| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2005 06:16:17 PM |
| Object: |
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119
Organized religion: the braindead, educating the clueless on how to
show the blind how to tell the mute how to witness to the deaf so they
can galvanize the paraplegic into lifelong slavery to a non-existent
god (-Budikka Oct 10 1996)
This is the Fifteenth in an occasional series highlighting valid issues
that undermine invariably unsupported claims that there's a god.
Parts 1-5 of this series is at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 66-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 70-78 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 79-90 at: http://tinyurl.com/6aa8l
Parts 91-99 at: http://tinyurl.com/6xnhh
100.
God made two great lights to rule the day and night and these were
nailed into a solid firmament like a betrayed son to a cross. And this
firmament held up billions of gallons of water? Is this supposed to
divinely inspired writing? Two lights? Talk about understatement!
The lights would have had to be fixed on the underside of the firmament
because the water would have completely blocked any other light,
leaving the Earth in perpetual darkness.
So you can swallow this just-so story, or let the scientists show you
the way, the truth...and the lights.
101.
Facial Attraction
Talking of light and dark, let's look at some of the darkness this god
brought into people's lives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4373359.stm
reveals that "Similar facial features make people trust, but not fancy,
each other, research has suggested."
This of course calls into question a whole bunch of Biblical lies about
the purported creation. Not only is there the obvious one: with whom
did Eve and Adam's children marry and procreate, and if they readily
married and procreated with each other, from whence came the tabu on
incest?
But aside from the pathetic creation myth, there's a more important
issue concerning trust that is tied to another biblical lie about the
Tower of Babel. To refresh your memory, the Tower of Babel was yet
another example of this weakling god desperately and deliberately doing
evil to jealously protect his privileged position!
For no apparent reason, he deliberately screwed up language so that
humans could not understand one another, and scattered them all over
the Earth, thereby assuring the enmity and misunderstanding that has
bedeviled human society for as long as it's existed. His fear was that
humans would become godlike, just as it was in the Garden of Eden
fable. And in both cases he purposefully, vindictively and childishly
sabotaged them. But the very differences in language and race proved
to be the biggest evil ever perpetrated on humanity, and "God" did it!
As the above article demonstrates, people trust those who are most like
themselves - and by extension, tend not to readily trust people who
look different and behave differently. In other words, this god
created racism and ethnic tension!
These tensions exist not just between black and white, but even among
people who you would think have a lot more in common, such as the Far
East communities. No one (in their right mind) would pretend that
Chinese and Japanese look alike, but they're from the same region -
they're next-door neighbors. Yet because god scattered them and made
them look different (according to Bible myth) there arose the
opportunity for tension, which is still rife today:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/11/china.japan/index.html
But the Sino-japanese aggravation isn't the only example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3571859.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4332605.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1885113.stm
It's not like people need to be separated by much. Hell - there's even
aggravation between school coaching staff and a kid's dad that turns
deadly:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/coach.shot.ap/index.html
And soccer fans of the same race can't even keep religion out of it:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/soccer/04/10/bc.soc.popebooed.ap/inde=
x=2Ehtml
and even between baseball buddies:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/14/baseball.killing.ap/index.html
Why would a real god, especially one that (so the Bible lies) "loved us
so much that he sacrificed his son" (but not himself, you may note,
thereby proving this god to be the most immense coward ever) have *any*
fear at all of human achievement? There's enough room for tension as
it is - why deliberately put blockades in the way of people getting
along with each other? Especially such serious ones?
How many well-balanced parents fear their children's success? Don't
decent, well-adjusted parents long for their children to exceed their
own performance in life? To do better, to be healthier, to be smarter,
happier, wealthier? So here we have a case of people in general being
better adjusted and more morally upright than the very god they claim
to worship! How pathetic is that?
Rather than enjoy his children's achievements, this god acts like a
psychopathic parent, deliberately undermining his children's progress
at every opportunity! Why believe this lie when it makes no sense -
when the only sensible conclusion is to dismiss this fantastic garbage
and admit there is no god?
102.
Foreskins need to be removed to identify god's chosen? To whom? God
doesn't know who his chosen are? How absurd. Wouldn't it be actually
a real testament to this god if his chosen people were the only humans
born naturally without foreskins regardless of their race? Or better
yet, if they were born with "chosen" in Aramaic tattooed on their
forehead? Instead, we are so "chosen" that we have to hack the
foreskin (of all things), brutally from defenseless children. Many of
the same people that are mutilating these children think abortion is an
appalling tragedy. Go figure....
Or maybe there really isn't a god, and *that's* why people have to
mutilate themselves - because there isn't any magical way to tell who's
decent soul and who isn't (not that a missing foreskin is any indicator
of this).
103.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4371005.stm
reveals that "A 36-hour-old baby boy has died from the MRSA superbug."
Now we also have flesh eating methicillin-resistant staphylococcus
aureus - the no mercy MRSA:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4423619.stm
And it's been left entirely to humans to take care of malaria, after
this god created it in the most evil way possible, to make it so
difficult to fight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4419835.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4423709.stm
Some 2.2 billion are at risk from malaria:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4332921.stm
(that's more than there are so-called Christians, isn't it?)
Why would a loving god allow these things? If the end result of the
pregnancy is a dead baby, why even permit the pregnancy in the first
place? What possible value could this experience offer to anyone other
than to make them miserable as sin, and screw up their body?
It's not like this child is the only case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4419161.stm
reveals that "More basic health care is needed to prevent the deaths of
millions of babies during and soon after birth, the World Health
Organization has said".
Certain clueless fundies like to whine about deaths from abortion, but
you may have noticed that they're as silent as the grave over the
millions and millions of children who die every year before and after
they're born. The reason for their silence is that if they
acknowledged these deaths, they would be simultaneously acknowledging
that no one is to blame for these deaths but "God" himself. As the
above article makes clear, "Half a million women die in childbirth
every year, as do almost 11 million under-fives...".
ELEVEN MILLION UNDER FIVES EVERY YEAR KILLED BY GOD.
Four million of them are in Africa:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/03/11/blair.africa.ap/index.html
So is there a loving god who deliberately lets conception occur,
including the dramatic physical changes that take place in a woman's
body, only to rip it from her when she's at her most vulnerable, or is
there nothing more than nature, which has been, from our
anthropocentric point of view, cruel since it started? Which makes
most sense, the myth or the facts?
104.
Five loaves feed 5,000 and leave 12 baskets of left overs (Mark 8:19)?
Not bloody likely Professor Higgins.
If the Bible writers tell more "stretchers" than Mark Twain, where's
the basis for the blind assumption that they're telling the truth about
magic giants in the sky?
105.
It's not like things get much better even after children survive the
early years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4419709.stm
reveals that "People who are allergic to peanuts may also be at risk of
severe allergy to lupin flour, research suggests."
As Monty Python said, "Hand over your lupins!".
And the Bible lies that we were given every green herb for meat?
How is it that those who believe these god myths never actually examine
them as acutely as they pretend to examine evolution, for example?
They spend hours, even their lives, poring over the
scientifically-established evidence for evolution, nit-picking, because
it's all they can do, but never once do they turn that same sour eye on
their own absurd fables.
So let's do it for them. Why did this god create allergies? Until
humans created chemicals that fight allergy symptoms, there was nothing
but misery, and no purpose whatsoever for it. Worse than that, there
was death. How many people are forced to carry around epinephrine to
use in case of an anaphylactic reaction? Why would a loving god do
this to people? Does this god think it's funny? Does he get his
jollies from deliberately causing misery just to see what humans will
do, in much the same way a kid kicks an ant nest to see what the ants
do?
Talking of ants, that's another allergy waiting to happen. When you
put together all the stinging, venomous, biting and predatory organisms
that plague us, you can't help but see that if you believe in this god,
then you also support Christians being thrown to the lions, because
that behavior is absolutely no different from us being thrown into the
Earth "arena" for this god's entertainment given the way it's
"designed".
Either that or there is no god.
106.
6,000 years since the Earth came into being? The evidence says an
emphatic and repeated no! The same applies to this god, also invented
by the writers of this Bible to explain things the primitives didn't
understand back then.
If the Bible demonstrably tells lies, where's the basis for the blind
assumption that it tells the truth about magical giants in the sky?
107.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4386933.stm
reveals that "UK scientists have developed a new genetically modified
strain of "golden rice", producing more beta-carotene. The human body
converts beta-carotene into vitamin A, and this strain produces around
20 times as much as previous varieties."
Humans improving on something a perfect god supposedly created? Does
that seem likely, or does it seem more likely that nature produced rice
for no other purpose than to propagate rice? This is why neither it
nor any other food is perfectly designed for us, which leaves endless
opportunities open for humans to make it better.
From the article:
"The World Health Organization estimates up to 500,000 children go
blind each year because of vitamin A deficiency."
Some god, huh? Either that or there isn't any god, only a natural
world that's just as blind as those children.
108.
God created the Earth in less than seven days and left no trace of it,
instead producing a universe which looks exactly like it took some 14
billion years to get where it is today? Then this omnipotent god has
to have a *rest*?!!!
If the Bible talks absurdities beyond the realm of the possible and
they fly in the face of the facts, isn't the logical conclusion that
there isn't a being who flies in the face of the facts either?
109.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4355355.stm
"Females are genetically more varied than males, an analysis of the X
chromosome has revealed."
How is this possible if "woman was taken from man" as Genesis 2 lies?
Women are also "...protected from many diseases because of their double
dose of the X chromosome." So what was that again in the Bible about
women suffering because of Eve's transgression?
If it were the other way around, and men had the two X's whereas women
had the X-Y, the fundies would be trumpeting this as proof of the
Genesis claim that woman was taken from man, and is therefore somehow
second-rate. But because it's not that way, they keep their mouths
firmly shut about this "evidence of design".
Now what if these Bible writers were told by a god to write one thing,
but couldn't stand their manhood being impugned, and told precisely the
opposite story? What if Eve was created first and Adam taken from her
(which would make "sense" of DNA)? Believers have no way to refute or
support either position.
The article goes on to say, "A host of nasty diseases and disorders sit
on the human X chromosome, including haemophilia, autism, muscular
dystrophy and mental retardation. But because females have another -
usually healthy - copy of the X chromosome, they are usually shielded
from the full impact of these disorders. Males, on the other hand, who
have nothing to fall back on, are forced to fully express their faulty
genes."
And this system was *designed* by a *god*? I don't think so. It was
"designed" by evolution and the god was designed later, by
scientifically ignorant Bible scribes.
In the same vein:
God made made estrogen critical to the human female's existence. It
regulates areas of the brain that prepare the body for reproduction.
It programs glands to produce milk, although of course, these sometimes
distressfully fail to function adequately or even at all, even though
god designed them and saw that they were good.
According to Scientific American (Oct 1998), estrogen helps regulate
production of cholesterol by the liver. Cholesterol is essential to
bodily function, but can also contribute to atherosclerosis and heart
failure if not regulated. Estrogen programs the uterus to nourish a
fetus, and it also maintains bone density.
So what's the problem? Well this same wonderful substance promotes
breast cancer, and cancer of the uterine lining. When it starts
turning off, in later life, it also results in calcium depletion of
bones, making women far more susceptible to breaks and fractures than
men.
Once in a while they screw up royally, but for the most part,
pharmaceutical scientists, who lack the infinite wisdom of god, design
working drugs with few or no side-effects. So why is it that fundies
expect us to believe that this supreme being, infinitely wise and
capable, was so incompetent that he couldn't design a non-carcinogenic
substance that fulfilled the functions of estrogen?
You know, if this god really existed, he'd be the defendant in a
class-action suit like you've never seen.
Contrary to fundie claims that this universe exhibits design that
proves a deity, the reality is that this universe exhibits flaws that
prove this god is a complete nincompoop.
Either that or there is no god.
110.
800 men slain by Adino the Eznite (2 Sam 23:8) at one time with one
spear? Seriously, folks! What was that commandment about killing
again...?
If the Bible talks absurdities beyond the realm of the possible, isn't
the logical conclusion that there isn't a being beyond the realm of the
possible?
111.
Talking of bad design, consider the Kakapo:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4384813.stm
"We've lost eggs in the past from birds going a bit crazy trying to
fight off parasites, getting all scratchy and then crushing their
eggs."
Excuse me? These birds, designed from the ground up by a perfect god,
are infested with parasites, also designed by this perfect god, and the
one causes the other so much grief that it can crush its eggs and
thereby kill itself off?
Yeah right. So it looks like either there's a stupid god or none at
all. Which do you think it is?
In the same vein:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4362589.stm
reveals: "There is a beetle that, instead of fleeing like most other
animals when confronted with fire, spreads its wings and flies in
droves straight towards the inferno. In fact, the jewel beetle, or
black fire beetle as it's known in Canada, needs a blazing forest fire
to breed."
Yep. This beetle can only survive if it mates and lays eggs in areas
of forest that have been destroyed by fire. What kind of god *designs*
rampant and random destruction into his divinely planned planet? I'd
suggest it's either a god who is evil to the core and loves death and
destruction, a suggestion which does actually find support in the
Bible, or that there is no god and the jewel beetle's behavior is
nothing but an accident of evolution.
112.
The fifteen-foot long bed owned by giant king Og of Bashan (Deut 3:11).
There has never been any trace whatsoever of giants in the Earth in
those days - or any days. All hominids ever found have been either
smaller than or comparably-sized to us.
If the Bible talks about giants in the Earth and there were none, and
then talks about a god in Heaven, isn't the logical conclusion that
there isn't one of those, either?
113.
The hagfish.
Scientific American of October 1998 had a few things to say about the
hagfish. It's one of the most primitive known fish, and certainly the
most primitive with a cranium. It has no jaw, no bones, and is
basically an eating tube (about 18" long with a biting "dental plate".
There are some 60 species. They're often referred to as slime eels
(although not directly related to the eel, which is a true fish). The
reason for this epithet is that they have a series of 200 special
glands that do nothing but ooze slime on demand, which can be copious,
and which, when mixed with sea water, expands into a disgusting mess.
Hagfish ancestors date back 330 million years and differ little. One
difference is the eye: the ancestor had large, apparently fully
functional eyes. Its descendant has only pale spots over degenerate
eyes. Obviously an evolutionary "choice" reflective of its lifestyle,
which consists of scavenging, mostly on the sea bottom, where sight is
less important than smell. Its "jaws" are so underdeveloped that it
cannot, for example, chomp into whale skin or fish scales, so it has to
eat the dead animal from the inside! There are various routes a
hagfish can take to get to the soft
tissue inside a dead body. The hagfish uses them all.
Occasionally, hermaphrodite hagfish are found. I am sure that we can
all appreciate, along with the fundies, that this is merely a hagfish
choice and that, with prayer, they can be fully cured of their
deliberate decision to adopt this godless and sinful state. Perhaps
they can also be cured of the intriguing condition whereby, in some
species, the females outnumber the males 100 to 1.
In truly primitive fashion, just as the monotremes are not quite
"there" when it comes to being mammals, neither are hagfish quite there
when it comes to being fish. Apart from their cartilaginous
"skeleton", reproductively, they're absurdly primitive. They have no
oviducts, so their eggs are released right into the *abdomen* (from
whence they can be ejected from the body). They make me wonder if Dan
O'Bannon didn't read about hagfish the evening before he dreamed up the
idea for the "Alien" movie!
What does this have to do with a god? Well it sure looks like that god
made some serious errors when building the hagfish. They were given no
bones, no jaws, and weak mouth parts. They had eyes that were not
needed in the first place, and were so badly designed they degenerated.
They also had a gerry-built reproductive system that apparently gets
confused as to gender.
You have to wonder what was going through a god's tiny mind to dream up
something like this, as opposed to what could have been "designed' from
a background of divine love and creativity. Either that or you have to
wonder why so many people believe in such a farcical and despicable
god.
114.
The sun puts out its peak energy in the green/yellow part of the
spectrum, ~550 nanometers =B150, which is the very part that green
plants reflect (and the part to which our own eyes are most
sensitised). Chlorophyll makes best use of energy at the upper end of
the visible spectrum, around 680nm. Now if plants came about through
evolution, you would not expect perfection, only the best that nature
can do. This is what we see.
Creationists, on the other hand, are forced to admit that their supreme
being is a moron who couldn't even get his plants in sync with the peak
energy output from the very star he placed there to nurture them.
Either that, or there is no god.
115.
Did you ever wonder why animals choke far less than humans? It's
because we have language. To facilitate this, our larynx is lower in
our throat than other animals, leading to the opportunity for choking.
Food has to pass over our larynx to reach the opening to our esophagus.
Despite the fact that he supposedly created us from scratch, this god
was apparently such an incompetent designer that he put us,
particularly children, at risk of choking in order to give us speech.
Either that or there is no god.
116.
God hates people who pray.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4432347.stm
reveals that at least 54 people have died in Madhya Pradesh, India, as
a damn was opened to lower water levels, causing a river to rise at
which Hindus were bathing and praying.
Or maybe there isn't a god and this is just an example of human
communication that was lousy to the point of being deadly.
117.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Central/06/15/missing.boy.ap/index.html
reveals the remains of a missing 3-year-old were at last been found.
He vanished when hiking with a church group in 1999. He was attacked
by a mountain lion when he left the group apparently planning to hide,
then jump out and surprise them. He was never seen alive again.
The fact that he was with a church group never saved him, the church
group being more interested apparently in singing the glories of their
god's creation than in protecting children from the nastier aspects of
it.
The endless prayers for his welfare since he disappeared were ignored
by this loving god of the Christians. This god, if he existed, could
have saved the boy but chose to disregard his plight. Of course,
according to the Bible, this god has a history of setting wild animals
on children.
Doubtlessly mindless believers will insist that the god called him
home. The boy's god-soaked father had this comment to make: "I can go
home now, look up to the heavens and be excited that my son is there
instead of looking up to the heavens and questioning where he is."
Apparently his god never saw fit to convey to the grieving family what
he'd done with their 3-year-old.
But these brainless believers are missing the point. If some god had
wanted him home, why did the kid not become transfigured in front of
the whole church group on a hilltop, rising bodily to heaven with a
beatific smile on his face? That ought to have been rather easy for a
god to arrange.
Why was it that this omnipotent god saw fit to call this helpless child
home by means of him going through the sadistic and horrific ordeal of
being attacked and eaten by a wild animal?
You have to look at this and decide that either you will believe in a
psychotic child-abusing god like that, or that the rational,
intelligent interpretation of these events is that nature is nature,
there simply is no god, and you don't have to perform double-jointed
acrobatics in order to try and understand him.
118.
The ten commandments.
Why would a god create a people with free will, and then demand they
follow an almost endless list of rules? There really were far more
than 10 commandments when you add in all of the commands, requirements
and instructions, which no one but the Judaists follow anyway.
Couldn't an omnipotent being, who could create literally everything
from literally nothing, have hard-wired these rules into us?
Or could it be that there is no god, just a bunch of stories that
control-freaks told?
119.
Trinity?
What nonsense. There's only one god but he's really a schizophrenic
three, and one of the three is really his own son, while another is a
ghost? Oh, and let's not forget Mary. Oh no, now there are four! And
the saints....
And this is supposed to be a sublime monotheistic religion? If someone
wrote this trash as fiction today, it wouldn't sell. If they claimed
it was truth, it would sell better, but it wouldn't get anywhere near
the blind "following" that the Bible fiction has, rooted as it is in
primitive ignorance, tradition, cultural coercion and blind,
lack-a-daisical addiction.
So you can swallow this rank nonsense like bad medicine or accept that
it's actually snake oil and toss it out.
Budikka - you too can be an atheist - if you put your mind to it
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
15 Apr 2005 12:30:21 PM |
|
|
On 14 Apr 2005 16:16:17 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119
It's all the hokey-pokey going on in the vast expanses of vacuum in the 6 inches
between bud's ears.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
16 Apr 2005 06:50:59 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 14 Apr 2005 16:16:17 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119
http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
It's all the hokey-pokey going on in the vast expanses
of vacuum in the 6 inches between bud's ears.
The vacuum is in your endless array of cowardly hypocritical lying and
ultimately impotent responses. Well over ONE HUNDRED reasons, and you
can't rebut a single one of them. Some champion for your god you are.
Your comprehensive impotence speaks volumes about the bankruptcy of
your position.
And what did you come up with for a god? Five miserable grade-school
"reasons", all of which you later admitted were nothing but blind
belief, and all of which have been refuted seven ways from sundown?
You're so pathetic it's pathetic.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
16 Apr 2005 07:16:27 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
PUKE LIED:
On 14 Apr 2005 16:16:17 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119
http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
It's all the hokey-pokey going on in the vast expanses
of vacuum in the 6 inches between bud's ears.
The vacuum is in your endless array of cowardly hypocritical lying
and
ultimately impotent responses. Well over ONE HUNDRED reasons, and
you
can't rebut a single one of them.
uh... could it be that no one really cares?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
17 Apr 2005 09:39:17 AM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2005 05:16:27 -0700, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
PUKE LIED:
On 14 Apr 2005 16:16:17 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119
http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
It's all the hokey-pokey going on in the vast expanses
of vacuum in the 6 inches between bud's ears.
The vacuum is in your endless array of cowardly hypocritical lying
and
ultimately impotent responses. Well over ONE HUNDRED reasons, and
you
can't rebut a single one of them.
uh... could it be that no one really cares?
She stole them anyway.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
23 Apr 2005 12:02:05 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
She stole them anyway.
Let's *discuss* that. In a court of law. Whenever you can find the
balls.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
17 Apr 2005 07:26:04 AM |
|
|
jabriol wrote:
uh... could it be that no one really cares?
The responses so far prove you to be lying once again. No surprises
there. The fact that not a single one of those responses could even
attempt a rebuttal proves what a pathetic, fundamentally weak, and
ultimately bankrupt position you're trying to argue from.
It, like you, is that simple.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
17 Apr 2005 08:15:54 AM |
|
|
Well, I never participated in those weak threads.. beacause they were
based on a weak premise to begin with.
here one strong prmise for you.
what does the biogentic law states?
Be quick, before the TO moderator extend the JABfilter to ATC.
Budikka666 wrote:
jabriol wrote:
uh... could it be that no one really cares?
The responses so far prove you to be lying once again. No surprises
there. The fact that not a single one of those responses could even
attempt a rebuttal proves what a pathetic, fundamentally weak, and
ultimately bankrupt position you're trying to argue from.
It, like you, is that simple.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
17 Apr 2005 10:30:07 AM |
|
|
"jabriol@excite.com" <jabriol1@excite.com> wrote in
news:1113743754.470063.73440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Well, I never participated in those weak threads.. beacause they were
based on a weak premise to begin with.
here one strong prmise for you.
what does the biogentic law states?
Yawn.
Be quick, before the TO moderator extend the JABfilter to ATC.
[snip]
I have never seen any evidence of anyone who ever got banned from
t.o. without EXTREME misbehavior on their part. If you with
to participate with at least the _minimum_ level of civility (no
viruses, no spamming, no crossposting to support groups, no use
of multiple sock puppets in an attempt avoid kill files, no
use of multiple sock puppets in an attempt to appear to be
more than one person, etc.) then you will be allowed to freely
post to t.o. It is hard to find of a "moderated" group
that has less moderation than t.o. Indeed many creationists
have no problem posting in t.o.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
....4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
17 Apr 2005 10:14:37 AM |
|
|
From my experience, of course the Gods exist.
Hanuman, seen here on the left...
http://www.redelk.net/website/Welcome%20to%20RedElk.org_files/HomePage_files/TEEPEES_300_05.JPG
Is the God of Homo Sapiens on earth. The S1 type people. The natives.
The original home grown occupants of earth. Descendants from Africa.
He is like a Budhist, in his orientation.
The goal of Budhism, is to free yourself from Samsara.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=samsara
Now the idea, is that your spirit accrues karma, and as you make
mistakes, or break some unknown and some known laws, you have to be
reborn and then make amends and rectify things until you are free of
karma.
Now if you cannot remember living before, then obviously it is not for
you that this system is designed. It is the game of karma, and you are
the player and the played. So man has laws, and man takes resonsibility
to punish transgressions and in that was, a man in society, a civilized
society, should be accountable to the law, and hence the need for karma
is no more, and a sapiens sapiens, should be technically now, free of
the law of karma.
In a perfect world.
The Law, the Torah, for instance, was designed to allow people to live
together in a society, and to pay for their crimes and this sort of
thing.
This S2 concept of good vrs evil, eye for eye, revenge based balancing
of the books, is the domain of Xerxes, the God of the S2s. Now I don't
have a picture of Xerxes, but he looks like a well dressed Italian in a
black suit.
Since this balance lends itself so well to the dualism of computing
with its 1s and 0s, it is as if the system, most of it is automated,
and people in science, who have experiences of enlightenment, and who
try to rationalize their experiences with this form of divinity, often
think that it must be a machine intelligence. They think the universe
is run by a conscious computer etc, because their experience is almost
machine like, in that everything appears to have an opposite effect and
evverything seems to be divided into right or wrong, true or false and
etc.
Now this level here, is the galactic government.
This is where they impose the law of karma on people as well, but for
their own amusement. They justifuy their toying with people, their
manipulations of people, by saying the person deserves it because they
have somehow transgressed and have negative karma. Well the law
enforced by man, is supposed to do away with that, but they see to it,
that the law is not enforced all the time, and not affective enough to
balance the books to their satisfaction because as voyeurs, they want
you to be their toys.
So they impose strict religious dogma, like no hats in church, so that
you will transgress, and then they can with clear conscience toy with
you and manipulate your lives for their amusement.
They are not overly fond of Budhists, because a Budhist will jsut sit
there and not be played. That is no fun for them.
Then above that, you have the S3s, the spaiens spaiens sapiens, and
Zeus the Father figure, is the God of the S3s. Now people have often
confused him with Yahweh, Jehova, etc same God. And even they will try
to say there is only one God, the God of Abraham, and yet by
identifyuing him as the God of Abraham, they are admitting in the same
sentence, no don't confuse him with the other Gods, he is the God of
Abraham, that one, he is the only true God and etc.
So what they are saying is hey, we prefer that God, the God of the S3s,
why should we be subjected to this karma law when we have the law and
we are adhering to it. And they try, with such things as fish on
Fridays and bobbing their heads, and spinning around and bowing here
and there etc.
Sadly all to no avail. But they may curry some favor if they pray and
whatever.
Here is Zeus.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/lgviewzeus.jpg
(Before I compressed it in real or rm format into a video, it looked
far clearer)
At any rate, Zeus, is the loving forgiving father and he is the head of
the Universal government, and so where does his rulership show itself,
in your conscience.
You will feel guilty, you will have a guilty conscience and you will
feel as if you have done wrong. You may need to be an S3, with a proper
understanding of morals and ethics as your spirit has evolved over the
ages, and your knowledge of God and the Gods and how these things work,
tends to assist with that knowing of what is good moral or god ethical
behaviour. It may not be in accordance with the S1 or S2 so called laws
which govern behaviour.
You can look at these three levels of civilization reflected in the
world, with native Africa, or in the jungle it is survival of the
fittest. In the Middle East it is like an Eye for Eye, often you see
acts of revenge. In the modern world you see organized government
rehavbilitation programs, councilling and supposedly, the movement away
from capital punishment. Although all three levels of civbilization
have adherents of all three civilizations mixed in them, as the entire
world is a melting pot of a sort.
The three types of man, the three ages of man, in spiritual development
on earth, travel to all geographic areas, but their nature remains the
same. George W. for instance as Governor of Texas, liked to flip that
switch and exact revenge on criminals. He is a strong proponent of
capital punishment.
He believes in S2 things, because he is of course, an S2.
And there are many Gods, and at the very top, sits the Lord King High
God of the Universe, Zeus's God, and even this God, believes that he
also, has a God above him.
But rarely would the Lord King High God, intervene, he may give a
sentence, every few years, such as "Life is not a for sale commodity"
meaning you didn't pay kazoolas in some alien amusement park to get
born here.
That sort of answer to difficult questions.
When you are bothered by the Gods, that is a real pain. But they are
Gods, and man is just a tiny creature. But if they actually spend time
on you even if it seems like punishment, then they must care enough to
at least interact with you, and as such you get a feeling of security
and belonging and other than that, the universe might seem like a very
dark, and in-hospitable scary place.
And to top it all off, you have arch angels and angels, most of which
are S2 angels. The arch angels who are the real governors of the earth.
They are the commanders. The hands on straw bosses as it were, there
are two main ones, and they are most defineltly, S2s.
One is republican in orientation, and one is a democrat.
And they are the ones who make the decisions. The Gods may intervene at
any time, but the day to day business of running governments and the
world, is done by them. The policies in effect today in the world, are
their policies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
17 Apr 2005 09:38:50 AM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2005 04:50:59 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
And what did you come up with for a god? Five miserable grade-school
"reasons", all of which you later admitted were nothing but blind
belief, and all of which have been refuted seven ways from sundown?
You're so pathetic it's pathetic.
Later admitted?
It's called "Evidences for God". And all 5 are real that anyone can relate to.
Anyone but you of course.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
18 Apr 2005 05:10:22 AM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
On 16 Apr 2005 04:50:59 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
And what did you come up with for a god? Five miserable
grade-school
"reasons", all of which you later admitted were nothing but blind
belief, and all of which have been refuted seven ways from sundown?
You're so pathetic it's pathetic.
Later admitted?
http://tinyurl.com/862ks
Thread: The Inquisition
News groups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.atheism
Date: June 12th 2004 9:52am
You list the five "evidences" and state in each case that they are
nothing but a belief.
So, once again for the congenitally moronic: your own personal belief
in a myth does not constitute evidence for the reality of the myth.
So, let's tally that up:
You: five "evidences" that have been addressed and rebutted by me alone
on several occasions and completely trashed, and also rebutted by
others, and which you finally were forced to admit were only beliefs.
Me: 100+ items of fact which call your myth into serious question and
from which you and every other believer have run away, and which you
haven't even dared to *attempt* a rebuttal due to your cowardice,
hypocrisy, endlessly exposed lies, and intellectual bankruptcy.
You lose. It, like you, is that simple.
Budikka - you too can be an atheist - if you put your mind to it
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
19 Apr 2005 05:25:23 AM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2005 03:10:22 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Later admitted?
http://tinyurl.com/862ks
Thread: The Inquisition
News groups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.atheism
Date: June 12th 2004 9:52am
You list the five "evidences" and state in each case that they are
nothing but a belief.
So, once again for the congenitally moronic: your own personal belief
in a myth does not constitute evidence for the reality of the myth.
So, let's tally that up:
You: five "evidences" that have been addressed and rebutted by me alone
on several occasions and completely trashed, and also rebutted by
others, and which you finally were forced to admit were only beliefs.
Me: 100+ items of fact which call your myth into serious question and
from which you and every other believer have run away, and which you
haven't even dared to *attempt* a rebuttal due to your cowardice,
hypocrisy, endlessly exposed lies, and intellectual bankruptcy.
You lose. It, like you, is that simple.
Budikka - you too can be an atheist - if you put your mind to it
You still don't understand what evidence is, do you?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
20 Apr 2005 06:27:09 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
You still don't understand what evidence is, do you?
Well, let's look at that, shall we, and highlight yet again what a
colossal ignoramus you truly are. Here's the definition you gave on
May 1st 2004 in thread "Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of
Heb 8:7-13?":
"Evidence is that which compels one to draw a conclusion"
But this is not the definition of "evidence" it is, instead, the
definition of "Proof", as I've explained to you endlessly. I've
provided dictionary definitions repeatedly. It was only after you
repeatedly, over several weeks, denied the definition I was quoting,
that you actually quoted my own definition back to me.
So yes, I do understand. It is you, as usual, who do not, as I've
repeatedly made clear to you.
But please, do astound us with your erudition and explain, with
support, precisely what it is about your own blind beliefs that make
them valid independent evidence that there is a god? presumably you'll
take into account that I've quoted back to you those same five
evidences **ALMOST EXACTLY** with a minor change here and there, and
coverted them effortlessly into "evidence" against the existence of
this god of yours.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
19 Apr 2005 11:35:28 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<lvm96192d2apqi6eor12iskbjb1fjav7li@4ax.com>...
You still don't understand what evidence is, do you?
Did you take lessons to become this obtuse?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
19 Apr 2005 08:47:37 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<lvm96192d2apqi6eor12iskbjb1fjav7li@4ax.com>...
You still don't understand what evidence is, do you?
Did you take lessons to become this obtuse?
I think he came by it naturally.
If you dig far enough back there was a time when he admitted opinions were
not evidence but he reufeses to admit his opinions are not evidence.
I've missed most of this thread so if he again offered his poor man's
version og the argument from cause along with his "science" I guess it's
time to re-post this.
""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."
(claimed copyright by Duke, probably plagerized)
Again I point out that the blood is not a fluid transfer system. The
circulatory system is the fluid transfer system and blood in the fluid that
is transferred.
The stomach and intestines are not energy conversion units they are exchange
systems. The difference between the two concepts would be known to an
engineer.
The lungs are not an oxygen transfer system, they are a gas exchange
system. The blood does the transfer. If they just exchanged oxygen life
would not exist as we know it. They exchange all gasses, which is an example
of crappy design. They should just exchange CO2 and O2 blocking the rest.
Body salinity varies and in general is not the same as sea water. The
salinity
of blood is 0.9% ,average salinity of the ocean is 3.5% and varies from
ocean to ocean.
"exactly correct" shows a lack of knowledge about transmissions of
electricity and the whole phrase seems to ignore the chemical side of such
transmissions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
20 Apr 2005 06:29:13 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
James wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<lvm96192d2apqi6eor12iskbjb1fjav7li@4ax.com>...
You still don't understand what evidence is, do you?
Did you take lessons to become this obtuse?
I think he came by it naturally.
If you dig far enough back there was a time when he admitted opinions
were
not evidence but he reufeses to admit his opinions are not evidence.
I've missed most of this thread so if he again offered his poor man's
version og the argument from cause along with his "science" I guess
it's
time to re-post this.
""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."
(claimed copyright by Duke, probably plagerized)
Again I point out that the blood is not a fluid transfer system. The
circulatory system is the fluid transfer system and blood in the
fluid that
is transferred.
The stomach and intestines are not energy conversion units they are
exchange
systems. The difference between the two concepts would be known to
an
engineer.
The lungs are not an oxygen transfer system, they are a gas exchange
system. The blood does the transfer. If they just exchanged oxygen
life
would not exist as we know it. They exchange all gasses, which is an
example
of crappy design. They should just exchange CO2 and O2 blocking the
rest.
Body salinity varies and in general is not the same as sea water. The
salinity
of blood is 0.9% ,average salinity of the ocean is 3.5% and varies
from
ocean to ocean.
"exactly correct" shows a lack of knowledge about transmissions of
electricity and the whole phrase seems to ignore the chemical side of
such
transmissions.
Mike, I don't see how you can claim that *any* of this proves there
wasn't a flood.... ;)
B.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
21 Apr 2005 11:56:33 AM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2005 09:35:28 -0700, (James) wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<lvm96192d2apqi6eor12iskbjb1fjav7li@4ax.com>...
You still don't understand what evidence is, do you?
Did you take lessons to become this obtuse?
Forget obtuse. Bud doesn't know what evidence is much less obtuse.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
21 Apr 2005 02:48:29 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5pmf61pkh16l7j8coh1nov5nkhl4vvm80m@4ax.com...
On 19 Apr 2005 09:35:28 -0700, (James) wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<lvm96192d2apqi6eor12iskbjb1fjav7li@4ax.com>...
You still don't understand what evidence is, do you?
Did you take lessons to become this obtuse?
Forget obtuse. Bud doesn't know what evidence is much less obtuse.
duke
No, you worthless piece of *****, "Bud" had nothing to do with that
statement. Is that the best you can do, you lying piece of garbage? Try
again, Puke, and you'll still be the same worthless SOB you've always been.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
22 Apr 2005 04:23:34 PM |
|
|
PUKE LIED:
Bud doesn't know what evidence is much less obtuse.
LoL! You keep telling 'em, we'll keep laughing our asses off.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There Isn't a God - Parts 100-119 |
19 Apr 2005 04:10:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:35:28 -0500, James wrote
(in article <138bee8.0504190835.7fdc1b6a@posting.google.com>):
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<lvm96192d2apqi6eor12iskbjb1fjav7li@4ax.com>...
You still don't understand what evidence is, do you?
Did you take lessons to become this obtuse?
Yes, yes he did, and it only cost him his mind, his honor, and his
self-respect.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
Donšt forget your Decoder Weasel
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
