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

"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~

Hey Steve!
If you honestly want to know, and to all others reading, repeat these words.

"I give permission to be shown in a dream".

No guarantees of course. Scientists would expect the experiment to repeatable
and the same result for everyone or it isn't true, as if conscious
self-awareness was no different to chemicals in the lab.

And of course with everyone NOT created equal, it just won't work for some. And
if "not working for them" it must be false. But now that isn't "proof" is it.


LOVE LOVE LOVE

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>>
>> I think you miss some details:
>>> ... just so you can have a defining example ...
>> I don't think this is very high on the list of reasons Jesus had to die.
>>
>>
>>> ...a temper tantrum in the temple, the only case they had
>>> on him and only excuse for the nailing ...
>> Charges were blasphemy and treason.
> 
> Pilate said, (not word for word) something like, this is the same man that you
> welcomed just so many days ago and now you want him killed, explain this
> insanity to me. The one previously speaking didn't know what to say, another
> steps forward and says, you have not heard the worst of his crimes, he broke
> our Sabbath laws.

Pilate, even after all of the verbiage, was still all-go for setting 
Jesus free; not because Pilate was all that worked up about justice, but 
because like all politicians, keeping the appearance of honest courts is 
important.

Then Jesus' enemies said that Jesus had claimed to be a king, and that 
if Pilate didn't have him killed, they would inform Caesar that Pilate 
was doing nothing while a man was running around claiming to be king; at 
which point Pilate folded like a cheap tent.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >
> > Charges were blasphemy and treason.
>
> Pilate said, (not word for word) something like, this is the same man that you
> welcomed just so many days ago and now you want him killed, explain this
> insanity to me. The one previously speaking didn't know what to say, another
> steps forward and says, you have not heard the worst of his crimes, he broke
> our Sabbath laws.
>
> Now granted how vague that is, but coupled with the notion that no one wanted
> him until the temple incident occurred and he was arrested 3 days afterwards,
> it is an easy step to believe that if he just went on a picnic that day instead
> of ...
>


No one wanted him killed before that? The chief priests and Pharisees were out
to get him before the temple-cleansing.  We're asked to accept that the text
makes no philosophical sense because of details, the details being not actually
from the text but a parody of it.

Post a reply to this message

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


I think the problem is that you WERE involved in a false religion, and
mistakenly presume it is THE responsible elucidation of the text.   There is
not anything that is so stupid or wacky or evil that it cannot be said, by some
idiot, to be taken from the bible or the life's work of ML King Jr., or Lincoln
or a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>
> I think the problem is that you WERE involved in a false religion, and
> mistakenly presume it is THE responsible elucidation of the text.   There is
> not anything that is so stupid or wacky or evil that it cannot be said, by some
> idiot, to be taken from the bible or the life's work of ML King Jr., or Lincoln
> or a Bugs Bunny cartoon.



Well that's what you get for trying to think with a cold dead heart. The
greatest thoughts come from loving people. I am involved in something you don't
have the capacity to understand. But some people here do. Try adding something
relevant to the conversation instead of letting you moronic ego ramble.

Post a reply to this message