Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM |
| Object: |
Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 08:23:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:09:50 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:39:08 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:24:58 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:6o5qf39lu0fqfq7utperr0ssev6b718c3o@4ax.com:
He's not insane because he is a believer. Plenty of people believe and
have the intelligence and courtesy to keep their god-talk where it is
appropriate, and not to invent slanderous "reasons" why people react
negatively when god-talk is inappropriate.
How is god-talk inappropriate in alt.bible?
You know better, David: alt.religion.Christian, alt.education,
alt.bible and alt.atheism. That just means that Christopher is
correct - you're a liar.
Calling someone with whom he disagrees with a _liar_ is Christopher's
most prevalent argument against theist. Once this "strategy" is
understood and confronted he is disarmed.
Do try to keep up, Dan, otherwise you look stupid, responding to
things never said like that.
It was just an oservation.
Of something that was never said. You're seeing things.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 10:27:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:08:36 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:39:08 -0400, Danwood <noreply@noreply.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:24:58 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:6o5qf39lu0fqfq7utperr0ssev6b718c3o@4ax.com:
He's not insane because he is a believer. Plenty of people believe and
have the intelligence and courtesy to keep their god-talk where it is
appropriate, and not to invent slanderous "reasons" why people react
negatively when god-talk is inappropriate.
How is god-talk inappropriate in alt.bible?
You know better, David: alt.religion.Christian, alt.education,
alt.bible and alt.atheism. That just means that Christopher is
correct - you're a liar.
Calling someone with whom he disagrees with a _liar_ is Christopher's
most prevalent argument against theist. Once this "strategy" is
understood and confronted he is disarmed.
Do try to keep up, Dan, otherwise you look stupid, responding to
things never said like that.
He's looked stupid for a long time. Like most of them he imagines he
is called a liar for his god beliefs instead of the personal slanders
which are his stock in trade.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Sep 2007 09:58:49 AM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190908909.774561.223590@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 4:10 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190788975.481918.41340@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 26, 12:01 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190595687.758362.217000@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 24, 2:09 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:28:38 GMT, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:20:08 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190431800.577049.32660@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
Christopher Lee is, in fact, wrong. Atheists do have a
bias. We have a bias in favour of reality over fantasy.
No, you have a bias in favour of insisting that God does not
exist
No, only in insisting that if you claim it DOES objectively
exist, that you post objective evidence of that objective
existence. So far no one has.
In theists' minds they're exempt from this - just as they're
exempt from having the courtesy not to talk about it as though
it were real to those outside their religion.
Your idea of courtesy does not match theirs, and in our
society, they are the majority culture which largely determines
societal norms.
Argument from numbers. If most people are insane then the sane
man is considered insane but IS he really insane or is it
everybody else?
You guys would be insane no matter how many of you there were.
You're insane because you have the delusion that you can bully
your way into other people's belief systems with bluster and loud
opinion rather than reason and actual evidence. Typical fundy
behaviour!
Only Christians like yourself consider people with a clear grasp of
reality insane.
Only atheist fundies like yourself consider Christians to not have a
clear grasp of realit. You're insane and don't even know it.
I see. You believe that people who don't share your delusions are
insane, do you? That's sick.
I never said that.
"atheist fundies like yourself [...] You're insane"
You didn't say that?
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I believe in
God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane if by
"insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you are
delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no other reason
than because it pleases you to believe such things.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in
which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have
developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological
necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1932): A
Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact
that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo (1905)
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 07:28:02 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190908909.774561.223590@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 27, 4:10 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190788975.481918.41340@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 26, 12:01 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190595687.758362.217000@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 24, 2:09 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:28:38 GMT, Al Klein
<ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:20:08 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190431800.577049.32660@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
Christopher Lee is, in fact, wrong. Atheists do have a
bias. We have a bias in favour of reality over fantasy.
No, you have a bias in favour of insisting that God does
not exist
No, only in insisting that if you claim it DOES
objectively exist, that you post objective evidence of
that objective existence. So far no one has.
In theists' minds they're exempt from this - just as
they're exempt from having the courtesy not to talk about
it as though it were real to those outside their religion.
Your idea of courtesy does not match theirs, and in our
society, they are the majority culture which largely
determines societal norms.
Argument from numbers. If most people are insane then the
sane man is considered insane but IS he really insane or is
it everybody else?
You guys would be insane no matter how many of you there were.
You're insane because you have the delusion that you can bully
your way into other people's belief systems with bluster and
loud opinion rather than reason and actual evidence. Typical
fundy behaviour!
Only Christians like yourself consider people with a clear grasp
of reality insane.
Only atheist fundies like yourself consider Christians to not have
a clear grasp of realit. You're insane and don't even know it.
I see. You believe that people who don't share your delusions are
insane, do you? That's sick.
I never said that.
"atheist fundies like yourself [...] You're insane"
You didn't say that?
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I believe
in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane if by
"insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you are
delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no other reason
than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint. The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I think
you are insane. I think you are insane because you think that anyone who
DOES believe in God is.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in
which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have
developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological
necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1932): A
Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact
that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo (1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an "authority" and
that settles the matter? By the way, I read Freud before you were born,
probably.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 09:48:00 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane without a shred of real evidence other
than the fact that I believe in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane if by
"insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you are
delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no other reason
than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing viewpoint.
No, it's that fundy intolerance of accepting someone's unsupported
delusions over reality. Which of course is the very definition of
fundamentalism: strict adherence to reality.
The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I think you are insane. I think
you are insane because you think that anyone who DOES believe in God is.
So in your professional opinion, people who believe in supernatural
beings for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence fit your
definition of 'sane.' And atheists, who reject those delusions based
on the complete lack of objective, verifiable evidence, are the insane
fundamentalists.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in
which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have
developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological
necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1932): A
Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
Well. Can't argue with that. Or, wait, maybe we can, since you have
no objective, verifiable evidence for your delusions, and the quote
refutes your claim.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact
that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo (1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an "authority" and that settles the matter?
Unless you've got something better. Do you? What are your
qualifications that anyone should accept your assessment of Freud as a
"quack"?
By the way, I read Freud before you were born, probably.
So?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 10:19:37 PM |
|
|
JessHC <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in
news:1191250080.247587.277760@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane without a shred
of real evidence other than the fact that I believe in God are
insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane if
by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you are
delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no other
reason than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint.
No, it's that fundy intolerance of accepting someone's unsupported
delusions over reality. Which of course is the very definition of
fundamentalism: strict adherence to reality.
The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I think you are
insane. I think you are insane because you think that anyone who
DOES believe in God is.
So in your professional opinion, people who believe in supernatural
beings for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence fit your
definition of 'sane.' And atheists, who reject those delusions based
on the complete lack of objective, verifiable evidence, are the insane
fundamentalists.
Atheists who reject all the evidence for such "delusions" and then claim
that anyone proferring such evidence is either lying or insane, are, in
fact acting in a manner not sane.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in
which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have
developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological
necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1932):
A Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
Well. Can't argue with that. Or, wait, maybe we can, since you have
no objective, verifiable evidence for your delusions, and the quote
refutes your claim.
Blah blah blah.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact
that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo (1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an "authority"
and that settles the matter?
Unless you've got something better. Do you? What are your
qualifications that anyone should accept your assessment of Freud as a
"quack"?
Oh, gee, try reading ANY psychologist from Jung onward to see why Freud
had much of it wrong.
By the way, I read Freud before you were born, probably.
So?
So, I'm not stating this out of ignorance.
But then, as a defender of some of the most rabid nutjobs on the
internet, you probably know something about pathological behaviour. What
I cannot fathom is why you're so fond of supporting those who indulge it.
You see, it's no their atheism that's got me going, it's their utterly
incompetent social skills. Anyone with the idea that nobody can express
disagreement with them in a public forum without being a liar or insane
is INSANE. Period. That is to say they have totally unrealistic
expectations about real people.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 03:45:59 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 11:19 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote innews:1191250080.247587.277760@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane without a shred
of real evidence other than the fact that I believe in God are
insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane if
by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you are
delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no other
reason than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint.
No, it's that fundy intolerance of accepting someone's unsupported
delusions over reality. Which of course is the very definition of
fundamentalism: strict adherence to reality.
The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I think you are
insane. I think you are insane because you think that anyone who
DOES believe in God is.
So in your professional opinion, people who believe in supernatural
beings for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence fit your
definition of 'sane.' And atheists, who reject those delusions based
on the complete lack of objective, verifiable evidence, are the insane
fundamentalists.
Atheists who reject all the evidence for such "delusions"
There IS no eveidence for your delusions. You've been asked
repeatively to put up your evidence or shut up but you still talk
about your delusions as if they were real.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 02:43:25 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191314759.150916.232020@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 11:19 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191250080.247587.277760@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane without a
shred of real evidence other than the fact that I believe in
God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane
if by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you
are delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no
other reason than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint.
No, it's that fundy intolerance of accepting someone's unsupported
delusions over reality. Which of course is the very definition of
fundamentalism: strict adherence to reality.
The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I think you are
insane. I think you are insane because you think that anyone who
DOES believe in God is.
So in your professional opinion, people who believe in supernatural
beings for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence fit
your definition of 'sane.' And atheists, who reject those
delusions based on the complete lack of objective, verifiable
evidence, are the insane fundamentalists.
Atheists who reject all the evidence for such "delusions"
There IS no eveidence for your delusions. You've been asked
repeatively to put up your evidence or shut up but you still talk
about your delusions as if they were real.
Actually, I was not EVER "asked." It was DEMANDED that I do so or be
deemed a liar and I declined. Well deem away. Your lies will only cause
YOU to be a liar. They can have no effect on me or my character because
they ARE lies.
Besides, you won't accept any evidence no matter how cogent, so why
bother?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 09:56:09 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 3:43 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191314759.150916.232020@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 11:19 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
JessHC <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote
innews:1191250080.247587.277760@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane without a
shred of real evidence other than the fact that I believe in
God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane
if by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you
are delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no
other reason than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint.
No, it's that fundy intolerance of accepting someone's unsupported
delusions over reality. Which of course is the very definition of
fundamentalism: strict adherence to reality.
The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I think you are
insane. I think you are insane because you think that anyone who
DOES believe in God is.
So in your professional opinion, people who believe in supernatural
beings for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence fit
your definition of 'sane.' And atheists, who reject those
delusions based on the complete lack of objective, verifiable
evidence, are the insane fundamentalists.
Atheists who reject all the evidence for such "delusions"
There IS no eveidence for your delusions. You've been asked
repeatively to put up your evidence or shut up but you still talk
about your delusions as if they were real.
Actually, I was not EVER "asked." It was DEMANDED
Put up or shut up. That's as nice a request as you're going to get
from us.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 12:06:06 AM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 8:28 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I believe
in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane if by
"insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you are
delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no other reason
than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint. The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I think
you are insane. I think you are insane because you think that anyone who
DOES believe in God is.
I'm not the one who believes in imaginary gods. You are.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in
which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have
developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological
necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1932): A
Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
"They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical psychologist
would agree with their assessment."
So was he dishonest or was he not a clinical psychologist in your
opinion? Which is it?
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact
that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo (1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an "authority" and
that settles the matter? By the way, I read Freud before you were born,
probably.
Obviously you didn't read him for comprehension.
And, yes, the father of psychoanalysis was an authority on clinical
psychology.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
01 Oct 2007 10:15:25 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1191215166.521827.61090@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 8:28 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I
believe in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane if
by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you are
delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no other
reason than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint. The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I
think you are insane. I think you are insane because you think that
anyone who DOES believe in God is.
I'm not the one who believes in imaginary gods. You are.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in
which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have
developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological
necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1932):
A Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
"They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical psychologist
would agree with their assessment."
So was he dishonest or was he not a clinical psychologist in your
opinion? Which is it?
He was not a clinical psychologist.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact
that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo (1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an "authority"
and that settles the matter? By the way, I read Freud before you
were born, probably.
Obviously you didn't read him for comprehension.
This coming from the atheist ratpack of illiterates.
And, yes, the father of psychoanalysis was an authority on clinical
psychology.
Actually not a very good one.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Oct 2007 03:44:39 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 11:15 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1191215166.521827.61090@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 8:28 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I
believe in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane if
by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you are
delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no other
reason than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint. The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I
think you are insane. I think you are insane because you think that
anyone who DOES believe in God is.
I'm not the one who believes in imaginary gods. You are.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in
which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have
developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological
necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1932):
A Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
"They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical psychologist
would agree with their assessment."
So was he dishonest or was he not a clinical psychologist in your
opinion? Which is it?
He was not a clinical psychologist.
Yes, he was. He was the father of psychotherapy. As usual, you are
trying to rewrite the past.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact
that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo (1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an "authority"
and that settles the matter? By the way, I read Freud before you
were born, probably.
Obviously you didn't read him for comprehension.
This coming from the atheist ratpack of illiterates.
No, it's coming from me.
And, yes, the father of psychoanalysis was an authority on clinical
psychology.
Actually not a very good one.
He correctly diagnosed your illness. That's pretty impressive.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 02:41:44 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191314679.119374.83010@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 11:15 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191215166.521827.61090@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 8:28 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I
believe in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane
if by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you
are delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no
other reason than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint. The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I
think you are insane. I think you are insane because you think
that anyone who DOES believe in God is.
I'm not the one who believes in imaginary gods. You are.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world,
in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we
have developed inside us as a result of biological and
psychological necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
(1932): A Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
"They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment."
So was he dishonest or was he not a clinical psychologist in your
opinion? Which is it?
He was not a clinical psychologist.
Yes, he was. He was the father of psychotherapy. As usual, you are
trying to rewrite the past.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the
fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo
(1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an
"authority" and that settles the matter? By the way, I read Freud
before you were born, probably.
Obviously you didn't read him for comprehension.
This coming from the atheist ratpack of illiterates.
No, it's coming from me.
And, yes, the father of psychoanalysis was an authority on clinical
psychology.
Actually not a very good one.
He correctly diagnosed your illness. That's pretty impressive.
Especially since the quack never saw me and never knew me.
But then, hey, atheism confers psychic powers, don'tcha know!
Wanna buy a bridge?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
04 Oct 2007 09:53:44 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 3:41 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191314679.119374.83010@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 11:15 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191215166.521827.61090@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 8:28 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I
believe in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are insane
if by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very least you
are delusional, believing inthings which do not exist for no
other reason than because it pleases you to believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any differing
viewpoint. The fact that you do NOT believe in God is not why I
think you are insane. I think you are insane because you think
that anyone who DOES believe in God is.
I'm not the one who believes in imaginary gods. You are.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world,
in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we
have developed inside us as a result of biological and
psychological necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
(1932): A Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
"They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment."
So was he dishonest or was he not a clinical psychologist in your
opinion? Which is it?
He was not a clinical psychologist.
Yes, he was. He was the father of psychotherapy. As usual, you are
trying to rewrite the past.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the
fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo
(1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an
"authority" and that settles the matter? By the way, I read Freud
before you were born, probably.
Obviously you didn't read him for comprehension.
This coming from the atheist ratpack of illiterates.
No, it's coming from me.
And, yes, the father of psychoanalysis was an authority on clinical
psychology.
Actually not a very good one.
He correctly diagnosed your illness. That's pretty impressive.
Especially since the quack never saw me and never knew me.
Do you honestly think you are the only person who has ever suffered
from religious delusion?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 02:37:08 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191509624.671771.298200@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:41 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191314679.119374.83010@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 11:15 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191215166.521827.61090@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 8:28 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I
believe in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are
insane if by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very
least you are delusional, believing inthings which do not
exist for no other reason than because it pleases you to
believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any
differing viewpoint. The fact that you do NOT believe in God
is not why I think you are insane. I think you are insane
because you think that anyone who DOES believe in God is.
I'm not the one who believes in imaginary gods. You are.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory
world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world,
which we have developed inside us as a result of biological
and psychological necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
(1932): A Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
"They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment."
So was he dishonest or was he not a clinical psychologist in
your opinion? Which is it?
He was not a clinical psychologist.
Yes, he was. He was the father of psychotherapy. As usual, you
are trying to rewrite the past.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the
fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo
(1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an
"authority" and that settles the matter? By the way, I read
Freud before you were born, probably.
Obviously you didn't read him for comprehension.
This coming from the atheist ratpack of illiterates.
No, it's coming from me.
And, yes, the father of psychoanalysis was an authority on
clinical psychology.
Actually not a very good one.
He correctly diagnosed your illness. That's pretty impressive.
Especially since the quack never saw me and never knew me.
Do you honestly think you are the only person who has ever suffered
from religious delusion?
Do you honestly think every lie you tell is believed by everyone you tell
them to?
Or that you are the only person who was ever deluded into believing God
does not exist?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
05 Oct 2007 08:26:13 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 3:37 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1191509624.671771.298200@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 4, 3:41 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191314679.119374.83010@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 2, 11:15 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191215166.521827.61090@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 1, 8:28 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190991529.941557.174810@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
I believe that people who insist that I'm insane
without a shred of real evidence other than the fact that I
believe in God are insane.
The fact that you believe in God IS evidence that you are
insane if by "insane" we simply mean "not sane". At the very
least you are delusional, believing inthings which do not
exist for no other reason than because it pleases you to
believe such things.
See, there it is again. That fundy intolerance of any
differing viewpoint. The fact that you do NOT believe in God
is not why I think you are insane. I think you are insane
because you think that anyone who DOES believe in God is.
I'm not the one who believes in imaginary gods. You are.
They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment.
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory
world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world,
which we have developed inside us as a result of biological
and psychological necessities."
Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
(1932): A Philosophy of Life (Lecture 35)
And Freud was wrong.
"They're even insane to expect that any honest clinical
psychologist would agree with their assessment."
So was he dishonest or was he not a clinical psychologist in
your opinion? Which is it?
He was not a clinical psychologist.
Yes, he was. He was the father of psychotherapy. As usual, you
are trying to rewrite the past.
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the
fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
Sigmund Freud, ibid.
"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father."
Sigmund Freud, Complete Psychological Works, Totem and Taboo
(1905)
So you cite the world's original quack psychologist as an
"authority" and that settles the matter? By the way, I read
Freud before you were born, probably.
Obviously you didn't read him for comprehension.
This coming from the atheist ratpack of illiterates.
No, it's coming from me.
And, yes, the father of psychoanalysis was an authority on
clinical psychology.
Actually not a very good one.
He correctly diagnosed your illness. That's pretty impressive.
Especially since the quack never saw me and never knew me.
Do you honestly think you are the only person who has ever suffered
from religious delusion?
Do you honestly think every lie you tell is believed by everyone you tell
them to?
No, of course not. I don't tell lies so I don't tell lies that I
expect any one to believe. That question really should be addressed
to yourself, you lying piece of *****.
Or that you are the only person who was ever deluded into believing God
does not exist?
Accepting reality is not a "delusion".
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
23 Sep 2007 11:24:14 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your idea of courtesy does not match theirs, and in our society, they
are the majority culture which largely determines societal norms.
Argument from numbers.
For normalcy, yes. That which is normal in China might be quite
abnormal in the US and vice versa. Numbers define normal.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
24 Sep 2007 02:25:56 AM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 12:24 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your idea of courtesy does not match theirs, and in our society, they
are the majority culture which largely determines societal norms.
Argument from numbers.
For normalcy, yes. That which is normal in China might be quite
abnormal in the US and vice versa. Numbers define normal.
But numbers don't define what is true. If you want to present
evidence to support an argument you choose to make then pointing out
the number of people who agree with you is not going to cut it.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
24 Sep 2007 04:53:43 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:24 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your idea of courtesy does not match theirs, and in our society, they
are the majority culture which largely determines societal norms.
Argument from numbers.
For normalcy, yes. That which is normal in China might be quite
abnormal in the US and vice versa. Numbers define normal.
But numbers don't define what is true.
"Courtesy" is not a truth-functional matter. It is a cultural choice.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
24 Sep 2007 06:31:31 AM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 5:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:24 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your idea of courtesy does not match theirs, and in our society, they
are the majority culture which largely determines societal norms.
Argument from numbers.
For normalcy, yes. That which is normal in China might be quite
abnormal in the US and vice versa. Numbers define normal.
But numbers don't define what is true.
"Courtesy" is not a truth-functional matter. It is a cultural choice.
And Nazis have a different definition of courtesy than I do. So?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
24 Sep 2007 06:41:32 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 24, 5:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:24 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your idea of courtesy does not match theirs, and in our society, they
are the majority culture which largely determines societal norms.
Argument from numbers.
For normalcy, yes. That which is normal in China might be quite
abnormal in the US and vice versa. Numbers define normal.
But numbers don't define what is true.
"Courtesy" is not a truth-functional matter. It is a cultural choice.
And Nazis have a different definition of courtesy than I do. So?
In Germany in 1944, their version of courtesy would have won. In 2007
America, there are few standards of courtesy, and most are situation
dependent. The primary standards of courtesy on Usenet are contained
in FAQs that most people do not read, since in fact they don't realize
that Usenet is anything distinct from any other website. And in any
event those standards were never other than voluntary, so the only
real standard of courtesy is not to violate your ISP's terms of
service (or don't get caught doing so).
If these standards don't suit you, there are plenty of other media
that one can choose to frequent. Unlike Nazi Germany, you can walk
away if you dissent.
But your aggressive tactics are no more likely to win than the Nazis
were, and then only if you use *all* the Nazi methods.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
21 Sep 2007 01:53:33 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:45:52 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:50:29 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190254420.768829.51990@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Stop lying. You claimed that there was no evidence that Jesus didn't
exist when in reality ALL the evidence points to Jesus being a
complete fairy tale. Jewish historians said nothing about a man named
Jesus who was supposed to have cured the sick, raised the dead and fed
the multitude. Go figure.
Wrong. All the evidence only points to an atheist bias on the part of
your sources.
Once again, Oldridge is lying through his teeth. There is no "atheist
bias" outside the deluded fantasies of somebody who can't grasp the
sheer irrelevance of his most cherished beliefs in the real world
outside his religion.
The sources are CHRISTIAN.
And Oldridge knows this.
There seems to be a disconnect here. Phipps above refers to evidence
that "points to Jesus being a complete fairy tale". Then he refers to
Jewish historians saying nothing about Jesus.
Please provide the "Christian sources" for each of these two claims.
I will note that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
indicates that while the Flavian testimony is questioned by many,
there is another reference to Jesus in Josephus's works that most
scholars consider authentic, though some suggest that three words
could have been interpolated later.
At best, one can say that there is evidence, but that the evidence is
contested. I suspect that Dave is correct that most who contest these
sorts of things have an atheist bias.
The problem is that as far as he is concerned
there is no "rest of the world" outside his Christianity.
I have seen no evidence that Dave has any problem of this sort.
Because he believes Christian sources that makes it so
For him, it is so. He has no problem with you disagreeing.
He simply can't cope with anybody outside Christianity because as far
as he is concerned they are inside it and have no say in the matter.
That is a mind-reading claim, since such words have never appeared in
his posts, and it is legitimate for Dave to call you a "liar" if you
claim to be able to read his mind.
lojbab
.
|
|
| |
