On 17-Jan-09 6:09, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking 

Have you ever met an atheist??

> and 
> maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more 
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist 
> can't love.

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jan-09 6:58, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Think about one of those extreme situations I described... 
>>  > you wouldn't hold to any peace of belief/faith
>>> you can grasp? 
>>
>> By the way, this is something I've always been curious about.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be easier for God to just prevent the child from winding 
>> up underneath the car than to grant the mother unusual strength to 
>> pick the car up?  I mean, why is it that everyone getting out of the 
>> crashed plane alive is a miracle, but the plane crashing from a freak 
>> series of events isn't a miracle?  Why isn't the mother just as likely 
>> to be pissed at God for endangering her child as she is to ask for help?
>>
> 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 

I don't think he did. Nor would I expect Darren to do something like that.

> 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.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate 
> 'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does 
> not carry across cultures?

It does. I understood what you meant, at least.

I think in this case it's a reaction to implying that "atheism needs just as 
much faith as theism", which is a common but incorrect meme that religious 
people often try to assert.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and 
> maybe endangering the child,

Oh. So only someone who believes in God is capable of being irrational?

Wow. Just .... wow.

I can't figure out whether you're insulting yourself or atheists more. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Free will. 

Just so you know, that's a very pat answer. Perhaps you should think about 
this more deeply, and give a response (if only to yourself) that actually 
makes a little more sense.

Would "free will" be the same answer as to why people pray to be cured of 
prostate cancer but not be mad at God that they got cancer in the first 
place? If so, what decision did they make that gave them cancer of their own 
free will?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

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. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

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. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and 
> maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more 
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist 
> can't love.

Here, it certainly sounds like what you're saying is "I love my child more 
than you love yours, because I'm willing to pray to my God for my child's 
welfare and you're not."  Have I got that straight?

If not, what am I missing?

Do you think atheists are cold-hearted? That they don't have feelings? That 
it's irrational to attempt to move the car without divine intervention?

Would you consider yourself cold-thinking and rational if you got in this 
situation, prayed to God, still weren't able to move the car, and you didn't 
try to invoke the Force from Star Wars? Why not? You've *seen* Yoda lift an 
entire X-wing fighter.  (I'm completely serious with this question. Why 
wouldn't you try praying to Zeus, Satan, and then using the Force?)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You call me ignorant,

You call us fearful and cold-hearted. It isn't personal. :-)

> I put excuses to delude myself in airy tail 
> because Science and specially you have an answer to everything,

No! No no no!  We do *not* have an answer to everything!

That's exactly the point! *You* have the answer to everything, namely God is 
the answer to everything for which you don't already have a better answer.

Most atheists are pretty happy saying "Gee, I don't know how that works."

> I see is just a scared man afraid and angry man because someone pointed 
> the possibility of a spiritual side of thigs,

You're deluding yourself if you apply this to me. I'm neither afraid nor 
angry, except to the point that religious people are so certain they have 
the answer to everything that they screw up my life.

> all, right, there are things that don't have and probably will never 
> have a rational explanation there 

But we're not afraid of not having all the answers, nor are we angry about it.

> outthere and you and Darren simply make evry effort not to see them, 

See, here's the thing. You have this image of what we are, what we're like, 
why we are that way. No matter what we say, you think we're doing it to 
defend ourselves against the reasonableness that is "Saul's God exists."

We're not making every effort not to see them. We (at least I) am talking to 
you, trying to see it. You're just failing to make it clear to *me*. Just 
because it's clear to you doesn't mean that I don't see it because I'm 
trying to avoid seeing it. In truth, it's really not obvious.

> 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.

Maybe! I think that's probably closer to truth. That doesn't mean I believe 
in your diety, tho.

  > 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...

Annnnnd... That's All, Folks!

Canned theist having nothing less to say response number twenty-seven:
"I told you you should believe in my god. Since you don't, you obviously 
either secretly do and refuse to admit it because you're afraid, or you're a 
subhuman monster. Likely both."

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.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

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. I'm all for that 
kind of religion.  (Incidentally, it's called "deism". Lots of the folks who 
founded the USA had that religion.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Would you consider yourself cold-thinking and rational if you got in this
> situation, prayed to God, still weren't able to move the car, and you didn't
> try to invoke the Force from Star Wars? Why not? You've *seen* Yoda lift an
> entire X-wing fighter.  (I'm completely serious with this question. Why
> wouldn't you try praying to Zeus, Satan, and then using the Force?)

And if not all of those help, I heard praying for Joe Pesci yields some very
practical results. ;)

Post a reply to this message

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.

>> 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!!"

If that is all it takes.. We are all screwed.

>> The doctors stated that she would either be still born, or only live a 
>> short time. The chaplain's statements about the matter:
>>
>> 1. Thumbs up to the christians that chose to follow their own creed of 
>> loving others.
>>
>> 2. The two who they helped might not have made it without such help 
>> and compassionate people with them.
>>
>> 3. Not impressed with the god in the story, who seemed to be unable to 
>> do anything at all that the doctors didn't already predict.
>>
>> 4. "Four, I wish that the friendships that abound in this story would 
>> have been accomplished without the framework of religion to constrain 
>> them. This story speaks poignantly of both the power and the depth of 
>> human empathy and compassion. Danny, Danielle and Bobbi didn’t need a 
>> deity; they needed other people. The Christians didn’t need a deity; 
>> they had tremendous strength and love within themselves. Danny, 
>> Danielle, the pastor and all of the church people have sold themselves 
>> short. Instead of recognizing their own virtue, they believe that the 
>> source of all their goodness is a small god who performs pitifully 
>> small miracles. That’s almost as tragic as the death of baby Bobbi."
>>
>> Mind, the first poster on the reply thread suggested that #1 may have 
>> been a bit "artificial", in that many such people are far more 
>> interested in getting people "into" the club, and saving souls, than 
>> truly showing compassion, without strings attached. And, he is right. 
>> Its very hard to tell the difference some times.
> 
> 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", 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.

-- 
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:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and 
> maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more 
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist 
> can't love.

No one is rational in a situation like that. And, even if they where, 
the "logical" solution is to attempt to move the vehicle anyway, even if 
you know you can't, since any other action, including inaction, would 
fail. The irony here being, rationally making that decision wouldn't 
trigger the same hormonal effect, so it would still fail. But, this only 
proves that "irrational" action has benefit, due to how it effects that 
brain, not that being "irrational" connects you to some higher power, 
which then, while ignoring the purely biological mechanisms involved, 
magics things into happening. All your proving is that Vulcans would do 
poorly at saving children under cars, while ironically, by invoking the 
argument, undermining the intended intended explanation you started with.

-- 
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:
> 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

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
>> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and 
>> maybe endangering the child,
> 
> Oh. So only someone who believes in God is capable of being irrational?
> 
> Wow. Just .... wow.
> 
> I can't figure out whether you're insulting yourself or atheists more. :-)
> 
Rhetoric answers that assumes too much about me, and I'm the insulting 
part here? I wrote Athesit can love and love is irrational on extreme 
doses, so yes Atheists can and will go irrational at some point in their 
lifes, see? you didn't read the fine print... :-)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
>> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and 
>> maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go 
>> more with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying 
>> Atheist can't love.
> 
> Here, it certainly sounds like what you're saying is "I love my child 
> more than you love yours, because I'm willing to pray to my God for my 
> child's welfare and you're not."  Have I got that straight?

Sorry, nope.

> If not, what am I missing?

This question denotes wisdom because you are willing to search and learn 
contrary to Patrick that only writes "you are deluding yourself you are 
being a moron, for your own sake STOP!!!".

On the subject, I think that quality of love depends on each person, 
I've known of religious persons that made great religious leaderships 
while their family suffered horribly, is not religion, is you and you 
alone. If you correct your child on the measure of his/her mistakes, are 
kind but not spoiling and other good principles like that I think that 
is love, we know what love is, all humans do also we have a sense of 
right and wrong, so I think people that will go to hell is the ones that 
deliberately go wrong and against love or twist love in a sick way(9/11 
kinda of stuff).

> Do you think atheists are cold-hearted?

A little, just a little but I don't say ALL, maybe, just maybe most of 
them, because I don't actually know the entire Earth population, so is 
mostly kinda of a little pretentious assumption of me.

> That they don't have feelings? 

man, hehe, I don't know why you keep saying thighs like that of me.

> That it's irrational to attempt to move the car without divine 
> intervention?

is irrational anyway that is why faith helps and was more like lifting 
the car in flames kinda thing, and every adult person knows the 
consequences of such an act, but also I'm not saying an Atheist wouldn't 
do it, I'm saying he/she MIGHT be too rational about it. I'm also saying 
religious/spiritual persons will try to find a logical solution that 
actually will work but in this case, as people write/tell about it was 
in a situation like: alone in a road or in a place where she couldn't 
ask/get help or find a good solution that would actually worked. I don't 
say I'd do the same, may I'd be too rational about too, I don't know 
what I'd do in such a horrible situation, all I can think of is saving 
the child the best way possible, I think you think that too and every 
human for that matter.

> Would you consider yourself cold-thinking and rational if you got in 
> this situation, prayed to God, still weren't able to move the car, and 
> you didn't try to invoke the Force from Star Wars? Why not? You've 
> *seen* Yoda lift an entire X-wing fighter.  (I'm completely serious with 
> this question. Why wouldn't you try praying to Zeus, Satan, and then 
> using the Force?)
> 

Not just pray to God, God helps the one that helps him/herself, He does 
the part you can't do to get to your goal and it depends on the belief 
of your faith, George Lucas actually beliefs in The Force, I believe The 
Force is God intervention, the Bible states if you have enough faith you 
could do wonderful thing, but without love you'd be nothing, so is not 
only faith is also the "big L" necessary for good deeds.

Once a long time ago, maybe 15-20 years ago I heard of a Holy man in a 
Country with lots of desert that he could take an ordinary cup, fill it 
with sand from the desert, invert the cup, let the sand fall and the 
sand would stop falling until he turned the cup straight up again, 
people said he was a man of lots of faith.

I understand why Atheists probably will never see the way 
religious/theists see things, faith in God is completely irrational 
because God doesn't manifest in rational ways, all I can say is what 
Jesus said, "be happy those who belief without seen".

Don't expect I say you: "OK, you say you are trying to understand me so 
you want a rational proof of God, here it is, now belief". The way to 
God is that, A WAY, A PATH to follow and on some point, He will come to 
you. The Bible states that if you CHALLENGE God to come to you He will, 
he has give you free will and wont disrupt the deal unless you want it so.

One more curious "fact": some people affirms seen San Martin praying in 
the middle of the air,on his knees, because he was on sucha God's grace, 
so is not a proven fact but if you dare to take this as a fact for a 2 
minutes you see there is no reason why he has to be "flying" to be in 
God's grace but that's the way God works. People claims he was alone in 
his cell on pray time of the day. But fairy tail at the end, right? 
fine, so be it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Free will. 
> 
> Just so you know, that's a very pat answer. Perhaps you should think 
> about this more deeply, and give a response (if only to yourself) that 
> actually makes a little more sense.
> 
> Would "free will" be the same answer as to why people pray to be cured 
> of prostate cancer but not be mad at God that they got cancer in the 
> first place? If so, what decision did they make that gave them cancer of 
> their own free will?
> 
I should think it more deeply? are you sure is not the other way around?

Cancer and other stuff is part of Nature, how it works.

As I stated on another post is IMO good to ask God for a cure because 
God helps you complete your goal when you have done all you can.

God leaves nature alone until He see fir to intervene, this is what 
theists/religious people have deducted (nobody can't tell how God thinks 
or act, we deduct from facts attributed to Him/Her/It) over time.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> This question denotes wisdom because you are willing to search and learn 
> contrary to Patrick that only writes "you are deluding yourself you are 
> being a moron, for your own sake STOP!!!".

Yes. That's why I said I'm an atheist, but not like Patrick. For one thing, 
I've accepted that irrationality is not always bad.

>> Do you think atheists are cold-hearted?
> 
> A little, just a little but I don't say ALL, maybe, just maybe most of 
> them, because I don't actually know the entire Earth population, so is 
> mostly kinda of a little pretentious assumption of me.

I think so. You seem to leap from "you don't believe in my god" to "you're 
cold and rational."  There's no basis for that belief except uninformed 
prejudice. I suspect confirmation bias in your observations of your atheist 
friends: that when they act cold and rational, you attribute it to their 
atheism, while when they act irrational, you attribute it to normal humanity.

Not unlike the way many people attribute personal failings to their own 
sinful nature and personal successes to God.

>> That they don't have feelings? 
> man, hehe, I don't know why you keep saying thighs like that of me.

I quote:
 > I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like this 
[...]
 > being cold thinking and maybe endangering the child [...] the best
 > solution is go more with your feelings on that small time interval

I took that to mean you thought the atheist would be less willing to try to 
move the car via brute force. You say "they're too rational and cold 
thinking and more likely to endanger the child". How am I supposed to 
interpret that?

In any case, there's documented evidence of desperate people lifting cars 
off their children. There's no documented evidence of divine intervention 
lifting cars off of children. That means trying to lift your car yourself is 
*more* rational than praying to God for help.

>> That it's irrational to attempt to move the car without divine 
>> intervention?
> 
> is irrational anyway that is why faith helps and was more like lifting 
> the car in flames kinda thing, and every adult person knows the 
> consequences of such an act,

OK. It seems to me like you're making statements much more exagerated than 
you mean them to be. My personal suggestion is to phrase more of your 
comments as questions rather than statements.

Plus, I can *easily* imagine an atheist nerd trying to use The Force to lift 
the car. Completely irrational, and less likely to work than actually trying 
to lift the car with brute force.

> Not just pray to God,

Well, no. Pray to god to give you the strength, obviously. Because, you 
know, no proper religious person would think that God would manifest in ways 
that could really only be explained by supernatural intervention. Of course 
he won't lift the car *without* someone trying desperately to move it with 
brute force, any more than he'd actually cure a disease that non-believers 
get better from also.

> the Bible states if you have enough faith you could do wonderful thing,

Actually, it states that if you have even the tiniest spec of faith, you can 
move mountains. There really isn't a question of "how much faith is enough."

> I understand why Atheists probably will never see the way 
> religious/theists see things, faith in God is completely irrational 
> because God doesn't manifest in rational ways,

Sure he does. He stopped the sun in the sky for three days, he turned the 
Nile to blood, he flooded the entire world, bombed Sodom and Gomorrah, 
parted the Red Sea, raised the dead, cast the evil eye on a fig tree, ....

He just stopped doing that sort of thing when the camera was invented.

> Don't expect I say you: "OK, you say you are trying to understand me so 
> you want a rational proof of God, here it is, now belief". The way to 
> God is that, A WAY, A PATH to follow and on some point, He will come to 
> you. The Bible states that if you CHALLENGE God to come to you He will, 
> he has give you free will and wont disrupt the deal unless you want it so.

And I have. And he didn't. What do you say to that?  That I opened my heart 
to him in the wrong way?

> One more curious "fact": some people affirms seen San Martin praying in 
> the middle of the air,on his knees, because he was on sucha God's grace,

Yep. And some people think they're Napoleon too. Note that I'm not saying 
this in a belittling way, but for me to change my life based on "I once 
heard someone saw some guy floating in mid air" is a bit much, don't you think?

> so is not a proven fact but if you dare to take this as a fact for a 2 
> minutes you see there is no reason why he has to be "flying" to be in 
> God's grace but that's the way God works.

OK, let's even grant the possibility that he really was praying in the 
middle of the air. Let's even say he can do it on demand, and scientists 
can't explain it.

Why does that have anything to do with God?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Free will. 
>>
>> Just so you know, that's a very pat answer. Perhaps you should think 
>> about this more deeply, and give a response (if only to yourself) that 
>> actually makes a little more sense.
>>
>> Would "free will" be the same answer as to why people pray to be cured 
>> of prostate cancer but not be mad at God that they got cancer in the 
>> first place? If so, what decision did they make that gave them cancer 
>> of their own free will?
>>
> I should think it more deeply? are you sure is not the other way around?

Yep. I already thought about it deeply and have come to my own conclusions.

> Cancer and other stuff is part of Nature, how it works.

I thought nature works how God wants it to work?

I'm just confused how "free will" comes into your child being pinned under a 
car. I don't think any child says "This morning, I choose to get pinned 
under a locked car."  Where does "free will" come into the situation?

I mean, it was "miraculous" that everyone got off the plane in the river 
alive, but it wasn't "miraculous" that the plane crashed in the first place? 
It was "free will" that the plane crashed?

> God leaves nature alone until He see fir to intervene,

How do you know?

> this is what 
> theists/religious people have deducted (nobody can't tell how God thinks 
> or act, we deduct from facts attributed to Him/Her/It) over time.

This is the bit I don't follow. You "attribute" facts to God? Isn't it, 
therefore, the people attributing those facts that determine how God 
behaves, and not God itself?

Notice how any time you actually *measure* the facts attributed to God, God 
fails to manifest?  It's only when you look after the fact, and say "might 
God have done this, knowing what we know about what we think of God?" and 
then the answer comes out?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 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.

That, I think, is the primary difference.

> 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 believe you're reading disrespect into my disagreement. Regardless of 
Patrick's feelings, I don't disrespect you. I merely disagree with you. I'm 
also hearing the same tired old statements that don't make any more sense 
from you than they did the first 100 times I heard them. But that statement 
isn't being disrespectful - it's just a fact.

The whole "if only you'd open your heart, God would fill you" bit is 
disrespectful because it implies willful ignorance on the part of the person 
you're talking to. But since I understand you don't intend it as 
disrespectful, you should understand that I don't intend my statements as 
disrecpectful.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.

Yep. But then, Saul hasn't been like that. You're projecting onto him as 
much as he's projecting onto you and I.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> He's also The guy who defined man and woman. ;)

No he isn't. Once you leap from "the creator of the Big Bang" to "the guy 
who tells you how you run your life", that's when I get annoyed.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> not the least being self contradictions, 

At least one highly religious person I had an opportunity to interact with 
for hours at a time face to face has convinced me that self contradictions 
aren't a problem in religion.  As long as you're being irrational, why stick 
with modus ponens?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > He's also The guy who defined man and woman. ;)
>
> No he isn't. Once you leap from "the creator of the Big Bang" to "the guy
> who tells you how you run your life", that's when I get annoyed.

How you go from "guy who defined man and woman" to "guy who tells you how you
run your life"?  If you were born a banana would you demand free will to mean
you could choose to be a grasshopper instead?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> 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.

And that, my friend, is likely precisely why it harder to take people at 
face value for me than it is for you. The ones like you talk about, even 
if they may be a slim majority in the US, and I am not that certain of 
that, are most definitely "not" the sort you ***see*** doing most 
charity work, or seeking to help people, etc. There is a bias, even 
among many liberal church goers in the US, that when someone opens a 
soup kitchen, one of the first questions isn't, "How many people did it 
feed?", but, "Do they preach to them before they let them eat it?" At 
best, the ones like those you are used to, try real hard to avoid 
thinking about that question, but if asked, can't honestly reply that it 
didn't occur to them. Remember I live in the good old US of A-hole here.

-- 
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:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> This question denotes wisdom because you are willing to search and 
>> learn contrary to Patrick that only writes "you are deluding yourself 
>> you are being a moron, for your own sake STOP!!!".
> 
> Yes. That's why I said I'm an atheist, but not like Patrick. For one 
> thing, I've accepted that irrationality is not always bad.
> 
He is putting words in my mouth and you are letting him? Yeah, I do 
think believers delude themselves, but that is not the same as saying 
that irrationality is always bad. For one, its impossible to avoid 
anyway. My problem is, he seems to want it both ways. To pat you on the 
back for "getting" how irrationality is OK, while claiming to admit that 
we "can" feel things, then insisting that the only reason we can is 
because god is hiding in the closet "prompting" us how to act while we 
are thinking irrationally, or something. The cognitive dissonance 
involved is just more than I am willing to put up with, especially when 
he starts claiming that I don't have friends of family that can "love 
each other like a theist can!" Its especially more than I am willing to 
put up with because..., well, frankly I post a lot of several science 
blogs, and there isn't one argument, assertion, wiggling claim, half 
hearted attempt to seem sympathetic, while not being so, or supposition 
that Saul has come up with that hasn't been tried there, multiple times, 
as though they where all brand new, no one has heard them before, etc.

Heck, at least once a week, sometimes, some new person shows up on some 
blog entry about something, to proclaim, "You all need to read the 
Bible, because you obviously never did before." After the 30th time or 
so, if gets old, and you just want them to come up with something that 
a) is new, and b) hasn't dissolved, at some point into them making the 
same assertions, over and over, while ignoring everything you or anyone 
else in the thread said, as though we all just never heard "them" say it 
the first 2-3 times either. Though, I admit, the funniest ones are the 
ones that we manage to back into a corner, where they admit they believe 
it all due to it being "comforting" to them, but they don't find it 
logical either, as though belief in god is like me deciding not to get 
out of bed when I wake up, and instead deciding to stay under the covers 
for a few more minutes, despite having things I need to do that day.

-- 
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

nemesis wrote:
> 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?
> 
> 
Umm. Putting it at the beginning doesn't help either, sorry..

-- 
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:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yep. But then, Saul hasn't been like that. You're projecting onto him as 
> much as he's projecting onto you and I.
> 

I didn't say he was like that. I even **specifically* said so. How about 
both of you stop putting words in my mouth...

-- 
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:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> not the least being self contradictions, 
> 
> At least one highly religious person I had an opportunity to interact 
> with for hours at a time face to face has convinced me that self 
> contradictions aren't a problem in religion.  As long as you're being 
> irrational, why stick with modus ponens?
> 
Yes, well.. Its when they then insist that you don't know what "you" are 
talking about because its so damn obvious that god is "both" a plate of 
spaghetti and a magic hat, at the same time, that things really go down 
hill for everyone not "in the know". 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

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > Patrick Elliott wrote:
> >> not the least being self contradictions,
> >
> > At least one highly religious person I had an opportunity to interact
> > with for hours at a time face to face has convinced me that self
> > contradictions aren't a problem in religion.  As long as you're being
> > irrational, why stick with modus ponens?
> >
> Yes, well.. Its when they then insist that you don't know what "you" are
> talking about because its so damn obvious that god is "both" a plate of
> spaghetti and a magic hat, at the same time, that things really go down
> hill for everyone not "in the know". lol

LOLz.  Look at the atheists making fun of their fav subject and here I am still
feeding them!  Really, what would you do with your boring vulcan/madonna dual
lifes if there was no one you could mock of?  probably commit suicide to see if
they were right...

Post a reply to this message

On 18-Jan-09 21:43, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> And that, my friend, is likely precisely why it harder to take people at 
> face value for me than it is for you. The ones like you talk about, even 
> if they may be a slim majority in the US, and I am not that certain of 
> that, are most definitely "not" the sort you ***see*** doing most 
> charity work, or seeking to help people, etc. There is a bias, even 
> among many liberal church goers in the US, that when someone opens a 
> soup kitchen, one of the first questions isn't, "How many people did it 
> feed?", but, "Do they preach to them before they let them eat it?" At 
> best, the ones like those you are used to, try real hard to avoid 
> thinking about that question, but if asked, can't honestly reply that it 
> didn't occur to them. Remember I live in the good old US of A-hole here.

There are a few soup kitchens and that sort of thing in this country, 
but hardly visible. You have to be homeless to know where they are, I 
guess. Is there one in the town (140000 inhabitants) where I live? I 
don't know. Do we have homeless people here? Sometimes I see one or two 
in the summer, I think they have now migrated to the warmer Amsterdam. 
Indeed our difference in experience with religious people could be 
influenced by the difference in social system.

I have never been in a soup kitchen, but I assume I will be in something 
similar in the near future (my sister is involved in one for (mainly) 
illegal immigrants). When I am there I'll check the level of preaching. 
It is related to a church. I am not sure which one, could be a born 
again-ish type.

Post a reply to this message

On 18-Jan-09 22:06, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> not the least being self contradictions, 
>>
>> At least one highly religious person I had an opportunity to interact 
>> with for hours at a time face to face has convinced me that self 
>> contradictions aren't a problem in religion.  As long as you're being 
>> irrational, why stick with modus ponens?
>>
> Yes, well.. Its when they then insist that you don't know what "you" are 
> talking about because its so damn obvious that god is "both" a plate of 
> spaghetti and a magic hat, at the same time, 

I think the pastafarians might take that as an insult to his holy 
noodleness.

> that things really go down 
> hill for everyone not "in the know". lol
>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> This question denotes wisdom because you are willing to search and 
>>> learn contrary to Patrick that only writes "you are deluding yourself 
>>> you are being a moron, for your own sake STOP!!!".
>>
>> Yes. That's why I said I'm an atheist, but not like Patrick. For one 
>> thing, I've accepted that irrationality is not always bad.
>>
> He is putting words in my mouth and you are letting him?

I said nothing of the sort. I simply said I'm not like you. :-)
I suppose one reading of what I said might imply I agree with him, but that 
wasn't my intention.

> The cognitive dissonance involved is just more than I am willing to put up with,
especially when 
> he starts claiming that I don't have friends of family that can "love 
> each other like a theist can!"

Yes. That part is rather insulting.

> as though they where all brand new, no one has heard them before, etc.

Agreed.  Sometimes it seems like Saul is actually interested in 
conversation, and sometimes it seems like he's interested in converting. 
Usually it's pretty easy to tell which is which by counting questions vs 
assertions.

> Though, I admit, the funniest ones are the 

The funniest ones for me are the ones that feel they have to help their 
deity in his work, like *they* can show me the way to religion better than 
their own God can. Funny, and annoying. :-)

> as though belief in god is like me deciding not to get 
> out of bed when I wake up, and instead deciding to stay under the covers 
> for a few more minutes, despite having things I need to do that day.

It's that whole "free will" bit that explains evil in the world.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> He's also The guy who defined man and woman. ;)
>> No he isn't. Once you leap from "the creator of the Big Bang" to "the guy
>> who tells you how you run your life", that's when I get annoyed.
> 
> How you go from "guy who defined man and woman" to "guy who tells you how you
> run your life"?

We call it Proposition 8, making it impossible (for example) for one man to 
designate another man as the person to make emergency medical decisions for 
him, requiring him to choose a female instead.

Sharia is pretty harsh on homosexuality as well.

If you want your god to "define" man and woman without assigning any roles, 
I'm cool with that too. Sadly, I don't believe there are many people who 
think God cares about which is a man and which is a woman that doesn't also 
believe that some combinations deserve punishment.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence 
> for the universe to exist, something before the universe must have 
> caused it, and hence God exists.[1]

Huh. Looks like maybe the universe didn't need a first cause after all.
http://bite-dose.com/science/did-dark-energy-give-us-our-cosmos/

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I believe you're reading disrespect into my disagreement. Regardless of 
> Patrick's feelings, I don't disrespect you. 

Dear friend, this words are not necessary, I already have this 
consideration to you. And for what is worth you have been only 
disrespectful once, Patrick many, and you corrected your question and 
asked nicely again, that implicitly have an apology an I accept it 
gladly, I offer the same an apology if I have being disrespectful with 
you or Atheism in 1 or more occasions.

Best regards and luck to us all :-)

Post a reply to this message

Got a new term for you. Tragical. Its like a miracle, but when god does 
stuff that's bad, because he "works in mysterious ways". lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-vhyqx_Duc&feature=channel

Think I am going to have to keep up with this guys videos.

Tell you the truth, I don't think we are "that" different. About the 
only difference I can see is that, maybe, you are one of those that 
think that given "some" ground can benefit our position. I once thought 
that might be true, then I realized that, in reality, the people 
fighting the hardest for beliefs are basically impervious to evidence in 
most cases, without causing their whole world view to shatter like a 
chandelier, and so talking to them is pointless, once you figure out 
that they have put themselves in the unassailable position of stating, 
"There is no evidence, ever, that would sway my belief.", and, anyone 
willing to listen, isn't part of the problem in the first place. You 
give ground to people who "could be" persuaded, but only as much as 
needed. You never do so with someone that refuses to even acknowledge 
the possible flaws, or lack of knowledge, inherent in their positions.

And, frankly, he claims I called him a moron. No, confusing "ignorant" 
with "stupid" is moronic. Had he opted to take the definition for what 
it "means", instead of inflating it into something worse... But, as they 
say, better to say nothing, than erase all doubt.

That still doesn't mean he isn't do "some" respect for everything else 
he does in his life, even to help others. It just means that he is the 
reverse of an idiot savant. Instead of having one thing he does very 
very well, and everything else poorly, he does everything else rather 
well, and one thing very very poorly. Most of us have that handicap, in 
one fashion or another. Mine is that I couldn't play a sport, or 
apparently even a game of chance, without losing, even with loaded dice. 
I am an idiot at it. Its a common affliction in nerds. His... is 
similarly common. But, there is a difference between ignorance, 
stupidity and willful blindness. The first is curable, the second 
incurable, and the third, takes a great deal of practice. The first step 
is to deny you have a problem at all, or could be bad at it.

-- 
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

nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> not the least being self contradictions,
>>> At least one highly religious person I had an opportunity to interact
>>> with for hours at a time face to face has convinced me that self
>>> contradictions aren't a problem in religion.  As long as you're being
>>> irrational, why stick with modus ponens?
>>>
>> Yes, well.. Its when they then insist that you don't know what "you" are
>> talking about because its so damn obvious that god is "both" a plate of
>> spaghetti and a magic hat, at the same time, that things really go down
>> hill for everyone not "in the know". lol
> 
> LOLz.  Look at the atheists making fun of their fav subject and here I am still
> feeding them!  Really, what would you do with your boring vulcan/madonna dual
> lifes if there was no one you could mock of?  probably commit suicide to see if
> they were right...
> 
Favorite? Yeah, if by "favorite" you mean "only". Its kind of like 
arguing that "insert religion of your choice"'s favorite subject is 
"everyone that believes something else" too.


In response, from PX Myers to yet "another" case of "Oh no, atheists 
have bus signs now!", and more specifically the ever popular, "There 
probably isn't any god, so stop being an ass." Umm, well, the last bit 
isn't *quite* phrased that way, but...:

""There's probably no God" is an accurate summary of the atheist 
position. There's no virtue to be found in iron-clad certainty, and it 
is no sign of weakness that a statement might allow for acceptance of 
evidence in contradiction. People like Warner, however, think that 
certainty is a necessity.

...

Let's leave certainty to the oleaginous evangelists, the jingoistic war 
mongers, and the other con artists selling us bogus solutions to 
imaginary problems. A little uncertainty, a little willingness to accept 
that deeper knowledge might change our minds, is a good thing.

...

As far as the last part of the slogan…yes, I find it very reassuring 
that I am not reliant on the whims of some all-powerful cosmic tyrant. 
I've read the Bible, and his god is not a very nice anthropomorphic 
hallucination: murder, war, rape, threats of eternal torment, and 
micro-management of trivial aspects of human behavior seem to be his 
modi operandi. I am relieved that I am not under its thumb, although it 
is still worrisome that so many imagine that they are, and act as if 
this evil puppetmaster were pulling their strings.

The message of atheism is personal responsibility. You cannot blame your 
wickedness on a rebellious ancestor with an appetite for apples. You 
cannot say the devil made you do it. Your actions are not dictated by 
invisible deities whispering in your ear. Your actions have 
consequences, and they are *your* actions." <- emphasis mine

-- 
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 wrote:
> Got a new term for you. Tragical. Its like a miracle, but when god does 
> stuff that's bad, because he "works in mysterious ways". lol
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-vhyqx_Duc&feature=channel
> 
> Think I am going to have to keep up with this guys videos.

I've watched some of his stuff. He's pretty funny.

This guy's pretty good too, altho less funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBDGMj2h-c

> Tell you the truth, I don't think we are "that" different.

I try not to be off-putting. You don't seem to care whether you're 
off-putting. I think that's the main difference in our approaches.

> think that given "some" ground can benefit our position.

I don't give any ground. I just don't feel the need to alienate people who 
aren't attacking me. :-)

> and so talking to them is pointless,

... if you're trying to change their mind, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The message of atheism is personal responsibility. You cannot blame your 
> wickedness on a rebellious ancestor with an appetite for apples.

Well, I don't, but that's because I'm from the other side of the family. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message