James--->Grant...:No, no dogs pee'd on my tire that I am aware of. I guess I could have worded that better. Thanks for the heads up. - 0:42:20 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:Not really looking to get a dig in, but I do want to see if your still reading my posts and I did not want you to think I had forgotten about you. Actually, I've grown fond of your post here, but don't let that get out. - 0:44:44 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Brian 2:PapaSam.....well when I think that one day my opinion will be respected than I might stay and chat....but that is not the case. Look at all of your post...there is no room for anyone else's opinion...I have not problem respecting others....but when no respect comes this way...oh well. I dare you to look at your post, recent and last....and you will see that I am right. That there is no room for anyone's opinion but your own. No one answerd my questions!!! Funny that. Here you assume your right because I didn't answer your questions but you don't answer mine. No...no hypocracy here. I dare you to open your eyes and look back at your post for the past week or year for that matter. You will see that even a non-atheist can be correct some times. - 0:52:59 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Len...:Nope, not Joette, she is her own woman and I am my own man. Sorry to be so hard hitting, but besides religion, politics is an area that I can speak for hours on. I'm a real hit at parties you might imagine (lol). I wish the democratic party would go back to being the party they used to be instead of a the dead beat liberals they are today. For me it breaks down into to categories. Conservative which represents people who believe in taking responsibility for themselves and liberal, people who expect other people to take care of them and their neighbor. Sounds kind of Christian if you ask me. Turns out that getting the conservative message out, which does not necessarily mean Christianity, means you had better vote Republican, otherwise, you could be taxed to death to take care of those who WON'T take care of themselves. We all hope to take care of those who cannot. - 0:55:39 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Brian 2...:I do not claim to speak for atheist or as an atheist, please restate your questions. - 0:57:53 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Alll...:Who wants to start writing briefs for typical theist arguments that we can use as links to respond to questions. They should be brief (as in short) and should be in groups of maybe three. Three of us could respond to a question so that when we posted the link to a response for a theist argument, the reader would get three different atheist opinions written completely objectively with no inferred insults. What do you think? It would help so such that you would not feel like you were repeating yourselves so often. - 1:07:07 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. As a tomato lover for many years, I resent any insults made to or about tomatoes. As an atheist I cannot threaten to bring down "the wrath of god" on you,but I can and will thumb my nose at you! Repent or beware! - 1:18:40 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--PAPASAM--I agree with Brian2 here. A little respect and courtesy isn't too much too ask for, and not only have you been in short supply with this with the believers, you have taken what I feel are unwarranted pot-shots at the atheists as well ( As many of them have already indicated to you on several occaisions.) Most of the time, that courtesy and respect will be returned, and if not--well let that person be the one to look bad and weak in his arguments. One extremely annoying tactic many of the theists do here is ask a whole raft of questions which simply would take far too large of a response to deal with properly--so in the most part they are ignored and they assume victory--and now you are starting to do this more and more, and becoming more confrontational and hostile when nothing is reciprocated--and believe me, this impresses no one. - 1:23:12 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ASPIRING FLYING SAUCER PASSENGERS. Before you leave on your trip May 31st, would you mind signing your assets over to me? You won't need them where you're going. I would put the money to good use. I have always wanted to have a Rolls Royce, uniformed chauffeur, mansion with servants to match and so on. By the way, will you be flying coach or first class? - 1:27:09 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--OK, thanks, I won't let it get out! ( LOL ) Yes, of course I read your posts, I just didn't know how to comment on your last one. - 1:31:21 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:On the subject of Burden of Proof. One thing I do to come about believing something, without regard to logic or debate, is prove to myself that I am right. If I cannot prove to myself that I am right, I have no business believing it, yet. With regard to God, I cannot prove to myself that God exists. Therefore, I do not believe in God. Similarly, I cannot prove to myself that God does not exist. Therefore, I do not believe that God does not exist. Your argument being that I do not have to prove to myself that God does not exist because there is no logical need, and in the rules of debate, the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative assertion. I contend that they are both affirmative assertions and, I have a need to prove to myself that God does not exist before I can categorically deny that it does. The only method of proof that will suffice seems to be death. ( disclaimer :Not intended to induce suicide!) LOL! - 1:33:15 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Peter/Steven...What a bone head I am!!:uh, Peter...that post (0:44:44 on 1 Apr 98 GMT)was intended for Steven. Sorry. - 1:35:48 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Brian2. Dry your eyes, wipe your nose and stop whining. You won't answer my questions because I don't respect you. Cut the Rodney Dangerfield crap. If you want respect, you've got to earn it. You say that I don't value your opinion, That's right. I see no value in it. But when you say I have no room for anyone's opinion but my own, you're off base. First of all, this is not my site. Secondly, my problem is getting you to state your opinions. I'll answer any questions you ask, any time. Start your interrogation. I'm ready. PapaSam - 1:37:25 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--They are not both positive assertions. God exists--positive assertion. God does NOT exist--negative assertion. The only thing that differs from these two asssertions is the word "NOT". The only thing the word "NOT" does here is make the positive assertion into a negative one. Now if the theist says God exists, and someone else says something else exists in its place, they are both making positive assertions. But atheist does not. Someone is an atheist only because he DOES NOT believe in a God. Now come on James, I didn't think you'd actually try the very tactic I accused the theist doing earlier today. - 2:00:43 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. You seem to think that the Republicans are pure as the driven snow and would like to divorce them from christianity. If you don't know that the religious right is backing the Republicans everywhere, you are out of touch with reality. The Christian Coalition, the so called Moral Majority and those seeking to break down the wall of separation between church and state are all Republicans. They even pass out ratings on political candidates in churches, telling them for whom to vote. What about the campaign for finance reform for political candidates. The bill was shot down by your Republican Newt Gingrich. Putting up plaques of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and schools, passing out bibles to schooldren - all condoned by Republicans. I know how you feel about handouts to those welfaare cheats, but how do you feel about corporate welfare enabling multinational corporations to avoid paying taxes? If this is an atheist web site, let's keep it that way, and cut out the political propaganda. If you are willing to monitor the site, do so honestly. - 2:07:04 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--James--To add. The reason you cannot prove to yourself that God does not exist actually demonstrates that you implicitly recognize the irrationality of attempting to give evidence after the non-existence of something. It cannot be done. No one can prove a negative. So even though you assume you are, you are actually you aren't in conflict here at all. If you cannot prove to yourself there is no God--and do not believe in Him-that is the only rational question you need to address. If not you would then have to worry about disproving the existence of every other possible entity that may exist, and if one contemplates this task, they have done the impossible--you would have to know the location of every subatomic particle in this universe ( and all others that may exist--in EVERY dimension )--in other words, you would have to be omniscient. - 2:10:17 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..for once I agree with you. I am an atheist because of the absence of proof that a god exists. If proof were presented that would stand the scrutiny of every scientific faction known to mankind, I would be the first to fall on my knees. However, if one asserts that there is a god, feels positive about it and so on, then they bear the burden of proof. - 2:19:09 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM...I enjoy reading the political debates, and the occassional foray into other subjects. This page would be completely empty if all we were allowed to talk about was atheism, or religion. I have become quite educated in matters of your country during my time here, and any knowledge to be found anywhere is a good thing. By your telling James to cut out the political propaganda, you are in a subtle way condoning censorship, and it is my belief that most of us on this page are against any type of that action. - 2:24:19 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:RON! In an alien cult! Yikes JAMES, tell ,me this isn't true! BUT if it IS, tell him to leave me all his soda pop before he leaves and that he and da aliens are welcome here in da nort for a snort! JOETTE- It's been pretty damn nice here too! Not 84, of course but not bad. Almost finished those damn cupboards! Then I can post. I haven't gotten the new _Skeptic_. The store I get it from didn't order it in this month, anything interesting in it? - 4:10:45 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:Incasing anyone is interested in Canadian politics, the federal Conservatives are dead but have yet to lay down. I wonder if Brain was the straw that finally broke their back? Here in Canada, we don't seem to have the political diversity that you Americans have between your two opposing parties. In fact, the Cons are now considering joining the Liberals. Politics, what a farce! - 4:18:26 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..religion teachers are scum:TONY- Who exactly elected you god of how people respond to xtians on this page? The lambkins may think your da man but me ? NOT! - 4:21:21 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Good point on the blue-eyed jeezsus! Don't forget about the long, flowing red hair and pukey white skin. He don't look to Middle Eastern to me! He doesn't even have a bad case of sunburn! - 4:25:10 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Did you hear about the shooting on the reserve in Alberta? Damn! I've been really trying to bring some attention to this one but NO ONE seems to be interested, including our damn news media. There hasn't been barely any attention given to it at all. - 4:28:08 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Your NOT getting Ron's soda pop! - 4:29:56 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER Asking questions is a legitimate way of obtaining information and opinion. My questions to BRIAN related to contradictions in the bible. In view of his self expressed knowledge I expect him to answer them. I asked Brian2 to tell me how to identify a true christian and he too failed to answer. Do you feel that my questions were unreasonable? I have not heard from BRIAN and Brian 2 claims that I do not respect him. Perhaps if he answere my questions he would earn my respect. How would you handle the situation? - 5:11:49 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. Your criticism of my posting was justified. I do not approve of censorship in any form, and I agree that other subjects should be discussed on the site. I initially felt that as moderator, James should not express such opinions but I realize that I am also free to disagree with him and express an opposing opinion. I think my comment was probably due to my subconscious reaction to a point of view contrary to mine. I will try (and hopefully, succeed) to be more careful in the future LOL. - 5:22:49 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." [Pat Robertson, newsletter as quoted by Federal News Service, Sept. 11, 1992] - 5:25:55 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

~~..... So you women better drop down and worship your man or else Pat Roberston will come in the middle of the night and scare the heebie-jeebies outta ya'! - 5:32:58 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

~~ Jesus will come too! If Pat approves. - 5:33:55 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Quite a few people responded to my post. Unfortunatly, I was not able to follow any of them because they didn't seem to be in line with what I had said. No digs here, I'm just saying that my post was a simple observation but the responses seemed to be started from some other point. Carl, Peter, especially. After Carl's last post to me, Joette announced that she hopes she gets some answers. I feel that I must agree with something that Peter said about a barrage of questions going unanswered. He pointed out that many deep questions usually result in silence or incomplete answers and this is often confused as surrender. I would not want my own ideas to fall asunder like that, therefore if anyone would like to ask me one or two questions I can reasonably answer, I would gladly do so. - 6:40:47 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:People who have false beliefs and are irrational about them may be very kind. It may even be the case, more rarely, that their kindness is connected with their false beliefs in such a way that we might vaguely call this kindness a "fruit" of their false beliefs. When we want to know if a man's beliefs are true or false, his kindness is irrelevant, although in other contexts we may be more interested in his kindness than in the truth or untruth of his beliefs. - 7:01:18 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette to Tony...my allotment of questions that should not be difficult to answer as I am using your own words..repost from yesterday:TONY.."Atheists, agnostics, materialists, and theists all fall into the trap of accepting things without examination." Generalizations can be annoying, don't you think? Would you be kind enough to give me an example of something that I might believe without examination? Thank you. - 11:38:19 on 31 Mar 98 GMT - 12:04:26 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...re the shooting in Alberta. There have been several articles written about at this end of the country. I think that we will have to wait for the inquiry before any questions are answered, not only about the shooting itself, but why aboriginals always seem to be the target for CFS. I read that they will definitely appoint an aboriginal judge for the inquiry, so maybe there will be some honesty. However, things will probably go unheeded just as they have in the Kriever report (tainted blood inquiry). - 12:15:42 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

~~"A woman's place is in the house. The House of Representatives!" - 12:18:01 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Jmaes--->Marlene...:Ron is not talking to me again. Go figure. - 12:53:36 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--I was addressing the text of the website you posted in my response. I agree that a diplomatic approach to discussion, is the only way to go, to get one of any substance, many of us here--myself included--are guilty of behavior which would not reflect a diplomatic approach. I interpret introducing personal attacks, insults sarcasm and just a general nasty attitude into a discussion as one which is not necessary, and an individual who has lost control. One who is confident of their position should not have to resort to these tactics. AS I pointed out to Sam yesterday, I think if one kills the other with kindness, and is responded with hostility, the hostile party has forfeited any chance of gaining any ground.--SAM--I know it's difficult, and I too am guilty of not practicing what I am preaching here, but I think patience is the key. Most questions I feel go unanwered, and if they do, let the party who has chosen not to respond be the one to have egg on his face. - 12:57:05 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>i have not heard anything about the shooing, could you explain. Our news has had nothing in about a shooting. - 13:26:41 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- This thread on the Infidels's board may interest you if you haven't seen it. They are discussing ideas presented on the Roman Piso homepage, which if I'm not mistaken, you yourself linked here some time ago. Though the idea of the New Testament being tied to slavery, or at least attempted control of the masses is not new, and in some ways sounds quite credible, I don't think there is enough concrete evidence to conclude that it was created for this. Certainly it has been and is used to these ends. I suspect that those wishing control over others would use any means at hand, and that xtianity could be quite useful, especially the view that this life is relatively unimportant as great reward awaits in the next. If one desired the perfect scam this would be it; promise anything- you don't have to deliver until after death and in a spirit world. --As for people claiming God's favor posing a muslim-like danger to non-god types, I couldn't agree more. Ironically, the danger is not limited to non-godders. - 13:45:07 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JAMES<<>>I do not think that the democrats are that much better than republicans. I think that the republican party is the one to be worried about, Newt, Rush and party are fairly disgusting. I believe it is the republicans that want prayer in school, that want our children brainwashed in a learning enviroment. It seems to me that the republicans are the reactionary, conservative types this country needs to move away from. All the repub's want the 50's back. The 50's will never be revisited, thank goodness. Don't get me wrong, the democrats are not that much better, that is why we need a THIRD party. I thought that Ross came damn close to establishing a third party, then he wussed out. Anyway, I kind of think the republican party is full of christian reactionary racists, and power hungry businessmen. The republicans are responsible for the WAR ON DRUGS, which is a huge waste of money and a war that will never be won. The republicans are RESPONSIBLE for the witch hunt that is going on concerning Bill C. They seem like little boys who are jealous because they were defeated in the election, so they have to create a witch hunt to do everything they can to burn Clinton at the stake. It just came out that the redneck troopers in Arkansas recieved 6700 a piece to LIE about the Paula Jones embroilio. Clinton probably has poked around, but who frigging cares. It is none of our business who he sleeps with, it is our business how he runs the country, and IMO he is doing a commendable job. The funny thing watching the most unethical politician on the planet, Newt G., talk bad about Clinton LOL. All we need is another republican in office so he can start another WAR. - 13:48:25 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Mealy mouthness is a very common trait of xtianity. - 14:55:59 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN--Well here's the story as impartial as I can express it. As Joette pointed out, the native people of Canada have always been targeted by CFS although here in Manitoba the newest trend is targeting all teens to get them onto "independent living". CFS (Child and Family Services) is a government agency created for "child protection". The more children they "apprehend" the bigger their budget becomes and the more damn social workers they can employ. Many native children are apprehended by these idiots and placed into "nice xtian foster homes". I would wager that most foster homes in this province are fundie xtians. You see, if they drum the bullshit into these kids heads when they are young enough they can create more obedient sheep as well as create more people as delusional as themselves. This way they can condone their illness. BUT..the psychologists of CFS thinks this is much better for the kids than a mom who may have a drinking problem but is otherwise sane. The mother in Alberta, I understand, did have a drinking problem so the CFS took it upon themselves to "apprehend" her children. The mother wasn't going to give her children up just on the request of the courts, (hell, I wouldn't either), so they went to the lady's home with the RCMP (our federal police force). It was foggy when they arrived there. The woman refused the CFS and RCMP entry but they insisted so she shot at them. They returned the fire killing her and one of her children. Isn't it heroic of them to save the rest of the children? As I stated on the board before, there is now one child no longer "in need of protection", thanks to CFS and the rest of our government assholes. - 15:23:59 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>it sounds like a LARGE BOMB needs to be planted under the CFS headquarters. - 15:59:23 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>what is a name of a newspaper that would carry news on the subject? - 16:07:23 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Sinless Len:~~''The issue for Fundamentalism is how to get people to obey absolute rules that cannot be obeyed absolutely. There is of course force and fear. But it is more reliable to have people who want to obey the rules. The easiest way to do this is to make people feel bad about themselves and then offer them a way of feeling better. '' - 16:14:39 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Along with your 12:57:05 01Apr'98 post to TONY, IMO the difficulty and this is as I view humanity, all that creatures as humans can do is "learn". That is the basis for improvements comfort ease, whatever that term might be, to human existence. Generally I have seen this ongoing task of learning referred to as the 'accumulated wealth of humanity'. This term includes things like religion only because it is a convention of some humans. Some folks, like those who composed an article I read today states- religion is a matter of choice in the usa, and I agree just because while we all may learn just as we all can run, but since we all can't run like a Michael Johnson neither can all learn at the same level or range or to the extent of some others. For many, unfortunately, religion is an easy way attach themselves- whatever this might be, to the sum total of all. Forget that it, this religious option, lacks relevancy, it suffices for them as perhaps TONY, or does TONY hold ulterior motives? But that is a different issue and question, my point is that if these religious believers were able to see themselves within that sum total and the value of their chosen effort to link to that all as merely expressing a form of the wealth of humanity many uncertainties would end, I bet. - 16:19:21 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JAMES: I have a book that inscribes of the democratic party of before and after the civil war, it was called the "whiteman's party". The republican party because of "it" freeing the slaves- see Lincoln the homosexual, it was called the "nigger party". How and when did the supposed melanin transfer partys? Lincoln himself whil homosexual also spoke in terms and used references typical of the white-supremacists of his day. - 16:46:17 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>Lincoln was a poof? WTF, LOL, where did you get that info? - 16:55:08 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: On 60 min., it ran a piece on the unusual classes taught at the university and college levels it included gay studies, for the question is this higher ed.? Anyway to support its claim of relevancy a prof.disclosed letters from honest abe to his lover of 3+ years and letters to abe from that lover. The gay prof.also said these two lived together and their relationship was very intimate. Details of top/bottom were not disclosed. The letters shown included hilited passages of both as they proclaimed the personal benefits that each afforded the other. The prof.also said they lived together for over three years. Then the report went on with its main objective of what is higher education. - 17:41:03 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: I have encountered that spot before and meant to get back to it, but lost trak of it. Thanks I collect pieces like that for reference reasons. I think such pieces qualify as investigations, after all if one searchs for only things and stuff that support your preconcieved wants and wishes, it ain't necessarily right or true. So if something comes along that says of the biblical slavery question that it ain't so, those passages become the gauge against that ain't so claim. - 17:56:37 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE.. I think it is fine to be pale sometimes in ones' statements. Christianity contains a meal in itself; the idea of eating and drinking someones part (the eucharist-cult) is a type of parasitic cannibalism. Jim Jones killed many with the Kool-Aid punch and some crucified freak controls the hunger of millions in some disturbed ritual. Yes, Christianity is mealy and certainly freaky. When I go fishing on a boat, I am relaxed and yet somewhat pale; the calm waters of the pond catch my attention and then I hunger for a ham-swiss sandwhich not some part of a crucified freak. - 18:14:18 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:CARL. Do you remember the date of the "60 Minutes" broadcast? I don't watch the program but I should think it would have provoked a feedback. I never saw any mention of it in the newspapers or heard it on any news broadcast. - 18:15:40 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:PETER. I shall strive to be the epitome of patience. I will no longer ask BRIAN or Brian2 "Why don't you answer my questions? Is it because you are unable to do so?" Do you think I could ask TONY the same questions without violating my pledge? - 18:24:05 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:I guess Mary Todd Lincoln would have been great in "The Full Monty". The Lincoln nobody knows sounds interesting. I guess Ann Rutledge was a nun. - 18:30:46 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: I'm pretty sure the date the program ran was 03/22 and again the segment was not about abe, it was about the question of, what is rightly higher education? It questioned classes as gay studies, minority studies and other assorted courses now available in major univ.and colleges. A gay studies prof.was presenting a case for the gay studies program, it may have been an ivy league univ., and to show that gay types have been around for a long time the world over, abe was his example. I expected some feedback but missed the 03/29 60 min.program. - 18:31:56 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--PAPASAM--It seems that many of the 'non-regulars' pop in and out of here ( or never return at all ) unpredictibly. i would just wait until he returns, and then make a post, hope he sticks around long enough to see it, and then reply. Often I think many of the occaisional visitors make a post, and when there is no immediate reply given, as other chat-rooms do, leave, and then come back after all the posts which replied to their original post are off the board--if they return at all. - 18:34:17 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE. The two weapons used by the Europeans to conquer North America were guns and alcohol. The native Americans they couldn't kill they poisoned with alcohol. This is as true of Canada as it is of the United States. But cheer up. Look at the good side of it. If those aborigines accept the true faith of jesus, they will, by the magnaminity of their conquerors, be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven. Let's drink to that. - 18:37:35 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--I'd like to see Tony return and outline his objectives. if there is nothing i can't stand more it is someone who smugly assumes someunidentified superior position, simply because the addressed parties didn't somehow "catch on" to some cosmic ambiguous message alledgedly existing in some higher plane, and then respond innapropriately because they didn't "get it". I certainly hope the Tony didn't try to pull something like this off, and for now I'll extend him the benefit of the doubt. Sound fair? - 18:42:49 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Even if no scrap of Lincoln's own writings had survived, there nevertheless would exist a huge fund of information and misinformation about him. After his death a cloud of witnesses arose to testify in their memoirs about the great man they had known-or thought they had. Next to his own written words, the best sources of information available are first-hand accounts . And yet, no matter how honest their intentions, the men who thought they knew Lincoln were liable at times to err about him. Like all men, they were inclined to believe what they wanted to. They had their own individual interest and prejudices, and, in light of theses, they tended to record what they considered worth recording and overlook the rest. - 18:48:39 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: It is slow today, so it looks like I can play. Since the TONY is so hypersensitive to unseen things perhaps he could make out sheaves and sheaves of questions, but I saw maybe three or four. JOETTE repeated her query, dispite my ramblings I had one question. I am becoming quite certain that his problem lay within his imagination. If he can accept the stuff in his bible as meaningful,e.g., virgin births resurrections walkin'on water raisin'the dead etc., then he is prone to or easily confused by any question related to a material thing, this may be foreign to him. Perhaps he does not see his mental experience as something that is basically jump started by crude facts. If he knows where his godthing is, I'd like TONY to say or point it out, I like to make sure it is a godthing if either my knowing or that it is, is true. - 19:26:30 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:I understand the word NOT is a negative, but in my mind the statement God does not exist is an affirmative assertion when left in its full context. Similar to the water is not hot. To prove that to myself, I would stick my hand in it or a thermometer and find out that in-fact the water is not hot. Did I have to under the rules of debate and logic? No, I do not have to prove a negative. But how else will I know for sure that the water is not hot if I don’t prove it to myself? I’m not actually trying to use a tactic here, rather I am trying to fully explore the argument in terms of Burden of Proof and specifically how it applies as a theist and an atheist. - 19:32:08 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->PasaSam...:Not at all. I fully understand that politics and politicians either Republican or Democrat are far from pure. Furthermore, I recognize that the Christian Coalition is a group which garners more Republican support than Democrat and likewise the Republican party enjoys the support of this group much as the Democratic party enjoys the influence of many of the "Civil Rights Leaders" and their ties to religious organizations. However, the Christian coalition is only one group of many. They are the one group that gets all the media attention and therefore appear to be the only group. Don’t be fooled! Yes, the media and the Democrats have done a masterful job of stigmatizing the Republican party using the antics of the Christian Coalition. Beyond that, the "Moral Majority" is a mix of both parties. It comes down to Conservative (which you can be without regard to religion and party affiliation) and Liberal. Conservatism is all about taking responsibility for yourself. If your doing that, all the concerns the religious right has are for the most part a non-factor. However, Liberalism is all about others taking responsibility for you. It used to mean working to expand liberty without the threat of moral and legal judgment. Since it no longer means that, and the conservative message is what I support, and the Republicans at the moment are the only ones with a chance to win (meaning there are no viable third party candidates) and they represent many of my conservative traits, I have no choice but to vote for them when it is appropriate without regard for the Christian Coalition or the religious right. Your mistake being a large generalization of the Republican Party. My judgments are made from 40 years of Democratic control of Congress. Please tell me the legislation that Republicans have offered to break down the separation of church and state. And for clarification, please provide me your take on what separation of church and state really means. Like many things it boils down to interpretation. I think intent is what is important here. We are talking about a large group of people fleeing the persecution of the Church of England and its ties to an oppressive aristocracy. Simply Separation of Church and State was intended to prevent a government from forcing people into a specific religious belief. Not that children should not pray in school, or that the nativity scene should not be on public property. Personally, I have never been to a church where political propaganda, or voting guides were issued. That is not to say you are lying, nor do I have the 83 years of life experience. I have heard that this is a popular thing to do, including the collection of soft money, and political speeches in many Democrat community churches. Though I have not been witness to this either. Bills on the Hill are shot down for many reasons most of which we are completely ignorant of. I can make no judgment on this issue until I have read the legislation. Have you read it? The real funny thing is that we already have laws on the books. The whole issue was raised to avoid dealing with the real issue. Who broke the law and why are they not being punished. We know the answer to that one, when are we going to do something about it? You really don’t want me to list all the democrats who voted against that legislation do you? Putting up the ten commandments in a court room, I did not know the Republican passed legislation to mandate this? Otherwise I think you are missing what it is they support. That is government on a local level. Government of the people by the people for the people. If the community accepts the Ten Commandments and wished to have them in their courtroom, it is not the Federal Governments place to tell them otherwise. A plaque on the wall is not forcing anyone to accept and live with your religious beliefs. Its a plaque on the wall that represents for the most part a summary of the laws of the land. Bible handouts in school; are you sure your not talking about condoms? Never heard of it. Should a bible be in the library, yes it should. Should it be required study? No it should not. Should a school be given the choice to offer a bible study class? Yes they should. Should I be forced to attend? No. After all isn’t liberalism supposed to be about liberty. What does the Democratic party have against choice? Its fine when were talking about murdering babies, but you should not have the right to choose to pray silently in recognized moment of silence that others could stretch, go to the restroom or just sit there and contemplate the lesson being taught? When you say "All condoned by Republicans" are you ignoring that Democrats have likewise condoned it? Corporate welfare stinks worse than the other. I believe in a free market. Free to fail or succeed based on your own merits. I would add that it appears as though you see the Democratic party as pure as the driven snow. While in fact it has been their 40 years of control that has us in these fixes now. Agreed, this is a site about religion and politics has no place in it. My statements were meant to respond to someone who made a political charge. However, It is clear that our beliefs effect our political positions and from time to time will arise on the page. As for monitoring the site, I am not the hall monitor. It is clear that the folks here want complete freedom with regard to posting at this site. I will not stand in their way. I only hope that like absolute power, absolute freedom will not be absolutely corrupted. The only monitoring I do is that which facilitates my need to respond to a specific post or thread. Its like the Democrats who insisted we pay more for television sets to have the Vchip installed. So what if you have an on/off knob, can simply change the channel or maybe the parents should spend more time with their kids teaching them to be responsible people instead of the television teaching them all about morality. - 19:36:36 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Just dropping in for a few minutes. I'm not sure but I think the name of the paper in Calgary would be the Sun or the Herald. I'll check it out later and see what I can find. - 19:43:39 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:Yes, it does seem irrational to give evidence that something does not exist. There would never be enough evidence to prove something does not exist. In that light it makes perfect sense to me. My previous example was probably a poor one because water is real and its temperature can be measured. To prove something in the context I am referring would have to mean that God is real which itself is something I cannot prove. Basically your saying you would have to be God to prove God does not exist. Am I getting this right? - 19:50:02 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Joette...:For some reason I have a tough time envisioning you falling to your knees for anyone or anything, even God. Why does God seem to want eveyone to fall down on their knees for him. Why would he need the ego trip? - 19:54:47 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Carl/Steven...:I have spent to much time today to address your post. I will try to respond later. - 19:58:19 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JAMES: That of being a god too, or evidence, which as a word is a way that we humans can determine what is or ain't so. It is becoming my view of religious believers that they want to be godlike, but not god itself just with it. If with "it", would one not be a god too, like if one enters an overheated room one gets hot, or if warm then put in snow one gets cold, so similarly does one by being with "it" get to then be a god too? - 20:07:50 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Sal:Believe in the Word of God and everything will be fine. - 20:51:53 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

sal:you people are a product of missguided thoughts and too much TV - 20:54:06 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:SAL: ok, if you can say what language this jew god speaks. If the language was one a militia-type might understand, do you think it was a gods word? - 20:56:53 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Rob's post at 18:14:18 is the furthest back the server will let me see, so if there were other posts addressed to me, I didn't see them. Peter, I appreciate the benefit of the doubt- honestly I did not follow your post immediatly responding to mine because it seemed as though you were talking to someone else, not me. What you were talking about had no correlation to what I had said, there's no smugness to it. If there was a correlation, feel free to instruct me, for I missed it. As to my objectives here, they are as they always are, 1. to be as friendly as possible in defending my views 2. Consider other opinions with respect. I'd say that's about it. CARL, perhaps I can explain my confusion about your question by quoting part of it here: " If he knows where his godthing is, I'd like TONY to say or point it out, I like to make sure it is a godthing if either my knowing or that it is, is true." Firstly, I do not know what you mean by 'godthing'. Is that simply your way of referring to my conception of God? I would then take the question to partly ask me to point out where God is. From there, you wish to 'make sure it is a godthing' huh? and conditioned by 'if' 'either my knowing or that it is, is true.' You may have a typo in there... cuz I just don't get the full gist of your question. - 21:33:31 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

jaywilson:sal: you are a product of misguided thinking and too few books. - 21:42:22 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:To answer the question, as best as I understand it, "Where is God?" I admit is not easy. Scripturally I believe the relevant verse would be in Ephesians 4:4-6... God is 'over all and through all and in all." That is not entirely helpful to many people. In fact, while it may be nonsense to an atheist, to a Christian facing tragedy, it elicits feelings of being betrayed. Another relevant verse may be Romans 1:18-20, "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them, etc. verse 20 is good, too. What about the person that says it ain't so plain at all? Where is God? I think the question needs to be set in context (next post). - 21:49:31 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette..this is a serious question..:-->TO ALL...I have been thinking about the concept of heaven and hell a lot lately, and I would like to hear opinions from everyone, on both sides of the fence if you would be so kind: if a person goes to heaven, or hell, at what point are that at in their life? Are they the person they were when they died, or do they get to pick the person they were at some other period in their life? For instance, say I was in prime at 22, and then I died at the age of 96. Would I be my prime self, or my old, arthritic, possibly plagued by Alzeimher's self? - 21:56:35 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:It seems obvious to me that if there is a God, (defined as a personal entity outside of observation, persumably as outside of nature, therefore 'supernatural') the initiative of making an encounter with the natural order is fully his. The answer to 'where is he' has been answered, then- if he exists, he exists outside of experimentation. The deeper question, it seems, is why He doesn't make himself more apparent? Well, Carl, that takes quite a bit of imagination, since as far as I know, there are no sacred texts which answer that question in specific, even if they do in concept (for example, The fall of Man conceptually details why a direct relationship does not exist). I think I can speculate, though. Since initiative would lie with the creator, by analogy I can examine the situation between me and my creations, conceived and supported solely in my mind. (next post) - 21:58:03 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette to Tony..if you haven't seen the previous two inquiries...:Joette to Tony...my allotment of questions that should not be difficult to answer as I am using your own words..repost from yesterday:TONY.."Atheists, agnostics, materialists, and theists all fall into the trap of accepting things without examination." Generalizations can be annoying, don't you think? Would you be kind enough to give me an example of something that I might believe without examination? Thank you. - 11:38:19 on 31 Mar 98 GMT - 12:04:26 on 1 Apr 98 GMT - 22:00:58 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:How would I communicate with my creations (this concept, by the way, fits with the Eph verse I cited, as well as Hebrews 1:1-5)? A booming voice? A miracle for all? If in my mind I had created natural laws, I could not really offer a miracle for all, because than the miracles cease to become miracles, and scientists would simply quantify them somehow, since they are the standard and not the exception. I could communicate to one or two, and have them spread the word. If all else failed, I could become a person in my own creation, It would be me, incarnate. True me, true creation. Why ever leave my creation? (for example, Jesus could have just stayed on earth for all time, removing all doubts, theoretically, at least). That requires more speculation. - 22:04:10 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE/STEVEN..re the Alberta shooting..just to give a bit more info and background, the CFS did not show up out of the blue (this in no way infers that I have any sympathy for that agency). The woman had assaulted her husband earlier in the day, and he was hospitalized as a result. The medical team at the hospital alerted the band police, who in turn called CFS as they were concerned about the safety of the children in the house. The RCMP were called after the band police decided they could not handle the situation, and because there was a blinding snowstorm during this time, the woman was shooting at will from her porch, and when the RCMP shot back, they did not realize that her son was with her on the porch. The ammunition used is the type where several pellets are sprayed and that is why they were both hit by one blast. It took four hours for the ambulance to arrive because of the blizzard, and there was some concern that they had actually died from freezing to death, but the autopsies revealed they had both died instantly. Again, the issue that will be settled hopefully in the inquiry is why aboriginal children are being snatched from their homes, but in this case, there was just cause for the agencies to be concerned about the welfare of the children, due to the serious injuries inflicted on the woman's spouse. - 22:08:33 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, first to your question about heaven and hell: From the Christian perspective there are no clear words on the matter. Since immortality is described as a new thing, like a seed that dies and becomes eventually a different kind of body (1 Cor 15), we are left to contemplate that (from our side of the fence) by analogy. As to your other question, something that you might accept without examination? As you pointed out, my statement was a generalization, and valid as such. You've most likely met atheists that had not actually examined their position but rather took there position to spite their parents? I've met some; they admitted it too, :) . As for you? Have you looked at the implications of quantum theory? Have you decided whether the steady-state theory is perhaps better than the big bang explanation? Have you conducted the Michelson-Morely experiment to be sure that the theoretical foundations of Einstein's relativity theory stands up? Remember that the M-M experiment did not match Maxwell's equations, which still stand as absolutely accurate. These items mentioned above speak greatly to the debate about God, so they are relevant. I was just thinking to myself today that I have not done the experiments that overturn Aristotle's teaching that the earth is the center of the universe. I've been taking other's words for it. Those are some things that came to mind. - 22:24:18 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: Now don't get all shookup and confused, no attack happens here. I don't expect you as a mere natural thing to explain a notion as fantastic as something supposedly supernatural. You would be foolish to think you could convince me that you could. If you seek to press the matter then you want me or someone to "believe you". Imagination is fine and when it is relevant to something objectively common to us then it is meaningful. With your imagination you say there is god, what i guess you do is relate thought to thought and come up with a god in the same way I relate my thoughts of a horse and a bird and presto, I can tell you about this fantastic but invisible pink unicorn. As for your supposed scripture it is a product of fraud forgery and plagerism all done- any composition, by humans. Your jc character, in the original story this mythical character was born in a cave in ethiopia, where the original tale said it would happen. Now please tell me how you, I mean just "you" think you know a god is wherever. - 22:27:24 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Thanks! Cause maybe but I feel there was still no reason to fire back at the woman. The whole situtation reminds me of Waco. - 22:27:54 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- From what I understand from xtain myth, we don't get our bodies back, we get "heavenly bodies". We may be able to have some fun imagining what they would be, lol! - 22:30:05 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Carl, first of all, the role of imagination in my previous post was to use an analogy that may explain how it is that God is outside of nature, and yet in and with nature. There is a difference between a pink unicorn that exists in ones mind, and a unicorn which is supposed to exist in the world that we mutually share. In other words, I cannot dispute that pink unicorn exists in your mind- your mentioning it assures me it does. I understand (I think) you were looking for something empiracle that I could share about where God is. My analogy serves to demonstrate how difficult this would be. Thank you for giving me the room to fall short on this- as being within the natural realm. My assurance regarding the location of God does come from arguments that I have submitted. His existence I find assured by the study of evolution, which I find falls far short (among other things). His identity I seek in other places. Do you follow my progression there? His location I must consider from one point of view, his existence from another, his identity from yet another, and his character, etc., etc. It is not out of the ordinary, homicide detectives must use some sort of similar deducments to catch their man, too. - 22:43:26 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Carl, I would apprecieate your sources regarding the unsoundess of the Scriptures. Besides, from my point of view, they remain relevant, since Christianity is derived solely from them. Do you have manuscript evidence that differs completely from what I have in my hands? (The Nestle- Aland Greek and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) - 22:47:04 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: There are sources that explain to one curious enough that bring one's experience of all to that which is the all. Very likely you mean to turn you line to JOETTE into a thing for faith which you choose to be a relgious faith, as if it is the only worthy faith. That quality, faith is common to all of humanity. Religion however, would seek to employ that natural state of humanity- which is the only thinking thing a human knows, as a means to have its- religion, way. Your points directed at JOETTE are delightful things worthy of "all humans" to know. But as I regularly point out all humans don't seem to have the whatn'all to learn that sort of stuff. Religion serves to connect those unfortunates to the all. As for where I lost you the points will arise again. What I sought out of your brainware was the means that you know what I don't. I am well aquainted with a good number of thoughts, and your godthing is one thought that never gets out of its shackles of thought. - 23:00:37 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..you may consider it a matter of semantics, but there is nothing valid about a generalization. You may think it, but that doesn't make it necessarily so. As far as your examples to me go, I have little knowledge of quantum mechanics, so I would never offer an opinion on said subject without proper research. Therefore, you have not yet explained to me what I believe without examination. In other words, whatever I believe comes from research and examination. The issues that I have not examined are not beliefs. Maybe you could qualify your website with a slight change in the wording to something such as "some atheists, agnostics etc". I am sure that you believe yourself to be an individual, as do I, and so I questioned that line because it does not apply to myself, even though I am an atheist. - 23:03:19 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY...I am not being facetious here although the following question may seem so, and I apologize if it comes across that way, but upon reading your posts I have construed (possibly miscontrued) that you are saying that your connection to your god is all in your mind? - 23:07:13 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...there was a situation not far from where I live the other day where a man shot his wife and 2 children in the head, and then turned the gun on himself. Situations like that cause police to act the way they did in Alberta because they just do not know what has gone on/is going on in the house. I think it is a tragedy what happened, but better that there be two deaths instead of seven. (in the case here, the man died but the rest of the family are still alive, so there is some justice out there) - 23:13:00 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: bible sources, the Catholic Encylopedia, the biblical encyclopdeia and briefly the apocryphal writings. As for the pink unicorn thing it is my imagination I know it does not exist. I would be a fool to attempt to argue its existence, just as it seems you would be in an argument for a godthing. My reference of "godthing" is only to not use the word 'nothing'. It is a word and it conveys things unknowable for those who don't learn that the search for truths, always happens. You seem to think that absolutes are a good thing, well the point you directed at JOETTE is merely a convenience that allows for the prediction of occurances. Aristotle? was just barely not a savage of severe limitations himself in terms of thought. Why did you want to drag that antiquated character into this discussion? - 23:19:02 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..sorry, I shouldn't have asked that question of Tony before first reading your posts. You seem to have gotten the same message as I did. Now, if imagining something makes it so, I guess the possibilities are infinite. So, I am happy to tell you all that I have imagined being Queen Elizabeth (actually, just her money and position, not her physical being) and so now you may all address me as Good Queen Bess II. - 23:21:06 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: I don't have a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics, but I've read up a little, some exposure being from textbooks, most exposure being from Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman. Tell me, how does the theory of quantum mechanics point to a god? I have yet to get the god theory out of physics. Also, in your post to Joette, 22:24 1 Apr 98, you point out that, in order to accept another person's word on a subject, one should research that subject and perform the same experiments that person performed and judge for oneself, your last sentence being "I was just thinking to myself today that I have not done the experiments that overturn Aristotle's teaching that the earth is the center of the universe. I've been taking other's words for it." You're right, it would be nice to be able to support one's beliefs with such a rigorous undertaking as replicating the experiments of the past which give us the knowledge we accept as truth today. But with all your righteous indignation at the laziness of the human mind in this quest, did it occur to you that you are also "taking other's words for it" with respect to your belief in god, apparently the Christian god? You quote the Bible a lot. These are other's words. You cannot go back and see what the apostles saw, hear what the apostles heard. All you can do is TAKE THEIR WORDS FOR IT. And no matter how well validated that book might be, no matter how well its original script was preserved in translation, you cannot prove that it is any more than a book of eyewitness accounts, that it provides any more relevant a god than Homer's _Iliad_. If you can, I'd appreciate it if you'd share your knowledge. - 23:45:26 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: On your ? to all, and also how do you want to see your children? Old and beaten like you at 96 or as the babes you held or as the young beautiful things that so filled you with pride? I am certain any answer would be silly, what will TONY say since he "knows" the godthing. - 23:58:54 on 1 Apr 98 GMT

Brian:Carl yo point out the very point I have been trying to make. Perhaps I am missing what your talking about, but in regards to Tony answers, they would be nothing less than "silly." And yet one wants his remarks respected! Are you that low to not respect other's opinion. Who is to day that your comments are "silly" Your hypocracy continues to run deep. If I were Tony, which I am not, I would juust assume not talking to you if your not going to respect his opinions. Correct if I am wrong that you called any answer he would reply with "silly." Please tell me wrong. - 0:12:45 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Brian:please forgive my few typo's...thank you - 0:14:36 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Brian:please forgive my few typo's...thank you - 0:14:46 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:Brian. Are you BRIAN or Brian2 who previously posted here? I asked Brian2 how one could tell a true christian when so many different believers claim to be the real christians. Roman Catholics, methodists wesletans, calvinists, Greek orthodox, hardshell baptist and soft shell baptists and far too many to mention here. Some of the difference seem to be quite minor in my eyes, such as how to baptize and others on whom to baptize. TONY. I would also like your opinion. Thank you both. Respectfully, - 1:53:21 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSaam:JAMES. I find myself swamped by a plethora of questions. I will take up a few of them now. You can raise the other questions in a subsequent posting. First, the Puritans who fled England did not look for a separation of church and state as such. They wanted a holy government, but left England to rid themselves of the last remnants of catholicism which they felt tainted the church of england. Second, the separation of church and state is specific in the First Amendment. It reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof--" - in other words, keep the government out of religion and religion out of the government. As Thomas Jefferson put it, the first amendment was a wall between the church and the state. As such, the idea of hanging the ten commandments in a public place violates that rule. Not only does it violate that rule, but it discriminates against other religions. One of the commandments - "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me" places that on god over all others. Does this mean that we should allow other religions to also hang their symbols, including a dead chicken for the believers in voodoo? No. Take them all out. You are free to carry your religious symbols on your person, display them in your home, or, as some do, have it tattooed on your body. As to your silent moment of prayer in schools. Why stop the clock because someone wants to pray. There are 24 hours in a day. People can pray when they rise up in the morning, at mealtimes, riding the bus or even walking to work or to school. They can pray at bed time and any time they wish as long as it does not interfere with others. The only reason you want that "moment of silence" is to drive a little wedge into the wall of separation. It is certainly not for lack of other time during the day. Do you deny that? - 2:40:11 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. Do you believe your god is all knowing and all powerful? Do you believe the bible is literally true, from the creation on down through the old and new testaments? - 3:34:44 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Grant: Beware the historian with an agenda:--CARL-- The idea that Lincoln was homosexual is not accepted by mainstream historians. The link is for an hour long NPR program on Lincoln with two Lincoln scholars as guests. (scroll down to second hour) Their view is that society was significantly different in those times, for example it was common in that day for heterosexual men to share a room and even a bed due to scarcity of lodgings and financial resources. The conventions and style of letter writing at that time were different than today, and it was typical to write in a manner sometimes considered suspect by some today unless examined in the context of the mores of the day. In other words, to the scholars of the period there is no evidence that Lincoln was homosexual and much evidence to the contrary. - 3:35:48 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Grant..WELL SAID! There is no proof that Lincoln was a tinker-bell. He is ,in my opinion, one of the best USA presidents. You are surely right to be weary of anyone with hidden agendas. The fanatical religious person has many hidden agendas to pacify his beliefs. - 4:09:43 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:PapaSam, like you, there are a flood of questions in line for me, so I hope you don't mind if I delay answering yours for a while. On to the rest. To answer the broader question put by Carl and Good Queen Bess :) as to where I put imagination and mind, I can easily understand the confusion. It is not an easy concept to grasp, but once it is I've found that people find it a useful tool for explanation and interpretation. For example, the pink unicorn DOES exist, Carl, albeit in your mind... it obviously is not AS REAL perhaps as a beast that we could physically touch, but it is real. And when you wrote those words, my mind immediatly pictured a pink unicorn- real, even if only in my mind. We would both agree, however, that we will not find a unicorn of any color in the physical realm (in contrast to the mental realm). It is this correlation that has made me firm in my belief that there is a God. It is a valid question- "So where is God?" This leads directly to Marlene's question, so what does Quantum Physics have to do with God? You've all heard of Schrodinger's Cat? If not, look into it. Its to deep to explain here. The implication of this famous thought experiment, since validated by actual experiment, is that one cannot be sure an object is actually there unless it is being observed. Einstein, as you may know, strove to refute this til his death, but science has since 'proven' it. To make a long argument short, to resolve this dilema (because it still seems ludicrous to the scientists that have proven it) a variety of explanations have been put forward, including the idea that there are infinite universes representing each new point of observation. (next post) - 4:16:09 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:A popular account of this situation is worth quoting: "By definition, the universe is self-contained. It includes everything, so there is no outside observer who notices the existence of the universe and thereby collapses its complex web of ineracting alternative realities into one wave function [realized reality]." . . ."[So] who observers the universe?" (John Gribbon, info can be obtained through my web site's workstation). You see, Carl, as long as you visualize the pink unicorn in your mind, it exists. As soon as you stop- poof- it ceases to exist. I have also considered this problem created by the success of quantum mechanics- I say God observes the universe (rather than postulating an invisible multiudes of other universes and dimensions). If God were to cease 'thinking' of you and I, 'poof.' I worked through all of this fairly on my own. I was surprised to find several passages in the Bible that suggested this is true... a theory validated from many fields of study is fairly strong. Philosophical: "I think therefore I am." Scientific: "Schrodinger's Cat" Religion (specifically Biblically based): "[God] sustains all things by his powerful word (the medium of thought)" Also of interest, as far as the Bible's input, is that Genesis argues that mankind was made in God's image- thus one might expect his creation to create much as he does, which is just what we find, in myth, story, philosophy. Sorry this was so long, but you asked! - 4:29:34 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, I understand that you don't think the generalization is valid. Notwithstanding Marlene's point that is virtually impossible to study ALL things, THAT IS THE POINT. In fact, you said: "I have little knowledge of quantum mechanics, so I would never offer an opinion on said subject without proper research." Of course I don't know, but you probably accept some form of the big bang theory. That particular theory leans heavily on quantum mechanics for its validity. You continue on and say, "Therefore, you have not yet explained to me what I believe without examination." Well, this is my answer to Marlene as well about my taking the Bible's word for things, the key is 'without examination.' Carl, Marlene, wouldn't it seem odd that I would go to such great lengths to EXAMINE science's claim on me, but then turn a blind eye to Christianity's claim on me? Hey, I would say that if I spent all that time reading up on quantum physics, biochemistry, astrophysics (my weakest field), philosophy, and then made comments regarding Christianity without examining the source of that- I WOULD BE AN IDIOT. A MORON. Of course, I expect no argument from you on that! :) As it is, do you really think I have not examined that realm of influence? - 4:38:51 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:TONY.. A unicorn is an image of figurative myths. I also have an image of an apple in my head,but like you said, I can touch the apple and eat it. I also have an image of lava peolpe at the earth's core---are they an entity of the universe or a figment of my imagination. Imagination has no boundaries and it often plays with its host. Are you saying beyond the physical laws of nature, there is only magic? Magic is an easy game with many unproveable tricks and deceptions. - 4:40:32 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Tony.. Do you no what lingers and manifests itself in your subconscious; noone does it plays with you just like an imagination. Imagination is a wonderful subterfuge. I see those lava-people building underground tunnels to swallow the imagination of children. I know they are real and they will ride on the backs of unicorns to validate the the beauty of an imagination. - 4:48:58 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Einstein is due the merit of having insisted on the importance of finding all-embracing laws which unify the whole of the physical world.....There are two directions of research. One accepts only special relativity and tries to construct the universal law from the facts of observation, in particular from the most general symmetry properties of the interaction of different elementary particles as revealed by experiment. The other direction of research tends to establish laws which are invarient in regard to general transformations,and hfollows therefore Einstein's general relativity in its procedure. While still others use imagination and magic has research tools. - 5:15:16 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--Very eloquent, however it suffers from a glaring flaw, rendering it self-contradicting -and here is why. You compare our process of thinking of a pink unicorn makes that unicorn exist--and you compare that the universe is "what God is thinking about" However there is a glaring difference between the two. We imagine a pink unicorn because we have perceived the colour pink, and pictures of unicorns in myth books, so we have an idea of what one looks like as result of integrating our perceptions of something that has already existed. In other words, if the colour pink, and a mythical character such as a unicorn ( or something like it ) we would never think of one. Even the first person who thought of a unicorn, had to have knowledge of the ingredients --which already existed --of which a unicorn is comprised of. The concept of a unicorn pre-supposes the knowledge of a "horn' of "one" of "horse" etc. Our concepts are simply integrations of information which we have perceived. However in the case of God, the things he is conscious of--if he is to have any consciousness at all--must exist first. In other words a consciousness with nothing to be conscious OF--is a contadiction in terms. To BE conscious pre-supposes that there first must be something to exist to be conscious of. If God just at one time existed all by himself--as a spirit--ie--pure consciousness--he could not exist, as there must be something to exist first to be conscious of. Some argue that God could just be conscious of his own consciousness--but this too results in a contradiction. Before it could identify itself as consciousness,--it had to be conscious of something. ...So in other words, if we are just a figment of God's imagination, we would have to first exist ( or something had to --OUTSIDE of God ) for him to be conscious. You may argue that all God had to do is be able to conceive of a "human being" and then make the necessary abstractions, but regardless of how one chooses to regress His thoughts--the fact that something had to exist first is still an inescapable reality.....Now, keep in mind, all this argument demonstrates is the fact that existence must exist BEFORE any consciousness can, therefore any claim that God initiated or is responsible for the origin of existence is in the end, self-contradictory. - 5:28:32 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. Here are some examples of attempts made by the religious right to push religion into government and the schools. In North Carolina the state House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution to allow the ten commandments to be displayed in schools and other public places. In a meeting of the South Carolina Board of Education the issue of displaying the ten commmandments in the schools was discussed on May 13, 1997. One member asked, "But what about minority religions?" Member Henry Jordan retorted "Screw the Buddhists and kill the Moslems." Poke County, Alabama. At a mandatory school assembly a local minister condemned to hell all people who do not accept jesus christ. DeKalb County, Alabama. When a Gideon group was stopped from passing out bibles in the classrooms, they resorted to passing them out to children boarding school buses, when they were stopped they threw then the bus windows. That's enough for now. Any other questions, James? I'll ask you one qyestion. Do you think an all powerful god would have to resort to such tactics or were these people acting without his backing? - 5:32:20 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. A couple of typos. That should be "Pike" county, not "Poke". Also, the Gideons threw the bibles through the bus windows. - 5:39:45 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:TONY-- I have to confess ignorance in the area of physics, especially the quantum persuasion, but from what I can gather, the experiments you site deal only on the atomic or sub-atomic level and have no implications for larger objects. The "Schrodinger's Cat" illustration is not intended to be taken literally, but is only intended to simplify the concept. Objects exist even when nobody is looking, whatever may be happening to their particals and waves and stuff. The argument that a thing is possible, such as God and quantum mechanics thinking the universe into existence, is not persuasive evidence and requires a stack of presumptions, not the least of which being that the laws of quantum physics (whatever the hell they are) apply outside of the physical universe and that God is subject to them unless he chooses not to be, at which point the bizarreness of the exercise overcomes me. - 6:01:11 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Well said! - 7:15:53 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Peter, I am very pleased with your argument! I can't tell you how often I've had to convince people of exactly of what you just said regarding something having a prior existence. Thus, you say, that for God the things he'd conceive must already exist. Bear with me, and I think I can show you that this is not necessarily so. There are three ways of viewing the problem without concluding, as you have, that there is a contradiction (and therefore a fallacious argument). 1. It is important to also take into consideration the fact that the images we concieve of are not only real to some degree, but that they are less real- another way to say it is that something is lost in the translation. C.S. Lewis discussed something of it and he called it transposition. I've had most success by explaining again by analogy: If we were to write a story, the characters, the plot, and scenery are all real (albeit less real than that which they symbolize). As real as they are, they have NO free will. They have NO ability to create, as we do. They CANNOT interact within our level of reality. Translate this up, then, in response to your argument: WE cannot conceive of things from scratch, though God, being at a higher level of reality, may be able to. That's 1. - 7:19:02 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:2. Number 1, in my opinion resolves your contradiction, and is the answer I believe is true- confirmed for me by the probability of being in God's image. Nontheless, there are a couple of more possibilities. Option 2, IMO less satisfactory, is still a possiblity. You complained that for God, the things he'd create must have prior existence. What if they do? What if perhaps the things which God created did have some sort of prior existence? While this is anathema to the Christian's view of God, per se, it does not follow necessarily that it is a contradiction. The fact is, we could only speculate as to whether they do or not. This kind of reason is not unknown even to the astronomer: They are content to admit ignorance to the state of the universe before the Big Bang. Your reasoning suggests not a contradiction, but should it be true, at most it would force me to admit ignorance prior to God's Big Bang, God's singularity. Nontheless, the laws of reason, like the laws of nature, would stand as far back to .000000002 after creation... If you want to pursue that path. - 7:29:13 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:3. Again, number 1 is IMO the most satisfying answer to your challenge. All three admit a certain amount of ignorance, being among the less real world persumably created and conceived in God's mind. But what you said is true- everything that man creates already existed within the natural order. Granting me that (you said it, anyway), we find then a glaring question: "If all of man's conceptions originated from the natural realm, from whence did the concept of a God outside of the natural realm?" Now this is quite different from mythology. You and I have both studied a great deal of that. Mythology has gods and goddesses that are just like us, only more powerful- mixtures of good and bad, honorable and deceitful. And the creation myths all involve creation within the universe, not without. Yet there is one myth (you call it a myth, not me) where there is creation from outside of nature, there is a God OUTSIDE the natural realm (again we have both agreed that all of man's creations are things which existed first), who is perfectly good. Can you see the problem? Good and bad we have all seen, so gods that are good and bad naturally follow. But a God that is good? My question to you, Peter, is where has humanity gotten the 'stuff' to create (out of the natural) the concept of the supernatural? How is this a third option, by the way? While it fits in well to defend my initial argument, it is still another thread that ties it together tight enough that we may have to admit ignorance at some point, but the implications of the reasoning will still stand. - 7:40:04 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:3. Again, number 1 is IMO the most satisfying answer to your challenge. All three admit a certain amount of ignorance, being among the less real world persumably created and conceived in God's mind. But what you said is true- everything that man creates already existed within the natural order. Granting me that (you said it, anyway), we find then a glaring question: "If all of man's conceptions originated from the natural realm, from whence did the concept of a God outside of the natural realm?" Now this is quite different from mythology. You and I have both studied a great deal of that. Mythology has gods and goddesses that are just like us, only more powerful- mixtures of good and bad, honorable and deceitful. And the creation myths all involve creation within the universe, not without. Yet there is one myth (you call it a myth, not me) where there is creation from outside of nature, there is a God OUTSIDE the natural realm (again we have both agreed that all of man's creations are things which existed first), who is perfectly good. Can you see the problem? Good and bad we have all seen, so gods that are good and bad naturally follow. But a God that is good? My question to you, Peter, is where has humanity gotten the 'stuff' to create (out of the natural) the concept of the supernatural? How is this a third option, by the way? While it fits in well to defend my initial argument, it is still another thread that ties it together tight enough that we may have to admit ignorance at some point, but the implications of the reasoning will still stand. - 7:40:21 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I'm sorry for the length, but I must answer Grant, too. Grant you remark that " the experiments you site deal only on the atomic or sub-atomic level and have no implications for larger objects" The first half is true, but as alluded to by Rob, a search for a unified theory is underway. Such a unified theory, then, will apply equally for the micro and macro level. Then you say. "The "Schrodinger's Cat" illustration is not intended to be taken literally, but is only intended to simplify the concept." Of course you're right, but the concept has been demonstrated in a lab, and that's my point. " Objects exist even when nobody is looking, whatever may be happening to their particals and waves and stuff." You sound like Einstein, here! Unfortunatly if you side with him on this one you will not have empirical science on your side. " The argument that a thing is possible, such as God and quantum mechanics thinking the universe into existence, is not persuasive evidence and requires a stack of presumptions" My argument only presumes that quantum mechanics is true. After that, it is as valid as the many universe theory, if not more so, since Occam's razor might suggest that One God is simpler than Infinite Universes. There are still more explanations that are just as complicated (and outrageous) as the many universe theory. "the laws of quantum physics (whatever the hell they are) {lol} apply outside of the physical universe..." is incorrect. As bizarre as QM is, no one seems to believe that it is outside the physical universe. I wonder if Marlene will say to me, "Well said" ? - 7:50:03 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--Tony--Your argument (1) certainly makes some interesting fodder for discussion--yet it does not get you off the hook. Now excuse me for perhaps jumping the gun here, but I feel the best method when addressing theological arguments is to to go right to the source and show an ability to anticipate the location of the next door the theist will attempt to go through and stand there waiting for him. Your claim here is to demonstrate the existence of a God. Now, as I previously outlined, there is this new wave of theist defenders who, when recognizing their plight of assuming the burden of proof, attempt to put the non-believer on the same level inasfar as assuming a burden of proof. However, no matter how one slices the pie the fact still remains: the theist is still making the positive claim here, and all the atheist need do is discredit the arguments of the theist, and if he is able to do so, all that results is the theists arguments are therefore invalidated, therefore so is his claim. If the sole purpose of the discussion is to determine whether there is positive evidence for a God exists. However, you aren't even at this stage as of yet. The first thing the theist must do when introducing the existence of a God ( and the same applies to anyone claiming the existence of anything )is first offer an intelligible description of exactly what he is trying to demonstrate the existence of. For you to offer this definition of the concept of God, isn't some optional chore for you to be done at your convenience. It is a prerequisite for intelligibilty, or else the discussion will result in the direction it is going now. In your first argument ( which you consider your best one ) is a glaring example of the situation I just described in action. Your closing statement: "WE cannot conceive of things from scratch,though God, being at a higher level of reality, may be able to. : The very last words " May be able to" only suggests that something is possible--however, this is completely inadequate for you to defend an argument. It only infers a "could be". However, your task here, to prove your claim MUST contain the phrase, " Therefore MUST be, and could not possibly be otherwise" ( Or something similar implying incontrivertibilty )You have simply made an ad hoc assumtion concerning the nature of God, and you will be able to do this endlessly, just as long as you can state something as being possible, and then associating that possibility with the characteristics of the entity you are attempting to show exists. I could describe endless instances which result in inplausibilities and contradictions, and your only defence would be to claim that these certain contradictions could be reconciled by the very thing you are trying to defend. In other words, nothing I claim would ever count against your claim--yet it is you that is making the positive claim. Now if your method of logic here was accepted--anyone could claim anything, regardless of how outlandish and absurd it is, and then simply, and wildly unqualifiably, attach attributes to that claim, that would rescue it from any line of argument that could discredit its existence. To me, the claim that God exists is the perfect embodiment of this in action. He is totally undetectable by any of our senses, so the theist again just has "carte-blanche" inasfar as just slapping on any attribute he wishes to keep his claim alive, regardless of how those attributes contradict each other, and everything that is known to mankind, because theist could always claim these problems are transcendable. Tony, if you continue to pursue this line of logic as being valid, it would be pointless for anyone to continue it with you. This is why, you must first give an intelligible description of what you are trying to show exists--or else the word "God" is just ameaningless sound. It will be as if you have said nothing. And then, AFTER that is done you MUST ( if any rational argument is to follow ) assume the burden of proof. NOw keep in mind you are now immediately faced with another problem. If you actually say ANYTHING about what God is, would be to limit him. To say that God possesses characteristic A is to say that God lacks the characteristic not-A, and to say this is already to limit God, therefore not giving you the opportunity to claim that God transcends all such distinctions. - 13:53:26 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>Everything that you are posting is completely subjective, everything. You can rationalize the existence and create theories of this god thing with physics etc. all you want, but the fact remains that you cannot prove a single thing you are saying. What I am saying is that if it cannot be proven then why waste the energy in putting faith in something that is nothing more than a security blanket. If a god thingy exists he/she/it wouldn't care one bit if we believed in him or not. The whole christian myth is a fraud. If a god does exist it will never be a god of the christian model, or for that matter any model of god that humans have created in their tiny minds. - 14:01:07 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: You are minimizing the task before you. ANY assertion is an assertion in need of justification including your assertion that belief in God is unjustifiable. It would be nice for you if the philosophical world operated according to your desires, but alas, it does not. There are no good reasons to think that atheism is true. Can you demonstrate this to be false in some other way than taking a default position? - 14:14:25 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Anselm:STEVEN: Oh my, back to your vacuous dogmatic assertions again. Tell me, is God a myth because Freud and Feurbach said so or because you said so? What is your authority for this statement and what is the evidence for it outside of the fact that it must be true because feurbach or anyone else said it. These are not good reasons for believing a statement to be true, so until you present reasons tp back up your statement about the God myth, I'll have to conclude that it is based on Steven's authority alone and this is I find to be most unconvincing. - 14:22:48 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM.."There are no good reasons to think that atheism is true." Could you please explain how atheism can NOT be true if it merely implies a lack of belief? - 14:29:35 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:Take: Xtian Invasion Part 2000 - 15:36:14 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Your the perfect Razor! All religion is subjective. Therefore to argue with the likes of Tony and Asslem over their delusions is futile as in their little minds their god exsists. - 15:39:05 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--But the default position is the only one I need to take. I am not postulatig, nor presenting any explanations for anything here. Only the person who claims that "a" (God) exists can give any information about it. I think where your problem lies is your mis-identification of what an atheist is. You assume that all atheists are critical explicit athesists--ie--those who outrightly deny the existence of God, and claim such an entity cannot exist. In that case you may have a point. But I am a non-critical explicit atheist. Some may call this an agnostic position, depending on whose definition you want to use. Maybe you don't think I qualify as an atheist by your definition. I simply do not believe because the theist is unable to demonstrate the existence of a God. I need not offfer any-counter eplanations, other than discrediting the one of God. You may wish to twist words around all you wish--but that changes nothing. I am claiming nothing. The theist is. Therefore he assumes that burden of proof, and if he does not, the entire discussion is pointless. Anselm, if you do not accept this to be the case, your case will go nowhere. And I at this point think you are far too intelligent to force me into outlining endless analogies that prove my case here. However, I thought I made this clear enough in my earlier post to Tony--and you are defining yourself into the same realm of irrationality that I already outlined. Anselm, I now am experiencing considerable element of exasperation here when addressing your arguments. You seem to be extremely well-informed in some areas, but are demonstrating( what I believe as deliberate, due to its inconsistency ) lack of understanding in others. And I interpret this as being the product of words from an individual who knows his arguments are invalid, but is attempting to attack it from all these futile angles in some desperate hope that I will not be able to address it--looking for some window--just to save this pre-conceived belief you embrace, and will not forfeit as a matter of personal pride and integrity, and the morbid fear that there exists no rational explanation to demonstrate the existence of God. At this point these attempts are so utterly futile, I am almost forced to say to you " Look Anselm, don't you GET it? Your position cannot be rationally demonstratable" You will of course deny my claim here to be true, but if it were true--why am I not buying it? What it really boils down to is that you have a lot more to lose by NOT believing there is a God, than there is for me to believe there IS one. If he can be shown to exist--fine, great, and I will just put it right up there with another important discovery made by mankind. but in the name of rationality and consistency, I cannot--simply because there is no reason for me to do so. However, in your case I strongly suspect, all the implications of God being forfeited-if you deem his existence as being a vital element in your life, would be far more traumatic for you, than they would be for me at this point TO accept it. And there I suspect is an element which motvates this discussion thay cannot be ignored--resulting in your tendency for dishonesty, deception and irrationality far greater. - 15:44:44 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--i admire your sense of being able to identify a pointless discussion before you engage in one. Forgive me for not resisting this temptation, but I do however take it upon myself to tell the likes of the aforementioned individuals that this be the case. - 16:02:18 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: just a few days ago I posted that ANSELM was possibly intelligent then he posts something like that that JOETTE points to! The problem problem with TONYs' position is that he cannot begin, start, put it in motion a valid because it lacks anything clearly objective to the natural experiences of anybodys'existence. That is the sole reason I ask any godthing believer, where is it? IMO it- the godthing, is only in "their" words, and words are of course the doings of ones'mind. And, as before- the mind is the product of the senses[?]of our sack of cells and the brain. If one looks at TONYs'post it will appear as if he arbitrarily inserts that word as a term of his sentences but always in a compound form with something that we other humans can know, be it QM or philosophy. So, for my reasons of communicating with such godthing believers is to learn if they have anything to say of their "own mind" that is not said by any other. Instead, they invariably drag into the discussion a known manmade tale or person from out of antiquity to support their thoughts. As for those myths and superstitions of old, they were composed by people ignorant to the current times. Such references as support by godthing believers would be as for one to say that Eucliid "probably" 'knew' about the significance of quadralateral constructions. TONY, that humans create therefore god creates is the gist of what you are inscribing about a creative godthing. As for your 'claim' thing, the objective values of science enable you to commune here with others far from where you are. As STEVEN points out your godthing is more so only your subjectiveness that you mean to expose extensionally, but I ask this time, what is its subjective value to you? Perhaps that might be a better starting point, instead of tossing you out where you may be described as, flailing about. - 16:37:45 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Some people think that in addition to objective truth with which we deal in science we should recognize subjective truth which is allegedly legitimate in other contexts. I will say it again---SUBJECTIVE TRUTH means that something is true for me. Subjective truth is a fond nickname for self-deception. How truely it does deceive the person because subjective truth can be used to soothe anything. - 16:53:05 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:People find some sort of temporary sanity or in some cases temporary insanity in subjective truth. - 17:02:22 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--ROB, CARL--I concur fully with your arguments, and this should be some indication , hopefully, of how many countless attacks can be made on their claims. I think the most overwhelming obstacle we are facing now is being able to address all the glaring flaws in their arguments as quickly as they can introduce them to the board, and repeatedly remind them ( and this I find oh so annoyingly tiresome) of all the holes that have perviously plugged. - 17:57:42 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>so, in knowing that it is irrational to believe in a god, the theist continues to put faith into something because of fear. Fear that their family will ostracize them for their lack of faith, fear of hell, fear of god's wrath, fear of anything that is different. It doesn't help any that the media in this county helps feed the christian myth. That our elected officials must swear on the bible. That politicians want the Ten commandments hung in the House and Senate. Almost everything in this society is geared torward the christian faith, without any realization that they are putting faith in a fraud. I know that someone once told me something while discussing the validity of christianity, they said "it must be easy to not believe in anything" in which I replied, "it is far more difficult to rely on myself, rather than relying on an imaginary being". I guess it all goes back to christianity being a crutch. - 18:22:41 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--This is one aspect of why the theist insists on embracing his belief by any method he can think of, as a factor that has yet to be really addressed head-on in this chat-room. It would be unrealistic to assume it is not an important factor in the theists motives, and could very well be their primary motive. They defend logic and reason at first-until their belief can no longer survive within these parameters. Then they inevitably attempt to make almost unceremonious switch to debating within parameters where reason itself is questioned, and ultimately discredited. Sometimes, they even come in here and right off the bat( like CURIOUS did ) suggest that logic itself is invalid--and then attempt to make a case for God, wihin the very parameters where reason and one's means for verification are not present. One cannot prevent himself then from concluding that there is some deceitful, non-rational motive afoot. If not, why are these tactics used time and time and time again when the theists attempt to defend their case??? - 19:07:01 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Pap-aSam:ANSELM, TONY, AND ALL OTHER THEISTS. As it has been stated before it is incumbent on you to tell us what you are talking about. Who or what is your "god" and what are his attributes. Give us a description. We will go on from there. I sometimes get the impression that he teaches quantum physics, wave theory and has a cat for a pet. - 19:26:26 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: In regards to your point of who "asserts" to PETER, I've dissected syntagmatically and paragigmatically some of his previous posts, and well, the reasons you give that you must mean also compel of him, they are not there. Perhaps you think you can makeout an inference of somekind. That would be faulty thinking, to say after stating, as has PETER, that an atheist cannot ascertain evidence or proof for the godthing of theists. Perhaps it is that no evidence no proof means to you that an ateist ought to replace the word god with, "nothing"? That would serve you, maybe even aid and assist you, would it not? You need to reconsider that book with its'tales and myths and superstitions from out of the past for what it is, the bible is just stuff to read that ignorant men once upon a time thought of things. - 19:39:30 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

MELISSA:TONY: I asked how quantum mechanics proves god. I asked how you can believe in the bible and then suggest we do the experiments that suggest the postulates we accept as truel. NOT MARLENE. MELISSA. Sorry, it just irks me when someone else is given credit for my comments. - 20:20:14 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: You seem to have missed the point I was making about your taking the bible's word. I'm sure you have examined the bible, apparently your editions predate the King James Version (I could be wrong, but their names seem ancient). What I was getting at was that, no matter how old a text you examine, all you are examining is an eyewitness account, and even this isn't true of most of the books of the bible, most are second and third hand accounts. Even if the article's antiquity is validated, all you are reading is the telling of a legend by human beings. Many many psychological experiments have been conducted which show that human accounts of incidents can be greatly biased. We see things we want to see, exaggerate, hell we even make things up sometimes. How can you put so much faith in a book manufactured by humans? I don't care how much you've examined the texts of the Greeks which tell stories of their gods, they are still stories. You can't compare them to the experiments you speak of. - 20:30:56 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:MELISSA<<>>as it should. :) - 20:38:48 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MELISSA: TONYs'half baked investigation of his bibles'sources suggest to me, that he "already knew what the truth ought to be" before he began his investigation[?]. Very likely, TONYs'biblical investigation took him only as far as the point where it wasn't really the bible, anymore. Beyond such boundaries, whereof are the sources of the bible TONY knows he'd know myth and superstition and plagerisms and if he looked hard at just his bibles' boundarys, he would see things like interpolations. If he went that far in his "investigations" who knows, perhaps he'd find a godthing for reals. - 21:02:33 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I admire you for your patience with them! And your right, their assertions must be dealt with as soon as possible. My problem with them is, that they either don't bother to even read your arguments (mind you I normally page down on their posts so I don't read their's either) or they just aren't able to grasp them. - 21:59:13 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Your last post to Tony on the subjectivity of accounts is very good! I think your "hell some even make things up" applies to many bible story tellers, lol! - 23:17:10 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:THEISTS: As I regularly ask of your thoughtless kind, where is your godthing, I do so because I wonder if you have any original thoughts of facts as they are to the human mind and as it- your mind, pertains to your treasured godthing. At this site is an example of a thinker. - 23:24:07 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..I have been giving your posts much thought today, and maybe I'm thick, but I just don't get it. I read from your posts that something exists when they think exists. I am familiar with such mindsets, although the only word that I can come up with to state my opinion of this is preposterous, and not in a challenging or insulting sort of way. If this were the case, why are mental hospitals filled with people who maintain they are Napoleon, Marilyn Monroe just to name a couple of examples. If what we believe is true because we think it, should not the psychiatric community be advised of this, and should we all not just live out our fantasies? If your position is true, how could laws be passed, based on socially acceptable behaviours, why is there not complete anarchy, why can your assertion only apply to your religion? These are all serious questions, and I hope you will be able to help me in my quandary in understanding (while not agreeing with it) your position. - 23:35:54 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->Papasam..and since I have 2 cats, does that mean I can be a god that is doubly omniscient? - 23:39:55 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..interesting piece of writing. Who is the "thinker"? - 23:44:46 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Believing is not thinking, so on that basis your projections can't be entertained. You just do not want to play fair with the TONY. - 23:47:17 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: L.Wittgenstein. - 23:51:07 on 2 Apr 98 GMT

-do any of you believe in ghosts or supernatural entities? I think the're a form of lost souls. what do you think? - 0:14:19 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Noch ist doch wichtiger, als die Bildung von fiktiven Begriffen, die uns die unseren erst verstehen lehren--'Nothing is more important for teaching us to understand the concepts we have than constructing fictitious ones'.---Ludwig Wittgenstein.. A pertinent remark ----Es ist sehr schon! - 0:16:55 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: You point to Schlottinger's Cat as support for your claim that quantum mechanics suggests god. I have never heard of this Cat and will look it up. But is this all the support you have? If so you've missed the basic logical premise of science: A theory can never be proved, all you can do is pile a mountain of evidence up in support of a theory. You have yet to pile a mountain of evidence up in support of your claim that quantum mechanics suggest a god. All you have so far is a cat, one experiment. You'll need many many more. However, Aristotle's earth centered universe premise has been disproven by many mathematical and scientific experiments. If all you have is your Cat experiment, I'd suggest you are falling into the Confirmation Bias trap that plagued Brian2 as well. You see what confirms your own beliefs, but ignore or rationalize away that which does not. Also, what makes the Holy Bible so much more an authority on who and what god is than the Koran or the Torah? Do you believe in a Christian God? I thought you did until you suggested that god is imagining us, but that doesn't seem a very Christian attitude toward immortality. - 0:17:14 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Melissa.. If Tony's god is imagining us, that god is certainly whimsical. Constructing things in various ways to suit him. He fits right into the beauty of deception. Can Tony's god imagine that I have a great sex life? - 0:35:31 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. Yes. But if they have kittens you'll really have a problem. - 0:56:05 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:BRIAN. Where are you? Some time ago, at your request, I pointed out some contradictions in your bible. I'm still waiting for your reply. Are you having trpuble trying to resolve them? Your lack of reply, from an objective point of view, would indicate that you cede the argument. Well, cheer up. You can switch to the Kama Sutra. At least you will get something useful out of it. - 1:07:52 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. Some time ago I asked you two simple questions, each of which required only a 'yes' or 'no' answer. You have made many lengthy postings since then but I am still waiting for my simple one word replies. I will repeat the questions for your benefit. 1. Do you believe that your 'god' is all knowing and all powerful? 2. Do you believe that the bible is the true word of your god? Thank you. - 1:16:44 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->NO NAME...I do not believe in ghosts or things that go bump in the night. You state that you believe they are a form of lost souls. Would you please define what a soul is? And why would they be lost? Aren't the directions to heaven or hell the same for everyone? (must all be men, not wanting to ask for directions LOL!) - 1:30:42 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Steven/PapaSam:Sorry I could not get to your post. Today was hectic and now I am just to tired to think. Good night all. - 3:01:52 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. I do not believe in souls, lost ot otherwise, but I do believe there are things that go bump in the night I hear them every night. They're the raccoons knocking over my garbage cans. I wish they would gt lost. - 3:25:51 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:PapaSam.. Can a soul be attached to a physical body--one can imagine legions of dark sinister ones connected with evil people. One can only HOPE AND IMAGINE that his soul reaches its salvation. The only soul-thing that follows me is my shadow. Does a shadow have a soul too----hehe? One can only imagine about that one too! I did watch CASPER THE FRIENDLY GHOST though when I was a little child. - 3:53:12 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:To have your soul fry in some hell---what a nice loving action to happen to anyone. Maggots eating away at your rotting corpse in the ground sounds so much more real and certainly more personable. - 4:01:10 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:There is much work to be done. PAPASAM, if you examine the beginning of one of my posts, you'll find a remark directed at you. I cannot answer all of the questions before me, so I will answer the ones most pertinent. First, to JOETTE, I don't think that you are thick at all. This is a difficult concept, Peter has got it, Carl has not. I will try to illustrate the reasoning again and lead into an answer of Peter's latest challenge. - 8:06:36 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:The trick here, JOETTE, is to make the proper distinctions that will allow the concept to come home. It may be helpful to note where I started from: I was trying to offer an answer to Carl as to "Where the Godthing Is." I WISH TO POINT OUT TO ALL THAT THAT QUESTION IS ALL I INTENDED TO ANSWER. I try very hard to be consistent; don't read into the argument. So, to answer 'where is God' I offered several lines of argument that suggested that we are conceived and sustained within God's mind- thus his "Location" cannot be ascertained as much as conceptualized. (next post) - 8:11:45 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:To aid your conceptualizing, only, my argument refers to 3 levels of reality: 1. God's level, 2. our level, 3. the level of our imaginations. The argument I made took for example the Pink Unicorn. Though an object exists at level 3, it does not hold that it exists at level 2. Nontheless, level 3 is a reality in itself, conceived and sustained by one's mind. SO TO SET TO REST ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY, I am not justifing my belief in God by resorting to level 3, which is clearly suspect of being highly subjective. What I am doing is drawing an analogy from the relationship between levels 2 and 3, I am proposing that another relationship exists, between 1 and 2. (next post) - 8:19:16 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Are you still with me? I'll try yet another attempt if you want. Assuming your getting there, let me continue. Peter, immediatly understanding the argument, pointed out that there is NOTHING NEW to be found in level 3; that is, humans must draw from level 2 in every way. If there was a God according to my reasoning (he argued), there would have to exist in level 1 a priori everything created in level 2. This is where Peter's insight ended, but his valid concern continued. (next post) - 8:24:38 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I responded to Peter that it is important to note that everything that exists at level 3 is not only wholly dependent on level 2 for its source, but also that the things at level 3 are always 'less-dimensioned' than those things represented. For example, while I could in level 3 imagine a pink unicorn, it lacks all that I need to ride it in level 2. Another example: I could picture a cool Wendy's Frosty in my mind, but it cannot actually quench my thirst. Something (quite a bit of something, in fact) is completely lost in the translation. So I simply pointed out that there would, merely following the analogy, a great deal lost in the translation from God to his creation, thus while it holds that we cannot create things completely new, it does not hold that another level up from us (1) this is still true. PETER took issue with my saying 'may.' But Peter, you have to agree that following this argument to its logical end will force us to admit, that since much is lost in the translation to us, it is no small thing to presume to know the way level 1 works. (np) - 8:33:22 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:TONY.. You state that we are conceived and sustained within some god's mind. Within this mind-----does it have or it does not need a subconscious ? If this mind has a subconscious does it know what thrives and sustains itself in that subconscious? - 8:37:30 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:This is directed more towards Peter. Your 'glaring flaw' is that you did not continue the line of reasoning; if you did, perhaps you'd admit I've got something here. If I may be so bold to identify the problem, in your search for the 'default' position you again look for some sort of absolute scientific verification of something that is obviously a metaphysical argument. Not only is that unfair, but illogical. However, I am very aware of the need to take this concept from mere philosophy into an argument about the real world. (np) - 8:39:26 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:(Quickly, to Rob) in this line of reasoning, arguing from analogy only, it could be argued that the Godthing would have some kind of subconscious- that could be interpreted perhaps as the Holy Spirit. I do not care to speculate if it knows what it needs and thrives on. ON to drawing support for my argument. By drawing on QM for support, I am speaking to people who know very little about that subject. If you look into it you will find that I am referring to just some cat, rather it is THE PROBLEM that theoretical physicists deal with as they struggle to compose a model of reality. Thus, do not underestimate something that you do not understand. The point I made by discussing the 'observer' problem is that scientists have been forced to conclude that WE CANNOT BE SURE SOMETHING EXISTS IF IT IS NOT BEING OBSERVED. If you don't like that, take it up with them, not me. My metaphysical argument nicely does away with this scientific dilemma however. - 8:46:54 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Finally, I issued my own challenge to Peter: If we can both agree that nothing exists at level 3 that didn't first exist at level 2, can he explain the origin and perpetuance of the concept of the supernatural, which obviously cannot exist at level 2!!!! (level 2, again, being the natural order!) Peter? - 8:51:10 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Carl said: "TONYs'half baked investigation of his bibles'sources suggest to me, that he "already knew what the truth ought to be" before he began his investigation[?" This comment, JOETTE, is the kind of generalization that is NOT VALID, especially as it specifically singles out a person who is virtually unknown to the speaker. What was that called? Confirmation Bias? Til tomorrow, good night. - 8:54:52 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:TONY.. Philosophy walks the ridge between common sense and fantasy...... Assertions about god depend entirely on their ambiguity. Those who say that god is being-itself do not mean this term in an ordinary sense. But if terms applied to god do not mean what they generally mean, if they have unique meaning when applied to god, then all such talk about god is conducted in a peculiar language with rules of its own. - 9:12:11 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

David:To everyone: Erwin Schrodinger's cat...... In very simple terms means, that in quantum physics wherever you think to do something, the wave particle shall manifest itself into being there. So some say that the mind created it so... But in quantum physics you must understand chaos math and so would know that it acts in a fashion that it appears in every place almost at the exact instence in time and looks like you made it be there... NOTE: I don’t know what the hell that would have to do with a god. - 9:19:29 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:TONY... The theist is not the man who affirms god's existence-on reflection, he admits that god does not "exist"- but the theist denies that god "exists" in the same sense in which unicorns exist... It may seem that this extraordinary conclusion is incompatible with the--"god is being-itself,not a being". Again any assertion about god brings obscurity. - 9:20:25 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..okay, now I understand it better, but to quote BILL.."I don't agree with it." - 12:07:37 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Tony...:Nice job, but my glass is still empty. - 12:57:26 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>I hope you don't believe that fantasy you spewed to be fact/true. If so, a padded cell with a steady dose of thorazine is what you need. 90's version of Jim Jones. Don't think I'll accept any punch from you. - 13:35:10 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--Unfair? How? All I am seeing right now is your beginning to realise that since you are making the claim for something existing, you are assuming the burden of proof--and being unable to manouever about in the fashion you want to--you don't like it. Illogical? Hardly. I am not implementing any method here that would differ from any other claim. In fact is is you, who is attempting to "change the rules" here in order to reconcile your pre-conceived belief. All your explanations, arguments are simply attempts to sustain the notion of God in the realm of the "possible". But again, this falls short, and fails entitely, with an objective which proves such an entity exists. I at no point see God ( which you have yet identified, so to me all he represents right now is "a yet unidentified supernatural force" ) to be a necessary presence. It would not be rational for me to declare that such a being as God is impossible, as I am neither omniscient or able to prove a negative--but again, maybe's and could be be's could apply to an infinite number of claims, where no one could show they DO NOT exist. Tony, your argument is beginning to sprout so many loose ends here, it is virtually impossible to address them all. You only ask a question or two--which is fine--but you are assuming the remaining arguments in your post are sound, and you are moving to the next step. What I am trying to tell you here is that you haven't even got to the first step. You haven't even got off the ground. The premise of which your argument is based upon is flawed--as I have explained to you on several occaisions. Now to answer you question about why the concept of the supernatural is still being perpetuated. I would think it is posited for the sole purpose of offering an explanation of natural phenomena when a natural explanation is not known. Since man naturally fears the unknowm, offering this explanation is an attempt to dispel that fear. However, this realm of the supernatural is where the notion of God resides, and his house is getting smaller all the time, and yet there are those around, including yourself who will attempt to rescue him from even the smallest area in which he could reside in a desperate hope that your initial belief in him, which is accompanied by an illusion of God having a personal relationship with you, and possessing every wonderful trait imaginable. However, in these attempts, the arguments are becoming so convoluted, that in the end the notion of God ultimately possesses the same properties as non-existence--ie "negative theism". Tony, at this point now you are committing philosophical suicide which is attempting to solve one mystery with another mystery. - 13:50:17 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:TONY, OTHERS, I had a busy week and am about to leave town for the weekend to "wine and dine" my boy's and their girlfriends...the benefit of being a parent, ha! I did a quick scan and will make a quick post on the Schrodinger Cat thingy. There's nothing complicated about SC. It is just a macro example of the weird and nebulas world of micro particles that, when observed, concretized into a particular reality. This micro reality is only true for a particular observation and may be totally contradictory the next time this same existence is observed. We can only deal in probabilities when observing the micro world. We can only say that with a hundred observations, this existence will concretize into "this form"---x---numbers of time, and "that form"---y---number of times. True, nothing is 100% sure until observed (even in the macro world), but if I put a cat in a box alone and wait 1 minute then there is a certain probability that when I observe it, the cat will be alive; for example, this probability may be 99.995%. But, if I add a closed glass bottle of poison---that can be broken by a quantum process (radioactive decay say, that has a 50-50 probability of occurring after one minute)---then I have a 50-50 chance of finding a "live cat" or "dead cat" upon observing the cat, after one minute, inside the box. This concretizing of the micro world, not only varies with each observation, but applies only to a macro level conscious observers. To say that God concretizes the universe by observing it would suggest that God is a physical macro conscious observer and I see no evidence of this. Is this not making God's after our own image? I'm sorry, this just doesn't make much sense to me! Gotta go, bye! - 14:02:54 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:OPEN, Another quick "copy and post"***A Taiwanese spiritual sect said God descended to Earth just outside Dallas Tuesday but dozens of observers who gathered for the big event saw and felt little evidence of such a miracle. The sect's leader, Hon-Ming Chen, predicted God would land at his home in the Dallas Suburb of Garland, reproduce himself hundreds of times, shake hands with all whose present and talk to each of them in their native languages. When the moment of truth arrived at precisely 10 a.m. CST and there was little indication of any divine arrival, Chen had an explanation: God had entered the bodies and souls of all those present and anyone who didn't see him was denying their identity as humans. (http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2553561745-da9) *** Also, did you all here the latest news that---through current genetic engineering knowledge---we can now create a half-human and half-animal species? They have already created new life species between a sheep and a goat, and a camel and a lama. This new species, manipulated with genes in the lab, can be made possible between human and gorilla or human and pig! So much for the uniqueness of the human animal! Does this specialness exist only in our minds? Bye! - 14:29:59 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

JAN, :And this may gives legitimacy to the hypothesis, "Men are Pigs?" LOL! - 15:08:20 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JAN- And from the number of them who post on this discussion with delusions ingrained, nuts too! LOL! - 15:31:59 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JAN<<>>bahahahahahahahaha, that was cute. What does that make you, a bitch! - 15:34:45 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- I'm not about to get into arguements about subjective ideas with the theists because as I have said, it's futile. But your closer than you think when you compared him to Jones. This guy has actually taught children this bullshit. With this, I have no patience! If one is going to teach childen then they should be teaching them responsible material including objective material. Children should be allowed their own subjectivity after being taught the objective facts. - 15:36:53 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>I agree! I know that my wife and I are going to move to Boulder, Co. in about 1.5 years because I refuse to allow my parents, or my wife's parent's, to plant the seed of christianity in my childs brain. I have already had a huge blowout with my parents about it. They want to take our child to church with them etc. I told them that when my child has the maturity to understand what they believe then he can make his/her own decision regarding religion, but, while my child is in his formative years I WILL NOT ALLOW him/her to even step inside a church. I believe christianity is completly reprehensible and do not want my child to catch the virus, or even be around the virus (christianity). - 15:44:17 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: What I know of you is all that matters for this site. If you cannot account for your words here, what makes you think you are any different in person? If I met you I'd know what you say better by being able to see into your eyes and read your demeanor of body, and note the sincereity or insincerity of your smile or carlessness of your attire or its converse, in any case it all would not be the things you might say. And mind you, you would not and could not overrun me. As for the invalidity of an opinion of you, well as your post to P'SAM goes, you have work to do for yourself and whatever it is that you think you are. As for what I don't get, I guess you mean your position on a godthing- since that is the point of this site, but until I see and know something as a godthing that any here or anywhere else can know too because it is outside us and we know it so, it is just you and me 'til death do we part. I do not have any reason to believe you nor accept your words of a godthing. If we communed on one of those terms you appear to mean are associative-like to your godthing, that would be interesting. I believe many things with many people (most are unknown to me and will remain unknown to me) very easily. You and "your" words of a godthing are simply insubstantial, and you are right I don't get it because there is as yet nothing in "your" words to get. - 15:54:11 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

David:To everyone that this applies: I have already tried to explained to you about Erwin Schrodinger’s Cat but still I read some trivia metaphysical trip about it... Metaphysics is a nice safe place to be in transition from religious belief to true science but should never be used as a end answer. Note: if you are trying to use the cat as proof of a god, it should be know to you that it is proof that god dose not exist because you would have to test it and manifest it into existence, so therefore you would have had to create god yourself.!!!!!! - 16:21:07 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:DAVID: Shades o'alice in wonderland! as in the ~. - 16:37:14 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

David:One last thing before I have to get going. You can definitely disprove the existence of god simply by studying all the different religious believe and when you see how ridiculous they all are, then the truth which they profess also must be ridiculous and therefore should not be taken seriously. So god dose not exist... I have studied and have found no such proof as to a real god... So open up your minds and break free of the teachings of god, Santa clus and the Easter bunny... P.S. have a very nice day. - 16:37:22 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

David:Sorry: my friend just talked me into saying one last thing before I go... I was always told that when a man is on his death bed, thant he comes to believe in god... Well: I was on my death bed and never even once did I think their was a god... In fact I knew that I may die and still knew for certain that god did NOT EXIST......!!!! - 16:49:15 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:GOLLY! Is there now a question as to who or what image the human creature[?] was made? If BILLS site he refers to, is actual? What would the ignorant writers of the bible have written, if this sort of idea was before them? If I play with this idea, is it any different than how TONY plays here with his godthing idea? On TONYs behalf, if one in his godthings'heaven can see, what sort of things will one see? Will the gorillas and pigs that don't believe in the pig jc, also go to hell? Does that mean a thing as a human can eat bacon in hell? - 17:22:35 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Those experimental Island of Dr. Moreo( not sure of the spelling)hybrids Bill was talking about would love to have some bacon to sustain themselves. - 17:53:46 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:I'm working outside and come in to check in every few hours so if I'm not posting back right away, that's why. STEVEN- I think that's a very good idea not to let a child into a church until they are able to separate themselves from the emotional crapola that goes on in them. Good for you! I did the same thing with my kids. My son has made up his mind that it's bullshit but my daughter likes the idea of a "protector" out there although she doesn't like the religion part that comes with it. DAVID- I was also on my death bed and didn't even think of a god or an afterlife. People have such a fear of death. Don't get me wrong, I love life and don't want to die but I can accept that it's part of the life cycle of this planet. No big deal! CARL- You go boy! No one could have said it better! Now back to work! - 17:55:36 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Carl... I think the image subconsciously Tony would use or like would be Jim Jones or that TAINTED Kool-aid...... WELL SAID!!! - 18:00:31 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Let's not even go there! We could take a sheep and turn it into an xtian but then again that would be classified as cruelty to animals so , not! - 18:00:54 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Marlene.. You are surely right.. GOD FORBID , I hope they do not clone any Christians--- well maybe, for food to be put into Alpo cans! - 18:09:35 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- I wouldn't buy it for my boys (dogs). They wouldn't eat it! If they ever do clone xtians, it may be a good practice to place them into a godless society as they are likely genetically prone to delusion. I hope Quietsun copies and pastes this comment on his web site, lol! I'm sure he'll use your Alpo one for sure. Ahhhh...he's such a loser! - 18:41:33 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. I realize how busy you are and I hate to disturb you. I asked you two simple questions requiring a yes or no answer. I repeated the question two times. From the heights of your wisdom amd the depths of your philosophical knowledge you have expounded on subject matter that has gone over my head. I guess I should have asked my questions on a higher intellectual level, but I'm sorry. I just can't do it. I don't have the capability. - 19:42:51 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ROB: of the koolaid alternative, a colleague and I in a discussion of faith and belief seemingly agreed that both are common traits of the human creature. Lets split the mind/body thing just to say that faith and belief are to the running of the human mind as are eating and defacting is to the running of the human body. The four terms of course are related to the whole mind/body thing, the godthing believers, though, force into ones awareness that schizophrenic state for their bs. By this means can they optimise and accentuate a humans natural faith and belief for the purposes of their godthing. The godthing-spectrum, generally goes the body is not important, deny your mind and that same of others, and finally that previous action was done for that thing of us that can, what? be with a godthing, be godlike like the creator godthing, be total mind and thought, be forever that of which even existence is as nothing, is that afterall or not not, the godthing? Fresh bacon to eat and coolaid to wash it down the meaningless body, TONYs idea of a nutritious meal? - 19:58:16 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I am glad, Joette and James, that you have grasped the concept. IMO, I don't believe that I will have to persuade to 'accept' the argument to have met my objectives (which Peter made me lay out) of offerring a defense of my views in a respectable way. I turn my attention to Peter. Peter, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it is you who isn't shackled by preconceived notions. Peter, we have a very good oppurtunity here of having a good discussion where everyone understands each other- at least now you, Joette, James, and I do, perhaps PapaSam. It would be tragic to throw that away on assertions about my psychological well-being (desperate hope...illusion). How often does real communication occur between atheists and theists? Don't blow it. - 20:55:08 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:PETER, you point out: " All your explanations, arguments are simply attempts to sustain the notion of God in the realm of the "possible"" This statement is exactly correct. Carl (being a master of reading people's true intentions) himself should have picked up on my soft handling of the question. Having chewed on this argument many times I knew very well that it would not provide a CONCRETE answer, and in fact, could not, if the argument was valid. My feeling is that you apply the sames tests to everything (as evidenced by your statement: "I am not implementing any method here that would differ from any other claim."). Different claims do not always require different methods, but different KINDS of claims often do. Thus, if I claimed that blue lights caused blindness, I'd have to conduct a test appropriate to that claim. If I claimed that people are afraid of lollypops, I would have to conduct another kind of test. If I claimed that the economy was stronger today then yesterday, still another kind of test. If it is true that you use no other methods to examine thoughts, facts, and ideas, you may wish to reconsider. You seem to have some itch regarding the burden of proof. You indicated that I was struggling with it in some way. The truth, however, I have always viewed the burden of proof mayhem as a smokescreen. But in using a legal term you will also understand another legal term: "Beyond a reasonable doubt." I do not think my argument necessarily accomplishes that (it never will so long as people continue to delve into my motivations rather then work with me on the reasoning of the argument), but that was the end my methods were striving for. You were very insightful and impressed me greatly when you caught the gist of my argument right away, giving us a good discussion. Impress me again by saying you understand what I am saying. Like Joette, James, and Bill, you do not need to agree, but we can start from there. - 21:14:43 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>how about some proof of this god thingy. That the universe resides inside the mind of god is a little way out there. Please can you offer any proof other than your fantasy. - 21:25:39 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Peter, you say "I at no point see God ( which you have yet identified, so to me all he represents right now is "a yet unidentified supernatural force" ) to be a necessary presence." You are right that I have not identified God. Carl asked me "where the godthing was" whatever that meant. That is the question I attemted to answer. Then you say: "It would not be rational for me to declare that such a being as God is impossible, as I am neither omniscient or able to prove a negative" Then we are in the same boat, as I am neither omniscient or able to prove a negative. Don't be too surprised then, if I am careful in describing a being which (if exists) is much more real than me. Then you say "Tony, your argument is beginning to sprout so many loose ends here, it is virtually impossible to address them all." Since my latest explanation to Joette was simply a rewording of the previous argument, I am unaware of any new claims I may have made that would warrant that statement. Then you say, "You only ask a question or two--which is fine--but you are assuming the remaining arguments in your post are sound, and you are moving to the next step." Uh, Peter, that's because I answered your challenge. Other than your distaste for my having said 'may' you did not fully explain to me your problem with my answer to your challenge. My answer to your distaste was that different kinds of claims sometimes require different means of investigation, my argument being metaphysical at heart would therefore require tests that are appropriate. Then you say, " What I am trying to tell you here is that you haven't even got to the first step. You haven't even got off the ground. The premise of which your argument is based upon is flawed--as I have explained to you on several occaisions." Perhaps you refer to an earlier discussion, because I have issued an answer to the 'glaring flaw', now at least 3 times. You continue: " Now to answer you question about why the concept of the supernatural is still being perpetuated. I would think [objection, your honor, subjective!] it is posited for the sole purpose of offering an explanation of natural phenomena when a natural explanation is not known [objection, your honor, assumes facts already in evidence]. Since man naturally fears the unknowm, offering this explanation is an attempt to dispel that fear." My objection to this whole line of discussion is that it still has not resolved the problem. It does not matter as to the degree or type of reference of supernatural. Who cares what man has done with the concept of level 1 in level 2? The point is that there should be no hint of level 1 at all. The first humans, therefore, to posit a supernatural were thus creative geniuses- since the concept is completely foreign to this world. - 21:37:23 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Steven, I need to go, or else I'd offer you some proof. Perhaps this weekend. Papasam, your yes and no questions: 1. Do you believe that your 'god' is all knowing and all powerful? 2. Do you believe that the bible is the true word of your god? Thank you. I'd offer yes and no questions if I had yes and no questions to give. To question 1, refer to my uneasiness in discussing God's creative ablities with Peter. As to 2, that also is not a small item for me. While it may seem simple to you, like Peter I have taken to standing behind the next door the atheist is likely to proceed through, so I'd rather we both wait so I can give a full explanation. This is no offense to you, but simple questions like these have often resulted in great confusion. - 21:45:15 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--No certainly do not agree. Of course I woulduse different test in different areas, but regardless of what the claim is--the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim, and it was to this method I was referring. For instance, if a scientist presents a paper to a consotium of other scientists, he assumes the burden of proof to make his case. Upon being unsuccessful in furnishing the adequate evidence, his saying " Well, you guys show me a better way"---or "PROVE that I am wrong". All the consortium needs to do is discredit the evidence offered--and the claim fails. Same as in a court of law, the prosecution makes the claim, and if their evidence is insufficient--they lose the case. All the defence needs to do is discredit the evidence given by the prosecution. Now I can't see how this could difficult to understand, or see this being the only rational and fair method and why a theist seems to be hesitant to concur with. Yes, it is a tough stand, especially for a theist to defend his position--but when he faced by an atheist, he must remember that it is him making the claim for the existence of something--and the atheist makes no claim--other than the fact that the attempted proofs to show a god exist are not valid. And an atheist is defined by someone who holds that position. The claim theat God exists is certainly an extraordinary claim, and to quote Carl Sagan " Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. Attempting to avoid this burden is certainly not the way to go for the theist, all it does is render his argument as pointless, regardless of his pleas. The question of reasonable doubt I suppose would be applicable, and the scientific equivelent would be "overwhelming evidence" to be considered a fact. But remember, as in court of law, to assert that a series of events are "possible" certainly does not cut the mustard--especially when there are so many other possibilities--or no method yet known to gain that pertinent information. - 22:01:40 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: I can't make the same leaps you make in your reasoning. I don't accept what you are proffering, especially this whole three levels of reality bit. The assumption that "level 3 is a reality in itself" is an example of the art of redefinition, that's all. The chemo-electrical processes that go into conjuring up that reality are real, yes, but the images produced? They have no REAL ACTUAL FACTUAL TANGIBLE existence, a pre-requisite for entering the category "reality". I realize you pointed this out yourself, but you still claim the imagination is a level of reality, and the explanation you give for us not being able to concretize what we imagine into reality is merely an exercise of your own imagination, nothing more. "[R]esorting to level 3 . . . is clearly suspect of being highly subjective"? Damn straight!! Also, your logic IS flawed. The premise of your argument is based on the logical error of affirming the consequent - one made by most theists. In essence, you begin with the observation that human beings have the ability to imagine, and that the content of our imaginations comes from our observable universe. We exist so our imaginings exist. Fine. Let's make a logical statement out of this observation, using your terms "level 2 and level 3 realities": If level 2 exists then level 3 exists. We can agree on this, yes? Even the most feable minded human can imagine because he/she has a cerebral cortex. What you then do is claim that, if level 3 exists, then level 2 exists, you merely rename them level 2 and level 1 respectively. Well Tony, you can't logically make that claim. Just because our reality exists does not mean that a reality which imagines us exists as well. You can IMAGINE that one does, but your statement has no logical merit. What you seem to lack for all your metaphysical, quantum mechanical, philosophical education is any education in the workings of the human mind, both neurophysically and psychologically. Yes, honey, you are most guilty of the Confirmation Bias. You still have'nt answered my questions regarding your Christianity. Are you Christian? and What makes the Christian Bible so much more convincing than the Torah or Koran or the Book of Mormon or the teachings of Buddha or any other holy scripture out there? - 22:32:26 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: In reference to your statement, "Different claims do not always require different methods, but different KINDS of claims often do. Thus, if I claimed that blue lights caused blindness, I'd have to conduct a test appropriate to that claim. If I claimed that people are afraid of lollypops, I would have to conduct another kind of test. If I claimed that the economy was stronger today then yesterday, still another kind of test." Sure, you'd have to conduct a different test for each one of these claims, but the each test would obey the laws of the scientific method if you wanted your results to be taken seriously. This "oh you can't test every claim with the same kind of test" argument is a familiar cop-out. A preacher named Mike stopped by here once (I think it was him, could be wrong) who claimed that you can't apply the same tests to religious claims that you apply to claims based in reality. How convenient. - 22:49:04 on 3 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: You consider the first people to conceive of a god to be creative geniuses, because how could they conjure up the existence of something not consistent with their experiences in reality, assuming the theory of a god is wholly independent of "our reality". Again, your assumptions are fallacious. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the gods of early human civilizations were represented in the forms of familiar animals, and later civilizations had gods who were eerily and suspiciously anthropomorphic, not super-real. Also, as I believe Peter pointed out, gods were used to explain unexplainable phenomena. They are and were essentially mysteries devised to explain mysteries. So gods WERE contrivances based on human observation and experience in "our reality". Having experienced an unexplainable phenomenon, early people imagined that something unexplainable must be controlling said phenomenon, then unable to visualize this supernatural creature in any form but the familiar, dressed it in familiar garb. The whole idea of Special Creation is another example, not of creative genius, but of ignorance and logical error. We observe that we exist, we observe that we create things and these things exist without knowledge of their creator. Therefore, we assume that since we exist and have no knowledge of how we came to exist, then we must live in the same state as our own creations. We must have been created by something else. But to go backwards in your logic like that is not evidence of creative genius, just evidence of bad logic. - 0:07:19 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:ANYONE AND EVERYONE: Just something that occurred to me recently: The Christian Bible, Genesis, proffers a story to explain why women must endure the pain of birth, claiming that it is punishment for the sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. I was just wondering why the other animals were dealt the same fate. I don't recall any animal other than the human kind eating the forbidden fruit in that story. Nor did it say anywhere in Genesis that this fate WOULD befall other animals, yet it does. How come? And how come the microbes and plants got left out? - 0:16:32 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. Being unfamiliar with philosophical terminology I will have to resort to a colloquialism. You are "Weaseling out" of answering my two simple questions. Either you know your god's capabilities or you don't. If you don't then you don't know your subject, and if you don't know your subject it follows that you don't know what you're talking about. As to your belief in the bible, again, either you believe it is true or you do not. Most theists would certainly say "yes" to Question 1. Most christians would say yes to question 2. Forget the court of law analogies. What I am discussing here with you is your faith, or more appropriately, your seeming lack of faith. I suggest you do a little "soul searching" and make up uour mind. - 0:58:50 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..I appreciate the fact that you have not been hostile towards my questions, and I too would like to have a dialogue free of name calling and such. What I can not understand is how someone as educated as you are can put your faith in an entity by all accounts has no proof of existence. Have you always believed in God, brought up in a religious home, or is your belief based on a personal experience for which you have no "reasonable" explanation? This is an area that I have found most theists will not be open and honest about, except for the occassional jail-house convert we see here. Would you be able to tell us about where your belief started? - 1:15:07 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--Uh, our conversation is over. - 1:29:48 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Yup! It's glaringly obvious that the myths don't make a whole lot of sense. My question is why is this not obvious to the believers. Some believers are well educated and some are not so education has absolutely nothing to do with the delusions. It could be the ability to think outside that of which one is taught that they may be lacking. Educated people are not necessarily smart people. - 3:59:28 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..conciliation, not!:PETER- Oh-oh..I quess you blew it, lol! - 4:04:12 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

I AMtheWAY:TONY~~~Dear, I just finished applying Fadeway to my wretched old skin. Praise Jesus for that concoction! Keep Faith and .. * You pronounce "sin" with two syllables * You enjoy talking to people in King James English. * You are building your own pulpit for your living room. * You think hair tonic is Biblical. * You find June Cleaver attractive. * You believe Moses should have shaved. * You have a portrait of Sodom and Gomorrah, the day after they were nuked. * You pronounce it "Bab-tist." * You say "Gosh Darn." * You scrawl Bible verses on the bathroom walls at Stuckeys. * You thought Back to the Future was a movie about Biblical Prophecy. * You store tracts in your cellular phone carrying case. * You can trace Saddam Hussein's genealogy to Nebuchadnezzar. * You think genuflect is a type of mirror. * You wish you could preach like Louis Farrakhan. * You know that unscrambling "Santa" is "Satan." * You exchange any currency that has three 6's in a row. * You think credit cards are a tool of the devil to identify you to the Anti-Christ. * You think that bar codes are demonic. * You think the band K.I.S.S. means Knights in Satan's Service. * You found back-masking on Amy Grant's albums. * You think that Gregorian Chants are a tool of the devil * You think Victoria's Secret is an Illuminati conspiracy. * You know the writing on the Statue of Liberty's tablet was put there by a Mason, in an Illuminati conspiracy. * You have a chart of the hidden symbols of the dollar bill. * You think movies are a tool of the devil. * You think Pat Robertson was okay till he ran for president. * Your idea of a happin' weekend is to attend an anti-Catholic seminar. * You think the guy with the long hair and John 3:16 sign at golf tournaments is liberal. * You think Jerry Falwell is liberal. * You think Jesus is liberal. * You think Deviled ham is a conspiracy of the Illumnati. * You call Israel "the Holy Land." * You think a modem is a tool of the devil. * You think Charlton Heston was great in the Ten Commandments ...but you repent of watching it because movies are a tool of the devil. * You pronounce "repent" as "rheeeee-paint!" * You say Amen more than once an hour. * You pray so long your food gets cold. * You argue Pat Buchanan is misunderstood. * You think Burt Reynolds was great in Smoky and the Bandit ...but you repent of watching it because movies are a tool of the devil. * You have a fish on the back of your car, your boat, your bicycle and your briefcase... you'd get a tattoo, but they're tools of the devil. * Your wife puts a scripture tract in your lunch. * You have your name stamped on your 10+ Bibles. * You know four Greek words for love and their different usages. * You think Notre Dame football team are all secretly Jesuit priests in an Illuminati conspiracy. * You name your children after the apostles. * You become an Amway dealer to evangelize in disguise. * You like being an Amway dealer. - 4:54:08 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

RON...--->Greetings All...:How is the world? I've missed you all, been extremely busy. Having fun and enjoying life. - 6:44:27 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:CARL.. Yes, these god-thing spectrum believers drink their own subjective kool-aid to suit their every capricious statement. Meanwhile it turns their state of consciousness into unconnected worms of ambiguity. Kierkegaard would of liked Tony's god-thing; some think it is ok to become more subjective and to deny the mind. Don't touch the punch-bowl of subjectivity-where ambiguity and deception reign. - 18:00:30 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:In chess, "king" and "bishop" do not mean what they usually mean, but every term has a precise meaning, and the game would not be changed if we substituted "fool" for "bishop", asthe French do, or "devil" for "king". But assertions about god depend entirely on their ambiguity: it is their apparent meaning, their surface sense, that counts 99% of the time, and it is only under questioning that this is modified, and only under persistent attack is it withdrawn to the point where frequently no sense at all remains. - 18:16:09 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I pointed out Tony's obvious formal education because to me the greatest mystery to theism is how someone can fall privy to a believing in something that to this date has no scientific proof on its side. I can understand uneducated people believing because many will go along without learning how to question anything contrary to what they are told. If I could sort it out, where the belief stems from, I might understand it a little better. - 21:26:01 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. Lighten up. A little levity is in order. The following is from an unknown source. Enjoy. A new priest at his first mass was so nervous he could hardly speak. After mass he asked his monsignor how he had done. The monsignor replied. "When I am worried about getting nervous in the pulpit, I put a glass of vodka next to the water glass. If I start to get nervous I take a little sip" SSo next Sunday he took the monsignor's advice. At the beginning of the sermon, he got nervous and took a drink. He oroceeded to talk up a sstorm. Upon his return to his office after mass, he found the following note on the door. 1. Sip the vodka, don't gulp. 2. There are 10 commmandments, not 12. 3.There are 12 disciples, not 10. 4. Jesus was consecrated, not constipated. 5. Jacob wagered his donkey, he did not bet his ass. 6. We do not refer to jesus as the late jc. 7. David slew Goliath, he did not kick the crap out of him. 8.When David was hit by a rock and knocked off his donkey, don't say he was stoned off his ass. 9. We do not refer to the cross as the "Big T". 10. When jesus broke the bread at the last supper he said "Take this and eat it for it is mt body". He did not say "Eat me". 11. The virgin mary is not referred to as "Mary with the cherry". 12. The recommended grace before a meal is not "Rub-a-dub-dub, thanks for the grub, yeah god" 13. Next Sunday there will be a taffy pulling contest at St. Peter's, not a peter pulling contest at St. Taffy's. - 22:51:35 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:HI JOETTE! I was beginning to think everyone but me got ruptured! I don't know if we can understand people who live in delusions. I know to do so would be impossible for me. Rarely do I meet a small child that doesn't ask, why this, why that, where is it, when, who, what????????????? Maybe they were made to "believe" answers that were false or maybe they were not encouraged to find out for themselves or maybe discourged from doing so, maybe they were "frightened" into believing. I know my parent (not the other one) tried that shit with me. As I said before, I think my A.D.D. prevented me from worrying about life and death or whether I displeased someone I didn't see. I was and still am a Razor. - 22:52:16 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Cute!!! Interested in becoming an Amway dealer? - 22:53:54 on 4 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE. About that AMWAY dealer question. That depends on what they're dealing, and whether they're dealing off the top of the deck. - 2:06:12 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

roben:Think how much better off the "new" world would be if Chris thought of the people he met as the same species as himself... Homo Sapians who due to the environment adapted themselves differently than the euro's. RACE is a religious construct. Their is NO such thing as race, except those found in the bible and other religious documents. Evoloution and the aplication of natural science is freedom... religion is chaining oneself. - 6:25:01 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE:Hello all..what is the purpose of life? if, you say that life has no purpose then what is the purpose of your being here in this room and disagreeing with anything i say?..if there was no truth or meaning in the world, then is that true and what meaning would your response be, God is the truth and Jesus Christ said that he is the way the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father but by him, anyone want to respond!!!!!! - 14:38:13 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUAKE..in the venerable words of the Beatles', "You are such a stupid git"! Who ever gave you the idea that those of us here have no purpose in our lives????? Just because we do not have to live in your fantasy world, needing assistance from some unknown, unseen entity does not mean we are not fulfilled in our own ways. What is my purpose in life? To raise my child, love my family and neighbour, to voluntarily help those in need, to enjoy nature in all its glory, and to keep educating myself so that I may be of value to others. Now tell me, what is your purpose in life, other than to castigate, insult and forcefully push your rehashed ideas onto unsuspecting citizens of this fair country we live in? BTW, it's a beautiful sunny day, why are you at Nathan Phillip Square preaching, as there should be a large crowd there today enjoying the weather? - 15:46:38 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

quake:Joette..ok my question still stands..so if thats your purpose in life what ultimate purpose does that have - 15:57:04 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--Now if we I said I had a purpose other than one of serving God--would you accept it? If that is the case, why even ask the question? I think Joette gave a more than satisfactory answer which was clear and to me shows one of a lot of purpose--one which isn't vague and nether-worldly like one of serving God on earth and then serving him in heaven. To me giving such a response is conceding one has the inability to exist in the reality of this world, and to give it purpose-- and must mentally conconct a being and world that must give this life a purpose--because they can't do it here. The thing that gets me Quake is that you ask this question and just assume you have some superior perspective of your own existence--to enable you to chuckle at a non-believers inadequacies, opening the door for your opportunity to "help" those lost souls and "show them the way" -- when in the end it is one of weakness, fear and hatred for reality, this world, and life. So Quake, you think an atheist is a lost soul, and I certainly think you are one. However, I can tell you why you are one within the parameters of reality. Again, you have to resort to the unreal, the supernatural, the mythical, to explain yours. - 16:06:43 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUAKE..the ultimate purpose is for each of us to appreciate the time we have here on earth. If I am able to do that, and to help my fellow man to do the same, that all is well. You see, I think it is better to live for this life, instead of be one of the walking dead, waiting for what may happen after death, which anyone knows if they have any gray matter in their skull. - 16:25:19 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->brain going faster than fingers...the post above should end "is NOTHING" - 16:28:25 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:QUAKE-- The fact that you are unwilling to accept reality on it's own terms and must rely on myth and superstition to get you through the night doesn't lead to the conclusion that your life has more purpose, unless you count pretend purpose. Disagree with anything you say? Sorry Quake, but I don't take your spells and incantations very seriously. - 16:35:59 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:QUAKE: The purpose of all organic matter (of which we are composed) on earth is to facilitate the replication and propogation of DNA. We are merely very complicated machines built by natural selection for this sole purpose. Unfortunately, homo sapiens evolved a very large cerebral cortex, and has taken it upon itself to undermine this one true purpose and destroy that which made its existence possible. Thou shalt not worship any god but the true creator, eh? Shame on you for worshiping false gods and for failing to glorify your true Creator!! The organic molecule. - 17:59:19 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:QUAKE: I am a baby-making machine and damn proud of it!!! - 18:01:06 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:QUAKE: P.S.> I am a baby-making machine and damn proud of it!!! - 18:01:26 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

oops. BTW, where oh where has Tony gone?? - 18:02:16 on 5 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:Quake. You ask "What is the purpose of life"? You will have to learn to express yourself more clearly. There is more than one form of life if you want to relate the idea of 'purpose' to life. A human has a built in purpose to survive and procreate. On an intellectual level he seeks satisfaction, which is his individual purpose. A leaf of grass has the same built in purpose as a human and allliving creatures. Apparently your purpose is to serve as a puppet for some 'god' who dangles you from his fingers. You hope that when he tires of playing with you he will let you join him and see how it looks from next to the driver's seat. If your sad delusions give you satisfaction, hold on to them. Just don't waste your time trying to pass them on to us. Fortunately for you, you don't have to worry about being disillusioned. When the worms are feeding on you it won't make any difference. - 0:40:27 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Quake:To all..still you show that you don't know what the purpose of life is, it is to glorify God and to know him and his Son Jesus Christ that is eternal life and our imediate purpose, Your arguments say that we are here to procrreate and to live the best lives we can etc, but i still ask what for, why should you liove a good life and appreciate what you have here on earth where do you get your information from? Some like Joette say they should even help thier fellow man. I agree we should help our fellow man, but why do you think we should do this? for what purpose. What if a deluded person thought that they could steal kill destroy etc, and get away with it, and they said there is no God or judgement and I can do what ever I want.. Would you say that was alright to do, would you say that anyone should be able to do whatever they want without any rule or standards? I hope not. Yet some say the purpose of life is to help others , procreate etc..they don't see far enough and only judge by their close surroundings. what is the ultimate purpose of life and if there was only a purpose to procreate and be happy what of those who can't do so, are they not part of that purpose? Sadly as usual all your arguments lack truth and reality and do not answer the question what is the purpose of life? - 0:43:02 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Al:Quake: There is no purpose to life..........it was an accident. - 1:45:48 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--I really think that you are unable to either read or understand multi-syllaballic words. Now let me explain this to you again. I do not agree that one must manifest a supreme being to give his life purpose. Several others here have all given you reasons as to why they consider their lives have purpose--and they all sound to me as having much more purpose than what you consider gives purpose. In my last post I anticipated that you would not accept any other answer other than what you think gives someone purpose to his life--and that is " is to glorify God and to know him and his Son Jesus Christ that is eternal life and our imediate purpose". To me Quake, this is nothing. All this ays to me is" What gives purpose to my life is worshipping some( imaginary ) entity that I believe exists, because he demands I do, or else I will go to (imaginary )hell--and if I do worship him I will go to ( imaginary )heaven." I think to embrace the perpetuation of life gives my life purpose. Life is becoming a more and precious commodity on this earth, and if I can assist any way in maintaining that, I am living purpoefully. But only in first taking care of my own station, and assuming the responsibilty for it, can I help others keep theirs alive now, and in the future. You know Quake, there are a lot of things I see in the world today that work diametrically opposed to that purpose I have. The foremost one is the perpetuation of evading reality, and knowledge. Only when man's primary goal is to search for what is true, not by force, incantations, blind beliefs or fear--can he be a moral person. To be moral is to be conscious of life. Religion is a call for just the opposite. It is a call for abandoning one's mind for the sole purpose or retaining an ancient belief which offers an extremely morally flawed explanation of human existence. The advancement of knowledge, technology and wealth, symbols of which are the sole purpose of improving one's life are looked upon with suspicion and contempt by the relionists. Fear and ignorance dictate your life. Quake, to me your purpose of life is the most abominably heinous, anti-human, anti-life, anti-mind position I can imagine. The reality of man is looked at scornfully and with contempt, so one feels it necessary to abandon the very nature of his own existence to make his life have any purpose. For instance look at the symbol of the crucifixion. The ideal man was sacrificed for human depravity. The highest noblest, most perfect man was willing to sacrifice himself and die in agony for the sake of persons who are low, ignoble, sinful,evil. The morally superior chose to be immolated for the sake of the morally inferior. The notion that such a sacrifice is in any sense right, that ignoble men and women accept it, profit by it, and go on living--living at the price of the perfect man's torture, living on the blood of the ideal--is, I submit, as monstous an injustice,as profound a perversion of morality the human mind can conceive. So in the Bible we have an event of questionable authenticity at best, attempting to outline the pinnacle of morality, and missing it by sucha margin, and ultimately outlining a basis of a moral code that could not be any more immoral. This is what anyone who has any knowledge of any moral code that reflects any shred of reality thinks of your "purpose" of life, Quake. You can deny it all you want, pray to your hearts content, but this will remain a reality regardless of your actions to deny it. So in a nutshell, Quake--what gives me the most purpose in life is doing everything I can to shed the light on all the same preposterous religious beliefs you have, because to me, it's the basis of every social problem that has ever faced mankind. I can only fight it by exposing it for what it is a fraudelent mindset based on ignorance perpetuated by fear for the sole purpose of control and destruction. Reality is religion's greatest enemy, and the funny thing about relity is--it always has the last word--even though the toll of bloodshed and misery is high before it is finally realized--all I can do is help it along--and by fighting people who have these beliefs as you have is one way I can help. I would also like to add, Quake, that this recent appearance by you is actually an admission on your part that the BELIEF in God is what is apparently important to you--its pscychological intimidation. Your message is basically " I offer you the reason to believe as accepting the ways of Christ to give your life purpose." This doesn't prove there is a God at all--it simply infers life is worthless without the belief in God based solely on this vidence alone. However, if you encountered a Buddhist, he would say the same thing, and so would Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. etc. They will all claim that one should believe as they do to give their life purpose--and the only reason given is that it is what they believe to be true. My explanation which outlines MY purpose however, deals only with what is real--of what exists.--I don't need "belief" based on intimdation and ignorance. Now Quake, I don't anticipate you agreeing with anything here, I just wanted to know what IS OUT THERE--and how a clear, rational mind evaluates YOUR "purpose" of life, which is actually a "purpose" of destruction. - 3:27:04 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:The Origins of Christian Anti-Semitism:OPEN-- A very good read if you are interested in the origins of Christianity. Can't remember where I got it. Apologies if someone already linked it here. - 3:27:36 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--I would also like you to understand one thing. My deep and utter contempt for the belief you have is for that belief alone--not necessarily the person who embraces it. I see them as mere victims of the promoters of this mindest, who have been equally as infected. You will resist my accusations with every method they have taught you to do when encountering a person like myself, and insist it is we that need to be "shown thw way". But save your breath Quake I can assure you I have heard all these curses, blessings, and sympathetic aprroaches. I just see them all as symptoms of a DISEASE that has afflicted you. I cerainly hope for the sake of the future of humanity this disease can be cured, and the hopes of a civilized world whose citizens PURPOSE in life is life itself, and not a series of emotionally motivated fairy-tales like the one which has firmly gripped you. Quake, you can point your finger at me at and accuse me of anything, but it won't matter to me..As far as I'm concerned you are, so to speak, a very sick person whose words and actions are that of one who is delirious. I hope you can stick around this time a little longer, and perhaps do little more reading than typing--there is that tiny chance you may be cured if you do. I know it is virtually impossible to convince you of your ailment Quake, you'll just have to take my word for it for now. - 3:51:03 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANY..the other night, I watched Investigative Reports, and this time they investigated the L.A. Coroner's office, made infamous by the O.J. Simpson case. They spared no details, and by the end of the hour my stomach was getting a bit queasy. But I digress, because yesterday I saw something that made me even more nauseous. This particular tidbit was Jerry Falwell plugging a set of video tapes on "bible studies". This set of videos is guaranteed to teach you everything you need to know about the old and new testaments, and after viewing them, you become a graduate of the Institute of Bible Studies. He states that it is his goal to see that 50,000 American families have this set in their homes. The price - $295.00. But it does not stop there. He will give a $100 scholarship to the first 50,000 who order this set. Now, what I really took exception to was his deceit with the scholarship. I do not take earning a scholarship lightly, so why doesn't he just tell the truth. He wants people to pay $195.00 for his crap, but by marketing it the way he is, he is making himself out to be a benefactor. It is yet another example of how our moral leaders are immoral, and how easily duped the average Joe can be. He should be arrested under some consumer law, even though he claims god is on his side. - 11:07:18 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Last nite on a PBS channel was a program titled from jesus to christ. It began by giving accounts of the plagues called in by moses. I watched listened through the part of the nile turning to blood, some 'scientist' said it "could have been" some organism with chemicals in it that could under certain crcumstance produce a red-like color of its body. That "could have been" the blood in the nile. Does not the Bible inscribe that it was "blood"? Then I watched the beginning of the contemporary account of the frog thing. It was related to the blood thing and according to this other'scientist'who specialises in frog\amphibian stuff it"may have been"not frogs but toads that issued forth from the bloody river. This resetting of that slow running clock of religion at this point became insulting to my mind. Where are the simpsons? That was just a act of futility by those as the quack. Do the religeous types not say their scripture in the bible is a gods'word? If yes did not the godthing then say that it was "blood" that flowed in the bed of the nile? Did the godthing not say it was "frogs" that issued from that bloody river? Or, instead, do these scientists mean to now say those old writers were just ignorant of some facts? Then too, I have heard it said and read the same, that in terms of time the pyramids were built long before there were jew and arab types, so it must be that the program was just political propaganda of the religeous body-politic? - 15:07:27 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:QUACK: how do you "know" that proposition you give is true not false or not meaningless? One of your terms is "god" of which so far none of the adherents that use that word can describe nor locate nor clearly say of it. Of the jc thing, that is merely the product of myth and superstitions of old. The first virgin birth tale came outta'egypt and as far can be ascertained it was the early egyptian patriarchs who were the promoters of that virgin-birth idea along with the three headed god idea. If I locate the site, which I will refer to you, for it shows the egyptian tale of a sort-of-three headed human (it may have been the ancients'psychological view), for your perusal. Of the honesty of your church patriarchs, well, when one of them was burned those of his ilk wrote that the air was sweet and the surrounding air was filled with doves and also that he did not die and burn, and that one of the guards had to pierce his side with a spear or sword in order to cause his death. An account said by the romans has it that he just burned and died. What do think is true? So once again, and maybe you can say, but where is your godthing? And how do you know it is that thing of the word you use of 'god'? - 16:35:55 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--..And therin lies the shortcomings of Quake's alleged basis for a "purpose" --No reference point. His God can be whatever he wishes it to be, rationalizes it to be so the the end result is something that conforms to the embodiment of what he feels is the "perfect" entity. Trouble is, no other theist will have the identical ideal, therefore the notion of his God wil differ with each individual--and then they use this notion as a reference point to gibe their lifea "purpose". In the end what gives their life purpose is "serving" and entity which is whatever they want it to be--and then they have the audacity to question and belittle those who do not share this "purpose" - 17:23:56 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Papasam, the joke was good! Before I move to answer Joette's question (if educated, why stupid? :) ) I need to see if I can inspire Peter to continue the conversation with me. Peter, again the itch with the burden of proof. In my opinion, in some contexts I certainly do have the burden of proof, but I don't care. It's a dead-end argument. I follow you exactly that no matter what kind of test certain laws of reason apply. You seem to infer from my argument that I am trying to weasle out of burden of proof. I infer from your argument that you are insisting that God be proved as a scientific fact. I do not think that is possible, by definition of science. I think I could find a strong atheist who would agree, too. - 18:07:14 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:(Sorry, Joette, I will get to it here soon). In defense of the reasonablness of the argument I proposed, I answer Melissa: She said: " The assumption that "level 3 is a reality in itself" is an example of the art of redefinition, that's all." I completely disagree. If anything, I am asking you to expand the definition. In referring to images, she says: " They have no REAL ACTUAL FACTUAL TANGIBLE existence, a pre-requisite for entering the category "reality" Perhaps Melissa, your pre-requisites are too stringent. For example, the existence of lunatics has been brought up in connection with this. I would submit that as one peice of evidence to the strength of things that are not actual, factual, or tangible. Apparently imagination unguided by reason can be quite influencing. Besides that, you refer to chemical processes as being REAL, but not the images that are a result. Do thoughts fit into your category of reality? Or are they unreal. I am not trying to be inflammatory, I am only pointing out that if reality is limited to physical processes than thought itself should be considered unreal, and this debate ought to come to an end, since our discussion of thoughts can never lead to a REAL conclusion. Then you take issue with my reasoning, but I think you are confused about what exactly my argument is. I take as my starting point exactly what you pointed out- there is level 2, level 3 is reliant wholly on level 2. BY ANALOGY, not argument, I sought to answer 1 question, "Where is God?" So, I am not arguing strictly from the analogy, rather it was like a hint of a possiblity. The burden of proof in this particular case (a nod to Peter to further bring him back into the loop) is clearly mine. I believe I can make a full case as to why this explanation is most likely, drawing from a variety of sources. Perhaps we can take that up on email: SntJohnny@aol.com You asked: Are you Christian? Yes. (sorry PapaSam, I can give a yes answer to that one) and "What makes the Christian Bible so much more convincing than the Torah or Koran or the Book of Mormon or the teachings of Buddha or any other holy scripture out there?" I am willing to answer that too, but only if is understood that I am speaking from the Christian perspective, and therefore will be using facts and arguments not all agreed to here. - 18:23:22 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, you asked: What I can not understand is how someone as educated as you are can put your faith in an entity by all accounts has no proof of existence. Have you always believed in God, brought up in a religious home, or is your belief based on a personal experience for which you have no "reasonable" explanation. I did offer this once here in the last few months, so if you are willing to look you may find some scraps that I will omit here. In fairness, I think I have always believed in God. My parents sent me to a religious school, but they had little to say to me about religion. I had no personal experiences. Right about my first year in college I was fully disgusted with every explanation given to my about every question I had concerning God. I decided to toss it all and rebuild. Since I put significant weight on the observable universe, I started with science. Joette, I sincerly believe now that if you want to convince someone to be an atheist that the place to start is not science at all, instead ask difficult philosophical questions. If they start with science, and they're open minded, (I admit that this is my experience), they will have no illusions in expecting science to give answers. (np) - 18:31:44 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:The first place to start if you are trying to build a completely materialistic explanation of the universe is obviously to study evolution, being the only completely naturalistic option out there. Now, the concept of evolution I understood easily. However, in order for it to be considered as true it would have to meet certain criteria- that is, since the burden of proof lies wholly on those that propose it, they would need to prove it. The scientific method comes in handy here! My first real clue that there was a problem was that all of the biology texts taught that natural selection was the means of evolution and that organisms changed slowly over time. This would be why its never observed (some would argue about the moths, and finches, but I think a completely open mind would see that variation within a species is not nearly close to the degree of change necessary to validate evolution as an explanatory theory). However, a study of microbiology, abiogenesis and biochemistry reveals that there is NO known mechanism for evolution. A way to understand that situation, simply, is to argue that a man traveled from London to Chicago in a day. If no known mechanism can be found, the argument will hold no water. Obviously the answer is simple- he used a plane. But what if the question was proposed in 1800? That changes things. Now, proponents of evolution suggest that this is very much like the case for evolution- we are looking for a mechanism that we cannot hope to detect even using modern instruments, time and progress will provide it. The problem is that biochemistry has now advanced to the point where the technology is more than sufficient to provide a mechanism, if there was one. Still, no mechanism. As far as burden of proof goes, evolution has a sincere problem. You could argue from the analogy above that it doesn't matter if we no longer know the mechanism, it happened: the man is now in Chicago, and that's all that matters. But it was obvious to me that if anything, that reasoning is not scientific. From there, Stephen J. Gould further made the problem worse by suggesting with his coworker the theory 'punctuated equilibira' which proposes (because of the testimony of the fossil record) that evolution on earth actually occurred more or less as fits and starts- events occured which rapidly sped up evolution in certain areas, providing us with the fossil record we now have. The crux of the problem became more defined, and a hypocrisy seemed to emerge- if no one actually thinks that evolution occured on the planet gradually (gradualism), why do biology texts insist that evolution works that way? That, coupled with the problems that the Pre-Cambrian explosion presents (the fossil record seemed to show movement from simple organisms to very very very complex organisms 'overnight') indicated to me that evolution, as an explanatory theory, was shaky, at best. Now, Peter took issue with the argument 'if you can't suggest something else, mine is true'. But I've found that evolutionists often use the same argument in defense of evolution- if you cannot proved another naturalistic explanation, than this will do. Like Peter, I think this kind of reasoning stinks. In light of science's findings about evolution (ie., since we can find nothing else, we declare it happened), I was forced to conclude (being open minded at the time, that a naturalistic explanation of the universe does not exist. Now, there was so much more than this, but that is the thumbnail version. At the time I decided that an honest atheist will reject not only God, but evolution too, since the burden of proof has not been provided. (by the way, natural selection I accept- to the degree that evolution insists is also true, I do not, since no mechanism can be provided and biochemistry has effectively ruled cannot be provided). However, as open minded as I was, I did not limit myself to a completely naturalistic explanation. Without this limitation I have since found what I think is the proper place of science, as well as a satisfactory explanation of the universe and most of which occurs within it. Sorry so long, but education makes you wordy too! (not a good thing) Practice in presentation brings simple presentation. Thanks for that oppurtunity. - 19:00:29 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>all someone needs to do is research history to prove your religion/faith/whatever is a fraud. The christian myth is the most destructive man made virus in the history of mankind. History proves that the christian myth is little more that a conglomerate of many myths and legends far older than christianity. It is a fact that there is no historical proof that a man named Jesus even lived. Christianity is a joke, I would think that an educated person, such as you appear to be, would have studied the historacity of christianity. There are so many contradictions and stolen rituals and myths that it is difficult to understand how this virus called christianity even got started. If Constantine hadn't been so weak, christianity would be nothing more than an unpleasant memory. - 19:00:45 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Carl, I don't exactly like Falwell, either. I also do not apprecieate money being made off of the message of Christ. As to the PBS thing, I haven't seen it yet, it comes on tonight and I'll be taping it. A review in the Wall Street Journal alerted me that most of the correspondents don't hold that the Bible is inerrant. Take what you see with a grain of salt. I'll be taking a teaspoon. It's probably best if we don't swallow the whole salt shaker, though. - 19:11:04 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>so because evolution is still a theory, you replace it with your own fantasy (theory). In other words, since evolution has not been proven, god must have done it. You can not possible be this ridiculous. You have to be able to see how, for lack of a better word, stupid it makes you appear. The majority of athiest that I know, do not posit a theory for anything, they say if it can be proven then it can be believed. I do not put faith in a theory, like the big bang, because it is a theory that has yet to be proven or disproven. Just like I say that I can not prove that god did not make the planet in 7 days, but I will not say that I believe in it, because it can not be proven. Heck, the facts are, you can not prove your god exists, at all. There is nothing that you will be able to post that will convince someone your god exists without proof, which you cannot, and will never be able to provide. - 19:11:42 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>without proof of the existence of your god thingy, your arguments state exactly what you are saying, nothing. - 19:14:40 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Steven again recalls to mind the paradox that a man such as I would be so studied and yet would not study at all a subject so significant, history. Perhaps, Steven, I have viewed the same evidence as you but arrived at a different conclusion. Let me add fuel to your fire, Steven- not only did Jesus not exist, but he was gay, too. Historical redaction is only slightly helpful. Its time in history is now 50 years gone by. Can you provide me with a scholarly source within the last 20 years that argues strictly from the evidence that declares that a person such as Jesus does not exist? - 19:17:21 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Steven states: "because evolution is still a theory, you replace it with your own fantasy (theory). In other words, since evolution has not been proven, god must have done it. You can not possible be this ridiculous. You have to be able to see how, for lack of a better word, stupid it makes you appear." Steven, I did not argue at all what you say. I answered a question for Joette. I am surprised that you find evolution is still a theory... I usually have to dissuade people from the idea it is a FACT. My post only states that I determined that evolution was not true or possible. I did not conclude, therefore that God must have done it. I only stated that not being restricted to naturalistic explanations, I moved on from there. If you want to know about that progression, ask. Don't read into it and assign to me things I did not say. Then you say: "Heck, the facts are, you can not prove your god exists, at all. [ I reply, not by science] There is nothing that you will be able to post that will convince someone your god exists without proof, which you cannot, and will never be able to provide." Again I infer that the only proof accepted in this court of law seems to be scientific proof. Since science is the study of the natural, the question of God being supernatural, science cannot answer either way. Regardless of where the burden of proof lies, another kind of testing is required then the one you demand be used. No progress in a discussion of God can be made if this fact is not realized. - 19:27:47 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>for starters the only recorded history with a person named jesus written in it, is the bible. Which is not different than the Illiad, in historical significance, only not written as well. Josephus wrote in a chapter that a man named Emanuel, existed during the time period. This however is agreed among historians to be added in by the Catholics several hundred years after the fact. I currently would say that the Piso argument is a valid 'theory' concerning the man named jesus, and why the christian religion was invented by Rome, or some powerfull people in the Roman Empire. You can go to the site and peruse it for more info.... P.S.-- I must add that - 19:33:12 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: I do not define reality as liberally as you. "Expanding" the definition of a concept is too convenient a tool for me to take seriously. Convenience breeds suspicion in my mind. Is thought reality? To the extent of its bio-electro-chemical processes, sure. The thoughts (images, words, etc.) produced are SUSTAINED in the mind, but are not real. You could paint the images or write the words or speak the ideas or teach the concepts, but, as you've pointed out, that pink unicorn you painted is still no more real than the langoliers Stephen King wrote about. To define them as so is intellectual laziness, performed for the mere purpose of introducing implausible realities as real, to dupe the naive mind into accepting a sham. As for your reasoning, I have yet to take a class in logic, I was merely drawing upon things I learned in my experimental psych class. So, perhaps analogies obey different rules from arguments. Still, what you pose is only a possiblity, a possibility based on loosely defined premises (e.g., your definition of reality). But I could offer you several other possibilities based on similarly loose concepts, so I am not apt to accept your posit as anything other than a long-shot possibility. As for evolution, I was under the impression that the mechanism was genetic mutation, accomplished by transcription error on the part of RNA or cosmic rays or other natural phenomenon. I found a book the other day, _Darwin's Black Box_, that argues creation by design from a bio-chemical standpoint. I'll pick it up after pay day and give it a shot. As for your belief in the Christian Bible as a more reliable source of info than any other sacred scripture: my mom recently asked me to read a book by Josh McDowell, _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_. I happened upon that book, but also one by him entitled _Answers_ which argues from the same perspective I believe you will argue. If I remember correctly, the first sentence of the Introduction stated that Christianity believes and teaches that the Bible is the word of god, and essentially his arguments would be based on this assumption. For example, to the question "How do you know there is a God?" his answer was, He told us so in the Bible. Well I have a problem with such assumptions - just because you believe and teach that a certain book holds truth does not make it so. Forget the question, how do you know there is a god. How about the question, how do you know the Bible is the word of the Creator, in general? I'll end with this: I have no problem with there being a Creator. I do, however, have a problem with human conceptions of a Creator, because there are so many gods to choose from for one, and because I know a little about the human psyche, its fears and motivations. I view anything written by man with a respectful amount of suspicion and skepticism, especially when it concerns the intangible and requires faith. - 20:10:22 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: That evolution is a theory does not make it nor mean that it is true, nor that its opposite- false, is true. As far as I can tell of it, its'terms seem much more plausible to a thinking person about all that transpires. While it appears that you try to confound MELISSA[?]with the electrochemical stuff of brainwork, thinking and seeing of things inside and outside oneself can clearup that bit of your attempt at obfuscation. Several days ago I thought of your 'investigations' that you already knew what the truth ought to be before you began it. Well, if your level thing is the indicator it makes your search appear as if you build 'towards a specific thing'. Especially as of the environment of your upbringing. If you held a fair view on matters then you might see that you are human and it is "your" words of your mind of your thoughts of your experience of this existence that makes you decry science as an invalid start point, and then you move off into the 'special pond' of philosophy. If other religeous folk are any indicator, eventually you will bring up metaphysics. Except for godthing believers usage of it, Russell, Keyser, Korzybski, Santyana, Poincare et.al., seem to view the metaphysical whatever as the proverbial mountain out of a molehill. While I am certain many simply don't want to take the time to see, not even the thoughts of others experiences and renditions of that experience by others as those such as I name, then religeon serves as a medium to the all for their sense of being. With choosing to believe in a godthing there is no need to apply with rigor ones'mental prowess. We can all think if we or one chooses to think. A godthing believer just says, "god did it" and then I guess they do as the quack directs, praise that thing, is that what it needs? The only way you can commune here is to use what you know that I know, and I do not know a godthing, so again where is it? And no city of god tripe, just say where it is. - 21:12:01 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:STEVEN: I perused the site you suggested concerning the Piso's alleged authorship of the New Testament. Interesting site, but it struck me as reminiscent of Zachariah Sitchin's theory, if not slightly more plausible, and only slightly. - 21:47:32 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:QUAKE: You ask, "What if a deluded person thought that they could steal kill destroy etc, and get away with it,and they said there is no God or judgement and I can do what ever I want.." I suggest you visit the site to which GRANT provided a link. All of the evils committed against the Jews in Germany were condoned by the church fathers, the canonizers of your Christianity. And this under the watchful eye of their (and your) God. Any fear of judgement from your God is blatantly absent in the mass murder committed in the Crusades and the Holocaust. Curiously, in a civilization where no observable religion is present, no laws passed down from high on a mountain top, there has never been observed, nor has evidence ever been found of, mass genocide or war. Which civilization is so blessed, though it has no religion? Our fellow primate civilizations, especially those of the Chimpanzees. So don't shower me with this crap about how we'd be lost morally without your god. How can we condemn the murderer of our children when we have no god to tell us it is wrong? We can do so because death is the antithesis of life, and life is what every living creature desires, ergo the derivation of your beloved morality. And as for your question, "what of those who can't do so [procreate and be happy], are they not part of that purpose?" Yes, procreation is still their purpose in life (in my opinion), it is what they were created to do, though it is unfortunate they cannot fulfill this purpose and their lineage will end. This, however does not deny them happiness, I never said procreation was the source of hapiness. Hapiness and a full life is still possible, especially for human beings which have very complicated and elaborate nervous systems. And if a person is unable to find hapiness in his/her life, that is truly unfortunate as well. It does not, however, negate the pursuit of hapiness as a purpose in life, or OF life in general. P.S. I highly suggest you follow the link Grant provided and read. - 23:09:52 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: A quote I gleaned from the link Grant provided: "From this brief outline [the previous paragraph delineates the canonization process], it appears that the canonization of the New Testament was purely a human process. The Church was to teach that scripture was an infallible revelation and divinely predetermined, which discouraged any later objective and scholarly investigation from within its own ranks." This is my main contention with the Christian Bible, human intervention and oppression. - 23:16:27 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:STEVEN: Reading the anti-semitism article to which Grant provided linkage, the Piso argument acquires an even more interesting light. - 23:19:30 on 6 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. Your purpose in life may be to glorify Jesus and his daddy. Apparently they seem to be suffering from low self esteem. Did your duo ask you to solicit our praise or was it your own idea? Do you carry on conversations with them? You say your god is all powerful. If they really want us to praise them they could program us - who, after all, are mere mortals, to give them three cheers every hour on the hour. Again, why is it necessary for an all powerful god to need you, a mere piss ant (no insult intended) in the great scheme of things to talk for him? We're talking omnipotent! I would appreciate some serious answers to my questions? - 1:26:42 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. By the way, why don't you spend some ot the time you waste here tryng to convert us to talk to some of your co-religionists, such as Jerry Falwell. As Joette pointed out, he is getting rich selling your religion. Pat Robertson isn't doing too badly either. Do they really need 2000 dollar suits? And Mansions? Amd how about all the radio and TV evangelists sucking in the contributions in the name of your jesus from the poor people listening and watching? Doesn't your bible say something about jesus driving the money lenders from the temple. What do you think he'd say to theem? - 1:39:23 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:TONY-- Well done. I think willingness to honestly and openly display your beliefs here in the enemy camp is impressive and displays a certain respect for the adversary, a commodity frequently in short supply all around. My major problem with your approach, as you anticipated, is with your assessment of science and evolution. A qualitative judgment of the theory of evolution is not really relevant here in my view. What is relevant is your judgment that the explanations science can offer are not adequate and therefor supernatural or metaphysical explanations are better or more complete and in fact must be true. I'm sure you know all about the philosophy of science and scientific method and all that, but it seems to me that you may never have really been able to escape the assumption, even provisionally, of the existence of things outside or beyond the physical universe. If you had, though you still might not embrace naturalism, I feel that your arguments would be different. You wouldn't be assuming that we would all leap the chasm behind you to the undetectable. (Though you may think that I presuppose the nonexistence of the supernatural, I don't feel that it works that way.) I like Richard Dawkins' assessment of science. He says that rather than complain about science not offering us enough, we should be shouting praise for how far it has brought us. If there exists anything outside the physical universe, and it's not detectable by the methods of science, which can easily be shown to be more reliable than any other methods that we know of IMO, then on what basis should we choose to accept it? Can you demonstrate reliability of another means? - 2:15:18 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- Zack?!?! Oh-oh you'll have Ron on your ass now! - 3:13:15 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. I am not a scholar nor am I qualified to enter a debate on Darwin's theory. However, we know that we are different frm our ancestors of only a few generations. Quite simply, evolution is change. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, it is because they have evolved to a new strain. That is evolution on its simplest level. One of the criticisms I have read concern the gap in the fossil finds between various types. When one considers the amount of time involved - billions of years, and the upheavals of nature, such as volcanoes, earthquakes, glaciers and floods, the remarkable thing is that so many fossils have been found and clssified. - 4:34:12 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:MELISSA<<>>i have read over the Piso site many times. To me, it makes more sense than the christian explaination of jesus and the bible. It is still theory however. - 12:34:57 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: An article as the one you URL'd and the ongoing nonsense of the likes o'Falwell and the Quack on places like the internet will at first polarise the religeous believer, especially the xtian, but after awhile as their human nature assumes its place again, some will wiseup to that religeous nonsense. Thinking within the confines of anything seems natural to any, that is all anybody can do, but to speak as the xtians do against things against people against this and that and so on, and then close ones' eyes and mind to that action as it seems TONY and perhaps ANSELM do, they really put themselves in a very difficult position for my interaction with them or their likes. For awhile, however, these folks will mean to cling to the fables from the past, and eventually as this internet thing builds collecting articles like that antisemitism article, the better human creature will let go that xtian stuff. Here, does TONY take the view that we here read only science and science and more and not the religious stuff that is out there? As for myself, I have read more than just the watchtower mag for a view of religeous stuff, but as go these theology writings, they invariably end their diatribe on the point that one has to decide choose for themselves. I have read enough of these articles and books to now think that this godthing, it is merely manmade and perpetuated by some. - 15:57:20 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Melissa, the biology texts presently do hold that the mechanism in evolution is genetic mutation, accomplished by transcription error on the part of RNA or cosmic rays or other natural phenomenon. There are numerous problems with this from many different perspectives. Statistically, it is implausible, for mutations do occur, but it is well known that a very small percentage of mutated creatures will survive to reproduce. The diversity within a species is found by the expression of different genetic traits already possessed by the creature. There are different views on what makes a species out there; one holds that a new species forms when an organism cannot reproduce with the species it was derived from. Another definition holds that new genetic material must be present. Definitions are tools, logical constructs used for communication- they are not static, but change over time. In the case of the mechanism for evolution, it is clear, IMO, that both of the versions I mentioned above must be true. As it is, examples of version 1 can be created easily through genetic engineering, but as far as I know, has never happened naturally through natural, MUTATED processes. Version 2, as far as I know (I emphasize) has never happened at all, nor been observed. "Darwin's Black Box" was an excellent book, but he doesn't argue for creation, but instead, intelligent design. There is a difference and he makes it very clear. In fact, he brutally destroys any hope that evolution may be true, yet holds that he believes it anyway. I thought that was funny. Enjoy the book! Oh, and McDowell doesn't have a good rep with those that actually try to explain and defend Christianity. His reasoning is great if you already believe, but not so great if you don't. - 17:53:49 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I want to respond to Grant, but first to PapaSam and the resistant bacteria. Papasam, the example of resistant strains of diseases and etc. demonstrate clearly what evolution is, and isn't. Now, in reality a selection of say, bacteria A is all one species. Let's say you expose A to an antiobiotic. Weeks later, the antiobiotic does not work. What has happened is not that bacteria A HAS CHANGED, but rather the population of cells within bacteria A that are resistant to the antiobiotic have survived and reproduced in more numbers than those that were not resistant. You do not have a NEW species derived from bacteria A, you have a new EXPRESSION of the genetic traits of bacteria A. This has been the kind of change observed in nature, and the kind that I accept as true. What is not true, and what I reject, is that this kind of selection ever results in a NEW SPECIES. The reality is we find NEW EXPRESSIONS. - 18:07:04 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: Your black box reference, did you consider any others views or only that which led to your prefabricated conclusions? I have not read the book itself, but I have read a good number of other opinions of that book. The views seem split per godthing types and general criticism. As for the design view, that view has a regularly appearing flaws that PETER has gone over, I have seen several such myself, so design? Does that view boil down to ones'wishful thinking? - 18:09:56 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Grant, I am grateful for the positive words. I think that the question you raised at the end of your post is just the kind of question that needs to be asked. If there can be any kind of consensus in agreement that science cannot provide all the answers, the next step is to demonstrate the reasonableness of other methods. You may be right about one thing, perhaps I never did toss out the supernatural. I cannot remember all the details of that time now, I do remember it was quite chaotic and but I do recall, at least in principle, tossing out that assumption. Somewhere in there I addressed the question you raised. It seems to me that suggesting that science is viable is tatamount to accepting other things as true as well. Some times these other assumptions go unrecognized, other times simply ignored. But it ties into my expansion of what is real, which MELISSA protested. For example, science, to be reliable, needs thought and reason to be reliable. But on what grounds can we conclude they are? In short, there is no naturalistic foundation for why thought and reason can be trusted to be true. I am interested in what foundation you use, as well as others of your bent here. It seems to me a mighty problem. To answer your question, though, IMO, it is the EXISTENCE of logical thought and reason that demonstrates not only the limitations of science, but perhaps, the preeminence of other means of investigation regarding the deeper questions of life. I don't at all downplay what science has done for us- I am not the unabomber- but a scientific explanation for the validity of thought and reason is only an exercise in circular reasoning. About that time I began studying the quantum world. That there is a relation between thought and the quantum world is clear, apparently, to neuroscientists. I quote: - 18:24:01 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:"There has been an increasing interest in the relations of quantum mechanics, brain activities, and consciousness. On the part of quantum physics the impetus came from the interpretation of the measuring process, which is still on debate, even after more than 60 years of overwhelmingly successful applications of quantum theory. However, there is the question from nueroscience whether quantum action is needed to understand the functioning of the brain in its subtle relations to experience, memory, and consciousness." (Beck and Eccles, Proc. natl. Acad. Sci., USA, Vol 89, pp.11357, Dec 1992- Biophysics). The conclusion of their search was that there was a connection. They hold that the connection is purely naturalistic, but I surmised that they had not answered (nor did they attempt) the main problem resulting from the success of QM: Who is observing the observer? Here, Grant, you can see the seed of my analogy, and its fruit. This has been very long. Science itself has raised the question you proposed, and answered it with a paradox. My conclusion: thought and reason rule science, not the other way around. The source for its validity cannot be accounted for naturally. Can you see how this would lead me to accept, reasonably, that a supernatural explanation exists? I do not propose that it argues for a certain deity, but at some point something 'outside' of us is needed to provide the 'standard' we use to judge all things. - 18:38:27 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Carl, Melissa made the initial reference to the Black box thing. Grant, I apologize for the length and complexity of those posts. I do not often have the oppurtunity to explain those things in words. I think I may have repeated myself a couple of times and not answered your question. Feel free to further inquire. - 18:40:34 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I can see that the conversation is turning to how I perceive the Bible. First of all, I maintain that it is a collection, at least, of historical documents. I make a distinction, therefore, about contradictions between books and contradictions within the books formallly called the Bible. After intensive study, I am convinced that the Bible is 'God's Word' but not how most people use that term. Taking into account my scientific and philosophic studies, God's Word, specifically, was Jesus Christ- God's thoughts/word incarnate. The actual writings found in the Bible, IMO, are either the words about the Word, or words of the Word, if that makes sense, and the writers were people who believed in the Word. Melissa, in view of the other religions and deities out there, The Christian God is the only God I know that takes into account of the philosophical dilemas found in science and elsewhere. But I think we'll be getting to that shortly. Melissa, I would say that analogies have different purposes than arguments, but the rules of reason I think should be consistent within them. - 18:49:20 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, I rewrote the particular passage in my page that you mentioned as problematic to be more specific to my goals. Tell me if it suits you better. - 18:51:03 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY Things that have changed, no matter what the cause, are not the same as the original. "The population of cells within bacteria A that are resistant to the antibiotic have survived and reproduced in more numbers - - You do not have a new species. You have a new EXPRESSION." As the Bard has said - "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Evolution is still evolution, whether you evolve into a new species or a new "EXPRESSION" A change has taken place as a result of an evolutionary process. If you feel more comfortable using your own terminology that's fine with me. The name of the game is semantics. - 19:15:42 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: For reasons unknown you pefer to go outside yourself for an explanation of things, that is why you merely say there is something "outside" of us. As I posted before Mankind (or for PC purposes), Humans are the measure of all- or something close, that protagoras said. What your post reminds me of is something some child might ask "Who did it?" the proper question for the mind is, "Why did it happen?" As for your conclusion, well I've read some old timers who said something about like that, back in the late 1800s. They didn't spice it up as you inscribe "...RULE science," why do you write such? Do you really want to know "Who..?" and end things on that note? Most thinker writers I read invite more questions and as for me I revel in learning my mistakes. That is how humans learn truths. And again, some folks can't handle this or that for whatever reasons, they find the confines of the answer to "Who..." satisfying. The issue with these folks, is the ignorance that comes with the answer of who, and that they want to control. Some of your thoughts seem palatable until you get to the end of your rope, where as you begin to flail about, your calls for a godthing infer you were not serious. It looks as tho'all you look for is a godthing, you can't see the tree through the forest. The forest is that its all human wealth and weal, and for the ignorant that includes religion. This was manmade for them. - 19:21:10 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>do you have a limited amout of time to post? If you had studied your history as much as your science, you would know that any historian with any credibility at all recognizes the bible as a joke, as far as it's historacity. It is even acknowledged by leading theologians that Mathew, Mark, and Luke were written up to 70 years after the death of the mythological creature jesus. John was written even farther down the line. Have you noticed that none of the events regarding jesus in any of these books of the bible are the same accounting of what happened. Only the book of John tells of the soldiers surounding jesus and John cutting the ear off the Roman soldier. Each book gives a completly different account of the of the death and the resurection of jaaaeeeezzzzzuuuuussss. The fact that the bible is a hodge podge of different 'pagan' myths should peak your intrest a bit. The fact that the birth by a virgin mother, is a story thousands of years older than the jesus myth. Almost every symbol and sacrament used by christians and accepted by christians were actually pagan. For example the cross, was a symbol of Mithra that was a god the Persians followed. The virgin birth, Egyptian and Greek (i.e. Hercules). The trinty was an Egyptian myth. All of it is stolen concepts. The funny thing is when all this jesus stuff was going on, the Jews and the Romans were at war. The pharasees (sp) were actually a force for good. One last thing. Barabus, the man that the jewish people supposedly set free instead of jesus, his name in Hebrew means "the son of god". - 19:22:17 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: Until TONY posts more of his exposure to evolutionary matters, I can but say now, that it appears that he holds the view that humans are the apex of evolution. 'Evolution' leads to human kinds of life. That is where he gets off by inscribing that it, if he sees it as a science too, that he says it appears, somehow, in some scriptural state. The folly of that view, it is the resetting of the slow running clock of religion. The people who composed the religious ideas were barely not savages. The only way that such words can make sense, is if one associates oneself with such words as if the composers were heroes. So what that the view that man is somehow a hybrid animal supernatural product is false to facts. But then I think the zoological view is also false to facts. Both views delay and destroy human learning. - 19:36:20 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: How r u? The TONY name, he seems to twist and contort any and every possible way to maintain a prone positon "for" religion. That is an odd thing for anyone to do, be it for alcoholism or religious faith. I for one do not admire his comfortably numb state that allows him to setup his xtian-position. All he does at that action, is separate himself from others. As for the last line I put to P'SAM about delays and destruction to learning, what do you know about the UCB chancellor Berdahl? He's outta'Texas and while his PR looks good in the newspaper what is he about? Hell before he even touched a pen here, he got a $8000 dollar pay hike! so do you fathom my curiosity? - 19:52:58 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>I know very little about chancellor Berdahl? I know that he did a wonderfull job at the U. of Texas. When I was in school, I didn't pay much attention to who was on the faculty. My mind was on who I was going out with that night, and how much money i needed to earn that day to go out (waiting tables, blah) :-( - 20:06:32 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..I appreciate your efforts in the rewording on your website, but it's still not right. As I stated previously, I do not accept anything (I would underline that word if I could) blindly. Nothing, nihil, nada, zilch, zero etc. I do not accept something that anything that I can not research. Those items that I can't gain knowledge of, test, research and so forth are neither accepted or refuted by myself, as I have no authority to express an opinion. Do you understand why I am adamant about this? I can see that you took considerable time to rewrite the original, but all you had to do was add the word "some" (remember, "less is more" or "kiss") and the message would have been correct, although still not in keeping with my thoughts on the matter. - 20:14:11 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOTTTE<<>>is TONY printing your statements on his web page? - 20:18:09 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: That you took Michael Behe views as destructive to evolution, did you say that only to stirup the nest? I listened to him and several others discuss evolution about a month ago, in the discussion he was unable to make any part of his "Darwin's Black Box" a reliable reference of that discussion. It was part of a PBS thing on creationist stuff. Yes Behe is pro creation "science". He too means to do the resetting of the slow running clock of religion thing. I direct this to you as before because of your post of 17:53:49 07 Apr.'98, your "In fact he brutally destroys any hope that evolution may be true,.." Was that just a flash of your wishful thinking? - 21:11:43 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." PAPASAM, semantically speaking, you could argue that any change is 'evolution.' But not all 'change' results in a new species. That is the issue. JOETTE, We may have to simply settle on this one as honestly disagreeing. I'm going to give my page one last look, but I think I'll keep it. Ironically, the reason I initially put that in there was to alert people that I admitted to being in the same boat. If you were to press me, however, I'd probably come out saying, with you, " I do not accept anything (I would underline that word if I could) blindly. Nothing, nihil, nada, zilch, zero etc. I do not accept something that anything that I can not research. Those items that I can't gain knowledge of, test, research and so forth are neither accepted or refuted by myself, as I have no authority to express an opinion." I wonder if you can apprecieate the irony! :) - 21:32:16 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Carl, I was just making a comment to Melissa. It turns out that my reading of "Darwin's Black Box" was very recent. I'v already gleaned much of the relevant information from other biochemist's themselves, including one atheistic biochemist who I spoke to 'in person' on MMM. That was before you were around I think. At any rate, to get an idea of what I've read, click on this for a list of the books on my shelf. - 21:38:57 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Actually Steven I'm well aware of the 'pagan' elements found in different sections of that collection of books, the Bible. It seems that you've had a steady diet of historical criticism. I'm wondering if you looked into any contrarian positions? What are your sources? Bertrand Russel? Rudulf Bultmann? Some other historical critic in the 1930's? It is my understanding, and since I try to look at all sides before making a decision I could be wrong, the heyday of the kind of thinking about the Bible you propose has long been dismissed. Much as the Iliad went through a time when source critics enjoyed freedom to romp, so too did Shakespeare's works. The romping is over. Ah... it occurs to me that you could be referring to the current Jesus Seminar. Is that what you meant by leading theologians? (np) - 21:53:23 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I have to admit upfront that my study of the original texts has been sparse. That is because the original texts are kept in museums. I have participated in some textual criticism (the science in analyzing texts), as three years of Greek and two years of Hebrew can be expected to require. From that study the authenticity of most of the books (I did not study all of them) I am confident of. Have you undertaken the same study? If you have, perhaps we can look at some particular examples. If you haven't, perhaps you should. I don't want to sound smug here, but it seems clear that you have been depending on experts, and not only that, but a certain brand of experts. There are a number of experts out there with good arguments and evidence for the historicity of the books of the Bible. - 22:00:33 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:C.S. Lewis offers a fair explanation for the mythic elements found in the Christian story. You can find it in "Myth becomes Fact," an essay in the collection of essays, "God in the Dock." - 22:03:57 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Melissa, I'm interested in hearing more on your problem with the canonization. Human intervention- oppression? Talk to me more about it. You can leave out the facts, since you may take it for granted that I am aware of the events of that time and the method of selection. - 22:09:27 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: It looks as tho'TONY proposes to say that any historical review is passe? That the views of the bible were seen or not seen is now immaterial? That the bible is false or based on myth and superstition is no longer really meaningful? And mind you it is only a criticism that the bible is in fact fraud and forgery and interpolation and plagerism, is not relevant because well just because. Forget that it is destructive and death dealing, e.g., where are the American indians, forget that it clears away troubling querys of slavery, forget that the bibles adherents stopped the european civilization for a 1000 years, these points, after are not really critical, they were just "heyday" things. Does TONY really mean to be his silly ol'self, or is this too just his wishful thinking? If he continues with such tripe as his post to you he'll become just another worm eating toad. - 22:15:48 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry:->>Tony->>You are a bold soul indeed talking the position you have. However I am having a problem with a few things you have said. I admittedly have not read the book "Darwin's Black Book' but this isn't really of relevance. I find it rather remarkable that since evolution is one of the most important discovery in the history of science, that some recent findings of its mechanics that would have voided it as theory would not have sent shock waves that could never be ignored throughout the scientific community. Oddly enough, there has been now such occurence. It is noble your arguments do not seem to be formulated in order to support the Genesis creation, they certainly are done for the purpose of discrediting evolution--and open the door for a "supernatural" explanation. This however makes me immediately uncomfortable and suspicious. Even if your position is that of a creator ( incidentally by a false alternative, which I will generously grant to here ) you are falling into that same trench which does nothing more than instill long yawns from scientists. If I may, I would like to bring the common bond between you and creationists arguing their position from the "mystic" perspective, and henceforth will refer to you and them ( whom you you have tactifully disassociated yourself from )as "mystics" When the evolutionists lock horns with the "mystics" they aren't defending evolution to save face, they are defending scientific method, and its as aresult of this method arrive at the most well-informed impartial conclsions. However the motives of the mystics are to attempt to defend a pre-conceived belief, and attempt to discredit any explanation that contradicts it. Therein lies the strength the mystic presumes. Not only is this grossly irrational--it's dishonest. The mysticsI submot--KNOW its is dishonest, and in facr presume the evolutionists are doing likewise--however there is a difference. Science makes no room for deceit, twisted logic, lies and appealing to the ignorant--if they did--IT WOULD NO LONGER BE SCIENE. I have even seen some mystics accuse my position on science as practising "scientism"--but I respond--By what other possible means could information be processed, that would be more reliable? However, the mystic is only accountable to the presupposed belief. Unable to convince the scientific community, the mystics sell their product to the unaware, the ignorant and the laymen--in millions. Tony. your motives may or may not be the same as the mystics, but why then are you specifically addressing evolution? To me. I can see no other reason than to open a window that could be on the walls of God's house. Which brings us to this nasty word "supernatural". Tony, attempting place the supernatural is a manouever only used in mystic circles, and why not they use it as a powerful weapon in argumentation, but they are the only ones that buy as a viable alternative explanation for anything. I know of no credible scientist ( or philosopher )who would ever use it for countless reasons, the most predominate one being is that it is a perpetualy non-identifiable concept. Along with that, supernatural is in the end, is a definition of a perpetually self-contradicting concept. If any attributes are attaced to any power which is supernatural--it no longer will be supernatural. The supernatural is aconcept which in the end represents the most antithical position imaginable to everything mankind considers to be knowledge--and any reference to it can be seen only as a deliberate act of caprice, deceit and as an assault to every method man knows about concept formation. - 22:22:18 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..your mention of studying Greek and Hebrew is intriguing. Were you a language studies student, or a religion student? I have some pointed questions for you...1. Which is the correct religious period taking place currently. Is it HAJJ or EASTER? 2. Do you pray? 3. Has the power of prayer kept bad stuff from happening to you? 3. How is praying any different than self-talk? 4. Why do theists rely so heavily on the words of C.S. Lewis? He was a teacher, author, but for the most part a lonely, eccentric man. I have often been curious how he would perceive this "Jesus" status he has been granted in theist circles. Thank you. - 22:36:33 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: You could bring all of this to an end by showing at least me, where is your godthing? I would like to meet that thing and see what you think you know about. You realise of course that that is the gist of JERRYs'post to you. As you go through your various gyrations and all, I think that you are merely processing your own belief system without proving your side. As one preferring the ways and products of science to your nothing, I know it is there and so do you. If you doubt that then this PC gadget must be a genuine problem of reality to you. Where is your godthing? - 22:41:55 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..at the Cincinatti 500, the hue and cry is "Show us your tits!". How about crashing the next Billy Graham crusade with a rendition of "Show us your godthing!"? LOL! - 22:50:57 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..you are probably off-line for the day, but maybe you will catch this on Wednesday. No, Tony isn't using any of my statements on his webpage. I expressed some concern about part of its content, and Tony changed it, but IMHO, it's still not correct. - 22:53:37 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..I am curious as to where you got the information regarding the mutations of bacteria? I know from personal experience that the medical community refers to strains of bacteria which become immune to certain anti-biotics as evolved bacteria. For example, pseudomosas orginosa has evolved to pseudomosas ceppacia for some patients with Cystic Fibrosis. I would appreciate your reply to this, as for once we have hit on an area that I may express some authority. Thank you. - 22:57:48 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--Oh, Joette, you are such a girl. It's the Indianapolis 500. - 23:36:27 on 7 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->PETER...the shame is too much to bear (blush)! I think it was I that said "A race by any other name is still a noisy, boring, smelly race". - 0:10:47 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. I envy you your educational background. As a scholar who has studied, and, hopefully, mastered such diverse subjects as Greek, Hebrew and Quantum Mechanics, you are to be much admired. Since Joette has effectively demolished your bacteria/evolution argument, I would like to ask you to clarify some of your statements. "I am convinced the bible is 'god's word', but not how most people use that term." In other words, you are right and most people are wrong. You continue "God's word, specifically, was Jesus christ - god's thoughts/word incarnate. The actual words found in the bible, IMO, are either the words about that word or words of the word, lf that makes sense--" Stop right there. It does NOT make sense. It is pure gibberish. Of course it may make sense in Hebrew or Greek. To be honest, it's Greek to me. Would you please express your thoughts in plain English? I will be glad to continue our discussion. Thank you. - 0:52:43 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Papasam, sorry but my system has been down, when I first got back on line, the first thing I read is your statement "I am convinced the Bible is God's word" and for a second, thought you might have seen the light, anyway, I've been praying for you and will continue to do so, Hope things are going well! - 3:33:25 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY I am overwhelmd by your thoughtfullness and kindness to me, which you will express in prayer. Thank you. I am, however, underwhelmed by the thought of you wasting your time in such fruitless activity. - 5:01:06 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Are religious dogmas cognitive and meaningful? The Christian dogmas communicate a profusion of knowledge and suffer from an excess of meaning no less than most propositions about god and the immortal stories of The Book of Genisis. The good preacher extracts the insights and teaches the wisdom without ever exhausting the endless possibilities of his material. No sermon, however profound, would be an acceptable substitute for the original text. A very partial translation of a dogma, or of one of the stories of Genesis, might be true or false; the texts themselves, though perhaps literally untrue, are fountainheads of wisdom and of superstition, beyond true and false. Or rather they belong to a deeper stratum at which the question of true and false has not yet occurred. OR TO PUT IT MUCH MORE SIMPLY: THEY ARE THROUGH AND THROUGH AMBIGUOUS. - 5:35:26 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Jesus himself, thuogh according to Matthew he taught "let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay; nay; anything more than this is evil" was a master of ambiguity, according to all of the Gospels, and his favorite modes of EXPRESSION were hyperboles and parables. - 5:52:56 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- I can see the internet only positively. I'm a proponent of information; any and all; buyer beware. It seems those who resist information are those who could reap maximum benefit from it. However, they recognize it, generally, for the threat it is to empty beliefs. (though they wouldn't use those words) I was looking at some Alcoholics Anonymous literature because of some recent controversy about the program's reliance on the xtian god. I happened upon a little inspirational quote within a quote which astonished me. It said: "'I felt clear until I started thinking.' -Dolly Thinking may lead us away from clarity." I'm rambling, but the point is that though the incredible amount of information available on the internet has the potential to open some eyes, I sometimes wonder how receptive people are to it. - 12:09:35 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>who is it 'dismissed' by. The leaders of your little cult who are just as brainwashed as you? History is history, and the FACTS remain that christianity is a fraud. This is not theory that is invented in my head, like your little god fantasy. As I stated before, belonging to a cult can cause serious side effects. Sometimes sociopathic tendies appear in people who put faith in a delusion such as you do. You may want to find a doctor TONY. - 12:30:40 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:TONY-- I think you are still not facing the question first stated by Peter, and since by others, the "where's the beef" question. I know I keep harping on the presupposition and assumption stuff, but what I see in your posts is a tendency to look for only those things that support your current beliefs. In one post you are contesting the very validity of science itself, and in the next you are drawing from science to shore up your argument. You are arriving at conclusions about quantum mechanics that depend on a series of speculations to produce evidence of God while criticizing science for any speculations regarding evolution, though far, far more solid. These are not vile and dastardly things, but only textbook examples of what WILL happen when assuming your conclusion. I encourage you to look closely at this. I hope you looked closely at Jerry's post to you. I marvel at the ingenuity of science and of scientific method, and at the things science can explain. I find that the people who do not are people who for whatever reasons believe that they already have a better explanation for everything. An empty belief in my view. Where is the evidence, scientific or otherwise, for this better explanation? - 13:38:21 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE TO ALL HERE:So what is the purpose of life, and are we here by chance collision of atoms or by an intelligent designer? it must be one or the other. If you say by chance then all your thinking is just by chance also and how could i believe anything that you say is true or not, and if you say that is is by chance then your argument may change tommorow and really there is not meaning or purpose to life. There would also be no such thing as love truth right wrong morals, law etc, if everything was by chance. But if you say by a designer and an intelligent one since we have minds the creator must be infinitely more intelligent, and he must also have emotiond=s and reason etc as we do then God is the only answer. if you say that lifes purpose is to procreate, then I ask still what is the purpose of procreation? and what of those who cannot do this are they meaningless? - 13:55:44 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE TO ALL HERE:So what is the purpose of life, and are we here by chance collision of atoms or by an intelligent designer? it must be one or the other. If you say by chance then all your thinking is just by chance also and how could i believe anything that you say is true or not, and if you say that is is by chance then your argument may change tommorow and really there is not meaning or purpose to life. There would also be no such thing as love truth right wrong morals, law etc, if everything was by chance. But if you say by a designer and an intelligent one since we have minds the creator must be infinitely more intelligent, and he must also have emotiond=s and reason etc as we do then God is the only answer. if you say that lifes purpose is to procreate, then I ask still what is the purpose of procreation? and what of those who cannot do this are they meaningless? - 13:55:56 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE TO ALL HERE:So what is the purpose of life, and are we here by chance collision of atoms or by an intelligent designer? it must be one or the other. If you say by chance then all your thinking is just by chance also and how could i believe anything that you say is true or not, and if you say that is is by chance then your argument may change tommorow and really there is not meaning or purpose to life. There would also be no such thing as love truth right wrong morals, law etc, if everything was by chance. But if you say by a designer and an intelligent one since we have minds the creator must be infinitely more intelligent, and he must also have emotiond=s and reason etc as we do then God is the only answer. if you say that lifes purpose is to procreate, then I ask still what is the purpose of procreation? and what of those who cannot do this are they meaningless? - 13:56:09 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--Quake--Did you see the extremely lenghthy response I gave to you a couple of days ago, where I finally outlined MY purpose in life?--About what I think the purpose of life is, and what I think of yours? Also, did you read the post I made shortly thereafter which dealt specifically on how I interpret the reactions of fundamentalist christians to non-deistically based purposes? The reason I am asking these questions is because I don't think you saw those posts, or else your behavior now would be classified as the " I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" approach to discussion. Tell me it isn't so, Quake. Please. - 14:08:18 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Quake:Peter I missed it show me how to go back and check it - 14:09:36 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:QUACK<<>>go up to where you enter a URL and change the number of posts from 30 to whatever you want. - 14:26:53 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUAKE..you are a blasted idiot. I do not come by this statement lightly either, but you are a a bona fide lunatic, and I wish you would stay away. Your insipid drivellings are boring and inane, and I wish you would go away, and stay away. BTW, are you going to go hide in a cave on Friday to feel closer to "the man"? (there are a lot of good caves in Collingwood and you aren't far from there; if you need a ride, let me know) - 14:39:58 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: As it would be nice to think good of you it requires that I- for one, understand you and your position somehow or someway. Have you encountered James Harvey Robinson? It could serve us towards that good thinking way if you knew I go along with his, "phases of religious complex as it is a vaque and comprehensive term term applied to; 1 certain classes of emotions (awe, dependence, self-distrust, aspirations, etc.) 2 Conduct, which may take the form of distinctive religious acts (ceremonies, sacrifices, prayers,'good work') or the observance of what in primitive conditions are recognized as'taboos'. 3 Priestly, or ecclesiastical organizations. 4 Beliefs about supernatural beings and mans relations to them: the latter may take the form of revelation and be reduced to creeds and become the subject of elaborate theological speculations." for individuals as you who "think" and "feel" of things in the rhaosodical realm of religion. - 14:51:30 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:AMENDS: it s/b "...in the RHAPSODICAL realm of religion." - 14:56:07 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: r u now "That Girl"? - 15:55:14 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:It's that shirt, it's that shirt, it's a Ben Shannon! - 16:08:13 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE, TONY. I hate to tear you away from your deep pjilosophical discussions, but I would still like answers to simple questions. 1. Do you believe god made Adam by blowing on a handful of dust? 2.Do you believe god made Eve by reaching into Adam's rib cage, breaking off a piece of Adam's rib and transforming the rib into her? 3. Do you believe Eve carried on conversations with a snake? 4. What means of locomotion did the snake use before god made it crawl on its belly? The first three questions require only a yes or no answer. Since they pertain to your personal beliefs you don't need any reference books. The fourth question may require research, but please don't let that keep you from responding promptly to questions 1 through 3. I look foward to an honest reply. - 17:20:06 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..is "That Girl" a handle on Theochat? T'isn't moi. - 17:37:59 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..what's the joke behind your "shirt" post? - 17:38:55 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TO ANY..I try to avoid talking about someone unless they are here to defend themselves, but I have noticed that even though the Quakemeister has been posting here on and off for many months, he pretends not to know how to read old posts. That way, he can swoop in, asking the same question over and over again, and never stick around to read the answers, so that he feels as though he as the right to keep rehashing it. For an xtian, I can see some pretty evident conniving in him. I wonder how it feels not to be welcome anywhere, as I have noted on Theochat they can't tolerate him either. - 17:42:42 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: That reference was a trailer comment to the cincy'indy thing. The theochat folks, well, none have anything to say. - 18:16:16 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>it is taken from a song produced by Meat Beat Manifesto. I had a lot of coffee this morning. - 18:20:17 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Papasam, I'll answer the forth question you asked Quake, The "snake" simply was the Devil himself, knowing that if he had walked up to Eve in his original form, she probably wouldn't have believed him, but just as today, satin can appear in many forms, taking on the looks as someone appealing of tempting, the other questions are simple, what does the Bible say? You seem to very educated in what the scriptures say, your problem is excepting it. Hi, my friend, Ricky - 18:28:17 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Joette, you may find one day that you just very well may be that "blasted idiot" you called Quake. If you're right, when we die, we will all just rot and life will be over, but if Quake is right, well, you figure it out. Might just have to answer to someone, yes? - 18:32:21 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:To all: I am going to spend some time off-line composing as clear of answers to as many people as I can. Expect a series of posts soon, but perhaps tomorrow. Thank you. - 18:58:52 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:TONY<<>>geez Tony, spamming the site is not new to you. - 19:57:18 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..might have to answer to somebody, NO! - 19:58:53 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..why didn't your god protect your computer from breaking down? Didn't praying work? - 20:00:29 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Whilst TONY is away it is unfortunate that it seems he misconstrues the querys of this site to mean he has to answer for what he percieves as his kind- religious believers. If he had any notion of his own, not mythically\superstitiously related, of his godthing we could probably aid and assist him in his thinking. To me his problem, is that he holds that there is something outside himself greater than the stuff that is there that he already does not nor can he, or anybody else ever know in many lifetimes, with something he says one cannot ever know but can know via jc. That is a course for insanity, of course, but TONY would be better off to start by acknowledging that 'he says'of that outer world stuff to only others who can understand him, or other humans. Somebody on the "theology chat line" might go along with him, but he thinks and knows they are idiots- like the toad, and that would not "satiate"him and his sense of selfworth. So he comes here, meaning to wage a contest using his "belief"in invisible but supernatural beings. That of course is not of any concern to me, I have enough trouble with my being, as it may be. But, if he could say something of "his mind", he might say something that may shed light on something else. Recall the idea of a chain reaction? That concept is probably why TONY enjoys coming here instead of an idiot site like the theology chat site. Hope he can compose something original, or better yet just say where the godthing is. - 20:12:41 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Joette Actually, it was something I did that locked me out, my dumbness, You see, God gives us a great gift called "choice", and sometimes we may even make bad calls. God is in the soul saving bussiness, not fixing computer erras I make! - 20:36:43 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Oh yes, yes, yes, you will answer my dear friend Joette, not to me, but you will answer! You see, when Jesus walked on the earth some 2000 years ago, people didn't believe then, why should they now? Probably some of the very people that eat the "manna" that fell from heaven and the very people that was in the crowd of the 5000, and the 4000, the Jesus feed and praised His Holy name, just days later shouted "crucify Him, crucify Him", , those men of little faith, but He was raised from the tomb, and defeated death, and He will come again to claim His own. That's a promise! Don't say " don't promise something you can't deliver, because I'm not, He promised, He said it, Bible says it, Thats enough for me, I believe it. The day will come that you will believe it as well, that I promise. - 20:48:41 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..don't go making promises you can't keep. You are an infantile blowhard. BTW, what are computer erras? - 21:18:45 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..just in case you check in, the simple question I asked you about bacteria does not require an essay answer. A simple mention of the resource you cited is all I need please. - 21:22:43 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

PETER--->RICKY--:does the name "Blaise Pascal" mean anything to you? - 21:38:04 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN1: Still in view of TONY, last week one o'you mentioned how he means to solve a mystery with a mystery, well for me that is about what I refer to regarding the knowing of things. Why would one seek or desire to know an invisible thing when for crying out loud, they, as TONY[?], don't even know all things of this planet! Probably they- like TONY, don't even know what is in their backyard. Then they- or as TONY, have the nerve, have the utter impudence to ask of others that they join them- to be religious believers, or as TONY wants to sway others, to "believe" as them in something invisible? If TONY is an accomplished scholar, as P'SAM asserts TONY to be, then TONY knows he got his recognition of scholarship by supposedly knowing 'all'that was required for the various levels and grades or whatever all along his way. So, 'now'he- TONY, knows all and the only satisfaction left to him is to know an invisible but supernatural thing? Can any see the near-impossible thing that TONY or other such religious believer would have to know, in order for one to "reasonably" move onto godthing considerations? So on one hand, one can go along with solving a mystery with a mystery; or on the other hand, that someone knows all and the only thing left for that person is to know a supernatural thing, which TONY and his type refer to as a godthing. Which hand is it? What is it? Or, where is it? Or, an easier question what is on their mind? - 22:06:47 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Brian:You ignorant humans! Not atheist, but humans! Not Christians, but humans! Ignorant! did Tony say anything about trying to save the world? Tony said he would be off-line so he could answer your questions complete and honestly! You assume what? That he is running from the questions? That he needs to talk to someone else to deterimine what he thinks??? If that is the case, evidently it's only ok if you shape his thoughts....or "aid and assist him in his thinking." So it is ok if you help him but not others!!! Hypocrits, ignorant hypocrits! How can one belive that God created man from dust and a rib? You fools! How can you belive that it all started with a freak bacteria!!! I'm' done with you ignorant atheist...you say one thing and when it comes to other's opinions, no respect!!! Sure, sure, this is not how a Christian acts. Just waiting for you to say it...seems to be one of the only defenses you can come up with when being attacked personally!! Tony said what? Thats right, go back and see what he said! He's not running, said nothing about going to theological chats to get help! You all need help! Like the Christian needs help in belive their godthing, so you need help in your ignorance and lack of manners and intelligence!! - 23:06:57 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:BRIAN<<>>wow! you are addressing a whole range of people by saying 'atheist's'. That would be like saying all of you politicians are complete jerks. Or, all you gay people have aids. The thing is that you, like most christians lump people into little groups because it makes you feel superior. I know, you see, because I was raised in a christian enviroment. I can remember how everyone was put in their place, the jews, the hippies, the druggies, the communists, the mormons etc. etc... How often was I taught that only my sect, was the one that would be accepted into heaven. All of the other so called "christians" were going to hell. They would be the baptist, methodist, catholics etc. etc.. I am waiting for Tony to say something that is substantial that points to even a sliver of evidence for there being a god. If a god, or god's exist, they do not have anything to do with the ridiculous religions that exist on this planet. Christianity being the foremost. It is my opionion that christians are mislead and brainwashed from the earliest moments in their lives. Ignorant, sure, I can agree with that. I am ignorant in the fact that I do not know how the earth was formed, or how the universe was created, or for that matter if god exists. I will say that I will not put faith is something that is a vile and destructive as the bible. Especially when everything, even logic, points to the fact that christianity is a fraud. Wow, I just couldn't stop typing. - 23:51:05 on 8 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->BRIAN...did you forget to get your prescription filled? I hope you are telling the truth about not coming back this time - you've said it before but you keep showing up to bark your insults. You wouldn't be able to recognize an intelligent conversation if it jumped up and slapped you in the face. Besides, many of us are enjoying Tony's posts, and I think he is able to defend himself without your help. - 0:21:35 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. I know what the bible says. What are YOUR answers to the first three questions/ - 0:27:04 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:BRIAN. You seem to have divorced yourself from the human race. "You ignorant humans". I can accept that. Obviously you are a jackass. - 0:29:25 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--BRIAN--Fuck off. - 0:31:10 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:BRIAN.. Every human is ignorant in one respect or another; human beings are imperfect as is their knowledge... There is a difference between a perfect being- whatever may be meant by that-thought of as existing (rather than as dead or as a mere chimera) and a perfect being which in fact exists. From the definition of god we can only learn how he is to be thought of, not whether he exists... Hopefully objective knowledge will make humans less ignorant and more comprehensive. - 0:33:46 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--Where are youuuuuu???? - 0:39:23 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:HI PETER! Just looked in now and seen your post. I'm here but page down during the xtian soap-boxing especially Tony the teacher of lies posts. Now this "Brain" is a brain. Running down humanity like that but mysteriously elevating ole Tony. I suppose SOMEBODY has to. - 0:49:39 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Maybe Tony is going to spend his time off-line with his imaginary friend--Tony. He apparently thinks he's got THE SHINE (REF. to THE SHINING--which is only a movie-of course). 'Come out come out little pigs, I have some more ambiguity for you. I am not going to hurt you.. I am just going to bash your brains in with my god-thing; I'm going to bash them right the fuck in'. Here's Tony! - 1:11:15 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:TONY: How many times do I have to explain this? If human beings canonized the Scripture, if it was not divinely revealed (human intervention), if no one was allowed to investigate this process (oppression of knowledge), if I am to accept a load of EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS (for this is all the Bible contians, as I've said before) as ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then you can count me out of your religion. I have no faith in the accuracy of ANY human being's account of an event or description of a person, past or present (I'd be an horrible juror by the American court standards). - 1:45:39 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Melissa:MARLENE and JOETTE and ANYONE ELSE WITH INPUT: I was discussing some of my theological problems with my mother the other day. When I asked her why god would make all the other animals go through the pain and suffering of childbirth along with Eve, even though they didn't touch the forbidden fruit, she asked me how I knew the other animals DID feel any pain. I was floored. I asked her how she could deny them pain and suffering. She said she believed they felt pain when they were tortured and whatnot, but had never observed any pets she'd had cry out in or exhibit pain when giving birth. Well, I've never witnessed an animal giving birth so I had no counter-argument. So, I was wondering, as I know you guys have pets, Have you ever witnessed an animal in pain when giving birth? - 1:55:53 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:MELISSA.. Does an animal HAVE TO CRY OUT IN OR EXHIBIT PAIN to really be in pain or feel pain? No I never saw an animal in pain while giving birth, but different degrees of pain do happen. The dripping placenta would , in some cases , suggest the experience of giving birth is not a nice walk in the park. - 2:18:46 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Tossing live lobsters in boiling water is a quick decisive level of pain (for the lobsters-of course). Some people think it's ok to eat edible sea animals etc. because they do not have any feelings. Life feeds on life whether in the reproductive mode, eating mode, and down the line. Pain is a necessary consequence of life--pronounced or hidden. - 2:33:22 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MELISSA..being born and raised in the country, I had witnessed several horses and cows giving birth, and the panting and glazed eyes were indicative of pain. Horses especially will "whinny" when they hurt. Also, I once had a cat give birth to a litter on top of me while I slept, and it was the mother's cat cries that actually woke me up, so I think it is a pretty safe bet that they feel the same pain women do while giving birth. (my cats are fixed, so I don't have to worry about that happening again) - 2:38:37 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->addendum...how could animals not feel pain? Relatively speaking, the have the same small area from which to deliver their young just as women do. Any flesh or membrane that has to be stretched almost to breaking point will cause pain for any species, would it not? - 2:43:40 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE... WELL SAID- the stretched out membrane.. That must be some ordeal for any female. Another reason why females are the dominant part of a species (in my opinion). Do men have it easy!!!!! - 2:49:05 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I too was raised on a farm and I do have pets. Also I have worked in a lab with animals such as rabbits, guinea (sp) pigs, chinchilla (sp), rats, mice, and rabbits. All animals experience pain. I know you know that but I'm surprized that your mom thinks differently. Is this a result of religious teachings? ROB- I think your right, pain is a warning signal that something is endangering us. Rather alarming... JOETTE- I have two neutered male dogs, thank gawd! What a thing to open ones eyes to, lol! - 2:54:11 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY, QUAKE,RICKY. Why is it, with all your talk about your god and your bible you refuse to answer simple questions? Are you too embarrassed to admit publically that you believe Adam was created from a dustball and Eve from a piece of rib? It says so in your bible. Do you believe it or do you think it's a fairy tale? Stop hiding behind a wall of silence. - 4:06:24 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:MELISSA- I better ammend that last post of mine. I should have said all mammals. I'm not sure whether reptiles, insects, etc. feel pain. - 4:10:10 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:I'v already said I believe that Adom was made just like God said He made him, from the dust of the earth, but I'v got another question for you Papasam, I was going out of town the other day with my electronic keyboard, "piano" in the back of my pick-up truck. This is an open bed truck, and it begins to rain, rain hard, and I had nothing to cover this keyboard with, knowing if it gets water in it or gets wet, its gravely damaged. I had no place to go, no cover to take, no where to pull off the road to get under shelter, and I started praying, I told God that this was just worldly equipment, but equipment that was being used for the glory of God and that only, and He was the only hope I had to protect this equipment. Bright-lights, windshield-wipers on high, flashers and headlights on, I preceeded to my destination, which by the way was about 30 miles. When I arived, my keyboard "should have been Greatly Damaged", but I found it as dry as the keyboard I'm typing on right now. Yes, WOW!, Since then, after promising God I would go where-ever He led me, I'm now in my second semester at Bible Coledge. Think what you want too, I'm 43 years old and not very educated, just a commercial fisherman, but now, that God's apart of my life, you can't imagine the joys I've experienced this past year. YES, I do believe in miricles, I've witnessed some. This story didn't come from the NI, or any other book, it came from personal experience, now, if that weren't the work of God, please tell me how this happened, because I've halled enough seafood in the back of my truck to know when it rains, it gets wet back there. A sold believer in a great Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you want to really know if this is a true story, you finance the operation, and I'll take a lie-detector test any time, any where, ,, like I said, I'm not real smart, but I know what I see, and I believe I can quote you in saying , seeing is believing - 4:40:22 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:RICKY.. No offense, but there are certain drugs that cause hallucinations...... This is the best part of the trip, man, the best part---welcome to the soft parade---all our lives we sweat and slave to dig an early grave-- there must be something to defend this way... The doors (DOORS) OF PERCEPTION, man... - 5:08:20 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Rob, I'm sorry, but weren't no drugs involved, just tangable items you can put your hands on, the keyboard is now in my room here, still plays, Get a Grip, don't be so stupid, what do I have to gain by telling you a lie? What do I have to gain by telling an unbelieving story if it weren't true? Better wake up, only you have something to gain here, I didn't tell this to get a laugh, You want proof God exist, have faith in Him and He'll show you, He showed me,,,unquestionally! Unfortionally, Some people wouldn't believe if it come right up and would bit you on the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - 5:17:38 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Better watch out, better not pout--Satan-claus and the whole Hades crew are after my ass. Wrong time with the pagan religion-oops.... - 5:44:40 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:RICKY... YOU might have caught Tony's SHINE-- with that immaculate keyboard of yours. MY KEYBOARD has got some cigarette tar on it---wait I just quit smoking last week. But about that tar--well maybe I did clean the keyboard off. WELL WHATEVER-my keyboard is not immaculate. There is still that nicotine urge, though... - 6:04:33 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Dear Rob,Satan isn't after you, he's already got you! The only way out, the only way you're going to excape satan and Hell Fires, is through Christ. Eternity is going to be a long time, and I'm quite sure you will remember all the oppertunitys you had while you were living to except Him, But unfortunally, when you take your last breath, it will be to late to cry, Lord, Lord. Just remember, you have been told, you have been warned! But it's your choice to either except God or not. It's hard for me to try to convince you on this stupid computer chat line, just wish you could walk one day in my shoes,, you might just get a life, a real life. I'm not saying you are a bad person, you may have good morals, but it takes more than that, my friend. My God, man, look at all the prophesy in the Bible that has been fullfilled from the beginning of the old testiment all the way through to the new testiment. Take a look at just the book of Revelation, what is happening today, better wake up, one day it might be too late. Love you guys, wish I could just help you see and understand. I really wish you could have been in the church I went to tonight, there's no way anyone could have walked out of that place without saying they Haddn't seen God. Like I said, I pray for you guys daily but the choice is your's! Good Night - 6:08:57 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. I don't believe your story about driving in a heavy rain for 30 miles with your keyboard in the back of your truck without a cover over it and finding it dry when you reached your destination. Maybe you dreamed it. Why didn't you put it in the cab with you? Why woulld you lie about it? To impress me by showing me how your god performs miracles. After all, a little white lie for Jesus don't hurt anyone. You say it happened the other day, but since it happened you're already in your second semester in bible college. "The other day" at most would be a couple of weeks ago, so your semesters must be about a week long. In a couple of more days you'll be a full fledged minister. All you need is the right audience and they'll believe that crap. - 6:12:28 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Let the spamming begin. - 6:12:40 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Greetings, JERRY. You touch firstly on “Darwin’s Black Box.” I wish to point out, again, that while my bias was clear in my discussion with Melissa, I at no time implied that it had a fundamental impact in my beliefs. I merely wished to point out to Melissa that in the book, at least (because I don’t know where he really stands), he makes no claims for creation science (that I recall), but rather intelligent design. If it seems that I am trying to get off the hook, here, that is correct- I feel that I have been improperly put on this hook- was Melissa’s comment that she was going to buy the book ‘bait’ in order to impale me with things I did not say? I don’t think so. Yet here I am. - 6:13:16 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Jerry, it is nice to meet you. What do you do for a living? Anyway, I take issue with your stating that evolution is one of the most important discoveries of science. First of all, if you mean evolution as macroevolution, the discovery technically is a theory, and IMO is invalid. If you mean evolution as microevolution, in reality knowledge of natural selection has been around for a long, long time. You can find evidence for that in the history of domestication of animals, where breeding was well known. Obviously the depth of understanding has increased, but I recall a certain story within the historical document, Genesis. The passage is chapter 30:32-33. As certain as the historicity of that document is disputed, it is at least very old. Also, I think that an investigation into the many ancient accounts would also reveal some knowledge of what we have come to call ‘natural selection.’ (next post) - 6:14:15 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Jerry, in search for the shockwaves, read the literature itself. I have made a shallow dive into the literature and discovered that the scientific community is well aware of the situation. I am amused by your labeling me a mystic. Those who know me in person would never suspect such a thing! I understand your discomfort and suspicion about an open door by which to proceed to supernaturalism. I’m sorry that it seems that the door I opened leads naturally to you for that conclusion. As it is, I only wish to stress that (macro)evolution, as an explanatory theory is the only naturalistic explanation of the world I am aware of. Are you aware of another? But remember my post was partly detailing the process by which I came to hold the views I hold presently. At the time I did not turn automatically to theism with the invalidation of macroevolution. I turned and considered the nature and validity of thought. This led me to QM. The amusement I found in the ridiculous notions that theoretical physics had proposed led me to consider an explanation I felt was far more plausible then theirs. That’s the context of my remarks there. (np) - 6:15:13 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Jerry, I hold adamantly that the scientific method as the best method to arrive at the most impartial conclusions. I’ll argue that til the day I die. When I (I’d emphasize ‘I’ if I could) lock horns with evolutionists, it is precisely because ME (macro evolution) cannot be verified with the scientific method. If it could, that would be entirely different. You are wrong, at least in my case, to assume that my purpose in disputing evolution is in order to secretly usher in the supernatual. I find it interesting that you find the supernatural as the only option if ME is false- is that accurate? Why doesn’t the scientific community own up to this situation? It would be presumptious for me to speculate. I make efforts to speak of only which I know. Based on the application and limitations of the scientific method, I know that ME does not hold water as a scientific truth. - 6:15:58 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Jerry, you speak of the self-contradiction of ascribing attributes to God. Grant later insists that I answer the question, “where is God.” God, from OUR PERSPECTIVE, is everywhere. It matters a great deal that one knows what perspective they are speaking from. Scroll (way) above to see my initial attempts on answering this question. Peter also tried to nail me on the problem of ascribing attributes to God. The problem is in an understanding of reality. I made the argument that we are sustained within the mind of God, continually in his thoughts. By analogy I demonstrated that such a construct, if true, would result in God’s creation being less ‘real’ than the creator, and his creative abilites deeper than ours. I am careful, therefore, when I discuss His attributes, because I know that my ‘concept’ of the attributes are ‘less real’ than that which I seek to explain. - 6:16:25 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, I was a religion student. I do not have mastery of the languages, only a fair working knowledge. I know that the Muslims undertake the Hajj, to be a true pilgrim during the month of Dhu’l-Hijja. I do not know when that month correlates to the Christian calendar. The Christian religious period at this particular moment is Lent. Yes I pray. Bad stuff? I talk to myself all the time (I joke with my wife that sometimes that’s the only way to intelligent conversation). My prayers differ from this talk by being directed to someone else. I do not know why theists rely so heavily on the words of C.S. Lewis. I was unaware that he’d been awarded ‘Jesus’ status. - 6:16:57 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, you will most likely overwhelm me with your authority. My sources are all evolutionary- Gould, Dawkins, Berra. Berra made the point nicely (pg 12 of his book) that some misconstrue all change as evolution, when others are speaking of speciation. Your example is one of change, not speciation - 6:20:28 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Satan is my imaginary friend---he talks when I move left index finger.. == Sorry for all "The Shining" references but some religious people believe they have this SHINE and they want to indoctrinate you with its glowing telepathy... "WOULD YOU LIKE SOME ICE CREAM"--of the religious kind-----not this kid! - 6:20:43 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Papasam, your post requires a different kind of attention. First of all, Joette put forth an example. Besides that, if she demolished anything, it is not ‘my’ argument. It’s the argument of the thousands of biologists who make frequent use of natural selection as an explanatory tool, and by even more farmers and genetic engineers who actually depend on it for practical, measurable results. We’ve cloned sheep. Beyond that, our genetic engineering depends not on the random chance of mutation, but the careful application of genetic principles. Most of medical science is devoted to preventing, treating, and eliminating mutated cells. If mutations were actually percieved to be beneficial (and you’d expect doctors to know!) there would be more effort to encourage mutations within our bodies; why not? They’re just the result of evolution. Mutation is clearly NOT viewed as the mechanism for evolution. If anything, clear thinking would dictate that mutation is the enemy of evolution, since it leaves behind it only sick and dying creatures- and certainly not healthy populations. - 6:21:25 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Papasam, I have not mastered any subject, though I’m working on it. I have studied diverse subjects in depth. You take issue with one of my statements with the assessment, “In other words, you are right and most people are wrong.” I don’t know about that. I do not need to convince you, however, that most theists have not thought fully through their positions. You may even say they haven’t thought at all. My view about god’s thoughts, etc., is not based really on a study of Greek and Hebrew. Simply, if an author wanted to communicate with the characters of his imagination, but his initial line of communication had been withdrawn (this being a continual, unbroken, relationship) he’d have several avenues available to him. 1. Start over with a new ‘story’. Keeping the same ‘situation’, 2. instruct his people with messengers. 3. Instruct his people in ‘person,’ by becoming a character in the ‘story’ for a moment. 4. etc. Now, some of the books of the Bible are the writings of individuals who claimed to have recieved a message, and passed it along. Other books record the events surrounding the time when the author became a character. Other books are the result of the instruction that they recieved. Each book has a different purpose, audience, style, and content. When I view the Bible, I take that into consideration. I don’t think many do. That is all I’m saying. - 6:22:16 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Grant, Just where is the beef, anyway? :) In my contesting the validity of science I think I’m doing a valuable thing. We should all know just what science can and cannot do. I recall my discussion with an atheistic biochemist here on MMM who conceded to me (after a long, long, long time and lots of hounding by me) that the probablity of life arising from nonlife, based on what we know and expect to know, is very small. He urged me however, to remember that the scientific findings of today that support me may not support me tomorrow. I felt that way before, I felt that way after. I do not believe that science can answer some questions at all, by definition, regardless of attempts to do otherwise. Where is God? It cannot be answered in scientific terms. Is there a God? The science studies the natural. I do not think, however, that the findings of science do not sometimes leave strong clues. One strong clue, Macroevolution, is a farce. That doesn’t mean that a supernatural explanation follows naturally, but it is that finding which led me to evaluate the limits of science, and ultimately to conclude from my study that a supernatural explanation is necessary, not merely for the existence of all we see, but also as a foundation for the thought and reasoning ablities that science is dependent. I would still like to know why you believe thought and reason is valid. It seems to me that it is prudent to establish a foundation for thought and reason before using it to draw conclusions. - 6:24:14 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:PapaSam: 1. No, it appears that first God formed man, and then blew up his nose. 2. He didn’t break off a rib, he took the whole thing out. 3. Sure. 4. Couldn’t tell you. Should I speculate? That’s about as honest as I can be! :) - 6:24:47 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:So 'where is God' goes the persistent cry. The persistent answer is that he is a being which sustains us by his thoughts. Think of a being sustained by YOUR thoughts trying to contemplate YOU. That's where he is. - 6:26:26 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:The SHINE ALSO IS FAST TYPER! Hopefully the ax stays at bay. - 6:26:36 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I was thinking that I would not have to make so many replies if I could get away with not answering some questions for a time without being slammed for not answering questions. Peter apparently sensed a slight from me and will no longer talk with me. That's too bad. I respect him. But it is his perogative. My perogative is in not talking with certain other people here. I have decided they do not respect me and until they do, what could I say anyway? Good night! - 6:30:11 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:There is nothing wrong with a little jovial jocularity. Some people should learn to lighten up some-. - 6:33:28 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Papasam, first of all, its impossible to put a 88 key piano (cabnet style) in the cab of a truck. This is a SX - pr500 Technics eltronic keyboard, about $4500.00 I dare you to call my bluff, you old senile dope. Take a trip to North Carolina, Anywhere in the south-eastern part of the state, we'll go to the proper channels and I'll take a lie-detector test and if I fail, I'll pay you for your entire vacation, however, I will leave it up to you to do whatever after I pass it. You want proff?// You want me to clarify my typigrapical area, the keyboard insidence happened last summer, This past fall I enrolled in school, just to set the record straight, however, put your money where your mouth is or shut up!. - 6:35:14 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette- just talked with one of my Islamic buddies. The ten days designated for the Hajj ended yesterday. Good night for real. - 6:37:51 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Pee on you Papasam, i'v got lots of things better to do than try to impress you, thats surely not why I told you this story about the keyboard, I told you because it was the truth and just think for a minute, if you had experienced something like this, would it reassure your beliefs, or would you just say you had a good dream? Well, Believe it or not, like I said , put your money where your mouth is, take a vacation, you need one, that is if you can afford it, if you can't, maybe you better sell your computer and come on down, I'll convince you! I can show you! - 6:44:00 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Tony.. HIS THOUGHTS--- NO OFFENSE, that obscure notion lends it self to many limitless 'ANYTHING'. I asked you before do you know what is in your god-thing's subconscious? Are you sure about thoughts in general or consciousness ( WHICH PLAYS AND SUSTAINS ITS HOST)? Why are you so sure about a god-thing's thoughts and consciousness? - 6:46:37 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Tony.. Sorry about "the shine" laughter-- I did not mean ( maybe subconsciously--but I don't know---hehehh) to offend you in any way. I just do not agree with your god-thing notions; they are extremely ambiguous.DON'T YOU THINK-SINCE YOU UNDERSTAND ALOT ABOUT THOUGHTS? Can you respect my opinion and not try to indoctrinate me with your subjectivity? Ambiguity gooooooood---objective knowledge baaaaaaaaaad==a George Bush reference..heheheheh - 7:13:52 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..re HAJJ versus EASTER. You did not answer my question. I know that HAJJ just ended, as I am familiar with most regligious celebrations throughout the world. I asked you which is the correct celebration, which you neglected to answer. - 10:59:11 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..thank you for your reply to my question about your statement w.r.t. bacteria evolving. It would seem that your sources are "anti-evolutionary", written by those with personal agendas. May I suggest you read some published, impartial medical texts? (I just saw "Neurosurgery for Dummies" but I don't think that will fit the bill). Or read the New England medical journal on a regular basis so that you can see what is going on with the human body, which is evolving in leaps and bounds these days. Many of the changes in our bodies are becoming obvious, but you have to read tried and true texts to get this information. I will pronounce that your belief in "speciation" is wrong, wrong, wrong. - 11:07:35 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..it is unfortunate that your god did not grant you the wisdom to cover your keyboard. Not only is there a danger of it getting wet, but what about it being bounced around in the back of your truck? You obviously can't be a very serious musician to treat an instrument with such little regard. Maybe this "miracle" will be the impetus for you to spend $50 on a cover for it. - 11:11:04 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Jen:Amaste ! I'm not sure how this thing works so I'm just giving it a go................. - 13:22:23 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- "Neurosurgery for Dummies"? There's a certain a Darwinian beauty to that don't you think? Kind of like "Bomb Building for Dummies," or "Bungee Chord Measuring for Dummies." - 13:23:35 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..it is a real book, although it is written purely as a joke. For instance, Lorena Bobbitt is named as a surgeon, and Jack Kevorkian the anestheiologist (sp!). It's a fun read. - 13:39:52 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:TONY-- You've already told us where you think God is. What I am asking is how you are detecting it, and how you can differentiate this particular one from the myriad others. Sorry about not responding to your question regarding the validity of thought and reason. I kind of thought it was rhetorical. After all, you too are using them. I can't see you making me argue against solipsism. Are you trying to get me to say we must presuppose or assume that thought and reason have value for anything to have any value, so you can say that your presupposition that there must be more than the physical for life to have any value is just as reasonable, or are you only trying to establish an upper limit for the value of reason? I don't really want to write a bunch of stuff you aren't asking for. - 13:41:14 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- I've been meaning to ask you about 'The Gospel According to the Son,' but I gotta go. Is it a recommend? - 13:48:20 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:GODTHING: It is a tongue-in-cheek response for one who "believes" in a godthing to lean on the limits of science just to say it does not account for the natural state of things outside our sacks of cells; and then say they do not "therefore" say that that means there is a god. (Who lacks respect here?) Does any know the biochemist TONY refers to. Heck I'da liked to ask her a question or two myself. Life from no life? They said that true did they, well who wouldn't? But that does not imply anything beyond one not knowing does it? By the way, of my posts yesterday, I was just trying squash\cram into a post or two some of the things I thought I saw of the religious believers. So, the godthing is an all "thought" thing?, a big brain so to say?, well, thats as good a hiding place as any. The natural human does not know even the ends of her\his own mind or brain so that has got to be about as godly-like place as such a place must be. At least TONY does seem to be makin'a hands off impression in regards to the "scripture" nonsense. - 14:52:35 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>is TONY female? - 15:11:33 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:TONY- I've been here a long time. NC was here even longer, before you, in fact. Just who was this bio-chemist that conceeded to you???? NC has keep posts that were somewhat intelligent. If you can post this bio-chemist's page-name then I'm sure NC will e-mail me that particular post. I'm sure we'd all be interested. This conversation took place before my time here so I don't recall such a conversation. - 15:19:13 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Well, that name claims to be christian+ xtian scripture says it is agin'females as 'church leaders'(oxymoronic?)+ if this is the TONY who was teachin'bible stuff= tony is male? thats my guess. - 15:25:28 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry--:>>Does anyone know if any of these posts archived? Could I call up a post made lets say a few days, weeks, or months ago? - 15:28:33 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JERRY<<>> yes you can. If you hit add at the bottom, then look up at where you enter a URL you will see the #30. If you change that # it will go back the amount of posts you set. For example if you wanted to go back 300 posts, change the 30 to 300 and then hit return. Hope this helps..... :=} - 15:43:51 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry:>> Steven >>--Thank you. There are some very strange things being said here that certainly must be in context with something I haven't seen posted. And for the sake of my fellow man sharing the same rational standards of thought that I have at least attempted to obtain, that this would be the case. The God/NoGod debate can be extremely tricky, almost to the point of futility, from both sides of the fence, and due to all the personal motivations involved, I cannot forsee any resolution in the near future--or if ever. The arguments posted on this board appear to be of no exception! - 16:02:32 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: One of my interests at gettin'a bead on the religious-believers godthing, is not so much for that word as it is to have a common domain, region, area, boundaries with which to cummunicate with the religious-believer. Communicating with such individuals is a already difficult enough, that they "believe" they have a supernatural parentage- see genesis, and use words that cause these individuals to see themselves as outside nature or above it, or unnatural in any case. To commune with these folks, is almost as to speak to them about lightning. In their verbalism it is an act of their godthing. To others it is a phenomenon, to science it is an electric charge. To the first group, of its striking well such is a godthings'will. To the second save what one can. To the latter it is simply a matter of erecting a lightning rod. This is an example I read for other matters, but it seem to me good enough to illustrate my concern of the task of 'establishing' a line of communication with religious-believers. - 16:02:51 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:TONY... Can you explain why you have a knowledge (RATHER suiting to your every need) about your god-thing and some others are lacking in the knowledge of its 'supposed thoughts'. DO you think that thought processes are limitless as well as anyone's explanations or attempts to foster an explanation about them? To me when dealing with thoughts in general, we as humans have a difficult time in "dealing" with them-I agree with Carl on that. I can say that it is not your god-thing's thoughts that sustain us but rather its flaming telepath that sustains us. A whimsical sort of telepathy that sustains the universal laws of nature----There is no limitations with your notions about your god-thing. NO offense---being obscure also fits into the deception mode of subjective knowledge. At least with ojective knowledge, there is a respectable starting point for us humans. "A man has got to know his limitations"---reference to Magnum Force (Dirty Harry movies)....heehe - 16:11:29 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:CARL... Human communication, in general, is a fine tight-rope of egos anway. People sustained by their god-thing abound in suitable limitless regions, which at times, block out the THOUGHTS of others who do not agree with their subjective truths. I am in accord with you, these peolpe see themselves above "nature" in their supernatural par--excellence; there is no tolerance with human communication at such a supposed lofty limitless position.. - 16:25:31 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

>>>Jerry>>What you have outlined is precisely the reason i often ask myself why I occasionally engage in these discussions. I have to ever witness any of these discussions ever being launched on the same playing field. Ever. The theist cannot play on an atheists, and an atheist refuses to play on the theist's turf. I find the debate rarely advances beyond the question as to whose playing field the game should be played on. I still have to side with the aheists however, for the simple reason that the theist, regardless of how one looks at the situation, is vouching for the existence of something. It has usually been my experience that the atheist sides with reasonableness, science etc., and that the existence of ANYTHING ELSE can be reconciled within these parameters, and the claim of God, or a "creator" or whatever, if it in fact exists, will pass the tests. However it seems to me that the theist doesn't like the rules played in that ballpark--and makes up his own rules, for the sole purpose of defending his case. - 16:28:51 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry:>>Carl>>>Got my titles mixed up. That post was to you at 16:28:51 on 9 Apr 98 GMT - 16:31:18 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JERRY.. In life, there are no pure, true playing fields. Life continues in its disregard of fairness! - 16:35:55 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry:>>Tony>>>I have checked back reading many of your posts directed at myself and others. I do not think there would be any purpose in addresing them point by point. You certainly present an original argument indeed which defends the existence of ( I think it's a God, or a creator, I'm not really sure. ) I can however present an overview: You attempt sell yourself as being not the typical fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist. You are ibviously well read in certainareas, and seem to be intelligent and well spoken. However, in your arguments with , Grant, Joette, Steven, Peter, PapaSam, Rob, Carl ( to name a few )--you are making a presentation and very often there are nailing you to the cross, so to speak. I thought maybe you were seeing this happen, but I don't really think you are. You have been forced to put yourself in a position of perpetual skepticism, which to me makes you really nothing more than what james Randi calls "an unsinkable rubber duck" I cannot see you ever considering any line of argument as being able to ever count against yours, which you seem to think that therin lies its strength, but in reality, that is your achilles heel. The most pervading complaint I can see being implied regarding your posts is lack of consistency, and the incidents of that occurring in far too many instances to mention. Rob said it very well earlier today when he accused you, and rightfully so possessing knowledge which suits your "every need". Tony, Rob's right. Take heed. - 16:55:58 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry:>>Rob>>I agree. People play where they want to play, and are getting away with it as well, unfortunately - 17:01:11 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry:>>Well, we can at least be grateful on occaision that the notion of God is still with us. I thank him, and his son, for a welcome long weekend, and I wish all of you have the same. - 17:08:47 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JERRY- Of course not! Atheists play on an objective field and theists play on the subjective one. I think this weekend would be better in honor of "time off work" than in memory (or in glory of) some poor delusioned man being nailed to a cross then left to die slowly and in agony. This type of "celebration" is archaic as well as sicko! - 17:26:13 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB and CARL- To celebrate this type of sicko stuff is above nature? I think your right when these xtians "think" themselves above nature but their nature is less respectable than the hyena or the Thompson turkey when they lower themselves to glorifying a crucifiction. - 17:30:08 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Ooops! X instead of C, methinks - 17:31:00 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. It seemss that what started out as an electronic keyboard has evolved into an 88 key piano. It doesn't seem like a typographical error to me. You are finally showing your true colors which you have been hiding behind a facade of prayer for me. As far as I am concerned you can pray to your god to have lightning strike me dead. You can have your whole bible school join in to get jesus and his dad on my case. It is a sad reflection on your mrntality when a "senile old man" such as I can show you up for the fool you are. - 17:38:10 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I take it that all Ricky's praying hasn't done anything spectacular for you. I guess Ricky just doesn't get it, nothing fails like prayer. That keyboard thing was a real choker, lol! - 17:56:03 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I can't stay for long... I'm traveling this weekend and things are about to get crazy. I wish to address a few simple things. Jerry, I am aware of the apparent inconsistency. I have found it difficult for my concept to be understood, which prompted me to use other terms and images to describe the same thing. It cleared things up for Joette, but made it worse for Carl, Steven, and Rob, though I think they may have finally gotten the gist of it. I will try to address their concerns tonight or tomorrow. MARLENE- I too save the posts from yesteryear (the glory days, as I like to call them. Jason was a good friend of mine at the time- MMM was a lot of fun. Hopefully that returns) The name of the biochemist is HUME, but I cannot find the exact post. I did discover that at 1:50:24 on 7 Feb 96 GMT I refer directly to HUME's post. Have NC search before that date. His post was a lengthy explanation of what was going on in abiogenetics. - 18:42:29 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Rob, Carl... I don't mind levity (the Dirty Harry joke was keen. Makes me want to pop a video in). You've got to understand, though, that referring to me in the third person (The Tony) and spending much of your posts in jibes, will likely have the result that I will take some things personally. Besides that, unable to discern sincere questions from mocking sarcasm, I may simply cease to be interested in trying to talk with you. I appreciate your words stating you did not mean to offend. I will honestly try to address your concerns tonight, perhaps tomorrow morning when the traveling is done. JOETTE, I'll respond to you, too. BTW, Joette, all of the sources I cited were EVOLUTIONARY. Straight from the horses mouth, that's what I always say. - 18:50:17 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Jo- you're right about one thing, they've got agendas! - 18:51:19 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ROB: Of the blockin'out action, that is a definite human trait, of course. Yesterday I sort of rambled on that these religious believers do not know even their backyard but claim to know the maker of all that is. That is, in my mind, an outrageous claim. Then, as MARLENE posts, these same individuals carry on about some utterly disgusting act as portrayed in a storybook! Go figure, and these individuals want the USA to yield to such nonsense? It is an outrageous idea, but, politicians as do the ecclesiastics they "want" to be in control and both will do so by using any means posible, or the impossible too if it works, to stay in power. I get a kick outta'the toad in this sandbox, he gets rolled over onto his back, then all get to watch as he moves its'legs about to aright itself, then it blinks in wide eyed wonder (or is it prayer?). - 18:55:11 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ROB: I thought a third term reference was\is appropriate for discussion. That way it is not an attack on an individual but a view of the ideas that are related to that so referred party party. I wonder, does he prepare to restrict his toys and himself to but a few? What a xtian thing to do, the TONY(chuckle) thinks he's too precious. - 19:14:25 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..you are putting genetic engineering in with evolution. They are two entirely different beasts. W.R.T. to your comment about mutations only leaving behind sick populations, that isn't always true either. I bring your attention to retro-virus' and other such diseases where they have been mutating certain virus' to fight itself within a body. Please, read up on the current medical findings. Not only is very interesting, but it might save you a trip or two to the doctor one day. - 19:52:58 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TO ALL...today I am most thankful that we are forced to be exposed to this silly religion stuff because I don't have to come to fucking work tomorrow!!!!!!!!! Thank god (literally and figuratively!) - 19:55:54 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>Damn, I wish we got off for good friday. - 20:27:55 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

--PETER ( with another gem I'd like to share courtesy of the "theo" chat )--:---An atheist made the remark that if God had been the sole of virtue inasfar as morality is concerned, he would have spoken out against slavery, bigotry, and incest ( which he apparently seemed to condone rampantly )in the same manner as he did about killing, stealing and lying. A resident theist, who seems to take it upon himself to be the spokesman for the board ( Bro Tom ) casually sluffed off this oversight by saying " Maybe God did, and the Bible's authors didn't hear him" How convenient. And on it goes. - 20:57:36 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:CARL.. Thank you, I thought the third term reference was also appropriate. I used it to not really to offend (of course something precious does not like to be mocked) but to suggest how subjectivity springs into droning beliefs with capricious NON-BOUNDARIES.. YES, restricting himself for whatever reasons again fits into his precious suitable beliefs. I will mention it again--how precious the sodomized state of the religious believer (his hands are bound & his head is down-he looks so precious) 'LEARN TO FORGET, LEARN TO FORGET' is very easy for 'THE PRECIOUS'. Fortunately that toad you talked about does not think of himself in the third term reference; it has no need for the non-boundaries of the precious few... - 21:03:50 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:PETER.. YES 'THE PRECIOUS FEW' LOVE CONVENIENCE!! - 21:07:36 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..by jove you've got it!!!! In one small typo, you have created a new word that would roll of an atheist's tongue easily when describing the easter season: CruciFICTION! Bravo! - 21:58:22 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE... I thought the easter holiday is when Petercotton-tail ( Maybe jesus-cotton-tail) was crucified because he lost that race with tortoise (LAUGH).. Does anybody think that the Energizer Bunny should be '"crucified'" or , at least no longer shown in commercials? - 22:43:46 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..re your inquiry about "The Gospel According to the Son". I hope you read it, because I desperately need to discuss it with someone. It is a very easy read if you have a couple of hours to sit still. It is the type of book that for me at least, keeps popping up in my mind, and Norman Mailer doesn't try to make you believe or misbelieve. It is an interesting study, so please, please read it! Nothing worse than reading a book and then not having anyone to discuss it with :(. - 22:46:58 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette..here's comes Peter Cotton Tail, Hopping down the bunny trail...(maybe Peter Cottontail is really just Hugh Hefner in disguise?):-->ROB..are you kidding? He'll keep going and going and going and going - 22:51:36 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANY...if god is so good to his followers, why did he see fit to wreak such havoc in Georgia and Alabama last night? Right smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt! At least two churches were destroyed, but "Jesus just wrapped his arms around us and that is why we are alive" according to one person singing his praises. Man oh man, are these people stupid! - 22:54:30 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Papasam, if you're so convinced that I'm the fool here, why can't you take me up on my offer I gave? I'll tell you why, you're a scared old man that hates to admit you could be wrong. I guess its tough when an uneducated "fisherman" like me puts you in a position that could make someone like yourself have to have a change in heart and mind. You can twist my words any way you want to about the keyboard, when you questioned it, I came back and give you the make, model, and demention, however, you will twist the story any way you can to get out of the real facts of the message. Sorry to inform you of this, but once again, you've heard my challenge to you. But you have to do better than what you've done so far before proving I'm the fool here. But I do see that you come apart very easily when you're put under pressure, Come to the Carolinas for a vacation of a life time, its one you'll never forget!!! - 22:57:37 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..Papasam may not want to take you up on your challenge, but I will. Please pray for me. Spend hours and hours everyday praying for me. After a week, if I haven't won the lottery, my daughter hasn't been cured of her deadly disease, and my tulips haven't bloomed, I will say that you have lost the challenge. If these do happen, I will be singing the praises of god just like you. Think you're up to it? Oh yeah, I hear George Michael was up to it yesterday too! - 23:04:14 on 9 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. Your original message said it was an electronic keyboard. Your next message said it was an 88 key piano. I have been in North Carolina. They have great seafood there. Howwever, the rain there is the same as the rain anywhere. It's wet. Anything that is rained on gets wet, even in North Carolina. When you tell me that your electronic device was heavily rained on for a half hour and was perfectly dry, I cannot accept that. I don't see how my going to see you would change that. I do have a suggestion. Take your piano or electronic keyboard out in your back yard. Get a group of people to watch. Turn on your garden hose for 30 minutes and keep running the water over it. Have someone videotape the whole thing and as soon as you turn the hose off the camera zooms in on the object, showing how wet or dry it is. I'm betting on wet. If it's nice and dry you coulld sell the video to "60 Minutes" or the National Enquirer for big bucks, as well as make a laughing stock out of me. By the way, I am not scared, I do not feel under pressure, and I haven't come apart. However, I'm not so sure about you. - 0:32:39 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--RICKY--Hey, keyboard player, eh? Know any Vannelli stuff? - 0:39:09 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..thanks for the laugh of the day! - 0:44:04 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Keyboard, I thought was a type of piano, my keyboard has 88 keys, it has 13 different piano sounds, it has horns, drums, trumpet and $4500 other sounds as well, call it what ever you want to, you're missing the point, I too know if I lay it out in the back yard and spray it with a water hose, even let it stay outside until it rains again, it will get wet. God does not send miricles just to impress people. God has purpose in anything He does. And about the storms that tore those cities up, let me explain something to you, God created a perfect world for us to live in, no sickness, no pain, no storms, just paridise, but because of the choice he gave us, man chose to do the one and only thing that God told him not to do. Because of that choice, sin intered in and with sin comes pain, sickness, even death. So don't blame God for the storms that clame lives. Its man kind who has the choice to follow God's directions and plan, or we can choose to disobey, or in your case, to not believe what He has commanded us to do , but He has promised that a day of judgement will come. - 1:42:38 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:The big difference between you and I is that you're just laughing at me, and think its all a big joke. But you know, I won't be laughing at you when you find you have to spend eternity in Hell because you refused to follow God's plan of salvation, it will be a sad day for you, but it diffently won't be funny, not even to me! I'm just sorry you reject the word of God. - 1:49:46 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:RICKY.. Do you reject objective knowledge? I am a human being as are you----just because I do not believe in your beliefs--why am I already judged by your subjectivity? Is my fate any different than yours because are subjective truths do not coincide? - 1:58:56 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..but those people in the Bible Belt were all good christians, just like you. Why did god choose to kill so many, and destroy the property of so many others? They weren't sinning, in fact a great number of them were in church services. Why would he choose them to punish? By the way, does this mean you aren't going to be praying for me? - 2:11:06 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..how made you god's spokesperson? It is your words we are rejecting. - 2:15:16 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:RICKY.. You can pray for me too, but please do not pray for a stampede of Muslims from Mecca to run me down. I reject being smothered by the "precious". Exuse me , if you would not mind I would like to breathe!! - 2:23:51 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--RICKY--Have you ever been to jail? Do you know any Vannelli stuff on the keyboard? Why have you NEVER, ever--not even once, answered even one question I have asked you? - 2:28:13 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:That simply means God come to take them home with Him, Joette, almost wish I'd been there! - 2:36:55 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Peter, you don't stick around long enough to get the answers, Don't recall any questions I didn't answer for you, but feel free to ask away. - 2:39:25 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--RICKY--What are you talking about? You have NEVER answered one question I have asked you, and I always scroll back to where I saw the last post, and I read EVERY POST made on this board--it's my "escape"! Now, why didn't you answer the two questions I just asked you in the post you just responded to? Also, Does the name "Blaise Pascal" mean anything to you? ( I asked you this yesterday, which still remains unanswered ) - 3:26:27 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->RICKY..I wish you had been there too! Obviously you like the pain and suffering part of christianity the best. Are you into S & M too? - 3:36:05 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE.. Unfortunately some think religious masochism is a form of bliss. Religion masochism involves flight from the full realization of our powers. More often than not religious theism has exaggerated the pathology of fear, the anxiety of punishment, the dread of death and of the unknown. You are right in suggesting that Ricky might be into S&M. He unfortunately is being perpetuated by the sodomized state of the religious believer or "precious" and he does not even realize this state. - 3:59:55 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:RICKY. You seem to know why god does things. Why did he create a miracle for your keyboard? Do you feel you earned it because of your love for him? As Joette pointed out, god killed all those fine church going and god loving people. You get a miracle and they get to die horrible deaths. Why? why didn't your god kill me instead so that I could start burning in the fires of hell? After all, I continually insult him, and deny that he exists. The next time you talk to him ask god why he did such a piss poor job making Adam and Eve so that they sinned against him. After all, god is all powerful and all knowing. Being all knowing he knew what was going to happen. The only reason I can see is that your god is a sadist who enjoys giving people pain and watching them suffer. Hey, look what he did to his own son. - 4:05:43 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Sorry ---I got that 'precious' idea fixed in my head.. Those precious ones like to embed beliefs in your cerebrum. Third term references can control your thoughts in more ways than you would think!! I hope this is not Tony's "THOUGHT-god" playing with my head--hehehehe!! - 4:11:00 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:TONY... Does your "thought-god" read alot of Spinoza? Did your thought-god wanted or 'thought' of him as value subjectivist? Also did your thought-god play with the subjectivity of Kierkegaard and other dead subjectivists in their ever expanding means to make things suitable?? - 4:29:37 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I love how you word things! And I think you asking Ricky to perform that experiment is a hell of an idea. If he lives it will look like a miracle from god and if he dies, he thinks he'll be with god. What's the risk? I'll be watching 60 minutes! - 5:36:40 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:YIKES ROB- That last post was, as Tony would say, "deep"! - 5:38:45 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:TONY- I mailed NC today to see if she had those posts. As you know, she is a very intelligent lady so if she truly believed Hume to be as educated as he/she said they were, I'm sure she kept the posts. Remember that anyone can be who they want to be on the net. There are also many god-believing people involved in science. They tend to sway from the objectivity of science and lend some their subjective thoughts to it. This does not mean their subjective thoughts should be taken as objective realities. - 5:44:40 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I loved your cruciFICTION idea! - 5:46:38 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Ricky:Those church going people that died if it was a thousand, was no way as bad as what it would have been if you had died, Papasam, because they died in the Lord, with a promise of eternal life, you on the other hand, if you were to die, would bust Hell wide open! I give up on you nonbelivers for now, got far more important things to do and many others that want the word of God explained to them, so if and when you die, just remember these last final famous words, I TOLD YOU SO, BUT YOU LISTENED NOT***************** - 5:59:59 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Those damm 'precious'ones how they love to cast away your being while simultaneously remaining lofty.. .. That glow shine irks my left index finger to think imaginary suitable thoughts... Here's Johnny and here's some hell for you too! Hell my left index finger wants to telepathically relate to Ricky's water-proof keyboard.. - 6:42:37 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--RICKY--"Give up" on the "nonbelivers" (sic)? What were you attempting to accomplish in the first place? And again, you clearly stated you would answer any questions I had, and in your next post, you did not--as always. - 10:33:21 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PETER---: Here again we see another christian having his cake and eating it too; placing himself in a win-win situation. In the tornado ( or any other tragedy ) if the people are spared, then it was Jesus who "wrapped his arms around them" and saved them. If they die, God is coming to "take them home with them". So regardless of the result, it is God's doing. However how would things differ if there was no God at all! Don't these christians see that all these rationalizations they make to suit any series of events just nullifies any justification to demonstrate His existence as being an incontrivertible alternative, which they are attempting to do? - 10:46:26 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>i actually think that RICKY came here to convert us. WOW. He wasn't here to debate, or even discuss. - 12:53:04 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Do any of you recall what ricky inscribed his plans were, what was his objective, of his participation at this site? Maybe he is just here to amuse us, he's a funny guy, so he's gonna do his clown thing to amuse us. I laugh at his his every post, so he is a funny guy. Does that please you ricky? - 14:50:43 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: What those confederate-sorts said, certainly will not go down in the archieves as a high water mark of human intelligence. I saw that nonsense and told my offspring about the post on the lightning stuff o'yesterday, so what is alive and well this very day, ignorance is. That is the life blood of folks who like to say of things such as does the TONY. - 15:07:26 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:TONY- I was finally catching up on all the posts and I noticed that you stated that Darwin suggested "intelligent design". I hope your not suggesting Dawkins is suggesting this! I haven't read much of Darwins writings but I do read Dawkins. - 15:23:15 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I agree! Egotisical xtians bore me but guys like Ricky at least bring some humor into the silly belief. I know some women here that pray over coffee in the morning for new fridges and stoves, that I find humorous but then I know a few pushing their way into the school system here demanding that religion class be mandatory as science is mandatory, this I find no humor in. - 15:28:07 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:I think Steven is right in saying that Ricky wants to convert,especially to his remarks to Papasam, people into the "Hook on Phonics-Keyboard Playing Jesus Cult". - 16:00:07 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->at least Ricky was bright enough to realize that we are laughing at him! Now, do you think he really was a fisherman, or is that just something he likes to tell people, so that they think that he is a modern day disciple? "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men". Actually, that could be interpreted as "Let's suck them in; hook, line and sinker." - 16:35:07 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..newsbrief:ALL of the xtians come here in the name of conversion. I think Ricky was just a little more honest than most. Did anyone see the pope washing the feet of the other priests on the news? It didn't look like he was putting a whole lot of sole into it. He gave each foot a couple of swipes then a big smacker. I'd be afraid of planters warts of the lips, yuck! - 16:35:48 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL/STEVEN/ROB..I am curious as to why this isn't a holiday for you (holiday meaning Holy Day). It is my impression that the U.S. flaunts its xtian beliefs a tad more than Canada, and it is a national day off here. Do you get any part of Easter off from work, such as Easter Monday? (p.s. ROB - what state do you live in?) - 16:38:00 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Grant- you asked how I am detecting God, and how I differentiate Him from a myriad of others. I will return to that question in the next post. You apologized for not answering my question, which you pecieved was rhetorical. After all, you said, I was using thought and reason. I only wish to point out that I have established (for myself, at least) reasons why I can trust my thoughts and reason. It is a fundamental question. I want to know what your answer is. " I can't see you making me argue against solipsism." No, I'm not! lol. That would be funny, wouldn't it! You asked: " Are you trying to get me to say we must presuppose or assume that thought and reason have value for anything to have any value," Yes- but more accurately, to actually KNOW what the value is. You continue: "so you can say that your presupposition that there must be more than the physical for life to have any value is just as reasonable, or are you only trying to establish an upper limit for the value of reason" No. You assume that there are motives behind this. Keep in mind that this all stemmed from a discussion about how I went from throwing all of my beliefs out to coming to accept Christianity. Please distinguish it from the image/level of reality argument, since while it did arise out of this journey, it is not why I brought it up. JERRY- that goes for you, too. A long time ago JOETTE asked me some questions, and what you have witnessed was an answer to them. So if it seems that I am only discussing the things that support my position, that would only be natural, don't you think? I don't mean to knock anyone, but this is a point I've made several times now, and emphasizes for me again why I usually like to stick to a topic until its 'death' so there is no confusion. - 16:38:53 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I wonder if Ricky is just putting us on? I wonder if he realizes these waters are fished out? No sogers here! - 16:38:54 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: On the intelligent design thing, guys with an agenda, such as TONY, easily sweep up such things and view and explain it in terms as relevant to only the human class of life. If they could find the wherever in their holy scriptures, the passages that account for things microscopic or, intelligently the macroscopic outer worlds, that would be a start for the truth they- as TONY, like and want others to share with them. I have never seen in any account by a godthing believer, anything about such matters. They do, however, like the invisible world of spirits. Intelligence, to the religious-believer, is in anthropocentric terms just as they make their godthing. So, how does one as the TONY mean it- intelligence? - 16:40:39 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:Yes, CARL ROB and STEVEN, same question as Joette's. Here government employees have a four day weekend and most others a three day. - 16:43:39 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Good question!!! Of course with some people one can realize an illusion of design. - 16:46:58 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>no we do not get easter monday off, I wish. My company is a bit unusual, we are one of the few company's in my building that are open today. It was great getting to work, there was no traffic. All my friends are off, having a crawfish cookout and beer party. What am I doing, sitting in my cubicle, wishing that I could go outside and have fun on this beautifull day. Not a cloud in the sky and 78 degrees. Man, this once, why couldn't the president of the company be catholic, LOL. - 16:51:51 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Grant- you asked how I am detecting God, and how I differentiate Him from a myriad of others. First of all, remember that I've bought into my image/level of reality argument pretty deeply. I've thought it through now for about four years and for the most part have only found reasons to accept it as true (as a side note, there is ONE issue that you have not raised which I do not have a very good answer too- one needs to think from within the argument to raise it, however). With this in mind, a fundamental result of this argument is the implication that God must reveal himself to his creation. Thus, the question, "how do I detect him" is a tricky question. What I did was, in keeping with the line of reasoning, wrote down as many possible ways a God could reveal himself. I figure there's about 6-10 different ways, depending on how you divide them. Some of them clearly were not happening (He wasn't a physical person who was present every time I snapped my fingers, for instance). There were claims, at least, of others (divine messengers, writings, myths, incarnations, etc.) which I then investigated. To put this into proper context, then, it became not a question of detecting "God" in the midst of many other Gods, but detecting 'God' from the many accounts and interpretations. I reasoned this: 1. There is only one completely true explanation. 2. There are thousands of explanations available. 3. Nonetheless, not all of them can be completely true. 4. Still, NONE of them may be the true explanation. 5. It would be reasonable to admit that all explanations have a bit of the truth, at least. 6. The best explanation will explain the existence of all others. 7. The best explanation is probably the one that should be accepted as true. (np) - 16:52:27 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:It would take some considerable lengthy posts to defend the conclusion I came up with, right about (I'm guessing) step 30. But your question was how I differentiated from all the explanations. I've given you a short list of the criteria I applied. Do you disagree with my criteria. - 16:55:48 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Here in California, here in this office for example, these religious believers say to me that they see the godthing as something just there. A couple tho'like to do the jc jargon. For the most part (the whole being religious belief per se), the folks here seem more political then religious. I don't see religious fervor so much as I see just some folks who want to have a job. So, my impression is that these folks here are using it as a platform for a means for an occupation. God? What is that? They can't say, even here in this office. The religious schools are out, but most here in CA are at work performing their tasks and other duties. Disallowing the tax favors religion now enjoy would bring about the truth of religion. - 16:56:45 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE& MARLENE.... I guess it depends on the person's place of employment (SAY RETAIL--where working on some weekends is mandatory).. Oh yes, here in the grand USA the egos love to frolic in their own warm sunshine (ESPECIALLY here in NY).. - 16:57:52 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Marlene- First of all, NC had no patience for me, and if I recall quite liked Hume's posts. I do have SOME of his posts and will quote them in full if you doubt his authority in the field he spoke about as well as the atheistic, materialistic view he held. Second of all, if I left the impression that it was Darwin who argued for intelligent design, I'm sorry. I don't think I have. In fact if you look, I had only said that THE WRITER OF "DARWIN'S BLACK BOX" ARGUED FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, NOT CREATION. I emphasize that not just for you, but because there seems to be all sorts of confusion. People have even begun to say that I argue for intelligent design- which I do not, as a rule. And then, I said to Melissa (I'm pretty sure it was her), enjoy the read. EVERYONE GET THAT? One little comment... I tell you. LOL, hey JERRY! This isn't what you meant by being crucified, is it? I'll have to commend Melissa for so successfully baiting me. - 17:02:41 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Marlene- I also have Hume's post in question, too. I can't find the darn thing. Can never find anything when I need 'em. Usually, its my keys. - 17:05:51 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:TONY- Wouldn't you agree that intelligent design and creation would be one and the same? - 17:25:01 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:TONY...Why must this thought-god reveal himself to his creations if as you say we are a part of his thoughts. Does he subconsciously NOT want to reveal ANYTHING to his whimsical creations inside his 'BRAIN MECHANISM OR WHATEVER you would like to call it'. DO YOU THINK that the subconscious plays any role for your thought-god????? Tony-- do you think thoughts and things associated with them are limitless,say, UNCONNECTED/AND/OR/ LOOSE STRINGS?? - 17:32:53 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY...ever since you posted that god may be mind imagining us, I have had this unshakable vision of a scene from "The Wizard of Oz". It is the scene where the main characters are finally allowed in to see him, and there is just this giant cartoon type of head, before the famous line "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". Now, is god a giant head, or just some sort of mind like vapour, or just absolutely invisible? And how was he able to form into a mind, if there was nothing to be conscious of before he started thinking about us? - 17:33:08 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE... WE are not in Kansas anymore, we are imagined entities of a thought-god...... My left index finger is twitching again!!! - 17:39:46 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:TONY- Since your in the process of explaining your god, is it sexual (male or female), does it's brain have the same chemical makeup as ours? It sounds as you envision a personal god, is this so? - 17:42:12 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Yes, but "thought" implies something to produce it like a brain or some type of physical makeup. Does this mean that god is physical and if so then it should be tangible, if tangible it then can be proven to objectively exsist, no? - 17:47:09 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. It is typical of fundies like Ricky to use the "carrots and stick" approach. "I'll pray for you. Jesus loves you." So much for the carrots. Then, when you reject them, they bring on the stick, the heavy artillery of all the holy rollers. "You will burn in Hell." I like that phrase "-If and when you die-" No if about it . I will certainly die. I will rot in my grave and be food for worms, but I will be in no position to care about it. - 17:50:25 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. With all your reasoning and criteria for your god, did you give as much thought to the possibility that "there ain't no such animal" - 17:52:57 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Heck! I thot the TONYs'view was focusing in on something folks could discuss, intelligence. Now he says he has rules against "intelligence"! chuckle chuckle chuckle harder than ever! - 17:56:10 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..and when you describe your index finger twitching, I think of the "Redrum". LOL! (can you tell I watch a lot of movies?) - 17:58:02 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: I know that is not what you meant (right?) the post was just laugh at your expense, - 17:59:01 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE... I agree totally with the physical brain of the thought-god and the alike... Maybe Tony's thought-god just imagines that he has a physical brain and maybe our puny human brains are imagined parts of this physical ( some think it can not be touched by our puny tangible brains) brain. APPARENTLY this thought-god does not need a physical brain...... A brain that is NOT physical or tangible is very convenient for a 'suppossed' thought-god.. - 18:01:53 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY...the other day, I asked you twice what was the correct thing to be celebrating..HAJJ or EASTER, but to no avail. Now today, some of my friends are celebrating PASSOVER. So which is the correct celebration this weekend? All these holidays are confusing. Or are they all worshipping the same god? - 18:02:08 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE... Yes, The Shining is an excellent movie;IT likes to play with your thoughts and such... - 18:04:27 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..and it makes one take "The Stand" - 18:07:10 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>"The Stand" is in the top three of my favorite books. The Shinning was much better as a book than a movie. How can any sane person truely believe that we exist only in the mind of a god. Is this TONY person sane? - 18:17:26 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..I liked both books very much too, but as I Stanley Kubrick fanatic, there was much about "The Shining" that was very good too, although Jack's performance I thought was way over the top. I know Tony doesn't need defending, but I think he is a sane person, but his thoughts and beliefs as far as his god goes are not exactly what I would consider rational, but he has put a lot of time and effort into his studies, and to me is far more civilized than the other fundamentalists we see here. - 18:23:18 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: When one involves themselves in something as religion they have be insane during those times. Ever go over the Augsburg confessions, the composers were thoughtful enough to outlaw certain acts of insanity such as self mutilation by those seeking devine inspiration. Some of the things I mean to convey of them include the insanity of their required enforced, etc., views of assorted dualisms. IMHO, now and then, he lacks some of the indications and signs of one with a predominantly sane mind. But, on the other hand, as JOETTE syas, he is one of the better behaving religious believers here. - 18:56:33 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->sidebar..Steven mentioned that "The Stand" was in the top 3 favourite books: now, since it is my thought that you all are intelligent people, and since I am always seeking to learn, I was wondering if any would be willing to tell me, or to share with all, what their two favourite books are (one non-fiction, the other fiction)? It is a difficult choice, but...for starters, my favourite non-fiction of all time is "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe, while may favourite fiction is "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand (tied with "Space" by James Michener). Any takers? - 19:03:50 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Non-fiction "Science and Sanity" by A.Korzybsky; fiction "The Scarlatti Inheritance" R.Ludlum. These today. - 19:35:12 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..thanks. I'll take a trip to the library tomorrow to get "Science and Sanity". I have read everything Robert Ludlum wrote (I especially liked "The Parsical Mosaic") - 19:58:02 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>my favorite fictions is "Dhalgren" by Samuel Delany. My favorite non-fiction is "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. - 20:04:38 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Yikes favorites! I have so many! I guess non-fiction would be Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and fiction would be Orwell's 1984. Have anyone read King's Green Mile yet? This is some thing different from King. I have Space by Michener but haven't read it yet so I shall. - 20:20:08 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..this is fun. I have read "The Art of War" but I have never heard of the other, so it is something I shall look up. MARLENE..both are great books. I haven't read "The Green Mile" because I gave up on him after Insomnia. (somehow it kept putting me to sleep LOL!) - 20:26:32 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Insomnia was rather wierd but I think leading up to something else he plans on. The Green Mile was different in that he made a fairly strong political as well as moral statement on the death penalty. There is a line in it that really said it. I'll look it up and post it when I find it. - 21:05:52 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE. Here's an excerpt from today's newspaper, datelined Washington by AP. "Evolution should be taught in schools as the most important concept in modern biology+, a panel of scientists said --- "There is no debate within the scientific community oover whether evolution has occurred-- understanding evolutionary change is essential to understanding vital processes such as how bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics." Just what we were discussing the other day. Nice to know that the leading scientists back us up. - 21:08:02 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. Fiction would be "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Heinlein. Nonfiction "Women Without Superstition" by Annie Laurie Gaylor. - 21:14:07 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: Also by Heinlein, that I like as much as Ludlum's tale, "Tunnel in the Sky". - 21:20:27 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette...my reading list has just expanded by leaps and bounds!:-->PAPASAM..thank you for posting the bit from the article about evolution. Although I like to think that I know a bit about that particular subject (antibiotic treatments, retro-virus and bacteria in particular) I am at the same time insecure until there is some scientific substanitation come to fore on the page. - 21:44:39 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: To add to your reading list pick up a copy of "Manhood of Humanity" by Alfred Korzybsky because in it you will find a veritible treasure, as the author includes list he recommends for a real head trip. Of that list, the only one I have to finish, is Russell and Whiteheads'"Principia Mathematica". In either book you will find a goodly number of other books the author utilises. So, if you want a healthy dose o'science like stuff, these books are ticket items. - 22:02:31 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:--->Thanks Carl! Now onto another topic...sometimes the degree of my cynicism amazes because I just saw on the news that a new "peace accord" has been signed in Northern Ireland. Anyone want to start about a pool as to who or when the peace accord will be broken, and it will be a catholic or protestant that hurls the first grenade? Hurray for religion! - 22:13:42 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

mike:Hello, I lust discovered this web site, and Iam glad there are others that feel the same way I do. Anyway, my book choices are, Fiction; Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series. Nonfiction; "the art of war". btw this peace accord looks like it may finally succede. - 22:35:05 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MIKE: How r u? - 22:39:57 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MIKE..welcome...looks like you are interested in the military type thing. I hope you are correct about Northern Ireland. I know I would find it difficult to live in a country where you just don't where you are safe. - 23:08:56 on 10 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- We are so lucky to live here in North America! It's hard to fathom living in a place where war is normal! - 0:15:56 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:OOOPS! GREETINGS MIKE! - 0:16:38 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Joette..--->MARLENE..:do you remember the television show "The Friendly Giant"? I was thinking about this morning, and how it had to be changed before it finally went off the air after several decades. When I was a kid, and this probably applies to you too, the Giant would show us the chairs that he, Rusty and Jerome would use, and then he would say "Look up, look waaaay up" while the camera travelled the length of his body, until you saw his friendly face. Now, in later years, they changed that so that the camera would just go from the little chairs up to his face, probably because someone deemed it as obscene the showing of his entire body. I know that I was never filled with lust or dirty thought because we got to see the top of his leg, in fact I would have been far too young to even think about something like that. So, since the generations that grew up watching his entirely innocent show had somehow decided it needed censoring, and I am wondering how and why something so sweet and innocent could fall prey to someone else's dirty mind. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. - 14:45:22 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE...People deem something vulger and procede to "change it" through censorship. The "change" might not necessarily be beneficial as a whole. The change will restrict something ( a person's nice view of the show ) in some degree however slight. Innocence can be easily manipulated, especially when others deem things in certain fashions........ The scanning FOR THE PHALLUS--HOW it persists just like that damm Energizer Bunny. - 16:57:11 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:TONY.... Do you "have" THE ECHOLATION OF A BAT?? I am being serious--- if you do have this ability how did human beings as a species develop this interesting trait? Are we little bat-like beings--------who repeat the words --or imitate the feelings, acts, etc. within the thoughts of your thought-god... - 17:20:28 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:TONY, In reviewing some of the post here and in particular your attempt to show the difference between God and us, you make the distinction that we are imagined thought characters of God with NO free will and NO ability to create, as God does. You say that God is in a higher level of reality than we are, and somehow outside the natural universe with his/her/it's observations making us a reality as with Schrodinger's Cat-in-the-box analogy. It is true that a "human observer" plays a part in creating reality as Wheeler's modification of the Young's two-split experiment reveals that an observer today can be made partially responsible for generating the reality of the remote past---even though there were no conscious observers at the time of this remote past. Of course conjecturing about possibilities outside the natural universe is, to me, is an exercise in futile. And as others have pointed out, "where is this Thought-God, and where is his brain?" I would think that your arguments would have more creditability if you worked within the natural universe and knowledge garnered from science. Human thoughts (software), themselves, are denizens of the micro quantum level of reality and exist within our gray matter---brain (hardware). Any God thoughts (software) would, to me, have to exist on a similar, but greater magnitude of reality. This might be a quantum particle (gravity like) level and exist within all things---natural universe 'brain' (hardware). If a God is to be found and proven, we would need to first tie everything together in a Grand Unified Theory that encompassed all the know forces in the universe and tied the micro quantum world together with the macro physical world via math and physics. Until then, our suppositions and conjectures remain, as such, and "faith" or "hope" will always be a basis of one's assertions. How could any God fault us for only thinking within the realm of our own understanding? Would he/she/it want us to lie about ours and his reality? I can honestly say that, "I don't know all the answers." I am wondering if you can admit the same; and if so, how would you and I be any different? - 17:27:08 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. Talk about wackoes. The news program om friday showed how christians around the world were celebrating easter. It showed idiots all over the world dragging crosses throught the streets, but in te Phillipines they had a number of people who actually had themselves crucified with four inch spikes through their hands and feet. That jc is really some role model. - 17:39:37 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..on the censorship kick, I have been watching such shows as "The Steve Allen Show", "The Jack Benny Show" and others today on the Comedy Network. These are all shows that were on before I was born, but I have been noticing that many of the jokes are just as lewd as some that are censored today, that there is the implication of domestic violence (e.g. The Honeymooners) and such that make people cringe these days. Now, these live audiences are laughing uproarioulsy, while today if the same things were shown some moral group would be screaming for blood. Is it because we are more sensitive to issues now, or is it because we have been trained to take ourselves too damn seriously? - 17:39:55 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM...I made note of all the coverage the parades got this year. Do you think the media is paying special attention to stand in god's good graces just in case all these prophesies of the world ending this year are true? What you saw in the Philippines takes place every year. It is a great cult for sadists, don't you think? - 17:43:19 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE..Sensitiveness has many degrees. I guess some are brainwashed into taking themselves seriously like the moral groups. Maybe censorship itself takes itself too seriously... - 18:10:14 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Speaking of lewd jokes, animal birth pain, and Easter's Holy day; I'm reminded of a "Holy Cow" joke which is as follows: A man was helping one of his cows give birth, when he noticed his 6-year-old son standing wide-eyed at the fence, soaking in the whole event. The man thought, "Great...he's 6 and I'm gonna have to start explaining the birds and bees. No need to jump the gun -- I'll just let him ask, and I'll answer." After everything was over, the man walked over to his son and said, "Well son, do you have any questions?" "Just one." gasped the still wide-eyed young lad. "How fast was that calf going when he hit that cow?" - 20:33:31 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:JOETTE, Speaking of "The Friendly Giant," did you see the Billy Crystal movie "My Giant?" Kinda cute I thought, with some touching moments, but NOT a four star movie! As far as people making things obscene goes; I have often wondered, if it weren't for the impossibility of not doing the act, if early religionists would have made the act of doing #1 and #2 an "Abomination to God and Yea shall surly be put to death?" If seems that everything else became a sin back in the Laws of Moses' time! - 20:48:56 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:I am curious; how many here are going to go to church tomorrow, just for the sake of someone else? I, for one, will make my second appearance tomorrow in a church in less than a week, just to escort my 85-year-old mother to her place of worship. It's the least I can do for her; after all, "It's not what goes in that defiles a man, but that which comes out!" I have heard it all before and will not be changed by it! I'm not much into the cultist remembrances of a crucifixion, resurrection, or the drinking of the "blood of the lamb." Oh, my other church attendance was in support of a black friend who's father died. When he was telling me the name of his church and how to get to this church he said, "All black churches around here start with "Mount;" as in, Mt. Zion, Mt. Carmel, Mt. Olive, Mt. Calvary, etc. Well, it's too pretty out and I must go, bye! - 21:16:44 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..I won't be going to church. The only thing easter means to me is an extra off work (Friday) since my daughter has outgrown the easter bunny delivering a basket. I'm certainly going to miss "borrowing" her chocolate treats! - 22:02:53 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->BILL..no, I haven't seen "My Giant". Not my kind of movie, even to rent. I finally broke down and saw "Titanic" and enjoyed it very much. - 22:05:06 on 11 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. I doubt whether the ordinary newspaper person believes any of the 'New millenium" crap. It's their job to pick up readership (or viewership) and if they have to pander to what the public seems to want they will do so. You can see how powerful a grip religion has on the minds of some when their delusions cause them to participate in such events. We cannot reason with them. Their faith resists all logic. - 0:06:24 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Yup! I remember that show. I think the censorship is thought up by moralistic assholes. I wouldn't even take a second look at his leg now let alone when I was a child. Imagine censoring that but letting every child watch the cruciFICTION! Has anyone seen that new video for advertised on TV, "Banned from TV"? What a sicko product! To add to the ridiculous religious events, a few days ago a bunch of muslims were stampeded over, a Newfie priest has been bleeding from the wrists and side for the last few days and the good news is, is that our Aboriginal community is sueing the RC church over abuse from their preists during stays in residences run by them, and the bad news is, our government is also being sued which means leaner pockets for us all, ALL THIS in the NAMES of BLOODY JEE-ZUS! - 0:52:36 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, I have---as you have---been posting here, off and on, for a long time. One of the most recurring challenges from the theist, I have heard here, is that an atheist cannot prove that there isn't a God. I have even questioned this myself a long time ago. One of the most noteworthy comments you have made, IMO, concerning this argument, is in your discussion with Anselm you say,*** You assume that all atheists are critical explicit athesists--ie--those who outrightly deny the existence of God, and claim such an entity cannot exist. In that case you may have a point. But I am a non-critical explicit atheist. Some may call this an agnostic position, depending on whose definition you want to use. Maybe you don't think I qualify as an atheist by your definition. I simply do not believe because the theist is unable to demonstrate the existence of a God.*** The term "atheist" alone is a misleading label to most people. You have pointed out many different types of atheist yourself, and albeit some have seemed very strange to me. Of all the atheist label types, that I have heard in the past, I can honestly say that I respect YOUR atheist label position the most, as it seems to be the most honest and rational to me. To me an atheist must always have OPEN the possibility of a God Form, in some way, but not necessarily any God forms that are presented in the world today; otherwise, the atheist DOES put himself in the position of proving the negative---IMO! - 12:16:55 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:BILL- Why would an atheist have to be open to any type of supernatural entity? I'm not anymore open to a god form than I am a blue fairy form. - 12:23:33 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:PETER, Allow me reword my last statement for clarity. I don't mean to convey the message that an atheist must prove a negative in relation to Gods put forth today, but rather to prove the case that "No God Exist." I'm not trying to argue here but rather agreeing with you statement to Anselm. - 12:50:32 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, If you were to make the statement that, "No God/Gods can Exist," then you assume the responsibility of proving your statement, IMO. If you make the statement, "No Gods presented by religions today exist, because of lack of evidence," then I would say that the responsibility is on the theists to prove that they do. This does not put the atheist in the position of saying that God is not possible; only that the Gods presented today are not possible. Gotta go till tonight. - 12:57:11 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--BILL--Yes , that's about the gist of the whole thing. I think most theists have a hard time understanding that a atheistic position is just one of default. It rests wholly on their inability to make their case. MARLENE--Not to worry. As far as I am concerned, scientifically, there is no evidence at all that would point to a God, and philosophically, as far as I am concerned, it can show that it would be impossible for a God to exist. However, based solely on the parameters of scientific method, I cannot outright deny His existence entirely, based solely on the fact that I have absolutely no way of knowing what future discoveries will be made, and also ( but at this point I cannot see how )somewhere sometime and somehow someone may be able to philosophically overturn the barriers that stand in the way of making the existence of God impossible. I have my very strong doubts, but again, I have no way of knowing what will happen in the future. - 13:16:04 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Grant: Is atheism a tenable belief system?::-) - 13:35:49 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

jaywilson--and how do you like your eggs?:GRANT: I know you posted that URL to embarrass its maker--but did it have to do such a good job? These amateur xtian apologists will never be wits so long as they're only half-prepared. - 18:13:10 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:Greetings JAYWILSON-- Actually, I'm currently struggling with a sense of the futility of all the arguments. Stumbling accross that page didn't help any. - 18:49:06 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

James--->jaywilson...:Personally, I always enjoyed the deviled eggs made out of mine. - 18:55:38 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..no point in worrying about the futility. I have had the same struggle off and on for many years, and it all comes down to people believing what ever fits their personal agenda. If a belief is ingrained in a person's mindset, it doesn't matter how much logic or reason one uses to either try have that other person see your viewpoint, or to dissuade someone from a belief that may seem preposterous to you or me. - 19:08:16 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam :BILL. According to the dictionary definition you are an agnostic. As an atheist, i have no reservations. I agree with Marlene. I accept no 'god' concept. As for Peter's reservations about some future evidence, I fail to see what evidence could become available that would not be available to us now. - 20:19:42 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..help!..:ALL- Someone here mentioned that they seen something about cult in Texas who expects some type of UFO activity in May. Does snyone remember this and can anyone give any information on it? - 21:01:06 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

James--->Marlene...:Seems like I heard a sound bite on something like that recently. I'll see what I kind find out. - 21:14:58 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- Thanks! - 21:17:14 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Talking about labels, does anyone believe that labels (atheist,theist,agnostic) restrict IN ANY WAY a human being's "being"? IS LABELING another human being a type of censorship?? Personally I TRY not to use labels as much as possible (JUST TO CONFORM TO A SYSTEM SET UP BY A SOCIETY AND SUCH etc.---refer back to the skippy skip label).. ....I agree with Peter and his assessment of the atheist label etc... Yes we have no idea what the future brings us.. Possibilities exist. I am not saying 'hope for something' BUT THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES. I am not making any claims here at all (THAT this is possible etc.-just generally speaking)......Here in the USA-- tax deadline is April 15--I must conform!!! - 22:32:52 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Rob.. I am not into 'church' etc. either as most of you acknowledged. I am also not into wine-blood-eucharist- body -slight-cannabalistic-vampire-Blood of Christ-died for sins sheep-followers---------those labels again.. Well I guess their FUN to use subconsciously or otherwise......Life feeds on life and labels feed on labels. - 22:48:53 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:ROB to ROB.. I am not hearing voices-- hehe. Maybe Tony's thought-god imagined ourselves addressing ourselves..Sonar anybody! - 22:51:56 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette asked: "Now, is god a giant head, or just some sort of mind like vapour, or just absolutely invisible? And how was he able to form into a mind, if there was nothing to be conscious of before he started thinking about us?" I have pondered both of the questions. There comes a point where one must say, "I don't know." Like I said in a post to Grant, if there is a God, it is up to him to reveal himself. If we are limited to the natural order only, we can, by definition, have a limited perspective on the supernatural. I know of many accounts where his character is alleged to be revealed, but in no place (that I know of) has he told us what it is like if you existed at his level of reality. As I've pointed out before, at least personally, I don't like to say more than I am permitted- here is an example of this. Many theists would have something to say in this matter- they are (apparently) the benefactors of personal revelation, since history, myth, and religion provide no insight. - 23:14:30 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Greetings Bill! Long time no see. The post above should answer your question about whether or not I know everything. In your post, you say "I would think that your arguments would have more creditability if you worked within the natural universe and knowledge garnered from science." I wish to point out, Bill, they would have more credability FOR YOU. It comes back to my assertion that there is a proper place for science. Let's say that we at last produce a true GUT that explains EVERYTHING IN THE NATURAL REALM. Even if this were to happen, one could still not say anything about the supernatural. By Definition. I think that's important. I remarked to Grant in an email that as humans searching for truth and common ground we must start by recognizing that humanity is far to rich in complexity to hope that chopping areas of knowledge into little bits will be helpful for the big picture. My opinion is that science may perhaps in the end occupy a central part of the picture, but it is still not the whole picture, and it still leaves unexplained the frame- and the artist (if any). (next post) - 23:23:20 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Finally, Bill, in reference to your comment about me stating that man, being less 'real' then God, has no free will and does not possess the same creative abilities. I'd like to correct you on that, because it's misleading. Philosophically, from an atheists perspective, free-will is an illusion. Case in point, whether or not a unified theory exists, the underlying laws and principles exist even if we haven't gotten around to laying them out in words. Therefore, this unified theory could predict everything, including thougts, actions and behavior. This is true unless you hold firmly to the implications of QM, which argue that these underlying laws and principles do not exist until we discover them. BTW, I am merely passing on what I've heard- that wasn't my commentary. However, my argument is that while GOD can create beings that have free will, WE CANNOT. It is not that we don't have free-will, its that we cannot impart free-will to our creations. Of course, from the Xtian perspective even free-will has been corrupted. But it is a truth that a creator cannot impart all that he/she has to its creator. Something will always get lost in the 'translation.' - 23:32:14 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Tony.... What are your views on extrasensory perception---telepathy,clairvoyance, mental mediumship or channeling----psychokinesis----psychokinesis,telekinesis, poltergiests, paranormal healing etc.. ??? Can we channel with your thought-god---if so do we need sonar or something---------to begin contacting him directly or indirectly? Again... are we bat-like creatures(ECHOLOCATION/AND /OR other abilities) within the thoughts of your god? - 23:36:09 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette and Bill both- when you are considering my argument its important to remember that the being which sustains us in his mind (according to the argument) is outside of our observational abilities. One needs to try to 'translate up' to try to grip what he 'looks' like. The problem is in assuming that by being in his image, that means specifically our physical appearance. I am convinced that if my argument is valid comphrension of what he really looks like is fairly impossible. Also, while God seems to have revealed himself as male, if you hold to my argument, but more than that, if you take into account the Genesis verse that states that He made them both in his image implies that female qualities, too, need to be 'translated' up. Perhaps Genesis uses the word 'us' in that passage to signify and clarify just that. Just a thought. - 23:40:33 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:It is becoming clear to me that I simply cannot keep up with the conversation here in this format. I would love to talk to any of you, but I think email would just work out much better for me. Here is my email: SntJohnny@aol.com ... I'll drop in a couple of more times this week, and occasionally after that. Hope to hear from many of you. I'll be using my sonar ablities. - 23:43:39 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:What the fuck was that---suit me in all my subjectiveness. - 23:48:00 on 12 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:ROB, I totally agree with your posting, and have posted similarly myself, on "Labels." I personally accept NO label other than saying that I am, at this particular moment in time, similar to….! And yes, I might be, as PS suggests, similar to an agnostic today; but then again, I am also similar to a pantheist today as well. And like the varying types of "atheist," as Peter points out, a "non-critical explicit atheist" may be associated with an agnostic position. Labels, to me, can be---not only confusing---but restrictive as well, and are not necessary. I personally don't see a need in adopting some concrete Label in order to define my present thinking. Labels tend to lead people towards collectivism, IMO. I want the ability to change, however small that change may be, without the feeling that I might violate my label or offend those associates with similar labels within my social circle. I think we may be entering an era where "new information" will arise daily, and it may become harder to remain personally "defined." Good post Rob! - 0:14:05 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:TONY, Good evening! And yes, you are right in saying that my suggestion to you---about keeping your arguments within the realm of the natural universe and thus lend more credibility to the argument---would make more sense to me. I concede on this point. Moving to my other question---admittedly you, as well as me, inevitable reach a point of "I don't know!" And "faith" or "hope" will always be the basis of one's assertions after this point, right? How could any God fault us for only thinking within the realm of our own understanding? Science is all that we have to base our knowledge on. Using Occam's razor, which you have mentioned here before, why would we even posit the supernatural when one explanation, is as Hawking's suggest, is a "self creating" and "self-contained" universe? Even if God exists, would he/she/it want us to lie about his reality or ours? - 0:57:39 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY...I hope that you don't opt not to visit, because I enjoy your posts. I have asked of you some questions that others may find silly, but you have patiently explained your position, and I appreciate that, even though I don't agree with much you have spoken about. Now, as much as I enjoy e-mails, I use that venue purely for social reasons, and much prefer this format for conversation with you, as others can offer valuable insight as well. That being said, I must ask you: are you implying that your belief in god is merely based on emotion or "a feeling" afterall? - 1:37:52 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..it was I that mentioned that I had watched Dateline where they did a segment on that cult that is sure that the world will end in May, and that they would be carried off in an alien spaceship. I then proceeded to ask of Ron if he may indeed be part of that cult has he has always maintained there would be an alien invasion next month, but he hasn't responded as yet. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of the cult, but I saw another article about them in the newspaper, because it is feared that they are going to be another death cult like Heaven's Gate. It would seem that there is a Taiwanese connection to this cult too, and several families have gathered in Texas already to wait for the day, but they have also bought return tickets to Taiwan just in case nothing happens. Hope this helps. (I'm sure there will be more stories about this as the time draws nearer - apparently they are under strict surveillance so there won't be any mass suicide repeats) - 1:43:57 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Thanks! I have a great deal of info on that last thingy where god was supposed to reveal himself. Do you mean they may be connected to this one? ROB- I really can only say that I do not accept the supernatural and therefore call myself atheist. As you say, labels don't mean a damn thing to me. TONY- You didn't answer my question on ID and creation.... - 3:28:51 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE... Tony only answers questions that suit his subjective knowledge and at the same time setting conditions conveniently.....IT is A limitless game to suit himself, meanwhile he deceives himself more and more where proof is not needed for his thought-god. He clicks his 'SONAR' on and off; he sets retrictions, as Carl mention about him, because he thinks he has knowledge of the supernatural that no other human possesses. Well, he might belong to some astral thought-god cult because he did say that he does not like to say more than I am permitted (ITSELF -convenient & restricting) personally (about others alleged supernatural knowledge. I sense some cult brainwashing and herd mentality tactics in his tones--though I am only being a conjecturer.... The supernatural lends itself to LIMITLESS CONJECTURE---I agree with you about not accepting the supernatural (objective proof is needed first). NOW I know why Peter does not bother with THE SHINE and his suiting knowledge anymore , because Peter realizes having an open discussion with Tony's SUITING SUBJECTIVE SIDE is a limitless game......... The shine----those labels again but in the end labels mean jack-shit....BILL-----THANK YOU- I like how you mentioned that labels lead to some form of collectivism which retricts our "beings".. - 5:40:55 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--ROB--Those who feel that since they are defending the existence of a limitless entity, feel they are qualified to slap on any limitless characteristic to that entity, in an attempt to rescue their argument. As of late their has appeared several of these theists, and once they begin this manouvre--their argument is doomed--for several reasons. To say that something exists, it of course must exist as something. One cannot say "exists" without saying such and such exists or, it exists, or "x" exists. All that exists must possess identity. All the theists attempt to avoid this responsibilty, but I cannot se how it can be avoided. Once something is said to exist, it must have identifiable traits; attributes and these attributes cannot be divorce from limitations. George H.Smith author of "Atheism:The Case Against God" declares that "The phenomenon of the "unlimited attribute" is the central epistimological contradiction of the Christian God" which "stems from the futile effort of the Christians to endow his God with unrestricted qualities." When all these infinities are associated with God, they begin to contradict themselves, leaving the theist with this non-identifiable entity--which exists ( but cannot without identity). For instance, omniscience contradicts omnipotence. If lets say, God knew all future events in the past, he cannot change them in the present, because if he did, then he would not have had that knowledge of change in the past. Pointing this out causes extreme discomfort with the theist, and they will pretend not to understand this contradiction, or insist that God can reconcile all contradictions ( which again forfeits his indentifiability, or they will assert that god actually exists in all times, past, present and future--which will then REALLY make him unidentifiable. Then when THIS is pointed out to them, they will dispute that something can exist without identity--which translates into: There is no God. But again, they will still insist there is nonetheless, rendering further argument devoid of any reference point of proof--in other words an excercise in futility, they still want to have that God, regardless. - 12:28:35 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:TONY, I know it's hard to respond to all questions here and I've tried not to bombard you with too many, as I would like you to "stick around" for awhile. I'm am busy as well and must leave here shortly to do business. But in fairness to the "Bill" character here, and in reference to your 23:32:14 on 12 Apr 98 post to me, why are you correcting me? I was quoting you from your post which said, ***If we were to write a story, the characters, the plot, and scenery are all real (albeit less real than that which they symbolize). As real as they are, they have NO free will. They have NO ability to create, as we do. They CANNOT interact within our level of reality. Translate this up, then, in response to your argument: WE cannot conceive of things from scratch, though God, being at a higher level of reality, may be able to. That's 1. -7:19:02 on 2 Apr 98 GMT***. Shouldn't you be correcting yourself? Additionally, I believe we DO have limited "freewill" on our human higher mind levels as we do have a "will" and we do make choices. Obviously, we cannot choose to "not-breath," say, for very long and this freewill is limited. Also you say, ***However, my argument is that while GOD can create beings that have free will, WE CANNOT.***. I am wondering if you have heard the latest news, concerning two scientists, who have patented the rights to genetically cross human genes with those of a Gorilla or Pig and thus create a totally new species? This cross-species may also posses some limited "freewill." What do you think of all this, in light of the fact, that we have already crossed sheep and goats, camels and lamas, and donkeys and horses, etc., to create new species? Is God the only one that can create? If you would rather email me then my address is: Send2Bill@Aol.com - 14:26:16 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- This is why I dislike Tony's type of theism. He's been posting here a long time. At one time, not to so long ago, he was a teacher teaching children. I think your right that he has this tendency toward brainwashing, at least that which works on children. As I've mentioned, I have no respect for those who force this crap on kids. - 14:31:38 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:BILL- What do you mean by "limited freewill"? - 14:34:23 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: of your Q&A reference site, at the initial site the authors'position of the definition of an atheist appears in either the webster or random house dictionaries, both record atheism as,"...the belief that there is no god.", so either merely weakens the atheists'position to be equal to a "religious belief" point of view. The view of atheism that regularly appears here, however, is the position that "no evidence" of god has ever been presented and it keeps the atheist position out of the "either/or" position that a religious believer needs in order to wage any kind of godthing discourse. According to my intro.to logic book, an either/or is one of the forms of a logical fallacy. Perhaps that discourse-thing, was the objective of the dictionary composers, not for atheism but for the theists? The view of atheism as the inclusion of those who hold that no evidence of a godthing is available, means that the theist faces an impossible task of accounting for a beginning and an end. This is essentially what the xtian bible provides, and for some that is a good thing to know of or think. So,like any good or bad movie when it's over it says "The End". Anyway that is why I mean to push the visiting religious believer to say something "of" themselves, what they think is their godthing. As I peeked furtheron into that site the cosmic evidence of a godthing points, seemed similar to the TONYs'thought god. The cosmic evidence presented an extensional view so TONY presented an intensional view. What is safe about either point of view? nobody can really know either view. They are both quasi-win win scenarios. - 15:48:43 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:PETER.. I agree with the notion that all that exists must possess identity. It is interesting or possibly unfortunate how theists like Tony wallow in their own self-deception; these theists, as you correctly state our left with an non-identifiable entity which exists but cannot WITHOUT IDENTITY... Thank you, I really did not look at Tony and his thought-god in that way; I was consumed by the way Tony sets limitless conditions for himself while at the same time resticting others, here, in their refutation of his personal knowledge (his thought-god). I would like to read that piece of work by George H.Smith; it looks like a good read!! But, maybe Tony's thought-god imagines that I have some type of reading disorder (where again a theist's convenience is limitless for themselves also).. Anyway, what is your opinion on LABELS???? - 16:50:33 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:ROB<<>> useing labels and dividing people into groups is a christian tactic. It makes it easier for them to hate/dislike/judge people if they lump all them into groups. Example: mormons, druggies, hippies, atheists, etc.. This allows them to place a person to where they think they are going after they die. All hippies are going to hell. All mormons, jews, druggis, commies, etc.. are going to hell. etc. etc. etc...infinity - 17:34:18 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:BILL... You mentioned that right now you are similiar to say --a pantheist. ARE YOU ATTRACTED in some way to Spinoza's system??? When looking at Spinoza's system of philosophy one must remember that the problem of the universe seemed much simpler in his day, than it does in our own. Spinoza CONCEIVED as a vast unity all existence actual and possible; indeed, between actual and possible he recognizes no distinction, for, if a thing does not exist, there must be some cause which prevents its existing, or in other words renders it impossible. This unity he terms indifferently substance or say -god.. HE talked of attributes-extension & thuoght which are knowable by us----the rest may be left out of account in our inquiries etc... HE also said that virtue is its own reward, and needs no other.. Few things seem to have moved him to more scournful denial than the poular creed---that supernatural rewards and punishments are necessary as incentives to virtue...HIS philosophy has been so variously interpreted, and he has been called labels of-pantheist, mystic, and almost every name in the philosophic vocabulary.. I could go on-- again what do you think of Spinoza and his philosophy--"For him, who is truly wise, blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself"? - 17:39:27 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:STEVEN.. IT does make it easier to judge people when you lump them together with a label.. "Burn in hell-you non-believers" is easy convenient statement of judgement made by many fanatic Christians.. - 17:51:41 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Spinoza may have been influenced by other religions such as the eastern one which claim humanity is a small part of the whole. For his time, though, he was not a herd animal. - 17:59:08 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Along the lines of the "...all things that exist must have identity." perhaps the theist types are concerned about the grey area that is between 'belief' and an 'either or' view. In their 'belief' of a supernatural that belief position means to begin with, that the theists merely attributes all to the supernatural. The 'either or' is a means for them to deal with the impossibility of a doubt of their act of attribution to the supernatural thing. The gray area is any past and future instant of their existence. It annoys theist types, for example, that a science type holds certain expectations of their- the science type, next instant of existence, as well as for the dynamics of quite a few other things in that same future instant. Theist type address their grey areas in static time, ignoring that it is false to the facts of the dynamics of things. Heck even that red-head who's appearances regularly pleased my eyes changed her attire from the last to the next time I saw her. Is that not dynamical? Or, in other words theist type sort of overdo the label thing. - 18:19:03 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. In your post to Bill you state "Philosophically, from an atheist's perspective, free will is an illusion." As an atheist, I resent the idea that you can tell me what I believe. I speak for myself. I say that the idea that some "god" has given man free will is a delusion on the part of some theists. You say "Whether or not a unified theory exists, the underlying laws and principles exist." First, the "theory" exists, what s lacking is proof of the theory. Secondly, the sum of the parts constitute the whole, ergo laws plus principles equal the theory. These semantic corrections in no way affect the validity or non-validity of the subject. - 18:51:13 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:PAPAS<<>>as far as TONY and his theory is concerned, if he had proof of his delusion it would not longer just be a theory. - 19:18:09 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: One of the key things that theists cannot cope with here, it is that lack of a simple minded "appreciation" of them that appears among them and their kind. You know, somebody blessing them or praying for them or the hopes a god will favor them. That kind of appreciation, the Freud thing of "the desire to be great." or in TONYs' case it may be John Deweys'the "desire to be important." why else would he finally claim an inability to function within this format. Alone at his email site, he can exercise any of his irresponsible socipathic ploys with anybody. He prefers the irresponsible approach just because he likes a godthing to be responsible. - 19:35:15 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN1: Recall some of the other known sociopaths that had to get folks alone? Ever heard of son o'sam, John Gasey(sic?) Dillinger, Jim Jones? In J.Jones'tale recall how he couldn't do as he wanted "for his people" within the confines of S.Francisco, so he troops off to the jungles of Guyana, and etc.etc. These examples are sociopathic. - 19:50:45 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..he's chasing butterflies if he thinks..:CARL-Good point! Maybe it's a divide and conquer approach??? The only problem being is that many atheists don't group in the first place. That can be observed by this discussion. Every atheist here has their own individual idea on things. There are no moral codes, hell, no codes at all. What is there to divide or conquer? - 20:24:13 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>what about ML King, JF Kennedy etc.. Two sociopaths who managed not to kill anyone that we know for sure. Well Kennedy was responsible for the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam I guess. - 20:33:04 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Of the appeal that I can make out of this site is the individuality of the assorted pseudonyms at this site. When we flub-up or post something weak we hear about it. I think that is a great quality of this site. But as we see of the theist, how does one ascertain if they f-up in their view of their almighty? How does one of them learn a better way about or to their godthing? Do they affirm true and false alike or is it all good as it- praise[?], may concern the godthing, or just to be an adherent of the godthing, either part simply means that a true false view of the godthing is meaningless. I wonder about such things. - 21:43:22 on 13 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:ROB, MARLENE, TONY, We had a family emergency today (my wife's brother was killed in a car wreck) and I will be out of touch for awhile, but I will answer your post when I can. Regards! - 0:28:33 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--ROB--Labels have bben given a bad rap here, and I think in the most part, justifiably so. I can see them being used in terms of a definition, as in its easier to say "Canadian" rather than desribing all the requisites for bing a Canadian. Labels should be used as sort of a reference point such as "theist" or "atheist", but as we have sen these labels are useless unless there can be a universal agreement about what they actually refer to, which will initiate another debate on what the terms actually mean, and many use this as a tool for getting a foot up in the original argument. This then results in someone just having to describe what they are referring to anyway. So in the end--labels are fine if all can agree on what the label is.( Which rarely occurs ) - 1:35:24 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Bill, I'm sorry to hear about the accident. I hope you were able to offer words of comfort. You're right, my post hadn't been as clear as I recall- so my correction was a self-correction, in that I hadn't expressed myself properly. I will save my remarks for your return. - 1:58:09 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, regarding your opting against an email conversation, I can only reply, "We'll just have to see." The problem is not getting here, the problem is getting here often enough to follow a discussion. I just don't think I can do that. But again, we'll see. Til then, you wondered: are you implying that your belief in god is merely based on emotion or "a feeling" afterall?" Unfortunately, not at all. I have never experience the numinous; nor have I ever been 'spirit-filled,' or any thing like that. I wouldn't mind, you know? It would be something concrete, at least for me, even if it meant nothing to others. Alas, as yet, it is not to be. But to describe what God 'looks' like is to ask something that I cannot answer. What God is like, I may be offer something. What God is doing, perhaps something as well. Where God is, a little about that. Who God is? Tough as well. You may be saying to yourself, 'what a cop-out!' Or even, so what's the point, then? But I think that I have more integrity if I go no further than I am able and make no claims I can not fill. Besides that, these questions are hard enough to answer about the people we know, whom we see face to face- and, the person in the mirror provides few answers as well. I doubt I'm the only one with that experience. To then make the same demands when discussing God, I feel, should be done with a certain amount of understanding of limitations. - 2:11:44 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, I anticipate that your next question may be, "How then can you be sure there is a God?" I can only answer that with an appeal to my own history of investigation. Briefly, there came a point where I ruled out naturalistic explanations of the universe and concluded that the Xtian world-view was the best place to start. That involved accepting the Scriptures being more than historical documents. I found that very tough to do. I recognized, however, that my bias against the Bible was undermining any attempts to understand it. IOW, I was holding the Bible guilty before proven innocent. I decided to switch it around. Since that time every question I'VE looked into has been answered FOR ME satisfactory. It's funny- my hardest questions disappeared in a matter of months. After that, more and more questions arose. However, it was the application of those truths that could be applied that was most convincing to me. That makes sense to me now- NO truth can be fully appreciated if it is applied. It doesn't matter what kind of truth we're talking about, that's just the way it is. Talk to you later. - 2:22:19 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Marlene, I missed your question. What was the date on it? Papasam- there's no need to resent my remark. If it doesn't describe you, well fine. However, an atheist that uses science to determine truth must discard free-will. If he does not, he does so irrationally. Perhaps you have another way you discern truth. Feel free to tell me what it is. Besides, friend, I was talking to Bill... - 2:29:26 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. I know you were talking to Bill, but when you post on this site, you leave yourself open to criticism from anyone, as we all do. Perhaps that's why you prefer to use email. You state "An atheist that uses science to determine truth must discard free will." To me, free will is the opportunity to choose between various actions. I fail to see the connection between free will, and the use of the scientific method to solve a problem. You're mixing apples and oranges. I exercise my free will constantly in my daily activities, such as what to eat or drink, how to dress, whether to read a book or watch TV, and so on. If I want to know which foods please me most, I use the scientific method - I taste them. - 4:31:32 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry>>>Tony>>>:--TONY--Not wanting to target you specifically, but certainly you can understand that the insufficiencies in your argument, are not going unnoticed by myself--and apparently by everyone else. The universe is still a mysterious place. There are still many unanswered questions. I was addressing someone else here a few weeks ago whose argument was similar to yours who combined all the unkowns into one convenient package et voila--call it god, and as far as he was concerned: problem solved. Despite the pleas of the others- you, like him, have still not recognized the circle of reason you are firmly entrapped. You are pre-supposing his existence, and as long as there exists unanswered questions, he thrives in your mind. His survival is wholly dependent on these unknowns--and nothing else. I think one problem that rarely gets addressed is that the theist presumes he is engaging in a really deep issue, and his claims are most worthy of serious consideration. However, the most nagging obstacle for the non-believer is to somehow convey this message to the theist diplomatically, and resist insulting the theist personally while attempting to show how absurd the theist's claim is. I have attempted to construct analogies directed at the theists--if he is in fact willing to live within the confines of logic -- to convince him that he virtually cannot say one thing about "God" that ISN'T preposterous. To put this into some type of a proportion: The human body still has functions which are still a mystery to science. For instance, as strange as it seems, it is still unknown how one gets an ice-cream headache when he eats ice cream too fast. Now I understand most will not be as concerned about this as the explanation of the universe and existence are concerned, but this is still applicable. The human body, like the universe can be explained wihin the confines of the natural world, save for a few mysteries. Now, if the theist feels his position is a rational one, I could then insist there is a happy elf that controls all the functions of the body that cannot be explained--and as long as these unknowns remain--I would be perfectly within my right to posit a supernatural entity which has no specific nature, as long as he possesses the necessary traits to explain the mystery. I hope this sounds preposterous to you Tony. I want it to. This is how the claim that God exists sounds, and it is on precisely the same level as the happy elf. Revealing and attempting to understand the mysteries of the universe is fine, but to assume that they are all caused by one single influence--and then to call it God, while associating it with the same entity to which the bible refers is as unqualified and as absurd a conclusion humanly imaginable. In fact, it is my firm conviction that the idea that God exists is in fact the perfect absurdity. To attempt to show he exists will commit ,as one philosopher pointed, EVERY fallacy known in logic. This at first may appear to be bold statement, but it really is not. Since God, ideally, is actually the direct opposite of how mankind perceives reality, so it stands to reason that every function that recognizes reality is violated - 4:43:19 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette>>>TONY..:"these questions are hard enough to answer about the people we know, whom we see face to face- and, the person in the mirror provides few answers as well." May I suggest you read HONORING THE SELF by Nathaniel Branden? It may help you solve this particular mystery. - 12:21:37 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANY..religion is anti-freewill. It has been said here that god has given his followers freewill and the ability to make choices. However, if a theist uses their freewill to make a choice contrary to god's liking, then they have to suffer the consequences. How then, can they believe they have freewill? - 12:28:25 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:I asked Bill to expand on what he meant by "limited freewill" as opposed to the "feewill" xtians claim that god gave humanity. Limited freewill is that which is limited to the nature of ourselves. For instance, no matter how hard we want to and try, we can't run a mile in a second. Barker says it a little better..."Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices. - 14:29:15 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JERRY- Very good post to Tony! - 14:31:13 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..on atheist ec.:PAPASAM- You tell him! Your absolutely right! Anyone who posts here are subject to comments from all other posters. If Tony wishes to personally communicate with any one of us individually then he should email them. If he doesn't like the heat then I suggest he stay out of the kitchen. - 14:34:05 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JERRY: As you can or anybody might also make out, TONY has donned some racehorse-like blinders in his "search"for and when viewing the bible as scripture. And as JOETTE points out, he must say or hold of those that don't agree with him and his view of either thing, that he- at least earnestly sought, that they lack something so he goes with freewill as an issue. Never mind that he does so dishonestly, dispite his earnest search. Most Jewish written things by I guess a Jew ( I asked the Jewish embassy if they could say that there was a real "Jew" person or is that term just a say so) and blacks, and the few still real American Indians North and South, and even some kinds of caucasians, and they invariably see the bible as death dealing and it is in relation to original sources a fraud and forgery and for the Jews and Hindus plageristic. I have read these views in things written- briefly, in this country- the USA, but most from internet sources as available in other countrys. The only way someone can argue for a godthing is to place somewhere anywhere on anything at anytime a "negative". My question to the TONY and others of that preferred state of ignorance is "where is their godthing?" Is that a negative or bad-like thing to ask anyone? Shakespeare wrote, "Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so." - 15:00:00 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: If there is one thing that will always be the metaphysical "essence" of the human creature, it is their propensity to be gullibly thoughtless and to make the most of that propensity at any given time. One of the points of this site I enjoy is its'leaching process of my thoughts. If you don't see then I do later. So consider please; You may have heard about the B o'A and Nations banks merger. Here in the SF area the Gianini name is commonly known to be one and the same as the B o'A. The TV newsfolks are 'reporting' that a nationalised bank was Gianini's "ultimate" objective. I read a book by that family, they meant only to have a bank for the Italians coming to what the europeans called the new-world. It began as the Bank of Italy. Upon the event of the SF earthquake, Gianini expanded his bank business to non-italians to rebuild SF. Not a bad thing, no not at all. But to hear the accounts of Gianini now and for that merger, he could very well become another kris columbus. And for the investigative learner, you know he was just a slave trader of african blacks whose prior-activity brought european type slavery to the new-world. That is the real kris in the same way was the real Gianini was just in the right place at the right time. - 15:32:05 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>it is unfortunate that our school children are taught that Kris was a good man. That he was the first person from Europe to discover America is also a glaring historical lie that is taught to our school children. Do you think that children are taught how Kris first came here, took 10-30 slaves back to England (which the majority died on the trip) so he could prove to the Queen that he was bring God to the Natives. He kidnaped 10-30 Native Americans, tortured them to teach them how to say prayers in English (they had no idea what they were saying), present them to the Queen. How a teacher could lead children to believe the propaganda that our gov. requires them to spew, is beyond me. I find it quite disgusting. The bad thing is that this is one small example of the crap that our country force feeds our children. I guess to the Victor goes the spoils. Or more appropriately, the victor is always the writer of history. - 16:02:23 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY...as the old song goes "I can see clearly now, ......". It is my assertion now that you have spent so much time in your research and investigations so that one day you may be added to the list of the great thinkers of our time. I have come to the conclusion that your pursuit is purely for personal acknowldgement reasons. Your posts tend to smack of the makings of a book, in that they toss out ideas without making points, or answering any questions. Is my opinion way out of line, or am I getting close to the truth as you know it? - 16:50:33 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..I agree with your post and am also often disgusted by the way an educational system will ignore important pieces of history, or try to make everything "pro-country of your choice". However, since you will have a bambino before too long, (how long to go BYW?), it is important for parents to be involved in what is being taught. For example, when my daughter was in Grade 5, they were learning about the space program, the information they were given was way out of date, and not accurate, and so I talked to her teacher, and ended up teaching that part of that year's science agenda. (it being a hobby of mine). It was fun, the kids loved it, and they learned what was accurate for that time. In fact, in this country, anyone is pretty much invited into classrooms to teach or speak on anything that would assist the learning process (there are exceptions: holocaust deniers are considered criminals in this country) - 16:56:44 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: Again I inscribe, this PC gadget is one of the best things made that allows an inquisitive mind to learn about things. That view of writers of history will go the wayside provided of course some agency or powerful influence does not step in to apportion out what one can have access to. Do you recall that radio program I mentioned listening to? The fellow was a black African whose interests were pro-black of some learned black group out of Africa. So, last eve I find a pbs program about the ancient Egyptian things. It appeared it was not pro-black african because in its portrayal of an imaginary ancient egypt the people images were not those of egyptians as black Africans. The point of view, isn't it interesting and fun? - 17:10:48 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:I guess if one wants to suggest 'a limited free-will' one can make a case for that state of being. I think 'a limited free-will' is really just a kind of pacifying of the human consciousness. Ultimately, in my opinion, I think we as humans do not have free-will because as Marlene mentioned-we are limited by are nature! WE are bound also by the universal laws of nature---as a species on this planet, we will become extinct by the dying of our sun or by some earlier cataclysmic event. Death unfortanately is not an usher of free-will! - 17:33:25 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:CARL... A point of view of a person IS fun. Some people believe that the baby jesus was black or that Jesus was an alien prophet..Humans do have the propensity to be outlandishly gullible in their thoughts, WITNESS--the Tony's thoughts or his thought-god imagining him thinking in this propensity! - 17:53:06 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB and Others...how exactly should freewill be defined. Sure, there are actions we cannot take (the one minute mile for example) because we are bound by physics, but to me, freewill is a psychological term, not a physical one. What limits a person's freewill is social mores, but we do have the ability to exercise our freewill any way we see fit, provided we are prepared to suffer the social consequences. - 17:59:08 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...have you been following the latest exploits of Maggie Trudeau? (for those who don't know who she is, she is a former Canadian First Lady who during her husband's tenure as Prime Minister ran off with Mick Jagger). - 18:01:51 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ROB: Poor person, if that poor TONY person could leave behind the goobly goop of having to say something negative in the same breath as that of his proclaiming things for his godthing, or at least catch his breath before mentioning his godthing, he'd probably have more exchanges of ideas that might serve his thinking somehow or other. But alas, like his bible scripture that records his godthing as damning and cursing humans, so too must poor TONY. Isn't this that old saying, "like father like son." - 18:06:10 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE... Yes, a civilized society structures itself with social mores etc...to limit a person's limited free-will. Yes, we have the ability to exercise whatever we want--say if you like anarchy.. SURE there are consequences for anyone-the anarchist---possibly death. Again it brings us back to our mortal self as a species. Do you think lower-class animals without the ability to reason give a shit about free-will? Thinking in psychological terms is like a couch trip anway.. I must go--finish thoses damm taxes----tommorrow--Do taxes and death strip 'the free' out of will--hehe? - 18:14:09 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- No! What's Maggie up to now? ROB- We have until the 31st to have our taxes done. It takes the "free" out of country for me! - 18:54:20 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I think of "free-will" in terms of the human nature and within the paradigms of the laws of that concept, as ought it remain. At about this point in the past I depart company with most or all here, because I also think that the confusion of a humans'free-will occurs with those who prefer the mythologoical answer to the question, what is the manthing? or the confused response that goes along with a zoological response. Both lead to extremes of behavior and our general existence. - 18:54:29 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:lol. I love cooking- the kitchen isn't a place I despise, but that doesn't mean that there are periods when I must be content with T.V. dinners. Reading into that is a mistake. Joette, your analytical post was a curious one. I've actually taken the position that it may be 'better' to leave no record of my existence at all... the 'lowest' shall be brought up kind of thinking. - 19:41:03 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Jerry, thank you for the fine commentary on how you percieve theists. I am fully aware that many theists try to use God to explain all of that which is unknown. Presumably, science will continue to eradicate the unknown. I therefore try NOT to incorporate any of the findings of science in defending theism. After all, what I quote today may be gone tomorrow. This does cut both ways. In your thinking you have decided that God is an absurd concept. That is your right. In my thinking, understanding the limitations within an argument of method of inquiry is very helpful. I don't believe that many of the posters here take into account any of that. And that is my right. (np) - 19:51:09 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY...I don't understand your post. Would you mind embellishing it? - 19:52:39 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY...disappointed...you are again using that broad brush that I took exception to on your website. Please don't lump us all into one group. We are all thinking, breathing, anti-collective individuals. If you have accusastions to make, address them. We are all big boys and girls here. - 19:55:52 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:I would also like to add that it is very safe to take no positions at all and jab at those that do. I've just met you, so I cannot say that you do that. Are you an atheist of the type that Peter describes? If you are, then you are safe indeed- he takes no positions at all. You, however, sound like you think that the methodology of science will at some point make all known. Would that be accurate? - 19:56:15 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Joette, the bottom half of my post was directed to your comment on 16:50:33 on 14 Apr 98 GMT. The kitchen remark will be understood by the one that introduced the phrase and is not directed to you. - 19:59:02 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...Maggie's in the news again because she has been committed to a mental health facility. Apparently she became obsessed with the visit of the princes, and even went as far as to rent a house in Whistler so that they would visit her. Her invitation was declined and she became despondent. This past weekend, she went to the hospital to be treated for a sprained ankle, and while there she decided to beat up on a couple of nurses. I guess money really can't buy happiness (actually, I feel sorry for her now). - 20:00:10 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:PapaSam, there used to be an atheistic gent here named Richard that made a strong case that free-will was an illusion, given the truth of naturalism. Free-will is a common topic here, isn't it!?! Still, the weight of evidence against free-will can be found in other sources, including Hawking's "A brief history of time," where he discusses the problems (philosophically) of a unified theory. BTW, Joette, I was wondering if your statment "We are all thinking, breathing, anti-collective individuals" was a generalization? :) - 20:05:13 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY...no, it isn't a generalization, because I know the people on this page. Some from speaking with them here, knowing their opnions, and others because I have come to know them more personally. So, let's say that I have done my research before making that statment. - 20:08:31 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:Marlene, I cannot email people without their email address. Mine is SntJohnny@aol.com Joette, you asked how a religious person could believe they have free-will. From the Xtian point of view, free-will means partly having the mind to do something as well as the ability to do something (I think, perhaps, what Marlene had Bill referring to as, 'limited free-will) and partly the 'right' to not obey God's 'commands.' The fact that there would be consequences does not negate free-will, because presumably there are consequences (albeit positive ones) for obeying the commands. I would say again that if you argue completely for a naturalistic view point that nature's laws dictate every action. It doesn't matter if we do not no yet what all the laws are. The appearance of our making choices are actually the net results of the laws of nature working from the beginning of time. That's the argument at least. I can only add that if I were to become an atheist, I would feel compelled to reject free-will. - 20:16:11 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Tony:To all: I hope that we can continue to be civil to each other. Later! - 20:17:25 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..atheist ec.202:TONY- God's commands???? I haven't heard it/him/she command anything. In fact, I haven't heard it/she/he at all. Objectively, neither has anyone else for that matter. Your pan of grey matter is burning! - 20:39:31 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..:JOETTE- Maybe Maggie Muggins off to tra-la-la-la land! It could have been too many flower power pills. - 20:42:49 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Anselm:JERRY: You say, God is the opposite of how we perceive reality"? Well of course, if we approach epistemology from a naturalist/empiricist position, but you should know Jerry, if you know anything at all about the history of Philosophy that this is a position in need of justification. This seems like a great place to start. Tell me Jerry...by what method did you arrive at the conclusion that God is the direct opposite of how we perceive reality? - 20:57:15 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:TONY: That "compelling action" depends upon what one or how one views "atheism". If one goes along with a dictionary view, then one cannot reasonable arrive at any conclusion. If one opts for a religious-view as you inscribe is your belief system, then "free-will" is only something "given" by a supernatural thing, and of that supernatural thing it is only consequential to some mythological view of humans. As for the zoological view who "knows" if animals have or do not have free will? Perhaps the RICHARD you refer to had somehow attached his views of the illusionary nature of free-will to one of these two views- mythological or zoological, and if he did so in view of either or both, I would have to agree with his conclusion. But then, I think both views are monstrous and misrepresentative of the human thing. The human thing is the only thing we are capable of truely- be as it may, know. Science conceptually relates, attempts as best it can, the human thing to the natural world. Any religious view so far offers nil, or do you know where the religious godthing is, as an explanation for anything. By the way i ran into an interesting account that is a response to your intelligent design view. Of that view, it seems to say the IQ design view is merely a matter an emperor's attire. - 20:59:56 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Good post! And ID is rather thread-bare, isn't it, lol! - 21:43:08 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry>>>Tony>>>:I have absolutely no idea of what science will find in the future. I cannot say if what is out there that has yet to be discovered. If you don't want to explain the existence of God within the context of science ( i.e.one of reality ), that certainly is your perogative, but if you wish to remain in this domain--you have conceded that your arguments are meaningless inasfar as defending God's existence. Getting back to the the happy elf--when called uopn to demonstrate he exists , I could make a similar claim as you have ( not being able to be explained scientifically )and at the same time insist my arguments are noteworthy. I am sure that this relity is been indicated to you here before Tony, so why do you insist on using it again? Your actions here smack of deception, and a hope that the posters here won't remember. Whenever I can regress a theist's argument to this level ( and I always am able to ), as far as I'm concerned, he longer warrants further consideration. So what you are saying is you will attempt to prove God exists outside that of what is real. No position? You have yet to demonstrate that anything is there, so other than being unconvinced that there is anything that exists as a result of there being no evidence found, and observing the guidelines set by reason and scientific knowledge, this is the only rational position I , or Peter, or whoever could take. Other than you not belieiving a happy elf exists, how could you possibly embrace another position on this issue? - 21:51:44 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry>>Anselm>>: No, I will not tell you. I'll let you guess. You apparently can explain everything else, so this shouldn't pose much of a problem for you. - 21:58:25 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, You ask about defining my use of "free-will." We have discussed this topic before and I don't think we disagree on this to much? Of course the debate between "freewill" verses "determinism" has gone on for centuries. The two opposing determinants in the universe are "entropy" (death) and "organization (life), in which all of nature seems to be governed by. Only humans have evolved to "higher" mind levels, that allows them to conceptualize "time" (past and present events); and through this conceptualization and subsequent rationalization of existence, exhibit some limited "Will." In his book---A Brief History of Time--- (in the chapter on the 'Uncertainly Principle') Hawking talks about this Principle being the end of Laplace's dream of a theory of science and a model of the universe that would be completely deterministic. On a micro level I can choose to see an 'atom at a place' or an 'atom with a speed' but not both at the same time. There is a certain mind-over-matter on this level of "potential realities." On a more practical macro level, I would say to those who believe that everything is determined, and we are not responsible for our actions, to open up the jails and release all those poor humans who have no "free-will - 23:50:40 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:ROB, It's been awhile since I studied philosophy but I think Spinoza was kicked out of the church and feared as a dangerous atheist in his time He seemed to have had many labels, as you suggest (ie mystic, pantheist, atheist, etc.), and saw the essence of "mind" as "thought" and the essence of "body" as "extension." Everything was one with nature, I think? Spinoza built his "truth" not from "I think", but "It is." As Rand would say, "Existence Exists." "It is" occurred first and was the bases of truth! Didn't he base a lot of his ideas on science? Also the human mind is in some sense immortal, where it understands and loves God or Nature; whereas the human body is mortal and body binds the mind. The mind can work against this limitation to an extent, "free-will." Of course "free-will" is only the essence of humans. And I like that quote, "For him, who is truly wise, blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself." You seem to have an interest in Spinoza? Do you relate to pantheism at all? - 23:53:13 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:TONY, Re: Post to Marlene and quote by Hawking concerning "free-will." Also Re: 0:57:39 on 13 Apr 98 GMT -- AND --14:26:16 on 13 Apr 98 GMT - 23:53:45 on 14 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. I was told by a christian that his god gave people free will to choose between good or evil, and that they would be rewarded with heaven for doing good, and punished with hell for choosing evil. Is that your understanding of the term? Don't start lecturing about the "unified theory" or the weight of evidence or Steven Hawkings. Just say yes or no. As a quid pro quo I will be pleased to give you my definition. To me, the term free will simply means the ability to make a choice between various actions. Other animals have the same option. A dog can either choose to bite me or lick my hand or ignore me completely. Again,don't try to lecture me on what a naturalistic point of view is or should be. To paraphrase the old saying, "christian, stick to your bible". You have a hard enough time trying to explain your own beliefs without trying to interpret the beliefs of others. - 0:06:15 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. Well, I see your old wounds have healed and you are back with your blend of didactic and polysyllabic lecturing and questioning. You must have enjoyed a pleasant stay at the monastery getting yourself fortified with renewed vigor for your attack on the pagans. How are things back at the old mythology university? Are they still pushing the "man from dustball and woman from rib" story, complete with the talking snake? Put your brain to the grindstone. It's time to sharpen your wits. - 0:35:44 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

...:... - 4:46:30 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:BILL.. Spinoza was excommunicated etc . from his Jewish sect and was labeled a heretic. "All things manifest in his third book of Ethics, in a certain and determinate manner, the eternal and infinite essence of nature-or god. I think Spinoza meant that the universal laws of nature are god or substance and not the type of god-thing the theists believe in..He developed a theory in which, I like to say NATURE IS IDENTIFIED WITH NATURE, not as some panthieists have held, with each individual finite object and event, but rather with the power whereby all objects and ideas exist and events take place, and the laws according to which everything comes to pass... HE said that human nature obeys fixed laws no less than do the figures of geometry. HE talked of as you said - man's mind to extension body, thought etc. THE HUMAN MIND can be immortal when it understands nature or substance, but in my opinion in a limited way until the physical human mind is dead. Maybe this fleeting understanding is the supreme god--if you want to use a name. I am attracted to some of Spinoza's system but not the whole package.. I THINK you can view life itself as a god ( not talking about the theists god-thing)--god in the sense that life feeds on itself, life creates etc. in general. - 7:33:51 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE:Hello all ...here is a question, does the universe and all that is in it come by chance or by and intelligent mind a designer God? By chance I mean anything like evolution or randomness with no order to it? no creator behind it? if you say yes chance evolution, or the like, then your whole argument is meaningless and pointless, there would be no such thing as truth , l,ove right and wrong, laws science etc, and this is what atheism sets up, a kind of horror without any order, lawlessness etc.. Do you see if there is no God and no standards for morality or law or science etc, if there was no order then anything goes. For example if someone wanted to destroy all life on the planet, no one could logically disagree, for there really is no purpose to life etc. Also even your whole arguments against christianity would be useless and for no purpose, for you don't believe in order. If you say yes there is order then who ordered it? You might say well, no one, yet in our world we see many things that have order and we knoiw, we just know even without seeing the creator that they were ordered by someone, by some creator. For example a watch or a house etc. It would be utter nonsense to say they came by chance, for we see that they have purpose order design etc. Likewise we also have great order and our universe, our bodies are very structured and so is the universe, therefore a intelligent mind is behind it all a designer , a creator, for when we see something like a watch we instantly say it had a creator even without seeing the creator, we just know there is. - 12:27:48 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE:Hello all ...here is a question, does the universe and all that is in it come by chance or by and intelligent mind a designer God? By chance I mean anything like evolution or randomness with no order to it? no creator behind it? if you say yes chance evolution, or the like, then your whole argument is meaningless and pointless, there would be no such thing as truth , l,ove right and wrong, laws science etc, and this is what atheism sets up, a kind of horror without any order, lawlessness etc.. Do you see if there is no God and no standards for morality or law or science etc, if there was no order then anything goes. For example if someone wanted to destroy all life on the planet, no one could logically disagree, for there really is no purpose to life etc. Also even your whole arguments against christianity would be useless and for no purpose, for you don't believe in order. If you say yes there is order then who ordered it? You might say well, no one, yet in our world we see many things that have order and we knoiw, we just know even without seeing the creator that they were ordered by someone, by some creator. For example a watch or a house etc. It would be utter nonsense to say they came by chance, for we see that they have purpose order design etc. Likewise we also have great order and our universe, our bodies are very structured and so is the universe, therefore a intelligent mind is behind it all a designer , a creator, for when we see something like a watch we instantly say it had a creator even without seeing the creator, we just know there is. - 12:28:07 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE:Hello all ...here is a question, does the universe and all that is in it come by chance or by and intelligent mind a designer God? By chance I mean anything like evolution or randomness with no order to it? no creator behind it? if you say yes chance evolution, or the like, then your whole argument is meaningless and pointless, there would be no such thing as truth , l,ove right and wrong, laws science etc, and this is what atheism sets up, a kind of horror without any order, lawlessness etc.. Do you see if there is no God and no standards for morality or law or science etc, if there was no order then anything goes. For example if someone wanted to destroy all life on the planet, no one could logically disagree, for there really is no purpose to life etc. Also even your whole arguments against christianity would be useless and for no purpose, for you don't believe in order. If you say yes there is order then who ordered it? You might say well, no one, yet in our world we see many things that have order and we knoiw, we just know even without seeing the creator that they were ordered by someone, by some creator. For example a watch or a house etc. It would be utter nonsense to say they came by chance, for we see that they have purpose order design etc. Likewise we also have great order and our universe, our bodies are very structured and so is the universe, therefore a intelligent mind is behind it all a designer , a creator, for when we see something like a watch we instantly say it had a creator even without seeing the creator, we just know there is. - 12:28:18 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:ROB, I see things similar to Spinoza in that the universal laws of nature are god. Again the label "god" is confusing, when associated in this manor, as some automatically envision a deity. I have also used "cosmic intelligence" but; here again, the word "intelligence" is a human association and I currently think it best to not use either word. What ever we call it, the determinants of nature rule and we are only a product of this nature. We actually have very little power, free-will, over anything and when we are sufficiently stress we tend to "throw away" the higher mind level rationalizations (ie religions, philosophies, paradigms, etc.) and default to our emotions and lower mind level "survival instincts." Spinoza says, "THE HUMAN MIND can be immortal when it understands nature or substance." He probably meant to convey an immortality based on the understanding of "self" (lower 'birth' mind level awareness---peace, love, etc.), not "oneself" (higher 'adult' mind level rationalizations---ego, superego, etc.). I don't know Rob; I don't know that much about Spinoza! - 13:10:44 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:QUAKE, I don't know for sure; do you? If you do, then prove it. If you can't, would God want you to lie about it? - 13:25:15 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUAKE..why don't you use that awesome power of prayer and mosey on over to the Skydome to see if it helps the Jays. - 13:51:34 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

PETER--( yawn):--QUAKE--Let me tell you a few things. First of all nothing spawns yawns quicker to me than touching upon this area of discussion. This is due to the fact hat regardless of what I say, or anyone says that disagrees with you, your faith will not allow you to sway from your position, so it is pointless for anyone really to respond. This becomes obvious when one notices you promptly and confidently answering each question you ask. Also, one would be far more tempted to answer your questions, if thet feel so inclined if you ask one question at a time. This machine-gun like tactic of asking a whole bunch of questions implies to me that you think the more you ask, it will cause the atheist great confusion and the more hopeless and futile his position will seem to him, and that there are too many questionable conclusions we have made. Not so Quake. All it looks like to me is a sophomoric attempt at one-upmanship, that deserves little respect the way it is now. One at a time Quake, then maybe you'll get some takers, but again I suspect most will recognize the futility of such an effort. - 14:10:17 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:QUACK: Do you mean to take a position for order or a godthing? Can you establish that point first, now as one who simply affiliates oneself with the term atheist, I understand order and I can ascertain and implement it, and best of all I can describe it, and so on. Many of the points I can assert of it, if you are sane, you would accept for your own successful and continued existence. That is the kind of "order" I can put forth. So to get started, which point did you mean or prefer to start with? - 14:38:41 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:BILL\ROB: Your references to the Rand and Spinoza views of status quo, well this AM 'roun 06:20ish I paused to view the western horizon whereupon the city of S.Fran rests, and this morn I experienced what probably so concerned either Rand Spinoza. The moon was nearly a full moon, an edge was missing. There were no clouds or fog. Instead, like a purple blue drap behind the moon was that brief morning moment of a starless sky. I stopped and looked to my left southward and saw the sunrise white bright that is before the appearance of the red, and saw only the morning star, Venus? The panorama of purple blue seemed to get lighter in blue as I looked at it get near the early sunrise with a subtlety I cannot encapsulate in any word. It did not last long, and if these theists are correct then I had to be a god this morning and not in death in order to see its fullest beauty. - 16:58:21 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..when you describe these "one with nature" scenerios, I feel like I am there too. Thank you for that post (btw, Venus isn't a star, LOL!) - 17:47:54 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:CARL, Wherefore thou art the eyes, but for a moment in time, of this self-observing universe. :~) - 17:56:16 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. The term 'morning star' is used to describe a bright planet in the eastern sky just before or at sunrise. According to my dictionary it dates back to the sixteenth century which would account for the apparent misnomer. - 23:13:10 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. Well, I guess you saw your associate Anselm crawl out off the woodwork so you decided to give it a try. I hope you didn't give up your place there because you'll be needing it again very soon. First, you state that if we accept other than your god/creation theory there is no such thing as the truth. That is not only a non sequitor, it is a stupid conclusion to draw. The truth remains the truth no matter what people think. You make even more stupid ones as you go on. "There would be no such things as truth, love, right and wrong, laws, science, ---this is what atheism sets up---" We don't have to wait for atheism to set it up. Our jails are overflowing (with christians and other religious believers, not too many atheists) rapes or murders take place every couple of minutes in the United States, 1 out of every 4 women have suffered from spousal abuse (perhaps even your mother), children are abused sexually or otherwise, children kill other children. This in an overwhelmingly christian society. Under your god's morality standards. Again, "For example if someone wanted to destroy all life on the planet, no one could logically disagree" Why not? I apologize for calling you stupid. You are somewhere between a moron and an imbecile. I suggest you run, not walk, to the nearest church prostrate yourself, and pray to your god for some intelligence, something in which you are sadly lacking. It won't do any good, but it may help you to feel better. Make sure to take a watch with you, and try to pick a church where there is no chance of a tornado blowing both you and the church to "kingdom come". - 23:41:37 on 15 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- I was just looking at your post tagged 15:48:43 on 13 Apr 98 GMT. 'Tis an elegant insight, Carl, and elegantly stated. - 0:27:53 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE:As I see none can answer the very simple argument i gave, a;; you do is run around it and attack me personally, when all else fails you resort to name calling like little children or fancy escapes from actually answering the argument, for I know that it is unanswerable... - 0:40:07 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE:Bill is the only one who gave an honest answer he said I don't know.. - 0:40:58 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE:Carl i believe in a divine and intelligent creator God, who created all things and by who's word the whole universe is held together - 0:42:37 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE:PapaSam..as I suspected you really said alot of nothing about nothing, your answer lacks intelligence. What i was saying is that if there was no purpose to life , if we are here by a chance collision of atoms that somehow developed into us and all we see then that would be equal to saying that there really is no order or purpose, and all things like love law truth science etc would just be passing moments in the collision of atoms and but brief moments in the infinite randomness of the ever changing and unconsitant universe..which is not true. - 0:46:24 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUAKE..did you go to the Skydome and say a few magic words for the Jays? - 1:03:25 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--I truly think you really just don't get it. Of course I could answer your question. I just don't think you are worthy of the time and effort for me to give you an answer. If you would have read my post closely, you would have noted that I said any attempt to answer your question is futile--as you already seem to know the answer, so why should anyone offer another answer? And who cares who gave you an honest answer or not? You are in no postition to assess any situation here from any perspective of authority that I have seen. You laughably seem to have assumed this position where you are control of a situation. Quake, if you only knew how much of a joke you are to me, a normal person would know when to quit--especially when you question someone else's intelligence. - 2:28:03 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--In case you are wondering why I think you are a joke consider this: You say after a few respond to your original post you say "you resort to name calling like little children or fancy escapes from actually answering the argument, for I know that it is unanswerable..." But if you check an earlier post, you ask a question--then claim that if one answers by "chance evolution" they are going to be wrong. You then go on to say how God must be the answer. But now you assert that the questio is unanswerable. So, in review, this is what you did. (1)Ask a question. (2)Then again by assuming a false alternative, you assume there are only two answers. (3)You declare one answer ( the God one ) to be correct, asserting there can be no morality or purpose without him ( which proves nothing, other than your own personal feeling ), and then in a later post (4)declare the original question is unanswerable ( even though you already answered it )! Quake, you are a joke. - 2:49:32 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. We are here by a chance collision of atoms, as you so nicely put it. Whether or not you object to it is immaterial. I'm sorry if it hurts your self esteem because you are not the product of some god who made you in his image. Just tell me one thing. Why would any intelligent god want to create you? - 5:09:02 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Quake.. You talked of randomness with out any order and to this the atheists' stance is meaningless and pointless. Do you think randomness in certain forms can bring about EXPANSION? Expansions of new sun systems etc. from random means-. If so --is certain universal expansion pointless--say because it is not bound by a devised moral backing?? Do you think there is any right or wrong in stars in themselves while viewing them through a telescope---if randomness dictates or further blackens entities,ideas,arguments into meaningless and pointless absolutes? WHETHER THRUOGH SOME FORM OF ORDER OR DISORDER- can a random form of expansion serve some type self-filling goal or end of itself(say also without the need of a devised moral system)? - 7:48:50 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:QUAKE, While I am not 100% sure about how the universe came to be, there are several possibilities; and yes, a universal mind or intelligence designer may be one of them. Science, to me, offers our surest and simplest explanation. As matter is heated, and the molecules vibrate, matter starts to break down into its simplest parts. If we have a hot enough heat source (billions of degrees), we could even break down the atoms into their energy particles and thus return everything in the universe back to a state of maximum disorder and simplicity (equilibrium)---the state of the primeval universe. This simplicity (from which the universe began) is acted upon by a superforce, from which the four known forces in the universe (gravity, weak and strong nuclear, and electromagnetic) emerged from. This is all scientific information and all that we have to base our knowledge on. I could just as easily hypothesize that this superforce was god. Or even that gravity was god (not very personal, huh?); as without these forces, these random micro quantum level collisions would never have organized into more complex structures. Sure there exist randomness; but zero mass force particles like gravity are always attractive, and span great distances, and are ubiquitous throughout the universe. Gravity has caused this randomness, in conjunction with universal expansion and cooling, to coalesce energy particles into more complex structures and thus life as we know it! Micro-evolution is a scientific FACT; albeit there are some gaps in macro-evolution. Again not a very personal God, but non-the-less a plausible explanation based on science. Should we go beyond what we know to be true, and create God's in our own image, without some scientific bases? Why would we want to "add to" what we know to be true? - 12:04:15 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->good news! Pol Pot is dead! - 12:06:22 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>How 'bout them Rangers! They be kicking some baseball booty. PETER<<>>Did you watch Dallas put a stick up Detroits booty last night, man it was fun to watch. - 13:26:22 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE,ANY<<>>My wife and I went to the Dr. for a sonogram and we are to be the proud parents of a baby BOY!!!! yeehaw! - 13:28:06 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Anselm:ALL: I was actually hoping we could stay on the free will/determinism debate for a while longer. I'm of the opinion that anyone who denies free will is engaging in a self stultifying position since to deny one's freedom is to affirm it at the same time since the one denying it seems to be making some sort of choice in the matter. Moreover, why does the determinist even wish to argue for his view, since whatever he believes is nothing more than the result of biological processes and hence in reality the espouser of determinism isn't really arguing for anything true but is rather eliciting what is tantamount to a belch or any other gastric disturbance associated with bodily functions. Also, it's rather intriguing to me that the determinist would try to convince me of their view, since my decision obviously has already been biologically determined. In short, if the determinist is correct, he is his own worst enemy when it comes to debating his position. - 13:40:28 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Anselm:JERRY: Of course when the time comes to defend your methodology you become a bit sqeamish. How much easier it is to make baseless dogmatic assertions without justification. You see, this is why people like Peter choose to hide in a little fishbowl without actually defending anything by way of a positive case. You seem to fall in the same category. Why don't the two of you admit your agnostics and stop revising the term "Atheism" so as to arbitrarily suit your needs? Or are you content to hide in your little epistemological little bubble? The default position is not legitimate. Any claim to knowledge is a claim in need of justification. As atheists, you make assertions that are in need of explanation and so I would implore you to tell me how, as an atheist, you arrive at your conclusions. This will allow us to see how consistent you are when it comes to approaching truth claims. - 13:51:31 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Anselm:ANY: The "default position" of the atheist in no way renders the existence of God into the implausible category. As another atheist Kai Nielsen stated, "Even if all the arguments for God's existence are shown to be invalid, this in no way shows that God does not exist. Even if all the arguments for God fail, it may still be the case that there is a God." - 13:57:30 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Anselm:PAPASAM: Thank you for your comments. I was pleased to see that you didn't bring decaying corpses and worms into the picture. I've meant to ask you...why do you talk about the conqueror worm so often? Have you been reading to much Poe? Til next time, shalom and baruch Hashem! - 14:03:03 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--You are correct, the default position does not place God in the implausible category. I knew you would accuse me of being an agnostic, because you obviously aren't cognizant of the definition and seem to get some type of childish thrill being able to think you are qualified to strip away my self-appointed status as an atheist. As an atheist, ( although you think all atheists are critical explicit atheists ) I can list, one after another, all the reasons, ad infinitum, why not only is theere not a God, but how there cannot be a God--when cosidering all the scientific and philosophical knowledge that is known today. However, as airtight as this may all seem to me, I cannot predict what evidence is unearthed in the future which may somehow be able to overturn the factors that make God's existence implausible. This is the only information that I, and you and everyone else can consider to make a conclusion. But rememeber, this also goes for anything that is deemed to be impossible at this present time. At this point, Anselm our argument seems to be only focused on what the definition of an atheist actually is--because I agree entirely with Kai Nelson. Anselm, pigs could fly to in the middle of the night when nobody is looking, but if anyone claims that to be true--THEY have to prove it to be so. Now, hopefully, with what I am saying here, along with what you quoted from Nielson, you can see how the theist, and theist alone assumes the burden of proof when claiming God exists, and how infinitely irrational and futile it is to demand to prove a negative ( in this case, that God DOES NOT exist )THIS is my positive case. This is All I can present. I cannot present any more than you could present if I claimed blue fairies caused the rain to fall. - 14:29:45 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--Too bad they can't meet in the finals. Maybe, probably in the semi's. Just as long as Dallas doesn't have to play Edmonton again! ( Remember last year? )Stanley Cup prediction? It says here the Wings shall do it again.( Now that the Blackhawks have been eliminated , lol!) - 14:40:33 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: Since there have been occassions when I have been wrong and you sound like one who knows you are right on this godthing, perhaps more so right than even TONY thought he was\is, then you must know where is the godthing of which you have such reverence? It is not in some manmade scripture, which it is if it appears in word a man understands. Such understanding of "religious belief" means only that other humans believe other humans who say they have had a revelation. So obviously scripture is not a godthing but just some folk "reproducing" the supposed words of some other humans or a human. Only such can be the logical process for the appearance of a scriptural text; but not a godthing. Now as for a view or definition of atheism, seems like it ought to be the contrary of of theism- belief in a god, which to those as you who must go so far as to hold that you have experienced, hence hold evidence for, a god-like thing. Atheism per the dictionary is belief that there is no godthing, so it must at the next phase mean those as me, have not seen evidence for a godthing. So my query to you is, how do you know, not believe in, that there is a godthing? The believe-in thing is just a can of worms, i.e., nonsense. So prove me wrong and tell me where is this wonderful godthing? - 14:57:30 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:QUACK: Your 04:3716apr98 post is at least a good concise phrase to describe your position for the views you wish to espouse. Now if you understand that is only "your" position and not truth per se, perhaps you can now tell of your experience with your ideas of a godthing help you. I for one can tell what my views of the all as I understand it in scientific terms. I find a good deal of comfort in the critical certaintys that I hold of science for its various theories. You ought to understand that science is not the search to prove its theories it is the search for facts. What does your godthing as you inscribed of it do for you? - 15:14:38 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL---Excellent posts. Careful when trying to reason with Quake though. Reason only counts when he wants it to. - 15:30:35 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Jerry>>Anselm>>:--When encountering a situation and recognizing that it does not merit further pursuit, often one interprets it as "chickening out" or being "squimish". Well, if that makes you fee better Anselm, just go on thinking that. I have realized by now that whatever I say to the contrary will make no difference to you. - 16:55:03 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: For the regulars here who are theistic- Quake and Anselm and "the TONY", since they represent a different view, of which you and I both also know that these individuals can't be as superficial as can only be represented by the likes of a bible or a church and so on, I figure to allow them some due, for awhile. If they stay insane, so be it. If however, they can come up with some real human stuff of that thing 'as' they prefer think, let them say of it. The warfare between science and religion has not fared well for the latter, so since they mean to utilse the wealth of humanity,e.g., this PC gadget, to propound for a godthing, lets take a look at what they can say for themselves. That is all they can address anyhows anyway. They would have to be gods in order to say of such a thing, true? And I have never met a god, you ever meet one? - 17:02:34 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:ANSELM-- If, say, a Catholic, believes in God, goes to church, obeys the commandments, prays, etc., confesses when pressed that he doesn't feel he can be absolutely certain; that he cannot know for absolute fact that there is a god, does this make him an agnostic? If so, how shall we differentiate him from Peter? Are you agnostic? Can you honestly say that you know for an absolute fact that there is a god? - 17:11:57 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

RON...--->Peter, Marlene, Joette....:I've met the most wonderful woman. She's a keeper. Busy falling in love all over again. I'm alive. She complements me in many ways....write me and I'll tell you all about it. walker@flex.net - 17:50:33 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. I talk about worms to get you to take your head out of the clouds and down to earth. You are, after all, a creature of the flesh (as am I), and therefore mortal. Your fear of death, subconscious or conscious, has caused you to seek out a 'god' and a religion to offer you 'everlasting life' in a 'heaven' - immortality. Forget it. We are just a few atoms which evolved into human form. Take solace in the fact that while you may not end up as an angel, the same atoms which started it all billions of years ago will continue on for billions more, so in a sense, we are all immortal, until entropy takes over, and who knows - a new big bang will start all over agqin. I can hardly wait. - 18:01:31 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...:How did Pol Pot die? What sick chunk of humanity, he was....I see you guys are still on the topic of wether we have been created by *chance collison of atoms* or by some all-powerful, all knowing poobaa...Any reasonable person can see we were clearly engineered for cheap labor. How have you been, btw? - 18:09:36 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. Back to free will. I told you before, but you choose to ignore it, that I personally agree with the principle of free will, but that it is NOT a gift grom your nebulous 'god'. All animals have free will, which is simply the ability to choose between different options. I am not a student of philosophy, but as far as I am concerned, I believe free will and determinism go hand in hand. If someone punches me because I have insulted him (determinism - cause and effect) I use my free will to decide my reaction. I can apologize, hit back or run like hell. (determinism). - 18:13:11 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM...I agree with Nelson's statment. Possibilities exist in and of themselves. BUT should we bolster ourselves with subjective knowledge to pacify ourselves in our little fish-bowls you talked about. In Nelson's ON MORAL TRUTH, he stated that given a sophisticated and a determined application of moral reasoning and an extensive knowledge of man and his world, our knowledge of good and evil can constantly EXPAND. Different forms of knowledge expand; we as imperfect beings do not know ALL, but we try, try, etc. to comprehend and understand ALL. If we EXPAND subjectively do we really constrict our being? Going back to your free-will/determinist argument>>> Do you think that a MAN'S concept of a god-thing immediately strips the free out of will, because ultimately the man is bound to that conception?? If there is a god-thing (ref.-to your Nelson statement) are we not bound to him already? How can we as "beings" be ultimately free if there still can BE A CASE FOR A GOD-THING? To me making cases for this and that ALREADY determines in more ways than one would think just as there are limitless CASES OF POSSIBILITIES! - 18:25:58 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:RON.. I think the news said POL POT died of heart failure? - 18:33:44 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Nope. But then again, what IS a god? - 19:03:32 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Well, it is too bad that the theist visitors can't clear up this matter. Can you imagine what kind of word a godthing might evoke that would keep the "All" together? If the QUACK would be so good as to say if he heard it or how he knows it was issued by "his" godthing and how does the QUACK "know" something so mighty as the unifying force that is that word that holds "All" together, however it is that he knows this must make him and others with similar "knowledge", that knowledge must make them gods too! I quess it is too bad that we humans just ain't gotta chance to be gods with them. Que'cera..but if I could be a god, there would be no "evil" because I'd say that word right away. Things would change believe you me! - 20:09:10 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:ANSELM, PS, OTHERS, There is no clear line-in-the-sand between "free-will" and "determinism" amongst conscious species. IMO, the "free-will" of a species has to be tied to the species ability to conceptualize of "time." The species has to be able to think in terms of "past" and "future" events, in order to evaluate, and thus make a choice. This conceptualizing of "time" also allows us to see ourselves as a separate identity (ego) apart from nature. We can now predict our own demise and thus have the ability to create other personal identities (ie God's) patterned after our own image. This "free-will" is limited and the older evolved parts of the brain like emotions, and those rudimentary parts that deal in "survival," are primarily "deterministic." We cannot choose to NOT breathe, say, without our brains reverting to this deterministic level and overriding our supposed "free-will." Higher ego/superego mind levels were the last sections of the human brain to have evolved. When humans are stressed sufficiently, its "free-will"---existing in these higher levels---is overcome by the older deterministic levels in the brain. Generally, for simplicity purposes and like physics, it's easier to talk in terms of models. And for all practical purposes, humans are the only species that can conceptualize "time" and thus predict their own deaths. Similarly, Personal Gods are also unique to humans. It is true, IMO, that dogs, cats, etc. can dream, say, and have a very limited sense of "time" and thus do have some minor level of "free-will" as PS suggest. Generally, like very small children, animals live almost totally in the present and posses no sense of God or "free-will." - 21:24:56 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:BILL: In regards to your point on "time", I have seen that point referred to humans as that thing which separates humanity from other kind of life. Time was described as that value our predeccsors passed on to us for today. For example the PC thing I said the theists use to carry on 'bout their godthing. The PC thing was a product of many other tools and machines that have come and gone through times passage. This evolution of things in that manner that joins humanity is of the scientific understanding of law in nature. Law in nature, Poincare wrote, is simply "the constant link between the antecedent and the consequent," and another fellow said humans progresses geometrically with time as its exponent. - 22:47:27 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. I find it amusing that the theists who visit this site, including Anselm, Quake and Tony, have been unable to convert me to their way of thinking. At one time Ricky was praying for me until I got him so pissed off that he damned me to eternity in hell. Since I am still an atheist I can only draw one of several conclusions. 1. The theists don't pray hard enough. 2. The theists can't convince their god of their sincerity. 3. Their god finds me too tough a nut to crack. (Does that make me a nut case?) 4. Their god just doesn't give a shit. 5. There ain't no such animal - or spirit. There may be others, but I'll stick with number 5. - 23:47:20 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..since you mentioned prayer, it has always amused me that theists have an excuse for god's actions. Last week I asked Ricky why god decided to hit the bible belt with those tornados. He replied that those god loving people that were killed were being "called home". Since the theists are always telling us about how horrible our deaths will be, I assume it must be the same for everyone, so I just do not understand why god attacks his followers in that manner. I live very close to Toronto, and today 3 churches went up in smoke. Now, there weren't any other bad fires reported, so why could god not protect his own houses? Just makes no sense to me. - 23:52:56 on 16 Apr 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- Well, those churches have gone to a better place. I guess God needed them more than we did. I expect someone will say that the burden of proof is on you to prove that God didn't call those god loving people home. - 1:31:42 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Yeah, if there really is a God, he's a pretty shitty one, I'd say. - 1:36:14 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:RON, Speaking of possibilities, your theory would explain some of the missing gaps in macro evolution, but as yet we lack the hard evidence. As Carl would say, show us this Alien thing! Seriously though, genetic manipulation is really taking off here as of late. They are trying to come up with ways to solve the shortage of organs for transplantation and one animal they are seriously considering is the pig. There is a BIG problem of hyperacute rejection (organ rejection) when place an animal organ in the human body. Our close relatives, chimpanzees or baboons, don't trigger hyperacute rejection, but the supply is scarce as they reproduce slowly and are not an animal we normal butcher for meat to eat. The pig however reproduces quickly, and it's organs are similar to human. They are overcoming the hyperacute rejection by genetically manipulating the pig embryos and placing human genes amongst the pigs. It is only a matter of time before pig organs will be used to as least extend life till other human organs become available. Of course another more repulsive method of solving this organ shortage problem is to clone a "headless" version of yourself for a body of spare parts, yuck! They have already produce headless mice and tadpoles, I think! - 1:57:57 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:CARL, I think Poincare had a very valid point in his observations---relating the Laws of Nature to the concept of past and future. I'm not sure about the other fellow's comments though, pertaining to "time" being an exponent of geometric progression, as "time" is just another dimension of geometric progression? - 2:06:44 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->WAS IT A MIRACLE? This is an aside from determinism freewill and such, but I think it is an amusing story. There is a jewellry store very close to where I live. I visit it at least once a week, never buy anything, but I have been coveting a 14 kt gold necklace, with a large heart shaped pendant. The clasp which attaches the pendant to the chain is a row of diamonds. I have admired this particular piece of jewellry for quite some time, and almost splurged yesterday, but my conscience stopped me from buying it. Tonight, my partner and I walked to the local library, and after getting some books, we walked home through a school yard. I have a habit of keeping my eyes on the ground, and tonight something caught my eye. Can you guess what it was? That's right! That very same necklace, completely intact, as though it were layed in the grass just for me to find. Being the conscientious type, I will advertise in several lost and found venues, and keep my eye on same, but do you think GOD put it there for me to find (LOL!). Oh, how I love a happy story, especially when I am the recipient of such good luck! - 2:53:37 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN...congratulations on the baby boy! Now, when will he be making his appearance, and how is your wife feeling? Another happy story! - 2:56:27 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

asya:I just basically changed religions a few weeks ago. I used to follow the Jewish religion, believe in God, etc. When that was the case . . . I used to look at Atheists as pessimistic people who were so depressed and so unhappy that how could they believe somebody great is watching over them if nothing good is happening to them. Later on. . .when I became a bit more open'minded I realised, why am I giving gratitude to "God" when this is my doing, I should be thanking myself for my good fortunes . . .and thanking my mother for giving birth to me and not some "higher power" for "creating" me. I am my own person watching over myself (with friends and a family who cares). I am made by my mom + dad who were made by their parents who were made by there parents and so on. A friend of mine was researching how scientists put molecules of non-living things together and formed them into living thing (a primitive plant). To me this basically explains evolution. This primitive plant mixed by non-living molecules was probably put on earth milleniums ago. This plant evolved int something more developed which evolved into something else more progressed, and that evolved into something else which eventually led to human beings, the most evolved beings of our time. Also I beg other religions not to think of me as a pessimistic person who has nothing going for (which I first thought of Atheists), but instead as a person who believes she does her own work and recieves rewards of her own doings, and not something so much greater than us. I refuse to look at myself as merely a servant to an unknown thing. How degrating is that? - 3:07:09 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ASYA- Yikes! A thinker! Welcome! - 3:30:30 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Yes! Congrats! You'll love when he first picks up a wrench and helps you fix the car, you'll be real pissed when he decides to take his dirt bike apart and "fix it", lol! I was fortunate enough to have both a girl and a boy. Kids are great! - 3:33:30 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..cold must be good:JOETTE- Did you hear our oldest Canadian citizen died today at 117? - 3:34:49 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. As a skeptic, I have some questions about your necklace find. Did you ask your partner if he planted it there for you to find, after having bought it at the jewelry store? It seems to me to be too strong a coincidence for your partner to be there at that particular time. You might also check with the jeweler. Please let me know, as you have aroused my curiousity. - 4:34:15 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM...I will let speak PETER speak for himself, as he is my partner. He's still in bed, but I am sure he will be happy to verify my story. Since the school yard is very large, and we weren't walking on a path because it was too muddy, it would be highly unlikely that he would place it there, especially that he had no idea that I would be going to the library. It sounds to good to be true, but happy coincidences happen sometime. - 10:52:51 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..not only was she our oldest citizen, but the oldest in the world. She had 10 children, and only 4 are still alive now, so I wonder if it's such a great thing to live that long? It reminds me of one of my favourite books, "Jitterbug Perfume" by Tom Robbins. It's about someone who wants to live forever, but it gets a bit tired after about 1,000 years. - 10:57:13 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Bill, it's a miracle!!!!:JOETTE, As you described this necklace, I envisioned a necklace of "titanic" symmetry. So when's the photo shoot? Lol! - 11:59:18 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:MARLENE, Cold weather sucks! And who wants to live to be 117 anyway; so the drool can freeze before it drips off the chin??? LOL! - 12:05:01 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

QUAKE...:Peter. Where did this (yawn) come from? - 12:56:50 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>sept. 13th is the due date, I can not wait! Kerry is just getting over the morning sickness phase, I think. She hasn't felt nauseous in about a week. Didn't the Rangers play the Jay's recently :). - 13:20:59 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>I am looking forward to having a boy that was as much of a trouble maker as I was, LOL. Pay back is a bitch! - 13:22:37 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:QUACK<<>>I don't presume that I can speak for PETER, but I took the yawn to mean that he has heard everything you have said before, and it is becoming tired. - 13:24:32 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:STEVEN, Congratulations! And your right "play back IS a bitch," as I found out; however, the ensuing tune may even "mute" the premiere---which was my case! Have fun and enjoy the experience; it's too late now, hahahah! - 13:51:07 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Bill..:Wooops! I misquoted you; "pay/play," what's the difference is this context! Gotta go! Cheers! - 13:55:29 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:BILL<<>>Thanks! :) - 15:14:14 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:BILL: The fella who said of time in that formulated manner- unavailable at this posting, says humans "save" time "in" works that "is passed on" and saves our offspring from spending time doing again that whatever thing. That is saving time and work as it eases one's present existence. This view is why I deny the theists their scripture as they were composed by unlearned folks. All they knew were the tales and stuff out of even more primitive and savage times. Back then it was probably easier to invoke responses in the name of fear than it was to do the same with knowledge. Of the latter, there was little of it so fear and the unknown were driving forces. The theists that show up here, seem to prefer the comforts and sufferances of tales and stuff from those old tales they call "scripture". If there is or were a godthing, and wisdom- knowledge of an ultimate truth, was its possession, it must frown on dudes like ANSELM, QUAKE and "the TONY" for restricting their minds and being to tales and things composed by cavemen. - 16:16:02 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene, BTW Carl, that "godthing" is a keeper!:ALL- Just to humor the theists, if, say, there were a godthing, would it not make sense that this godthing be likend to the female gender? You know, the whole creation thing and all. - 16:27:22 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- On the necklace, have you inquired at the store if it had been stolen? Not that I'd be in a hurry to say I saw it or anything, lol. - 16:29:32 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--I couldn't have said it better than Steven. - 16:32:59 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--PAPASAM--If I paid that much money for something like this, I would hand it directly to her with a card and some flowers. I don't see any benefit in throwing this thing in front of her path, and pick it up each time she walks by it and repeating the process until she spots it--and then pretend she just "found" it, and I had absolutely nothing to do with it. Not only do I take a chance of not finding it myself, and have some snotty teenage kid find it--I also take a chance it lands in some dog-shit, or it gets mucked up by her stepping on it or whatever. Would you do something like that if you bought your wife some jewellry? - 16:51:07 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- Aside from the fact that you'd not plan Joette's finding the necklace in such a place, the fact remains that it would be a possible explanation to the "so-called" miracle. If Joette were one of the xtian women here that meet over morning coffee and pray for such things, they would believe that finding the necklace would be the result of prayer. - 17:10:47 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE, PETER. I don't know what the probability odds of such an occurence are, but I don't doubt your credibility. Have you checked with the jeweler to find out whether he sold it or it was stolen? According to the law, are finders keepers? Discretion is the key word here. I certainly don't advise wearing it in public just yet. Anyway, enjoy your find. - 17:21:26 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Speakin' o'the keepers, PKers, haven't heard o'them in the news o'late. If they have a specific interest it could be in the domain of this PC gadget. On the news last eve they ran a snipet on outfits that sell[?] pieces that cleanup, restrict access, again "for the sake of the kids." What I see of that is the nonsense of people who don't want to exercise responsibility. Days o'yore the TV was the baby-sitter, now its the pc thing that is the baby sittin'gimmick. These folks that want the computer-nazi type control will be sorry. Perhaps they as parents ought to start telling their offspring that there ain't nuthin'wrong with a naked human body. That sort of view might cause some of the younger ones to exercise a little self control and not be fat and so on. A message I pass on to my offspring, fat is unhealthy and unbecoming. And it goes on. A mother godthing - 17:23:09 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Steven :CARL<<>>isn't the Great Kali a woman. I think she has 8 arms and fangs, etc. etc. There used to be a sect called 'thugies' in India that went around strangling people with silk ropes. The funny thing is that christians are no better with their belief in a vengeful god that will send you to an eeetternal lake of hellfire. Did i forget the nashing of teeth part? Or did i just imagine that christians would take innocent women and men and burn them at the stake, for being a witch (or no-believer, pagan, etc.). Christians used to call the Aztec, Inca's, and Mayan's barbaric because of their humans sacrafices. Are christians any different. In the old test. there are countless examples of human sacrafice. Even worse, the christians re-inact cannibalism every Sunday, drinking the blood of christ, and eating the flesh of christ, can anything be more repulsive. I guess the cross thing is kind of disgusting also. If jesus did exist, do you think he would want people wearing cross's around their necks. Walk into a catholic church and you can view a white dude, on a cross, with nails in hand and feet, with a crown of thorns causing massive bleeding down the face of the person depicted on the cross. And christians say their religion is all about love, hehe LOL. - 17:57:52 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE1: A mother godthing, is that not an even older view of things than the xtian godthing? According to an article of the early days of xtianity the patriarchs- the ole boys, permitted the v.mary thing to at first pacify and then reel in the numerous widely spread communitys that paid homage to their preferred female like diety or spirits or whatever. That reeling in process and correction of who and what was god included declaring women in general and some men as witches who served the female deitys. The idea is not that far back in time, and the only reason mostly women were selected was probably due for the most part to their general lack of physical strength. - 18:10:19 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL and STEVEN- I don't mean an East Indian godthing but the idea of the "earth mother" thing. - 18:11:42 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- The idea of a female creator is much much older than the idea of a male creator. It makes much more sense than a male creator. The male has no womb nor ability to suckle a new creation. - 18:15:47 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM.. Going back to your Nielsen quote--philosophic propositions mean more than they say, and the reader who reverences the proposition is always in danger of missing its meaning. The philosophic reader realizes the inadequacy of ALL propositions, their fragmentary character-and nevertheless takes them seriously as clues to the author's meaning. The esotreic meaning of philosophic propositions is revealed by their context. The unit of greatness in philosophy is never a proposition: rarely, it is a proof; a little more often, a refutation; usually, a book....There are degrees of understanding. To understand a philosophic book at all well-which in many CASES is admittedly not worth the trouble-most men must read more than once...We do not take a philosopher seriously enough if we are satisfied with the mere feel of his philosophy...Propositions can be multivocal without being equivocal: to the perspective they speak with many voices, signify many things, and mean a great deal...The truth of many propositions is exceedingly difficult to DETERMINE. This is so especially in the CASE of philosophic propositions! I am attracted to Spinoza, but he began his ETHICS by offering six definitions, of which this is the first: "By cause of itself, I understand that whose essence involve existence; or that whose nature cannot be conceived unles existing". But what is the meaning of 'cause' and 'essence' and 'existence'? What does the phrase 'cannot be conceived unless existing'? Again the floodgates are open to many voices, signifing many things which mean a great deal. This is the same with Kai Niesen's proposition you used: A CASE can still be made for a god-thing. Are not the floodgates surely open when it comes to CASES? My favorite quote by Nielsen is in his ON MORAL TRUTH-"What does it MEAN to say that moral claims can be objectively justified?" This Nielson quote MEANS A GREAT DEAL TO ME! - 18:33:34 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Shit----there we go--correct spelling-Kai Nielsen!!!! My subconscious is seeping into me! - 18:46:46 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE.. I agree with you the female god-thing would be a better nourisher than the male! - 18:51:58 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ROB: whilst doin'a net search for Kai Nielsen, I ran into this spot and is it the same as the other? i didn't think so but take a look. - 18:57:25 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:It is very funny--all these claims, etc. I like that Ezekial 4:15----"Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith". The floodgates are really open here--You have to love that cow/man//dung bread sandwhich with mayo! - 19:09:23 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:CARL... Do you have any of that cow-man dung on the bottom of your shoes?--heehe---I sure the theists have so many different shoes to replace the ones with the cow-man shit on them! - 19:12:07 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Of the site made to the attention of ROB, it is about 40 pages long and it has an added flair. The comments of others are included and it seems apparent, why xtians need governmental support and governmental backing, xtians are only a political interest and body of people. Religious, theistic, spiritual, probably a few but all, not the xtian thing. - 19:12:55 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- That's exactly where xtains and their silly beliefs Don't belong, in government! - 20:02:23 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: With the darks ages as evidence, you and me and some others of this site know that. the problem rests with those whose preference is for a self imposed-ignorance. These are those folks that in this country have a right to vote. And voter participation in this country is regretable at best truthfully it is criminal. - 20:31:05 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->re the reference to the three church fires in Toronto yesterday: it seems a Sunday School teacher flipped his toupe, and since they found a couple of crispy critters in one of the churches, there is a manhunt on. Do you think Satan overcame him and made him kill two people, and burn down three churches? Maybe Quake got tired of preaching on the street corners? - 21:37:15 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: okay! I URL'd a site that emphasised how religious blinders prevent the religiously bent-mind from apprehending all things, and we kno'the "all" makes a healthy mind, well here is a different site. I did not encounter anything, yet, that suggested a religious bound view get taught. Maybe there are some but I didn't have the time to view it contents. But it is an interesting spot. - 22:14:54 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

max:are there people really here? - 23:19:29 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:max..yes, foster yourself into the alien cult of machine communication--find the saucer news, lift your eyes to the stars and say 'take me away'?? only joking--of course--------???? - 23:48:15 on 17 Apr 98 GMT

Dorn:''His heart shall be torn from his living bosom and thrown in his face, after which his head is to be taken off and exposed on the church steeple in his native village. His body is to be cut into four pieces and a quarter fastened upon different towers of the City of Alkamaar.'' ... Diedrich Sonoy, Lutheran governer in Holland, on the Catholic Nanning Koppezoon, who was tortured for refusing to convert - 0:14:02 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Dorn:~~Let that be a lesson to you all!.......hickup! - 0:17:15 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Bob McCown:What's your point sir? - 0:18:04 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:DORN.. To behead, to impale, etc..>> very virtuous of you , along with the belch! Do you channel with Robespiere's ghost? - 2:19:54 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..all together now..we fell in dat lak a fiah, dat lak a fiah!:Beheading and impaling sound damn violent but how about getting tossed into that ever-famous "burning lake of fire"? Tell ya what Dorn, you can channel with all of us after we are comsumed/drown in dat burnin lak a fi-ah! - 4:27:06 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..burn..burn..burn..:BOB MacaCOWN- And what be your point? - 4:29:38 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..and dem flames..they gettin higha:JOETTE- Is it known at all why that xtian decided to burn down those churches? I just caught the tale end of it on the news this morning. - 4:31:49 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

David:If atheism is an alternative to christianity, and ya'll a seeking a debate, why does this page seem like a private christain bashing party. - 4:52:54 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--David--I bash christianity--not christians, unless they begin to, and continue to be rude and belittling--as a result of continuously losing an argument, and not wanting to admit it. - 13:16:26 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVID--Also, atheism per se is not an alternative to christianity. Atheism is simply a philosophical position which does not believe in the existence of a God. There are no such things as "Atheist beliefs". There are alternative broader philosophies which outline a moral code which also reject the idea of theism. Examples are Marxism, and objectivism ( which are as different from each other as one could imagine ) - 13:23:23 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->DAVID..atheism isn't an alternative to christianity. It is merely a word someone coined to describe someone who does not believe in a god. - 13:56:13 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..and heeeeeere's your answer...:DAVID- I don't recall asking anyone for a debate. Besides rejecting "a god", I also reject the supernatural period. If ever there is tangible concrete evidence produced to support any of these philosophical delusions then I would consider looking into this evidence. I bash the xtian belief much the same as I bash racism. Both bring out the stupidity in humanity. - 14:07:26 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..you being a sci-fi buff and all, you may enjoy this (I know I did). - 16:06:50 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

JOETTE... I also am a sci-fi buff; they were extremely cute but do you think they destroy the whole essence of the books by someone's curtailment of them? Dr. Moreau could of not said it better, when he said--"Welcome to my island-do you like my freaks". Well in this case, "Welcome to the web-site of curtailment of learning". Are snippets of learning or knowledge themselves (which you see using the PC) unnatural abominations as Prendick put it? The Island of Dr. Moreau one---did not even have "What is the law"---"thou shall not shed blood". Though they are really cute for levity's sake! - 17:26:34 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:That was Rob to Joette---it is Saturday-you know - 17:29:15 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB...I posted that URL merely for entertainment purposes. I tend to be of the "lighten up" genre, except for those times when I am being haunted by the dreaded PMS demons ;) - 18:01:20 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..if you want serious, this to me is the worst infringement on my rights, ever: "YANKEES STRIKE OUT" (Church criticism adds to Bronx Bombers woes - First, Yankee Stadium started to crumble. And now, the Catholic Church is coming down on the New York Yankees, too. While they headed into the weekend with their longest winning streak in three seasons, the Yankees have a new problem to contend with: Cardinal John O'Connor gave the team a tongue lashing for playing on Good Friday. Instead of home runs and double plays, it's been falling concrete, a Shea Stadium "home" game and a boycotting archbishop making headlines in a weird week for baseball's most famous franchise. Friday found the team in Detroit for a game against the Tigers, a game moved out of the Bronx after a concrete-and-steel joint collapsed in Yankee Stadium. But they couldn't escape the controversy. "I love the Yankees. I love the Mets. I love baseball. This was to be the summer that even if the creek rose, I was going to get to some games," O'Connor wrote this week in Catholic New York, his archdiocese's official newspaper. "But I will not go to a game because all over the country, it seems major league teams played on Good Friday." All 30 major league teams played on April 10, but O'Connor was particularly upset that the Yankees began their home opener against the Oakland Ahtletics at 1:05 p.m., during the noon-to-3 p.m. period when the church marks Christ's crucifixion. "Why did they play during the sacred hours?" O'Connor asked. "I am told they insisted they couldn't miss a single day of the season...Even the stock market closes on Good Friday." Yankees spokesman Rick Cerrone said the team always plays its home opener during the day. Of O'Connor's complaint, he said "As we would with any suggestion, we will give it consideration." He added, "We don't pick when we open." - 18:14:31 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->so, why the HELL should the Yankees (I'm not a fan of theirs) or any other enterprise have to get permission from some goddamn church to run their business as they see fit. Is the catholic church going to boycott all businesses that were open as usual on Good Friday. I envy this man that this is his biggest concern in life. I hope he goes to a game and a concrete block beans him on the head (either that, or he get a ball in the nose) - 18:17:20 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE.. I WAS ONLY JOKING about those little books----I said they were cute!! I am not much into sports, but I agree with you ---if you play on THEIR sacred hours-----OFF TO THE HOUSE OF PAIN!!! It is indoctrinating and not to mention very scary! I guess O'Connor is the new Sayer of th Law----"Evil is he who breaks the law"--or our sacredness! - 18:41:14 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..or "evil are those that don't come to mass and leave large quantities of money at the altar" - 19:17:58 on 18 Apr 98 GMT

Grant: Differences between critical and non-critical thinking:Whadaya think? - 5:45:32 on 19 Apr 98 GMT

Grant: How to be a critical thinker:Another quicky. - 5:51:16 on 19 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Good sites! - 13:02:17 on 19 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I get a 404 on the site you left???? - 13:03:15 on 19 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I hope you can try that URL again and that it works this time. I just checked it, and it is okay from here. - 13:26:34 on 19 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..if anyone is interested???:JOETTE- I use my old Netscape browser because it's faster for the discussion. With it, the URL you left gives me a 404. I used the newer browser and it works. Speaking of Sci-Fi, if you like Orwellian stuff, something similiar is showing tonight on one of the networks. I'm not sure which one NBC or ABC, A Brave New World. This is something along the same line as 1984 or A Handmaid's tale. - 16:15:43 on 19 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. You never told us what happened after you found the necklace. Did you check out the jeweler to see if it was bought or stolen by someone? Was it the same one, and were you allowed to keep it? - 2:55:23 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Par:Salvation is an act of selfishness, ie I'll be good now so I'll get MY reward later. Even if it's not and perhaps it isn't then by MY very nature of questioning this fundamental pillar of christianity and indeed many other religions, surely all my good deeds from now on will be tainted by a selfish motivation, even if I try not to look upon my good deeds as a trade-off there will still be this sub-concious selfish motivation. - 3:06:17 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..I still have the necklace, and I have not gone to the jewellry store to see if it was stolen, but I am checking the lost and found bulletins, because if it shows up, I will return it to its owner. For now, I am just enjoying it in private, and my friends are enjoying the story behind it. (especially since they know the geography of the area, and know that it was a once in billion chance of my having found it). You haven't posted for awhile. Are you okay? (I tend to worry about regulars who don't post for awhile) - 3:06:35 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--Par--What exactly is your point? Christians condemn selfishness and worship selflessness, yet are practising just the opposite? - 3:28:06 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

My point is, is there any hope for me if this is the way I naturaly feel, I am condemned to hell, but is it my fault, do I deserve it? - 3:33:20 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Par:My point is, is there any hope for me if this is the way I naturaly feel, I am condemned to hell, but is it my fault, do I deserve it? - 3:33:26 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:Par--Nope. All you have done is identified an ethical self-contradiction in christianity, which in fact makes defining a moral code impossible. Ever read any Ayn Rand? - 3:46:39 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Par:Nope, I'm only 16 too much to do already, I've got to read passage to India within 2 weeks , eeeeekkkkkk. What about sick people and insane and those that only live for a few hours where do they fit in, in the grand scheme of things, also accidental murder in it's true sense ie, very much an accident surley the murderer does not deserve to be banished to hell, while there's also an unlucky guy who's life has been cut short. Is the greatest oxymoron "holy war" - 3:52:42 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--PAR--You are still thinking in terms of christian beliefs--which havw a habit of being vague and contradicting themselves. After you read "Passage To India" check out the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand. Do NOT ask any one else about Ayn Rand ( you will more than likely get the same wide spectrum of mostly uninformed opinions )or this book--read it first, and THEN make your own decision whether it is bunk or not. - 4:33:06 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>have you been watching baseball this year? It seems that my home team has been wooping up on them canadian and yankee teams. Go Rangers! PETER<<>>Star's go for Lord Stanley's cup, can't wait! - 12:54:25 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:PAR: While probably you were once told and instructed on what salvation means, what does it mean to you and how do you describe that word? - 14:31:38 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAR- Like you, I hate when I am told that I "have to" read something. When I went to school I "had" to read "Jean Val Jean", but after reading it I realized that sometimes "stealing" is good. Anyway, the jewish/xtain/ muslim god is a "war god". This god gave the waring tribes of the Middle East power over the other god's and goddesses of the times, paticulairly the female fertility goddess, with violence. So "holy war" is very appropriate when talking about this god. You need to take into consideration that much vilence was done with this god's approval, for example, the crusades. - 14:43:26 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: So what happened to our regular religious believers? Shux! for awhile it seemed like they were actually going to say their minds. TONY sorta'had something going on "his" godthing, his only ball and chain was his xtian thing. ANSELM's god was a thoughtless bit of religious propaganda. But I figured that because of how they carry on and all at this site, they had something to say. - 14:59:26 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think they can only repeat what they hear or are taught. Thinking is prohibited. BTW, did anyone watch _A Brave New World_ last night? As ususal, the book was better and Hollywood, again, shit the ending up but it was interesting. - 17:20:13 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--The Dallas Stars have a good chance. The team with the most "heart" players usually wins. Let's see what they are made of. - 17:34:06 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:Par. First of all, you are not a worthless piece of shit that your religion tells you, and that you need to be saved. Clear your mind of all that religious claptrap of heaven and hell, salvation and damnation and you will do just fine. The only thing wrong with you is that you suffer from low self esteem, caused by the foregoing. You can live a pleasant and fruitful life without gods and devils. The only other advice I will give you is to read, read and read some more. The more you read the more you will enjoy it. - 17:48:31 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The more I see and take in of the religious believer, the more convincing becomes the opinion that they freely choose and prefer to be the composition of that thing others call the ignorant. In this day and age there is no need for anyone to be of the unkonwing, the uneducated the unthinking or anything else that may require something along the order of blanking ones mind to anything. - 18:07:16 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>I just hope they can get by the sharks in the first round. We shall see. - 19:21:59 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:ANY::::found a good quote------->A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith, from faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to selfishness, from selfishness to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back again into bondage. -- Lord Macaulay (1857) - 19:23:11 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:ANY:::one more------->The laws providing tax shelters reflect the strong philisophical commitment of the Founding Fathers, particularly Alexander Hamilton, to the principle that the public good would be served if dentists owned cattle ranches. -- Calvin Trillin, on United States tax law and evasion. - 19:25:36 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..that quote is true for those of us who carefully watch political movement. In the province where I live, our deficit was killing the province, and so when the current government came into power, they took away many "rights" that had been previously bestowed upon us. They cutback billions and billions in social programs, and are governing with a heavy hand indeed. Democracy is all but dead here. (mind you, next year is election year, so I am waiting for the loosening of the purse strings shortly) - 22:05:20 on 20 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. Despite the fact that 'Good Friday' turned out to be 'Bad Friday' some church people are doing well. In All Saints Church in Great Neck, Long Island, NY, acting rector Rev. Brenda Overfield held its annual blessing of the animals. Along with the usual cats and dogs, there was a fish, a turtle, some ferrets and an iguana. Rev. Overfield brought her inhaler to fend off her allergies. According to the article in Newsday, "I have not had any problem with my allergies," she said. "Normally I'd be sneezing up a storm. It must be divine intervention." - 2:05:30 on 21 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I wonder what type of blessing he does for the animals? Xtianity does not hold that animals have souls. I'm not sure about the jews but I do know that my muslims friends believe an animal has a soul as before they kill a goat or a sheep (their main meat diet) they have this ritual in which they thank allah for the meat and pray for the animal's soul. - 4:30:48 on 21 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Yesterday The UN Sec.gen.Kofi Annan was in the bay area and dropped in at Berkeley. Our ninth grader left school early, missed BB practice, to sit in and listen to K.Annan's presentation for world peace. K.Annan struck me as one who is what others mean when they speak of someone being a humanitarian. I thought he was that, if one point comes to mind of why I hold that impression longer than some other, was his regularly used phrases "you and me" or "we are the difference if we choose" and several others for sure that he utilised for emphasis. One point he made that drew applause had to do with relgious faith. He said it was as any other faith a person holds and not a problem, the problem are the faithful. Later I looked at that and figured he was concerned with it as it is a past tense value. If one understands a world leader and a national leader as B.Clinton, a difference is clearly there. B.Clinton means to have a vote and favorable opinion. A world leader as portrayed by K.Annan does not if he is the example he has the concern of a better world. The onl thing he said that caused me to squint and squirm, his view on a police force- it is to enforce and protect by law the people. I prefer to protect myself and those I love and help those I can as best I can. Police, cops are only a society's licensed killers. But in any case, it was a good two hour experience. The ninth grader was well served by his attendence. - 14:44:19 on 21 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN1: Perhaps a better characterisation of the difference between a world leader and a national leader as B.Clinton. Well the difference appeared as I pondered the early morning shadows and sun light patterns appear and disappear, a can-man with his plastic bag came along and proceeded to dig through the refuse therein for his objective- a can. Some here even eat the discarded food and drink of the cokecans and even cups with coffee. A national leader and the can-man types share the same interests as the range of each is similar in that both want a can or a vote. Nothing else matters or or is in the mindseye of the can-man that is outside of the garbage can before him. The national leader as B.Clinton has the same singular objective that being a vote for them. And again, this is merely a characterization meant to imply the vast difference between the two, world and national leaders. - 15:26:44 on 21 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN2: Another interesting thing that I noted, we had seats in the balcony section and were able to see most folks there. Well, seated in the section with us were two military types. They listened only until after K.Annan addressed the issue of Saddam, whether or not he'd comply with the agreement they made. They being the UN and Iraq. KA said of that US military man who was booted after accusations of being a spy, that same fellow told KA the search was going along good, no problems so far. When KA said that he'd rather not speculate on what Saddam 'might do' and that the UN would of course look at and evaluate things at such time, the military types got up and left. they did not stay to listen to the rest of his presentation. I now wonder about them. - 19:12:14 on 21 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN3: I have oft'times wondered what and where might be a source for some of the views inscribed by some of the visiting religious believers. Here is a metaphysical site replete with assorted topics and thoughts. Just choose and see what you think, it has to be a god preferred choice, otherwise you're agin'god. - 19:55:34 on 21 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..you must feel like everyone has deserted you today! I looked at the URL you posted, and I was tempted to "share my thoughts". It isn't hard to miss the fact that the author of this website has no proof, no answers to the great questions of life, and is bending science in order to always point to a god. Frightening. - 22:08:20 on 21 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..your can-man analogy is most profound, and very accurate. Of late I have congratulated you on one or two of your posts, and I would like to do so again. (may I borrow it?) - 22:13:32 on 21 Apr 98 GMT

Deena:An honestt question: Do think that if you know ou are about to die, you will wonder if you made the right choice in becoming an atheist? - 1:44:37 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:DEENA. An honest answer. No. I am 83 years old, a lifelong atheist and a member of the Hemlock Society. A theist may seize upon religion and a god because of fear of his mortality. He does not want to die and decides he has a soul which will live after his physical body dies. If he finds comfort in such ideas, good for him. I am not afraid of death and need no such self induced delusions. - 3:07:42 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--Deena--I think I have made the most honest choice possible being an atheist, and at no time do I anticipate regretting that decision. If there was in fact a God, why would he punish me for making the most honest and educated decision I could possobly make, using the very faculties he himself gave me? - 3:27:20 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:DEENA- I haven't "become" an atheist, I am an atheist. I am about to die, along with everyone else and anything else on this planet. The honest answer is, NO! If there is such as thing as a god and I don't feel that it's likely based on the total lack of evidence to support one, I would hate to spend eternity worshipping such an egotisical being. We'd certainly clash! - 3:37:04 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..what do you mean that you are about to die and so is everyone else on the planet? Have you been talking to Ron again LOL! - 10:51:38 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- In fact I did hear from Ron, lol! No, I meant that we all die eventually. I was watching TV last night and saw an advertisement for a video put out the CofLS called the _Lamb of God_. Well! That lambkin was certainly a neat one! When it showed someone looking inside the cave he was supposedly put into after his death, not only was he gone but the shroud was laundered and folded. Mary taught that boy right! - 13:48:04 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:Just a little addition here. The mormons have proven that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. Of course we'll discount the findings of scientists that have proven that the so-called blood is red ochre and carbon dating says it's about 500 years old. - 13:51:37 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: That can-man thing struck me as explicit and unequivocally relevant to a politician. When I saw that guy I thought, "Bill!". As for the borrow biz, no worrys, this site isn't in the public domain? - 14:43:37 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Just so some here don't take it that I for one, did not take it as nice that TONY made a near valient effort to explain his view of his godthing as a thought thing, perhaps he had read some scientific views that lay the seed for that kind of thought. It seemed probable that one's imagination in opposition to scientific thoughts would find sites/views as that I URL'd above, would present a packaging and launching point for religious believers. (I almost inscribed them as religious "thinkers", but that is not a thing possible of or for such people; they just need to know "what" to think.) That site referred to on thinking, presented a concise package of descriptions of thinkings. I ran into something that seemed in line with TONY's hopes for a possible godthing, it goes- "...and we understand better the way the principles of physical relativity is less extensive than the principles of psychological relativity." from this snipit of Poincare's the nearest a religious believer can get to a thinking process in terms of the psychological, is to enter the realms of intuition. Here or there, everything is subjective and of course, one must always believe only the sayer. - 16:40:02 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:CARL... Yes, Tony had probably read many versions of the unified theory etc..--Schodinger! HE, himself expanded subjectively on these views with brainwashing techniques... The outline of modern physics and its astronomic applications etc.. show that Einstein's ideas have lost none of their power since their first enunciation. They have given the physical sciences the impetus which has liberated them from outdated philosophcal doctrine and made them one of the decisive factors in the modern world of man. This impetus is the beginning driving force for man. - 17:49:55 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

sTeVeN:ANY<<>>uhhhhhhh huh huh. he said inpetus huh huh. Where is everyone? Spring Fever - 19:03:08 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Two parrots hatched and grew their first feathers in a house of prostitution. Like its inhabitants they were females and both picked up the talk of the house, e.g., "You wanna get laid?" or other verbal variations of such engagement. Somehow or other a visitor took a liking to them eventually taking them home. There they continued to speak as they learned. The fellow was regularly embarrassed by the parrots that asked his visitors the same question, "Wanna fuck" etc., As it so happened he had a priest friend with some parrots that read and recited the bible only. They agreed that a new environment as that of the bible reciting parrots just might serve to change the parrots embarassing "talk". They placed the two birds in the cage where their first words were, well you kno'what they asked for. The two bible reading parrots turned to each other and said, "Looks like our prayers have been answered." - 19:37:26 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

A priest came upon a young boy sitting on the sidewalk, using his thumb and saying "I'm going to kill these fucking ants. I'm going to kill these fucking ants." The priest was appalled at the language and the actions of the boy and he said "Young man, God has put every creature on this earth for a reason. Now, I want you to go home and think carefully about what you've done, and I also want you to come up with 3 things that don't have a purpose. You won't be able to do it. Now meet me here again tomorrow." The next day the priest met with the boy and asked him if he could answer the question he had put to him. Much to his surprise, the boy said he had. The priest said, "Okay, tell me what three things God put on this earth that do not have a purpose!" The boy replied "Balls on a priest, tits on a nun, and THESE FUCKING ANTS!" - 21:05:39 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:CARL. Someone should talk to that young boy, preferably an entymologist. Ants do have a purpose. But hey, two out of three ain't bad. - 22:44:32 on 22 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Good jokes! PAPASAM- Okay..what purpose do mosquitoes have??..lol - 2:15:38 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--Mosquitoes are like meat and potatoes in the food chain. Speaking of questionable purposes, Quake comes to mind. - 2:53:04 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- How about Richard and Ricky? - 2:59:53 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I posted only the parrot joke, one line s/b"...the bible reciting parrots, in the rectory, just might serve, etc." The ant joke was added by an anonymous party, to whom I tip my hat, I liked its timing. As for the theists regulars one of the problems with knowing just "what" to think- bad word choice, lets change it to- just what the "response" is, that response is meaningful for a stone and the dead, neither can change. Probably they are trying, diggin'into their christian 'philosophy' books where synthetic stuffings are exchanged, hoping( a word they like) to see the light. What is their darkness? - 14:45:24 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Peter: Marlene--Wow, forgot about them......We should take a vote as to who the No.1 all time looney fundie has been. Those three would have to be right up there! - 15:27:56 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<>MARLENE<<>>my vote is for QUACK. - 15:53:26 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I wonder if DEENA has ever, analytically thought about the meaning of what she says? What does honesty mean to her and just to her? And choice, isn't that a free will matter, so what is her view or position and why? Did any of these picked out topics occur to her thinking processing? Did she base that statement for honesty, on what she has been told is so, or did she compare it to other thinkers and if so how did her search take her, was it along the selective pathway taken by the TONY, who I dare say already knew what truth he wanted to see before making an "effort". Where did that DEENA pseudonym go? - 16:14:29 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE.Peter has already given you the practical answer. While I don't like them, I take comfort in the thought that 90 percent of the people they bite are theists. - 17:11:53 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--Yeah, I think I give the nod the Quakenheimer too. Not only did he attempt every fundie tactic in the book ( Asked a lot of questios, paid no attention to the answers--answered very few questions, discredited logic itself when his attempts to use it failed miserably ) he has this general abrasive and obnoxious flavour that is crucial when annoying others. And on top of all that, I rarely think he had any idea whatsoever of what was said to him. And of course, assured us all of the worst fate imaginable after we die, while telling us all he loves us. - 17:14:24 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

PETER--(with more on Quack--:--AND, he keeps coming back for MORE, with what I truly think every intention of converting us all into joining his religious never-never land. - 17:18:50 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->my vote is still Carrie Drake, wherever she may be. She will never be forgotten by this voter. - 17:43:14 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:My "not too long viewing" vote would be for the Tony or the shine (or whatever). His inner astral thought-god cult and all the brainwashing trimmings are extremely dangerous. He mixes different knowledge together to suit himself while restricting others in the process... The other theists like Ricky play,act, or actually ignorant ,if you like, and the game is just 'pontificating conversion with the crucified-freak trimmings'. Tony NEVER answered one of my questions (MAYBE the first one--after I called him the shine-he never answered any 'NICE' questions). I WAS NOT NICE to his 'SUIT ME in all my subjectiveness'!!!! Tony suits me to be the kind of brainwashed, insane , subjective, loony -----who would if need be by HIS astral-thought god & cult -----to abduct the innocent children in the vans to the mother-Wacco plantation home! - 18:09:17 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:VOTER2: CDrake and the TONY share similar tendencies- so it seemed to me, even tho'they're of opposing views. I inscribe this because they both utilised what they knew, their education,etc., in efforts to sway and move others to their ways. The QUACK always leaves the image of being like either, at various times, a Woody Allen or a Lenny of 'Of Mice and men'. The most enjoyable theist for me was the toad, he eventually had me chuckling at his every post. But I for one found the mindlessness of that gal married to the indian as the one I'd nominate. That she had nothing to say beyond biblical quotes was sad and dangerous and surely worthy of one in need of a godthing, since her mind was at least adrift. - 18:30:07 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--Carrie Drake certainly was as abrasive as anyone--but she was an atheist! Perhaps we can widen the category just to "most annoying poster of all time" I just associated fundies with this trait--as they tend to be the usual culprits. Just think, now Bill is eligible!!! - 19:02:59 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Arnold:I would be interested to see what people think the future of religion will be like. I suspect that Christianity may be approaching a bit of a crisis since it's pretty clear that Jesus isn't going to show up for the millenium. Also, since the fall of the Soviet Union, there is much less incentive for U.S. businessmen to support religion (as an opposition to communism which would take over their businesses if it came to power). Also, I find it interesting that two cults involving aliens and UFO's have made news recently. Will "alien" religions outgrow "god" religions in the 21st century? To me, it seems that the alien religions would have a slight advantage by being slightly more believable in this day and age. Comments? - 22:13:11 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ARNOLD- HI! First, I would like to say that I've visited your page many times and I think it's great! Secondly, your likely right in your suggestion that religions will update themselves with aliens and the like. Since Shirley and her _Out on a Limb_ , many new-age, fern- sniffing ideas have become visible. Bud Hopkins and Whitley Schriber (sp) have promoted the farce of alien abduction and I think one went so far as to suggest jee-zus was also abducted. But religion IS the opium of the people, same drug with a few variations. ALL- I agree with Joette that CDrake was a bit of a nut but I think our Richard from downunder takes the cake. - 22:31:53 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- What was her name? Was it Amie? - 22:33:57 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ARNOLD: I don't have the time to go over the site URL'd to you, but it is interesting to me because I have never seen a place or collection of an atheistic history. The one source of religious belief and probably for the alien thing will count on draw from the ignorance character of humanity. The ignorant need only to know "what to think". Thinking- well that is something others can do, I'll comment after going thru that site, and greetings. - 22:36:27 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Yes, I saw an "A" name but couldn't fill it in, grazias' - 22:40:09 on 23 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:Back again..PAPASAM- I take comfort in that at least, lol! Did you know that a small town near where I was raised has a huge statue of a mosquito. People from the Ukraine settled the area. There were so many damn mosquitoes that they decided to name the area after them although the name of the place is in Ukrainian, Komarno. - 3:23:20 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:RON- If your around...the days are near to this May event. Aren't you even going to give us a clue on what's happening? - 3:24:50 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ALL- I'm reading one of the books in the Earth Children series. Although the author tries to bring the reader as much knowledge as possible about people of the last ice age, she also does a whole lot of speculations. One thing that interests me is that she claims that mammoths buried their dead and didn't leave them to die on their own. They comforted the old by staying with them until they died. Has anyone read up on the habits of mammoths? - 3:29:09 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Grant: International Coalition for Seperation of Religion and State :Should anyone wonder what Carrie Drake is up to. - 3:38:33 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Grant::In case that left you hungry for more. - 3:54:10 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE.. A giant graveyard of prehistoric mammoths were found near Oxfordshire, I think; they were caught in a series of flash floods and got bogged down in mud and drowned. Great preservations of tusks etc. were found. These massive graveyards of mammoths might help scientists identify a new period of global warming between Ice Ages....... Some mammoths developed into pygmy forms--to be better developed for ecological disasters. But I think climate changes, the retreat of glaciers, better predation, and some early forms of man were the main reasons for mammoth extinctions---as these massive graveyards of mammoths will indicate - 6:06:06 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:Carl is so right; it's amazing what you can find on this here machine! - 10:47:44 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..I studied the second URL you posted and lo and behold, "The Almighty Bottom Line" was there. The ICRCS seems to be what I had assumed it was when Ms. Drake visited with us. "Send us your money and we will tell you what to think". - 11:05:10 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>Carrie Drake should be locked away and studied. - 12:41:00 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Grant: My take on C. Drake:Joette-- Ms. Drake's personal beliefs don't bother me. She is free to believe as she wishes. What I see is just a run of the mill set of personal views; slightly paranoid, especially in regards to psychiatry and, for some reason Freemasons. What strikes me as odd is that she seems to think her beliefs have great merit and significance. In my view she is clearly seeking followers. Did you see any links on her pages? Any quotes? I don't see her as a proponent of any philosophical approach or process of thinking. She is selling a package of conclusions as might a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon. - 14:11:33 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Forgive my naivete, but do I read correctly of that URL, CDrake is a transexual? - 14:52:15 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: With a bit o'reading my question is resolved. That explains that whatever I thought I could see, when CD wrangled w/us. CD could hit like a mule kicks. I wonder what the guy of CD looked like? - 15:10:48 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..yes...--->GRANT...I don't take exception any of Ms. Drake's views either, but what I did have a problem with was her approach whilst she was visiting us here. She refused to understand why we were not interested in her coalition, and it was I that originally challenged her "individualism" philosophy, because she preaches it, but does not practise it. She has had an interesting life however, but she is much to fundamentalist for my taste. She is no different that the likes of Louis Farrakan (sp?). Some kernels of good ideas, but "absolute power corrupts absolutely". - 15:12:21 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: That bundle of goods that CD has compiled, it certainly falls into the Joe Smith class of folks in need of others to worship their ideas. Your observation of the lack of 'URL'like links indicates to me an egomania hurdle. Awhile back JOETTE requested titles of our favorite books, one of the reasons I like that one I posted, its index has about 700 names as reference sources used by the author in research and for critique. the references are noteworthy. - 15:43:10 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>somewhere I read that mainstream christian theology has always believed that the messiah/jesus/christ person would be back within 2000 years of his death. Has anyone else heard of this. It appears to me that 2000 years is a long damn time to hold on to a belief. What happens when he doesn't show? - 17:24:46 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Fundamentalism in a jar is more like it when it comes to this masculine to feminine etc.Drake Propaganda. In her Brain in a Jar--this book states the goal of the species depends upon one's sense's of self at the individual level? Sensory perception is a goal??? The universe continues in its ways without regard to any form of humans perceiving themselves. Joette is right this is pure fundamentalism--propaganda to PUT OTHERS BRAINS in her/him/or it's little propaganda jar---a jar of flies is alot safer because flies do not brainwash other flies with fundamentalist absolutes! - 17:25:23 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Steven.. The crucified freak will not be showing his mystic grace anytime soon.. He said HIS world is not of this earthly world--you can have limited fun with that one! I think the believers think He will come back by DIVISION----DIVIDING HUMANS IS ALWAYS SOOOOO NICE--hehehehe!!! - 17:33:43 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Actually one can have unlimited fun waitng for the second coming!!! That narrow gate he talked about--keeps restricting humans in more ways than one!!! - 17:38:08 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

ATHEIST COALITION:Hey there! This is Craig from the United States. Just dropping a line to let y'all know it's really inspiring to see that atheism is alive and well in the UK. As someone who was drawn to rationality by Berty Russell, Chas Darwin, and, more recently, AJ Ayer, I think it is about time the UKs reclaimed their rightful place. Good show old man (sorry, just could not resist). Anyway, if you'd like to contact a heretical group in the States, drop US a line at PO Box 4786, San Diego, CA 92164-4786, USA (we have a newsletter and if you send a couple of stamps we throw you a copy or two). You can also email us at atheistcoalition@hotmail.com Later -- Craig. - 17:39:36 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: The CD site reminds me of the predicament that Wittgenstein once wrestled. In the ICSRS is a history of mental illness article, it will be interesting to read. I wonder how the composer will treat the information of that topic? If I recall, CD did not handle opposition of any kind very well, not exactly the comfortable position of a freethinker, on this note I believe it is a good thing, to push the mind- yours and mine, into the realm of new limits. I have not yet picked up any such inference from either the TONY and his gang o'theist thugs and so far not at the CD site. CD has certainly taken to the dark side of atheism,i.e., to have a power. - 17:58:44 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Jesus said that the end was near( fucking unreal)or at hand, and he told men what to do to gain salvation and what, conversely, would ensure damnation. HE did not evince any very great concern about the prospect that the mass of men (line up the fucking pigs) would suffer everlasting torment: he often spoke of hell with all the accents of vindictiveness, and the rest of the time as a matter of fact. HE knew two paths----the wide hell-one and the narrow gate of which a FEW might gain salvation... Jesus was EXCEEDINGLY VAGUE about the conduct of man. IF he thought that those listening to him were headed for evelasting torement, but that some might be saved by following HIS DIRECTIONS, it remains deeply perplexing that he should have seen fit to give such equivocal directions...As he said to one of the robbers crucified with him----'YOU WILL BE with me in PARADISE'>>easy, vague,etc. those directions to his fucking paradise!! - 18:09:48 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:CARL.. I like the Wittgenstein snippet>> Du musst die Fehler Deines eigenen Stiles hinnehmen. Beinahe wie die Unschonheiten des eigenen Gesichts-("YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FAULTS IN YOUR OWN STYLE. ALMOST LIKE THE BLEMISHES IN YOUR OWN FACE").. Drake and the Tony suit themselves to have no blemishes and if one is pointed out to them they ignore, restrict others etc.. A simple blemish in their thinking>>>>>no, no, no, that will not happen (again fucking unreal)! - 18:26:37 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CRAIG..nobody here but us North American chickens! - 18:54:18 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>who you calling a chicken?!! - 19:09:21 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--You bring up another great example of how christianity's claims are such that whatever occurs--nothing will count against it. If Jesus did in fact show up in the year 2000, they would say "see, our predictions were correct'--If Jesus doesn't show up, take your pick of explanations that would account for his no-show. " He will come when he see's fit" "Who are we to dictate when he comes"--"Our methods of measuing time are not what is said in the Bible" ( although they would have if he did in fact arrive )And on it goes. The deception, the rationalizations and every other method that can be used to undermine our ability to recognize what is real--and substitute it with a call for whatver those whose objective control other's minds wish it to be....all in the name of love and virtue.....I think I will vomit now..... - 19:46:13 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>i agree it is quite sickening. - 20:14:15 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: A chicken and an egg are seen next to each other. The chicken luxuriates by flexing its feet slowly and deliberately. Then it stretches out one wing enjoying the sight of each feather, then it rolls over and does the same with other wing. It is satisfied. the egg lays there ashiver and cold it says "i guess we know the answer." - 20:18:47 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...was it a "whole" egg, or was it the shell from whence the chicken came? - 21:22:22 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Unbeknownst to the other, two vehicles on narrow winding road pressed into a steep mountain side, were to meet. One driver was a female the the other male. Coming around a blind curve she had to make the tighter turn to avoid a collision, at the effort of turning the steering wheel she shouts out her window, "Pig!" He in the sudden rush of addrenalin hollers back, "Bitch!" He cuts off her cars read bumper as closely as possible, then smugly smoothly comes around the curve, right into a big pig. - 22:02:29 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

There was head on collision on a country road. Miracuoulsy, both drivers left their cars unscathed. One driver was female, the other male. The woman says to the man "Because we are both alive and unhurt, I am taking this as a sign from God that we are meant to be together for the rest of our lives!". The man agreed. The woman looks around and notices that a bottle of wine in her car had survived the crash. "I am taking it as a sign from God that this wine was meant for us to share to in a promise of our life together!" Again, the man readily agreed. The woman proceeded to open the bottle of wine, and said to the man "You are probably shaken up, so take a long drink". The man took the bottle of wine and drank a considerable amount, and then handed it to the woman. She said "Oh, drink more, to prove your committment to me" so the man took another long drink, and so there was only about a quarter of the bottle left. He wanted to hand it back, and said "Aren't you going to drink any of the wine?" And she coyly replied "No, I'm just going to wait for the police to get here." - 22:28:37 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:CARL.. The woman used the god-thing grand notions to deceive for her own fleeting self-benefit. An interesting twist, when a human creates the god-thing notion in this way. - 23:06:01 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:The joke was cute in anonymity also>> I am chicken crossing the road of deception?-hehe - 23:10:56 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:OPEN.. Another saying that I like by Wittgenstein is: "I believe that one of the things Christianity says is that sound doctrines are all useless. That you have to change your life.(Or the direction of your life)... Wittgenstein is referring to those vague directions started by Jesus>>to st.Paul>> and than the rest of the sheep in their indoctrinating easy additions! Does every change and/or addition produce a sound result? Or THEY fit nicely for some type of doctrine? - 23:32:35 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:Again there is no need for sound doctrine when a person (jesus) makes a wild ascertion>>>that HIS kingdom is not of this world. My little kingdom is in my DNA. - 23:41:03 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..since you are a sci-fi fan, have you seen 2001? If you have, how would you interpret the ending? - 23:54:30 on 24 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:OPEN.. Is Anselm using the name in reference to St. Anselm of Caterbury in some way. I think both ANSELMS' used various forms of the ontological argument and tried to establish god's existence not from his effects in the world, like all of st. Aquinas' five ways, but from god's essence. What is claimed is that god must exist by definition. I think it is customary to credit st. Anselm of Canterbury with the invention of this argument. St. Anselm did not bring the key notion of god'd perfection out into the open but spoke of ---that than which nothing greater can be taught. 'Greater' is such a vague word- and st. Anselm makes no effort to define it- that his argument can scarcely be called a proof.. Secondly, it is offered in his Prosologion, in the context of prayer: "I do not try, lord, to penetrate thy depth... but a little I want to understand etc.... I think both ANSELMS' really want to understand what they believe! - 0:11:35 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE.. I never seen 2001 ( pretty sad for a sci-fi fan), though I will rent it out one day. I did like The Omega Man with Charlton Heston's corny non-conformity. The last man on earth was still exposed to religious indocrtination by those night people mutants. Everything always has to be cleansed by the religious even the last human>>>that is as sad as me not seeing 2001. - 0:24:00 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

PETER:--ROB--I have yet to see how the ontological argument can escape question-begging. If this method of proof were valid--it should be applicable to proving anything else. But it does not. Regardless of how it is approached, making pre-suppositions about God is inescapable, and to me--it's dead in the water right there. - 0:38:41 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:DRAKE. If you wanted to have a sex change operation you had every right to do so. If you want to put your brain, such as it is , in a jar, that's fine too. If you want to write a book full of unmitigated garbage, that too is your privilege. Using this site to try to sell your book is neither your right nor our privilege. Go stand on a street corner and hawk it to the passersby. - 0:54:47 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Rob:PETER... I agree with you it is dead before the starting gun. Just like the case when Anselm used the Kai Nielson quote ( that a CASE can still be made for a god etc.) A case can be made I guess for anything and that way of thinking can drown a person (Anselm) and their sincere attempts to understand what they believe. - 1:04:07 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..in Ms. Drake's defense, it was I that posted the URL for her book. She was here prior to you being here, and is, in my mind, legend in the annals of MIMM. She was here for quite some time, the fur flew and then she left us. It was the only case of a feeding frenzie on a fellow atheist that I have experienced here, and it wasn't pretty, but at times it was amusing. - 3:11:06 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Arnold:In response to the question about the ending of 2001 A Space Odessy, I think it was a cop-out. I think I read where Arthur C. Clarke didn't even know what it was supposed to mean. The "Giants" series of books by Paul Hogan(?) were a response to that ending. They were based on the same theme (finding an alien artifact on the moon) but is a much better story. Also, it has a good deal of atheist-style dialog in it. These books were "Inherit the Stars", "The Gentle Giants of Gannimede", and "The Giants' Star". - 3:23:04 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:DRAKE. It seems my accusation that you used this site to advertise and sell your book on this site was unfounded. Please accept my apologies. - 3:46:35 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Thanks for the info on the mammoths. Another interesting find of the times were the fertility goddesses. Interestingly the idols were well endowed female torsos. Although some think these were goddesses maybe they were just representations of females who were healthy enough to produce many offsping. Maybe nothing supernatural about it at all? ALL- As we can all see, CDrake hasn't listened to any constructive or non-constructive criticism. Next she'll be running some type of Colorado mountian bunker for renegade atheists. - 10:31:53 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I got up REAL early this morning to catch up on the posts as I've been super busy these last few days. On the URL for CDrake's book, who would have guessed! And I suppose all these psychogical thingys he/she learned in Germany has contributed greatly to his/her techniques on trying to assimilate we heathen atheists on Man-made. I suppose he/she will have to go back to the psychological blackboard. - 11:10:35 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- But he/she was here trying to assimilate us and if she had succeeded she would have sold a few books. Next, will be the Sally Show. - 11:13:55 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Joette:-->ARNOLD...well, then I guess I am relieved to know that there is no "meaning" to the end of that story. I enjoyed Kubrick's interpretation very much. - 14:35:49 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Joette...how low can you go?:-->I read a story in the newspaper yesterday wherein a man in Missouri has been charged with attempted murder because he infected his son with AIDS tainted blood in a effort to avoid paying child support. When the boy dies, the charge will be changed to murder. It's amazing that someone would be such an asshole just to avoid paying $267 per month. - 14:39:38 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- That's low! I hope he doesn't get the death penalty. In fact I hope he gets thrown into a situation resembling OZ. - 15:50:09 on 25 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE, MARLENE. After burning off his genitals with a blow torch I would try him in a court of law. Would you consider serving on the jury? - 2:52:46 on 26 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I'd be much too emotional to serve on a jury but I'll lend you the torch, lol! - 15:12:32 on 26 Apr 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. I don't want to seem paranoid, but sometimes I get the impression that there is an organization called "SNEAKIES FOR GOD" They are the individuals who pretend to be atheists and post messagess which give a harmful appearance to atheist sites. The most recent one is a so-called Richard Thorn who posted on the American Atheist site and named a URL which advertised a XXX adult site. This is typical of their activities. Lie, cheat and do whatever else is necessary to show the goodness of their god. How nauseating! - 17:49:53 on 26 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Although I have nothing against XXX sitesl, I wouldn't doubt that there are many of those Creepin Jee-zuses out there. They just don't get that many "morals" are subjective and that the times changes them. Sexual morals are SO outdated! Take CDrake, my guess is that atheism for him/her didn't come before sexual issues. I would wager that the rejection of the religious community has toward homosexuals, sex change and intolerance of sex on the whole had a lot to do with his/her decision on becoming atheist whether he/she will admit that or not. - 18:30:33 on 26 Apr 98 GMT

Marlene..just to set the record straight:I know that refer to CDrake as he/she but that's because in MO CDrake is both male and female. I would consider myself the same if I had a sex change operation and I don't mean to say he/she in a negative way either. - 18:34:10 on 26 Apr 98 GMT

A Tricky Dic-hotomy--: Nixon had his plumbers. - 18:34:22 on 26 Apr 98 GMT

jaywilson--oops!:That last unsigned po