use of torture to obtain confessions and
the names of other heretics was authorized in 1252 by Innocent IV.
Glad to see you're beginning to understand.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
03 Jun 2004 02:30:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 04:29:23 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:12:34 -0700, "Yang, AthD \(h.c\)" <eacmole@//AWOLBUSH//mail.com>
wrote:
Which is to say that Stalin's gulags were inspired by the quest for
the equitable distribution of wealth and social justice, and those who
ran Soviet Communism were blameless. Yet another triumph of moral
philosophy by Duke.... Brilliant.
Uh, actually no, tw. The inquisition was inspired by heresy against the
Christian
Church.
Which must be why it's okay to toture those guys. Let me guess, you think
Abu Ghraib is perfectly excusable.
Actually it was the secular authorities that did the torturing. And it was to extract the
confession, not to punish the guilty. Didn't know that, did you.
duke
Is it your opinion that it is okay to torture people into confessing?
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
What an appropriate doctrine for a church that approves of torture.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 04:52:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:30:07 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Actually it was the secular authorities that did the torturing. And it was to extract the
confession, not to punish the guilty. Didn't know that, did you.
duke
Is it your opinion that it is okay to torture people into confessing?
Of course not. I'm only relating history to you, not condoning it.
What an appropriate doctrine for a church that approves of torture.
The Church never did, but a bad man did.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 03:42:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 04:52:35 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:30:07 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Actually it was the secular authorities that did the torturing. And it was to extract the
confession, not to punish the guilty. Didn't know that, did you.
duke
Is it your opinion that it is okay to torture people into confessing?
Of course not. I'm only relating history to you, not condoning it.
Of course you are, as your other posts make clear.
What an appropriate doctrine for a church that approves of torture.
The Church never did, but a bad man did.
A bad man who just happened to be the leader of the Church and who was
acting in that capacity.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
04 Jun 2004 05:33:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:42:09 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Is it your opinion that it is okay to torture people into confessing?
Of course not. I'm only relating history to you, not condoning it.
Of course you are, as your other posts make clear.
You don't even know what is historical and what is not.
What an appropriate doctrine for a church that approves of torture.
The Church never did, but a bad man did.
A bad man who just happened to be the leader of the Church and who was
acting in that capacity.
He was still a man, and by that, a sinner, regardless of his position in the church.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
05 Jun 2004 03:10:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:33:37 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:42:09 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Is it your opinion that it is okay to torture people into confessing?
Of course not. I'm only relating history to you, not condoning it.
Of course you are, as your other posts make clear.
You don't even know what is historical and what is not.
Non-response
What an appropriate doctrine for a church that approves of torture.
The Church never did, but a bad man did.
A bad man who just happened to be the leader of the Church and who was
acting in that capacity.
He was still a man, and by that, a sinner, regardless of his position in the church.
Which would mean that the Church also never does anything good, good
men do.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "• R.L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
05 Jun 2004 09:52:51 AM |
|
|
In article <qlv2c05ks5tfj0s0pjkl2b84eeerdc6l8e@4ax.com>, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 17:33:37 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:42:09 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Is it your opinion that it is okay to torture people into confessing?
Of course not. I'm only relating history to you, not condoning it.
Of course you are, as your other posts make clear.
You don't even know what is historical and what is not.
Non-response
What an appropriate doctrine for a church that approves of torture.
The Church never did, but a bad man did.
A bad man who just happened to be the leader of the Church and who was
acting in that capacity.
He was still a man, and by that, a sinner, regardless of his position
in the church.
Which would mean that the Church also never does anything good, good
men do.
• a well aimed lampoon
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
05 Jun 2004 08:15:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:10:08 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:42:09 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Is it your opinion that it is okay to torture people into confessing?
Of course not. I'm only relating history to you, not condoning it.
Of course you are, as your other posts make clear.
You don't even know what is historical and what is not.
Non-response
Gotcha.
He was still a man, and by that, a sinner, regardless of his position in the church.
Which would mean that the Church also never does anything good, good
men do.
Good men do the will of God, bad men do the will of themselves.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
05 Jun 2004 12:47:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 08:15:20 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:10:08 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:42:09 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Is it your opinion that it is okay to torture people into confessing?
Of course not. I'm only relating history to you, not condoning it.
Of course you are, as your other posts make clear.
You don't even know what is historical and what is not.
Non-response
Gotcha.
He was still a man, and by that, a sinner, regardless of his position in the church.
Which would mean that the Church also never does anything good, good
men do.
Good men do the will of God, bad men do the will of themselves.
And sometimes it is done by men who are acting on behalf of an
organization. In such cases the organization is responsible and can
sometimes be held legally responsible, your attempt at moral
rationalization not withstanding.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
06 Jun 2004 07:03:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:47:45 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
He was still a man, and by that, a sinner, regardless of his position in the church.
Which would mean that the Church also never does anything good, good
men do.
Good men do the will of God, bad men do the will of themselves.
And sometimes it is done by men who are acting on behalf of an
organization.
Of course.
In such cases the organization is responsible and can
sometimes be held legally responsible, your attempt at moral
rationalization not withstanding.
Too bad you can't relate to the difference between a man organization and a God
organization.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
06 Jun 2004 10:50:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 07:03:04 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:47:45 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
He was still a man, and by that, a sinner, regardless of his position in the church.
Which would mean that the Church also never does anything good, good
men do.
Good men do the will of God, bad men do the will of themselves.
And sometimes it is done by men who are acting on behalf of an
organization.
Of course.
In such cases the organization is responsible and can
sometimes be held legally responsible, your attempt at moral
rationalization not withstanding.
Too bad you can't relate to the difference between a man organization and a God
organization.
When the Church does something good, it is god doing it; and that
proves god guides the Church. When the Church does something bad, it
is not really the Church but only bad men; who just happen to be the
leaders of the Church guided by god. Of course Duke, it makes perfect
sense.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "• R.L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 05:48:04 AM |
|
|
In article <50h6c01u4b76difbqlide1mhauusmuvbnm@4ax.com>, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 07:03:04 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:47:45 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
He was still a man, and by that, a sinner, regardless of his
position in the church.
Which would mean that the Church also never does anything good, good
men do.
Good men do the will of God, bad men do the will of themselves.
And sometimes it is done by men who are acting on behalf of an
organization.
Of course.
In such cases the organization is responsible and can
sometimes be held legally responsible, your attempt at moral
rationalization not withstanding.
Too bad you can't relate to the difference between a man organization
and a God
organization.
When the Church does something good, it is god doing it; and that
proves god guides the Church. When the Church does something bad, it
is not really the Church but only bad men; who just happen to be the
leaders of the Church guided by god. Of course Duke, it makes perfect
sense.
• Well put, Thomas. Infallibility works pretty much the same way. If a
previous pope said something that is in agreement with current teaching,
then what he said was "ex-cathedra" absolutely, positively infallible.
However, if what a previous pope said is in somewhat less than perfect
agreement with current teaching, it wasn't ex-cathedra at all. It was
just some guy's opinion.
cheers
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 05:31:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 05:50:59 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
When the Church does something good, it is god doing it; and that
proves god guides the Church. When the Church does something bad, it
is not really the Church but only bad men; who just happen to be the
leaders of the Church guided by god. Of course Duke, it makes perfect
sense.
Nope, you got it wrong, but that's nothing unusual.
The Church cannot do wrong because it is led and guided by the Holy Spirit.
We, the Body, do good when we follow the Holy Spirit, who cannot do wrong. As God cannot
do wrong, it is the individual that strays and says no.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
08 Jun 2004 05:07:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:31:42 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 05:50:59 +0200, Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
When the Church does something good, it is god doing it; and that
proves god guides the Church. When the Church does something bad, it
is not really the Church but only bad men; who just happen to be the
leaders of the Church guided by god. Of course Duke, it makes perfect
sense.
Nope, you got it wrong, but that's nothing unusual.
The Church cannot do wrong because it is led and guided by the Holy Spirit.
We, the Body, do good when we follow the Holy Spirit, who cannot do wrong. As God cannot
do wrong, it is the individual that strays and says no.
You agree with me once again. I am gratified. When Church leaders do
good, the Church is doing it. When Church leaders do bad, the Church
is not doing it. That is what you are saying, and it is laughable.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
07 Jun 2004 08:04:22 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:pvq9c09270rienlimocj10lnjpf83harj5@4ax.com:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 05:50:59 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
When the Church does something good, it is god doing it; and that
proves god guides the Church. When the Church does something bad, it
is not really the Church but only bad men; who just happen to be the
leaders of the Church guided by god. Of course Duke, it makes perfect
sense.
Nope, you got it wrong, but that's nothing unusual.
Well, not unusually, what you are claiming is exactly the opposite of
reality.
The Church cannot do wrong because it is led and guided by the Holy
Spirit.
IOW, you presume that the Church can do no wrong in advance, and then
overlook or lie about the many times that it does.
We, the Body, do good when we follow the Holy Spirit, who cannot do
wrong. As God cannot do wrong, it is the individual that strays and
says no.
<rude noise>
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
08 Jun 2004 05:47:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 01:04:22 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:pvq9c09270rienlimocj10lnjpf83harj5@4ax.com:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 05:50:59 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
When the Church does something good, it is god doing it; and that
proves god guides the Church. When the Church does something bad, it
is not really the Church but only bad men; who just happen to be the
leaders of the Church guided by god. Of course Duke, it makes perfect
sense.
Nope, you got it wrong, but that's nothing unusual.
Well, not unusually, what you are claiming is exactly the opposite of
reality.
What is reality? I gather you're demanding the non-existance of God by that comment. So
be it. It's your funeral.
The Church cannot do wrong because it is led and guided by the Holy
Spirit.
IOW, you presume that the Church can do no wrong in advance, and then
overlook or lie about the many times that it does.
It never has. Why start today?
We, the Body, do good when we follow the Holy Spirit, who cannot do
wrong. As God cannot do wrong, it is the individual that strays and
says no.
<rude noise>
Your funeral. Not mine.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
10 Jun 2004 06:41:57 PM |
|
|
Puke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<ufr9c05mpebtrktie9t288meok0o7829j9@4ax.com>...
On 6 Jun 2004 20:35:24 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
Actually you're demonstrated nothing. My 5 evidences are
based on observed fact.
They were not evidence.
Of course they were evidence. The details are unquestioned
fact.
No they're not. They are simply statements of what **YOU BELIEVE** or
descriptions of some aspect or other of this universe.
Statements of what you personally believe, if unsupported by actually
evidence, do not, of themselves, constitute evidence, as I will
demonstrate (again) below.
Simplistic descriptions of some aspect or other of the unvierse, in
the absence of supporting argument and evidence, cannot be considered
to be evidence for the existence of any god, because those same
descriptions unmodified can be used euqally to make the same claims
for a non-intelligent origin of the universe, as I shall demonstrate
(again) below.
- nowhere have you offered evidence.
That represents the evidence to me
that demands the existence of God.
Well that's evidence of how clueless you are, but it's not evidence of
any god, and the sad bottom line is that, once again **YOU HAVE
AVOIDED THE QUESTION**!
If **YOU** think they're evidence, then explain why it is that **YOU**
think they're evidence: highlight which specific part of each of those
five points **YOU** think constitutes the actual evidence.
Let me give you an example, using your second point regarding the
so-called "Big Bang":
Here is your exact quote from http://tinyurl.com/3xo82 :
"2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass,
no energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point
of infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before,
and then it exploded outward to form our universe, including
"time" and all "outer space" as we know it.
The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge
to the universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into? "
Now what, precisely, in those two paragraphs constitutes evidence for
the existence of any god **IN YOUR OPINION**?
The reason I ask is that I could repeat (and indeed have done so)
those two paragraphs WORD FOR WORD and claim it as evidence for a
non-intelligent origin for the universe. Where would we be then?
If I did that, what criterion/criteria would **YOU** use to choose
between them? Go ahead and answer this. I've been asking this same
question of you repeatedly for weeks and every single time you've run
away from it. Don't you think it's time you put up or shut up shop?
The fact is that your second point does NOT in any way, shape or form
constitute evidence for any god! All you did was give a simplistic
description of how this universe began according to the best
**SCIENCE** we have. How does a simple description of what science
understands to be the start of this universe constitute evidence for
god? Which part of your description speaks about **A GOD** causing it
all? Which part of your description indicates that **A GOD** is the
best explanation for the Big Bang? Which part? If you cannot answer
these questions then you, yourself, are admitting what I've stated all
along: that this is not evidence for any god.
I'll re-examine your other four points at the end of this message
I told you. What I presented for the origin of the universe
is equal to and in most cases better than anything you
yourself can suggest.
Your description of the Big Bang theory is not what *I* suggested, but
what science has determined by looking at the facts! Nowhere in that
science is there any suggestion that any god had anything to do with
it! So, once again, with regard to that second point of yours, what
is it in that two-paragraph description that indicates any god had
anything to do with it? What is it that indicates that it was *not*
of non-intelligent origin? Again, if you cannot competently answer
these questions, **YOU** are admitting that it is not evidence for any
god.
2. How your personal opinion is, of itself, with no argument or
support, evidence of any god.
Evidence is that which convinces one to draw a conclusion.
Don't tell me we have to go through this horseshit all over again.
Why is it that you repeatedly avoid the difficult questions with a
non-sequitur? Hasn't it occurred to you that you are calling yourself
a fraud and a liar when you duck these simple questions?
Your response in no way addresses the point that I made. Your
**UNSUPPORTED PERSONAL OPINION** is *NOT* evidence. Even if you were
a professional cosmologist your unsupported opinion, while it might
carry a tad more weight than it actually does, would *NOT* constitute
evidence! You could not get your personal opinion published as a
scientific advance in any peer-reviewed magazine. You would have to
be able to point to **ACTUAL EVIDENCE** that *supported* your opinion
or to logical deduction that supported your opinion and which was
based on *actual evidence*.
A simplistic description of the Big Bang is not evidence one way or
the other since it could be used in precisely the same way you used it
to support the exact opposite conclusion to that which you insist it
leads. Cleary you are completely wrong, and I'm sorry you do not have
the wherewithal to see that.
Now evidence is that which convinces one to draw **WHAT** conclusion?
That it's proven? That it's disproven? That it's inconclusive? Can
you not see that if you cannot even define the terms, then you cannot
possibly know what it is you're talking about, which is what I've
maintained all along?
Unequivocal **PROOF** will force an honest person to draw a conclusion
- that it's true or that it's false, that a person's innocent or that
they're guilty. Evidence as such cannot force this unless it is
overwhelming. If it is weak evidence, how can it "convince one to
draw a conclusion"? It cannot force a conclusion on you at all -
unless it's the conclusion that you need more evidence. Get it now?
Now let's **ONCE AGAIN** look at your other four "evidences". Here is
the first one:
"Evidence of God (Rev1)- duke32, circa 2002AD
1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator of the universe is
based on a profession by those that believe that is equal to, but no
less than, any profession that our universe exists for any other
alternative reason that can be imagined."
[other three paragraphs snipped]
The **FACT** is that you are claiming here that *your own personal
belief* is equal to the massive weight of refereed journal-published
science from the last 200 years. Your arrogance is quite startling.
Please do explain to the world exactly how it is that your own,
personal, unsupported blind faith belief is of the same value as 200
years of solid scientific investigation, which has found no evidence
of any god anywhere it has looked, but found, instead, that everything
we see in this universe is apparently, as far as we can possibly
determine scientifically, of non-intelligent origin.
Here is your third one:
"3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect
a "design with purpose". It consists of a central computer
(brain) supported by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced
along by a pump (heart), an energy conversion system (stomach and
intestines), a waste disposal system, an oxygen transfer system
(lungs) that is required to transfer necessary oxygen to the brain
and to the body parts, maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder,
etc), and a body salinity (same as ocean water) exactly correct
as necessary for transfer of minute electrical signals to/from
the brain to operate and control the body."
This is merely a (very) simplistic description of the basic functions
of the **HUMAN** body. It addresses **ONLY** the human body, out of
the literally millions of species of organisms that live on Earth.
You claim that it demonstrates "design with purpose", but nowhere have
you been able to argue from your basic description to how it actually
**SHOWS** design with purpose. All you do is describe and then
somehow expect others to follow your own blind faith into the
miraculous.
What, precisely, in the description you've given above, is it that
shows the work of any god? What? I ask because I could (and indeed
have done so) use the **EXACT SAME DESCRIPTION** you've given and
insist it is evidence of a non-intelligent origin. If I did that,
what criterion/criteria would **YOU** use to determine which is the
best answer? What, from your description above, "convinces one to
draw a conclusion" that god did it rather than that evolution,
undirected by intelligence, did it?
Here is your fourth one:
"4. The conception equation contained in animal forms is
divided 50% in the male and 50% in the female. We
only mix the chemicals. Of special interest is the
fact that the male and female organs are of complimentary
shape in mammals. These two facts are especially
conducive to support planned design."
You fail to define precisely how this claimed "fit" argues for the
existence of a god rather than for the non-intelligent work of
evolution over millions of years, therefore this does not constitute
evidence for any god!
I could argue with equal force and using only your "evidence" above
that this fit actually disproves god since a god would ahve made sex
work without a fit to show his glory, and that, therefore, a fit
proves evolution.
Nowhere have you addressed non-sexually reproducing species which are
the majority of species on Earth! If you claim the "fit" of sexually
reproducing species is evidence of some god, then I can easily
out-argue you by descending to your primitive level and claiming that
the majority of species do *not* reproduce sexually, so there is no
fit, and therefore this forces us to the conclusion that this is *NOT*
the work of any intelligence!
Why have you addressed *only* mammals, which order is not the largest
amongst living things? Did your god design only mammals, the rest of
the living world coming about through non-intelligent evolution? If
you have to be so specific and cannot expand your little scheme to all
living things, then clearly your argument breaks down and doesn't work
even if it actually *did* constitute evidence for some god.
Nowhere have you defined precisely what it is that **YOU** mean by
this "divided 50% in the male and 50% in the female". Do you mean in
terms of DNA contributed? In terms of the size/shape/whatever of sex
organs? In terms of the size of sex cells? In terms of the
contribution to parenthood each sex makes? What, exactly, do **YOU**
mean by this fifty-fifty split?
Here is your fifth one:
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or relate to, the
plant's existence because it fully lacks the faculties to do so. Nor
does the plant acknowledge, in any fashion, it's awareness of the
inanimate object.
One level upward, the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or
relate to, the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do
so. However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of the
plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but the plant
does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is, or why it is.
[Rest snipped]
Nowhere have you even begun to explain how this **unsupported claim**
of yours (that there is a hierarchy) constitutes evidence for any god.
All you've done is describe your belief that there is a hierarchy and
that's it! How does this hierarchy evidence some god rather than
evolution? In fact, starting with your unsupported assumption of a
hierarchy, I could argue that this is evidence for evolution, because
non-intelligent evolution would equally "create" a rather hierarchical
pattern.
In other words, as I've repeatedly argued and demonstrated (yet again
here), not a single one of your five "evidences" actually constitutes
evidence even remotely.
You lose.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
12 Jun 2004 11:52:19 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jun 2004 16:41:57 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
No they're not. They are simply statements of what **YOU BELIEVE** or
descriptions of some aspect or other of this universe.
Statements of what you personally believe, if unsupported by actually
evidence, do not, of themselves, constitute evidence, as I will
demonstrate (again) below.
Before you waste your breath:
1. Fact: Science proclaims that the universe was "nothing" then started as an infinitely
small point of infinite density which was not there a moment before and which exploded
outward to form our current universe.
Belief: Evidence - God's creation at it's finest
2. Fact: the big bang.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
3. Fact: the human body is a blueprint for all human mechanisms.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
4. Fact: The human procreation equation is located 50% in the male and 50% in the female
species, and brought together thru an act of pleasure thru complimentary shaped organs.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
5. Fact: The visual hierarchy of life starting with the inanimate and ending with the
human being.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
Simplistic descriptions of some aspect or other of the unvierse, in
the absence of supporting argument and evidence, cannot be considered
to be evidence for the existence of any god, because those same
descriptions unmodified can be used euqally to make the same claims
for a non-intelligent origin of the universe, as I shall demonstrate
(again) below.
The facts are beyond question, if you are human.
Well that's evidence of how clueless you are, but it's not evidence of
any god, and the sad bottom line is that, once again **YOU HAVE
AVOIDED THE QUESTION**!
What question?
If **YOU** think they're evidence, then explain why it is that **YOU**
think they're evidence: highlight which specific part of each of those
five points **YOU** think constitutes the actual evidence.
Facts are facts. Opinion drives belief. God did it surpasses any suggestion of any other
origin that you can dream up.
"2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass,
no energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point
of infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before,
and then it exploded outward to form our universe, including
"time" and all "outer space" as we know it.
The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge
to the universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into? "
Now what, precisely, in those two paragraphs constitutes evidence for
the existence of any god **IN YOUR OPINION**?
It IS my opinion, which drives what I call evidence of God almighty. I asked you for an
alternative explaination, and you can't offer any.
The reason I ask is that I could repeat (and indeed have done so)
those two paragraphs WORD FOR WORD and claim it as evidence for a
non-intelligent origin for the universe. Where would we be then?
Ok, so you believe insects formed the universe. If that's what you want to believe, so
ahead.
The fact is that your second point does NOT in any way, shape or form
constitute evidence for any god!
The concept of evidence is well over your head, isn't it.
Main Entry:1ev£i£dence
Pronunciation:*e-v*-d*n(t)s, -v*-*den(t)s
Function:noun
Date:14th century
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY;
specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a
matter
I'll re-examine your other four points at the end of this message
You won't do any good there either.
I told you. What I presented for the origin of the universe
is equal to and in most cases better than anything you
yourself can suggest.
Your description of the Big Bang theory is not what *I* suggested, but
what science has determined by looking at the facts! Nowhere in that
science is there any suggestion that any god had anything to do with
it!
Science can only go back to the occurrence of the event. Science doesn't know what came
before. God did it. You lose again.
2. How your personal opinion is, of itself, with no argument or
support, evidence of any god.
Evidence is that which convinces one to draw a conclusion.
Don't tell me we have to go through this horseshit all over again.
Check the definition above. Evidence is an outward sign, and all indication is that God
did it, or something else. If you have a suggestion as an alternative, lets hear it..
Why is it that you repeatedly avoid the difficult questions with a
non-sequitur? Hasn't it occurred to you that you are calling yourself
a fraud and a liar when you duck these simple questions?
Uhhhh, nooooo. Actually I think the whole thing is well over your head.
Your response in no way addresses the point that I made. Your
**UNSUPPORTED PERSONAL OPINION** is *NOT* evidence.
Facts generate something called evidence, which drives opinon.
You're consistently confused between fact, evidence, and proof. These are 3 different
things.
A simplistic description of the Big Bang is not evidence one way or
the other since it could be used in precisely the same way you used it
to support the exact opposite conclusion to that which you insist it
leads. Cleary you are completely wrong, and I'm sorry you do not have
the wherewithal to see that.
Ok, so if you want to believe the universe is a big orange, so be it.
Unequivocal **PROOF** will force an honest person to draw a conclusion
Sorry, but proof does not derive a conclusion. Evidence draws a conclusion. Proof is
proof.
If you can't understand that, there is no point in going further, and you're PROVED you
can understand the difference between fact, evidence, and proof.
Rest snipped unread.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
12 Jun 2004 01:39:52 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hhbmc0pdhpjuu292bgh9bvb0rf02j2g1j5@4ax.com...
On 10 Jun 2004 16:41:57 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
No they're not. They are simply statements of what **YOU BELIEVE** or
descriptions of some aspect or other of this universe.
Statements of what you personally believe, if unsupported by actually
evidence, do not, of themselves, constitute evidence, as I will
demonstrate (again) below.
Before you waste your breath:
1. Fact: Science proclaims that the universe was "nothing" then started
as an infinitely
small point of infinite density which was not there a moment before and
which exploded
outward to form our current universe.
Belief: Evidence - God's creation at it's finest
2. Fact: the big bang.
The big bang is not a fact. The big bang is a theory and one of several that
work quite well based on the evidecnce.
No wonder Earl will not tell anyone where he went to school.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
Belief is not evidence. I believe that we will find life on other planets
but there is no evidence to support this.
3. Fact: the human body is a blueprint for all human mechanisms.
So where exactly in the human body do we find the wheel and the transistor?
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
4. Fact: The human procreation equation is located 50% in the male and
50% in the female
species, and brought together thru an act of pleasure thru complimentary
shaped organs.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
5. Fact: The visual hierarchy of life starting with the inanimate and
ending with the
human being.
Not a fact and there is no evidence that we are the highest.
There is evidence that we are very poor at many things other animals do.
Crabs can regrow claws and dogs can smell and hear better. Birds can see
better.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
Simplistic descriptions of some aspect or other of the unvierse, in
the absence of supporting argument and evidence, cannot be considered
to be evidence for the existence of any god, because those same
descriptions unmodified can be used euqally to make the same claims
for a non-intelligent origin of the universe, as I shall demonstrate
(again) below.
The facts are beyond question, if you are human.
Well that's evidence of how clueless you are, but it's not evidence of
any god, and the sad bottom line is that, once again **YOU HAVE
AVOIDED THE QUESTION**!
What question?
The one that he asked you.
If **YOU** think they're evidence, then explain why it is that **YOU**
think they're evidence: highlight which specific part of each of those
five points **YOU** think constitutes the actual evidence.
Facts are facts. Opinion drives belief. God did it surpasses any
suggestion of any other
origin that you can dream up.
Exactly. You have given no facts aned stated opinions. Opinions are not
evidence.
"2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass,
no energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point
of infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before,
and then it exploded outward to form our universe, including
"time" and all "outer space" as we know it.
The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge
to the universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into? "
Now what, precisely, in those two paragraphs constitutes evidence for
the existence of any god **IN YOUR OPINION**?
It IS my opinion, which drives what I call evidence of God almighty. I
asked you for an
alternative explaination, and you can't offer any.
The reason I ask is that I could repeat (and indeed have done so)
those two paragraphs WORD FOR WORD and claim it as evidence for a
non-intelligent origin for the universe. Where would we be then?
Ok, so you believe insects formed the universe. If that's what you want
to believe, so
ahead.
Earl keeps telling us he wants a serious conversation, then responds like
this.
The fact is that your second point does NOT in any way, shape or form
constitute evidence for any god!
The concept of evidence is well over your head, isn't it.
Main Entry:1ev£i£dence
Pronunciation:*e-v*-d*n(t)s, -v*-*den(t)s
Function:noun
Date:14th century
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof :
TESTIMONY;
specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain
the truth of a
matter
Not one mention of opinion or belief in there, is there Earl?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inquisition |
13 Jun 2004 12:34:19 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<hhbmc0pdhpjuu292bgh9bvb0rf02j2g1j5@4ax.com>...
1. Fact: Science proclaims that the universe was "nothing"
then started as an infinitely small point of infinite density
which was not there a moment before and which exploded
outward to form our current universe.
Science "proclaims" no such thing. This is one explanation. The fact
of the Big Bang is undeniable based on the best available evidence,
but as to what, if anything, was there before the Big Bang, we simply
do not, at this point, know. However, scientists are not compeltely
clueless in this matter. There are many theories, some of which may
be tested and proved out in our lifetime, which offer clues about what
was there before the Big Bang and none of them is "godidit".
Please try to keep what is known, and what is speculated and
'theorized' upon separate. You seriously need to get your science
straight if you want to pretend you know what you're talking about.
Belief: Evidence - God's creation at it's finest
So finally you admit what I've been saying all along: this is belief,
not evidence. You've offered not a thing here to support any claim
that any god had anything to do with this.
2. Fact: the big bang.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
So finally you admit what I've been saying all along: this is belief,
not evidence. You've offered not a thing here to support any claim
that any god had anything to do with this.
3. Fact: the human body is a blueprint for all human mechanisms.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
So finally you admit what I've been saying all along: this is belief,
not evidence. You've offered not a thing here to support any claim
that any god had anything to do with this.
4. Fact: The human procreation equation is located 50% in the male
and 50% in the female species, and brought together thru an act of
pleasure thru complimentary shaped organs.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
So finally you admit what I've been saying all along: this is belief,
not evidence. You've offered not a thing here to support any claim
that any god had anything to do with this.
5. Fact: The visual hierarchy of life starting with the inanimate
and ending with the human being.
Belief: Evidence - God did it.
So finally you admit what I've been saying all along: this is belief,
not evidence. You've offered not a thing here to support any claim
that any god had anything to do with this.
Simplistic descriptions of some aspect or other of the unvierse, in
the absence of supporting argument and evidence, cannot be considered
to be evidence for the existence of any god, because those same
descriptions unmodified can be used euqally to make the same claims
for a non-intelligent origin of the universe, as I shall demonstrate
(again) below.
The facts are beyond question, if you are human.
I have never denied the facts - what I've consistently been saying all
along is that these are your beliefs, which you've now, at long last
admitted! But the fact that *you* personally believe that this is
evidence of a god does not make it so.
If you want to argue that any of these five points are evidence of any
god, then you need to demonstrate how this is evidence of the work of
some god. Your belief (read: faith) alone does not constitute such
evidence.
You have to explain why your simple descriptions in each of these five
points above should convince one to draw a conclusion that some god
did this! This involves demonstrating solidly that this had to be the
work of a god and could not have some about through non-intelligent
processes. Despite my repeated requests that you do this, you've
never made any such effort, not even here.
Well that's evidence of how clueless you are, but it's not evidence of
any god, and the sad bottom line is that, once again **YOU HAVE
AVOIDED THE QUESTION**!
What question?
The question that you show how each of these five points had to be the
work of a god and could not be the work of non-intelligent processes,
or at the very least could equally have been either. I've asked that
you do this on numerous occasions and you never have, so all that
you've left us with is five limp reasons why *you personally believe*
that a god did this. You have not offered evidence which convinces
one to draw a conclusion that it's at least as, or more likely that
some god did it than that the explanation is that of non-intelligent
processes.
If **YOU** think they're evidence, then explain why it is that **YOU**
think they're evidence: highlight which specific part of each of those
five points **YOU** think constitutes the actual evidence.
Facts are facts. Opinion drives belief. God did it surpasses
any suggestion of any other origin that you can dream up.
And once again your evidence for this conclusion is missing. What is
it about each of these five points that convinces one to draw a
conclusion that some god did it or that convinces one to draw a
conclusion that non-intelligent processes could *not* have done it?
You've never offered such an explanation, all you've done is state
that you *believe* it to be so, but this is *not* evidence, it's
merely your blind belief.
"2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no mass,
no energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely small point
of infinitely dense mass appeared which was not there before,
and then it exploded outward to form our universe, including
"time" and all "outer space" as we know it.
The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there an edge
to the universe, and if there is, what is it expanding into? "
Now what, precisely, in those two paragraphs constitutes evidence for
the existence of any god **IN YOUR OPINION**?
It IS my opinion, which drives what I call evidence of God almighty.
Your opinion is not evidence without some serious external support. I
asked you what, precisely, in those two paragraphs constitutes
evidence for the existence of any god and you are apparently unable to
answer.
I asked you for an
alternative explaination, and you can't offer any.
I've told you repeatedly that the alternate explanation is
non-intelligent processes. You've never been able to explain why your
personal belief that some god did this is a better epxlanation, or
even a valid explanation! All you've done in the past and again all
you've done here is say you believe some god did it, but once again,
the **EVIDENCE** is missing as to why this is a better explanation
than non-intelligent processes. This position of yours is nothing but
argument from incredulity and it is invalid. It certainly is not
evidence.
The reason I ask is that I could repeat (and indeed have done so)
those two paragraphs WORD FOR WORD and claim it as evidence for a
non-intelligent origin for the universe. Where would we be then?
Ok, so you believe insects formed the universe. If that's what
you want to believe, so ahead.
Once again you're missing the point. As I've repeatedly made clear,
the very arguments you insist convinces one to draw a conclusion that
this is the work of some god, also demonstrate, without any
significant change, that each of the five points equally show a
non-intelligent process, or to use your example (and it is *your*
example, since I've never used it) have them show that insects did it!
This completely invalidates your claim that these five points
evidence some god! If your "evidence" points to **ANY** conclusion
you care to name, it's no use whatsoever, and your pretence that it
can convince one to draw a conclusion that a god did it is nonsense!
Can you not see that?
The fact is that your second point does NOT in any way, shape or form
constitute evidence for any god!
The concept of evidence is well over your head, isn't it.
As I've repeatedly demonstrated and just highlighted yet again here,
if your "evidence" points to literally any conclusion, it is not
evidence even by your own definition (that "Evidence is that which
convinces one to draw a conclusion"). Do you get it now?
Your description of the Big Bang theory is not what *I* suggested, but
what science has determined by looking at the facts! Nowhere in that
science is there any suggestion that any god had anything to do with
it!
Science can only go back to the occurrence of the event.
Science doesn't know what came before. God did it.
Where is your evidence that god did it? You have presented none.
You've merely stated the "god-of-the-gaps" argument: that if science
currently has no explanation for something, then godidit. This is not
evidence but argument from ignorance.
For example, at one time science (such as it was back then) had no
explanation for lightning. Did this prove that god created every
single lightning flash as it happened? No! Lightning is a
non-intelligent process, a result of the phenomenon of electricity.
Science's previous inability to explain it didn't mean there was no
explanation for it! It merely meant that science had not yet
discovered the explanation. Now that science has discovered it, no
one tries to pretend that some god stikes down people with lightning.
It merely means they were in the right place at the wrong time.
In *every single case* where this has been played out - where science
has not known something and later discovered that particular something
- there has never been an instance where scientists have been forced
to conclude that the explanation was direct intervention by some god.
There has always been a non-intelligent explanation for it. Where is
your evidence (or even your logic) that in this one isolated case, the
case of the Big Bang (which you clearly do not fully understand), some
god started it?
You've offered no such evidence, only your blind belief based on
ignorance. You're saying nothing more than, "we don't know what
started it, therefore we do know: some god started it".
First of all, there are alternate epxlanations, none of which you have
refuted, and if you cannot see the fallacious nature of such a lousy
argument, there is no hope for you or for your "evidences" The bottom
line is that you cannot do what you try to do: you cannot argue from
blind ignorance to claim that some god created the universe. Once
again, you've offered no evidence to support such a claim.
Check the definition above. Evidence is an outward sign,
and all indication is that God did it, or something else.
If you have a suggestion as an alternative, lets hear it.
There is no evidence that you've presented to indicate that god did
it. Where is this evidence? All you've established is that you
*believe* that some god did it. As I have made clear on more than one
occasion, you cannot argue from complete ignorance to god, since
your'e starting in complete ignorance, nor can you pretend that such
an argument is evidence. It's not - it's ignorance and that's all
there is to it.
I can use your exact argument and make it "evidence" non-intelligent
processes:
We don't know what was there before the Big Bang, therefore it was a
non-intelligent process which caused the Big Bang. Do you consider
that "evidence which convinces you to draw a conclusion"? If not,
then you cannot even begin to pretend that this is evidence either:
"We don't know what was there before the Big Bang, therefore a god did
it"
If you actually kept up with science, you would know that there are
several theories about what happened before the Big Bang, all of which
are rooted in what we do know. One relatively recent one, based in
string theory, is that this universe is merely one of several
three-dimensional membranes in a ten dimensional existence. When two
of these membranes touch, there is a Big Bang. The theory explains
everything that we know, and it's possible that it can be tested
before so very long. When can your theory of god be tested? Does it
explain how this god came to exist? If an intelligent process is
required to create a universe, then isn't an intleligent process
required to create a god? If a god can exist without the work of a
prior intelligence, then why cannot the universe also exist in some
form without the work of a prior intelligence?
Why is it that you repeatedly avoid the difficult questions with a
non-sequitur? Hasn't it occurred to you that you are calling yourself
a fraud and a liar when you duck these simple questions?
Uhhhh, nooooo. Actually I think the whole thing is well over your head.
No - it's you who is ducking the questions, not me! Your answer is
hilarious proof of this sicne you ducked the quesiton that dealt with
you ducking questions. This suggests that it's over *your* head, not
mine. And clearly it isn't over mine as I've demonstrated repeatedly.
Your sad addiction to that belief is merely one more example of how
out of touch you are with reality.
Your response in no way addresses the point that I made. Your
**UNSUPPORTED PERSONAL OPINION** is *NOT* evidence.
Facts generate something called evidence, which drives opinon.
But you have presented no facts, as I have repeatedly made clear and
demonstrated. **ALL YOU'VE PRESENTED IS YOUR BLIND BELIEFS**
You're consistently confused between fact, evidence, and proof.
These are 3 different things.
This merely shows how confused you are. A fact can be used as
evidence and if it is convincing enough it is proof, showing that
these three items can indeed be the same thing.
Now let me see if I can once more get your head on straight: Once
again, *I HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR PROOF*. Can you understand that? Can
you get that? Does that impinge on your consciousness in any
meaningful way whatsoever? Do you grasp it?
Now can we kiss proof goodbye and never have you raise that irrelevant
issue again?
I have never gone into th | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
