🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <XV9od.198656$9b.140406@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:TH7od.198361$9b.92369@edtnps84...
>> In article <Sj0od.175168$df2.60004@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >Its an important distinction.  Many atheists are pretty nasty to those
>> >"narrow-minded theists" as theists can be to dissenters from their faith.
>> >Only those who aren't really sure couldn't really care what your beliefs
>> >are.
>>
>> bullshit.  I am sure and I don't give a crap whether you are or not.  Soft
>> atheism (aka agnosticism) is for the weak.  Oh wait, I just made a
>negative
>> judgement so that must mean I do give a crap, right?  Not hardly. I LIKE
>the
>> fact that most people are stupid and inferior.
>>
>>
>There you go.  Since you obviously view anyone who doesn't share you views
>as being stupid and inferior, you clearly do give a crap.

Wrong.  Anyone who doesn't share my views is either inferior or superior.  But 
nobody is my equal because there is nobody who shares my views because they are 
unique to me, just as yours are unique to you.  

>> Pascal's wager is bunk because it assumes that there is no cost to the
>organism
>> in harboring faith, when in fact it is costing him cognition in his life,
>which
>> he expends until his death, afterwhich there is no compelling evidence
>that his
>> existence will continue..  It's a fool's wager.
>>
>And there is no compelling evidence that his existence won't either. 

Right, which is why logic needs to be used, not evidence.  There is no 
compelling evidence that a person who believes in astrology is wrong about the 
position of stars affecting his behavior any more than there is compelling 
evidence that a person who believes his behavior causes stars to move around is 
wrong.  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.  

If you insist on taking an 'agnostic' position of 'not knowing', just how much 
'not knowing' are you prepared to accept?  Are you prepared to accept that the 
moon might be made of cheese?  Or that you might be able to jump off a bridge 
and fly?  If you are prepared to know that you can't jump off a bridge and fly, 
 and that the moon isn't made of cheese, you're prepared to know that god 
doesn't exist.


> In
>addition, that assumes that cognition takes resources and is finite; in fact
>life-limited.  There is no evidence of that either

the rotting bodies and maggots don't tip you off?  If you want to believe that 
your consciousness is not an emergent property of the activity of material 
neurons in your brain that disintigrate after you die, then you are proving my 
point that agnosticism is a chosen path towards nothing but stupidity.  The 
only benefit of being on that path would be the increased possibility of 
recognizing how useless it is, and choosing a different path.
  

>I see.  I didn't know that  atheism was attached to amorality, and while
>many theists believe that no atheist can be moral, I have always refused to
>accept one is dependent on the other.  Clearly that is not the case for all
>people.
>

Was there something I said that struck you as 'immoral', or are you just 
pontificating for its own sake?

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:8uaod.198673$9b.56834@edtnps84...
> In article <XV9od.198656$9b.140406@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:TH7od.198361$9b.92369@edtnps84...
> >> In article <Sj0od.175168$df2.60004@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >Its an important distinction.  Many atheists are pretty nasty to those
> >> >"narrow-minded theists" as theists can be to dissenters from their
faith.
> >> >Only those who aren't really sure couldn't really care what your
beliefs
> >> >are.
> >>
> >> bullshit.  I am sure and I don't give a crap whether you are or not.
Soft
> >> atheism (aka agnosticism) is for the weak.  Oh wait, I just made a
> >negative
> >> judgement so that must mean I do give a crap, right?  Not hardly. I
LIKE
> >the
> >> fact that most people are stupid and inferior.
> >>
> >>
> >There you go.  Since you obviously view anyone who doesn't share you
views
> >as being stupid and inferior, you clearly do give a crap.
>
> Wrong.  Anyone who doesn't share my views is either inferior or superior.
But
> nobody is my equal because there is nobody who shares my views because
they are
> unique to me, just as yours are unique to you.
>

No, you are wrong again.  Any measurement against another still means that
you do care; iferior, superior or equal.  You need to measure in order to
make the statement in the first place.

> >> Pascal's wager is bunk because it assumes that there is no cost to the
> >organism
> >> in harboring faith, when in fact it is costing him cognition in his
life,
> >which
> >> he expends until his death, afterwhich there is no compelling evidence
> >that his
> >> existence will continue..  It's a fool's wager.
> >>
> >And there is no compelling evidence that his existence won't either.
>
> Right, which is why logic needs to be used, not evidence.  There is no
> compelling evidence that a person who believes in astrology is wrong about
the
> position of stars affecting his behavior any more than there is compelling
> evidence that a person who believes his behavior causes stars to move
around is
> wrong.  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.
>

You're kidding, right?

> If you insist on taking an 'agnostic' position of 'not knowing', just how
much
> 'not knowing' are you prepared to accept?  Are you prepared to accept that
the
> moon might be made of cheese?  Or that you might be able to jump off a
bridge
> and fly?  If you are prepared to know that you can't jump off a bridge and
fly,
>  and that the moon isn't made of cheese, you're prepared to know that god
> doesn't exist.
>
To the contrary.  I can accept things that I can never know.  I can know
whether I can fly or not, and I can know whether the moon is made of green
cheese.  What I can't know is whether God exists or whether He doesn't.
And, as I said, I am more willing to accept that God does exist, than that
God doesn't.  However, the nature of a God is something that escapes me.
Consequently, I don't know.  You believe.  You don't know either.  I'm
simply willing to admit it.

>
> > In
> >addition, that assumes that cognition takes resources and is finite; in
fact
> >life-limited.  There is no evidence of that either
>
> the rotting bodies and maggots don't tip you off?  If you want to believe
that
> your consciousness is not an emergent property of the activity of material
> neurons in your brain that disintigrate after you die, then you are
proving my
> point that agnosticism is a chosen path towards nothing but stupidity.
The
> only benefit of being on that path would be the increased possibility of
> recognizing how useless it is, and choosing a different path.
>

You're missing the point.  If cognition is finite, then it may limit life
itself; which it doesn't.  People die for a variey of reasons.  I have never
heard of anyone dying from overthinking.

Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of brain
activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that some
consciousness originates elsewhere.  Even if you don't believe in a 'soul'
or an afterlife, the body can react at fundamental levels to stimuli at a
greater speed than the brain is capable of sensing, and then processing the
information.  Given that, there is also considerable portions of cognition
which defy any explanation at all.  Most things that are organically-based
have some biological reason for being and are as a result of evolution to
give the organism an advantage.  Also, the amount of information that we
process in a lifetime is not even close to the amount of energy we can
produce (even if the information was stored at the atomic level).  Since
there is so much about cognition that we can't understand, I am not willing
to categorically rule out anything with respect to it.

>
> >I see.  I didn't know that  atheism was attached to amorality, and while
> >many theists believe that no atheist can be moral, I have always refused
to
> >accept one is dependent on the other.  Clearly that is not the case for
all
> >people.
> >
>
> Was there something I said that struck you as 'immoral', or are you just
> pontificating for its own sake?
>
>
Exploiting other people for one's own gain is immoral in my view unless it
is a mutually beneficial arrangement.

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:idaod.198669$9b.184097@edtnps84...
> In article <ZW9od.198658$9b.65378@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:VA8od.198383$9b.141718@edtnps84...
> >> In article <TH7od.198361$9b.92369@edtnps84>,
DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
> >> says...
> >> >
> >>
> >> >>I don't imagine He will care.  But even if He does, a theist has MUCH
> >better
> >> >>odds of winning; ie. better than zero
> >> >
> >> >Pascal's wager is bunk because it assumes that there is no cost to the
> >> organism
> >> >in harboring faith, when in fact it is costing him cognition in his
life,
> >> which
> >> >he expends until his death, afterwhich there is no compelling evidence
> >that
> >> his
> >> >existence will continue..  It's a fool's wager.
> >> >
> >>
> >> To put this in perspective, there is no behavioral difference between
> >engaging
> >> in Pascal's wager, and engaging in an OCD ritual (obsessive-compulsive
> >> disorder).
> >>
> >
> >I suggest you read the definition of OCD then.
> >
> >
>
> I suggest you find an argument, smokeblower
>
I don't argue with anyone who doesn't understand the definitions about wht
they are arguing about.  The last satement in the above thread indicates why
I don't even bother to look for an arguement on that one.

In article <V_aod.198691$9b.145742@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:idaod.198669$9b.184097@edtnps84...
>> In article <ZW9od.198658$9b.65378@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:VA8od.198383$9b.141718@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <TH7od.198361$9b.92369@edtnps84>,
>DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >>I don't imagine He will care.  But even if He does, a theist has MUCH
>> >better
>> >> >>odds of winning; ie. better than zero
>> >> >
>> >> >Pascal's wager is bunk because it assumes that there is no cost to the
>> >> organism
>> >> >in harboring faith, when in fact it is costing him cognition in his
>life,
>> >> which
>> >> >he expends until his death, afterwhich there is no compelling evidence
>> >that
>> >> his
>> >> >existence will continue..  It's a fool's wager.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> To put this in perspective, there is no behavioral difference between
>> >engaging
>> >> in Pascal's wager, and engaging in an OCD ritual (obsessive-compulsive
>> >> disorder).
>> >>
>> >
>> >I suggest you read the definition of OCD then.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I suggest you find an argument, smokeblower
>>
>I don't argue with anyone who doesn't understand the definitions about wht
>they are arguing about. 

you've just made an argument - that I don't understand the definitions of what 
I'm talking about.  You've neither demonstrated the veracity of that argument, 
nor have you provided any indication that you understand the definitions of 
what I'm talking about.  If you don't understand the definitions of the words 
I'm using, how could you know that I don't understand them?

What a stupid bunch of posts we have here. I don't think I've ever read such 
stupid nonsense. You all must have a pile of time on your hands to argue who 
the bigger idiot is.


"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message 
news:yAcod.198749$9b.198334@edtnps84...
> In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>>
>>
>>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>>news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
>>> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> >There you go.  Since you obviously view anyone who doesn't share you
>>> >views
>>> >> >as being stupid and inferior, you clearly do give a crap.
>>> >>
>>> >> Wrong.  Anyone who doesn't share my views is either inferior or
>>superior.
>>> >But
>>> >> nobody is my equal because there is nobody who shares my views 
>>> >> because
>>> >they are
>>> >> unique to me, just as yours are unique to you.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >No, you are wrong again.  Any measurement against another still means
>>that
>>> >you do care;
>>>
>>> Oh I see, you're attempting to portray my caring about my survival as a
>>> weakness.  I don't see it that way.  I exist, I live in a society, and I
>>care
>>> about maximizing my potential within the reality I exist.  But I don't
>>consider
>>> approaching every phenomena I encounter as a dunce (agnostic) who can't
>>figure
>>> out what matters to him to be condusive to maximizing my potential.
>>That's why
>>> I find confident theists to be far less pathetic than so-called 
>>> agnostics.
>>
>>No.  You're original arguement was that you couldn't care about anyone's
>>beliefs; ie. you are indifferent.
>
> I said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that I 
> have
> no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my own
> beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that maximizes 
> to
> my benefit.
>
>>> >>  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >You're kidding, right?
>>>
>>> No. You're kidding about "You're kidding, right?" being a refutation of 
>>> my
>>> claim, right?
>>>
>>No.  Impirical evidence is pretty good proof generally accepted in just
>>about any intellectual discipline; including science.
>
> Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific methodology, 
> but
> empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs.
>
>
>>> You also can't know whether god is in fact a large smurf who lives on 
>>> the
>>> planet jupiter and smokes cosmic crack every day.  So does it make you
>>feel
>>> like an 'open-minded', politically-correct kind of guy by accepting that
>>as a
>>> 'possibility'?  Because you are clinging to your beliefs because of how
>>they
>>> make you feel, just like I am.
>>>
>>Not really.  First of surfs couldn't live on Jupiter because they are a
>>figment of a human imagination and humans can't live on Jupiter.
>
> Well if smurfs are figments of human imagination, why isn't god?
>
>
>>
>>I don't cling to my beliefs because of how they make me feel at all, but
>>because any attempt to explain the world around me satisfactorily and with
>>one consistent set of reasons or causes, escapes me.
>
> A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.  The 
> closest
> thing to a yardstick from which to measure all other phenomena is the 
> self.
> Presumably, that's where Descartes was trying to get to with his widely 
> wildly
> interpreted "I think therefore I am" statement...
>
>
>>If I could show that the universe happened by accident, I could
>>accept that there is no God.  However, it is far too orderly to have been 
>>by
>>accident.
>
> See I get the impression you really don't have much experience with this
> subject because you should know that this is William Paley's Natural 
> Theology
> theory, which is very easy to refute as the 'Blind Watchmaker' excerise
> demonstrates.  As Dawkins sums it up succinctly; "a deity capable of
> engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either 
> instantaneously
> or by guiding evolution, ...must already have been vastly complex in the 
> first
> place..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering 
> an
> explanation.""
>
>
>>But, if I could state that the universe was by design, I could
>>accept that as proof of a God.  However, it is far too random for that 
>>too.
>
> I don't see what that proves.  Maybe god likes randomness (but apparently 
> not
> very much since it only occurs on the subatomic level).
>
>
>>Also the limit of our ability to sense beyond a certain point and the many
>>mysteries of even our own consciousness that defy explanations, does not
>>allow me to rule out God either.
>
> Then you should not rule out the possibility that Arnold Schwartzenegger 
> is
> god, and you should consider that possibility to be equally as possible as 
> any
> other conception of god you might be able to imagine.
>
>
>>To the contrary.  I have never once used the word agnostic in this entire
>>thread.  You did.  I have never claimed to be an agnostic at all.  Again,
>>since an agnostic DOES believe in God but simply pratices no religion, I
>>would say you are a little shy on that definition too.
>
> That is not, in any sense, a valid definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticsm 
> does
> not require a belief or disbelief in god.  In it's original sense, when 
> the
> term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, it meant "the philosophical and
> theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either 
> unknown,
> or inherently unknowable. ".  That definition of agnostic is a definition 
> I
> have no problem with, and I fall under that definition, and I believe 
> everyone
> else does too, whether they know it or not.  The newer definition of 
> agnostic
> which is what you've been describing yourself as, is used to describe 
> those who
> are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and
> other matters of religions.  So for example, I have no problem saying "I 
> am
> agnostic", but I'm definately not AN agnostic, as in one who places is 
> faith IN
> agnosticism.  Whether you want to call yourself an agnostic or not, by 
> saying
> that your faith hinges on your inability to know, you are classifying 
> yourself
> by the definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticism is faith in non-faith, 
> therefore
> it is a contradiction, and a delusion harbored by anyone who claims it as 
> a
> component of their faith.
>
>
>>> >Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of 
>>> >brain
>>> >activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
>>some
>>> >consciousness originates elsewhere.
>>>
>>> What evidence are you referring to?
>>>
>>>
>>Pain.  The body will respond to pain (ie. touching a hot burner) before 
>>the
>>brain can even register the sensation.
>
> Yeah I've studied that sort of thing extensively.  The key is what it 
> means to
> 'register the sensation'.  If there is an immediate danger the brain seems 
> to
> know that there isn't time to process the stimuli in a conscious manner, 
> so it
> does it unconsciously, so that it can happen much quicker.  In fact there 
> are
> cases were people will hear a voice commanding them to duck or whatever is
> required to avoid an immediate danger when there isn't time to activate 
> the
> 'internal dialog'.  But of course, even if this explaination turns out to 
> be
> wrong, there's no reason to believe a supernatural explaination will 
> replace it
> as a better explaination.
>
>
>>> I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all',
>>> otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But why
>>> should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or 
>>> adequately,
>>like
>>> consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living on
>>jupiter
>>> smoking cosmic crack?
>>>
>>
>>How about will?  If it is so easy, give us the benefit of your wisdom.
>
> yes, will to faith, which is will to power.  You only have faith that you 
> don't
> know much about the natutre of god.  The more you keep talking to me the 
> more
> you'll know, and the less you'll be able to claim you haven't considered 
> all
> the angles required to make an informed choice in your faith.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> > Also, the amount of information that we
>>> >process in a lifetime is not even close to the amount of energy we can
>>> >produce (even if the information was stored at the atomic level).
>>>
>>> Wait a second.  I think I'm debating an idiot.
>>>
>>Simply because I am not understood doesn't make me an idiot.
>
> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to 
> transfer
> units of information into units of energy?
>
>
>>>
>>> Oh, not in my opinion.  As far as morals go, everyone's got their own
>>opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>Precisely.  That statement alone proves most of the things I have been
>>saying.
>>
>
> I think it proves most of the things I have been saying.
> 

how dumb. wrote:
> What a stupid bunch of posts we have here. I don't think I've ever read such 
> stupid nonsense. You all must have a pile of time on your hands to argue who 
> the bigger idiot is.
> 

What about the idiot that posts a flame to other people, calling them 
idiots for posting too much?  What do we call that guy?  An idiot.  :) 
David

LOL
really stupid. your funny though, the whole thing is entertaining at least..


"SPIDERSTHREAD" <canadianposter@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:41a238b3$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> how dumb. wrote:
>> What a stupid bunch of posts we have here. I don't think I've ever read 
>> such stupid nonsense. You all must have a pile of time on your hands to 
>> argue who the bigger idiot is.
>>
>
> What about the idiot that posts a flame to other people, calling them 
> idiots for posting too much?  What do we call that guy?  An idiot.  :) 
> David 

What a stupid post we have here.  I don't think I've ever read such 
stupid nonsense.  You must have a pile of time on your hands to argue 
who the bigger idiot is.  :)  David


how dumb. wrote:
> LOL
> really stupid. your funny though, the whole thing is entertaining at least..
> 
> 
> "SPIDERSTHREAD" <canadianposter@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
> news:41a238b3$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> 
>>how dumb. wrote:
>>
>>>What a stupid bunch of posts we have here. I don't think I've ever read 
>>>such stupid nonsense. You all must have a pile of time on your hands to 
>>>argue who the bigger idiot is.
>>>
>>
>>What about the idiot that posts a flame to other people, calling them 
>>idiots for posting too much?  What do we call that guy?  An idiot.  :) 
>>David 
> 
> 
> 

In article <_Jqod.176780$df2.136767@edtnps89>, stupidpost@gmail.com says...
>
>What a stupid bunch of posts we have here. I don't think I've ever read such 
>stupid nonsense. You all must have a pile of time on your hands to argue who 
>the bigger idiot is.

Frustrated that you're not capable of participating?


>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message 
>news:yAcod.198749$9b.198334@edtnps84...
>> In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
>>>> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> >There you go.  Since you obviously view anyone who doesn't share you
>>>> >views
>>>> >> >as being stupid and inferior, you clearly do give a crap.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Wrong.  Anyone who doesn't share my views is either inferior or
>>>superior.
>>>> >But
>>>> >> nobody is my equal because there is nobody who shares my views 
>>>> >> because
>>>> >they are
>>>> >> unique to me, just as yours are unique to you.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >No, you are wrong again.  Any measurement against another still means
>>>that
>>>> >you do care;
>>>>
>>>> Oh I see, you're attempting to portray my caring about my survival as a
>>>> weakness.  I don't see it that way.  I exist, I live in a society, and I
>>>care
>>>> about maximizing my potential within the reality I exist.  But I don't
>>>consider
>>>> approaching every phenomena I encounter as a dunce (agnostic) who can't
>>>figure
>>>> out what matters to him to be condusive to maximizing my potential.
>>>That's why
>>>> I find confident theists to be far less pathetic than so-called 
>>>> agnostics.
>>>
>>>No.  You're original arguement was that you couldn't care about anyone's
>>>beliefs; ie. you are indifferent.
>>
>> I said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that I 
>> have
>> no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my own
>> beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that maximizes 
>> to
>> my benefit.
>>
>>>> >>  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >You're kidding, right?
>>>>
>>>> No. You're kidding about "You're kidding, right?" being a refutation of 
>>>> my
>>>> claim, right?
>>>>
>>>No.  Impirical evidence is pretty good proof generally accepted in just
>>>about any intellectual discipline; including science.
>>
>> Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific methodology, 
>> but
>> empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs.
>>
>>
>>>> You also can't know whether god is in fact a large smurf who lives on 
>>>> the
>>>> planet jupiter and smokes cosmic crack every day.  So does it make you
>>>feel
>>>> like an 'open-minded', politically-correct kind of guy by accepting that
>>>as a
>>>> 'possibility'?  Because you are clinging to your beliefs because of how
>>>they
>>>> make you feel, just like I am.
>>>>
>>>Not really.  First of surfs couldn't live on Jupiter because they are a
>>>figment of a human imagination and humans can't live on Jupiter.
>>
>> Well if smurfs are figments of human imagination, why isn't god?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I don't cling to my beliefs because of how they make me feel at all, but
>>>because any attempt to explain the world around me satisfactorily and with
>>>one consistent set of reasons or causes, escapes me.
>>
>> A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.  The 
>> closest
>> thing to a yardstick from which to measure all other phenomena is the 
>> self.
>> Presumably, that's where Descartes was trying to get to with his widely 
>> wildly
>> interpreted "I think therefore I am" statement...
>>
>>
>>>If I could show that the universe happened by accident, I could
>>>accept that there is no God.  However, it is far too orderly to have been 
>>>by
>>>accident.
>>
>> See I get the impression you really don't have much experience with this
>> subject because you should know that this is William Paley's Natural 
>> Theology
>> theory, which is very easy to refute as the 'Blind Watchmaker' excerise
>> demonstrates.  As Dawkins sums it up succinctly; "a deity capable of
>> engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either 
>> instantaneously
>> or by guiding evolution, ...must already have been vastly complex in the 
>> first
>> place..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering 
>> an
>> explanation.""
>>
>>
>>>But, if I could state that the universe was by design, I could
>>>accept that as proof of a God.  However, it is far too random for that 
>>>too.
>>
>> I don't see what that proves.  Maybe god likes randomness (but apparently 
>> not
>> very much since it only occurs on the subatomic level).
>>
>>
>>>Also the limit of our ability to sense beyond a certain point and the many
>>>mysteries of even our own consciousness that defy explanations, does not
>>>allow me to rule out God either.
>>
>> Then you should not rule out the possibility that Arnold Schwartzenegger 
>> is
>> god, and you should consider that possibility to be equally as possible as 
>> any
>> other conception of god you might be able to imagine.
>>
>>
>>>To the contrary.  I have never once used the word agnostic in this entire
>>>thread.  You did.  I have never claimed to be an agnostic at all.  Again,
>>>since an agnostic DOES believe in God but simply pratices no religion, I
>>>would say you are a little shy on that definition too.
>>
>> That is not, in any sense, a valid definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticsm 
>> does
>> not require a belief or disbelief in god.  In it's original sense, when 
>> the
>> term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, it meant "the philosophical and
>> theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either 
>> unknown,
>> or inherently unknowable. ".  That definition of agnostic is a definition 
>> I
>> have no problem with, and I fall under that definition, and I believe 
>> everyone
>> else does too, whether they know it or not.  The newer definition of 
>> agnostic
>> which is what you've been describing yourself as, is used to describe 
>> those who
>> are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and
>> other matters of religions.  So for example, I have no problem saying "I 
>> am
>> agnostic", but I'm definately not AN agnostic, as in one who places is 
>> faith IN
>> agnosticism.  Whether you want to call yourself an agnostic or not, by 
>> saying
>> that your faith hinges on your inability to know, you are classifying 
>> yourself
>> by the definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticism is faith in non-faith, 
>> therefore
>> it is a contradiction, and a delusion harbored by anyone who claims it as 
>> a
>> component of their faith.
>>
>>
>>>> >Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of 
>>>> >brain
>>>> >activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
>>>some
>>>> >consciousness originates elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> What evidence are you referring to?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Pain.  The body will respond to pain (ie. touching a hot burner) before 
>>>the
>>>brain can even register the sensation.
>>
>> Yeah I've studied that sort of thing extensively.  The key is what it 
>> means to
>> 'register the sensation'.  If there is an immediate danger the brain seems 
>> to
>> know that there isn't time to process the stimuli in a conscious manner, 
>> so it
>> does it unconsciously, so that it can happen much quicker.  In fact there 
>> are
>> cases were people will hear a voice commanding them to duck or whatever is
>> required to avoid an immediate danger when there isn't time to activate 
>> the
>> 'internal dialog'.  But of course, even if this explaination turns out to 
>> be
>> wrong, there's no reason to believe a supernatural explaination will 
>> replace it
>> as a better explaination.
>>
>>
>>>> I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all',
>>>> otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But why
>>>> should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or 
>>>> adequately,
>>>like
>>>> consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living on
>>>jupiter
>>>> smoking cosmic crack?
>>>>
>>>
>>>How about will?  If it is so easy, give us the benefit of your wisdom.
>>
>> yes, will to faith, which is will to power.  You only have faith that you 
>> don't
>> know much about the natutre of god.  The more you keep talking to me the 
>> more
>> you'll know, and the less you'll be able to claim you haven't considered 
>> all
>> the angles required to make an informed choice in your faith.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> > Also, the amount of information that we
>>>> >process in a lifetime is not even close to the amount of energy we can
>>>> >produce (even if the information was stored at the atomic level).
>>>>
>>>> Wait a second.  I think I'm debating an idiot.
>>>>
>>>Simply because I am not understood doesn't make me an idiot.
>>
>> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to 
>> transfer
>> units of information into units of energy?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, not in my opinion.  As far as morals go, everyone's got their own
>>>opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Precisely.  That statement alone proves most of the things I have been
>>>saying.
>>>
>>
>> I think it proves most of the things I have been saying.
>> 
>
>

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:03cod.198742$9b.62183@edtnps84...
> In article <gJbod.198728$9b.104050@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:xrbod.198725$9b.8138@edtnps84...
> >> In article <yebod.198717$9b.129259@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> you've just made an argument - that I don't understand the
definitions
> >of
> >> >what
> >> >> I'm talking about.  You've neither demonstrated the veracity of that
> >> >argument,
> >> >> nor have you provided any indication that you understand the
> >definitions
> >> >of
> >> >> what I'm talking about.  If you don't understand the definitions of
the
> >> >words
> >> >> I'm using, how could you know that I don't understand them?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Simple.  "To put this in perspective, there is no behavioral
difference
> >> >between engaging in Pascal's wager, and engaging in an OCD ritual
> >> >(obsessive-compulsive disorder)", indicates that you don't know what
OCD
> >is.
> >> >Whether I understand it or not becomes irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> But I do know what OCD is, and I'm certain I've read far more on the
> >subject
> >> than you have.  I happen to have a friend with a severe case and so I
did
> >quite
> >> a bit of research on it last year.  So that means you don't know what
OCD
> >is.
> >>
> >I see.  Trust me.  I can GUARANTEE you that I know considerably more
about
> >OCD than you do unless you have specific education (not personal research
> >because of your freind) on the subject.
> >
>
> No, trust me, you do not know nearly as much about OCD as I do.  I am a
very
> highly functioning autodidact and a couple months of my study on a subject
is
> equivelent to years of graduate work.
>
>

LOL!  There are many who claim such things, and in the absence of any proof
(and given your statements above, proof to the contrary) you'll have to
pardon my scepticism.

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:yAcod.198749$9b.198334@edtnps84...
> In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
> >> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
<snip>
> I said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that I
have
> no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my own
> beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that maximizes
to
> my benefit.
>

Ah.  The two are not related.  If you are indifferent to other people's
beliefs, you most certainly don't want to change them.  However, as you
stated previously, you would be just as happy to have them believe what they
do, so you can exploit them.  Hence, whether you want to change them or not,
you most certainly care what they are.

> >> >>  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You're kidding, right?
> >>
> >> No. You're kidding about "You're kidding, right?" being a refutation of
my
> >> claim, right?
> >>
> >No.  Impirical evidence is pretty good proof generally accepted in just
> >about any intellectual discipline; including science.
>
> Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific methodology,
but
> empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs.
>
So?  Without it, it is virtually impossible to formulate a proof, and with
it, one can discount a proof since only one exception is required to
invalidate a law.

>
> >> You also can't know whether god is in fact a large smurf who lives on
the
> >> planet jupiter and smokes cosmic crack every day.  So does it make you
> >feel
> >> like an 'open-minded', politically-correct kind of guy by accepting
that
> >as a
> >> 'possibility'?  Because you are clinging to your beliefs because of how
> >they
> >> make you feel, just like I am.
> >>
> >Not really.  First of surfs couldn't live on Jupiter because they are a
> >figment of a human imagination and humans can't live on Jupiter.
>
> Well if smurfs are figments of human imagination, why isn't god?
>

He might be.  But we can't say it for sure.  We have no proof.

>
> >
> >I don't cling to my beliefs because of how they make me feel at all, but
> >because any attempt to explain the world around me satisfactorily and
with
> >one consistent set of reasons or causes, escapes me.
>
> A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.

You, nor anyone else, knows that.  And there are a good many scientists who
have been searching for it for a long time.

> The closest
> thing to a yardstick from which to measure all other phenomena is the
self.
> Presumably, that's where Descartes was trying to get to with his widely
wildly
> interpreted "I think therefore I am" statement...

Except that that is not what Descarte said, and he was not measuring the
self against anything. What Descarte said was, "I think, therefore I exist".
What Descarte was doing was trying to separate the mind from the body.  His
proof was somewhat successful.  However, the problem was that he couldn't
state where this mind was.  Descarte was religious and his Meditations on
First Philosophy (from which that quote comes from) was the attempt of a
mathematician to merge science and religion.  Descartes believed in the soul
and he believed that the only essential truth we could know, was the
existence of ourselves and God.  If you want to quote it further, you should
proably read the work first.

The difficulty, in the modern sense, with Descartes' conclusions, is that
they muddy an already unclear picture of what it means to bring forth life
and what it means to die.  He also muddied the picture of what it means to
be human and it is in direct contradiction to our preception of the world
around us.  For Descartes, the entire world could be an illusion and the
only thing he could state for sure was that he exists.  He doesn't say that
he is alive, nor does he say he is dead.  His existence is irrelevant for
either state since his life, or his death, would simply be another illusion
preceived by imperfect senses and coloured by perception of those imperfect
senses.  That is what Descartes said, and attempted to prove.
>
>
> >If I could show that the universe happened by accident, I could
> >accept that there is no God.  However, it is far too orderly to have been
by
> >accident.
>
> See I get the impression you really don't have much experience with this
> subject because you should know that this is William Paley's Natural
Theology
> theory, which is very easy to refute as the 'Blind Watchmaker' excerise
> demonstrates.  As Dawkins sums it up succinctly; "a deity capable of
> engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either
instantaneously
> or by guiding evolution, ...must already have been vastly complex in the
first
> place..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering
an
> explanation.""
>
>
So?  Since, if there actually is a deity, one cannot know the nature of it,
since one cannot even prove or disprove its existence, it could be
infinitely simple, or infinitely complex.  In addition, most of the universe
is pretty simple; we can boil it down to a very simple set of laws,
behaviours, particles and energy.  It is the scale of it that makes it
complex.  Because of its scale, the entire entity called the universe, is
beyond our comprehension.  We can't concieve of it all at once, even if we
can describe the concepts.

> >But, if I could state that the universe was by design, I could
> >accept that as proof of a God.  However, it is far too random for that
too.
>
> I don't see what that proves.  Maybe god likes randomness (but apparently
not
> very much since it only occurs on the subatomic level).
>

At the subatomic level, there is apparent randomness. However, since we
don't know all of the variables, we can't even say that it is completely
random.  We can only use the apparent randomness to calculate the
possibility that some event will occur in the absence of any knowledge of
what happened to create the observed state.

Given that, accidents can be calculated with probability, but not with
certainty.  Consequently, what you just said is that the ordering of the
universe was no accident.  If that is the case, you are making and arguement
for something to enforce that order.  I don't guess that is your intent at
all.

>
> >Also the limit of our ability to sense beyond a certain point and the
many
> >mysteries of even our own consciousness that defy explanations, does not
> >allow me to rule out God either.
>
> Then you should not rule out the possibility that Arnold Schwartzenegger
is
> god, and you should consider that possibility to be equally as possible as
any
> other conception of god you might be able to imagine.
>
I would be willing to bet Arny isn't God.  But, you're right, there is no
way to rule it out either.  But, you are still making a case for a God, not
against one.
>
> >To the contrary.  I have never once used the word agnostic in this entire
> >thread.  You did.  I have never claimed to be an agnostic at all.  Again,
> >since an agnostic DOES believe in God but simply pratices no religion, I
> >would say you are a little shy on that definition too.
>
> That is not, in any sense, a valid definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticsm
does
> not require a belief or disbelief in god.  In it's original sense, when
the
> term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, it meant "the philosophical and
> theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either
unknown,
> or inherently unknowable. ".  That definition of agnostic is a definition
I
> have no problem with, and I fall under that definition, and I believe
everyone
> else does too, whether they know it or not.  The newer definition of
agnostic
> which is what you've been describing yourself as, is used to describe
those who
> are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and
> other matters of religions.  So for example, I have no problem saying "I
am
> agnostic", but I'm definately not AN agnostic, as in one who places is
faith IN
> agnosticism.  Whether you want to call yourself an agnostic or not, by
saying
> that your faith hinges on your inability to know, you are classifying
yourself
> by the definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticism is faith in non-faith,
therefore
> it is a contradiction, and a delusion harbored by anyone who claims it as
a
> component of their faith.
>
>
Fine.  You defined me as an agnostic.  Consequently, I have to assume you
meant that in the modern context.  However, since you have clarified that, I
have no faith in a non-faith at all.  The point is that I don't have faith
in the existence of a deity in the conventional sense, nor do I have faith
that a deity does not exist.  In fact, I generally don't accept anything in
the absence of proof.  By proof in this case, I don't need absolute proof as
with the examples of flying off of a bridge; just a reasonable indication of
the truth or falsity of something.

> >> >Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of
brain
> >> >activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
> >some
> >> >consciousness originates elsewhere.
> >>
> >> What evidence are you referring to?
> >>
> >>
> >Pain.  The body will respond to pain (ie. touching a hot burner) before
the
> >brain can even register the sensation.
>
> Yeah I've studied that sort of thing extensively.  The key is what it
means to
> 'register the sensation'.  If there is an immediate danger the brain seems
to
> know that there isn't time to process the stimuli in a conscious manner,
so it
> does it unconsciously, so that it can happen much quicker.  In fact there
are
> cases were people will hear a voice commanding them to duck or whatever is
> required to avoid an immediate danger when there isn't time to activate
the
> 'internal dialog'.  But of course, even if this explaination turns out to
be
> wrong, there's no reason to believe a supernatural explaination will
replace it
> as a better explaination.
>
>
Not talking about "supernatural" phenomenon.  There are plenty of life forms
that have no brain and can respond to their environments.  This indicates a
'conciousness' of sorts, without even the presence of a brain.

Even with a brain, studies of twins indicate that it is not all metabolic.
If it was, genetically identical twins with genetically identical brains
should have identical responses to external stimuli.  They don't.

> >> I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all',
> >> otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But why
> >> should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or
adequately,
> >like
> >> consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living on
> >jupiter
> >> smoking cosmic crack?

To the contrary.  There are many concepts that cannot be grasped
intellectually, but can be described in words.  Infinity (even more
contradictory, negative infinity as a math concept) cannot be concieved of,
but can be described.

> >>
> >
> >How about will?  If it is so easy, give us the benefit of your wisdom.
>
> yes, will to faith, which is will to power.  You only have faith that you
don't
> know much about the natutre of god.  The more you keep talking to me the
more
> you'll know, and the less you'll be able to claim you haven't considered
all
> the angles required to make an informed choice in your faith.
>
>
You didn't define will, nor did you explain it except as a circular
argument.

>
>
> >
> >> > Also, the amount of information that we
> >> >process in a lifetime is not even close to the amount of energy we can
> >> >produce (even if the information was stored at the atomic level).
> >>
> >> Wait a second.  I think I'm debating an idiot.
> >>
> >Simply because I am not understood doesn't make me an idiot.
>
> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to
transfer
> units of information into units of energy?
>
Volts, Amps, and Ohms.  The brain works on electrical activity as well as
chemical states.

>
> >>
> >> Oh, not in my opinion.  As far as morals go, everyone's got their own
> >opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >Precisely.  That statement alone proves most of the things I have been
> >saying.
> >
>
> I think it proves most of the things I have been saying.
>

I don't think so.

In article <mVsod.177242$df2.89454@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:03cod.198742$9b.62183@edtnps84...
>> In article <gJbod.198728$9b.104050@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:xrbod.198725$9b.8138@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <yebod.198717$9b.129259@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you've just made an argument - that I don't understand the
>definitions
>> >of
>> >> >what
>> >> >> I'm talking about.  You've neither demonstrated the veracity of that
>> >> >argument,
>> >> >> nor have you provided any indication that you understand the
>> >definitions
>> >> >of
>> >> >> what I'm talking about.  If you don't understand the definitions of
>the
>> >> >words
>> >> >> I'm using, how could you know that I don't understand them?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Simple.  "To put this in perspective, there is no behavioral
>difference
>> >> >between engaging in Pascal's wager, and engaging in an OCD ritual
>> >> >(obsessive-compulsive disorder)", indicates that you don't know what
>OCD
>> >is.
>> >> >Whether I understand it or not becomes irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> But I do know what OCD is, and I'm certain I've read far more on the
>> >subject
>> >> than you have.  I happen to have a friend with a severe case and so I
>did
>> >quite
>> >> a bit of research on it last year.  So that means you don't know what
>OCD
>> >is.
>> >>
>> >I see.  Trust me.  I can GUARANTEE you that I know considerably more
>about
>> >OCD than you do unless you have specific education (not personal research
>> >because of your freind) on the subject.
>> >
>>
>> No, trust me, you do not know nearly as much about OCD as I do.  I am a
>very
>> highly functioning autodidact and a couple months of my study on a subject
>is
>> equivelent to years of graduate work.
>>
>>
>
>LOL!  There are many who claim such things, and in the absence of any proof
>(and given your statements above, proof to the contrary) you'll have to
>pardon my scepticism.
>
>

I'm just as skeptical about your expertise regarding mental health, 
particularly OCD, as you are of mine.  But I am prepared to discuss any aspect 
of the topic with you in order to find out if my skepticism is warranted.  You, 
on the other hand, don't seem to be as forthright.  You made an accusation that 
I don't know much about OCD because of a claim I made.  You can either attempt 
to refute the claim or our ad hominems will remain deadlocked.

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:fpuod.177734$df2.85610@edtnps89...
> In article <mVsod.177242$df2.89454@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:03cod.198742$9b.62183@edtnps84...
> >> In article <gJbod.198728$9b.104050@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:xrbod.198725$9b.8138@edtnps84...
> >> >> In article <yebod.198717$9b.129259@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> you've just made an argument - that I don't understand the
> >definitions
> >> >of
> >> >> >what
> >> >> >> I'm talking about.  You've neither demonstrated the veracity of
that
> >> >> >argument,
> >> >> >> nor have you provided any indication that you understand the
> >> >definitions
> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> what I'm talking about.  If you don't understand the definitions
of
> >the
> >> >> >words
> >> >> >> I'm using, how could you know that I don't understand them?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Simple.  "To put this in perspective, there is no behavioral
> >difference
> >> >> >between engaging in Pascal's wager, and engaging in an OCD ritual
> >> >> >(obsessive-compulsive disorder)", indicates that you don't know
what
> >OCD
> >> >is.
> >> >> >Whether I understand it or not becomes irrelevant.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> But I do know what OCD is, and I'm certain I've read far more on the
> >> >subject
> >> >> than you have.  I happen to have a friend with a severe case and so
I
> >did
> >> >quite
> >> >> a bit of research on it last year.  So that means you don't know
what
> >OCD
> >> >is.
> >> >>
> >> >I see.  Trust me.  I can GUARANTEE you that I know considerably more
> >about
> >> >OCD than you do unless you have specific education (not personal
research
> >> >because of your freind) on the subject.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, trust me, you do not know nearly as much about OCD as I do.  I am a
> >very
> >> highly functioning autodidact and a couple months of my study on a
subject
> >is
> >> equivelent to years of graduate work.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >LOL!  There are many who claim such things, and in the absence of any
proof
> >(and given your statements above, proof to the contrary) you'll have to
> >pardon my scepticism.
> >
> >
>
> I'm just as skeptical about your expertise regarding mental health,
> particularly OCD, as you are of mine.  But I am prepared to discuss any
aspect
> of the topic with you in order to find out if my skepticism is warranted.
You,
> on the other hand, don't seem to be as forthright.  You made an accusation
that
> I don't know much about OCD because of a claim I made.  You can either
attempt
> to refute the claim or our ad hominems will remain deadlocked.
>

OK.  I'll bite.  I am not going to get into a long discussion about mental
health since this is neither the thread, nor am I so inclined.  However,
your claim that religious ritual is no different than an OCD ritual is false
because of one very important point; choice.  People with OCD are
obsessive-compulsive and are not governed by choice.  Those who choose to
practice religion do so for a variety of reasons; but they all choose.  OCD
is a mental health issue that is damaging to the individual limits their
abilities to fully participate in society, and to compare it to the practice
of religion minimizes both its impacts and its sufferers.  While you may not
agree with choice people make to practice religion, it is still a choice.
OCD is not.  In addition, the practice of religion has no true pathology
because it is not a mental issue.  OCD has very specific pathology which is
why it can be diagnosed as an illness.

Your claim is tantamount to claiming that all soldiers in combat are
psychopathic because they can kill without any remorse in the moment.  Again
psychopaths have a very specific pathology and while there is a larger
preponderance of psychopaths in the military, not all soldiers who kill are
psychopaths.  Consequently, your statement comparing OCD with the practice
of religion is not only false, but it calls into question the rest of your
argument; since from the perspective of logic, one fallacy invalidates an
argument.

End of discussion on OCD and mental health.  If you want to continue the
discussion on whether the Bible is false or not, fire away.

In article <3ttod.177636$df2.47748@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:yAcod.198749$9b.198334@edtnps84...
>> In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
><snip>
>> I said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that I
>have
>> no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my own
>> beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that maximizes
>to
>> my benefit.
>>
>
>Ah.  The two are not related.  If you are indifferent to other people's
>beliefs, you most certainly don't want to change them.  However, as you
>stated previously, you would be just as happy to have them believe what they
>do, so you can exploit them.  Hence, whether you want to change them or not,
>you most certainly care what they are.

Fair enough but in that case your claim "Only those who aren't really sure 
couldn't really care what your beliefs are." is still just as much bullshit as 
it ever was, because people who "Aren't really sure (about the existence of 
god)" are just as likely to care about their means of survival in society as 
anybody else.     

>> Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific methodology,
>but
>> empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs.
>>
>So?  Without it, it is virtually impossible to formulate a proof, and with
>it, one can discount a proof since only one exception is required to
>invalidate a law.

I hate to break it to you, but Carnap's theory of induction is about 50 years 
obsolete.  Try this:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/goodman.htm

>> >Not really.  First of surfs couldn't live on Jupiter because they are a
>> >figment of a human imagination and humans can't live on Jupiter.
>>
>> Well if smurfs are figments of human imagination, why isn't god?
>>
>
>He might be.  But we can't say it for sure.  We have no proof.
>

So if you think it is more likely that god is more like what we've been 
culturally conditioned to imagine god to be like than it is that god is a 
smurf, then you should also be able to infer that it is more likely that there 
is no god.  



>> A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.
>
>You, nor anyone else, knows that.  And there are a good many scientists who
>have been searching for it for a long time.

They can search all they like but they won't find one since it's meaning could 
only be created by humans anyway.


>
>> The closest
>> thing to a yardstick from which to measure all other phenomena is the
>self.
>> Presumably, that's where Descartes was trying to get to with his widely
>wildly
>> interpreted "I think therefore I am" statement...
>
>Except that that is not what Descarte said, and he was not measuring the
>self against anything.

Widely, and wildly interpreted, as I said...

>His existence is irrelevant for
>either state since his life, or his death, would simply be another illusion
>preceived by imperfect senses and coloured by perception of those imperfect
>senses.  That is what Descartes said, and attempted to prove.

Hey I agree that he was a total flake but he made some key observations for the 
time, luckily expanded on by others...

>>
>So?  Since, if there actually is a deity, one cannot know the nature of it,
>since one cannot even prove or disprove its existence, it could be
>infinitely simple, or infinitely complex.  In addition, most of the universe
>is pretty simple; we can boil it down to a very simple set of laws,
>behaviours, particles and energy.  It is the scale of it that makes it
>complex.  Because of its scale, the entire entity called the universe, is
>beyond our comprehension.  We can't concieve of it all at once, even if we
>can describe the concepts.

I can't juggle more than three balls at a time, but it doesn't make me 
superstitious.


>
>At the subatomic level, there is apparent randomness. However, since we
>don't know all of the variables, we can't even say that it is completely
>random.  We can only use the apparent randomness to calculate the
>possibility that some event will occur in the absence of any knowledge of
>what happened to create the observed state.
>
>Given that, accidents can be calculated with probability, but not with
>certainty.

umm, what accidents?  sub-atomic accidents?


> Consequently, what you just said is that the ordering of the
>universe was no accident.  If that is the case, you are making and arguement
>for something to enforce that order.  I don't guess that is your intent at
>all.

You're right, the only accident I'm prepared to acknowledge here is my getting 
sucked into this retarded convo.



>I would be willing to bet Arny isn't God.  But, you're right, there is no
>way to rule it out either.  But, you are still making a case for a God, not
>against one.

You moron, YOU just made the case against God (equalling Arny), based on 
nothing but your own bias, likely from cultural conceptions of what 'god' 
should be like.  

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you 
do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will 
understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

>> Agnosticism is faith in non-faith,
>therefore
>> it is a contradiction, and a delusion harbored by anyone who claims it as
>a
>> component of their faith.
>>
>>
>Fine.  You defined me as an agnostic.  Consequently, I have to assume you
>meant that in the modern context.  However, since you have clarified that, I
>have no faith in a non-faith at all.

I said you have faith in non-faith.

>Not talking about "supernatural" phenomenon.  There are plenty of life forms
>that have no brain and can respond to their environments.  This indicates a
>'conciousness' of sorts, without even the presence of a brain.

There are plants that respond to touch - are they conscious?  (if you say yes 
you win a granola bar)


>
>Even with a brain, studies of twins indicate that it is not all metabolic.

psychic twins, eh?  Yeah you're quite a skeptic who needs 'absolute proof' 
before believing foo-foo...uh huh... 


>If it was, genetically identical twins with genetically identical brains
>should have identical responses to external stimuli.  They don't.

That's not a psychic twin experiment.  If two twins have something different 
for lunch their biological responses will differ.  Is there any study you'd 
like to cite that indicates something more mysterious is going on?



>
>> >> I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all',
>> >> otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But why
>> >> should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or
>adequately,
>> >like
>> >> consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living on
>> >jupiter
>> >> smoking cosmic crack?
>
>To the contrary.  There are many concepts that cannot be grasped
>intellectually, but can be described in words.  Infinity (even more
>contradictory, negative infinity as a math concept) cannot be concieved of,
>but can be described.

I'm conceiving of it right now because I know of the definition.  It's a cliche 
for people (usually new age idiots like you appear to be) to claim that humans 
just can't 'concieve' of infinity.  I concieve of it just fine, if I couldn't I 
wouldn't know what the word meant.



>
>> >>
>> >
>> >How about will?  If it is so easy, give us the benefit of your wisdom.
>>
>> yes, will to faith, which is will to power.  You only have faith that you
>don't
>> know much about the natutre of god.  The more you keep talking to me the
>more
>> you'll know, and the less you'll be able to claim you haven't considered
>all
>> the angles required to make an informed choice in your faith.
>>
>>
>You didn't define will, nor did you explain it except as a circular
>argument.

Nietzche's definition works for me. The 'will to power' line didn't tip you 
off?

>> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to
>transfer
>> units of information into units of energy?
>>
>Volts, Amps, and Ohms.  The brain works on electrical activity as well as
>chemical states.

Volts, amps and ohms is not an equation to translate units of "information" 
into units of "energy".  Volts amps and ohms are descriptive terms for 
measuring electrical current.  Why are you still responding?  Is it fun to 
waste yours and my time with this stupidity?

In article <CKuod.177750$df2.57535@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>> I'm just as skeptical about your expertise regarding mental health,
>> particularly OCD, as you are of mine.  But I am prepared to discuss any
>aspect
>> of the topic with you in order to find out if my skepticism is warranted.
>You,
>> on the other hand, don't seem to be as forthright.  You made an accusation
>that
>> I don't know much about OCD because of a claim I made.  You can either
>attempt
>> to refute the claim or our ad hominems will remain deadlocked.
>>
>
>OK.  I'll bite.  I am not going to get into a long discussion about mental
>health since this is neither the thread, nor am I so inclined.  However,
>your claim that religious ritual is no different than an OCD ritual is false
>because of one very important point; choice. 

Actually I said ruminating over Pascal's Wager is OCD, but I also endorse the 
claim that religious ritual is closely associated with OCD.  There is 
absolutely nobody with the most rudimentary knowledge of OCD who isn't aware 
of this, so it's quite amusing to me that you'd be attempting to claim I 
don't know what I'm talking about.  I'll proced now to cite a ton of 
references:


http://www.bio-behavioral.com/ocd.asp

Bio-Behavior Institute's definition of OCD:
 
"An obsessive thought is quite invasive and may stay for long periods at a 
time.  It is experienced as "ego dystonic," meaning that the individual does 
not truly believe in the thought, but is unable to erase it from his/her mind. 
 Patients often express how "illogical" or "ridiculous" their thoughts are, but 
still experience a great deal of anxiety.   It is our experience that 
contamination, sexual, religious, and morbid thoughts are the most common. 

Obsessions thinking might be "magical" in that patients believe that the mere 
act of thinking can prevent or control a harmful event or wrongdoing. For 
example, thinking of a good word or number every time a negative thought enters 
the mind in order to prevent harm.  Magical thinking often occurs in 
conjunction with particular rituals. "


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5353151/

"Kids with OCD tend to display what I call "magical thinking". The adage, "if 
you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back" is similar to the 
thinking of the youngster with obsessive-compulsive thoughts or actions. 
Rationally, the individual knows that stepping on a crack in a sidewalk has 
nothing to do with hurting his mother's back, yet many of us grew up jumping 
over cracks and, guess what, our mothers never did break their backs!" - Dr. 
Ruth A. Peters

www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/subbotsk/0604subb.pdf

"Psychological research has shown thatin healthy children there is a 
significantassociation between magical thinking obsessive-compulsive thoughts 
andbehaviours (Bolton et al., 2002)."


> In addition, the practice of religion has no true pathology
>because it is not a mental issue.  

I disagree. See: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral 
Mind (1976)


>
>Your claim is tantamount to claiming that all soldiers in combat are
>psychopathic because they can kill without any remorse in the moment. 

My claim has nothing to do with that, but in fact troops who haven't been 
combat-tested tend to fire high on purpose.  It turns out shooting people isn't 
something that comes to most people naturally.


> Again
>psychopaths have a very specific pathology and while there is a larger
>preponderance of psychopaths in the military, not all soldiers who kill are
>psychopaths. 

Apparently your claim is that because psychopaths in the military exist, and 
because people with OCD exist, and because both conditions have 'specific 
pathologies', that you are ummm, making an argument?  I can't tell.  You do 
realize how poorly you're doing in this debate, don't you? 


> Consequently, your statement comparing OCD with the practice
>of religion is not only false, but it calls into question the rest of your
>argument; since from the perspective of logic, one fallacy invalidates an
>argument.

Feeble application of slippery slope fallacy..

>End of discussion on OCD and mental health.  If you want to continue the
>discussion on whether the Bible is false or not, fire away.

That sounds like a dull discussion, I'll leave that OCD ritual to you!

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:TNuod.177751$df2.165976@edtnps89...
> In article <3ttod.177636$df2.47748@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:yAcod.198749$9b.198334@edtnps84...
> >> In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
> >> >> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> ><snip>
> >> I said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that
I
> >have
> >> no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my
own
> >> beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that
maximizes
> >to
> >> my benefit.
> >>
> >
> >Ah.  The two are not related.  If you are indifferent to other people's
> >beliefs, you most certainly don't want to change them.  However, as you
> >stated previously, you would be just as happy to have them believe what
they
> >do, so you can exploit them.  Hence, whether you want to change them or
not,
> >you most certainly care what they are.
>
> Fair enough but in that case your claim "Only those who aren't really sure
> couldn't really care what your beliefs are." is still just as much
bullshit as
> it ever was, because people who "Aren't really sure (about the existence
of
> god)" are just as likely to care about their means of survival in society
as
> anybody else.
>

But they don't have to care about anyone else's beliefs, because the beliefs
of someone else have no effect or consequence for them.

> >> Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific
methodology,
> >but
> >> empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs.
> >>
> >So?  Without it, it is virtually impossible to formulate a proof, and
with
> >it, one can discount a proof since only one exception is required to
> >invalidate a law.
>
> I hate to break it to you, but Carnap's theory of induction is about 50
years
> obsolete.  Try this:
>
> http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/goodman.htm
>
> >> >Not really.  First of surfs couldn't live on Jupiter because they are
a
> >> >figment of a human imagination and humans can't live on Jupiter.
> >>
> >> Well if smurfs are figments of human imagination, why isn't god?
> >>
> >
> >He might be.  But we can't say it for sure.  We have no proof.
> >
>
> So if you think it is more likely that god is more like what we've been
> culturally conditioned to imagine god to be like than it is that god is a
> smurf, then you should also be able to infer that it is more likely that
there
> is no god.
>
I am not infering anything about the nature of God, if one actually exists,
nor would I infer that there is no God.  The problem is that there is
excellent evidence for either side; neither is compelling enough for me to
infer one way or the other if the nature of God is that of the Christian God
or something similar.

>
>
> >> A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.
> >
> >You, nor anyone else, knows that.  And there are a good many scientists
who
> >have been searching for it for a long time.
>
> They can search all they like but they won't find one since it's meaning
could
> only be created by humans anyway.
>
Everything that has meaning to us, as humans, has a definition or
representation that was created by humans.
>
> >
> >> The closest
> >> thing to a yardstick from which to measure all other phenomena is the
> >self.
> >> Presumably, that's where Descartes was trying to get to with his widely
> >wildly
> >> interpreted "I think therefore I am" statement...
> >
> >Except that that is not what Descarte said, and he was not measuring the
> >self against anything.
>
> Widely, and wildly interpreted, as I said...
>
Incorrectly stated.  There is a big difference between your misquote and
what he actually said.

> >His existence is irrelevant for
> >either state since his life, or his death, would simply be another
illusion
> >preceived by imperfect senses and coloured by perception of those
imperfect
> >senses.  That is what Descartes said, and attempted to prove.
>
> Hey I agree that he was a total flake but he made some key observations
for the
> time, luckily expanded on by others...
>
He was not a flake.  He was not that far wrong in his observations.  The
problem is, like the argument you put forward, he was out to prove
something, and used the observations he had made selectively to try and
prove a conclusion he had already come to.

> >>
> >So?  Since, if there actually is a deity, one cannot know the nature of
it,
> >since one cannot even prove or disprove its existence, it could be
> >infinitely simple, or infinitely complex.  In addition, most of the
universe
> >is pretty simple; we can boil it down to a very simple set of laws,
> >behaviours, particles and energy.  It is the scale of it that makes it
> >complex.  Because of its scale, the entire entity called the universe, is
> >beyond our comprehension.  We can't concieve of it all at once, even if
we
> >can describe the concepts.
>
> I can't juggle more than three balls at a time, but it doesn't make me
> superstitious.
>
>
> >
> >At the subatomic level, there is apparent randomness. However, since we
> >don't know all of the variables, we can't even say that it is completely
> >random.  We can only use the apparent randomness to calculate the
> >possibility that some event will occur in the absence of any knowledge of
> >what happened to create the observed state.
> >
> >Given that, accidents can be calculated with probability, but not with
> >certainty.
>
> umm, what accidents?  sub-atomic accidents?
>
Again, it depends on how much information you have.  The more variables you
have filled in, the less an event appears to be random and the more orderly
it will become.  Again, scope is important.  Quantum Mechanics is still
based on the probability that some event will occur (or not occur) because
of a lack of information.  The predictability of even quantum events becomes
higher as more preceeding information is known.  If we knew all information
from when time began, there would be no randomness.

>
> > Consequently, what you just said is that the ordering of the
> >universe was no accident.  If that is the case, you are making and
arguement
> >for something to enforce that order.  I don't guess that is your intent
at
> >all.
>
> You're right, the only accident I'm prepared to acknowledge here is my
getting
> sucked into this retarded convo.
>
>

You came here.
>
> >I would be willing to bet Arny isn't God.  But, you're right, there is no
> >way to rule it out either.  But, you are still making a case for a God,
not
> >against one.
>
> You moron, YOU just made the case against God (equalling Arny), based on
> nothing but your own bias, likely from cultural conceptions of what 'god'
> should be like.
>

Ah, Ad Hominem yet again.  Usually happens when one argues in circles and
can't backtrack.

> "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you
> do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will
> understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts
>
> >> Agnosticism is faith in non-faith,
> >therefore
> >> it is a contradiction, and a delusion harbored by anyone who claims it
as
> >a
> >> component of their faith.
> >>
> >>
> >Fine.  You defined me as an agnostic.  Consequently, I have to assume you
> >meant that in the modern context.  However, since you have clarified
that, I
> >have no faith in a non-faith at all.
>
> I said you have faith in non-faith.
>
> >Not talking about "supernatural" phenomenon.  There are plenty of life
forms
> >that have no brain and can respond to their environments.  This indicates
a
> >'conciousness' of sorts, without even the presence of a brain.
>
> There are plants that respond to touch - are they conscious?  (if you say
yes
> you win a granola bar)
>
I don't think so.  But again, it epends on how you define consciousness.

>
> >
> >Even with a brain, studies of twins indicate that it is not all
metabolic.
>
> psychic twins, eh?  Yeah you're quite a skeptic who needs 'absolute proof'
> before believing foo-foo...uh huh...
>
>
> >If it was, genetically identical twins with genetically identical brains
> >should have identical responses to external stimuli.  They don't.
>
> That's not a psychic twin experiment.  If two twins have something
different
> for lunch their biological responses will differ.  Is there any study
you'd
> like to cite that indicates something more mysterious is going on?
>
>
>
> >
> >> >> I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all',
> >> >> otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But
why
> >> >> should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or
> >adequately,
> >> >like
> >> >> consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living
on
> >> >jupiter
> >> >> smoking cosmic crack?
> >
> >To the contrary.  There are many concepts that cannot be grasped
> >intellectually, but can be described in words.  Infinity (even more
> >contradictory, negative infinity as a math concept) cannot be concieved
of,
> >but can be described.
>
> I'm conceiving of it right now because I know of the definition.  It's a
cliche
> for people (usually new age idiots like you appear to be) to claim that
humans
> just can't 'concieve' of infinity.  I concieve of it just fine, if I
couldn't I
> wouldn't know what the word meant.
>
OK.  You go back to your self-teaching.  Since you are a finite being, like
the rest of us, you can only concieve of the definition and the symbology
that represents infinity.  You have no idea what infinity is in the true
sense and neither does any other finite being.

>
>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >How about will?  If it is so easy, give us the benefit of your wisdom.
> >>
> >> yes, will to faith, which is will to power.  You only have faith that
you
> >don't
> >> know much about the natutre of god.  The more you keep talking to me
the
> >more
> >> you'll know, and the less you'll be able to claim you haven't
considered
> >all
> >> the angles required to make an informed choice in your faith.
> >>
> >>
> >You didn't define will, nor did you explain it except as a circular
> >argument.
>
> Nietzche's definition works for me. The 'will to power' line didn't tip
you
> off?
>
Its a circular argument, one of the fallacies.  Nietze was using it in a
specific context and he was not defining will.  He was defining free will.


> >> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to
> >transfer
> >> units of information into units of energy?
> >>
> >Volts, Amps, and Ohms.  The brain works on electrical activity as well as
> >chemical states.
>
> Volts, amps and ohms is not an equation to translate units of
"information"
> into units of "energy".  Volts amps and ohms are descriptive terms for
> measuring electrical current.  Why are you still responding?  Is it fun to
> waste yours and my time with this stupidity?
>
The question is really, why are you?  I am finished responding.  I bit.  A
wise man once told me not to argue with fools (by that I mean people who
cannot see beyond their own perceptions), because they take you down to
their level and beat you with experience.  I have seen more than enough
fallacies in your arguments to see this thread is totally pointless.  So, I
am done with it.
>

In article <b9vod.178017$df2.117555@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:TNuod.177751$df2.165976@edtnps89...
>> In article <3ttod.177636$df2.47748@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:yAcod.198749$9b.198334@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
>> >> >> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> ><snip>
>> >> I said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that
>I
>> >have
>> >> no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my
>own
>> >> beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that
>maximizes
>> >to
>> >> my benefit.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ah.  The two are not related.  If you are indifferent to other people's
>> >beliefs, you most certainly don't want to change them.  However, as you
>> >stated previously, you would be just as happy to have them believe what
>they
>> >do, so you can exploit them.  Hence, whether you want to change them or
>not,
>> >you most certainly care what they are.
>>
>> Fair enough but in that case your claim "Only those who aren't really sure
>> couldn't really care what your beliefs are." is still just as much
>bullshit as
>> it ever was, because people who "Aren't really sure (about the existence
>of
>> god)" are just as likely to care about their means of survival in society
>as
>> anybody else.
>>
>
>But they don't have to care about anyone else's beliefs, because the beliefs
>of someone else have no effect or consequence for them.

I'd like to think that most people, not under psychological or physical duress, 
would be capable of recognizing that the beliefs of others have plenty of 
potential for direct consequences on them.  For example, the beliefs of Osama 
bin Laden and his followers had a lot of consequences for people working at the 
World Trade Center a few years back.  Does that ring a bell?


>> >He might be.  But we can't say it for sure.  We have no proof.
>> >
>>
>> So if you think it is more likely that god is more like what we've been
>> culturally conditioned to imagine god to be like than it is that god is a
>> smurf, then you should also be able to infer that it is more likely that
>there
>> is no god.
>>
>I am not infering anything about the nature of God, if one actually exists,
>nor would I infer that there is no God.  

You've inferred that god is less likely to be a smurf or arnold schwartzenegger 
than something else.  From this you can infer that god likely does not exist.


>> They can search all they like but they won't find one since it's meaning
>could
>> only be created by humans anyway.
>>
>Everything that has meaning to us, as humans, has a definition or
>representation that was created by humans.

Now you're catching on.  But since humans didn't create the meaning of the 
cosmos with a top-down approach, there is no universal signifier.


>> Widely, and wildly interpreted, as I said...
>>
>Incorrectly stated.  There is a big difference between your misquote and
>what he actually said.

I quoted him precisely, liar.  Descartes said "I think, therefore I am".  It's 
in his book "Discourse on Method".  Twit.  

By the way I've decided from this point on only to respond to your strongest 
arguments, lies, and ad hominems to try to wrap this up...

>>
>> You moron, YOU just made the case against God (equalling Arny), based on
>> nothing but your own bias, likely from cultural conceptions of what 'god'
>> should be like.
>>
>
>Ah, Ad Hominem yet again.  Usually happens when one argues in circles and
>can't backtrack.

no, it would've been an ad hominem if I had just said "You moron" but had not 
explained exactly how you contradicted yourself (moronically, in my opinion).  
The claim is about your contradiction, moron.  So your 'ad hominem' remark is a 
red herring.  Insults aren't automatically ad hominem attacks, didn't you know 
that, idiot?

>> >Not talking about "supernatural" phenomenon.  There are plenty of life
>forms
>> >that have no brain and can respond to their environments.  This indicates
>a
>> >'conciousness' of sorts, without even the presence of a brain.
>>
>> There are plants that respond to touch - are they conscious?  (if you say
>yes
>> you win a granola bar)
>>
>I don't think so.  But again, it epends on how you define consciousness.

Uh huh, and you just defined it as an organism that responds to it's 
environment immediately.  So when I present an organism you have a cultural 
bias against, you disclude it from your definition even though it fits as well 
as every other organism you accepted in your definition.  You're spinning your 
wheels, contradicting yourself, and just plowing on as if you're consistent, 
possibly hoping nobody will notice.  Well if it hasn't dawned on you yet, I'm 
noticing!

>> I'm conceiving of it right now because I know of the definition.  It's a
>cliche
>> for people (usually new age idiots like you appear to be) to claim that
>humans
>> just can't 'concieve' of infinity.  I concieve of it just fine, if I
>couldn't I
>> wouldn't know what the word meant.
>>
>OK.  You go back to your self-teaching.  Since you are a finite being, like
>the rest of us, you can only concieve of the definition and the symbology
>that represents infinity.  You have no idea what infinity is in the true
>sense and neither does any other finite being.

Suddenly you've changed the definition of infinity to immortality.  I think you 
are a complete idiot who doesn't know what he's saying one moment from the 
next.  You're frantically ad hocing protection for your delusions.  


>> >You didn't define will, nor did you explain it except as a circular
>> >argument.
>>
>> Nietzche's definition works for me. The 'will to power' line didn't tip
>you
>> off?
>>
>Its a circular argument, one of the fallacies.  Nietze was using it in a
>specific context and he was not defining will.  He was defining free will.
>

actually he was defining will as will to power, which was his attempt at 
resolving determinism vs. free will.



>
>> >> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to
>> >transfer
>> >> units of information into units of energy?
>> >>
>> >Volts, Amps, and Ohms.  The brain works on electrical activity as well as
>> >chemical states.
>>
>> Volts, amps and ohms is not an equation to translate units of
>"information"
>> into units of "energy".  Volts amps and ohms are descriptive terms for
>> measuring electrical current.  Why are you still responding?  Is it fun to
>> waste yours and my time with this stupidity?
>>
>The question is really, why are you? 

I pick and choose my battles in life.  I see a lot of bullshit I ignore, but I 
chose not to ignore yours.  I have thoroughly defeated you and your bullshit, 
but if you continue to try to ad hoc your bullshit back into production here, 
I'll keep responding.  The trend here has been for you to launch more and more 
ridiclous statements, if you haven't noticed... I suspect that trend to 
continue for as long as this conversation does.


> I am finished responding. 

I'll believe it when I see it.  

On 11/19/04 12:09 PM, Norman Miller's useable flesh will be contributed to
the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.

> In article <858bd3a9.0411181147.5af105f3@posting.google.com>, Michael
> Yardley says...
> 
>> I like reading the flame war, but the subject heading is correct. The
>> Bible is False and if you beleive it you are beliving bullshit. The
>> whole of the Bible is foney. So is the Koran and all the religious
>> crap they write. Best to avoid.

> Actually, the subject heading is not correct. The Bible is not phoney, it is
> genuine. If you think otherwise, you need to post proof.

Nonsense. You've just made the positive claim, that the Bible is "genuine".
You need to provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

> The atheists are 
> wrong about where the burden of proof lies; the burden of proof lies with
> the individual making an assertion.

And you are the one making the assertion. You have to 'prove' that the Bible
is genuine. No atheist has to prove it is not.

> If you assert a fact, you must prove that your assertion is valid.

Get on it, then. Prove your assertion.


-- 

VVV

His Shadow

Vote Cthulhu.  Why settle for the lesser evil?

On 11/19/04 12:22 PM, Norman Miller's useable flesh will be contributed to
the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.

> In article <nujnp0h80opv3plbqu9fr3v9h6n3i9ts1o@4ax.com>, Chuck Farley
> says...
> 
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:12:53 GMT, Norman Miller <spamthis@die.invalid>
>> wrote:
> 
>>> The Bible was made up from various scrolls and manuscripts which existed
>>> before the Bible was compiled. There was much debate about which writings
>>> should be included as canon, and which should be omitted.
> 
>> Gee, you'd think the ALMIGHTY and ALLKNOWING could publish something
>> original, instead of having to plagiarize existing manuscripts!
> 
>> Guffaw!
> 
> You amaze me. Really, you do. The Bible was written by human agents inspired
> by God.

Faith claim. You have no evidence for such a claim. The burden of proof is
on you.


-- 

His Shadow

America ... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all
the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in
the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.

Hunter S. Thompson

On 11/19/04 12:24 PM, Norman Miller's useable flesh will be contributed to
the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.

> In article <03knp0l63sakeuib4r7b34kuhfg3ps3bmc@4ax.com>, Chuck Farley
> says...
> 
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:12:53 GMT, Norman Miller <spamthis@die.invalid>
>> wrote:
> 
>>> Scrolls which contradicted the Bible were not included in the Bible.
> 
>> So, they left out the stuff they didn't like, and the resultant
>> collection, reflecting their earthly biases is presented as GOD'S
>> WORD!
> 
>> Hilarious. And you're actually proud of being stupid enough to swallow
>> it?
> 
> Do you believe the scientific papers which pass a "peer review"? Why?

They have something you don't have: evidence.

--

VVV
 
His Shadow

Many of us on this list extend our skepticism about the paranormal to all
things spiritual.  But what, in practical terms, does this offer?  Say,
after all the apologetics and criticism, that we have probable truth and
intellectual appeal on our side. Isn't this, in psychological terms, rather
thin? How can it compete against a religion which promises forgiveness to
the guilt-ridden, a cosmic home and purpose to those whose mundane lives are
in crisis, and offers hope that no failure is truly final this side of the
grave?

Dave Palmer, Skeptic List Participant 

On 11/19/04 1:07 PM, Norman Miller's useable flesh will be contributed to
the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.

 
>>> Atheists don't address the matter very well at all. An atheistic dogma is
>>> still a dogma; an atheistic belief is still a belief.
> 
>> Actually, no. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a non-belief.
> 
> It is a belief; it is a belief in the non-existence of God.

Where do you people get this crud? There is no evidence for any god. Having
no belief is not a belief.

--

VVV

His Shadow

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove
anything.

Friederich Nietzsche 

On 11/19/04 3:03 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the Protein
Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.

> 
> "Opus-" <jbuchy@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:aa4rp0pjpl5q7ttqs20n7sdebr7c77n0na@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:45:05 GMT, Norman Miller <spamthis@die.invalid>
>> spake thusly:
>> 
>>> In article <858bd3a9.0411171050.7c8514d0@posting.google.com>, Michael
>>> Yardley says...
>>> 
> <snip>
>>> Atheists don't address the matter very well at all. An atheistic dogma is
>>> still a dogma; an atheistic belief is still a belief.
>> 
>> Actually, no. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a non-belief.
>> 
> Actually, it is a belief and it is faith.

Wrong. You do realise that these words have meaning, and that you don't get
to rewrite that meaning just to cling to your beliefs?

> Faith is the acceptance of something in the absence of proof.

Such as belief in a god.

>  An athiest can no more prove that there
> is no deity than a theist can prove there is one.

No one has to prove the non-existence of anything. You believe in a god, so
you provide the evidence. All an atheist has to do is point out your
complete lack of evidence for any god. That is not a 'belief': the complete
lack of evidence for a god is a fact.

> The only non-believers are those who don't really know one way or the other.

Please. They are agnostics, and most agnostics admit to believing in some
higher power, but they do not claim to know what it is. They are still
believers.

> 
> In addition, from a logical perspective, it is has much more risk than an
> theistic belief.

Risk? 

> If a theist is wrong, they don't really lose; that's all
> there is.  But if they are right, they win.  For an athiest, if they are
> right they don't really win; again, that is all there is.  But if they are
> wrong, they lose.  Consequently, a theist cannot lose, and an atheist cannot
> win.

What a load of malarkey. The theist is just as wrong as an atheist from that
view, as there is no way to know if you have the right god.

> 
> An atheist, nevertheless, holds as firm a belief, in the absence of any
> proof, that there is no deity, as a theist holds the belief, again in the
> absence of proof, that there is.

Bullshit. There is no evidence for any god or gods whatsoever. That is the
atheist's position, and it has yet to be refuted.

-- 

VVV

His Shadow

I've always thought of philosophy as something like mental masturbation:
some people enjoy doing it, others enjoy watching it being done. But in the
end, it produces no viable offspring...

Dave Palmer 

On 11/19/04 3:33 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the Protein
Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.

> 
> "Stings" <eatspam@yohospam.cpm> wrote in message
> news:QWsnd.194008$9b.172570@edtnps84...
>> Cut the crap get down to the proof your bible is anything but fables,
> fairy
>> tales, dogma or bull crap. ONE shred will do and real proof not fables
>> stories explainable miracles but touchable proof.
>> The bible is so filled with contradiction out and out bologna and sad
>> excuses.
>> How about the Bible fellow who went around the whole world when at the
> time
>> the transportation would have taken 1000 years for the trip and collected
> 2
>> of everything, now that would be millions of animals bugs birds enough for
>> 1000 ships and some how fit them a small boat. (Laugh here)
>> 
>> 
> I can't resist a challenge.  I am one of those non-believers; in other
> words, I have no idea whether there is a God or not.
> 
> That having been said, read the Genesis.  Then go read the current
> scientific accounts on the creation of the universe.  You will find that
> only the appearance of birds is out of order as long as you take a "day" to
> mean a phase.

The god of the gaps. How lame.


-- 

VVV

His Shadow

"Y'know, I can *say* I'm Ming The Merciless, Emperor of Planet Mongo, but
unless I can produce a few legions of heavily-armed rocket ships, you're not
likely to take me seriously."

Morely Dotes, 2001 

On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the Protein
Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.

> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of brain
> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that some
> consciousness originates elsewhere.

Post it. I need a laugh.


-- 

VVV

His Shadow

"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Palaeontology shows a
fossil sequence, the list of species representing changes through time.
Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the
explanation that threads it all together.  Creationism is the practice of
squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!".

Dr.Pepper@fidonet.org 

"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:BDC85883.3DE5A%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> On 11/19/04 1:07 PM, Norman Miller's useable flesh will be contributed to
> the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
> Shadow.
>
>
> >>> Atheists don't address the matter very well at all. An atheistic dogma
is
> >>> still a dogma; an atheistic belief is still a belief.
> >
> >> Actually, no. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a non-belief.
> >
> > It is a belief; it is a belief in the non-existence of God.
>
> Where do you people get this crud? There is no evidence for any god.
Having
> no belief is not a belief.
>
> --
>
> VVV
>
> His Shadow
>
> A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove
> anything.
>
> Friederich Nietzsche
>

After going through all of this naus once, you don't read very well do you?

"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:BDC85A26.3DE5C%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> On 11/19/04 3:03 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
Protein
> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>
> >
> > "Opus-" <jbuchy@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:aa4rp0pjpl5q7ttqs20n7sdebr7c77n0na@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:45:05 GMT, Norman Miller <spamthis@die.invalid>
> >> spake thusly:
> >>
> >>> In article <858bd3a9.0411171050.7c8514d0@posting.google.com>, Michael
> >>> Yardley says...
> >>>
> > <snip>
> >>> Atheists don't address the matter very well at all. An atheistic dogma
is
> >>> still a dogma; an atheistic belief is still a belief.
> >>
> >> Actually, no. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a non-belief.
> >>
> > Actually, it is a belief and it is faith.
>
> Wrong. You do realise that these words have meaning, and that you don't
get
> to rewrite that meaning just to cling to your beliefs?
>
> > Faith is the acceptance of something in the absence of proof.
>
> Such as belief in a god.
>
Or the belief that there isn't one.

> >  An athiest can no more prove that there
> > is no deity than a theist can prove there is one.
>
> No one has to prove the non-existence of anything. You believe in a god,
so
> you provide the evidence. All an atheist has to do is point out your
> complete lack of evidence for any god. That is not a 'belief': the
complete
> lack of evidence for a god is a fact.
>
Hmm.  Another philosopher heard from.  Better go look again at what a 'fact'
is.

> > The only non-believers are those who don't really know one way or the
other.
>
> Please. They are agnostics, and most agnostics admit to believing in some
> higher power, but they do not claim to know what it is. They are still
> believers.
>
Nope.  They are non-committed.

> >
> > In addition, from a logical perspective, it is has much more risk than
an
> > theistic belief.
>
> Risk?
>
> > If a theist is wrong, they don't really lose; that's all
> > there is.  But if they are right, they win.  For an athiest, if they are
> > right they don't really win; again, that is all there is.  But if they
are
> > wrong, they lose.  Consequently, a theist cannot lose, and an atheist
cannot
> > win.
>
> What a load of malarkey. The theist is just as wrong as an atheist from
that
> view, as there is no way to know if you have the right god.
>
Their probability of winning is still better than zero; which is not true of
an atheist.

> >
> > An atheist, nevertheless, holds as firm a belief, in the absence of any
> > proof, that there is no deity, as a theist holds the belief, again in
the
> > absence of proof, that there is.
>
> Bullshit. There is no evidence for any god or gods whatsoever. That is the
> atheist's position, and it has yet to be refuted.
>
It has yet to be listened to.  There is a difference.  The atheist position
is no different from that of a fundamentalist theist.

"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:BDC85B10.3DE5D%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> On 11/19/04 3:33 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
Protein
> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>
> >
> > "Stings" <eatspam@yohospam.cpm> wrote in message
> > news:QWsnd.194008$9b.172570@edtnps84...
> >> Cut the crap get down to the proof your bible is anything but fables,
> > fairy
> >> tales, dogma or bull crap. ONE shred will do and real proof not fables
> >> stories explainable miracles but touchable proof.
> >> The bible is so filled with contradiction out and out bologna and sad
> >> excuses.
> >> How about the Bible fellow who went around the whole world when at the
> > time
> >> the transportation would have taken 1000 years for the trip and
collected
> > 2
> >> of everything, now that would be millions of animals bugs birds enough
for
> >> 1000 ships and some how fit them a small boat. (Laugh here)
> >>
> >>
> > I can't resist a challenge.  I am one of those non-believers; in other
> > words, I have no idea whether there is a God or not.
> >
> > That having been said, read the Genesis.  Then go read the current
> > scientific accounts on the creation of the universe.  You will find that
> > only the appearance of birds is out of order as long as you take a "day"
to
> > mean a phase.
>
> The god of the gaps. How lame.
>
Haven't seen a reasonable argument from you as to how such a coincidence
could occur.

"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
Protein
> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>
> > Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of brain
> > activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
some
> > consciousness originates elsewhere.
>
> Post it. I need a laugh.
>
I'm already having one.

"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:BDC843E0.3DE56%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> On 11/19/04 12:09 PM, Norman Miller's useable flesh will be contributed to
> the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
> Shadow.
>
> > In article <858bd3a9.0411181147.5af105f3@posting.google.com>, Michael
> > Yardley says...
> >
> >> I like reading the flame war, but the subject heading is correct. The
> >> Bible is False and if you beleive it you are beliving bullshit. The
> >> whole of the Bible is foney. So is the Koran and all the religious
> >> crap they write. Best to avoid.
>
> > Actually, the subject heading is not correct. The Bible is not phoney,
it is
> > genuine. If you think otherwise, you need to post proof.
>
> Nonsense. You've just made the positive claim, that the Bible is
"genuine".
> You need to provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
>

It is genuine.  Nobody said it is correct

> > The atheists are
> > wrong about where the burden of proof lies; the burden of proof lies
with
> > the individual making an assertion.
>
> And you are the one making the assertion. You have to 'prove' that the
Bible
> is genuine. No atheist has to prove it is not.
>
No proof is necessary.  Those who wrote it were genuine;  perhaps mis-guided
and simple, but genuine nonetheless.

Maybe you should stick to recycling protein.

People are stupid. It's as simple as that. They'll believe anything, 
either because they want it to be real, or because they're afraid it 
might be.

The -BELIEF- in God is just that. A belief. Just as the belief in a lack 
of a God is also just that. There is no proof for either case, that can 
be openly and unquestionably presented as fact for either idea. The lack 
of known proof, does not mean it is not real. It could simply mean 
you've been looking in the wrong place.

It goes both ways. In the end, no matter the beliefs, it is a matter of 
faith. Either you believe there is a God, or you believe there is not 
one, or you're simply undecided. All without solid and unquestioned 
evidence in any direction. That is where a belief is faith. A belief 
without proof. A hunch, or a gut feeling, when followed upon, is faith. 
Sometimes, it leads to a positive result, and some see that as a psychic 
instinct, while others see it as the whim of their God. It still doesn't 
provide for the burden of proof.

So, stop this spam-filled BS, with everyone bitching about everyone 
else, when none of you have solid proof in the direction they're 
fighting for. For those who say there is no God, either provide solid, 
secure evidence that God does not and cannot exist, or shut up. For 
those who say there is, either provide the divine proof that there is a 
God or Gods, in some way that there are no questions, or go to Hell. To 
continue this debate is as pointless and empty as the heads of those who 
are trying to debate it in either direction, thus proving my opening 
statement.

In article <%DOod.318215$%k.209025@pd7tw2no>, you.dont.get@it.com says...

> All without solid and unquestioned 
>evidence in any direction. That is where a belief is faith. A belief 
>without proof. A hunch, or a gut feeling, when followed upon, is faith.

No, faith is belief in something without proof.  Since proof doesn't exist 
faith can be based on a hunch, a "gut feeling", or highly developed tools of 
reasoning.  Personally, I choose the latter to build my faith on.

In article <9vOod.204816$9b.12413@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>news:BDC843E0.3DE56%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
>> On 11/19/04 12:09 PM, Norman Miller's useable flesh will be contributed to
>> the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
>> Shadow.
>>
>> > In article <858bd3a9.0411181147.5af105f3@posting.google.com>, Michael
>> > Yardley says...
>> >
>> >> I like reading the flame war, but the subject heading is correct. The
>> >> Bible is False and if you beleive it you are beliving bullshit. The
>> >> whole of the Bible is foney. So is the Koran and all the religious
>> >> crap they write. Best to avoid.
>>
>> > Actually, the subject heading is not correct. The Bible is not phoney,
>it is
>> > genuine. If you think otherwise, you need to post proof.
>>
>> Nonsense. You've just made the positive claim, that the Bible is
>"genuine".
>> You need to provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
>>
>
>It is genuine.  Nobody said it is correct
>
>> > The atheists are
>> > wrong about where the burden of proof lies; the burden of proof lies
>with
>> > the individual making an assertion.
>>
>> And you are the one making the assertion. You have to 'prove' that the
>Bible
>> is genuine. No atheist has to prove it is not.
>>
>No proof is necessary.  Those who wrote it were genuine;  perhaps mis-guided
>and simple, but genuine nonetheless.
>
>Maybe you should stick to recycling protein.
>
>

Maybe you should both choose a more useful word than 'genuine' to get into a 
pissing match over.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:06:22 GMT, DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
(Danie|_ Swan) wrote:

>In article <%DOod.318215$%k.209025@pd7tw2no>, you.dont.get@it.com says...
>
>> All without solid and unquestioned 
>>evidence in any direction. That is where a belief is faith. A belief 
>>without proof. A hunch, or a gut feeling, when followed upon, is faith.
>
>No, faith is belief in something without proof.  Since proof doesn't exist 
>faith can be based on a hunch, a "gut feeling", or highly developed tools of 
>reasoning.  Personally, I choose the latter to build my faith on.

Ok. I'll bite. How do your highly developed tools of 
reasoning lead you to believe in God?

In article <9ug7q0tc20ma77j17gmpffoite6ku2dt6i@4ax.com>, 
mail@prehensiletail.com says...
>
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:06:22 GMT, DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
>(Danie|_ Swan) wrote:
>
>>In article <%DOod.318215$%k.209025@pd7tw2no>, you.dont.get@it.com says...
>>
>>> All without solid and unquestioned 
>>>evidence in any direction. That is where a belief is faith. A belief 
>>>without proof. A hunch, or a gut feeling, when followed upon, is faith.
>>
>>No, faith is belief in something without proof.  Since proof doesn't exist 
>>faith can be based on a hunch, a "gut feeling", or highly developed tools of 
>>reasoning.  Personally, I choose the latter to build my faith on.
>
>Ok. I'll bite. How do your highly developed tools of 
>reasoning lead you to believe in God?

They don't, they've led me to atheism.

"FNO" <Me@home.ca> wrote in message
news:GoOod.204813$9b.137266@edtnps84...
> > Bullshit. There is no evidence for any god or gods whatsoever. That
is the
> > atheist's position, and it has yet to be refuted.
> >
> It has yet to be listened to.  There is a difference.  The atheist
position
> is no different from that of a fundamentalist theist.

I can't believe that anyone can be so stupid.  Not believing is NOT a
belief ... it is simply that no proof has passed a thinking person's
mind filters to allow the same opinion as you, and you try to accuse
them of having beliefs just as fervent as the idiots who would love to
brainwash the general population?  Get real!

On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the Protein
Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.

>>> I can't resist a challenge.  I am one of those non-believers; in other
>>> words, I have no idea whether there is a God or not.
>>> 
>>> That having been said, read the Genesis.  Then go read the current
>>> scientific accounts on the creation of the universe.  You will find that
>>> only the appearance of birds is out of order as long as you take a "day" to
>>> mean a phase.
>> 
>> The god of the gaps. How lame.
>> 
> Haven't seen a reasonable argument from you as to how such a coincidence
> could occur.

Look up the meaning of coincidence. That's your answer.


-- 

VVV

His Shadow

SCOOBY DOO - It�s difficult for me to be impartial because that talentless
prick Freddie Prinze Jr. is banging my future bride.

Doug Benson- http://bobanddavid.com/section_movies_jun02.html

On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the Protein
Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.

> 
> "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
>> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
> Protein
>> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>> 
>>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of brain
>>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
> some
>>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
>> 
>> Post it. I need a laugh.
>> 
> I'm already having one.

Evasion noted.
 

-- 

VVV

His Shadow

What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can
assume it will be pretty bad.

Dave Barry

In article <BDCE19CC.3E3D8%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net>, hisshadow@bigmailbox.net 
says...
>
>On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the Protein
>Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>
>>>> I can't resist a challenge.  I am one of those non-believers; in other
>>>> words, I have no idea whether there is a God or not.
>>>> 
>>>> That having been said, read the Genesis.  Then go read the current
>>>> scientific accounts on the creation of the universe.  You will find that
>>>> only the appearance of birds is out of order as long as you take a "day" 
to
>>>> mean a phase.
>>> 
>>> The god of the gaps. How lame.
>>> 
>> Haven't seen a reasonable argument from you as to how such a coincidence
>> could occur.
>
>Look up the meaning of coincidence. That's your answer.
>
>

What is the so-called 'coincidence' that FNO is babbling about?  
Birds/day/phase means what?

"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:BDCE19E8.3E3D9%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
Protein
> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>
> >
> > "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> > news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
> > Protein
> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> >>
> >>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of
brain
> >>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
> > some
> >>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Post it. I need a laugh.
> >>
> > I'm already having one.
>
> Evasion noted.
>
>
It was already posted some long ways back while arguing with a fool.  Just
read back in this thread.  Its already there.
> -- 
>
> VVV
>
> His Shadow
>
> What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
> simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can
> assume it will be pretty bad.
>
> Dave Barry
>
>
>

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:3e4qd.217142$9b.10162@edtnps84...
> In article <BDCE19CC.3E3D8%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net>,
hisshadow@bigmailbox.net
> says...
> >
> >On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
Protein
> >Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> >
> >>>> I can't resist a challenge.  I am one of those non-believers; in
other
> >>>> words, I have no idea whether there is a God or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> That having been said, read the Genesis.  Then go read the current
> >>>> scientific accounts on the creation of the universe.  You will find
that
> >>>> only the appearance of birds is out of order as long as you take a
"day"
> to
> >>>> mean a phase.
> >>>
> >>> The god of the gaps. How lame.
> >>>
> >> Haven't seen a reasonable argument from you as to how such a
coincidence
> >> could occur.
> >
> >Look up the meaning of coincidence. That's your answer.
> >
> >
>
> What is the so-called 'coincidence' that FNO is babbling about?
> Birds/day/phase means what?
>

It was already discussed with you.  You didn't understand it then, and still
don't.  Neither of you seem to grasp the concept of sarcasm either.

In article <1R5qd.195180$df2.152291@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>news:BDCE19E8.3E3D9%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
>> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
>Protein
>> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>>
>> >
>> > "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
>> >> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
>> > Protein
>> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>> >>
>> >>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of
>brain
>> >>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
>> > some
>> >>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> Post it. I need a laugh.
>> >>
>> > I'm already having one.
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>>
>It was already posted some long ways back while arguing with a fool.  Just
>read back in this thread.  Its already there.
>> -

what about the part of this thread where you admitted you were an idiot and 
apologized for being stupid?  Just read back in this thread, it's there.

In article <gS5qd.195181$df2.160494@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:3e4qd.217142$9b.10162@edtnps84...
>> In article <BDCE19CC.3E3D8%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net>,
>hisshadow@bigmailbox.net
>> says...
>> >
>> >On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
>Protein
>> >Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>> >
>> >>>> I can't resist a challenge.  I am one of those non-believers; in
>other
>> >>>> words, I have no idea whether there is a God or not.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That having been said, read the Genesis.  Then go read the current
>> >>>> scientific accounts on the creation of the universe.  You will find
>that
>> >>>> only the appearance of birds is out of order as long as you take a
>"day"
>> to
>> >>>> mean a phase.
>> >>>
>> >>> The god of the gaps. How lame.
>> >>>
>> >> Haven't seen a reasonable argument from you as to how such a
>coincidence
>> >> could occur.
>> >
>> >Look up the meaning of coincidence. That's your answer.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> What is the so-called 'coincidence' that FNO is babbling about?
>> Birds/day/phase means what?
>>
>
>It was already discussed with you.  You didn't understand it then, and still
>don't.  Neither of you seem to grasp the concept of sarcasm either.
>
>

We both seem to grasp the concept of recognizing a troll

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:bL9qd.9604$cE3.5861@clgrps12...
> In article <1R5qd.195180$df2.152291@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >news:BDCE19E8.3E3D9%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
> >Protein
> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> >> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
> >> > Protein
> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of
> >brain
> >> >>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence
that
> >> > some
> >> >>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
> >> >>
> >> >> Post it. I need a laugh.
> >> >>
> >> > I'm already having one.
> >>
> >> Evasion noted.
> >>
> >>
> >It was already posted some long ways back while arguing with a fool.
Just
> >read back in this thread.  Its already there.
> >> -
>
> what about the part of this thread where you admitted you were an idiot
and
> apologized for being stupid?  Just read back in this thread, it's there.
>
>

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:bL9qd.9604$cE3.5861@clgrps12...
> In article <1R5qd.195180$df2.152291@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >news:BDCE19E8.3E3D9%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
> >Protein
> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> >> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
> >> > Protein
> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of
> >brain
> >> >>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence
that
> >> > some
> >> >>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
> >> >>
> >> >> Post it. I need a laugh.
> >> >>
> >> > I'm already having one.
> >>
> >> Evasion noted.
> >>
> >>
> >It was already posted some long ways back while arguing with a fool.
Just
> >read back in this thread.  Its already there.
> >> -
>
> what about the part of this thread where you admitted you were an idiot
and
> apologized for being stupid?  Just read back in this thread, it's there.
>
>

Danny boy.  Go back into sulk more.  Try not to be smart.  It doesn't become
you.  No more arguments so you have to resort to just insults.  You have
just proven the essential points of the entire thread.  So, I am guessing
you really are some high-school drop-out with wannabe dillusions of
grandeur.  If not, you sure are acting like one.

But, I'm not going to play your stupid games.  Have fun with them.  Once you
are educated, come back and talk to me, OK Danny boy?

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:TM9qd.9625$cE3.6283@clgrps12...
> In article <gS5qd.195181$df2.160494@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:3e4qd.217142$9b.10162@edtnps84...
> >> In article <BDCE19CC.3E3D8%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net>,
> >hisshadow@bigmailbox.net
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
> >Protein
> >> >Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> >> >
> >> >>>> I can't resist a challenge.  I am one of those non-believers; in
> >other
> >> >>>> words, I have no idea whether there is a God or not.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> That having been said, read the Genesis.  Then go read the current
> >> >>>> scientific accounts on the creation of the universe.  You will
find
> >that
> >> >>>> only the appearance of birds is out of order as long as you take a
> >"day"
> >> to
> >> >>>> mean a phase.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The god of the gaps. How lame.
> >> >>>
> >> >> Haven't seen a reasonable argument from you as to how such a
> >coincidence
> >> >> could occur.
> >> >
> >> >Look up the meaning of coincidence. That's your answer.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> What is the so-called 'coincidence' that FNO is babbling about?
> >> Birds/day/phase means what?
> >>
> >
> >It was already discussed with you.  You didn't understand it then, and
still
> >don't.  Neither of you seem to grasp the concept of sarcasm either.
> >
> >
>
> We both seem to grasp the concept of recognizing a troll
>
You both should have no difficulty in recognizing them.  After all you have
both epitomized the definition of troll for the purposes of newsgroups
anyway.

Again, go back to sulking Danny boy.

In article <vFaqd.195323$df2.116185@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:bL9qd.9604$cE3.5861@clgrps12...
>> In article <1R5qd.195180$df2.152291@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:BDCE19E8.3E3D9%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
>> >> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
>> >Protein
>> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
>> >> >> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
>> >> > Protein
>> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of
>> >brain
>> >> >>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence
>that
>> >> > some
>> >> >>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Post it. I need a laugh.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I'm already having one.
>> >>
>> >> Evasion noted.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >It was already posted some long ways back while arguing with a fool.
>Just
>> >read back in this thread.  Its already there.
>> >> -
>>
>> what about the part of this thread where you admitted you were an idiot
>and
>> apologized for being stupid?  Just read back in this thread, it's there.
>>
>>
>
>Danny boy.  Go back into sulk more.  Try not to be smart.  It doesn't become
>you.  No more arguments so you have to resort to just insults.

Now how is it insulting to agree with you that you're stupid?  Does this mean 
you're renegging on your apology?

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:whfqd.195766$df2.102020@edtnps89...
> In article <vFaqd.195323$df2.116185@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:bL9qd.9604$cE3.5861@clgrps12...
> >> In article <1R5qd.195180$df2.152291@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:BDCE19E8.3E3D9%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> >> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
> >> >Protein
> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> >> >> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to
the
> >> >> > Protein
> >> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely
of
> >> >brain
> >> >> >>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant
evidence
> >that
> >> >> > some
> >> >> >>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Post it. I need a laugh.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > I'm already having one.
> >> >>
> >> >> Evasion noted.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >It was already posted some long ways back while arguing with a fool.
> >Just
> >> >read back in this thread.  Its already there.
> >> >> -
> >>
> >> what about the part of this thread where you admitted you were an idiot
> >and
> >> apologized for being stupid?  Just read back in this thread, it's
there.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Danny boy.  Go back into sulk more.  Try not to be smart.  It doesn't
become
> >you.  No more arguments so you have to resort to just insults.
>
> Now how is it insulting to agree with you that you're stupid?  Does this
mean
> you're renegging on your apology?
>
>
>

Because, Danny boy,  you are not agreeing with me.  I never said any such
thing, nor did I apologize for it; I never would, because I am not.  This
was mildly amusing, but its getting old fast.  Its what my kid did when he
was little; he would sulk for a couple of hours, then come out with
something totally irrelevant.  Then I'd correct him, just as I am with you,
and he'd go sulk some more.

But, I have already finished raising kids and I certainly have no intention
of doing it on a newsgroup.  Go back to sulking Danny boy.  Anyone who has
read thiswhole thread thinks you are an idiot.  So, why write more and
confirm it for them?

In article <nVjqd.195845$df2.99934@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:whfqd.195766$df2.102020@edtnps89...
>> In article <vFaqd.195323$df2.116185@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:bL9qd.9604$cE3.5861@clgrps12...
>> >> In article <1R5qd.195180$df2.152291@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:BDCE19E8.3E3D9%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
>> >> >> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the
>> >> >Protein
>> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
>> >> >> >> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to
>the
>> >> >> > Protein
>> >> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
>Shadow.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely
>of
>> >> >brain
>> >> >> >>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant
>evidence
>> >that
>> >> >> > some
>> >> >> >>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Post it. I need a laugh.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > I'm already having one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Evasion noted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >It was already posted some long ways back while arguing with a fool.
>> >Just
>> >> >read back in this thread.  Its already there.
>> >> >> -
>> >>
>> >> what about the part of this thread where you admitted you were an idiot
>> >and
>> >> apologized for being stupid?  Just read back in this thread, it's
>there.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Danny boy.  Go back into sulk more.  Try not to be smart.  It doesn't
>become
>> >you.  No more arguments so you have to resort to just insults.
>>
>> Now how is it insulting to agree with you that you're stupid?  Does this
>mean
>> you're renegging on your apology?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Because, Danny boy,  you are not agreeing with me.  I never said any such
>thing, nor did I apologize for it; I never would, because I am not.  

Go back and read the thread.  You also said that you like wearing frilly 
panties.

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:O4kqd.236471$9b.144887@edtnps84...
> In article <nVjqd.195845$df2.99934@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >news:whfqd.195766$df2.102020@edtnps89...
> >> In article <vFaqd.195323$df2.116185@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:bL9qd.9604$cE3.5861@clgrps12...
> >> >> In article <1R5qd.195180$df2.152291@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:BDCE19E8.3E3D9%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> >> >> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to
the
> >> >> >Protein
> >> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "His Divine Shadow" <hisshadow@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:BDC85E77.3DE5E%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net...
> >> >> >> >> On 11/21/04 6:06 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed
to
> >the
> >> >> >> > Protein
> >> >> >> >> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
> >Shadow.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result
solely
> >of
> >> >> >brain
> >> >> >> >>> activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant
> >evidence
> >> >that
> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> >>> consciousness originates elsewhere.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Post it. I need a laugh.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > I'm already having one.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Evasion noted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >It was already posted some long ways back while arguing with a
fool.
> >> >Just
> >> >> >read back in this thread.  Its already there.
> >> >> >> -
> >> >>
> >> >> what about the part of this thread where you admitted you were an
idiot
> >> >and
> >> >> apologized for being stupid?  Just read back in this thread, it's
> >there.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Danny boy.  Go back into sulk more.  Try not to be smart.  It doesn't
> >become
> >> >you.  No more arguments so you have to resort to just insults.
> >>
> >> Now how is it insulting to agree with you that you're stupid?  Does
this
> >mean
> >> you're renegging on your apology?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because, Danny boy,  you are not agreeing with me.  I never said any such
> >thing, nor did I apologize for it; I never would, because I am not.
>
> Go back and read the thread.  You also said that you like wearing frilly
> panties.
>
>

Smoking rope is bad for your health Danny boy.  Didn't your mother 'learn
you nothing'?

On 11/27/04 12:05 PM, Danie|_ Swan's useable flesh will be contributed to
the Protein Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His
Shadow.

> In article <BDCE19CC.3E3D8%hisshadow@bigmailbox.net>, hisshadow@bigmailbox.net
> says...
>> 
>> On 11/23/04 3:00 PM, FNO's useable flesh will be contributed to the Protein
>> Bank, where it will be recycled for purposes that serve His Shadow.
>> 
>>>>> I can't resist a challenge.  I am one of those non-believers; in other
>>>>> words, I have no idea whether there is a God or not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That having been said, read the Genesis.  Then go read the current
>>>>> scientific accounts on the creation of the universe.  You will find that
>>>>> only the appearance of birds is out of order as long as you take a "day"
> to
>>>>> mean a phase.
>>>> 
>>>> The god of the gaps. How lame.
>>>> 
>>> Haven't seen a reasonable argument from you as to how such a coincidence
>>> could occur.
>> 
>> Look up the meaning of coincidence. That's your answer.
>> 
>> 
> 
> What is the so-called 'coincidence' that FNO is babbling about?
> Birds/day/phase means what?

I was hoping you knew...

 

-- 

VVV

His Shadow

"[W]hat pro-church militants are demanding is exemption from challenge to,
or even criticism of, their claim to a privileged role in shaping social
values. With no sense of contradiction, they presume the right, even the
obligation, to attack secularists' worldview while feeling entitled to
unquestioned 'respect' (which is to say suffocating reverence) for their own
beliefs."

Bill Bennetta