Eric or Domini Cook wrote in message <7b9c27$suc$1@cletus.bright.net>...

i ask you where does love come from?

Let me guess... you think it comes from a spooky thing up in the sky, right?

Tom

believer2000@hotmail.com wrote in message <7b9b1t$n33$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article 36d7726c.177355282@news.twave.net, bugar@bigfoot.NOSPAM.com (Walter Brameld) wrote:

<snip>

> Theist: God made the universe.
> Atheist: How do you know God did it?

>Someone did it. If it was possible for anything to come
>into existence without someone making it, we will have
>buildings, plants, factories coming into existence without
>someone making it.

Hmmm, seems to me you're arguing for a causal mechanism. But of course, no
universe, no time. No time, no possibility of cause and effect. Nothing can
have caused the universe to come into being - the question you're positing
doesn't make sense.

Your problem derives from the fact that you lump the universe into the same
category as factories etc. From this point onwards, the rest of the post is
an irrelevance.

<snip>

:)

Tom

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam
Date: 02 March 1999 23:23

believer wrote in message <5oWC2.1768

>There is an old saying, when you tell a lie, you have to tell 100 lies
>to prove that lie.
>
>You want to know "who made God" which indicates, you are now prepared
>to accept the hard fact that everything is made by someone.

No, I think the point is that we're demonstrating that, even using your
(incorrect) reference points, you do not have a coherent argument.

You use the assumption (which I dispute) that nothing can come into being
without a creator. You surely must then ask yourself "Who created God?".

Tom

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam
Date: 07 March 1999 09:29

Gary wrote in message <7bsic4$3i9$1@news.iag.net>...
<snip>

>No we don't. God has always existed.
>
>But science has shown that the universe has not.

The universe incorporates time. Therefore it has existed for all time. Time
began with the universe, time is part of the universe, and time will end
with the universe. There was no time before the universe, and no time after
it. The very statement 'before' or 'after' the universe' has no meaning.

There is no contradiction in saying that the universe had a specific
starting point *and* that it has always existed.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam
Date: 14 March 1999 22:24

believer wrote in message ...
>
>As you know there were just two gases (Hydrogen and Hellium) and no one
>around according to Atheists.

When was this? Hydrogen and helium condensed from protons & neutrons, which
in turn condensed from quarks.

> The only possible theory is that
>Hydrogen and hellium had either the intelligence to create other
>mechanisms such as evolution, mutation, selection and creation of
>other mechanisms and other element, or there was a blue print or
>gene in the two gases drawing out in detail, the plan for
>creation of everything.

Genes aren't the same as blueprints, btw - there's a fundamental difference.
If you think genes are in some way similar to blueprints, that might explain
some of your confusion about evolution.

> No mechanism creates itself. Nothing
>creates itself.

Who created God?

> Yes it can duplicate after it has been created
>and programed or designed to duplicate just like a women giving
>birth to a number of human beings. The women did not do it.
>A mechanism within the human machine did it. The women did
>not create the mechanism herself. She had no power to create
>the mechanisms of re-production. The same way no organism
>has created the mechanism of evolution, mutation or selection.
>The mechanisms has been created to allow the organisms to work
>the way it works. All mechanisms within human and animal
>bodies have been created. The human beings and animals or any
>part of their organ did not create the mechanisms themselves,
>they were handed down or programmed within it.

There is a mechanism, not a plan, by which the universe operates. This
mechanism (called the 'laws of physics') was in place at the start of the
universe. It was created with the universe. It is a fundamental part of the
universe.

Everything else flows from there.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam
Date: 14 March 1999 22:36

believer wrote in message ...
In article <36E98C47.2118FAC5@navix.net>, dotcom@navix.net says...

If the story was that why waiting for a boat to cross and suddenly there was a high wind and one of the branches broke and fell in the river, and the believer used that to float to cross the river then while he was in the middle of river then suddenly the branch started to sink, the believer was facing drowning, then suddenly he heard a noise, a high wind bringing another floating log. so he jumps on that log, unfortunately after a short while, this log hits a rock, that gone too, just at the same time he finds a piece of wood floating towards him and he takes that piese of wood and floats, It is floating too slow. He feels he will not reach the meeting place. He is desparate to reach there as soon as possible, then suddenly a high wind blows pushing him and the wood towards the shore. He is so tired, he can not even walk. Then he sees someone waiting at the shore with a horse. This guy offers him the horse to ride to the meeting place. When the believer told his story to the atheists they believed him and said, so what, it was all a coincidence.

Which atheists? The made-up ones in your story?

Real atheists would probably say 'Nice story, bit of a crap ending, but it
is all a fantasy after all'.

You show me evidence for something like this happening, then I might start
to take *your* fantasy more seriously.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian
Date: 15 March 1999 17:44

believer wrote in message ...
>In article <Nu1G2.3680$bk.10485007@storm.twcol.com>, weezboHATESSPAM@yahoo.com says...
>>believer <believer2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:EF_F2.374$1n2.2344@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca...
>>>In article <ujYF2.3611$bk.10288103@storm.twcol.com>, weezboHATESSPAM@yahoo.com says...
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Ah, but the species of fruit fly I refer to are brand new. Before the first
>>>>ones of those species mated, there were *no* mating patterns for that
>>>>species. By mating patterns, I mean when the females come into season and
>>>>how the mates get together. They have a brand new, completely natural, set
>>>>of behavior patterns, or rules of behavior, which developed without
>>>>intelligent intervention. During my lifetime.
>>>>Now, kindly attempt to be honest for once in your life and stop posting here
>>>>as you have said you would do if someone met this challenge.
>>>
>>>Your statements indicates: Fruit flies are brand new species.
>>
>>"Fruit fly" is a genus. I was referring to new species within that genus.
>>
>>>Question? Where did they come from? Out of the blue, accidently from no-where. Impossible.
>>
>>Exactly! It is good to hear that you deny creationism!
>>
>>> They must have come out from existing organism through the existing mechanism/process in a new form, shape etc.
>>
>>It's called "evolution". It's OK. It's not a dirty word. You can admit that the process exists.
>>
>>>Mating is part of the reproduction mechanism/process in human beings and animals.
>>
>>Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it...
>>
>>>The patterns may be different in different species.
>>
>>Bingo!
>>
>>>The mechanism/process which created the fruit fly, also created the
>>>pattern of mating.
>>
>>Which means that a new process was generated without intelligent
>>intervention. Thank you for conceeding this.
>>
>>>He who created evolution, mutation, selection
>>>mechanisms and billions of mechanisms/processes/law of natures/matters
>>>etc etc. created the mechanism/process to create fruit fly.
>>
>>Sorry, pal. You demanded a brand new process within a poster's lifetime
>>which was not the result of intelligent intervention.
>>You admit that the process of evolution has been around for years and is
>>not, itself, an intelligent entity.
>>Therefore, the mating patterns of entirely new species which originated
>>during my lifetime fit your challenge. As such, it is time for you to go
>>away as you promised.
>>
>>> Just before the Big Bang, there was nothing, no laws/rules of nature.
>>
>>Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
>>
>>>They did not come out of space.
>>
>>So?
>>
>>>In our life we see rules made everyday for specific purposes.
>>>They have purpose. There may be billions of rules made ecah
>>>year in the world.
>>
>>> You tried to find one but that did not fit
>>>the criteria I put, that is created in your life time, becuase
>>>the creation of fruit fly and the pattern of mating is part of
>>>the mechanism of nature created long before your time.
>>
>>*Yawn*. Typical. This is the part where he changes the challenge in a
>>pathetic attempt to not look like a liar when he does what everyone expected
>>of him.
>>
>>> So I will not quit presenting my view in this NewsGroup.
>>
>>Ah, big surprise. The Christer is a liar. I followed exactly the letter of
>>the challenge so now, when the challenge is met, he tries to change it post
>>facto. It's OK, "believer", I expected nothing more from you than the lies
>>you spread and the evasions you use to try and hide those lies when caught out.
>>Here is the original challenge in its entirety, hypocrite:
>>
>>>What Proof......   If you can find a single mechanism or formula or
>>>process created for the first time in your life time by random chance
>>>or otherwise but without the involvement of someone with knowledge
>>>and intelligence, I promise you, you will never hear from me again in this
>>>NewsGroup!
>>
>>The *specific* process by which the new species of fruit fly mate (season,
>>attraction, etc.) is new as the species is new. Even if I were to conceed
>>that this process is part of the greater mechanism of nature (and what, I
>>may ask, *isn't*?), the process meets your challenge as originally posted.
>>Have the decency to bow out now, "believer", as you can only show yourself
>>for the liar you truly are by continuing in this thread and in the
>>alt.atheism newsgroup.
>>No one demanded of you that you offer the challenge, "believer". No one
>>coerced you into using the language you did in describing it or suggested
>>the wording in an attempt to trap you. You wrote it the way you did and, as
>>such, made it very clear that the condition was for a single mechanism,
>>process, or formula which developed for the first time in the poster's life
>>time without intelligent intervention. I have met that challenge.
>>Keep your promise.
>>Or are we to take your actions to be evidence that Christians cannot be
>>taken at their word?
>>
>>Homo vult decipi; decipiatur,
>>
>>Sterling Crowe
>>#1168, Knight of BAAWA
>
>You failed to understand that all mechanisms, processes of nature (evolution,
>mutation, selection and many many more, were in existence long before your
>life time. Any new mechanism, process or formula or rule created in your life
>time has a creator, inventor, author, scientist or someone with intelligence.
>It could be an incubator to create chicke, a building, a fotmula for cough,
>a mechanism to run a car, a process in a lab or factory. Nothing springs
>out by itself from no where. Give you another chance. Thousands and millions
>of new mechanisms/processes/formulas (see science/drugs/engineering/computer
>magazines) and just find one created without the role of intelligence.
>Do not come back any mechanism of nature as they were here before you
>were born. Do not come back with fruit fly and bees or cockroaches.

Everyone understands except you, believer.

There is a new process, the rules that govern the mating behavior of this
breed of fruit fly. This new process is every bit as new, and as valid, as
any other new process you have mentioned. And it came into being
independently of intelligent intervention.

It came into being as a consequence of the of the way in which the universe
operates, and this is true of every new process you care to discuss. The
only difference between the new rules which govern the fruit fly's mating
behavior and the new rules you discuss is that the fruit fly's mating
behavior is not a consequence of intelligent intervention.

And so it's time to remind you of what you said:

'If you can find a single mechanism or formula or process created for the
first time in your life time by random chance or otherwise but without the
involvement of someone with knowledge and intelligence, I promise you, you
will never hear from me again in this NewsGroup!'

TomR

Libertarius wrote in message <7b97up$6c6@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com

>===>Life does NOT begin in the womb! It already began billions of years
>ago, when the evolutionary conditions became such that organic matter
>could energe from the inorganic substances of the planet.

Too true. To say that life begins in the womb implies that it stopped
somewhere beforehand. Sperm and ova are alive too!

Life is inherited, and it has been so for eons.

Tom

Garrison Hilliard wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, jerry and judy wrote:
>
>> I watched the "Genesis" installment of the A&E series "Mysteries of the
>> Bible" several nights ago and it provoked me a little.    grrrrr!!....
>>
>> One of the theologians said that science 'still' doesn't know the answer
>> to following 3 questions raised by and 'answered' by Genesis.
>>
>> 1.  Why snakes have no legs.
>> 2.  Why childbirth is so painful.
>> 3.  Why the Earth is so difficult to farm, when the Earth is clearly so
>> beautiful.
>
>Just for the record...

<snip>

>A3. This is really a moot question, as the qualities of beauty and
>difficulty are both subjective terms and meaningless as  far as a factual
>debate goes.

More to the point, number 3 is a non-sequiter. Why should beauty impact on
farming? Go to an art gallery, there you'll see many beautiful things that
are difficult to farm :)

I'll grant those theophilists that the earth is beautiful, but I'd disagree
that it's that difficult to farm - after all, people have been farming it
for a long time now. And most of these people, of course, had never even
heard of the Christian god!

Tom.

Darrin wrote in message <_R2C2.1280$24.3849@news.ipass.net>...
>To Dallas,
>
>    The problem is everyone is a sinner.  So we must all be forgiven or
>spend eternity in hell.  I just don't want you or anyone else to go there.
>If you don't believe, that is okay, but you can not say that you have not
>been warned.  I will pray for you and for anyone who does not believe.
>
>Darrin

Darrin, sorry to interject, and I don't want you to think that us atheists
don't appreciate your efforts on our behalf, but I'm seriously worried that
you've got the wrong god. I mean, you're praying away to your Christian god,
then it turns out that someone else's god is the one true god etc. What
happens then? Has all your prayer been wasted? Will I be seeing you in hell?

Regards, Tom.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
Date: 03 March 1999 22:37

lancelot wrote in message <36DCB128.38AF46F1@access1.net>...
>No, in fact, they don't even have to pass e-mail to each other, because they are
>one and the same Creator. The only difference in religions is how man presumes
>to worship his Creator on man's terms vs. the Cross.

It's not a question of cultural differences in worship, its a question of
fundamental differences in belief. You superstitious types can't even agree
on how many gods there are. About the only thing christianity has in common
with the non-judaic religions is a belief in magic.

How, for instance, does the account of creationism given in the bible tie in
with the given in the Mahabarat? It seems to me that the evidence is
compelling that man invents God in his own image.

TomR

Roger Spencer wrote in message <36d961b8.0@pluto.ovis.net>...
>Hello. I am trying to prepare an invitation for my congregation. I was
>wondering if anyone could help me find an instance where someone repented on
>their deathbed, or had regrets about not living a sound life, being
>baptized. I remember hearing that Charles Darwin repented on his deathbed,
>but could not find any info on it. ANY help is greatly appreciated!
>Thanks,
>Clint Spencer

I can categorically assure you that Darwin did not 'repent' on his deathbed
(if by that you mean repudiate the theory of evolution - being a good
christian, he may well have repented for sins on his deathbed). The reason
you can't find any hard info on it is that it is a myth invented by
christian fundamentalists to make them feel better (bit like the Bible).

Tom

believer wrote in message ...

>Read back what I wrote. I will not ask you a second time to read
>back if you do not want to read and understand what I said.
>
>I am not talking about an object such as fungi, fungus, pecicillin,
>moon, sun, star. Listen this and understand.
>
>I am talking about the mechanism/process which created:
>
>Sun, moon, star, planets, fungii, fungus, organism and billions
>and trillions of things or mechanisms such as evolution and billions
>and trillions of mechanisms.
>
>and virus, yes new virus forming everyday and I am talking about
>the mechanism which forms the virus and the mechanism which
>created the mechanism to form virus.

Read back what you wrote:

no new mechanism, no new formula, no new material in solid, liquid or gas
form, no new process, no new product have been created during the last 1000
years without the involvement of some being with intelligence.

To then change the subject and start talking about "Sun, moon, star,
planets," etc, is disingenuous to say the least.

What you are saying, if I get you, is that "Sun, moon, star, planets, "
haven't come into existance in the past 1000 years. Whoopee do.

Fact is, complex systems are forming and dissipating all the time (without
the aid of intelligence). The parameters under which these operate were
established at the begining of the Universe. So what's your point?

Tom

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian
Date: 15 March 1999 22:28

maff91 wrote in message <37012e13.94143823@news2.newscene.com>...
>On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:41:27 GMT, "jason lassiter"
><LASSITER_JB@acadmn.mercer.edu> wrote:

>>umm...  you ARE taking into consideration the billions of years it takes for
>>that to happen, right?  how will that be re-created in a lab?
>
>Have you heard of computer simulations?

If you think something as petty as computer simulations is going to convince
Believer, then you haven't been reading enough of his posts.

No, I think we're going to have to re-run the whole thing, all the way from t=0.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam,alt.atheism
Date: 17 March 1999 20:09

Capt. Spith wrote in message <36EF7709.52CB@teleport.com>...
>believer wrote:

<snip>

>> The word "creation" as defined in dictinary is "act of making", "act
>> of producing" as well. Therefore whether anything made or created
>> will have the same meaning.
>
>   No, the dictionary lists different meanings to reflect that words
>have different uses.  For example; the word "net" can be used as a noun
>(butterfly NET), a verb (I'm gonna NET that dog!) or an adjective (NET
>profits).  But "net" can NOT be used as all three at the same time.   So
>"creation" as you use it means a specific thing.  "Creation" in your
>context (when referring to the universe) does NOT mean the same thing as
>"assembly" as in buildings and cars.  If it did, then you would have to
>concede that there is NO NEED for a "creator" to simply ASSEMBLE atoms
>together to form planets and stars.
>   That you cannot see the difference in word meanings by context only
>further displays your inability to debate on any reasonable level.

And anyway, just because we use the same word for two things doesn't mean
they *are* the same thing. Bit like Believers problem re 'Law' (Legislature)
and 'Law' (laws of physics).

TomR

Disciple of Christ wrote
>Once people move away from Christianity the planet will experience
>God's judgement poured out upon the earth for the wickedness that
>mankind has committed thereon. Woe to those who call good evil, and
>evil good.

Once people move away from Christianity? Most people aren't christian and
never have been.
Are you trying to say that it's just your heroic little band of Christians
(all christians, or just your sect?) who are saving the world from
destruction? Now that's self-aggrandisement!
Woe to those who call evil good etc...? Judge not lest ye be judged, that's
what I say.

Tom

Disciple of Christ wrote in message <36de5247.373011@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 20:37:07 -0600, mike <mtcolby@NOSPAMstudents.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>Disciple of Christ wrote:
<snip>
>>> Hello, It wasn't knowledge that He didn't want man to partake of, it
>>> was the knowledge of good and evil. In order to obtain knowledge of
>>> good and evil you must experience it, and therefore evil must exist.
>>> We are not being punished, we are being educated by our own choice.
>>> Goodbye.

<snip>

>How else do you come by the knowledge of good and evil? Do you think
>some magic space pixie slaps you upside the head with a magic wand? If
>its bologna you want you'll have to go elsewhere, I like to serve
>prime rib.

<snip>

I have knowledge of the moon, although I have never been there. I'm sure God
could've thought of a better way for us to get knowledge of evil, besides
inflicting pain and suffering on us. He is omnipotent, after all.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian
Date: 07 March 1999 08:57

Disciple of Christ wrote in message <36e0dd31.6804944@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
>If the moon wasn't there, you would have no knowledge of it. Just as
>you can't have knowledge of good and evil unless it exists. Pain and
>suffering are part of evil, as long as evil exists, so will the
>effects of it. Yes, He is omnipotent,  but we are not.

Bad analogy, granted :)

So tell me, why, why why did he invent all this?
God could've given us knowledge of evil without inflicting it upon us.

TomR

Kestrel_MP com > wrote in message ...
>Its a necessary consequence. The Bible says God made all things, therefore,
>He was pre-existent to all things, therefore, He is not a part of the
>system, but is instead the initiator.

Time is integral to the universe. Does God exist before time?

This is what you're arguing and it is, in fact, a paradox.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.religion.christian,rec.music.christian
Date: 04 March 1999 20:22

Kestrel_MP com > wrote in message ...
>>Isn't "universe", by definition, all things which exist?
>>
>
>No.

It's all things which exist except for some other, ill-defined things.

;)

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.religion.christian,rec.music.christian
Date: 04 March 1999 23:12

Kestrel_MP com > wrote in message ...
>tomrees@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7bj82b$rf9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>I'd argue that anything that can interact with things in the universe is
>>part of the universe.
>
>Yes, but why? What supports your argument?

I would argue for that definition of the term 'universe' because otherwise
we don't have a term for what we want to talk about.

You want to define the universe as everything except God, angels, the devil,
heaven, hell, purgatory and anything else which I would argue doesn't exist.

I want to define the universe as a closed system. Let me know what term you
would prefer me to use.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.religion.christian,rec.music.christian
Date: 14 March 1999 20:59

EXPLORER wrote in message ...
>Perhaps all in God's good time! I think that God will be able to reveal
>things as our minds are more capable to understand them.

Uh huh. Why didn't God create us with minds that could understand in the
first place? Why is Sugar-Candy Mountain allways just around the corner?

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.religion.christian,rec.music.christian
Date: 16 March 1999 00:17

Kestrel mail.com> wrote in message <0_eH2.6804$Ek.9267391@news1.mia>...
>Here's an easy testable prediction which can be proven by my philosophical
>system. Per earlier demand, it is also testable empirically.
>
>You exist.

My existance is an extant fact. Try predicting something that will happen,
rather than something that already has.

My existance (and yours) has caused you to invent a theory to explain it.
For your theory to be at all worthwhile, it has to be able to make at least some
testable predictions.

Just for the record, for me to be convinced that your theory is better than
the alternatives, it will also have to make predictions that are cannot be
made by other, simpler theories (I have an Occam's razor, and I'm prepared
to use it).

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.religion.christian,rec.music.christian
Date: 17 March 1999 20:41

Kestrel mail.com> wrote in message ...
>Binky the Wonder-Horse wrote in message <7ck5c1$hc8$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>Kestrel mail.com> wrote in message <0_eH2.6804$Ek.9267391@news1.mia>...
>>>Here's an easy testable prediction which can be proven by my
>>>philosophical system. Per earlier demand, it is also testable empirically.
>>>
>>>You exist.
>>>
>>>kestrel
>>
>>My existance is an extant fact. Try predicting something that will happen,
>>rather than something that already has.
>
>Your existance may be an extant fact to you, but it is not to me. Through my
>philosophical methodology, I can demonstrate that you exist. Remember, you
>merely asked for a prediction.

Will you settle for my existance being an observation which has already been
made (I must exist in some form - you're interacting with me)? By
prediction, I am talking explicitly about predicting an outcome which has
not yet been observed. This inevitably involves predicting the future.

>As to something which will happen, I find that curious. What methodology
>predicts the future? Does it do so accurately?

Predicting the future is easy: the sun will rise tomorrow, you will post
lots of stuff onto this newsgroup, etc.

>>My existance (and yours) has caused you to invent a theory to explain it.
>
>No. I have a theory. Within that theory is a proof of your existence.

>>For your theory to be at all worthwhile, it has to be able to make at least
>>some testable predictions.
>
>This is testable. Either you exist, or you do not.

You have a theory which is compatible with the observation that I exist.
Having a theory that is compatible with observed fact is an essential start,
but the only way of distinguishing between theories which are compatible
with observed facts is by testing them.

The only way of testing them is to compare predictions they make about the
world. That is, to see whether future observations also fit within that
theory.

>>Just for the record, for me to be convinced that your theory is better than
>>the alternatives, it will also have to make predictions that are cannot be
>>made by other, simpler theories (I have an Occam's razor, and I'm prepared
>>to use it).
>
>A very rusty, old, useless razor at that. And an unconvincing one.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.religion.christian,rec.music.christian
Date: 19 March 1999 21:38

Kestrel mail.com> wrote in message ...
>Binky the Wonder-Horse wrote in message <7cp6o8$a7s$2@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>Kestrel mail.com> wrote in message ...
>>>Binky the Wonder-Horse wrote in message <7ck5c1$hc8$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>>>Kestrel mail.com> wrote in message <0_eH2.6804$Ek.9267391@news1.mia>...
>>>>>Here's an easy testable prediction which can be proven by my
>>>>>philosophical system. Per earlier demand, it is also testable empirically.
>>>>>
>>>>>You exist.
>>>>
>>>>My existance is an extant fact. Try predicting something that will
>>>>happen, rather than something that already has.
>>>
>>>Your existance may be an extant fact to you, but it is not to me. Through
>>>my philosophical methodology, I can demonstrate that you exist.
>>>Remember, you merely asked for a prediction.
>>
>>Will you settle for my existance being an observation which has already
>>been made (I must exist in some form - you're interacting with me)?
>
>No. Proves nothing. I may just *think I am talking to you. You may just be
>an aspect of the greater me. Can you prove differently with your
>methodology?

If you don't want to accept the fact that I am conversing with you as
evidence for my existance then that's fair enough. I can appreciate your
skepticism.

However, you do seem to shoot yourself in the foot. Before you were saying
that the fact that I exist is a testable prediction (which I disputed) made
by your theory. Now you are saying that the only way we can even ascertain
my existance is through your theory.

It would seem that your theory falls at both hurdles. First, it is not
consistent with observed fact (since there are no observations, not even my
existance, that you will take as fact without your theory). Second, it
doesn't make any testable predictions, as discussed below.

Please note, however, that I'm not particularly bothered about any of the
above. What matters to me is that your theory can make testable predictions.
If it can do that, I will accept that it is also likely to be consistent
with past observations.

>> By prediction, I am talking explicitly about predicting an outcome which has
>>not yet been observed. This inevitably involves predicting the future.
>
>Predict the future....ok....my theory predicts that Hell exists, and that
>all souls who are not saved will go there.

Which is why I asked for a testable prediction. I have a theory that men
from Pluto will invade Earth in 2099. Until either we observe a soul go to
hell, or we watch the invasion, I hold that both theories are equally likely
and will act accordingly.

I would be convinced by your theory if you could predict the existance of
someone else, besides the people you have already had contact with.

><snip>
>>You have a theory which is compatible with the observation that I exist.
>>Having a theory that is compatible with observed fact is an essential
>>start, but the only way of distinguishing between theories which are
>>compatible with observed facts is by testing them.
>
>OK. How can I test science with my methodology?

Not sure what you mean here. My methodology is science - so you want to know
how you can test my methodology with your methodology? What is your
methodology?

If you want to know how we can be confident that science works, well, I
think that's demonstrated on a regular basis. I predict that that the next
space probe will be developed using scientific methodology, and that it will
(probably) work.

>>The only way of testing them is to compare predictions they make about
>>the world. That is, to see whether future observations also fit within that
>>theory.
>
>Wait...what about the study of history? It doesn't make predictions about
>the future, yet history is considered a reliable method of inquiry.

The same process is followed, although it isn't so systematized as in other
fields. Guy comes up with idea to explain the what he reads. Some other guy
finds a previously undisclosed or untranslated manuscript, or unearths a
particularly nice rock, which either supports or refutes Guy No1's theory.

The event may have taken place in the historian's past, but the observation
of the event takes place in the historian's future.

<snip Occams stuff, cross that bridge when we come to it>

TomR

Disciple of Christ wrote in message <36ddc3f3.29477217@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...

<snip>

>Personality wasn't the cause. It was free will. To fear God is a
>choice. If he made us to perform only certain actions we would not be
>in His image. We could not become His children. We would just be
>programmable bio-bots. A mere illusion of what he really did create.

The point I am trying to make is exactly that. If God is all-knowing and
all-powerful, then we _are_ simply His programmable bio-bots.

The choices people make are a result of their personalities. If two of my
friends were to be offered the same choice, I could, based upon their
personalities, make a reasonable stab at predicting what they would choose.

God, who is, I'm sure, a much better psychologist than me, must be able to
make a much better prediction. So for God to act all surprised when Eve ate
of the fruit is disingenuous. Furthermore, he created Eve's personality so,
as far as I can see, he set Eve up for it.

Of course :)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity
Date: 07 March 1999 09:40

Disciple of Christ wrote in message <36e1dfe0.7492147@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:42:35 -0000, "Tomas Rees" > wrote:
>>Disciple of Christ wrote in message <36ddc3f3.29477217@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>><snip>
>>
>>>Personality wasn't the cause. It was free will. To fear God is a
>>>choice. If he made us to perform only certain actions we would not be
>>>in His image. We could not become His children. We would just be
>>>programmable bio-bots. A mere illusion of what he really did create.
>>
>>The point I am trying to make is exactly that. If God is all-knowing and
>>all-powerful, then we _are_ simply His programmable bio-bots.
>
>I can't come to that conclusion myself. I don't believe that because
>God knows what our decisions will be,  it is denial of our free will.

Not much of a free will, when all our actions are mapped out in advance.
I would say that's more like the illusion of free will.

>>The choices people make are a result of their personalities. If two of my
>>friends were to be offered the same choice, I could, based upon their
>>personalities, make a reasonable stab at predicting what they would choose.
>>
>>God, who is, I'm sure, a much better psychologist than me, must be able to
>>make a much better prediction. So for God to act all surprised when Eve ate
>>of the fruit is disingenuous. Furthermore, he created Eve's personality so,
>>as far as I can see, he set Eve up for it.
>
>I believe man is responsible for his own actions.

You don't think that people have individual personality traits? And that God
is responsible for those traits?

God created Eve knowing that she was the sort of person who would eat the
fruit and so cause us all the problems we've had since.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christianity
Date: 17 March 1999 20:03

Disciple of Christ wrote in message <36f108fc.14767492@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Sun, 07 Mar 1999 22:20:18 GMT, Mistress Abby
><mistress_abby@iname.com> wrote:
>
>>> I can't come to that conclusion myself. I don't believe that because
>>> God knows what our decisions will be,  it is denial of our free will.
>>
>>That's not right - if the outcome is already set then the choices along the
>>way are already set. You can't set an outcome AND have free choice!
>
>Who says that the outcome has to be set? If the outcome is set then
>you don't need to be omniscient to know the outcome. I don't think it
>is easy for a human to even begin to understand what omniscience would
>entail. Let alone describe its workings.

The outcome is set by the pure fact that God knows the outcome in advance.
We cannot choose to do anything else. It seems quite evident that this is
what omniscience entails, and to duck the issue by saying that we just don't
understand is, well, ducking the issue.

>>If God does know the outcome of a choice then that person has no choice but to
>>make the outcome that has been correctly predicted, otherwise God would be
>>wrong.
>
>If that might be true IF we didn't have free will. That we have free
>will is easy enough to see and prove.

Our will cannot be free if God knows what we will do in advance. When we are
faced by apparent choices, there is only one choice we can make, and that is
the choice that God has predicted that we will make.

TomR

rilu@leading.net wrote in message <36e00d7a.143554666@news.leading.net>...
<snip>
> And based on the Hebrew way of doing
>things, names were not just labels, but had meanings. Thus it is
>reasonable to conclude that Adam took some time to observe an animal,
>and then give it a name that revealed one of its characteristics. For
>example, one Hebrew word for "bird" is "ohph" which means "flying
>creature". (see Ge 1:20 and 7:14)

I feel compelled to point out that the English word for 'bird' also means 'flying creature'.
Crazy people them Hebrews ;)

<snip>

TomR

kenadian@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7bn4vh$avs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Hey my friend,
>
>I am flaming no one in particular. However, there are some CHRISTIANS who have
>made it their business to FLAME the Islamic Newsgroups with their false
>teachings and doctrines. I am merely returning the favor by quoting non-Muslim
>sources.

What makes you think the christian doctrines are false and yours correct?
They _were_ given their doctrines by God, don't forget.

TomR

David D. Vantasil wrote in message <7bo8sl$9dlq$1@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>Hi Peoples, animals, plants, etc....of all beliefs or
>non-beliefs.........this will be my last reply regarding this particular post.

Giving up so soon? Sigh.

<snippety snip>

>3. Another response to Treelo...you said you didn't want your son subjected
>to school prayer. When has a simple prayer done any harm to a kid? If would
>be kind of funny Treelo, if your son eventually started going to church when
>he grew up.

It inculcates a culture of superstition. It reiterates the dominant position
of christianity in your country, reinforces that position, and reminds
people who not members of the christian culture that they are in the
minority. In other words, forcing people to adopt your cultural practices is
cultural bullying.

>4. This comment is just a thought for the day...Many people have far more
>faith in science today than in any god. However, science just might be as
>inaccurate today as it was 2 or 3 thousand years ago. According to an
>ancient Egyptian physician, studying around 1000 B.C. (or BCE for atheists),
>he confirmed that veins and arteries contained air (how he came to this
>conclusion I have no idea). Ptolemy, an Egyptian scientiest in the 2nd
>Century AD, confirmed that the Earth was the center of the universe and the
>sun, planets, and stars revolved around it. It was believed that the Earth
>use to be flat. The list is endless. But consider this, a lot of people
>believe that we are descended from monkeys, that the earth is 4.5 billion
>years old, etc, etc.....perhaps in a 1,000 years, science will have changed
>so much that they may look back on this time and think how ignorant and
>primitive we all are.  Careful about putting too much faith in scientific
>theory, it may be disproven tomorrow.

The difference is science is prepared to be wrong, whereas christians are
always surprised. A scientist puts his faith in the scientific method, and
actively seeks to change his/her theories. Christians put their faith in
superstition, believe they have the whole truth, and so resist changes to
their theories.

To turn your last sentence around, careful about putting too much faith in
Christianity, past experience shows that it is likely to be disproved tomorrow.

>5. <snip> I have also
>learned that most of the laws that are in the Old Testament are basically
>health/moral codes (of course, they may not have realized it back in ancient
>days that the laws were for health and morals) Don't have sex with your
>siblings seems pretty basic. If the genes are too closely related, any child
>resulting from incest could wind up retarded. Medical science proves that.
>Don't have sex with beasts....don't have sex out of wedlock....all makes
>sense. You could get diseases.  Don't lie, steal, murder, etc.....that's all
>common sense. Don't judge others or you will be judged. Very true.

It is true, many bits are based on common sense practices that have been
developed independently by primitive peoples the world over. Unfortunately,
many bits are downright wrong, and yet a christian is compelled to believe
the wrong and the right bits, or deny the basis for his religion.

<snip>

TomR

AltWay wrote in message ...
>Comment :-
> What evidence is there that there is no purpose or direction?
>There is certainly a direction - it is increasing complexity and
>consciousness. There is a decrease in entropy contrary to the Laws of
>Thermodynamics. This requires explanation.

Oo oo! Please Sir! That's an easy one.
There is a net increase in entropy.

I thank you.

>The existence of purpose is easily seen from the fact that in any organism
>the parts have a function with respect to the whole.
>Philosophically, if you look at the whole of existence, then by definition
>there cannot be anything outside it. There cannot, therefore, be any
>external causes for the events within the system, but only internal causes.

So what caused God?

>These are defined as Intentions or purpose.

Dumb definition, no? 'Causes' is a perfectly good word for them. Why use
another word, especially when it could 'cause' confusion. Otherwise I might
have to enquire of you what my car was trying to achieve by breaking down.

<Snippety snip>

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam
Date: 07 March 1999 11:23

AltWay wrote in message ...
>In article <7brpb0$kb3$2@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Tomas Rees" > wrote:
>
>> Oo oo! Please Sir! That's an easy one.
>> There is a net increase in entropy.
>>
>> I thank you.
>Comment :-
>Really? Have you tested this?
>Do not simply parrot what some scientists have told you without first
>understanding what they are saying.

As a matter of fact I have. Unfortunately for you, I am a trained
biochemist. I have often measured a net increase in the entropy of a system
whilst a observing a decrease in entropy of one part of that system. It's a
fundamental principle of biochemistry.

Might I suggest you learn some basic science? That way you might not leave
yourself quite so vunerable to faux pas of this nature.

>> So what caused God?
>
>Comment :-
>Do not talk nonsense. God is that which is ultimately self-existent.
>When you explain things you do so in terms of other things.

You don't explain God in terms of other things.

> Ultimately you must come to so,ething which is self-existent.

Why, what's wrong with infinity?

>>>These are defined as Intentions or purpose.
>>
>> Dumb definition, no? 'Causes' is a perfectly good word for them. Why use
>> another word, especially when it could 'cause' confusion. Otherwise I might
>> have to enquire of you what my car was trying to achieve by breaking down.
>
>Comment :-
>Nonesense again. You know very well your car needs an external cause to run,
>namely petrol.

You said in your previous post 'There cannot, therefore, be any external
causes for the events within the system'. Now you're saying an external
cause (lack of petrol) has caused an event within my system (my car broke
down).

You were talking of internal causes and said, 'These are defined as
Intentions or purpose.' My car ceases to function. Let us hypothesize that
the malfunction is due to an internal cause (any one you care to choose). I
ask again: why do you call this internal cause an 'intention' or 'purpose'?

>Foolishness is not very impressive.

Your sanctimonius nature might have more credence if you were a little
better educated.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam
Date: 09 March 1999 00:17

AltWay wrote in message ...
>In article <7btni9$prh$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Tomas Rees" wrote:
> As a matter of fact I have. Unfortunately for you, I am a trained
> biochemist. I have often measured a net increase in the entropy of a
> system whilst a observing a decrease in entropy of one part of that system.
> It's a fundamental principle of biochemistry.
>
>Comment :-
>I know suffient Physics to ask questions such as " How
>did the entropy of the Universe come to be at its minimum at the Big Bang
>when the Thermodynamic laws require it to increase. I also know that
>the decrease in the local entropy of this planet which causes evolution is
>due to forces coming from above e.g solar and cosmic radiations. Thus, though
>the total entropy may increase it is the cost of evolution. It may also be
>case that the two processes are ultimately balanced.

So when I said 'There is a net increase in entropy', I was right, no?

>> Why, what's wrong with infinity?

>Comment :-
>Nothing at all. God is defined as infinite, Absolute, Eternal.

So when you said, 'When you explain things you do so in terms of other
things. Ultimately you must come to so,ething which is self-existent',
implying that an infinite series of causal events is not possible, you were
wrong, no?

>> You said in your previous post 'There cannot, therefore, be any external
>> causes for the events within the system'. Now you're saying an external
>> cause (lack of petrol) has caused an event within my system (my car broke
>> down).
>
>Comment :-
>
>I think you ought to stick to Biology.
>
>Your car runs because you putpetrol into it and it emits the waste products
>into the external world. The car may break down because these processes may
>cause parts to wear out. There are, of course, also random quantum events
>within the car, but thes too appear to have connections with the outer
>world.

So having said 'There cannot, therefore, be any external causes for the events
within the system' you are now saying my system (my car) can *only* have
external causes for events that occur within it. So, when you defined
internal causes as 'Intentions or purpose', what were you talking about?

>I said the Ultimate Whole which means the Universe and whatever might be
>beyond it, all together. This Absolute cannot have anything outside it to
>produce causes.

Everything includes everything. Is that all you've been trying to say? What
a palaver.

>However, I am obviously corresponding with someone who does not wish to
>understand what I am saying, so further exchanges will be futile.

I've noticed that you've taken this line with everyone who disagrees with you.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam
Date:15 March 1999 08:58

{NAGA} wrote in message <36e8b7ff.3641583@news.tm.net.my>...
>If you do encounter a scientific proof of a system, how do you know
>that proof is correct for all variation of the system. the fact is in
>science, it us who gave all things meaning. we say 1+! is 2. but is it
>true.

Any logical system which incorporates arithmetic cannot be complete.

>if i say that car is red, then by perception you would agree
>that it is red. but all of these years we say it to be red. we gave
>red its meaning. to describe red: " red is...well...red". mere
>perception sometimes confused with reality.

Red is electromagnetic radiation of frequencies at the long end of the
visible spectrum.
Specifically, it is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum which
activiates red cone cells in the eye.

> not that we create the
>whole clockwork universe. take chaos theory, in randomness there is
>underlying order, but by what order we do not know. but still
>scientists come to accept the theory, although the theory defies
>almost every aspect of science we come to realize in brief history of
>time since in its infancy.

Scientists accept theories that are demonstrably true because they make
testable predictions. There are still lots of things we don't know. Your
point?

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam
Date: 16 March 1999 22:04

Tom eleven wrote in message
<01be6fb7$859b5340$86c9c00a@MajorTom.geology.deq>...
>Binky the Wonder-Horse <remindersrus@usa.net> wrote in article <7cjror$9jt$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> {NAGA} wrote in message <36e8b7ff.3641583@news.tm.net.my>...
>> >if i say that car is red, then by perception you would agree
>> >that it is red. but all of these years we say it to be red. we gave
>> >red its meaning. to describe red: " red is...well...red". mere
>> >perception sometimes confused with reality.
>>
>> Red is electromagnetic radiation of frequencies at the long end of the
>> visible spectrum.
>> Specifically, it is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum which
>> activiates red cone cells in the eye.
>>
>AH!, but at what point in the spectrum does "red" become "orange" The
>colors are culturally and arbritrarily produced categories of  specific
>ranges of the spectrum.  while our physical eyes may sense up to two
>million variations of hue, we may be only cognizant of seven to ten
>individual colors.  some cultures have more colors--like the eskimo's 100
>shades of "white" or less colors like the pacific islander's failure to
>recognize the difference between blue and green. (they are NOT color blind)
> Orange, is even a recient color to western eyes it was once considered
>"yellow"
>   We "percieve" only those colors that we have a name for.   This is why
>artists can be aware of a greater range of colors than the average
>person.--even the artists that LEARN their skill.
>    All perception (cognizant recognition of sense data) is based upon the
>way a member of a given culture or even an individual, categorizes the
>sense input data in his mind. The spectrum is a continuim--any divisions
>along it are arbrutrary.
>what a peson sees and percieves as 'red" , green or any other color is a
>personal experience.

I agree that the labels we give to colour are culturally- and individually
determined. I also agree that if you were to put two people and a painting
in the same room they would be not necessarily agree on either what to call
the colours or on their significance. I also agree that some people like
blue and some people like red - clearly a difference in their perception of
the colours concerned. And, finally, I agree that colours, like all other
kinds of perception, carry with them connotations which are both
genetically, culturally, and personally defined (like green=envy etc.).

However, this doesn't preclude the fact that it is also possible to give a
non-subjective description of any colour or mix of colours you care to
choose. You can argue till the cows come home about whether a colour is a
kind of 'reddy-orange' or whether it's really 'orangey-red', but at the end
of the day we're all talking about the same electromagnetic radiation of the
same specified frequency.

TomR

AltWay wrote in message ...
<snip>

>Comment :-
>
>Here we have a common fallacy based on arrogance.
>The questioner thinks that he knows everything and that God must conform to
>what he thinks is good or evil.

Whereas we all know He is a capricious God-of-the-gaps, thus invalidating
any atttempt to ascertain his existance. You have invented the best of
theorums - one which is not disprovable.

>If human beings know that fire burns (because God has given man a mind)
>because it is fact of nature,(i.e God has made it so) and man does not like
>being burnt (because God has made him so)  what is there to prevent man from
>using these faculties to prevent fires?

Go on, tell us. Or let me guess, it's probably because Eve ate that darned
apple. That's why we get forest fires. It's obvious when you think about it.

> Fires are useful or harmful
>according to how they are used. Could it be that things have been so
>arranged that human being develop through knowledge and control?

But why? Why couldn't God have simply told us? Why, in all his omnipotence,
could he not have created us fully developed?

>Is it really so difficult to understand that since man is not the creator of
>his own mind or abilities or of nature, then there is something greater than
>man to which these things should be attributed? Can it be that this greater
>reality is dead, but we who are part of it are alive and intelligent and
>conscious?

Using this argument, you will have to invent an infinite series of creators
(unless you want to argue that God created his own mind and abilities and
nature).

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion.christian
Date: 07 March 1999 23:20

AltWay wrote in message ...
>In article <36E174B3.BA5DA3AD@home.comx>, Randy Day <randy.day@home.comx>
<snip>

>Comment :-
>You forgot to mention that data is required and that it has to be
>interpreted in some conceptual system, and that both these depend on the
>motives of the person, i.e where his attention goes and what he selects and
>his capacity to perceive.
>
>Obviously, you have certain assumptions and motives and on the basis of this
>you also avoid certain kinds of actions which would provide you with data
>relevant to this discussion. Obviously, you are not going to see what I am
>trying to show you. So I am wasting time.

Your trying to say 'You aren't paying attention'. But why use four words
when you can use several dozen? It's even better when you can write in a
convoluted and garbled style. It sounds *so* clever.

>But why do atheists want to come to an Islamic site? What is the motive? It
>is certainly not to learn anything.

I most certainly want to learn why so many people believe in the Gods they
choose to worship. The fact that you are unable to formulate a response to
Randy's post makes it hard to understant, but it certainly is, in it's own
way, revealing.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion.islam,alt.religion.christian
Date: 07 March 1999 23:47

AltWay wrote in message ...
>In article <7brpb1$kb3$3@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Tomas Rees"<> wrote:
> Whereas we all know He is a capricious God-of-the-gaps, thus invalidating
> any atttempt to ascertain his existance. You have invented the best of
> theorums - one which is not disprovable.
>
>Comment :-
>We certainly know no such thing. What we know is that there are lawful
>events and tandom events in the Universe. Therefore, we have the formula
>"Allah makes laws but He also does as He will."

You have invented a God who does not follow rules (if He so chooses). He
exists in the gaps of our knowledge into which science has not yet
penetrated. I say again: you have invented a capricious God-of-the-gaps, and
your theorum is not disprovable.

Non-disprovable theories, in case you were unaware, are useless because they
do not make testable predictions. There is no way of ever knowing whether or
not they are true. I can invent a hundred non-disprovable theories before
breakfast, if you would like me to. All of them would have the same
evidential basis as yours.

>> Using this argument, you will have to invent an infinite series of
>> creators  (unless you want to argue that God created his own mind and
>> abilities and nature).
>
>Comment :-
>Your other objects have been answered elsewhere.
>
>We do not need Infinite creators since God is defined as the the ultimate
>self-existing reality which is Infinite, Absolute and Eternal.
>The whole of the Infinite regress is contained in Him. If then we acquire
>some fundamental knowledge, we acquire it from Him. And so on.

I wish you would keep track of your thought processes. You said 'Is it
really so difficult to understand that since man is not the creator of his
own mind or abilities or of nature, then there is something greater than man
to which these things should be attributed?'

This is a non-sequiter. The fact that man is not his own creator does not
necessitate the positing of something greater than man. That is the whole
point of evolutionary theory.

I demonstrated that your logic was faulty by pointing that you yourself
claim that, although your God has a mind and abilities, He was not created
by anything at all, let alone by anything greater.

>I think it would avoid a lot of confusion if it is not supposed that the
>Islamic term "Allah" is the same as the popular term "God".

How? Which of the above points would that clarify?

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion.christian
Date: 09 March 1999 21:08

matt morrey wrote in message <36E4C8A4.D2735259@email.byu.edu>...
>once again, you have completely missed the point.  The point is not that God
>should simply save us from all our ills, in fact that would be counter to his
>plan.  We cannot advance without hardships, we cannot progress without learning
>our limits, and stretching them. If life was peachy, that would negate the
>purpose

For what purpose has God invented this obstacle course? Why didn't He simply
create us fully formed?

TomR

Mistress Abby <mistress_abby@iname.com> wrote:
>I would caution about trusting in your own reasoning.  The OT says there
>is a way that seems right to a man but in the end it leads to death.
>Also, that anyone who trusts in himself is a fool.

This sort of bravado in ignorance makes me angry.

What else are we to trust? Our preconceptions? Or are we to unquestioningly
accept what other people tell us?

When someone starts telling you to not think for yourself it's time to get
very, very scared.

TomR

Dore Williamson wrote in message <7bu5hk$rgl$1@news1.epix.net>...
<snip>

>Who is Mohammed anyway? A spiritual leader who came thousands of years
>AFTER Christ.

It frightens me that there are people like you in this world who are so
willfully ignorant. Your obviously not completely stupid - you've managed to
hook yourself up to the internet after all. So the only conclusion I can
come to is that you consciously shield yourself from any information that
might shatter your blinkered world view.

Please, consult a history book before making statements like this. Your
crass errors are unlikely to endear you to anyone.

TomR

David B. Held wrote in message <36E41E8C.695C@uswest.net>...
>Tomas Rees wrote:
>>
>> In article <36E3B03A.459C@uswest.net>,
>>   "David B. Held" <dheld@uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>> >       You seemed to have missed the point.   The point is that
>> > atheists are making a claim, and copping out by saying they don't
>> > have to prove their claim.  If scientist A publishes paper P in
>> > journal J, and scientist B publishes that P is false, and leaves it
>> > at that, I should certainly hope that the referees of J would demand
>> > a justification from B.  Why can't atheists understand this?
>>
>> I can understand it :) A formal proof is too high a standard though,
>> but evidence is always good.
>
> But do you understand the need for atheists to justify their position?

Yes, otherwise they should remain, at least in theory, agnostic. But it is
hard to keep an open mind about every outlandish theory for which there is
no evidence.

>> The absence of evidence for P implies that P has no predictive power.
>> If P made any practical predictions, then we would be able to gather
>> evidence for it. This does not mean that P is necessarily incorrect,
>> but it does mean that we should not base our judgements upon it.
>
> This is fair.  I would claim that evidence for P would be a
>supernatural event, or an event that is not consistent with the laws of
>physics.  Technically, one could argue that such an event merely
>requires a revamping of the laws, but ultimately, a supernatural event
>may create a situation in which no consistent set of laws can explain
>both nature and the event.  I have put forth the resurrection of Jesus
>as such an event, but that is currently being debated (and probably will
>for the rest of history).

I would agree to this too. If something like the resurrection occured
tomorrow, somewhere where it could be independently verified, then I would
think you would have a strong case.

I don't think it will happen though.

>> You cannot prove a theorum, by the way, you can only disprove it.
>
> This is news to me.  I wonder what I was doing in high school geometry
>the whole time.  Or Fundamentals of Mathematics, when all we did was
>construct proofs...for theorems.  Or Combinatorics...or Linear Algebra.
>Hmm...

Sorry, scratch 'theorum'. Replace it with 'hypothesis'. To clarify, I am
talking here about experimental science in general, and Popperian philosophy
in particular. You cannot prove a scientific hypothesis experimentally, you
can only disprove it.

>> ~P is the theorum that P is false. How do you propose that I disprove
>> the theorum that God does not exist? How do you propose that I
>> disprove the theorum that God exists?
>
> A demonstration that all historical events can be described by a set of
>consistent physical laws would, for me, constitute a proof of God's
>non-existence.  It would help to show that the universe is closed, but
>that would just be the icing on the cake.

I suspect that will never be possible. To do it you would have to first
discover a set of immutable laws that govern the universe - which may simply
not be extant. You would then have to use these laws to effectively re-run
the universe, describing the moment-by-moment interaction of every particle.
If the immutable laws had a stochastic element, you'd have to keep doing it
till until you got some statistical significance.

The reason it is so difficult to come by evidence against your theory is
that you have invented the tiniest of gods. The effect your god has is so
tiny that, until we have described, in terms of fundamental physical laws,
every event that could possibly impinge upon any possible historic event ,
you will not concede that there is any evidence against your god. We do not
even know what most of these almost-inconsequential events were.

I will concede that there is no way of knowing whether this tiny god exists.
I am agnostic about him.

>> These are not feasible propositions because you have invented an
>> insubstantial theorum. Your theorum makes no predictions, and so we
>> cannot test it. But because it makes no predictions, it has no
>> practical use. We must disregard it, because otherwise we would have
>> have to give equal credence to the hundred other, completely different
>> gods that I've just invented.
>
> I've made a prediction.  It's only one prediction, but it's a doozy.
>Are you happy?

Not sure what this prediction was - is it the one about Jesus being
resurrected? This is not so much a prediction as a post-hoc justification. I
ascribe the same degree of significance to it as you ascribe to all the
other non-christian historical sources which describe miraculous events. Try
and predict something that *will* happen, rather than something that already
has.

If your prediction is that Jesus will come again, well then I have just
invented a theory that invisible men from Pluto will invade the Earth in
2099. Both are good predictions - mine even has a date ascribed to it. Until
either event happens, I will contend that there is the same degree of
evidence for both, and act appropriately.

>> > > We don't have Popes or cults who prey on people.
>> >
>> >       No, you just have oppressive rulers who slaughter millions of
>> > their own countrymen and persecute Christians through torture and
>> > imprisonment.
>>
>> I don't have any of those! Where can I get one? ;)
>
> Try Russia in the first half the century.

Do I get to keep it?

TomR

David B. Held wrote in message <36E415EA.262E@uswest.net>...
<snip>

> religion: any system of belief and worship based on revelation and
>faith
>
> I claim that atheism is a religion, because it possesses a belief,
>because it worships science, and because its belief is based on faith
>due to a lack of proof for its belief.  Presumably, legitimacy for this
>belief comes from revelation to atheists everywhere that the belief is
>true, and thus needs no proof.

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that the gods worshipped by
Christians and other religious do not exist. The fat thact everybody seems
to have invented their own God is at the top of my list. The fact that the
Judaeo-Christian god didn't manage to make it across the atlantic before
columbus is just below it.

Furthermore, atheism is founded upon the generally valid assumption that the
null hypothesis is treated as correct unless you have at least some evidence
for your hypothesis. The null hypothesis, in this case, would include not
inventing a deus ex machina unless there is a need to do so. If we do not
adopt this policy, then we will be forced to believe in the steadily
increasing number of gods that I am inventing without any justification.

>> Now if you SERIOUSLY want to refer to belief in Santa Claus, tooth
>> fairy etc. as a religion, go ahead... but you will just look stupid.
>
> But believers in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy do not worship
>anything, and do not claim revelation of anything.  But I personlly
>believe in the Tooth Fairy.

I'm curious... how exactly do atheists worship their non-god?

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,talk.philosophy.misc
Date: 08 March 1999 23:51

David B. Held wrote in message <36E4272F.7B3D@uswest.net>...
>Tomas Rees wrote:
>>
>> In article <36E3B221.1FBD@uswest.net>,
>>   "David B. Held" <dheld@uswest.net> wrote:
>> >       I know of several people who have been allegedly healed by the
>> > laying on of hands and prayer.  But would any atheist accept this as
>> > evidence of God?  No, they merely dismiss it as a medical anomaly,
>> > with no supernatural explanation needed.
>>
>> It's evidence that something we don't fully understand is going on. It
>> is not evidence for the existance of <insert your god here> because it
>> works for everyone, whether or not they've ever heard of your god.
>
> Isn't this exactly what I said would happen?

It may, indeed, have a supernatural explanation (whatever that means). I
would not say that it necessarily had to have one. I think I would require
more information. And I certainly would not regard it as evidence for the
existance for your preferred god.

>> There is, btw, good evidence that mental state can change
>> immuno-response, pain perception, and the self-reporting of disease
>> events. This happens whether or not you bring god into the picture.
>> That rationale behind placebo-controlled trials (amongst other
>> things).
>
> If someone regrew an entire arm because a doctor gave him a pill and
>told him that it regrows arms, would you attribute that to the placebo
>effect?  At what point will you admit that an event is supernatural?
>
>  If there is no such event, *in principle*, then you are merely rejecting
>theism *a priori*, and there is no argument I can present to convince
>you.  This is what I call the "stubborn atheist."

If someone regrew an arm after a doctor gave them a sugar pill, I would
agree that that was very spooky. I would be bowled over if you were able to
repeat it in controlled circumstances - I'm not holding my breath in
anticipation though. Do you have any evidence that such an event has
occurred?

<snip>
>> >  The people claimed to have been bitten numerous times.  The
>> > journalists confirmed that the snakes were indeed poisonous,
>> > and had a chemical lab analyze the poison.  The results were that
>> > the people were indeed drinking poison, and surviving.  Would
>> > atheists admit this as evidence of God?  Of course not.
>>
>> I would, *if* I could trust your source (which seems a bit shaky!) and
>> if the experiment could be repeated. I would then wish to investigate
>> further. My initial thought is that people can build up a surprisingly
>> high tolerance to poisons by titrating the dose.
>
> Well, this motivates me to search for the information, anyway.  I'm
>glad that there *is* something that might convince you.  It gives
>credibility to your open-mindedness.  I haven't taken chemistry in five
>years, and I was never that good at it to begin with, but perhaps you
>could briefly explain titrations.  That would still not account for the
>poisonous snakes, however.  Repeating the experiment should be easy,
>since the church members have allegedly been doing this for some time,
>and continue to do this.

Titrations are simply the gradual building up of dose until the required
tolerance or effect is acheived (sorry, I'm a medical writer by trade). If
the poison was strychnine, then they're not taking much of a risk (so long
as they judge it right). I remember my lecturers regaling us with stories of
early diehard scientists who would take small doses of strychnine for the
hit it would give them. And there is a very effective and readily available
antidote.

Regarding the snakes, others in this group have suggested that they're not
generally lethal. And I remember in the dim-and-distant a program on British
TV which suggested that these snake charmers were often bitten and got sick,
but were reluctant to admit it. This would be my first line of investigation
(had I the opportunity!).

>> If, at the end of all that, we were unable to provide an explanation,
>> then I would concede that this unexplained event allows for the
>> existance of a 'God-of- the-gaps'. (This is how I refer to the _deus
>> ex machina_ that lives in all the places we don't understand and is
>> produced as an explanation for otherwise inexplicable events).
>
> That would be good enough for me, although I am disappointed that you
>would not be impressed by the biblical references to the possibility.

I would be highly impressed by the Biblical references if it proved
impossible to replicate the experiment in believers of other faiths or in
atheists (any volunteers on this newsgroup?!?!)

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,talk.philosophy.misc
Date: 09 March 1999 00:41

David B. Held wrote in message <36E37EC1.5C95@uswest.net>...

<snip>

>  However, if He chooses not to, that
>is no different than a computer technician choosing not to replace a
>faulty motherboard in a computer that he built.  It does not disprove
>the existence of the technician if not all faulty computers are
>repaired.

If the company computers were hardly ever repaired, and if the few chosen to
be repaired were chosen at random, and if no mechanism whereby they were
repaired could be ascertained, I wouldn't posit the existance of a kind,
caring, considerate and omnipotent but unseen company technician.

I might accept that something supernatural was occuring though :)

<snip>

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.religion
Date: 16 March 1999 19:50

M. Clark wrote in message <1dopenw.1dtki6v1sulqkuN@[209.136.26.202]>...
>Heretic <heretic@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:10:39 -0700, Idontreply@toemail.net (M. Clark)
>> wrote:
>>
>> The good news is that this egomaniacal God is nothing more than the
>> figment of a primative people's imagination.
>
>How do you tell with certainty what is going on in _anybody's_
>imagination but your own?  Can you read people's minds, even if they're
>long dead?

You can't tell for certain what went on in the imagination of long dead
people, but you can be fairly confident that they imagined gods.

TomR

yang hu wrote in message <7ch3uj$qu1@news.service.uci.edu>...

<snip>

>Num 31:17-18
>
>"Now KILL all the boys, And KILL every women who slept with a man, but SAVE for
>yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"

When I first got round to reading the Bible, I was truly shocked by this
part. In later discussions with christians, I informed them of what it said,
but they were incredulous and refused to believe me. Of course, I never
found the passage again.

I'll make a note of the reference this time :)

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.religion,alt.atheism
Date: 17 March 1999 20:29

Tom eleven wrote in message
<01be7081$5f975d40$86c9c00a@MajorTom.geology.deq>...

<SNIP>

>   There is nothing abusive, hurtful or negative in true Christianity.  It
>is a commitment , ultamately, to gain SELF dicipline control over our own
>"animal natures" and progress beyond to something else. Those who condem
>and coherse others to follow  their way are NOT "Christians".  If They read
>the Bible thay would see themselves described as "Hypocrites" and other
>unpleasant things--by Jesus himself.
>TOM

The problem is that the Bible encourages people to 'believe' and have faith
in a God for which there is no real evidence. By encouraging people to
uncritically accept what they are told, it leaves them with no defence
against unscrupulous or warped people who use them for their own purposes.

Christians who commit atrocities do not for a moment consider that they are
acting in unchristian way. They have not been brought up in an environment
that encourages them to critically analyse their beliefs.

TomR

And while we're at it let's get rid of Christmas (really Saturnalia) and St
Valentines day (Lupercalia).

TomR

radelster wrote in message <7clmg9$2k4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7ckil7$50j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>  moderator8954@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> <snip>
>>   Every time I pass near a church on Sundays, the voices that come from such
>> buildings seem to want to drag us back into the caves. Pity (for them...).
>>
>I would rather spend my life on earth in a cave, then spend eternity in the
>caverns of hell.

Well who wouldn't? Unfortunately, I suspect you've chosen the wrong
caring-and-forgiving God, so it looks like you'll be going to Hell after
all.

My commiserations, TomR

Budikka wrote in message <19990315210332.04808.00001243@ng94.aol.com>...
>remindersrus@usa.net farts:
>
>"Well thanks for putting so much crap on the newsgroup for me to download, arsehole."
>
>Did I ask you to download it, shithead?
>
>Read it and you might learn something about people who shoot off their mouth before they know what they are
>talking about.

I read some of the inconsequential crap I found myself downloading, and I came to the conclusion that you were:

1. Barely literate
2. Ill educated
3. Either very young or very immature.

People like you don't do us atheists any favours - you come across as a petulant whiner in the midst of a particularly turgid tantrum. I shudder to think that people might read the crap you post and categorize me with you.

I don't give a shit about your parroted arguments - and, as you may have noticed, neither does anyone else.

>Besides, I am in the USA.  "Arsehole" is not an insult here, it's kinda cute.
>What you need to call me is an "asshole"

How very parochial of you. You would be considered an idiot in any country misfortunate enough to count you among its citizens, and I extend my commiserations to your compatriots.

TomR

>Budikka

Jesus H. Christ wrote in message <36F1AE3E.1C90@worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
>But what completely baffles me is the athiest.  All of his ideals are
>based on the fact that there is no evidence that god exists, yet if he
>truly took the time to look into the subject there is also no evidence
>that he does not exist.  Scientifically there is no proof either way.
>I must dismis anyone that says no proof is all the proof they need.
>Eistien had many theories that had no proof (at the time) and yet later
>when the proper technology was available....poof...proof


Cogito ergo spud
I think therefore I yam.

My existance is a working hypothesis that seems to fit the evidence
available to me. Theories remain theories until you test em (even Einstein's
theories).

I think that deals with this one.

>I guess what I am trying to say is that you cannot argue the existance
>of anything with someone who will not open his mind to questions with no
>answers.  Atheists are intellectual morons.
>They are the same people that believe for thousands of years that the
>world was flat,

There were no atheists a thousand years ago (let alone longer ago than
that). It's only recently that sufficient evidence has accrued to make it
possible to argue for the non-existance of God.

People have known that the earth was spherical since Eratosthenes provided
evidence to prove the 'spherical world' hypothesis c250 BC, btw. Since then,
a combination of the catholic church and the predjudice of the uneducated
has fostered the maintenance of the belief that the earth was flat.

> the center of the universe, that evil spirits must be
>purged of the body with leeches and that the inquistion was just.
>
>You can catagorize atheists with the same people that killed in the name of god.

Except that no-one kills anyone in the name of atheism.

> Ignorance can take on many forms but it will always be ignorance.


Don't you just love these bland truisms?

>So if somebody chooses not to believe in god, the only other intelligent
>resonse would be I DO NOT KNOW, anything else is a lie.

If somebody asked me to believe in the christian god, however, the response
would have to be THE EVIDENCE IS AGAINST YOU.

> A HUMBLE CARPENTER

Are you really the messiah btw? Haven't you turned up a bit late?

TomR

Vic wrote in message <7con7o$dmj$1@newton.pacific.net.sg>...

<snip>

>Don't forget that He is a just and righteous God also. He has done anything
>posible, even sent His beloved Son to the Earth just to save us---sinners
>who deserve no love.

Whilst I don't want to seem ungrateful, nailing His son to a plank of wood
doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. It would have been of far more
practical use if he had got rid of mycobacterium tuberculosis, and that's
just for starters.

>"But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly,
>what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing His wrath on us? Certainly
>not!" Roman2:19
>By the way, He is the Creater, He has the right to send all of us to hell.

That's nice of Him. Create us, make us imperfect, tempt us with sin, inflict
us with disease and then send us to hell if we don't conform to social
practices laid down in a fairy story in a backwater of the Roman Empire 2000
years ago. No wonder most of the world isn't convinced.

<snip>

TomR

Ray wrote in message <36F09D84.7FA3@nospamcgocable.net>...
>Steve wrote:

<snip>

>> 2) I myself dont believe in christianity or its ways (they are just as
>> hypocritical as any other religion around, yes including satanism), so if I
>> think this way where am I supposedly going when I die??
>>
>does anyone truly know the answer to this? I think not. We all have
>theories and beliefs, but no one can prove anything.

This strikes me as being very pessimistic. Surely we owe it to ourselves and
to others to try to work out which beliefs are correct? What if I told you
that the god in my fridge told me to go out and start murdering? Would you
simply accept that there was no way of proving me wrong, or do you think
that you might be able to provide evidence that I should be stopped?

Tom

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
Date: 18 March 1999 20:32

M. Clark wrote in message <1dou2ib.18xsbi51i253yqN@[209.136.26.161]>...
>What is your definition of Christianity?  A BIG problem concerning
>Christianity is that Jesus has enemies and consequently many things
>identified with Christianity are not really Christian.  For example, the
>bible warns us to be aware of man-made rules which have been wrongly
>regarded as being Christian.


Let me guess. You've got it right and all the other christians have got it wrong.
Funny how every christian says the same thing.

TomR

Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
Date: 19 March 1999 20:12

M. Clark wrote in message <1dovg0w.1f6qcaam3d9f4N@[209.136.26.188]>...
>Binky the Wonder-Horse <infomercial_a@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> M. Clark wrote in message <1dou2ib.18xsbi51i253yqN@[209.136.26.161]>...
>> >What is your definition of Christianity?  A BIG problem concerning
>> >Christianity is that Jesus has enemies and consequently many things
>> >identified with Christianity are not really Christian.  For example, the
>> >bible warns us to be aware of man-made rules which have been wrongly
>> >regarded as being Christian.
>>
>> Let me guess. You've got it right and all the other christians have got it
>> wrong.
>> Funny how every christian says the same thing.
>
>You are proving my point.  Given Christians are quoting from the Holy
>Bible, how can we not be saying the same things even if it's arguably
>only roughly the same thing?  Yes, there is more than one accepted bible
>standard and that does complicate things.  Nevertheless, if "Christians"
>are saying things that they cannot reasonably defend with the "minimum"
>bible at least then, as I said, beware of meaningless man-made
>teachings.

Problem is, who decides what the 'minimum' bible is? The divisions between
christian sects seem to arise *because* of difficulties in interpreting the
bible, and on deciding which bits to leave out.

TomR