Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Free will. I'd like to kepp on the subject but this is just not going 
> well, you make fun of me at some point and that is disrespectful so as I 
> don't want to be disrespectful to you back I'm gonna call it quits. 
> Sorry to see this ends like this when it was going so well.
> 
> Best Regards.

No, making fun of you would be pointing out how many people send letters 
to prominent atheists which contain pages of Bible quotes, proclamations 
of how wrong they are, which are logically, and even factually, 
inconsistent, mixed with statements about how they will burn in hell, 
and or, should die, lose their jobs, etc. All of them ending with either 
"I will pray for you", "God Bless You", or "Best Regards".  Then saying 
something about how much like them you are. You are not though, so I am 
just making an observation, not making fun. Most of those people are so 
incoherent you can't tell what they are claiming you do do, do think, do 
want, or what exactly they think "will" happen to you. Your posts, by 
comparison, even if I think you are ignorant when you talk about 
atheists, and a bit bigoted, and you are wrong about many things, are 
fracking Shakespeare compared to the stuff posted by the average 
evangelical I have seen emails and letters from.

But seriously... Spending 5 pages calling them everything from the 
antichrist, to a mass murderer, to a liar, and so on, is all "fixed" by 
adding "Best Regards" to the end...? Its like being sent a letter by the 
Joker, complete with a playing card.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You call me ignorant, I put excuses to delude myself in airy tail 
> because Science and specially you have an answer to everything,

Wrong!!! Science is willing to say, "I don't know, lets find out." You 
are not. You want answers **now**, and you are willing to take what ever 
answer you like best, even if its impossible to test it, rather than 
just accept that you don't know yet. All I did say is that you seem to 
fail to apply the same, "Hmm, isn't that interesting what the facts say 
about evolution...", method to "anything else" in the world where the 
Bible doesn't fit what is actually observed to exist, or happen.

> and what 
> I see is just a scared man afraid and angry man because someone pointed 
> the possibility of a spiritual side of thigs, that Nature didn't make it 
> all, right, there are things that don't have and probably will never 
> have a rational explanation there (too many to put here and I don't 
> recall any now but I have seen many many cases on documentaries and I'm 
> sure there is something spiritual if not divine out there) are many 
> outthere and you and Darren simply make evry effort not to see them, 
> hahahaha and I'm  deluded? oh, think againg, maybe Nature does it all 
> but has this non-material side or there is actually a spiritual world 
> and you are the ignorant here. but no you and the Atheists are the 
> owners of the truth, OK, so be it.
>

Lets try this again. I don't give a frack what you "believe" you see, 
any more than I care what you believe you believe, as long as you are 
not trying to make the world "conform" to those things, based solely one 
your personal presumption that you are **right** about any of it. You 
don't know a damn thing about what effort any of us have, or do, put 
into seeing them. You just "assume" you know, because in your tiny 
little world, its impossible for someone to not see it, without putting 
effort into failing. Nothing you say above is anything but bigotry in 
assuming that everyone that doesn't think like you must think they way 
**you** imagine they do (which is to say, exactly like you would think, 
if you where one of them), and a total and complete refusal to even 
"attempt" to see differently. You are not even one of the blind men 
trying to describe an elephant, you are the one in the fracking wheel 
chair, that refuses to make the effort of "get to" the thing to touch 
it, and instead are convinced that they are all touching parts of a bed, 
because beds get infested with snakes, are made of wood, and sometimes 
use rope to hold up the curtains around them.

You are not just blind to what is going on, you are not even in the same 
room while its bloody happening.

> And on all those studies you have, as a very eloquent, logical, rational 
> trolling pro, did you made the majored in manners, kindness or do you 
> even have a friends and family that you actually love or you are just a 
> cold, pedant, disrespectful, longly and scared guy? Oh you stated you 
> are not scared... hahaha, yeah, right...

Umm... At this point I have nothing at all to say except, my family and 
friends, one of which just recently stated, "I spent a long time sort of 
hoping that maybe Christianity was true, but I just can't do that any 
more.", say, 'Screw You!' You have, in this conversation, shown no 
respect for anything we have said about our own beliefs, about what we 
do think, what anyone we have offered as examples think, or anything 
else on our side of the matter. In short, what ever respect I *may have* 
given you, on loan, in hopes it might be repaid, has just run dry, been 
defaulted on, and, if I thought you had any to pay me back with, I would 
be calling a mythological lawyer to drag it out of your mythological world.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/25/atheist_bashing.jpeg

And all else is silence.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I just see it as a phrase that is used in some groups that has no 
>> actual meaning. Though I am a bit disturbed by the ominous '...'
> 
> I dunno. I leave friends all the time with the admonition "Be well!"  
> That doesn't mean that I think they need reminding, or that my well 
> wishing will have any specific effect.
> 
> Do you also go off on the clerks that tell you "have a nice day" when 
> you leave?
> 
> Now, if Saul said he'd pray for us to see the light that we're so sadly 
> missing before we wind up in Hell, it would be a bit insulting, but 
> that's not how I took it. :-)
> 

Ah, yes. But, then "Be Well" isn't all that common in as the final 
statement on long tirades about how evil, vile, god hating, monstrous, 
murderous and damned you are. "Best Regards" and "I will pray for 
you...", among a few others, are. Its, like I said someplace else, a bit 
like receiving, "You have been invited to a party!", in the Batman 
universe, signed "Joker" and with a playing card in the envelope. You 
just know that something bad is lurking nearby (or, in the case of 
letters, you probably had to crawl through it, to get to the one 
semi-sane thing the wrote, the last sentence). ;) lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is 
>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such. 
> 
> First, define God.
> 
>  > All proofs of atheism rest on one or more premises that are assumed 
> to be
>> true without evidence.
> 
> It's a different kind of proof.  I can prove that distilled water is not 
> a significant cause of cancer, but that doesn't lead to absolute certainty.
> 
> Plus, most atheists don't claim there is no God, but only that there's 
> no reason to think there is.
> 
Or, more to the point, that all the "existing" ones "can be" discounted 
for various reasons, not the least being self contradictions, 
inconsistencies with the way even religious people agree the world 
works, until they need it to "not" work that way, or actually figuring 
out where the myths originated, invalidating the claims of when, who and 
why they where written.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> But seriously... Spending 5 pages calling them everything from the
> antichrist, to a mass murderer, to a liar, and so on, is all "fixed" by
> adding "Best Regards" to the end...?

God Bless you. :)

It's not like most Christians or religious people are ignorant, it's that most
of humanity is ignorant (yet still deserving of salvation).  Most atheists are
ignorant too and just enjoy it as an excuse for an orgiastic life of sex, drugs
and consumerism, not like they care for the scientific method or any such crap.
I guess filling the mistery of our apparent senseless existence with material
pleasures is roughly about as good a way as filling it with prayers and
requests to invisible beings.  Human nature...

Still, I understand that many of those who seek spiritual comfort are those that
are the most persistent on a life of sin, lies, cheating, violence.  Who can
deny them to seek forgiveness for their acts, in spite of repetitive failure?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > On 17-Jan-09 19:58, Darren New wrote:
> >> John VanSickle wrote:
> >>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
> >>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
> >>
> >> First, define God.
> >
> > Something outside space and time that can not interact with our
> > universe. ;)
>
> I'm happy with that definition. In that case, there's neither reason to
> believe in it or disbelieve in it. There's certainly no reason to worship
> it, pray to it, or tell others what it wants you to do.

But seemingly there are lots of reasons to start flamewars about it. :)

He's also The guy who defined man and woman. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 18-Jan-09 3:24, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That sentence was meant to be short for: "Sometimes when you find out 
>> what makes them tick and what is their ultimate motivation it turns 
>> out that they don't believe in a god but are atheists and have taken 
>> the non-existence of god as their primary inspiration for helping 
>> others."
>>
>> Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate 
>> 'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does 
>> not carry across cultures?
>>
> 
> Hmm. I suppose that is possible, but I don't think I have met anyone 
> that uses "that" as their reason for helping anyone.

For all practical purposes the non-existence of God is the base of my 
ethics, so count me in.

>>> That said, your comment does re-bring up a point that Saul danced 
>>> around a bit. Since he won't read the blog of an atheist, 
>>
>> given the way you tried to force it on him, I can't blame him.
>>
> I provided a link, stating that his personal definition of what atheists 
> where like was wrong, and this was an "example" of someone that didn't 
> fit. Not **real** clear how the heck giving an example is "forcing" 
> something? I certainly didn't force him to go there, force him to read 
> it, force him to "anything", including forcing him to ignore it the way 
> he did. By comparison, the second link was 10,000 times more "forceful", 
> in that reading the post made reading the man's interpretation of events 
> mandatory. But, if that is "forcing", then quoting, paraphrasing, or 
> linking to anything is. It smacks of the tried and true whine you get 
> from some people that, "Expressing a difference of opinion is bad 
> enough, but confronting me with facts is going too far! Stop persecuting 
> me!!"

I know what you meant, but to me it sounded rather similar to that 
infamous: "here is a bible, read it!".

[snip]

>> There is nothing is this story that suggests that the people in the 
>> church did it with the goal of converting the father. Suggesting that 
>> that was the actual goal and from that building up to a condemnation 
>> of their actions is rhetorically not sound and I would be livid if 
>> someone would question my intentions in this way.
>>
> No, nor is the last statement I made about it having to do with what the 
> "author" said. Its **suspicion* of motive, based on observation, and he 
> even says, very clearly, in his own comment, that its not possible to 
> prove if they had that motivation or not, so one has to take in on face 
> value, even "if" they are suspicious of it being true. I agree. Its not 
> possible, unless they admit it, through actions or words. The problem 
> is, a lot of them "do", 

And my problem is that I know too many people that don't and would 
justifiably be angry if you would question their motives based on 
suspicion. Basically what you are saying, or at least suggesting to say, 
is that if someone belongs to a church you can not trust them anymore.

> then claim that having the alterior motive makes 
>  what they did "superior" to everyone else's expression of the same 
> thing, due to it including "pleasing god", not just "helping people".
> 
>> To answer what I think is your underlying question: Compassion exist 
>> and is present both in atheists and theists. When people interact 
>> closely for some time they can grow philosophically closer together. 
>> Sometimes that results in people dropping out of a church sometimes 
>> into it and sometimes they move churches. The fourth option will not 
>> result in anything visible from the outside, that does not mean that 
>> the internal changes can be just as profound. If I or e.g. Saul behave 
>> friendly towards a fellow human being we do that just to do that. We 
>> might hope that the other follows our example, but that does not make 
>> any of us missionaries.
> 
> True enough. But, again, the principle tends to be undermined by the 
> fact that, for anyone that claims to really "believe" in certain 
> religions, there is no justifiable difference between being a person of 
> compassion and being a missionary. And, that creates a serious problem 
> for people that don't think the two need be, or should be, connected. It 
> means that "all" motives from them must be at least "somewhat" suspect, 
> even if you badly want them not to be. To discount that element of those 
> religions, is to be dishonest about what they teach, and how they expect 
> people to behave.

Ah, 'teach' may be the important word here. Most people I have met are 
not from churches that teach missionary actions. Apart from the Jehovah 
witnesses that come to the door (must be 9 years since I saw the last 
one). Catholics here tend to not take serious anybody from the ranks of 
bishop up. I have yet to meet a Muslim that has taken it's faith serious 
enough to even know how to explain his faith to an infidel. In short, 
all religious persons I know personally that are serious about their 
faith and every church they are in are not of the missionary type. 
Remember, I live in the Netherlands.

Post a reply to this message

On 18-Jan-09 6:34, nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 17-Jan-09 19:58, Darren New wrote:
>>>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>>>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
>>>>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
>>>> First, define God.
>>> Something outside space and time that can not interact with our
>>> universe. ;)
>> I'm happy with that definition. In that case, there's neither reason to
>> believe in it or disbelieve in it. There's certainly no reason to worship
>> it, pray to it, or tell others what it wants you to do.
> 
> But seemingly there are lots of reasons to start flamewars about it. :)
> 
> He's also The guy who defined man and woman. ;)

And there is silly old me that still claims that there is no consistent 
definition of man and woman. Apparently I have to yield to a higher power.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Once again, we see the "you can't *really* love your friends and family, 
> because you don't believe in my diety" statement. Just so you know, 
> that's exceedingly insulting.

You missed me once again, this paragraph was because you don't need a 
pedant trolling to say "I think what you say is wrong because has no 
foundation" or something like that, I forgot to clarify that I wrote 
that paragraph because I felt insulted and denigrated not because of the 
issue we are talking about and this post was to Patrick alone Darren

Hehehe, I don't believe Atheist are monsters, I believe ALL Humans are 
created equal(don't take it so literally/rationally I meant as dignified 
persons not exact copies) and this I think is religiousless.

Post a reply to this message

I don't believe, and you missed me again, I because I believe in God 
know everything, I don't even know why you and Darren keep saying that 
of me, I too say "I don't know" but if something indicates a exceptional 
  fact and is "safe" to say belongs to God, I give credit to Him.

And you are wrong!!! I have being  A LOT more respectful to everything 
you and Darren have wrote that you both have bein with me, I've being 
more open minded that both of you, but OK, is a tie, this discussion has 
  reached a death end so good bye and GOD BLESS YOU, lol.

Post a reply to this message