On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:28:33 +0100, St. wrote:

>> crazy, but if you only KNEW!!!!!!
> 
>      Then please tell.

Gads, no, don't encourage him.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
>>> This kind of thread can cause no good.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, and I ask this as an atheist asking an 
>> intelligent person of faith, do you think it's ever possible to have a 
>> useful discussion between disagreeing parties? :-)
>>
>> I find discussing it can be useful to me, not because it makes me 
>> change my mind or because I change someone else's mind, but because it 
>> lets me understand the other point of view better, and lets me deal 
>> with religion better.
> 
> Don't let the trolls bother you.
> People that do good things are good, just like Jesus is good.
> People that do bad things are evil, just like the devil who has
> done bad things since the beginning.
> That's why Jesus came: to destroy the devil's works.
> When someone has love in his heart, he wants to do good
> things, but when someone has angry hatred inside, he wants
> to do evil things. That's why God sent Jesus, because he
> loves us, and that love frees us from the bonds of hate and
> death.

You should have left off with the first sentence. The rest is just 
argument ad hominem. I.e., the, entirely unsupported, and false, 
assertion, in contradiction, to all evidence, that people like Samuel 
Clemens, lacking belief in a god, must, in nearly all cases, be "evil", 
while the dozens of priests in Ireland, recently found to have beaten 
and molested kids, but believing in god, must be automatically more 
likely to be "good". Sorry, but... belief doesn't make people good. On 
the contrary, it simply gives evil people a holy book they can quote 
mine to find bits and pieces to use to "justify" being evil, while still 
imagining that "god" wants them to do it. Non-believers have a much more 
direct excuse, they tend to imagine themselves untouchable, too smart to 
be stopped, and don't give a frack about other people. They don't try to 
excuse their actions by claiming someone "else" told them to do it. It 
is a whole hell of a lot easier to see the insanity and lack of 
compassion in such people, without the mask of "religious conviction" to 
hide the fact that it has jack to do with what any god or devil wants, 
and ***everything*** to do with what *they* want.

After all, even in "good" people, god always seems to want them to do 
"precisely" what they intended to do anyway, even when "other" good 
people think what they chose to do was inappropriate, wrong, or less 
godly that what "they" would have done. Odd how that works...

-- 
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

alphaQuad wrote:
> OK, on to the relevance then. Beliefs are just that, something you want to
> believe but for which you have no personal experience that would justify it.
> 
> What's greater then belief? When you KNOW from experience, you do in fact
> actually know something. Belief is more like a faerie tale.
> 
> An atheist has beliefs and doesn't know anything. I am particularly interested
> in these people, because of what I could show them. Call me vulnerable, or just
> crazy, but if you only KNEW!!!!!!
> 
This is vastly ironic, coming from someone that, probably, like most, 
lump atheists into some homogeneous group that all agree with each other 
on "beliefs". Its also even more ironic in that you have

a) Belief that the Bible actual describes something that happened. 
Evidence to support it - your belief that you experienced god. The 
evidence of any of it really happening though... Hmm..

b) Belief that such belief makes you better. Ok.. then explain why it is 
that, other than a few exceptions, nearly all wars are religiously 
motivated, and some of the most vile evil people today "mask" themselves 
in your religion. There isn't a lot of evidence than believing in god 
does anything more than provide justification for those that are "sure" 
they are good, to do the things they want, certain in their own minds 
that everything they do is also what god wants. Too bad no one else 
would agree with all their choices, when made based on that criteria.

c) And this one is part and parcel of the denial of science in this 
country. The abject refusal, despite diseases like Alzheimer's, despite 
nearly half the population having to have glasses, despite people losing 
their hearing, despite the known effects of drugs on the mind, despite 
blindingly obvious cases of people seeing things, despite the known 
effects of fasting, which includes hallucinations, despite head injuries 
changing people's personalities, despite "several diseases" that are 
known to induce false religious experiences, and none of which even 
"gets to" the neurological evidence we have now... despite "all" of 
these things, people like alphaQuad imagine that "religious" experiences 
are in some "special" category, for which their "personal" direct 
experiencing of them is 100% infallible, and always right, and 
constitutes 100% undeniable *evidence* of the existence of the main 
character of their favorite faerie tale.

The argument holds about as much water, based on, "knowing from 
experience", as the fools looking for how DNA works by comparing it to 
Chinese language characters. Its pure gibberish. The brain is not 
reliable at telling if its "own" experiences are accurate, and even some 
*Christian* philosophers, and members of the church, over the last 2000 
years, including both Fancis Bacon, and St. Thomas Aquinas, managed to 
figure that out (or at least almost do so). Why is it that, especially 
in the US, there seems to be an absolute outbreak of people that *can't*?

-- 
void main () {

     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:
> I think it's only when you're *not* utterly convinced but feel like you 
> *should* be that the real fights start.
> 

Hmm. So.. If I showed up an insisted that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the 
US government, you would argue back based on "not being convinced, but 
feeling you should be"? lol Seriously, there is a false dichotomy in 
information, at times. A sense that, "All arguments have a solution that 
is some place between the two extremes." When everyone agrees with this, 
it can get heated, true, since there is often drastic differences in 
"where" they think the middle point is, but, in point of fact, its also 
possible to be absolutely convinced that, at least with respect to the 
specific subject, one side is simply 100% wrong, and just not seeing the 
picture. In the case of gods, this might be analogous to comparing the 
statements, "I think 9/11 conspiracists are all nuts", to, "I think 
anyone imagining that someone could 'ever' conspire to do anything is 
absurd." Sadly, when these discussions crop up, the theist side is 
arguing that atheists are arguing the later version, that "no" gods are 
possible, which isn't necessary true at all, and is actually side 
tracking the topic, while the atheist is usually arguing the former, 
that the theists "specific" god, or assertions about them, as invalid, 
unsupported, and/or even contradicted by their own sides actions, 
members, or contradictory statements about even the arguments being 
"made" by the theist on the subject.

The theist's argument invariably ends up all over the map, including 
making accusations of what the atheist "means", "thinks", "believes", 
which are neither expressed, stated, or implied by the atheists 
arguments, yet, one feels forced to chase the theist around, trying to 
cut them off and pin them back down on the original subject, never mind 
specific points. Its why "no one" in their right mind goes to a debate 
with such people, without clear rules in place before hand, as to what 
the subject is, and how far they will be allowed to "drift", before the 
host slaps them back into the right subject (if they even bother to do so).

-- 
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

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
> news:web.4a2c2e39d4479e563559bb670@news.povray.org...
>
> > An atheist has beliefs and doesn't know anything. I am particularly
> > interested
> > in these people, because of what I could show them. Call me vulnerable, or
> > just
> > crazy, but if you only KNEW!!!!!!
>
>      Then please tell.
>
>
> > LOVE LOVE LOVE
>
>
>    Love is good, and love is bad. Simple as that.
>
>
>      ~Steve~

"Love isn't blind, it's retarded" Chuck Lorre

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> alphaQuad wrote:
> > What's greater then belief?
>
> What's greater than belief? How about "staying on your meds"?
>
> --
>    Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>    There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Absolutely!!!!!!!!

And absolutely impossible while living with those descended from apes and
chimps.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:16:41 -0400, alphaQuad wrote:
>
> > No one has a relevant
> > challenge?
> >
> > Guess it would be like challenging the Sun.
>
> Alternative theory:  Nobody wants to talk to you about this.
>
> The one thing that some of us have learned over the years is that
> engaging with you is a pointless exercise that eventually leads to you
> engaging in personal attacks.
>
> This will be my only post to you in this thread.  I've marked your posts
> as "ignore" because of your past personal attacks against me and I will
> continue to leave your messages scored as "ignore" to remind me that it
> is pointless to engage in discussion with you.
>
> Your general purpose here, as Warp said, is generally to troll-bait
> people into a position where you can engage in that type of personal
> attack behaviour.
>
> Sorry, I'm not playing any more.
>
> Jim

promises, promises. if you could only stick to it.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:

> This is vastly ironic, coming from someone that, probably, like most,
> lump atheists into some homogeneous group that all agree with each other
> on "beliefs". Its also even more ironic in that you have

Hey Pat good to hear from you, focus now and try to keep up. You have assumed
way too much.

> a) Belief that the Bible actual describes something that happened.
> Evidence to support it - your belief that you experienced god. The
> evidence of any of it really happening though... Hmm..

Nothing of the sort I don't believe anything but what eyes and other senses tell
me, even being a made up story the lesson is clear, as I originally suggested.
Maybe read original post again.

> b) Belief that such belief makes you better.

Where did you get that? You automatically alienate us with unfounded words. Your
goal I suppose. Not better than, that would be a negative ego payoff. Not
special, that would ignorant.

> Ok.. then explain why it is
> that, other than a few exceptions, nearly all wars are religiously
> motivated, and some of the most vile evil people today "mask" themselves
> in your religion.

My religion? You seem lost. I have none. Wars are started by greed. There were
few wars before the drug war. God given plants are not vendor companies that
must be regulated for monopoly, yet Obama states as a puppet president the Feds
have the right to regulated them. He is of course confused with the need for
regulation of monopolies such as the FDA run drug companies, now a perfect
monopoly with real medicine from the earth out of the way.

> There isn't a lot of evidence than believing in god
> does anything more than provide justification for those that are "sure"
> they are good, to do the things they want, certain in their own minds
> that everything they do is also what god wants. Too bad no one else
> would agree with all their choices, when made based on that criteria.

Yes, justification for the idiot that knows nothing of their own religion.

> c) And this one is part and parcel of the denial of science in this
> country. The abject refusal, despite diseases like Alzheimer's, despite
> nearly half the population having to have glasses, despite people losing
> their hearing, despite the known effects of drugs on the mind, despite
> blindingly obvious cases of people seeing things, despite the known
> effects of fasting, which includes hallucinations, despite head injuries
> changing people's personalities, despite "several diseases" that are
> known to induce false religious experiences, and none of which even
> "gets to" the neurological evidence we have now... despite "all" of
> these things, people like alphaQuad imagine that "religious" experiences
> are in some "special" category, for which their "personal" direct
> experiencing of them is 100% infallible, and always right, and
> constitutes 100% undeniable *evidence* of the existence of the main
> character of their favorite faerie tale.

Ok that's really drifting, time to smack you back to reality. I had no such
experiences that you attempt to construe. The experience I have was same
experience of 1000's of other worthy people at the time. Experience I have the
power to show other worthy people unlike yourself. All of us handed tools of
experimentation, that admittedly some like monkeys, could not figure out how to
use. Stay in denial, you will not get the chance to know, my little prophecy.

> The argument holds about as much water, based on, "knowing from
> experience", as the fools looking for how DNA works by comparing it to
> Chinese language characters. Its pure gibberish. The brain is not
> reliable at telling if its "own" experiences are accurate, and even some
> *Christian* philosophers, and members of the church, over the last 2000
> years, including both Fancis Bacon, and St. Thomas Aquinas, managed to
> figure that out (or at least almost do so). Why is it that, especially
> in the US, there seems to be an absolute outbreak of people that *can't*?

There is no argument, just some who know and some completely lost for the lack
of personal experience, and, as Darren put it, some feeling guilty for not
believing and thinking they should (They should not).

Thanks for the post.

LOVE LOVE LOVE

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> Nothing of the sort I don't believe anything but what eyes and other senses tell
> me, 

Yep.

> God given plants are not 

... the blue ones I recommended, no. The blue ones work much better. Go on, 
give em a try.

> Stay in denial, you will not get the chance to know, my little prophecy.

Yes yes. <MaxSmart> The old "you'd undoubtably agree if only you agreed with 
me" trick. Works every time. </MaxSmart>

> There is no argument, just some who know and some completely lost for the lack
> of personal experience, and, as Darren put it, some feeling guilty for not
> believing and thinking they should (They should not).

Please don't put words in my mouth when you're not even competent at putting 
words in your own mouth.

Take care.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> Please don't put words in my mouth when you're not even competent at putting
> words in your own mouth.

Well someone said it if it wasn't you, it really doesn't matter who, stop
drifting to irrelevance. Or I'll BELIEVE you aren't even competent to join the
experienced discussion, at least your in the majority, somewhere I'd never
allow myself to drift.

Post a reply to this message