Grant:DAVE S-- When you return from an absense here you can catch up on the old posts by clicking on the "add" button with empty fields. The page will reload and there will be a 30 in the URL in the address box. You can change the 30 to a higher number then hit the ol' enter key. - 0:47:15 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:DAVE. There is no question that the mind can have a powerful effect on the body. We're all familiar with that intoxicating flow of adrenalin. One's attitude can sometimes affect the healing process. Your door knob could just as well been a bedpan. The god who gets credited with a miracle could just as well have been Zeus, Thor or even the spirit of the volcano. It could also have been confidence in the doctor. However, I have never heard of attitude setting a broken bone or removing an inflamed appendix. Now I Have three questions to ask. I would like some straightforward answers. The questions may be long or short but a simple yes or no will suffice as answers. We'll go on from there. Do you believe in an all powerful, all knowing god created the universe, from the billions of galaxies down to the smallest sub-atomic particles of matter, and all the millions of forms of life from the dinosaurs to the microscopic? Do you believe the bible is the true word of your god? And finally, do you believe your god is a kind and loving god? I look forward to your answers. No hedging please. - 1:21:11 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Adam GODLESS ¹98:--->:Does everyone realize that these last 3 post are in 1998, Greenwich Mean & Nasty Time? - 1:47:35 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Adam 1st Erratum of the Year-->:That should have read ¹98, not 198. The backward apostrophe didn't come out right. - 1:49:11 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Adam DITTO-->:That's '98. Obvoiusly, I can't produce a back-curled apostrophe on this page, for it prints of darkness like a "1." godsux - 1:50:48 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

RON...all...:Happy New Year to you all and may you return to your loved ones in one piece. - 2:35:05 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:DAVE. In an earlier post you ask "--what is so great about reality? Why is there some requirement that we place it above spirituality? Because reality is the real world, the world we live in. Two and two make four, regardless of your religion. If you are a christian you elieve christianity is the only TRUE faith. You may tolerate other beliefs, but you think they are erroneous. Had uou been born into an orthodox Jewish family you would have been taught their beliefs and known just as firmly that yours was th TRUE faith. The same truth applies had you been born a moslem or to a witch doctor's tribe. Had you been born in the Incan civilization of a few hundred years ago you would have considered it an honor and a privilege to sacrifice you daughter to their god. But christian, moslem, jew, Incan or witch doctor society, twp plus two would still add up to four. That's what's great about reality. You can depend on it. And I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions. Just a simple yes or no. - 3:57:41 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..knock, knock, who's there.? knob ...knob who?..knobody..:HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE! Fee-fii-foo-fiffer, I tink I smell da blood of a fern sniffer!! I Knobs remind me of, Quake. Richard, etc. etc. Super Dave may have something there, didn't the old great aunt on Bewitched collect doorknobs. There be magic in them tings! ADAM and GRANT- Percatory is really good but then again so is Prints of Darkness. It's really a good thing that we atheists here amuse ourselves instead of having faith in theist sector to do it for us. Of course we do borrow their absurdities. - 4:45:17 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:DAVE. Your quote: "Logic can't handle a singular that is also a multiple". Do you know what an oxymoron is ? again "yet everything in the universe is more than one thing at a time, depending on where you are in relation to it". You remind me of the old story about the blind men describing an elephant. One felt the tail and said the elephant was a rope. Another the trunk and said it was a snake. A third felt a leg and to him the elephant was a tree. But the fact remains, Dave, that it was still an elephant. And if you stood on your head to look at it, it would still be an elephant. In short, Dave, you don't know what you're talking about. You need your god. I don't want to take it away from you. Without it you would be nothing but an empty shell. And you still haven't answered my questions. - 5:35:49 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:SAM, because you were the fifth guy standing away from the object, you decided that your view was indeed the correct one...it is an elephant. But to the guy standing even farther away, it would be part of a heard of elephants, and he would be right too. And once we take the blindfolds off the first few guys, they will quite correctly say when asked what is this; the tail, trunk and foot of an elephant. The universe is what it is. I am not arguing that "fact". But our perception of it is relative to ourselves individually. It is in this way that things become both singulars and multiples at the same time. When you are alone, you are always correct, huh? But now WE are hear and you're only half right, like it or not. - 6:33:17 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:.....About those three questions that I have no obligation to bother answering...1. I do not know if the is a God, and neither do you. So I also can't know what the nature of God would be like. And 2. No. The bible is a wonderful book that has much to offer to us, but it is just a book like many others. It is not written by God, and it is not perfect. And 3. I am very much hoping that if there is a God, it's nature is all loving. I am hoping this so much, that I am choosing to live as if it is true. I am placing my faith in it. But I have no "proof" either way. I have experiencial proof, like our friend and his faith in the door knob, but since you wouldn't accept another's experience as being equal in value to your own, I doubt it would matter. The funny thing about the door knob story is that the knob is real, the illness is real, the man is real, the cure is real, his faith is real, and the connection between all these are as real and easy to follow as dominos knocking against each other, yet somehow there is still no "proof" that believing in a door knob cured his illness. I suspect that most of the people in this room would deny their own sacred logic before they would admit that there are other and equal ways to interact with the world around. In the same way that we have more that one sense ( like sight) to take in information, we also have more than one method of interpreting that information. Logic is only one of them. And it comes up short quite often. But we can only see it's shortcomings by looking at it from one of the other methods. - 7:05:16 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson--heretic, theretic, everywhere a tic-tic:ADAM: Hmmm--televangelism could also use a shot of deviltry; for new shows I propose I Love Luci-fer, Route 666, and Satyr's Day Night Live (Egyptians--please do not adjust your Set). - 7:19:47 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->DAVE..au contraire mon ami. If you or anyone else could provide solid evidence that could withstand scientific scrutiny, many of us would be believers too. You choosing to live your life as though there is a god is fine, and I would bet dollars to donuts that you don't lead a life any different than most of us here, the difference being only that we don't need an invisible crutch. You must know from reading the bible that the god therein is not a loving one, but rather a jealous and violent one. That's why jesus was invented; not unlike the "good cop, bad cop" employed by law enforcement officials during interrogation. Blind faith is unhealthy; we should always be questioning the source of all information, or else we become stagnant and ignorant of the world around us. - 14:03:28 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- I'm going to have one of those tacky custom license plate frames made, only this one won't be tacky, because it will say "heretic, theretic..." - 14:21:04 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- Do I have to send you $.75? - 14:23:37 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Do you think PapaSam's observation about elephants holds also for chairs? Where is Bill anyway? - 15:17:07 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVE S--The position you have chosen to take is called "Fideism"--which is simply taking the leap of faith to believe, solely for the comfort of this experience. Since the fundamntalists make the most noise, one mayconclude they are in the majority, but people who have accepted your position are actually in the majority.....Yesterday I explained to you the "fallacy of the stolen concept" and you are continuing to commit it--each time you attempt to discredit logic( the method by which man reasons)- or say there are other methods of gaining knowledge. It is the existence-oriented faculty. If one asks"Why should I accept reason" is to ask "Why should I accept reality?" Man has a choice: either he accepts reason, or he consigns his consciousness and life to a void. I am taking this approach to defend reason, because one cannot actually seek proof that reason is reliable, because reason IS the FACULTY OF PROOF--it MUST be accepted in any attempt to prove anything. One cannot prove anything by unreason. Any other convention such as "faith" is not a method of cognition. Yes, one can make some conclusions based on faith,( As religionistsdo, and are ENCOURAGED to do ) but reality always has the last word--it cannot be escaped--and reason isthe only method in which one can recognize reality. There are no substitutes, additional methods, modifications. Reason hung out the "no vacancy" sign out long ago. This can be verified in another way: Often the theist will claim that God exists--but His existence is beyond reason, logic--and then smugly behave as if there argument has been prove. The only trouble is: if this argument were valid, any one could claim the existence of anything ,and then when asked to prove that existence--he simply says its existence is beyond logic and reason--which would eliminate then any reference point. Any basis on which anything can be proven. But reason provides that faculty--and can never be escaped--ever. - 15:56:28 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

James--->All...:Was it Einstein who said that if you believe that one thing is a miracle you must believe that all things are a miracle?...Happy New Year to everyone. I have faith that 98 will be a good year though I'm not really sure why. - 15:59:13 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..so, are you implying that because Einstein said it, it must be true? - 16:05:32 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..now that you are back, I would like to address the Canada bashing you did a little while ago. How many draft dodgers did Canada "hide" during the Vietnam War? - 16:07:44 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:DAVE S-- A few thoughts about your statement " I have experiencial proof, like our friend and his faith in the door knob, but since you wouldn't accept another's experience as being equal in value to your own, I doubt it would matter." In my opinion, the use of feelings and emotions to determine what is real is suspect. This is apparent from the large variety of conflicting beliefs which have been developed with them, some of which can be demonstrated to be impossible. If one is to work toward an understanding of reality, it is necessary to develope some kind of system which is tied to that which can be observed by anyone at any time. In other words, it must be based in the physical observable world. Otherwise our beliefs are arbitrary, and only a product of chance. An accident of birth and circumstance. Emotions and feelings themselves can be understood to a degree on these terms, partly by looking at what may cause us to desire to believe things, and by directly observing emotions and their effects. Disparities between what we wish to believe and what can be shown to be true can be observed. The point is, I value another's experience according to how capably he/she is able to suppress unreliable emotional interpretation. - 16:11:43 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:I think there are a few things in this existence that supercede mans supreme tool of understanding. For example, I have great difficulty applying logic to concepts such has infinity. Calculus does a great deal to help explain the mathematics and science has made incredible discoveries that help, but all said and done, when I look up to the heavens (space) and try to grasp its vastness. When I try to contemplate non-linear/infinitive time/space, It totally defies my, and many other's, ability to logically analyze. Logic falls short for me and for the greatest minds to ever bless humanity. This chink in the armor represents a window of possibility only faith can access. Best regards. - 16:15:43 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:--->JAMES...you are committing what Peter refers to as "the fallacy of the stolen concept". Just because you have an inability to understand something, it does not mean that it won't one day be understood by someone else. - 16:29:36 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--Best regards to you. All that faith does is to mkae a conclusion--with NO REGARD TO REASON. Certainly you may make a conclusion of things you may not understand logically by using faith--but the province of reason is till there, whether you like it or not. Reality sooner or later, must be answered to, if you want to associate yourself with it--and to recognize reality, reason must ALWAYS, not some of the time, or most of the time to recognize reality. It is by its own self-verifying inescapability that you, and DaveS, or whoever make a faalacious argument( fallacy of the stolen concept), the instant you question its inescapability. To claim that ANYTHING exists, the faculty of reason will apply--or it does not exist. Being unaware of premises that lead to a conclusion of all the great minds in history is no excuse, reality;existence exists independent of these shortcomings. Now some may look upon the argument I am making here defending reason as somewhat resembling that of a "reason fundamentalist"--but to do so would be the same as calling me an " existence fundamentalist"--and the only alternative then would be to question existence itself. One can question and debate certain arguments and beliefs--but only to the point where all arguments and beliefs are dependent on one thing--reality. And that is as far as one can go to remain within the realm of rational thought. And what recognizes reality: reason. - 16:48:08 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:JOETTE, proving the existence of God with science is like measuring a sunset with inches. (A bad analogy, but a pretty one.) God would include science, but science can't include God. Nine things can contain three things, but three things can't contain nine. (Actually they can and do, but that's a whole different discussion.) By your insisting that science is the only way to prove something, you have effectively made it impossible to prove that anything outside of science exists. You have created a closed set. In fact, you are doing exactly what the fundimentalist christians do with their bible. They say that because the bible is the inerrant word of God, it is therefor the only true system of thought for judging truth. Their proof is that the bible says so, (it's a circular argument). Then they say to you that under those conditions, you can't possibly disprove the existence of God. Of Coarse you can't! They're writing the rules, and they've stacked them impossibly against your doing it! Yet you're doing the same thing here, when you insist that science, logic, rationality, etc., are the only set of intellectual rules that you will accept from someone who "bears the burden of proving" to you that God does exist. Quite frankly, I don't care whether you believe that there is a God or not. And I know that even in an unbiased discussion the existence of God connot be proven or disproven. That isn't the issue I'm speaking to here. The issue I'm speaking to here is the purposeful closing off of our minds, to the various ways we human beings have of discerning the information we collect from the world around us. It's interesting that you are so eager and able to spot and condemn this unfortunate trait in the christian fundimentalists, yet you will fight tooth and nail to deny that you are guilty of the same weakness yourselves. - 16:50:51 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:TO ALL, as I read more of these posts, it is becoming painfully obvious that I have stumbled upon yet another religious chat room. Only this time God is "reality", and the bible that dictates that "reality" is logic. Dictates....yes....it is a dictatorship. Intuition, personal experience, emotionalism, fantasy/speculation, these things are all strictly verboten in this country! 'We will have order here, God damnit!' If any of you think there is no truth in confusion, you are sadly retarded as human beings. Someone who is very anti-religion told me this morning that atheists are just an allergic reaction to religious fundimentalism. It's beginning to look like she was correct. - 17:15:13 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:DAVE: You seem to forget that in your dichotomy of faith/reason, there is a third option--which I pose by asking, "So fucking what?" Meanwhile, you watch the heavens and I'll watch the bowl games, and we'll see who scores first. - 17:19:28 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:GRANT: No need for money, thanks; your appreciation works just fine. Matter of fact, I do like your idea for the license plate--but now you've got me thinking of a line of atheist-oriented bumperstickers--hmmm. Later... - 17:34:19 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:DAVE S-- I just had some emotionalism that I give credence to. Thanks for droppin' in. - 17:36:27 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Joette, Peter:Your argument illustrates a faith that someday man will come to comprehend that, which is now inconceivable. While history bares this out, the future is yet to be told. In the end, only time will tell. - 17:39:50 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVE--When you mention that "intuition, personal experience, emotionalism, fantasy/speculation" are not allowed, you are beating a straw man here. You are assuming that reason does not allow these methods, and we arre all a bunch of "Mr. Spocks" In my case, you couldn't be farther from thre truth. I am extremely emotional, but I do recognize that emotionalism is not a method to gain knowledge. It is simply an EVALUATION of knowledge. All these traits which you claim are absent from one who "worships reason" are in fact very important to an individual who recognizes reason as his only method of recognizing reality. The only thing is--all of these faculties will at some point have answer to it, if one wishes to distinguish reality from being in dreamland. As an artist myself ( music composition), my thoughts are often in wild imagination, fantasy, "fuzzy logic"--but I can distinguish between these areas, and reality--and so can you. Reason is simply the final arbiter--and recognizing its inescapabiliity has no bearing on how intuitive, speculative etc. one may be. In the end, I find recognizing reality as exhilarating and exciting, and living in a world of false generalizations, undefined contradictions, unwarranted conclusions as being nothing more than a mental dead weight. Again to reiterate what I told James--to imply that those who recognize reason as being the method to recognize reality, and imply that one is a form of a "religious fundamentalist" is to question existence itself, and mock those who say "Existence exists" Also, again assuming that you are attempting to defend your views logically, you have commmitted three logical fallacies. Again, the fallacy of the stolen concept ( and everytime you question the inescapability of reason), argumentum ad hominem ( sadly retarded human beings--making a personal attack judged solely on your not agreeing with someone elses arguments)--and argumentum ad misercordiam--which is feeling sympathy for someone, who does not agree with your views, as a method of advancing your own argument--and "beating the straw man"--as I previously mentioned. Take these logical fallacies with a grain of salt if you like, but I would like to reiterate, they will never go by unnoticed, and your arguments will ultimately not be taken seriously. - 18:26:14 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson--Rhett-oric Butler:DAVE: Ditto Peter's comments; I'm too lazy and emotional to respond politely to your vacuousity. - 18:54:05 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:Oops--that was vacuous_ness_, Dave. - 19:05:51 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:PETER, you sure sound like Spock to me! He was a ball of emotionalism inside, too. And if I remember correctly, a musician. (smile) JAYWILSON, so far you just look like an idiot to me. But then so fuckin' what? Right? - 19:15:38 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:PETER, you can correct my spelling too, if you want to, but that still doesn't respond to my point. You keep telling me that reason is the only reliable path to reality. And that this is an inescapable truth. But in the end it's only your saying so that seems to be the proof of this, because it's your own version of reality that you are using as a standard. Just because we both use the same mathmatical system, and that system adds 2 and 2 to equal 4 when we use it, doesn't prove it to be a "reality" anywhere but within it's own self. Fundimentalist christians (I can't believe I'm defending them) have a reality that is different from yours. You say, "but their system is illogical!" and you are correct. But they aren't interested in logic. logic is part of a system that they aren't concerned with. Their system is based on biblical justification. Within their system, you are the "erroneous" one, and they are correct. Do you see what I'm trying to say? You have ultimately chosen your system because of your own personal intuition, experience, emotions and dreams. And so have they. And you have chosen two DIFFERENT systems of being. To you, theirs is illogical. To them you are unGodly. As long as each insists that their own system is the ultimate one, there is a deadlock. The way out, however, is to evolve to a higher view. A view which can include BOTH systems as part of a greater whole. Does it exist? And if so...what would it be? Let's strech a little. - 19:51:08 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:PETER, by the way...you were right...this is a much better was to discuss an idea than a few fast lines in a chat room! Thanks. - 19:57:19 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:DaveS and CDrake..maybe that hermi someone mentioned. DAVE- So fucking get real! - 20:00:31 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:SUPER DAVE- Although you've been posting here for a very short time, already I dislike you. I haven't got a problem with reality but it seems you do and then have the nerve to say that everyone here are retarded human beings. Either your atheist or your not and obviously, you're not. Your a fence sitter as far as I can tell. You don't like the limitations of fundie religions yet you seem to "need" to believe in a "god with a capital G". God in an atheist's opinion does not exsist who therefore it isn't a proper name of a person place or thing, no need for the capital. In your need to create warm and fuzzy feelings you would like to combine apples and oranges to make one nice little fruit. Atheists and theists will not combine. If one likes to think in these terms then they sit stradling the fence rejecting the boredom of safety on one side but afraid to step on the other with no safety net. - 23:06:18 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

-DAVE S--No, it does not exist. Existence exists regardless of how one approaches any verification of it, how he fears it, how he hopes it will be, how he wants it to be, how he believes it to be. The term "objective reality" is heard often, but in fact it is a redundancy. Existence can only be objective. There is no thing as "my reality"--"your reality". Certainly people view reality different than others, but that does not alter the facts of reality. If there were, there would be all kinds of reality, but either something exists, or it does not, and it exists having only acertain identity. Of course the fundamentalist is not interested in logic--simply because their beliefs cannot be reconciled logically with reality. Yes, they look at the Bible as their ultimate source of reality--but the validity of the Bible cannot escape the province of reason. One does not have to accept the Bible in an attempt to discredit it--as one must do with reason. And therein lies the difference. The validity of the Bible must ultimately answer to reason--and it fails miserably. The fundamentalist may believe as he wishes, but those beliefs do not reflect reality. This can be demonstrated time, and time again. The fundamentalist is then forced to live in a world of perpetual skepticism which is--regardless of what counter-evidence is presented--"it is my BELIEF, as the result of my commitment to my faith which is still the one which reflects reality, or the Truth", as they like to refer to it. Their beliefs become reality. But it is not reality. The tools which are necessary to recognize it as such are circumvented--and logic clearly can demonstrate that this is the case--whether they wish to accept it or not--that has no bearing on whether something exists or not. Not only are fundamentalists wrong, they could not have possibly chosen a more incorrect way of recognizing what exists. - 23:26:08 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--sorry, that was me. - 23:27:26 on 1 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Do you realize 666*3= 1998? Ooooo! Not only that, I saw Corny kicking Suess's ass in the frost on my window this morning, photographic image of mother T and Stan bringing in the new year in the frost on my doorknob. - 1:14:55 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..:Right, I forgot, and Gabby in drag in the frost on my windshield. This has GOT to mean something! - 1:18:02 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..physcho-annal-eye-zing!:It may mean, that it's just damn cold here! An objective observation, of course.. - 1:20:32 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. I too cannot answer many questions. Is the universe finite or infinite? If finite, what lies behind it? You say that when logic falls short you want to "plug the chink in the armor with faith". That's where we part company. You have created a god to cover your ignorance, and I have not. Your so called solution, 'god' raises another question. Where did your god come from? I haven't the faintest notion where or how it all started. Even accepting the Big Bang theory as the most plausible I still have no idea where the first primordial speck of matter came from that started it all. The universe is a paradox. there is no reason why it should exist, but here we are. - 1:25:04 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:OPEN-- Did you see the AP story? " Buddhists pray for chickens slaughtered in Hong Kong. ---Brown-robed Budhist monks and nuns began seven days of prayer and meditation for the souls of 1.3 million dead chickens Wednesday... Abbot Yong Sing warned, 'Hong Kong will suffer retribution. People and chickens may look different, but they are both alive, and we shouldn't kill live things.' " - 1:27:27 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:OPEN-- Janet Jackson says that bad emotions can be trapped in the very cells of our bodies. The way to expunge them is coffee enemas. Sometimes two enemas are required, though this can be risky, as they may be brought out too fast. Who says we need reason in our lives? - 1:46:37 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:DAVE. I have been puzzling over your statement - "Just because we both use the same math system and that system adds 2 and 2 to equal 4 when we use it doesn't prove it to be a "reality" anywhere but within its own self." Do you mean that they could add up to 5 or 7 or 1746 somewhere else? Please enlighten me. - 1:58:31 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Holy choking chickens! I wonder, do they pray for all the choked chickens of the world or only those in the far east?? Maybe the chickens here are infidels? Now on the Janet Jackson thing, I think maybe that girl's had one too many enemas! BUT ya never know, Juan Valdez may put the makers of prozac out of business! - 2:33:29 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Never, never say "enlighten" around fern-sniffers! - 2:37:20 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..Janet Jackson obviously visited the new Percatory shop! She is correct in that bad feelings do get trapped in your cells, only there is a better medical explanation. According to my shrink, depression can cause a build up of toxins in muscles and such, and that is why exercise is so important. It helps to expunge the toxins. Maybe coffee enemas along with exercise will be the answer to a longer, happier life. Coffee, anyone? - 3:03:21 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..interesting!:JOETTE- HA! HA! The Percatory shop! But this is somewhat interesting, toxin buildup? Is the the expunging of carbon and the replenishment of oxygen that does it? - 3:38:58 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- You are a charitable person. ---Wanna be patners on the Percatory Shop. This could go places! We could have a front door and a back door, um, I'd better rephrase that... - 4:06:07 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- We could have two separate and distinct areas in the store. - 4:11:19 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. I'll take my coffee from the other end. And who is Janet Jackson? - 4:47:43 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:WHOEVER, Human beings take in information through a limited set of senses. We divide it into peices, compare and contrast the peices to each other and with information stored in our memory, we identify, qualify, and store it away again. Most of this process is done very quickly and sub-consciously. But we can also call the process, or part of the process up to a conscious level (greatly slowing it down) and re-evaluate it as it happens. This is what we call reasoning. Reasoning is a conscious refrencing and re-refrencing of this stream of information, both incoming and stored. When done on a sub-conscious, or semi-conscious level it would be called intuition. When this referencing is done with an emphasis on projecting into the future, we might call it speculation. And if the refrencing leans toward the future of our personal pleasure, we would call it fantasy. When this refrencing focusses more on just the information we acquired through our own physical body, we call it experience. It is true that whether this refrencing system (reason) is conscious or not, projecting, personal, or emphasizing whatever aspect we so choose, we cannot escape that it's happening. It's part of the thinking process for a human being. It's also true that this refrencing system (reason) is essencially how we identify what is "real", and what is "unreal" around us. However.......this does not mean that reason EQUALS reality. Not even close! Reality is one incomprehensibly huge and complex event. What little we can ascertain of it comes into us through our senses and is processed with the few tools we have to process it with, and it doesn't take any genius to see that what little we know of it is tiny indeed! So tiny, that to assume reason is equal to reality, simply because it seems to be the only way we limited beings have of ascertaining anything of reality, is rediculous, and would close us off to searching for any alternatives. Some human beings are surprisingly aware of just how limited perception and reason are, and they long for something more. Don't confuse these people with fear ridden fundimentalists that imprison themselves with doctrines in order to keep reality out! Remember, some of those people call their doctrine atheism. - 4:49:17 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:DAVE. I've finally figured out what you've been trying to explain to me. GOD CREATED HIMSELF!!! Now if he only made you his high priest who knows what miracles would unfold. - 4:54:32 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:DAVE S-- What may these alternatives to reason be that you think we should be searching for? How long shall we wait for them to become manifest? If there is some entity or force or phenomenum which is only willing or able to be evidenced through non-physical means shouldn't we be suspicious of it? Shouldn't we meanwhile be using the tools that seem most reliable for now, logic, skepticism, and disciplined reason? - 5:08:48 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:DAVE S-- At least logic,skepticism, and reason can further understanding by eliminating impossibilities from serious consideration. This can simplify things a bit, in my view. - 5:13:11 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:GRANT---When I make sculptures, I have the opportunity to apply different ways of reasoning directly to the physical world. For the most part, conscious reasoning is great at cutting things out and putting them together, but it fails time and again when I'm in the aesthetic decissions. What seems to work best then is a combination of intuition and fantasy. Somehow I need to find a way for the sculpture to tell me what it wants to be. I realize this will sound silly to most of you. So be it. But I've been doing this for a lot of years, and it is consistant within my art making process. I have to do something sort of like the door-knob trick. I know that the answer is within me, but I can't consciously control the process well enough to just pull it out. Reason alone doesn't make art. And when I am "reasonable" about a sculpture as I make it...it comes out contrived and grandiose every time. I'm convinced that for me, at least, there are other ways, and other ends that can be used to interact with "reality" besides conscious rational. But once again, all I have is personal experience to justify my thinking. - 6:46:59 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:DAVE.Your tortuous line of reasoning all boils down to your conclusion that "Reason does not equal reality." You're right. And a hammer does not equal a bench. Reason is a tool which we use together with our senses to identify reality, just as a hammer is a tool which together with nails, we use to make a bench. You further state "Reality is an incomprehensibly huge and complex event. What little we know of it is tiny indeed" I won't quibble with you for your calling reality an event. When I look at a coin and recognize it as a penny, I don't pretend to know the workings of the mint. The reality is that it is still a penny. If you know a better way of identifying the penny other by your senses and by reasoning let me know. Obviously you believe the wish is father to the thought. Could you identify it by intuition or would it be by some divine insight provided to you by some supernatural power? - 7:36:12 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->DAVE..I found the machinations you employ to do your sculptures interesting, and yes, the touches you place on them to make them interesting do come from within. You probably do look upon an object differently from others, and that is often the way with an artist. However, this would not have anything to do with a god giving you the ideas you have, does it? - 12:20:09 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVE S--Your persistence to try to argue reasonably, while at the same time attempting to discredit it, or somehow diminish its inescapability, seems to be a concept that you either do not understand, or chose to ignore, so I will not go over this again, as I seem to be now repeating myself. You refer to a "doctrine of atheism" This rather puzzles me, simply because no such thing exists, any more than a "doctrine for not believing in SAnta Claus, or fairies, dragons, magic elves"exists. Atheism is a lack of a belief, and does not infer any positive beliefs or a "doctrine". Atheism is an apllication of what is probably a limitless number of various personal philosophies when applied to the issue of a god will conclude that there is no belief in a god. - 13:47:54 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE, PAPASAM, MARLENE, GRANT, PETER, ADAM, RON, CARL(where has he been)<<>> Happy new year! - 13:53:23 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:DAVE S-- I don't think that's at all silly. It's pretty good insight. We use this kind of tecnique all the time, whether it be deciding what proportions look right when building a table, or choosing the right word when writing a letter, etc. It can work very well. But people make tables with awkward proportions this way too, and people choose the wrong word, and people make bad sculpture. It's great when it works, and contributes much. It's just not a reliable indicator of reality, in my view, especially coupled with that feeling we all have, (which is itself suspect,) the feeling that we know we are right? - 13:58:42 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:And the very same to you STEVEN. (Carl will be back Monday, I believe.) - 14:03:55 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:DAVE: So let me get this straight: you can make "art", but you can't tell me how--and I am to accept your lack of knowledge as proof that "other" forms of reason/visions of reality exist. The Moderns--Yeats, Mondrian, Moore, Stevens, Calder, Pollock, Eliot, Picasso, Miro--were all quite erudite on the subject of their art, to include a thorough knowledge of the traditions they were departing from in their own individual ways--knowledge which certainly shaped and guided their artistic decisions. No smoke or mirrors there, and no mysticism either. What you describe as your "art" seems more of a sustained (how many years have you been at it?) attempt at self expression, lacking only something substantial to express. - 14:17:16 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:---Happy New Year, Steven - 14:37:48 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:ANY,DAVES<<>> So if you go back 500 yrs in time with a PC that can speak, what would occur? Would they destroy the PC as a demon or would they worship it as a god? If human beings make computers that think can think for themselves and reproduce themselves, does that make us gods? - 14:55:12 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

StEvEn:jaywilson<<>> sorry jay, happy new year!!!!! I think I destroyed the brain cell that your name was stored in two evenings ago. - 14:58:10 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:STEVEN: And may you too prosper in 1998. As for the brain cell, I've drowned a few myself, but thanks for keeping the synapses firing. Do you like single-malt scotch? - 15:10:16 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:STEVEN: And let's not forget ROB! - 15:17:22 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:SAM---We humans are constantly making the erroneous assumption that if we don't see, hear, smell, touch or taste it...it isn't there. With a moment of reasoning, we could know that this isn't true, but most of us don't take that moment, most of the time. Likewise, we can also make the erroneous assumption that because reason is our most accurate and most used method of discerning the world around us, it must therefor be the only method for doing it. This error is much harder to dispell, since it would require us to let go of the assumption, before we could know that it is indeed an assumption. Some of us can not, and will not do that. And the rest of us have a difficult time with it at best. But the difficulty not withstanding, it is still the case. So how does one who has experienced an existence beyond reason, explain to someone that has not yet experiences it, that it's there, when the only tool (reason) that the erroneous guy has, can't take him there? All that's left is openmindedness, and faith. If the erroneous guy can't place himself in that mode, he cannot be relieved of his erroneous assumption. And of coarse he will not believe that there is an error in the first place. There you have it. Some aspects of reality can onle be gotten to by leaving reason behind. But in leaving reason behind, we also have to leave "proofs" behind. You have to let go of the banana before you can get your hand out of the coconut. - 15:24:18 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:DAVE: "All that's left is openmindedness and faith"? Sez you. I once more offer a third option: disbelief. Rhetoric obviously holds a higher place in your priorities than do language and logic. - 16:10:29 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->DAVE..call me a skeptic, but I would like to know what you have experienced that could not be explained rationally. - 16:12:57 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVE---If something exists, it is something, to have a nature, to possess identity. Identity is indivisible with existence.--one implies the other. If something EXISTS, then SOMETHING exists--and likewise if there is a SOMETHING, then there IS a something. When you refer to something that is "beyond reason"--you are in essence, identifying it ( as existence ) and then subsequently denying it of its identity--by saying it is "beyond reason". I am making the assumption here that you are referring to the supernatural. But what is "super-nature"? It would have to be a form of existence BEYOND existence--beyond identity. The idea of "supernatural" is an assault on everything man knows about reality. It is a contradiction of every essential of a rational metaphysics. It represents a rejection of existence, consciousness and identity. - 16:21:03 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

JOETTE, I call it God, because that's the word we most often use in english to discribe the power and mystery of the reality around us, when it defies all other rational terminology. - 16:33:55 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:JOETTE----I'm sure you knew it was me...but I forgot my handle, sorry. - 16:36:23 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:JAY----You can stick your head in the sand if it makes you feel safer, but there is more to reality that matter. Ideas are real, and they have real consequences, whether you disbelieve them or not. - 16:40:02 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:PETER----It isn't a super-nature. It's simply all of reality that exists, but is beyond our ability to perceive with reason. If this appears difficult or imaginary to you, it's just because you keep tryng to grasp it with reasoning, and reasoning won't take you there. Let go of the banana. - 16:47:56 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVE S--( in reference to your post to lovely and fair Joette )So when something around us is a mystery, we then resort to what is called "God of the gaps" or well if we don't know, or cannot explain it--it must be the result of a supernatural force. Many problems with this. First, the problem of the concept of "supernatural" itself, which I outlined in my previous post. You are then caught in some kind of dilemna, dreamworld, never-never land --whatever you want to call it of attempting to solve a mystery with another mystery--or attempting to explain something, and subsequently declare it is then known--by the use of the unknown. And even if you reject my rejection of the concept of "supernatural" at its very roots ( sorry, folks ), you enncounter another obstacle. the posit the supernatural explains nothing, it merely asserts the futility of explanation. - 16:51:51 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Steven...:Best wishes for the new year. Hope you don't mind a question but, is it common for you to be selective in regards to who you hope has good fortune in the coming year? It is my nature to hope that everyone does well for themselves and their families. Do you not share in what is commonly considered a good moral characteristic? The reason I ask is that I am writing a comparative/contrast on morality through the eyes of an atheist as opposed to a deist. I am trying to ascertain whether your wish that the US and everyone in it be wiped of the earth (genocide) and your apparent disdain for a huge majority of people on this earth are typical of your brand of atheism. Please don't take it personnel. It is a purely an objective question meant to gather primary source evidence. Hey, I see your from the DFW area. What the hell happened to the Cowboys this year ? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question. They will be back next year, hopefully with a new coach and a better offensive line. - 17:00:11 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVE--But if it exists as you say, and is beyond our capability to reason, again you have separated existence from identity, and one cannot exist without the other. Just because somtething is unexplained, and no person knows the reason--is irrelevant here. It still does not negate the reason for its existence. And you are continuing again to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept! - 17:02:35 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--Ask me the same question you asked Steven. I dare you to..... :-). Or better yet. Read the post I made to DaveS earlier today at 13:47:54 first, and think about asking that question for a little while. I hope you have a happy new year, James--nor do I wish that anyone have a lousy one. But hey, I'm just speaking for myself. - 17:10:21 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:ALL----Not only are ideas real, but even ideas that defy logic are real. I made up the story of that guy with his door knob to try and point this out. Faith is an idea. And it has real consequences. I used a door knob because I wanted to isolate faith as an idea from the object that it was being applied to. The reason there are so many theists in the world, reguardless of the doctrines they choose, is that faith is a real thing, and it has powerful, positive, real consequences in people's lives. We all know that it wasn't the door knob that cured our guy, yet his faith in that door knob did. Ideas have real and measurable consequences. To believe in God (however it is defined, or left undefined) is an idea. To believe (place faith) in God has real consequences. Could reason have cured him? Maybe. But the point here is that it didn't. Faith did. When I was suffering from an illness myself, I tried with everything I had to cure myself using reason, and I got absolutely nowhere with it. When I finally, in desperation, let go of reason, and tried faith...the results were positive, imediate, and permanent (at least to date). I have many examples in my life of similar events. The reality of the universe is greater than reason alone can grasp. The realities in my own life are greater that reason alone can grasp. And when I tried other methods, I got results. I call those results proof. But you would have to try it yourselves to know, because this is a part of reality that can't be captured by common reasoning. - 17:13:36 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:I am having a hard time accepting that anyone is truly an atheist based on your definition. I have never met a person who does not believe in something that has yet to be proven or defies logic and reason. If atheism is a lack of belief then there is no such thing as an atheist. I have illustrated many times that all of you have a belief of one sort or another that is not supported by evidence, logic or the scientific method. Now, as I see it, a deist is one who believes in an omnipotent power and an atheist is the opposite of that. Based on that limited scope I can accept atheism. When it extends beyond those bounds then we are no longer talking about atheism and I think your definition is mutually exclusive to all human beings. - 17:21:29 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:PETER---I agree with you that what I call God may simply be that huge part of reality that I am not able to grasp or control with reason. In this way it is indeed a power (existence?) greater than myself. But if I'm able to make some forays into it by leaving reason behind, why shouldn't I? Especially when the results seem to be positive! By the way, I think what we're really talking about here is mysticism, not religion. - 17:25:05 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

James--->DaveS...:Sorry I haven't had a chance to converse with you. I think your explanation of the reasoning process is right on the mark. I agree that reality and reason are worlds apart. I do not think that it is an effort to discredit reasoning, rather I think it simply points out the facts of the matter. I think you will find Peter your best source for good conversation on this level. He is fair and is not overly anxious to insult your intelligence or beliefs. As you have already seen, this can be a rough place. You seem to be well suited for the task though so hang around and have some fun. - 17:30:35 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--. Of course you agree with DAveS--only because it is cognizant with your own particular brand of irrationality. Now, "If atheism is a lack of belief, then there is no such thing as an atheist" has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this chat-page. Let's say there is a word for "people who have a lack belief in Santa Claus" ..lets call them "Rudolphs". These people are only identified by their lack of belief of Santa--nothing else. So, we the substitute your argument and say" Just because they DON'T believe in Santa--there is no such thing as a Rudolph" James, does this make sense to you? ..DAVES--Of course you can come to come to your own conclusions without reason, or by faith--and in the doorknob analogy--it convinced the patient it helped him--that is not I take issue with here. Faith, and abandoning reason, or defying it is not a method of verifying what is real. Reason is that method. It is the only thing that reason is and can do--that is the specific idendity of reason. If two people are presented the same set of premises ( and they have been given all the necessary premises to make a correct conclusion)--one uses faith to make a conclusion, and the other reason--the one using faith may come to the correct one--but may not--and he has NO METHOD OF VERIFICATION--UNTIL HE USES REASON--and the one who uses reason will always be correct, and if he is not--ONLY REASON WILL VERIFY THE RESULTS..........NOW, are you guys getting this ??? - 18:17:36 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:DAVES<<>> Ok, but does not voodoo work on the same assumption and fear. I mean, voodoo works because the people have FAITH that the witch dr. casting the spell actually has powers. The same witch dr. could caste a spell on me and I would consider it humorous. The belief in a god/jesus or whatever is no different then a mature belief in St. Nick. The believer will say "I can not understand why this happened, it must be gods work". This is called ignorance and the wish to bury head in sand. I you do go back in time, lets say to the year 1000. Lets say that you told these folks that the earth was round, that men would fly to the moon, that the stars were just suns in different galaxies, that a pill could get rid of a headache, that bleeding someone actually is worse for them, that men would talk in little plastic (plastic?) gadgets to people across the planet (planet), that illness are caused by tiny life forms not satan or demons, that haveing sex is fun and not a chore, that belief in a mythology is detrimental etc... If you did this you would a> be burned alive at the stake b> stoned to death (and i'm not talking about pot) c> put to the rack and made to confess publicly that satan entered your body and made you say those hideous lies. Even better go back in time and explain evolution to someone, that should make for a few giggles, and then you would be in the inquisition withing the hour. No, belief in a super natural diety is leading yourself into delusion. - 18:59:35 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

de Veritate:Grant:--JAMES-- Wander around this site a little before writing your "comparative/contrast on morality through the eyes of an atheist as opposed to a deist," or maybe choose a topic that you better understand? (No offense intended) - 19:42:48 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:JAMES---I have learned much already. Not just Peter, but several others here have asked me some very good and difficult questions, without insults. I can see that there are a number of things I have not thought about, that are important. (smile) - 19:46:44 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:JAMES<<>> I would have wished a happy new year for ya but we didn't end up on such good terms from our last discussion, I did not know if it was appropriate. To answer a few of your questions. I wish all the joy in the world to many people, family, friends, etc... However, I find that the majority of people are repulsive. Yes, there are many good people of all nationalities, religions, and race. But it is IMO that the majority of people cause nothing but harm to the planet and to nature. I think that people as a whole has forgotten that the earth supports people, people have forgotten to take care of what supports them. This may make me seem a liberal or whatever they call it these days, I prefer not to label myself or people who care about preserving the earth for our children liberal. James, I am Cherokee. I have many problems with the government and the people that raped, pillaged, and slaughtered my people for their own greed. When you stated that you were defending your heritage, think about what that heritage means to me and my people. Your heritage in our eyes is pure evil. So, with that said mabey a few things that I have said will be a little more clear. I see what is being done by this country to this country by people who stole the land and continue to abuse it as if \ that in which they destroy will always be there to keep abuseing. You then say, well do you have a car, do you use plastic etc... The answer is no and yes. What you must understand is that your race is who attempted genocide, and they did a damn fine job of it. The last estimate that I read indicated that the white race killed and murdered over 92% of the native populations when conquering the new world. Your chris columbus etc.. were nothing but slave traders etc... So if some of this is a bit much, i apologize but I think you deserved a bit of an expalaination of why I was so disturbed the other day. As far as the Dallas Cowboys go, this season was disappointing but they will be back. I am more of a college footbal fan anyway. Hook em horns. - 19:49:00 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..this only goes to prove that there is such a thing as a stupid idea!:What is the difference between a fern sniffer and a run of the mill theist?? Nothing, they both wallow in self deception. Happy New Year , Steve! - 19:56:24 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:Rob<<>> happy new year my man. I hope the recovery wasn't to bad, ha! - 20:15:40 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:STEVEN---What an interesting point! I am the one in the theological chat room who calls findimental christians "voodoo christians" hehe. And look how that pigeon has come home to roost! (And they say there is no justice in the world!) But I do think there is a difference between myself and those "voodoo christians". THEY sure think so, too! That difference is that I'm able to place my faith in God, while at the same time being fully aware that God may not exist. While voodoo is a form of faith, alright, it's an unconscious form, just as intuition is an unconscious form of reason, and in my opinion it's also a weak form. For being unconscious, it can be manipulated by outside circumstances, and it usually is. Also, because it's an unconscious (weak) form of faith, it brings with it a lot of fear...and fear usually results in negative consequences. This is why we keep having these inquisitions, in one form or another. The problem wasn't faith, it was weak faith, and the fear and confusion generated by it. - 20:15:58 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--With all due respect, your beefs about "your people" are beginning to wear thin--and quite frankly every time you make a reference to it, to me it smacks of antagonism. I have principle which I call the "my people" principle. Whenever someone makes a reference to it--a gun, or a bomb is going off somewhere close by. I don't blame you for being angry at the way THe U.S. government treated your forefathers. But it is THAT government and THOSE individuals who perpotrated those acts--not the ones who exist today--nor should they be held accountable for the actions of the previous government. I am also not going to be be made to feel guilty --because I am a "white man". Those people arer not me--nor are they any white man who lives today--so unless any individual acts in a way which is a threat to--there is no reason for you to make any "my people--you people" distinction--because as soon as you or anyone else draws that line in the sand--and makes that distinction based on your heritage, neghbourhood, ethniticity, country club, school--or any collective alone, and not your own individual actions--nothing but conflict is the result. Look at the middle east, Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland--and there is a direct result of this mind-set. They don't hate each other by their actions--they hate because they aren't "my people". There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's heritage, but to be proud does not mean to intimidate, or made to feel intimated by those who do not share that heritage. - 20:35:04 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

hello - 20:44:23 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

STeven:JAMES,ALL<<>> I hope that you all do not think of me as being biased or prejudice based on race. My wife is caucasion and I love her and her family as my own. I do believe it has always been politics that have been the spur in my saddle. - 20:52:43 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>> i hopefully have not offended you, and yes it has become thin/tired. However, facts are facts. I do not intend to beat you down with the my people your people argument. As far as I am concerned the world has reached a point to which we all must live as one people. My irritation begins and ends with people who still hold on to the god, family country attitude. The US is corrupt, was founded on corruption and will never change. It is not the only gov. that is so, in fact you could probably say the same for every government. I do not blame the white race for the evils of the world. Hell there are good people and not good people in every race. However, when someone like James starts spouting off this and that, I like to inform them of the truth of things. The facts are PETER that my race is considered 2nd class citizens in their own lands. The people here treate us with distaste. There are still some area's that post signs like "we refuse the right to not serve anyone, especially the injun." or "no indians allowed." The genocide of my race is still fresh on the minds of my people. The symbols of our race and culture are abused by people with no sense of the wrong that was committed. I do not dislike someone for being for being white PETER. But regardless if you like the facts or not they are true. If PETER you had any idea what it is like to live in a country in which you were considered a member of a lower class race, alcholic etc.. you may be alitte put off to. Just for once attempt to step into the shoes of someone in my situation, and my families and you may understand. When I married my wife do you know how many people from her family wouldn't even come because she was marrying a dirty stinking Indian. It was said to my face. I was told that interracial marriages do not work and we should consider what we were doing for the sake of our children. Does this sound like fun to you Peter. I like you Peter, and I hope this does not cause any kind of problems with us communicating on friendly terms. - 21:10:59 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:DAVES<<>> why waste the energy on believing in something that you in your own mind have difficulty accepting. Why not believe in youself and what you can accomplish without attempting to label it with god this god that. - 21:17:20 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>> I think however that in the future people will forget what race they are from, because there will come a point in time when races have so intermingled that no one will be able to claim pure heritage. I also believe that if everyone had blonde hair, the same build, etc... but half the people were blue eyed and half the people were brown eyed. The eye color would be come a focal point for prejudice. Don't ya think? - 21:21:23 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:STEVEN-- PETER-- Ethicist Frans de Waal writes of your "my people" principle. -- "...The second condition for the evolution of morality, then, is conflict -within- the group. Moral systems are produced by tension between individual and collective interests, particularly when entire collectivities compete against one another. If the need to get along and treat each other decently is indeed rooted in the need to stick together in the face of external threats, it would explain why one of Christianity's most heralded moral principles, the sanctity of life, is interpreted so flexibly, depending on which group, race, or nation the life belongs to... Human history furnishes ample evidence that moral principles are oriented to one's own group, and only reluctantly (and never even-handedly) applied to the outside world." -- It may be futile to hate or resent inherant human traits. It may be more beneficial to understand them. Don't mean to be pesumtuous. - 21:21:34 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:Or presumtuous either - 21:24:04 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:OK, one more try- presumptuous - 21:25:38 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:GRANT<<>>well said. - 21:34:35 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Joette (he he he):-->GRANT..that's awfully presumptuous of you! - 21:44:20 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>> A cannible is walking through the woods and passed his best friend........ - 21:58:46 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:STEVEN----Because it works that way, when the other way doesn't. And because God is the proper word for a universal mystery that is more powerful than myself. - 22:05:13 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:ALL----Here is something interesting to ponder, and somewhat in keeping with what I've also been trying to say: Paul Davies (Professor of Theoretical Physics & author): "Every thing and every event in the physical universe must depend for its explanation on something outside itself. When a phenomenon is explained, it is explained in terms of something else. But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural. That something is god. The universe is the way it is because God has chosen it to be that way. Science, which by definition deals only with the physical universe, might successfully explain one thing in terms of another, and that in terms of another and so on, but the totality of physical things demands an explanation from without."-----Perhaps this is why our guy needed the door knob to excercise the idea of faith. - 22:25:35 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->we need our Rob, our resident physicist back here! DAVE..just because someone who studies physics thinks there is a god, doesn't mean that there is a god. He is no different than you or others who believe in a god. Because he can not explain something, he falls back on an age old remedy. Really, his statement means no more that Janet Jackson insisting that coffee enemas help rid one of bad feelings. - 23:01:30 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Still sounds like a fern sniffer! Here we go again with the open/closed system, blah blah blah. Rob should be back next week. - 23:05:30 on 2 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVEN--Racism and bigotry are of course things which are abhorrent and should be wiped off the face of the earth. No I cannot really identify with the impact of this blight directed at you other than kids making a bit of fun of me because my parents were european and they talked with an accent. The point I was trying to make with you was that I did feel somewhat uncomfortable with you using this phrase "my people" which I cannot see as being anything that will solve this problem--but rather making it worse ( as Grant re-iterated )--and it would seem you are doing your best to eleviate bigotry. - 0:08:45 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:DAVE et al. Your professor states that "the physical universe must depend for its explanation putside itself." so he devises a god to explain it. A supernatural power. Naturally you and your professor won't want to apply the same standard for your invention. How do you go about proving that your "god' or supernatural power exists? Do you look to a 'super god' to prove your 'god' exists, and so on ad infinitum? The only thing you have proven is that you rely on others holding the same beliefs to back each other up. I do not have to quote anyone. I think your belief in a supernatural being is based on the fact that it seems a way to explain things you do not understand and it makes you feel more comfortable with yourself. You pass the buck to 'god' and that relieves you of the necessity of saying "I don't know".Well, I don't accept your cover-up excuse and I feel no shame in stating that I have no conception of how the universe got started or where the raw material came from but I don't see the need to create a mythology to fill the gap in my knowledge. I have said it before and I will repeat it for your benefit. To me, the universe and all life on it is a paradox. I can see no reason for it to exist, but it does, and we are here. One other question. Don't you feel, as long as you are creating a supernatural being that it might be more reasonable to create a pantheon of gods, such as the Romans, Greeks and Scandinavians did? They could all specialize, One to make the oceans, another the mountains, etc. Think about iy. PapaSam - 0:39:38 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--DAVE S--I find it rather remarkable that a learned man like Davies not only parrot the second proof of God by St. Thomas Aquinas in the year 1265--but that he presents it in such a sophomoric and so obviously self contradictory manner that I can safely make, I think, an accurate conclusion. He must KNOW that believers are stupid. More recently this argument is referred to as "The First Cause Argument"--which is a sub-group of the "Cosmological Arguments ( for the existence of God )"Even though this was this totally refuted by Hume as far back as 1776, christian spokesmen amazingly still try to use it, regardless of its ambiguities and fallacies. First of all, the very first sentence is self-contradictory. He says everything needs an explanation for its existence. But God--if He exists--IS something, so he to would then need a causal explanation. If God exists, he too will be subjected to the same terms Davies outlines--hence destroying his own argument. What he is really saying here is: Well we don't know what caused the first thing to exist-- it must be something which is unknowable by us (God) It's the old solving a mystery with a mystery again. Now contemplate this: If God is or was just "pure consciousness" before any existence existed, and then suddenly decided, who knows when to create existence, as Davies would have us believe--we again run into all sorts of problems: the first one being is if nothing existed, God would have nothing to be conscious OF. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. Some then argue that God could be conscious of himself, but this won't get them off the hook either. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is actually a contradiction in terms. before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. And Dave, if you continue to attempt to defend this argument by Davies, what I have presented here is only the tip of the iceberg of its glaring faults. - 0:40:48 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--PAPA SAM---Excellent points. I like the "pantheon thing". Also one could argue if mysterious entity did create existence ( I'm relly making a lot of concessions here for the sake of argument incidentally ) how would anyone know if this entity exists today? - 0:53:24 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:STEVEN. The reason the white men were so expert on wiping out the Indians is because they had so much practice working out on the Jews and the Gypsies and other ethnic and religious minorities back home. But cheer up. A couple of thousand years down the road the blue eyes and the brown eyes will fight it out, unless of course, some religious fanatic wil let loose with a suitcase sized nuclear device and starts the "end it all" war or decides to use a chemical or biological weapon instead, with the same results. But have no fear. The cockroaches and rats will probably survive. - 0:54:56 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Adam nauseam--->:It's always good to see la page aux folles get intense with discussion over its central dolphin, oops! I mean purpose, but I ask fellow page denizens whether we face ANYTHING new from DaveS that we haven't seen literally dozens of times before. This is not to knock DaveS, but rather to plead for some bona fide, clever justification for theism that at least tests the substantial brainpower here assembled. - 1:14:20 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Adam BETTER RED & THE VOLS DEAD--->:Go Huskers! Kick Assssch! - 1:15:36 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:DAVE: "Ideas are real"? I suppose you join Jiminy Cricket in wishing upon stars, too. Stephen Hawking once theorized that infinite permutations of matter were possible within a black hole due to the gravitational forces; ergo sum, anything we can think of in our material universe is possible. Still, that's a far cry from your goofy (there's Disney again) claim. - 2:09:56 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

RON...--->ALL...: What kind of christian drops their christmas tree off on the side of the road? Does it mean they get a ticket to heaven if they wrap it in a tree bag? Is it considered a religious event when more than one tree ends up on the same stretch of road? he he he....Does heaven have a "white trash" section. I met the most amazing woman, btw. Rebecca. - 2:30:40 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ADAM---There exists such an argument? I've never flocked..oops! I mean heard-- of such a thing. ( Man, that's bad!) - 2:50:27 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

RON...--->DaveS...(posting from James' house)...: I can give you a more fitting definition...NATURE. "God" is merely slapping a face on the unknown attributes of the universe...ie, Nature. - 4:06:05 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

ADAM. You made a boo-boo. An oxymoron. You used the phrase "bona fide, clever justification for theism" You inadvertantly omitted the words "attempt at". PETER. It seems clear that Dave hasn't gotten through to you. You see, 'god' created himself. If "god" wants to he can un-create himself. And if he wants to he can make the universe disappear. If you don't believe it ask Dave who will look in his book and prove it. But don't get Dave pissed off or he will snitch to his boss who will make us both disappear.PapaSam - 4:24:43 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:DAVE. I'm still trying to understand how you are able to place your faith in god while at the same time being fully aware that god might not exist.However, you have given me the inspiration to start a new business. You may not be aware that I have written a poem "An Atheist's Prayer", and that my business, "PapaSam's Enterprises" has three thriving companies. I will now be announcing a fourth one in the near future - selling "Heaven Insurance" policies. ALL. Anyone wishing to have my literary slavepieces - oops! I meant masterpieces may request them by email. The work may not be great but the price can't be beat, unless you expect me to pay you for reading them. PapaSam@webtv.att - 4:40:10 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Adam GAGGLING ALL THE WAY-->:Have some PRIDE, Peter Pack!--> Your flock/herd thing was actually quite good, although it opens the pandora's box to a swarm of animal collectives puns. You may find that troubling (a troubling of goldfish), and it may well cloud (of grasshoppers) the main porpoise of this page. I could go on and on, but I would hate to horde (of gnats) all of the puns from my family (of sardines) here on la page, erst (of caterpillars) I catch (of fish) some steam (of minnows) from my esteemed (of oxen) colleagues, and hatch (of flies) bad sentiment. I shall knot (of toads) hover (of trout); preferring at this late hour to get out of the office and go to bed (of oysters). - 5:39:41 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Adam I STAND (of CATTLE) CORRECTED--->:PapaDon'tPreachSam: Indeed, I was under the impression that "justification" included anything offered as justification, but I am not bourn out by American Heritage. Thus, I have been knabbed (of toads). A plague(of locusts) on my house! However, I fear not the delusionists' threats, for I often Have challenged this alleged "god" of theirs to a fight to the finish, but the yaller, wussy coward bastard has refused to show his countenance. Fact is, armed with a devotion to intellect, I have the wherewithall to bring about the demise of this pansy god, if only I could impart my insight to the hypnotized masses. This "deity", being omniscient, knows of my powers and cowers in the minds of the weak rather than brave a serious ass-whooping at the hands of a wiser and all-around superior foe. I say again, this "god" is one chicken-shit weasel scum pussy! Show yourself, boot-lick! - 5:51:03 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:ADAM: Please tell me yours is only a lark (of exaltations). - 8:01:27 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:RON: Xtians who litter our roadsides with used mythmas trees are simply "making a refuse they cannot offer". (Damn, that felt good.) - 8:08:15 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Andrew Houston:I'm puzzled by your title. Surely you mean God is Man-Made. - 12:11:34 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Andrew Houston--Yes, this issue has been knocked around here briefly from time to time, and the general concensus( if that counts for anything ) has been that a more accurate heading SHOULD be as you said--"God is man-made". Strangely however, this really hasn't been a subject of any deep concern, and likewise nobody really seems to give a shit about the innacurate title--and I suppose really do not give much importance to it. OK RON, I think you really SHOULD change it!! - 14:46:20 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ANDREW- I just read a few lines of your home page and it sounds interesting! I'll finish it off later in the day. Welcome! I'm with Peter on the title of the page. - 15:14:29 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:PETER-- I like the name "man is man-made" for a couple of reasons. I like it that the words "god" or "atheism" aren't in it because I don't define myself to myself in terms of things that others believe but I don't. I like the idea that man must take the blame (and credit) for what he is. It is not the doing of some imaginary being. I can't think of a better name. - 15:20:52 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene ahso!..:GRANT- I've never viewed the title in this way. I think your likely on target as to the reasoning behind the title. I'm not sure but I think Simon titled the page based on an atheist group. - 15:42:24 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:...GRANT...Oh..well...yeah..I guess... that too makes sense....( note the non-committal position here ) - 17:57:45 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--How about this: "God is made made, Man is man made, We're all man made, For vy then is the world so bad?" - 18:01:05 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:All I go along eith the present title. If you want to change it you would have to name it The CONCEPT of god is man made. Speaking of errata, I committed the unforgivable sin of screwing up my own email address It is PapaSam@webtv.net If you have tried to contact me for whatever reason, please try again. I swear to god it won't happen again. - 18:31:14 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ANDREW HOUSTON-- Like your writings. Thanks. - 19:57:14 on 3 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Steven...:I am only going to post once regarding the "facts" you've laid out about the slaughter of your people, the Cherokees, and all the other Indian nations that can truly lay claim to the heritage of this continent. My reference to heritage refers strictly to my family name which dates back much further than the measly 500+/- years Europeans have walked this continent and includes men who have fought in nearly every war this nation has struggled through. In fact according to diaries, during the revolutionary war men of my family name fought side by side with Indians in defeating the British. A little further study shows that Indians fought and killed each other long before the "white man" showed up. Additionally, the spread of diseases that really accounts for the bulk of the loss did not originate from a purposely exploded biological weapon, rather it was the unfortunate result of two extremely different cultures coming into contact for the first time. A little study of early American literature paints quite a lovely picture of how many white settlers where treated by some very angry people of Indian descent. Obviously not on the same scale Indians received, but none-the-less gruesome. I agree with Peter 100% regarding my fathers sins as well as the "my people", "your people" point of view. Secondly, I lay no claim to the barbarous acts committed during the Spanish conquest of Mexicana or the European expansion throughout the North East . Nor did I have anything to do with the atrocities committed during the Western movement. Another thing to understand about me, and where I come from is that I have very little respect for anyone who chooses to come from a victim's point of view. My experiences in life have made me rather intolerant of human beings who will not do and be responsible for themselves, their families, and their futures. Also, as harsh as it seems to write, the facts are the facts, and one of them is the fact that you can add the Cherokees to a long long list of cultures abused by other cultures. I hope none of this offends you. I do not judge you to be a " member of a lower class race, alcoholic etc..". As an individual I try not to make sweeping judgements and generalizations. I believe actions speak louder than words and until I had come to meet and know you I would refrain from making any conclusive judgements regarding your character. I am that way because during other periods of my life, had people judged me solely on my looks, clothes and apparent social economic status, I would never have been able to pull myself out. Instead I was judged on my enthusiasm, dependability, intelligence, and ability to communicate. These are all things you and everyone else in this world control for themselves. Regards. - 0:29:19 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:Geez..Just when I start to brag on you a bit you slam me with your "stupidest" post bit regarding my statement. Calm down please. I know I am supposed to be the antagonist, but prodding like that can yield unexpected convulses of the mind that translate to flames on the keyboard. :-) Let's examine the statement; You defined atheism: "atheism is a lack of a belief, and does not infer any positive beliefs or a "doctrine"". As simple as it sounds, the first question in my mind ..how does someone not have belief? What does a lack of belief mean if it does not mean you believe nothing? With that premise in mind I further recall several instances where many of you folks, knowingly or not, illustrating beliefs which would not fit the criteria laid out by logical reasoning. I further considered that I have never meet anyone who does not have some belief of this sort. SO, again, how is it possible anyone can honestly call themselves an atheist? - 0:31:06 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Grant...:I have been on this page for a while and have already written a couple of "A" papers on similar subjects. I also have a close friend who calls himself an atheist and know a couple of other people who consider themselves atheists as well. Thats a long way from being an expert on the subject, but I am intrested none-the-less. I write the paper to help me understand the viewpoints; Not to mention I have to write these paper for class. Thanks for the tip though. - 0:34:12 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I think whining to you about my bookwork did some kind of good. I have it half done and still have time to read Andrews writings. I see now I also need to read the words of wisdom from James before The Pretender comes on. Two hour special tonight. - 0:47:58 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAMES-- It really wasn't intended as an insult. Just a spur. - 1:08:44 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAMES-- In mock innocence and intentional misunderstanding you attempt to invalidate the concept of atheism? Better write some more papers. - 1:48:57 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

David:Does anyone know how many atheists are in the US? In Europe? Are the percentages in Europe higher? Anyone know where to find these stats? - 4:52:23 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->DAVID..there are about as many atheists as there are closets, everywhere in the world. - 5:28:13 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:---JAMES--I apologize for that "stupidest thing" statement. I did mean to delete it, as it wasn't really necessary for me to point it out. How can anyone call themselves an atheist? ( Quite frankly, I find it mind-boggling you are coming back for more ) Again, atheism is an abscence of a belief in God. That's it. That is all the criterion required. If someone asks an person the question : "Do you believe that God exists?"and the answer was "No I do not" --What would they be, James? A theist? They could not be because they do not believe in God, so they are an atheist. If you say there is no such thing as an atheist--is everyone then a theist, whether they believe in God or not? If there are no atheists, how could one distinguish the believers, and non-believers? Again, lets do the "Rudolph" analogy. ( a Rudolph being one who does not believe in Santa Claus, remember? ) James, I am assuming you do not believe in Santa Claus, therefore you are a Rudolph. You are called this simply because you do NOT believe that there REALLY is a Santa Claus. Now, let's imagine I am a five year old child who believes there IS a Santa, and somebody told me about "Rudolphs". Now James, lets apply your reasoning to this situation. I come up to you and say " I just do not see how there could be such a thing as a Rudolph. There is no such thing as a Rudolph--whether you believe in Santa or not--there is no such thing as a Rudolph" Would you then think I was making a statement which was making sense? Now James, if you cannot see the utter absurdity of all this, it actually is beyond my capability of comprehension and ability to conceptualize. It would seem that the mere existence of atheists is simply something you cannot fathom, and your attempts to define atheists out of existence are again, something which goes beyond any semblance of rationality. - 5:52:49 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. You are attempting to rationalize a lack of belief in your nebulous 'god' to be the equivalent of believing in nothing at all. Don't try to tell me what an atheist believes or does not believe. I, as an atheist, am more suited to tell you. Because you believe in a nebulous 'god' or supernatural power and I do not does not mean that I believe in nothing at all. You are attempting to generalize a totality from a single point. I believe in many things. I wouldn't even attempt to make a listing, except to say that I believe you are wallowing in your own verbosity until you have lost track of what you are saying or tryibg to say. I could also say that I believe you are a blithering idiot, but I don't want to be insulting. Don't take it personally. You can't help yourself. - 6:02:59 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAMES-- Try this on- An atheist believes in every single thing that exists, but no more. - 6:14:07 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT, PAPASAM--Oh I get it now. Since James equates God with "everything" ( most likely due to all these infinite qualitis God possesses )--I guess he must think if one does not believe in Him( the same as "everything )--then they must believe in nothing at all. The amazing thing about this absurdity, is that he isn't the first theist that has come on here to make this claim. I sometimes wonder why I even bother trying to explain anything to them logically, when logic doesn't mean a bloody thing to them. - 6:22:54 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Quote from James Randi--Believers in the paranormal are like a bunch of " unsinkable rubber ducks " - 6:26:04 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. Because we do not believe in your nebulous "god" does not mean we believe in nothing at all. Your attempt to extrapolate a general theory from a single point of reference falls flat on its face. Further, I don't feel that you, as a 'true' believer', are qualified to tell me what I do or do not believe. I as an atheist will tell you. I reject your concept of a supernatural power or 'god' as you term it. Period. That is the only criterion for defining an atheist. A disbelief in a so-called divine being or 'god. As for other beliefs I would not even attempt to list them all. I do believe that you are wallowing in your own verbosity and that you are either losing track of what you are trying to say or you do not know what you are talking about. I do not think you are a blithering idiot. will however - 6:46:31 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. I know I repeated myself but I thought my first posting hadn't registered. Oh well, James could use a double dose. - 6:54:30 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM, PETER and GRANT- James knows better but likes to keep playing the game. I have told him numerous times that I am atheist because I reject the belief in the supernatural. It's really quite a simple concept, I don't know why it doesn't register for him. - 15:33:45 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I've been reading Andrew's writings and I must admit, I find them extremely interesting. I'm not quite finished yet. I don't know if Andrew just dropped in to see what condition our condition was in but I am interested in what you thought of the writings. - 15:36:00 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I was skeptical at first, because of the hypnosis, but I think Andrew is a clear and disciplined thinker. I think 'Hypnosis, Play and Religion - a Study of Illusion' is very good. I was very surprised to see this kind of writing about hypnotism. Being a skeptic, I keep it on the list with dowsing, numerology, the I Ching, etc. But I think Andrew looks at it clearly. What did you think? - 16:37:36 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. Consciously or subconsciously, James is using the tactic of "The Big Lie". It was Hitler's tactic. Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.No matter how ridiculous the lie is, it will be accepted. It doesn't matter whether the lie is deliberate or a delusion such as the 'god' concept. Yesterday's cult is tomorrows sect and develops into a religion. And each of these are "true" religion according to their adherants. When the 'Heaven's Gate' followers took their own lives so that their souls could go to the flying saucer behind the comet, the other religionists said they were crazy. Obviously the participants thought they were doing the right thing in following their religion. From a purely objective standpoint their beliefs were just logical (or more realistically, illogical) as those of any other religion which believes in the "kingdom of heaven' They just had a different way of getting there. - 18:15:58 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:GRANT and MARLENE: Not to interrupt your dialogue, but I agree that Mr. Houston is, as Grant puts it, a "clear and disciplined thinker." Huizinga's _Homo Ludens_ is one of my most cherished books, and for Mr. Houston to associate the long- overlooked concept of "play" with theology, hypnotism, and linguistics (finally, attention is paid to the copula) is an important step in the right direction. I am grateful for his visit to this site. Thanks, Andrew! - 18:26:57 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

James--->All...:Look, I was trying to be a little silly. I took the literal translation of Peter's definition. I even quoted his definition for everyone to read. I did this because I have heard the definition before and it made no sense to me then either. No where in Peter's definition did he mention lack of belief in god. Now I could have assumed that that is what he meant and to some degree I even mentioned in my original post to Peter that atheism required a specific lack of belief, not just a lack of belief. I further said that I can accept atheism if we are talking about a lack of belief in a power beyond our ability to sense, measure or understand logically. But based on Peter's pre-revised definition, "an atheist has no beliefs", there would be no such thing as an atheist. Sure, it's a play on words, but that's all we really are doing here. Playing with words. The biggest difference between you folks and me is that I am still open to possibilities and I am to humble to say conclusively that the mystery of creation will ever be solved by human intelligence. Just like the argument goes that just because it has not been discovered doesn't mean it won't, it could just as easily say, because it has not been discovered it probably never will. For as long as Human beings have walked this earth people, theologians, and scientist have failed. Based on that track record, it is more likely they will continue to fail then succeed. Also, if my fallacy is a stolen concept than for you to postulate it requires you to prove we will discover it, otherwise you fail in your responsibility to prove your assertion. Much the way a theist cannot say god exist because we cannot prove he does not. You must show you can discover the origins of the universe before saying we will, even though we have not. I am excited about the same scientific discoveries you folks talk about. I love the discussions of quantum physics and was very involved with the Super Collider Project that would have come closer than anything to explaining things on a sub-atomic level. I am also very excited about the proposition that 98% of space is filled with a substance we cannot detect but in theory must exist. All this is amazing and exciting stuff to me. If I acted purely on faith I would abandon these interest; faith dictates that these things are of no concern to me. Which confuses me about DaveS's position of faith open to the possibility of a non-existent super-natural force. To me the two positions are mutually exclusive. Pure faith does not have lingering doubts and is an almost humanly impossible to achieve. If Jesus Christ himself walked up to me and told me to sell everything I own and walk with him, I would have to have some concrete evidence and would still have to consider it very hard. It is not in my nature to release the need to be a provider, pure faith dictates that everything I need will be provided. What the hell is that supposed to mean. Will god pay my mortgage? Will he buy groceries for my children? Or am I just supposed to strip down and run naked through the woods eating berries? It's a very difficult position for a theist and especially a Christian theist to maintain. My only comfort is the thought that original sin is the reason human being are so weak and that through our actions in this life we have the opportunity to make something of ourselves that supercedes this earthly existence. I make no claim to know what that is, only that faith is the only mechanism for recognizing it. Again, in the end only time will tell. Perhaps you folks are right. When we die we are simply worm dirt. My faith that something greater exist in our future, beyond our physical existence, is more probably the result of how awestruck I am when I consider the universe and the life within it. It does not originate from the bible or anything heard within the walls of a church. It also stems from an inability to accept that my mind, or anyone else's mind, arguably filled with reasoning ability, creativity, compassion, love and a will to survive, will simply cease to exist. It is not fear, it is disbelief. I just can't believe it. It makes me wonder what the point in living is. Why put myself through this crap. Life sucks on this earth a whole lot. The universe is vast and I am stuck on this tiny stinking little planet with a bunch of crazy people. There is disease, starvation, war, natural disaster violent crime and many more forms of evil that need no mentioning. Then we turn around and have children and hand them the legacy of a further screwed up world. What's the point if there is not something to work for. Even if everyone loved everyone on this earth and we all worked together; could we do away with natural disaster? Will disease cease to exist? Will the Earth provide enough food to feed our growing population? Can there really be a crimeless society? The answer to all of these is most likely NO. So again, what is the point in living if it is not to prepare for something greater? If there is nothing greater than I have lost nothing. I have not lived a life in fear of god as I do not see god as something to fear. I have not sheltered my life or denied myself things that please me based on religion. I do not live a fantasy from day to day believing in pink unicorns. Beside pink unicorns are something that might be considered tangible. What I believe in is not tangible. It has no face. It is a state of being. It is being a part of something bigger than the insignificant existence on this earth and in this body. I apologize for the long post. I will be quite for awhile now. (Well until someone trashes me again). I obviously could have gone into greater detail on all these points and probably forgot to say a few things that would help make sense of the rest. I am not really sure where I fall in the spectrum anymore. As I once said, I will not call myself a Christian again. I believe being Christian requires more than belief. Only other people can judge you to be or not to be Christian. I do not take the scripture literally "that who so ever believith in me shall not perish but will have ever lasting life." I believe actions speak louder than words and belief means nothing without action. Not action to the extent that you force your will and beliefs on others, rather that you live you life continually trying to improve yourself and others. Ok, I am done now. Have a nice day everyone. - 18:53:08 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Free Thinker:Do you people really think you are accomplishing anything here? HAHAHAHA. Will you solve the worlds problems for us? What a ridiculous waste of time. I guess if you make each other feel good, that's all that matters. - 19:03:41 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:FREE THINKER-- Fuck you! HAHAHAHA - 19:20:18 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:FREE THINKER-- What is a higher priority for you than learning? Making anonymous insults? Do you know enough already? - 20:01:21 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:JAMES: Yours was an honest post; I wish we all could be so honest with ourselves and with each other. Of course there is more to existence than most people think, but skeptical curiosity and reason, as evinced on this forum, will get one closer to that "answer" than ritualized, neutralized awe. And perhaps _you_ are right; perhaps human intelligence won't solve the mystery of creation. But it's on its way there, and that's what we're made for--to carry our torch further into the darkness. Still, I don't want to miss the trees for the forest; a healthy skepticism and a reasoned approach to living keeps our material universe, and therefore our lives, in a clearer perspective each day--hang eternity. Both of us probably will become food for worms, James, but I'd rather know I played hard than stayed ready. To quote a popular saying during the Spanish Civil War, "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." Think about it, and don't feel hurt or confused; nobody here is out to deny your worth. Just be _challenged_, and do something positive about it. - 20:58:05 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->FREETHINKER..I guess you are lucky that thinking is free, because obviously you haven't been able to pay for it! - 21:01:54 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES...the only reason you ever get trashed is because you give others a reason for trashing you. You have been downright insulting, insolent and have happily besmirched the character of most of us here. That being said, I would like to address certain aspects of your recent postings, which cause me to think that you speak with a forked tongue. First, in your post to Steven, you gladly admit that your ancestors were a mean fighting machine, but you would should not have to bear any responsibility for their actions. Then you say that you are intolerant of those that won't take responsibility for themselves. All fine and dandy, so please lose the puffed chest and bravado when speaking about your heritage....In your posting about whether you are an xtian or not, and that you have to live life with the intent of going to a possibly better place...why not take each day as it comes, and try to make this earth a better place, instead of keeping your cards up your sleeves? You claim that life sucks, so why would your benevolent god put you through such torture? Hasn't your life "sucked" because of your actions, if, as you say, one has to take responsibility for themselves? Each time you come here, you talk about your wonderful material possessions, how you have elevated your personal status, yadayadaya, and then you say life sucks. What gives??? Which is it? - 21:10:43 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:JOETTE: Touche'! - 21:11:13 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:JOETTE: I was referring to your response to Freethinker, by the way. - 21:30:16 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Joette:I suppose I do deserve some of the beatings I take here but from my perspective it appears as though it's only when I am defensive to statements made to or about me. As for my "forked tongue", I do in fact take pride in the sacrifices my family has made for the freedom and liberty of all people including Indians. Their actions do not include the European conquest of the Western Hemisphere to my knowledge, which dates back to about 1100 AD in Scotland. They were men who fought against the tyranny of government, and against slavery. The resettlement and forcible takeover of Indian lands was the unfortunate cost of European and American expansion. It was inevitable and it is now a long time ago. When I speak of heritage I can hold my head up high and when I speak of responsibility for actions it is my actions, not my fathers, that I am responsible for. In regards to living one day at a time, despite anyone's beliefs, isn't that exactly what we all do? Even though I say life sucks, and I'm not necessarily talking about my own life, doesn't the normal human being wish to go on living inspite of it all? You ask me why we are put through this. Mostly, we create our own problems in life. God is not to blame. But also, life is practice for something really big. If you don't have rough hard enduring practices, you won't be ready for the big game. No pain, no gain. It's Just a guess. Who the hell really knows? Personally, life for me is pretty good. Has not always been that way and taking responsibility for my actions is exactly why it is not still that way. I would say that you saying "Each time you come here, you talk about your wonderful material possessions, ..." Is a bit of an exaggeration. Between Peter's sarcasm and your exaggeration's, its a wonder we still talk. Still, my material possessions mean very little to me in the grand scheme. I would sell everything to save one of my children or my wife and maybe a close friend or two. Would I sell it all to give to the homeless bum who is just down on his luck. Not likely. That's where my inherent human weakness sets in. Those material things are reminders of things I never dreamed I would ever have. - 23:17:06 on 4 Jan 98 GMT

On fire for God:If man was man made, then why does everything fit together so perfectly? For example, if we were any closer to the sun, we would burn up. Any farther away, we would freeze. God planned this world we live in so carefully because He created us and loves us very much. He only wants the best for us, but can not help us if we turn our backs on him. It's very sad that we trash talk Him when He has done so much for us. You should not live in fear of His punishment , but know that life has consequenses. He makes up laws for us to live by, for our safety because He loves us so much. For example: God tells us not to have sex before marriage. Not to keep you from fun, but to protect you from emotional hurt. We all need to realize that God is our Father, not our enemy. - 0:08:49 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..you said life sucks. Who are you to speak in such generalizations if you were not speaking of yourself? Maybe your perception of other's lives is skewed. And as far as us still speaking is concerned, I would not lose one iota of sleep if I never addressed you again, and vice versa. - 0:40:05 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->to the hunk of burning love ON FIRE FOR GOD..what has your god done for you lately? - 0:42:27 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Joette...:Natural disasters, disease, violent crime, crime in general, human greed, starvation, and war are just a few examples of why I think the way we human beings have to live, sucks. You can add death to that list as well if death is nothingness. No comment on whether you care to correspond. - 0:56:33 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

PETER---On Fire For God----:--The reason man lives on earth is because that is what the conditions of the earth's distance from the sun, and its chemical make-up. All the substances on the earth then reacted with each other, only as thier nature dictated, and what we see now is the product of that. There is no reason to posit some celestial policeman/Thomas Edison type out there that operates outside the natural world to explain the situation of the earth as it is now--or has ever been. I know that theists like to put his hand in there somewhere to justify his existence, and justify their beliefs. I understand you have a vested interest in adhering to these beliefs, but science has long been able to explain the situation of life on earth for some time now, and regardless of the weak arguments I anticipate from you--if you decide to return and defend your beliefs. I can assure you they will all have been heard before, they will all be demolished. However, it has been my past experience, such refutations from my part will make little difference as far as you are concerned. For you the stakes are too high. The mere thought of you losing your faith in God is terrifying to you, and will bring on horrific results here on earth, and in that nether-world that you imagine exists after you pass on, a notion of which gives you hope and purpose to your existence. Your beliefs therefore are not formed on rational investigation--but on fear; fear of the knowledge of your own existence, and the knowledge of existence around you. To remain ignorant of this knowledge to you is a virtue--the greatest virtue that you think you can attain--it's called faith. Faith: the alleged short-cut to knowledge--the short-circuit destroying the mind. - 1:28:21 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..everything you cited has been around since the dawn of mankind...the only difference between 2,000 years ago and today is that your god was credited for all those things back then. Why was it attractive for him to it then, and now you say that life sucks when nothing has changed except the date on the calendar? - 1:36:23 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..should have mentioned this earlier, but I like your definition of an atheist. Obviously James has not noted that the "theist" part of the word. - 1:39:25 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ON FIRE FOR GOD. You're just the one I wanted to talk to about this 'perfect earth' we live on. I hate to disillusion you, but your boss is a lousy mechanic. Earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, tornadoes and typhoons take thousands of lives every year. If I built a house for you and the roof fell in you would sue me for everything I owned. If a tornado blew your house away you would kiss your god's behind and thank him for not killing you. As for the right distance from the sun - - don't stay out in the sun too long or you might get skin cancer. You refer to 'god' as your father and claim he is a loving god. Obiously uou have never really read the bible, because if you had you would see that your kind and loving god is a murderous, vicious and misogynous god. Your 'good book' sets an example for war, fratricide, pillage, slaughter and rape and constantly refers to women as being unclean, the source of sin, and not fit for anything but being used by men and for breeding purposes. Women are constantly being told to be subservient to men, first to their fathers, then to their husbands. I still remember a prayer from when I went to religious school as a child. "Blessed art thou, o Lord God of Israel, that thou hast not made me a woman". The passages in the bible said that women were unclean. I had no idea that it referred to a woman's menstrual period. I knew that my mother kept a vey clean house and that she bathed regularly, and that my sisters too were very clean. Those two facts made a feminist out of me and all the discrepancies in the bible became clear to me. By the age of twelve I was an atheist. No one converted me. I hadn't even heard the word before. I just realizd it was garbage. To this day I cannot understand how any woman who has actually read the bible can swallow all those insults. But such is the power of mother's milk that their minds cannot break through the wall of emotion and faith to allow reason to enter. - 4:59:15 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:FREESTINKER. Where did you get the idea we're trying to solve the world's problems? The title of this web site is "Man is Man Made', not "How to Solve the World's Problems". If we make each other feel good, is that bad? If you feel that making people feel good is a waste of time, do you also feel that making people feel bad is a good use of time? Do you get your kicks out of kicking stray kittens, or abusing women and children? Go back to your toilet and do what you do best. You don't need any friends for that. - 5:27:10 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- I would like to know more about Johan Huizinga's 'Homo Ludens,' if you would be so kind, by e-mail if you prefer. Is it anthropology? "evolutionary psychology?" psychology? Polokov@hotmail.com - 5:29:29 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- Oops, that's polokov@hotmail.com - 5:33:47 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:I see everyone has enjoyed James's words of wisdom!! JAMES: I'll do ya a few better James, I'd give up all my material goods for my loved ones and my kidney, my right arm, and any other part of me that will do them some good. I also give blood regularly, volunteer at a shelter and give out oranges to the homeless. I love life, I don't think it sucks and I don't need a fantasy of life beyond the grave, I love it here. SO..since we are blowing our horns here. Mine's louder! So Ha! Know what else? I'm eating bon bons and enjoying them. - 6:10:13 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Let me know if you get that info from Jaywilson. I'm interested too. I agree with you and Jaywilson, I find his comparison interesting. - 6:13:12 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:FREETHINKER- Hummm..I agree with Papasam, head off to the bathroom and create a twin for yourself. - 6:14:58 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I be shiverin here in da nort! It's -24. So much for our sissy winter! At first glance, I thought that long post to you was from Quake but on second glance I noticed it was from James. My eyes are getting tired, I'm seeing double! What did you think about Andrew's writings? - 6:21:27 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..a 911 response:ON FIRE FOR GOD (sheesh)- Hate to put a damper on your wienie roast but both Papasam and Peter took the "magic" out of life on earth for you. Our planet is a speck in the universe. Life elsewhere, if it exsists, would likely find this place very unfavorable. - 6:27:04 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:I saw the neatest thing on my way home tonight. It's a clear cold night here in Manitoba. I was driving along and all of a sudden the sky lit up as though there was a flash of lightening. I looked out my window to the north just in time to see the last light of a meteorite exploding. I've never witnessed this before! I'm sure all the UFO watchers will be calling in to report an alien invasion. Well, goodnight atheists, and be happy that god hasn't set you on fire. - 6:34:52 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...I haven't read Andrew's writings yet, but have it bookmarked. You be freezin'? We be roasting (must be all that talk of fire for god), 'cause it is +10 here today! I guess El Nino likes us better than you LOL! - 11:45:05 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->another horrific massacre in Algeria this weekend. 421 dead. Hooray for religion.... - 11:47:33 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>> It is around 60 here. We slept with our windows open all night long. I haven't slept that good in months! - 14:08:56 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Steven--Just in case you are not aware- +10 in Canada is in celsius degress which is about 50 fahrenhiet. This is unseasonably warm for southern Ontario in January--the normal daytime temp is about -2C which is about 28 Fahrenheit. - 15:14:19 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:Greetings all, nice to see things are ok. - 15:16:12 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>I guess you guy's were sleeping with your windows open also. I sounds like Marlene is getting all the winter activity. - 15:18:51 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->WELCOME BACK CARL!!! - 15:23:54 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:While out and about, I read completely the book "Forgery in Christianity", it is elsewhere herein, it is quite enlightening. But, best of all, as it is not just someone inscribing their opinion the author refers to the Catholic Encyclopaedia that, as it turns out, is at the Berkeley public library, a complete set. What these religeous-believers think, as they do as xtians, is simply not so. It reads as only somebody wanting control of the public wealth and weal by any means. When I finished reading that book, all i could do was wonder about creatures as the visiting believers. If there is some sort of creating force it is not as of their mind. - 15:46:26 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:HI CARL! WELCOME BACK! Yes, this is also my opinion. Religion serves to control the masses. No wonder government is reluctant to drop it! - 16:14:10 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Yup! If one loves winter, Manitoba is the place to be. Actually it's still nice here as compared to other winters. The normal low is normally around -35c. I think as the temps drop, the c-scale comes into line with the f-scale. So -40c is almost equal to -40f. The good thing is, is that there is only about two more months of extreme weather conditions. November and December were unseasonably mild here. - 16:18:16 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:GREETINGS; Nice to see you MARLENE JOETTE, it was quite a tale to read about xtians. And as you point out MARLENE, the gov't allows it for at least the point you post and for sure it must be allowed for the economic reasons. As I wondered about religeous belief, the only explanation for its being an extant affair began and still is, it is just good business. It is only a way for "some" to make money, earn a living. Since their beginning, the religeous types wanted only access to the medium of exchange. They were the original Bill Gates types. - 16:51:03 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I agree that those who are out to make money use religion as a means to do so, but the victims are still allowing their victimization. I don't know if you've read all the posts but Andrew Houston has some interesting data on how these people get sucked in. He linked us to his page when posting. If you can't find the post, I'll post the address. I'm sure you will find his writings interesting. - 17:44:59 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The victims, what a can of worms that is! Generally these worms are composed of the self-deluded or the ignorant, how sorry for these types does one want to be? Did you hear someone hollor 'survival o'the fittest'? - 18:10:19 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I agree that I don't feel too much sympathy for the victims but they are victims never the less, children that fail to grow up and face reality. What's interesting about Andrew's writings is that religion is a game of sorts, a "let's pretend" that's gone out of control. - 18:23:37 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: For me to speak to the religeous types in terms of their preference has become even less of a likely prospect then before. The ANDREW you refer to has the only option I might consider to maybe communicate with them, if its a game. But, generally they are, only worms, heck with the 'mystical' term as it is too lofty for such. - 19:09:35 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The ANDREW site looks interesting, it has a different spin that is for sure. I will take a few more minutes to read it and other stuff. Anyway, how did the interaction go with that fellow of the pk outfit? Last I saw o'him was the usual bible droppings stuff, poor guy did not know of its meaninglessness. - 19:50:36 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- JAYWILSON--CARL-- I've been re-reading Mr. Houston's stuff. It really is very interesting. I hadn't seen, for example, a connection between that religious trance-like state and play, though I consider it a willing suspension of disbelief. For me he sheds a little light on all the heavy symbolism such as blood covenants, blood atonement, sacraments etc., why or how it can be given such substance. In what other context can one believe that God is able to trick himself into granting redemption to "evil" beings by having his son perform a symbolic act? Does that make sense? - 20:02:27 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Paul:O.K. I get the point that you Atheists belive that there is no such thing as god and your whole belief is based on finding facts that prove he doesn't exist, but what do you belive in then. Showing that god doesn't exist doesn't help in trying to discover why we're really here, why we exist, or how we got here. I, personally don't belive in the christian god but I think we had to get here somehow. All I'm asking is what DO you belive in then? - 20:21:31 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:PAUL-- I can only speak for myself. I believe that in the face of an unfortunate lack of information about how we got here it's best not to make do with insufficiently verifiable speculation. I believe it is important to understand the information we do have the best we can. - 20:33:15 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--PAUL--Grant's response is a good indicator of what answers you will hear to your question. However, you must remember that atheism is an ABSCENCE of a belief ( In this case God ). It would be like asking a group of children who do NOT believe in the Tooth Fairy, magic elves, Santa Claus, what they believe in. You will get as many different answers as there are children. - 20:52:39 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:PETER-- Gosh, that wasn't a disclaimer of me, was it? - 21:03:12 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:PAUL: The word believe is like faith, in todays world in their application and meaning both are multi-dimensional. To think along those lines your query is easier to ask and accept whatever one of us may reply. This way, we don't get caught up and erroneously misled into thinking these words/ideas have merely or most importantly a religeous connotation. This is a false proposition, especially whenever taken that far in any communication. But, back to the words, in todays world many things must be accepted in terms of only humanistic faith and belief. Religeous types do not have that preference or option. If such religeous visitors of this site are any example of their kind, the auto da fa would be a real event. - 21:24:34 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAUL..why does one have to believe IN anything? - 21:54:44 on 5 Jan 98 GMT

ADAM O Soul Man Mio--->:ToRuPaul and TwoWall: I don't claim to speak for anyone else here but........I believe in miracles: Where you from, you sexy thing (you sexy thing, you)? - 0:04:41 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Adam TWIN SPIN--->:It's too late to turn back now, I BELIEVE I BELIEVE I BELIEVE I'm fallin' in love.... - 0:06:13 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Adam QUERY for JAY, WILL'S SON--->:OJay, what has happened over at the Athens General Mental Hospital? I know they changed format or something, and I saw a snotty message of impatience from you to the chief lunatic, but then my Macrashed. Can you post a new URL to get back there, or to there's successor, if you have it? It's been months since I checked my old diatribes and jokes over there, and I'm sure there was the usual array of angry responses and joke kudos awaiting my last round when they changed the format. What gives? - 0:11:49 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Joette :-->ADAM...I'll take Green Bay.... - 2:11:19 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:MAC-ADAM (a tar baby? Roads Scholar?): The Athens Forum we once knew and loved has been erased as of Mythmas Day; the new URL, if I posted it correctly, will access all-new forums. I mourn the loss of my "snotty" pistol-packin' pissed-off epistles--but that's life. I've visited the new site, but the denizens lack vigor and rigor. Still, you may consider it ripe for the posting. - 2:53:20 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:1ADAM12: Just dusted off the old URL, and it still works, although the Atrocities folks have dubbed the forums "Special Forum 1, 2," and so on. You may find some of your prose yet. Good hunting. - 3:26:22 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:GRANT: Thanks for your e-mail address; I'll get a note off to you concerning Huizinga. To return to your musings, that "blood" symbolism must run pretty deep--perhaps at the genetic level, because our Native American forerunners had the same idea. I'm 'riffing' now, but it seems that ancient cultures found the waste of bodily fluids somehow unclean (reference Papasam's mention of the menstruating women in the Old Testament; the heretical "spilling of seed" associated with male masturbation; the use of the word "phlegmatic" [or a surplus of mucus, evinced by its secretion _outside_ the body via the sinuses and by coughing] to denote a shiftless or lazy person--I'm sure there are other references). Obviously, the body was a temple, so long as the valuables stayed put. But I wander. Later, sir. - 4:11:07 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Here's a joke that I thought was rather cute:..A woman had arrived back home from a visit with her doctor. Her husband asked "so, what did the doctor say?". She said, "he said everything was fine and even told me I had the boobs of a 19 year old". Smugly the husband asked "What did he have to say about your 50 year old ass?" She replied "Your name didn't come up". - 15:28:40 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:jaywilson<<>> the funny thing is that while the ancients may have believed that spilling body fluids was bad news, they sure committed alot of human sacrafice. Human sacrafice is evident in almost every culture. Also, consider bloodletting as a means of healing a person being another example of body fluids being spilt. From what I understand the christian healers during the time of the bubonic plague would not pierce the bubos because the Infidel Muslims discovered that piercing the bubo helped the body fight the disease and helped releave some of the pain from the swellings. People are strange .......... - 16:08:49 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- STEVEN-- I asked a Calvinist on a theo chat what is meant by "being under the blood of Christ." This was his response- (less the scriptural references) ---"Being under the blood of Christ : Sins were atoned for by the shedding of blood in the Old Testament. Sin itself was atoned for on the cross, by the shedding of His blood. In the OT, everything was sprinkled with this blood. The shedding of the blood of goats and bulls on earth was just a picture. A picture of what was to come. Jesus went into heaven with his blood and from heaven we are sprinkled with his blood, and are so purified to be heavenly vessels, temples of the Holy Spirit, as all those things were ceremonially cleansed to be vessels in the old tabernacle. We have been sprinkled with His blood. We are covered by His blood. Free at last."--- My intent is not to be disrespectful to this person. I've just been trying to understand how we can be willing to believe this type of, um, untethered notion. I agree with you, JayW, that blood symbolism must run pretty deep- perhaps at the genetic level. I also think that the willingness to suspend disbelief in some areas of our thinking in order to make some sense of things may run pretty deep too. Does anyone really believe that we are literally covered in Christ's blood? Can we believe that this or other symbolism can be tied in some way to physical laws or events, that reality is in some way effected or resticted or altered? What is it that allows us to give such weight to symbolism? - 17:40:28 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Calvanism articles, abstracts, etc.:Grant --- Scored a great theology site, should anyone find such stuff interesting. - 18:42:28 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:GRANT<<>> just further evidence of mass delusion! - 19:03:00 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:STEVEN-- Too true, but don't you find the mechanics of delusion interesting? - 19:14:24 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:GRANT<<>>I find delusion very intriguing, and a little scarry. - 19:31:45 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--TO ALL--Last week's brief discussion dealing with collective terms such as knot of toads, exhaltations of larks, and the like, has prompted me to throw out to the forum an appropriate collective term for fundies, such as a "lobotomy" of fundies--but I think there could be a better term than this... - 21:37:48 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:PETER-- That's a tough one. A froth of fundies? - 22:17:35 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:Oh, come _on_, now! A BAY (-ing?) of fundies, of course! - 22:22:32 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->why not call it is as it is: a DELUSION of fundies! - 22:47:26 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I desperately needed a laugh today, and your joke is just what the doctor ordered! - 22:49:06 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:PETER---I don't know why, but a "funeral" of fundies just sounds right to me. I guess it's the image of those self-flagilating guys in the Monty Python movie, and the idea of the big reward in the afterlife. - 23:58:47 on 6 Jan 98 GMT

DaveS:.......(flagellating), sorry. - 0:01:20 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:--->speaking of the big reward in the afterlife, I was watching Tom Brokaw's report on "Nellie" in Texas, the death row inmate that was dicussed here a couple of weeks back. Now, if she truly is "born again", shouldn't she be welcoming the opportunity to meet her maker as soon as possible? - 0:57:26 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE--Shouldn't she then at least want to take responsibility for her actions? No wait, I guess that would make Satan responsible. - 1:17:40 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:DAVE S-- A flagella of fundies? - 1:22:07 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:GRANT. I checked into your calvinism site. YUCH! PETER. Good thought. "Lobotomy of Fundies" is catchy and gets the idea across. ADAM. is the lucky object of your affections a nun? Is she ready to give up jesus for you? I'm all agog -and don't ask me what a gog is. Anyway, good luck. - 1:25:51 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:PAPASAM-- Fair enough, but did you read the stuff about John Calvin having Spanish Physician Michael Servetus slowly burned at the stake for disagreeing with his theology? Yes, there is something for everyone in xtian history. (It's under 'Calvanism and Arminianism.' The article is 'His ashes cry out...') - 2:56:55 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Adam THANKS , AND I AIN'T LION, FOR THE LYNX, CAT:---> Hey Jayguar, thanks for spotting me those lynx. Both worked. I take a paws and peruse those clawses when I have some free time, but not right meow. - 3:59:08 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Steven VAN GOGH ON WIT YOUR BAD SELF--->:Scarry, scarry night, paint your palette blue and grey.... - 4:01:52 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Adam WHAT'S IN A NAME-CALLING?:<---A pack of pickled PETER: What about a THOUGHTLESS THICKET of THEISTS? And wouldn't you necessarily call a bunch of Catholics a MASS? - 4:06:48 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Adam NO MAN'S LAND-CLATURE--->:SamBamThankYouMam---> I was just doing popsam-ular lyrics (from the 70s, To das Boot) in response to the query, "So, what DO you believe in?" By the way, that's A GOG of GODSQUADDERS...ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ������� - 4:10:54 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Adam HERE SHE IS, MISS ATTRIBUTION>>>>:That Van Go On, Girl! post three above was FROM me, TO Steven, not FROM the Jacob's latter, in response to his hair-raising typo about 15 back. - 4:13:57 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

skeptic:okay so evil and god are incompatible and necessarily so? okay, assuming the validity of this argument what are we left with? evil and no god. Evil still exists,but now we are left with no real explanation for it except that it just happened to evolve into reality just like everything else. the atheist is still left with the problem of evil...what is his explanation? - 8:25:53 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->skeptic...not only does he have an explanation, but so does SHE! Your comments are barely worthy of response, as it is obvious that you are uneducated about atheism and atheists. Do you really believe that atheists are evil, and if so, how have you come to this conclusion? BTW, we use our real names on this page. - 11:55:15 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:SKEPTIC-- Are you presupposing evil to be an independent force or power? Would it change your question if you provisionally viewed evil only as a handy label for some of the spectrum of human behavior? - 18:30:40 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--skeptic--So can we safely conclude, that you assume that forming any code of ethics cannot be divorced from believing in God, and obeying His/Jesus' commands? - 18:35:25 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT--Give me 50-1 and I'll bet "skeptic" will return. - 18:38:28 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:SKEPTIC. If you are implying that your 'god' is good and the only thing to oppose evil is your 'god', I think you must have a version of 'god' taken from my "An Atheist's Prayer". I have news for you. There 'ain't no such animal'. If you are thinking of the Judeo/Christian concept I suggest you read your bible carefully. There is a primer for evil that puts the Marquis de Sade to shame. Slaughter, rape, disembowelling pregnant women, killing babies - you want evil, look in the bible. Anddon't think it's only in the old testament. Good old boy jesus wants to separate fathers from sons, mothers from daughters, etc, unless they put good old family loving jesus first and foremost. You think jesus doesn't have the killer instinct? Read luke 19-27. "But those mine enemies which would not that I reign over them bring thither and slay them before me." So tell me, skeptic, is this 'god' your role model for good? - 19:11:23 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: Do you want to say that maybe evil is as imaginary as is a god? - 19:35:50 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: The skeptic, what is his\her line of thought? Is it pro/con deism? Perhaps the pro deists might try reading their scriptures by lining out any adjective or adverb they encounter, then read again the passage. They'd find that their scripture if bare of the colorful prefixes, it is not as firey fed to their thinking as the passages once may have been. Without the fluff and flash of the these passages, the thunder in the theist's imagination goes away and the passages are really not as meaningful. THey can do that to any such writing, try any of augustine's or aquinas'words, - 20:04:46 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Made it back, while the religeous believer can think they have a keen collections of words and ideas, they should try a dose of scepticism and look around at assorted writings. Some years past i purchased an enclyclopaedia set and rec'd as a bonus the "Great Books of the Western World", it is good. But, you have things in it like Augustine writing about no headed creatures, creatures with one foot bt fleeter than anything else and so on. I had to ask myself, is this a great book written by a sound thinker? My point, holy scripture ain't all its made out to be. That site pointed out to GRANT(?), just some good ol'boys gettin'together to have their way, and how they twist and turn things, - 23:30:03 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- That was me that posted the Calvanist site. Alas atheists are not the source of all wisdom, but are only those best positioned to recognize it. :-) I'm currently interested in Calvanism, and good theology sites are scarce, therefore a good find. - 23:43:13 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: I may have taken the wrong first step with that site by reading over it earthly origins account. It relates of things per moses, i figure that with everything read so far has me more sure then yesterday, that like aesop moses is fictional. I will continue the reading of that site, and mind you now I do things quickly, so tommorow. - 23:56:29 on 7 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:GRANT. I don't want you to think that I am disparaging the calvinists but burning one or two dissenters is small change compared to the inquisition. Now those people knew how to handle the opposition. Racks, iron maidens and so on. Why, a little old barbeque wpuld have seemed like a breath of fresh air to their victims. But what the hell, let's give credit where credit is due. The calvinists tried. - 1:57:10 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Burning Times:Grant-- ALL--- OK, this one ya'll will like better. It's a partial list of those killed by xtians for non-xtian beliefs. I borrowed it from Brian Dean over on the Infidels board. But you know, we can't rank on the xtians for not understanding atheism if we don't understand other beliefs ourselves. To read only what one agrees with is folly for theists, and folly for us as well. Sorry, I'll shut up now. - 2:10:25 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:PAPASAM-- Now that was coincidence. I didn't see your post first. --CARL-- That last was directed at no one in particular- least of all you. - 2:12:49 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Adam SHIRT OFF'N MY BACK--->:Jo-betteýýýýýýýý Your other booty has been ordered. Expect it to take a cupola weeks to get here, then thar, especially with those cottonpickin' Canuck customs cranks. - 2:53:42 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:I've been SO busy trying to outdo James with good works that I haven't had time to post. Tomorrow's another busy day. Pisses me off! The Red Cross called me yesterday to ask for a donation. Normally I give blood at the local regional school clinic but because they only need a certain type of blood, they are holding their clinic in a damn church. SO, guess what, I'm going to church tomorrow. JOETTE and PETER- Have you heard about the healthy compensation package we Canuks will be paying to all the abused aboriginal people that were abused in homes run by the damn catholic pedophiles(sp)? Why in hell should our money be spent on this? The damn Vatican can surely afford it! THE OXYMORON who calls itself a "skeptic". Grant gave you the answer very simply just so you could comprehend, "evil" as you would have it is a characteristic of every animal on this planet. - 4:20:26 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..:ADAM- Actually those Canuk customs cranks are kind of dumbeth. Ron sent me his very own homemade beer and labeled it soda pop. - 4:23:59 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Just picked up my new _Skeptic_ today, anyone else get one. It looks like there is a good article on Native American religion in it. - 4:25:48 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I was getting worried about you. Was afraid you had gone over to the Mormons or something. - 4:32:06 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:HI GRANT- I am just checking in before bed. The mormons, hell no! If I were to join a herd, I'd likely move to a warm climate and join a goddess worshiping cult. One where women were in charge! Maybe I'd even own a few husbands! - 5:59:47 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..there be power in da eas?:JOETTE- I don't know if you be able to be postin' today. I hear you be slidin' in da eas! We be havin' it easy today but tomorrow we be gettin' -35 and a blizzard. - 14:19:53 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>> IT IS SNOWING IN DALLAS. Large chuncky snoflakes are falling and it makes my heart sing. It is nice to see snow when we so rarely get to see it. I may even build a fire, get some wine, and cook dinner for the wife tonight. Mabey some slow music to dance to by the firelight. Ahhh, snow. - 14:49:57 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Steeevin:ADAM<<>> I am quit posibly the wurst speler that has ever receeved a dagree. Sumtimes I tipe without woryeng aboot the spelen. If u think that is bad yu shuld c my chiken scratch hand wryten. I think that sum peeple hav a hard tyme wit spelleng, espesuly wen they r typing. GO STARS!!!! - 14:55:45 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:GOODMORNING STEVEN- Yuck! You have no idea how much someone from Manitoba hates snow! The reason, of course, is that we have to deal with it for appoximately 6 months of the year! The skiers and snowmobilers like it though. According to theists, atheists are not supposed to engage in romance! So! What ya cookin for dinner? - 14:57:22 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>> I had thought about getting a couple of Sea Bass and smoke them in me smoker. I would probably put some corn and onions on the smoker also to go with the fish. I am not sure about the wine, for I do not drink alot of wine. I will probably pick up a six pack of dos equis and a couple of chimay ale's. Mabey even some white russians. We see snow about once a year, and it only sticks for a day. So, when it happens it is special. - 15:16:53 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Peter:--STEVEN--Now do you see why we don't want to move? D'ere ain't nothing like that "nesting" element. - 16:13:53 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

PETER--:--Once again referring back to collective terms. I have to give an old buddy of mine credit for this one: a "drool" of REtards - 16:17:43 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

megan:Megan-to anyone !Iwould like to have a cult of my own where there was nothing religious because my mother use to drag me to a christian church and from that Ihave become non-religious what are your stories????? i am writting this becauseI have no one to share my views with - 18:45:23 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:mmMEGAN--Why have a cult? Speaking for myself, I am grateful I have gained the necessary tools to be able to detect the glaring philosophical/scientific flaws associated with believing in God, and I assume you have done the same. Celebrate your ability to think rationally and independently---two traits which one must totally abandon if they become cult members. One can enjoy fairly intellectual conversation here, and learn a great deal from each other. I hope you stick around and share some of yours with us--but please--lose this quest for joining a cult. You can only lose those very precious things you have gained. - 19:19:04 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:MEGAN<<>> believe in yourself and what you can accomplish. It will do nothing but harm to you if you find a cult. Christianity (capitalized out of necessity) is a cult. So why run from one cult to join another? - 19:30:24 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--I say make those " mafia mongering, nazi-mongering, criminal-mongering, thieving , self-righteous, self serving, self-important, lying, cheating, perverted, child-molesting,catholic, no-mind, tyrranical, jerk-off, dead-beat fucks ( pretty good, eh, Steve?) compensate them fully, but also to all the individuals, and their descendants they have managed to have fleeced from, whether it be their money, morality, integrity, independence, pride, and honour--as is their only standard of justice is being served--human misery. - 19:41:46 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:MEGAN: For at least myself, like most of the others here as well, an exchange of views is looked upon with a good deal of favor and appreciation. Your experience has the first sounds of being a most regrettable time. You might find some cheer with words from the past days said by someone here, it goes simply that "no god is good". What view would you like share? - 19:58:06 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Well, I'm back after doing another "good work"! I wonder what James did today? Anyhow, PETER- We are paying millions of dollars compensation, we have no say in it! Your apt description of those religious assholes is very good. What I'm screaming about, is why in hell should I pay and why is our government handing over these millions when we, the people, are not responsible but the church and it's salesmen are??? HI MEGAN- We've all been dragged to church I would dare to say but it has obviously been a waste of our parent's time. - 20:51:40 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--I guess my message was lost amidst all the adjectives--but I did concur with you. We shouldn't have to pay one cent, if those swine are solely responsible. And who says the influence and power of the Chuch is dead? My ass it is. - 21:27:32 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>> I can't tell if my rubbing off on people is good or not, the jury is still out. You could have posted that last post with my name and no one would know the dif. MARLENE, PETER<<>> Is the gov. of Canada raising taxes to pay for this. Is the gov. responsible in any way. I think they made them go to the catholic schools and homes, right. Odd situation. - 21:31:51 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>> I guess you could ask the same question in the states. If the government compensates Native American tribes for past wrongs should the tax payers pick up the burden for acts that their ancestors committed? - 21:37:36 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Yes, the government (the f-in CFS in Manitoba) is responsible for removing these kids from their homes and placing them in residences run by churches. My point is, my parents, my grandparents and their parents after them all disagreed with the process. I still disagree with the process and in another form it is still happening. I'm sure you've heard me whine here many times about our CFS removong kids from their homes and placing them with "nice xtian families". IMO, no one has the right to break up a family. Abuse is always alleged but not necessarily committed. As far as the children being abused in the residences by the rc's, my stand is, they are responsible! For example, if the government issues me a drivers licence and I go out and drive someone else's car to ruins, am I not responsible, as I am the one who drove the car? The vatican has loads of money and I don't. IMO our government should get off their wossey ass and sue the vatican as should the kids that were abused. - 22:12:19 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Who knows how Portugal became a country separate from Spain? the language sure seems similar. - 22:40:19 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVE- Just to add. Our government is always raising taxes (in more ways than one), we are actually taxed to death. JOETTE- Where are you on this issue? I knows you have an opinion! Are you busy with those beans again? When I was a kid, an older guy in the neighborhood had the one and only gas pump for 20 miles. When one half filled there tank, he used to say, "That'll be 5 berries please". He sounded just like WC Fields. And yes everyone, $5 half filled the car in my day. - 22:43:14 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't know but I do know that people say that they speak Portugese(sp). Speaking of spelling, of which you can see is one of my greatest arts, I see people here sometimes feel "bad" about their spelling. I see no reason to feel that way. As long as you get your point across, that's all that matters and may I add, bad spelling is an art! - 22:49:21 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Bad spelling, probably just some of us avoiding something schizofrenic. On the Portoguese thing, it just struck me as odd that it is just stuck onto the side of Spain. So i figgered since we so smart, someone here oughta'kno'. - 23:05:12 on 8 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..you are right, them beans be keeping sum (pun intended) these days...it's year-end, and I'll be spending the next 2 months at work!!!!!! Anyway, my opinion of the government offering compensation....well, we compliant Canadians have been bearing the bulk of the cost of retribution to whatever special interest cries fowl since the days of William Lyon MacKenzie King...it's the socialist way. I agree wholeheartedly that it should be the church making retribution but the problem with this particular case is that the children were forced out of their homes, involuntarily, by the government. Remember, the Aboriginal in Canada were not considered citizens until the 1960's, so anything that went on before they were allowed to be citizens was purely a government action. Therefore, while the church should pay outright they will not, therefore the government must make restitution for their actions, and again, it those of us who keep our noses clean (especially when they are pierced) to bear the cost. In our socialist society, we can't have it both ways. The end. - 0:40:38 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->how embarrassing! I had plenty of typos in my last post, but the worst was using "fowl" instead of "foul". Must be the schizophrenia Carl mentioned. (my inner self was thinking about Colonel Sanders I guess) - 0:45:08 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Dustin:Hello All, My first time finding you all which makes me extremely happy- Getting very Tired of Indiana - 2:46:29 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->DUSTIN..what does finding us have to do with growing weary of Indiana? Indiana wants me...lord I can't go back there (sorry, I digress..). Anyway, welcome. - 2:52:12 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Dustin:Thanks Joette, Well if you've been to Indiana you'll understand...Bob Enyart Retreated here afterall - 2:54:05 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Dustin:btw... I also read the new skeptic and i thoroughly enjoyed the artical on Houdini- have you read that one yet? - 2:55:00 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->DUSTIN..there's usually more action here, although it is the type of page where you can post and not get a response for a few hours, or even the next day. It's the kind that is great if you are a mouse potato, because you can just come back and check on every once in a while. Since you are new here, these are the instructions if you want to read old posts: in the location line (after you hit "add" at the bottom), it reads....show=30 etc. If you want to go back, change the "30" to any number you want. It might help for you to get the feel of the discussion. Are you an atheist, pantheist, xtian, good witch or bad witch? - 2:59:03 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->DUSTIN..I just picked it up today, and haven't had a chance to read any of it yet. T'will be my bedtiming reading. - 3:01:02 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Dustin:Thanks Joette, This Format is a little different from the others i have been on(which is limited i admit ;P) Anyway i hope im not leaving blank spaces between my posts... As for me, i am an Atheist going to school trying to deal with the people here... - 3:05:02 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

dustin:I would guess the majority of people here are Atheist? (with the Xtian quack here and there) - 3:06:38 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->DUSTIN..we have an assortment..some atheists, some enemies of religion, some enemies of mankind, new xtians almost once a week that never stay very long, and a variety of others. This mix makes it most interesting! - 3:10:58 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- "Enemies of mankind?" --Hello Dustin - 3:15:29 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Dustin:Sounds Great! Nice to find some freethinkers...(although i do enjoy a good argument)... And this format is nice as well, as i can actually work instead of slacking off all the time :) - 3:18:04 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

"Christian quacks",Dustin? do you have anything other than ad hominem fallacies with which to defend your case? - 3:35:01 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

last message from Anselm - 3:36:04 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:MYSTERY POSTER-- Sign in. Join in. Don't be shy. - 3:37:35 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM..I think Dustin's adjective was apt. But we haven't had a quack lately, but Quake was a real doozer. If you have visited Theo Chat, you would be familiar with him. - 3:43:21 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Dustin:Well I mean Religious Nuts to be blunt, if you would prefer a definition of Xtian Quack i will give you my working definition... By Christian Quack I mean those who take ever dotted "i" and Crossed "t" in the Bible literally. Those that believe that 2000 years+ there were People living to nearly 1000, God Wrestling with his "flock" and men killing 1000 with the jawbone of an ass... I could give more examples of "quackery" but i think you understand where i am coming from :) Don't get me wrong, i have a little more respect for those that actually read the bible(they're much more entertaining than the Sunday School Xtians) - 3:46:04 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Dustin:Theo Chat?? Is that Irc or WWW? And is he of the belief that EarthQuakes are going to destroy the earth in a couple years? That seems to be the favorite Apocolypse around these parts. - 3:49:39 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Adam HERE SHE IS, MISS ANTHROPE...:---> Now where am dat Enemy of Mankind? - 4:54:59 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Adam PEEE-EEW! Something's Rotten in Estatos Unitos!-->:The plague may worsen before it subsides: annual Pew survey on the state of religion in America reports that 71% of respondents never doubted the existence of god; 61% believe that miracles come from the power of god; and 53% believe in daily prayer. All these figures have risen by double digits since 1987. U. of Michigan study says that weekly worship in the U.S. exceeds that in any other industrialized nation, more than twice that of France & nearly twice that of England. - 5:00:02 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Adam AND NOW, DE RIGUEUR MORTIS JOKES--->:Was Michael Kennedy the ultimate tree-hugging liberal? Does anyone know the last position he held before his death? - 5:04:16 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ADAM-- I'm almost afraid to guess. Speaking of position, what is your stance on the spelling issue? What do you get if you cross a lawyer with a mafioso? - 5:11:30 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--DUSTIN--We get all kinds of quacks in here, and they are made to look extremely foolish very quickly. If their first post doesn't consisist of entirely of bold letters, with a brow-beating text--their subsequent posts will when they feel that the arguments that worked on themselves to be a christian simply do not hold any water in a forum where people can detect false logic. Its fun to argue with them at first but, their arguments become so absurd--they begin to annoy. Then they usually leave within 3 weeks, at the most. I especially enjoy going for the jugular as soon as I detect a flaw in their argument--and it doesn't take long to find one. - 5:16:15 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:DUSTIN: Actually, I would agree with that assessment. Many christians(and atheists) read the Bible in a very wooden and fundamentalist manner. Individuals well versed in literature know when to read poetry as poetry, symbolism as symbolism and literality as literality.You should come to theology chat sometime if you like a good argument. I can't promise anything good, but something entertaining may occur. I'm a philosophy major so I'm very much of a polemic nature myself.I can relate. Moreover, Christians do not debate enough, so perhaps you or anyone for that matter, could stimulate a bit of agitation. - 5:20:31 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM..a good argument on Theo Chat is an oxymoron. It is rife with ignorance, bigotry and total disregard for logical discourse. The only time it is entertaining is when a reasonable person tries to ask a few fundamental questions. - 5:24:17 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Anselm--If you are referring to that Theo chat with , MOSES, Joe Camel, Quake, Zoe, Bill Lighthall --and the like are present, it is practically impossible to debate in there, as they limit the lengths of each post, and sometimes I feel I need more room to effectively present a poit. Doesn't matter anyway. They still will never admit all the glaring flaws in their logic anyway--and at the same time call ME closed-minded!! Sometimes I get a couple of them to come in here--but they rarely stick around. Their equally irrational buddies aren't around here to stick up for them. - 5:38:56 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Adam KENNEDY DEEP-->: FosterGrant et al (here's looking at you, Kid 'n' Play)---> What spelling issue? I am fond of making jokes about funny misspellings on the page, especially my own, but I missed "the issue." I think the answer to your riddle is "Someone who makes you an offer you can't understand." And Michael Kennedy's last position/title was....BRANCH MANAGER. What do you think was his favorite horror story? - 5:39:47 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Adam SPEAKING of RELIGIOUS ROCK--->:DUSTIN the wind; all we are is DUSTIN the wind.... - 5:41:08 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Adam JOKE ERRRA, ERRATA-->:That should be "favorite horror MOVIE" - 5:42:31 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ADAM--" Issue" was too strong. Just wondering how much effort should be made to spell correctly, or does it matter? Still working on the horror story. - 5:51:17 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:GRANT. Spelling isn't important unless some misguided xtian tries to cast a spell on us in which case we dispel of his prattle with the pellucid waaters of reason. ADAM. I don't think one in ten thousand people have read the bible from cover to cover. When I was young, had good eyesight and was a voracious reader I tried it but I tripped over the 'begats'. MYSTERY POSTER. What "ad hominem fallacies' was Dustin using to defend his case. It seems to me he was on the offensive. And if you think the use of that phrase makes you seem like a brilliant philosopher/intellectual I have to disillusion you. You come across like a pompous ass. But don't leave just yet. Without people like you we'd be out of business. - 6:08:02 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ADAM. Kennedy should have known that when you travel at break neck speed you break your neck. - 6:20:25 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:Peter and Joette: the feedback you presented caused a bit of pity within me, but perhaps you are giving up too easily. I have not been to that sight for very long so I dont really know everyone there, but It is not really my intention to be closed minded nor to lable anyone as such, so long as one doesnt equate closed mindedness with defending a case. In fact, what I like about the atheists and agnostics is the tenacity with which they defend their positions, thus this would not hinder me in any way from formulating dialogue with you. Refutation instead of condemnation I think is the key. I do think one can honestly admit, however that there are plenty of epithets and other useless philosophical methods being produced on both sides. If one is going to attack something, let it be ideas, not the person holding the ideas. - 8:13:24 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:papa:"a pompous ass"??? oh, come now surely you can do better than that, and incidentally, that is the kind of useless name calling I am referring to, papa. The ability to name call is not tantamount to the ability to reason in a cogent manner, you must know. moreover, I'm glad to be keeping you in business, since my business is philosophy and I have a deep intrigue with individuals who devote hours of their lives, with impassioned fervor, merely to converse about a being that is non-existent, i.e., to converse about...nothing? Please assist me, as I am puzzled. - 8:24:01 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Checkin in late tonight. DUSTIN- Welcome! ANSELM- Well, aren't we lucky! Another mealy mouthed xtian! I have yet to hear from a reasoning xtian, it's as nonexsistent as god. ADAM and PAPASAM- Good MKennedy jokes! Here any Bobo ones? - 9:17:37 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM..as the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I can honestly say that I did not give up easily on Theo Chat, but visited that site on many occassions. Never was it my intent to start an argument, but rather to ask simple questions that might lead to someone thinking about something other than how god has helped them in their lives. It is impossible when dealing with fundamentalists. I tried the same on the WBS Christian Chat and had the same experience. Therefore, save your pity for someone else please. The comments I make are never made lightly, as it I would not state an opinion without first having some sort of research under my belt before doing so, unlike those that have only read the bible, and nothing else. Your own posts have been fairly nebulous, so I ask, are you an xtian, or an atheist? - 11:56:39 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..looking forward to the answer to the riddle...please don't forget to post the answer! - 12:00:50 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

olly:sorry, hi newby. - 12:05:03 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..El Ninio is wreaking havoc around this part of the country like you wouldn't believe! No snow, but the freezing rain has been relentless. In northern Ontario and southern Quebec, millions of people have been without power since Monday and so far 10 people have died trying to keep themselves warm with various appliances. The military are being brought in to keep roads closed etc. I think I would rather have the 4 feet of snow and -30 temperatures that we are used to instead of this! - 12:05:46 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->OLLY..who is "newby"? - 12:07:40 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

olly:-- a slip newboy on the block so to speak [and crap at spelling ] hi ya joette. - 12:11:39 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->OLLY..I will play Welcome Wagon since there is no one else here right now (I always check the page before I go off to work, which I am about to do right now). Have you been following the discussion here, or have you just happened upon it? Gotta go! - 12:23:40 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

olly: Joette... mooching round athiest sites, prety new to web. speak agian soon. - 12:27:49 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

ANSELM:--Anselm--Why do we spend so much time talking about a non-existent being? That is a good question. The God/no God debate for one thing is one of the most debated philosophical issues. Also, I feel atheism is important simply because theism is important. Theism isn't some obscure abstract topic which has little influence on few peoples lives--it is the the core of Judeo-Christian religion. Not only do I believe heism is false--I also cosider it to be ultimately destructive to mankind, so making the choice between atheism and theism assumes a major importance. Within the framework of its historical cultural, philosophical and psychological signifigane--the question of god is among the most crucial subjects of our time. Atheism may be negative in character--but it is a powerfully intellectual tool to eradicate superstition and its detrimental effects. It then becomes constructive as well as benevolent. It clears the air--leaving the door open for positive principles and philosophies based on man's ability to think and comprehend--and not on the supernatural. - 13:31:48 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM---I realize you didn't post that last message to yourself--it was me posting it to you. - 13:35:18 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

QUAKE:Peter when you come into the chat room why not cAll YOURSELF PETER and instead of dishuising yourself, anyway whoever you are you are usually exposed within a few moments as a deciever sadly - 13:51:35 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

QUAKE...QUAKE:to Peter and all..... More Turmoil in Physics: Is Light Slowing Down? In earlier articles, we discussed the nature of time and the fallacy of linear and absolute time concepts. We now know that time is a physical property and varies with respect to mass, acceleration, and gravity. (See note 1.) Time is tied to our concepts of the curvature of space-time, and the velocity of light. The velocity of light is, in fact, a parameter which appears to affect almost every aspect of both cosmological physics on the large scale, as well as quantum physics in the particle scale. It is, of course, considered to be the fundamental constant of physics. Historical Perspective The early Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the speed of light was infinite. (See note 2.) As late as 1600 a.d., Johannes Kepler, one of the fathers of modern astronomy, maintained the majority view that light was instantaneous in its travels. Rene Descartes, the highly influential scientist, mathematician and philosopher (who died in 1650), also strongly held to the belief in the instantaneous propagation of light. He strongly influenced the scientists of that period and those who followed. Speed of Light Measured In 1677 Olaf Roemer, the Danish astronomer, noted that the time elapsed between eclipses of Jupiter with its moons became shorter as the Earth moved closer to Jupiter and became longer as the Earth and Jupiter drew farther apart. This anomalous behavior could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. Initially, Roemer's suggestion was hooted at. It took another half century for the notion to be accepted. In 1729 the British astronomer James Bradley's independent confirmation of Roemer's measurements finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer's work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated. Over the past 300 years, the velocity of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods. (As a Naval Academy graduate, I must point out that Albert Michelson, Class of 1873, measured the speed of light at the Academy. In 1881 he measured it as 299,853 km/sec. In 1907 he was the first American to receive the Nobel Prize in the sciences. In 1923 he measured it as 299,798 km/sec. In 1933, at Irvine, CA, as 299,774 km/sec.) Recent Discovery Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman examined all of the available experimental measurements to date and have announced a discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down over the years! [Roemer, 1657 (Io eclipse): 307,600 +/- 5400 km/sec; Harvard, 1875 (same method): 299,921 +/- 13 km/sec; NBS, 1983 (laser method): 299,792.4586 +/- 0.0003 km/sec.] They all are approximately 186,000 miles/second; or about one foot/nanosecond.) (See note 3.) While the margin of error improved over the years, the mean value has noticeably decreased. In fact, the bands of uncertainty hardly overlap. As you would expect, these findings are highly controversial, especially to the more traditional physicists. However, many who scoffed at the idea initially have subsequently begun to take a closer look at the possibilities. Alan Montgomery, the Canadian mathematician, has also analyzed the data statistically and has concluded that the decay of c, the velocity of light, has followed a cosecant-squared curve with a correlation coefficient of better than 99%. A New Perspective This curve would imply that the speed of light may have been 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; and four times as fast in the days of Abraham. It would imply that the velocity of light was more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 b.c. This possibility would also totally alter our concepts of time and the age of the universe. The universe might actually be less than 10,000 years old! Other Implications The key properties of the vacuum of free space include electrical permittivity, magnetic permeability, zero-point energy, and intrinsic impedance. If any of these properties change isotopically, then both atomic behavior and the speed of light would vary throughout the universe. The product of magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity is the reciprocal of c-squared. The permittivity of free space has not changed, but permeability has. It is related to the "stretching out" of free space at the time of creation. The "stretching" of the heavens is mentioned many times in the Bible. (See note 4.) Setterfield has analyzed 164 measurements of c, the velocity of light, gathered over the past 320 years, which reveal a statistically significant decay in c. When coupled with associated c-dependent "constants," the data includes some 639 values measured by 25 different methods. (See note 5.) A comparison of dates in orbital time from history, archaeology, tree rings, etc., with atomic dates from a variety of radioactive isotopes has provided some 1228 data points over 4550 years. Relaxation, or release, has set in, perhaps after the fall in Genesis 3. The shrinkage of free space could be the cause for the observed slowing down of the velocity of light. The "Redshift" may be caused by a decay of c. In fact, the universe may be contracting, not expanding. A Tiff about Tifft William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting data for about 20 years on redshifts, and it now appears that the universe might not be expanding. In the 1970's, Tifft noted that the redshift seemed to depend upon the type of galaxy that was emitting the light. Spiral galaxies tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies in the same cluster. Dimmer galaxies, higher redshifts than brighter ones. Even more disturbing, Tifft has discovered that some clusters and pairs of galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values, rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were distance related. These redshifts appear in discrete quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum physics. (See note 6.) These findings are not popular with astronomers or cosmologists, and emotions, even in physics, run deep. If the redshift is not a simple measure of velocity, then the conjectures about the Big Bang, and its derivative issues such as "dark" matter, (See note 7.) etc., tend to fall apart. The elaborate theoretical models of the Big Bang traditions may be headed for the scrap heap. There is also the disturbing evidence that the redshifts change over time. There seems be some basic physics involved that has yet to be understood. These changes could be due to basic life cycles of galaxies, the nature of space or light itself, or other possibilities. (See note 8.) There have been a number of attempts to refute Tifft's observations. One recent one by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, measured the redshifts of 89 spiral galaxies. The results surprised the skeptics by uncovering data that supports the case for quantized redshifts. If Setterfield proves correct, then this might also explain the quantization of the redshifts. Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted wave lengths, and quantized redshifts could result. (See note 9.) Radioactive Dating Radioactive decay rates have changed. The decay of c affects the speed of nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency. Thus, all radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent history of the universe. For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages. Entropy The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in a closed system, as time flows forward, energy in the universe is becoming less and less available. "Entropy" is the measure of the state of "energy unavailability" in an energy-containing system. Entropy always increases. Orderly systems of molecules represent low entropy systems. Orderly systems tend, on their own, to become disorderly and chaotic through the processes of decay and disintegration. With passage of time the normal tendency of things is for such systems to become disorderly, chaotic, and randomized. Their "entropy" increases. We experience this in our daily routine: we spend effort to organize our desktop, our garage, our school locker. Soon, however, as "random" events take their toll, everything tends toward randomness--the entropy increases. To bring order out of chaos, we must put in outside energy or information: instructions, codes, blueprints, and effort. Order comes from chaos only if someone makes it happen. Time plus chance always leads toward chaos--not order--without the intervention of outside intelligence. Genesis In the beginning, there apparently was a close connection between the spiritual and physical realms, until the fall of man in Genesis 3. The universe was pronounced "good"--free of defects--by the Creator. A high degree of order originally existed; that is, there was very low entropy. But then Adam fell and the curse of sin began. Disorder and entropy began to increase. Could the slowing down of the speed of light have begun with the increase of entropy and, thus, both be a result of the curse brought about by sin? The subsequent death, dying, decaying, and destroying processes affected not only man, but nature as well (Romans 8:19-23). Caveat The possibility that the speed of light is not a "constant" after all and has been slowing down is highly controversial and conjectural. Yet, some of the most dramatic changes in scientific perspective come only after much debate, vigorous opposition, and the like. The entire field of physics is presently in a state of upheaval. The particle physicists have decided there is no causality, and that the universe has at least 10 dimensions. The redshift has been discovered to be quantized and that may shatter previous conceptions of our universe. Particle physics has totally altered our concepts of reality. Many of today's scientific orthodoxies, however, originated from yesterday's unpopular heresies. The apparent decay in the velocity of light may be another of these controversial "heresies" looming on the horizon of modern physics. Only time will tell. But the Bible changes not. It doesn't need to. The Reality of Eternity There is part of you that is not physical, and therefore has no time: it is eternal. Our Creator has provided a destiny for us that is so fantastic that it is entirely beyond our own eligibility, or ability, to earn it. That is why God has provided for our eligibility through His Son. His plan of redemption is available for the asking. But it's up to us to accept it. Throughout eternity you will either be in the presence of God, or separated from Him. What will it be for you? - 14:06:02 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant-Oh NO!:QUAKE-- (I assume your real name is Quake?) Exposed as a deceiver? Do you you realize how many presuppositions are stacked up here? You're a tragic case. Too far gone. Will probably never think again. - 14:14:36 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

QUAKE:To all.... The Craig-Washington Debate Does God Exist? Dr. Craig's Opening Arguments Good evening! I want to begin by expressing my thanks to ASUW and Campus Crusade for Christ for inviting me to participate in this important debate. In tonight's debate I'm going to be defending two basic contentions: First of all, that there's no good reason to think that atheism is true and, secondly, that there are good reasons to think that theism is true. I. There are no good reasons to think that atheism is true. So let's look at my first major contention together, that there are no good reasons to think that atheism is true. Atheism, or the claim that there is no God, is just as much a claim to know something as is theism, the claim that God does exist. Therefore, if the atheist is to prove his view, he must do more than say, "There's no good evidence for God's existence." He must present positive evidence against God's existence. Atheist philosophers have tried for centuries to disprove the existence of God, but no one has been able to come up with a convincing argument. So rather than attack straw men at this point, I'll just wait to hear Dr. Washington's answer to the following question: "What is the evidence that atheism is true?" II. There are good reasons to think that theism is true. So let's turn, then, to my second basic contention, that there are good reasons to think that theism is true. Now I'm not claiming that I can prove that God exists with some sort of mathematical certainty. I'm certainly not going to be able to convince you against your will. I'm just saying that the evidence makes it plausible that God exists, that on balance theism is more probable than atheism. Let me present six reasons why I think it's plausible that God exists.{1} We'll start with the most abstract and gradually get more concrete. The Argument from Abstract Objects 1. God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities.{2} In addition to tangible, concrete objects like people and trees and chairs, philosophers have noticed that there also appear to be abstract objects, things like numbers, propositions, sets, and properties. These things have a sort of conceptual reality, rather like ideas in your mind. And yet it's obvious that they're not just ideas in any human mind. So what is the metaphysical foundation of such abstract entities? The theist has a plausible answer to that question. They are grounded in the mind of God. Alvin Plantinga, one of America's foremost philosophers, explains: It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity. We should therefore think of them as... the concepts of an unlimited mind: a divine mind.{3} At the most abstract level, then, theism provides a plausible, metaphysical foundation for the existence of abstract objects. And that's the first reason why I think it's plausible to believe in God. The Cosmological Argument 2. God provides the best explanation for why the universe exists instead of nothing.{4} Have you ever asked yourself where the universe came from, why anything at all exists, instead of just nothing? Well, typically atheists have said that the universe is eternal, and that's all. But surely this is unreasonable. Just think about it for a minute. If the universe never had a beginning, then that means that the number of past events is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self- contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that actually exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought.... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea...."{5} But that entails that since past events are not just ideas in your mind but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist. This conclusion has been confirmed by a series of remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. The astrophysical evidence indicates the universe began to exist in a cataclysmic explosion known as the Big Bang 15 billion years ago. Physical space and time were created in that event, as well as all the matter and energy in the universe. Therefore, as the Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing. This is because, as you go back in time, you reach a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."{6} Thus, what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing. No, this tends to be very awkward for the atheist. As Anthony Kenny of Oxford University says, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that....the universe came by nothing and from nothing."{7} But that's a pretty hard pill to swallow! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause that brought the universe into being. From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. Isn't it incredible that the Big Bang theory confirms what the Christian theist has always believed, that "In the beginning, God created the universe"? Now I simply put it to you: which is more plausible?---That the Christian theist is right, or that the universe just popped into existence, uncaused, out of nothing? I, at least, don't have any trouble assessing these probabilities. The Teleological Argument 3. God provides the best explanation for the complex order in the universe.{8} During the last thirty years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicately balanced set of initial conditions simply given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than life- permitting universes like ours. How much more probable? Well, before I give you an estimation, let me just give you some numbers to give you a feel for the odds. The number of seconds in the history of the universe is about 1018, that's ten followed by eighteen zeros. The number of subatomic particles in the entire universe is about1080. Now with those numbers in mind, consider the following. Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, has calculated the odds of our universe existing as on the order of one chance out of 1010(123), a number which is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement!{9} Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has called this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God "ever to come out of science."{10} Once again, the view that Christian theists have always held, that there is an intelligent designer of the Cosmos, seems to me to be much more plausible than the atheistic interpretation of chance. The Moral Argument 4. God provides the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values in the world.{11} If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted, "If...there are...objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a...defensible...argument from morality to the existence of a god.{12} But in order to deny God's existence, Mackie therefore denied that objective values exist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution."{13} Professor Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at the University of Guelph, agrees. He explains: Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, `Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves.... Nevertheless,... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction,... and any deeper meaning is illusory....{14} Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life. I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right. But we've got to be very careful here. The question here is not, "Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?" I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question, "Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?" I think that we can. Rather, the question is, "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?" Like Mackie and Ruse, I just don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on a infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. [faint applause, then laughter] On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, if you can escape the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience. But the fact is that objective moral values do exist, and we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective existence of moral values than to deny the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They're moral abominations. Even Ruse himself admits, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says two plus two equals five."{15} Some things are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. But if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth 5. God provides the best explanation for the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.{16} The historical person Jesus of Nazareth was a remarkable individual. New Testament critics have reached something of a consensus that the historical Jesus came on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, the authority to stand and speak in God's place. That's why the Jewish leadership instigated his crucifixion on the charge of blasphemy. He claimed that in himself the Kingdom of God had come and as visible demonstrations of this fact, he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms. But the supreme confirmation of his claim was his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus did rise from the dead, then it would seem that we have a divine miracle on our hands, and thus indirect evidence for the existence of God. Now there are three main historical facts that support the resurrection of Jesus: the empty tomb, Jesus' appearances alive after his death, and the very origin of Christian faith. Let me look very briefly at each one of these. The Empty Tomb First, the evidence indicates that Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers on Sunday morning. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "by far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb."{17} And he lists twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more that he neglected to mention. According to the New Testament critic D. H. Van Daalen, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds. Those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."{18} Jesus' Appearances after His Death Secondly, the evidence indicates that on separate occasions, different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the late Norman Perrin of the University of Chicago, "The more we investigate the traditions with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear on which they are based."{19} These appearances were bodily and physical and were witnessed not only by believers, but also by skeptics, unbelievers, and even enemies. The Origin of the Christian Faith Thirdly, the very origin of the Christian faith implies the reality of the resurrection. We all know that Christianity sprang into being in the middle of the first century. Where did it come from? Why did it arise? Well, all scholars agree that Christianity came into being because the original disciples believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and they proclaimed this message everywhere that they went. But where in the world did they come up with that outlandish belief? If you deny that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then you've got to explain the origin of the disciples' belief either in terms of Jewish influences or Christian influences. Obviously, it couldn't have come from Christian influences for the simple reason that there wasn't any Christianity yet! But neither can it be explained from the side of Jewish influences because the Jewish concept of resurrection was radically different than Jesus' resurrection. As the reknowned New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias puts it, "Nowhere does one find in the literature [of ancient Judaism] anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus."{20} The most plausible explanation of the origin of the disciples' belief, therefore, is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Attempts to explain away these three great facts, like "the disciples stole the body," or "Jesus wasn't really dead," have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. The simple fact is that there just is no plausible, naturalistic explanation of these facts. And therefore it seems to me that the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists. The Experience of God 6. God can be immediately known and experienced.{21} This isn't really an argument for God's existence, rather it's the claim that you can know God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing Him. This was the way that people in the Bible knew God, as Professor John Hick explains: God was known to them as a dynamic will interacting with their own wills, a sheer, given reality, as inescapably to be reckoned with as destructive storm and life-giving sunshine.... They did not think of God as an inferred entity, but as an experienced reality.... To them God was not...an idea adopted by the mind, but the experiential reality which gave significance to their lives.{22} Now if this is the case, arguments for God can actually distract our attention from God Himself. If you are sincerely seeking God, if this is not an intellectual game, then God will make His existence evident to you. The Bible promises, "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you" (James 4:8). We mustn't so concentrate on the arguments that we fail to hear the inner voice of God to our own hearts. For those who listen, God becomes an immediate reality in their lives. Conclusion So in conclusion, then, we've yet to see any arguments to show that God does not exist, and we have seen six reasons to think that God does exist. Together these constitute a powerful, cumulative case for the existence of God. If we are to believe atheism instead, then Dr. Washington is first going to have tear down all six of the reasons that I've presented in favor of God's existence and then in their place erect a case of his own in favor of atheism. Unless and until he does that, I hope that we can agree that theism is the more plausible world view. - 14:22:38 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:QUAKE-- Shall I post 'Origin of Species' on the xtian boards? Or would they maybe prefer a link? - 14:29:34 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

QUAKE:GRANT about posting the origin of the species, the Christians already have it , in the book of Genesis - 14:34:07 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

QUAKE:Grant try printing this out, it was from a live debate with Craig - 14:35:29 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:QUAKE-- Very clever. May I assume that you are here for some purpose other than discussion again? - 14:37:08 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:QUAKE-- Yes, I know of Mr. Craig. Do you see something new and pertinent there? - 14:39:56 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Jodi:Oh for crying out loud! What a complete and total waste of bandwidth, Quake. Once is bad enough but twice in one day?!? This is an _atheist_ board, you probably shouldn't even be posting here in the first place. But to bore the hell out of everyone by cutting and pasting thoughts that aren't even _yours_? Where's a sys op when you need them? - 15:03:25 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: the quack's actions support the words said by one of the churches founding patriarchs, "...by any means possible." And, as you see, we see, he will turn anything around to his favor. As I scanned thru his post I did not see his account of what jc or god said the speed of light was. Is that not strange, that of all the wonderful things the quack says his creator did, he didn't tell anyone anywhere, what is the speed of light? Perhaps the quote "The truths which god revealed have been overthrown by the truths which man has discovered." is all anyway, man and god is manmade. - 15:40:09 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:QUACK<<>> Here let me cut and paste a few contradictions to your mythological bible. This info comes from an atheist named Dan Barker who was a minister and christians song writer for about 25 years: The Gospels are written in an admitted propagandistic style, and an admitted pro pagandistic manner. What time did the women visit the tomb? Matthew said "as it began to dawn." Mark said "when the sun had risen." Luke said "at early dawn." John said, "When it was yet dark." Now, you mention John Wenham as a great harmonizer of the New Testament. John We nham says, well, you know what this could mean? It could mean that even though John says th at it was dark when the women "came to" the tomb, it could mean that it was dark when they "left for " the tomb. Aha! It took them a while to get there, then the sun came up. But that's overly speculat ive, and it's obviously a defensive, ad hoc rationalization to these contradictions. Who were the women who came to the tomb? Matthew said it was Mary Magdalen and t he other Mary. Mark said it was Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke said it was Mary Magdalen, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. John said Mary Magdalen. What was their purpose. Matthew said it was "to see the tomb." Mark said, no, th ey had already seen the tomb, it was to bring spices to anoint the body. Luke said they had already seen the tomb, and brought spices. John said the body had already been spiced, before they arrived. Was the tomb open when they arrived? According to Matthew, it was not. The tomb was opened in their presence. But Mark, Luke, and John say, yeah, the tomb was open when they arrived. One of these guys is wrong. They both can't be right. Who was at the tomb when they arrived? Mark said there was one "young man." Now, look at [how] this supports the evolutionary hypothesis here. Mark said there was one "young m an." Luke said there was two men. Matthew said there was one angel, and John, the last writer, said, there's two angels. See what's happening here? See how the myth is growing and getting more exaggerated? Where were these messengers situated? Matthew said there was an angel sitting on the stone. Mark said there was a young man sitting inside, on the right. Luke said there were two men standing inside. John said there were two angels, sitting on each end of the bed. - 16:07:44 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:QUACK<<>> I can do this all day long jerk! I had thought that you realized that you make such a fool of yourself when you come here. I guess you enjoy takeing it on the chin. PUULLLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE attempt to refute the contradictions in your worthless mythology. - 16:11:55 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- It's funny. For some there is so much to explore, understand, interpret- complex relationships, evidence from the distant past, the function of a cell, etc. etc. For others "And so God created the whole shebang one week, amen" seems to be more than plenty. - 16:19:43 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>sorry about the long posts, I will not be spamming today. QUACK gives me an excuse to do this: QUACK<<>> one more::::::::What did the messengers say? Now this is really strange, the messages are so dif ferent. In Matthew the angel, or the man, the angel said, "Go quickly, tell his disciples that he has r isen from the dead. Behold he goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him." Mark generally says t he same thing, but Luke gets it backwards: "Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, s aying, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the t hird day rise again?" This whole Galilee thing got twisted around. Luke was for a Jerusalem center of Christianity, so he downplayed Galilee. [In] John, what did the angel say? "Woman, why weepest thou? " Did the women tell what happened after they left? Matthew said yes. Luke said ye s: "They returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest." But Mark said, no: "And they went quickly and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed. Nei ther said they anything to any man, for they were afraid." One of these writers got it wrong. J ohn said, yes, they did tell. When Mary returned, did she know that Jesus had been resurrected? According to M atthew, Mark and Luke, yes; but according to John, she did not know that Jesus had been resurrect ed. Did Mary first see Jesus before or after she returned to the disciples. Matthew and Mark say before, but John says after. Could Jesus be touched after the Resurrection? Matthew says yes; John says no, b ut then John changes and said yes. After the women, to which disciples did Jesus first appear? Matthew says to elev en disciples. Mark says it was to two disciples in the country, later to the eleven. Luke said it w as to two disciples in Emmaus, and later to the eleven. John said it was to ten or eleven disciples. Pa ul said it was first to Peter, and then to the twelve.Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples? If you read Matthew, it's on a mo untain in Galilee, 60-100 miles from Jerusalem. In fact, Jesus made a point of predicting this at h is Last Supper, and this was the message that the angel gave to the women, "Go to Galilee. That's where y ou'll see them." So Matthew has them go to Galilee, and there they see Jesus. But according to Mark, Jesus first appeared to two men strolling in the country, [and] as they sat at meat. According to Luk e, it was to two men at Emmaus at evening, and then later to the rest in a room in Jerusalem. In John it was just in a room at evening. - 16:25:01 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE--I actually took the time to read these lenghty posts--they sound good for a great deal of the time, however as Grant indicated they are not free from faulty logic. ( pre-suppositions etc. ) Quake, in the past I have attempted to point out to you logical errors. This has been met, from you, with nothing but denial, and even the discreditation of logic itself--which coicidentally was the very method by which you attempted to prove any points yopu made then--and you are doing now. As I have said before, if younare so confident that these arguments will prove your point--compile a paper and submit copies to (a) The International Academy of Philosophical Inquiry and (b) The American Academy of Science( or any other similar body )--and wait for their results. From even my own perspective ( a virtual layman ) I cannot see this material even being distinguishable from the stale doughnuts that will be thrown out after everyone has their morning coffee. - 17:20:42 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: perhaps the quack who we view as delusionary, or least i do, views himself as "pertinacious". While i peruse many and assorted words of people it would not be too difficult to see how one as the quack would stay relatively convinced that his position is sound. There are many sources that allow the reader to simply and easily drop into the side of religeous spiritualism. For example, Francis Bacon writes to some king expressing sound scientific views and then lets go his entire perspective presentation with tales of moses and creation. Then too, here some females who say they are educated still pray and say to the other about a god, but then say they don't accept the bible. How does one communicate with these people? How does one communicate with the quack? - 18:09:38 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Who's the idiot that released Quake from Quelph??? - 18:18:18 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Realistically, one cannot--particularly in an attempt to debate. However, since Quake apparently speaks the same written language I do-- my retorts directed at him will consists etirely of observations of an overview of his posts. He can take them with a grain of salt--I know it will not alter any of his opinions--but to address any specific points to him would be, as you said, futile. - 18:40:48 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Jami:hi im reading here today all afternoon. is usually such long articles? - 18:50:39 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAMI-- No, that's just Quake's strange way of trying to suppress his doubts. :-) - 19:05:54 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>> should I be surprised that QUACK can never answer to the inaccuracies in the book in which he puts his faith? - 19:16:43 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Jami:this is working for Quake? there is a point? i like joke about god never saying speed of light. i am exchange student, sorry little english. - 19:21:30 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM, PHILOSOPHER AND SEEKER OF WISDOM (but unfortunately, one who hasn't found it yet). According to my Webster's Collegiate dictionary 'pompous' means "Having or exhibiting self- importance." 'Ass' means "a stupid, obstinate or perverse person". You are not stupid, you are perverse from my point of view and I think you will agree that you are obstinate. From your point of view you may feel that I too am an ass, but I do lack your pomposity, ergo, uou are a pompous ass. Nothing personal, just a mere dictionsary definition. Your statement rhat "--my business is philosophy--" implies that you are superior to those ordinary people who know nothing of philosophy. That is pomposity. Enough of that Your statement that "--we converse about a being that is non-existent is to converse about nothing." I will be gladd to assist you, since you ask for my help. Your confusion is based on your assumption above. What we are actually conversing about is your DELUSION about this imaginary being which you call "god". My function is similar to that of the psychiatrist treating a patient who sees invisible purple pigs running about. Hopefully, as your atheist in residence I will be able to affect a cure for your delusion. - 20:08:57 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. So you're a graduate of the Naval Academy? What a waste of taxpayers money! It seems all you learned to do is quote from encyclopedias and your favorite book of fiction. I have yet to see an original thought. If I missed it, let me know. Now tell me - what chapter and verse in your bible tells us about the speed of light and the quantum theory? I must have missed it. I did read something about a burning bush but all it did was talk about non-scientific stuff. By the way, tou're letting some people get ahead of you on your bible. They've found secret codes and you never even mentioned them. Some bible scholar you are. - 20:27:22 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Adam HE"S NO JFK---->:OK, riddle answer. Michael Kennedy's favorite horror flick was "Nightmare on Elm Street. Grant: I don't see spelling as very important here, either as true misspelling or as typos. I will continue to make nonmalicious jokes and puns however, when I see funny ones. For example, HERE YE, HEAR YE: Marlene, who the fuck is Bobo, somekinda clown or monkey? HERE HERE. Let's HERE is for typos!! BVD, gang, The Kennedys have an afterlife lounge act (John, Bobby & Michael). I understand they're a hell of a tree-o.....Any one know the difference between Michael Kennedy's death and the Louise Woodward incident? - 21:13:13 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..it must have something to do with a "nanny" ;) n'est pas? The newest duet of Kennedy and Bono will be performing "Tree For Two" tonight, although where they are performing is being anticipated as being fairly dead. - 22:07:22 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Bobo the clown:-->merely a bumping exercise...a doctor tells a patient that he has six months to live and that the bill for his medical attention is $6,000. The patient says (in a Henny Youngman voice) "But doctor, I can't pay you in that time!" And the doctor says "Okay, so I give you another 6 months!" - 22:14:57 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette in an ad hominem mood...:-->QUAKE..you conniving, insolent, liar!!!!! You berate Peter for not using his real name, and YOU HAVEN'T EVER USED YOUR REAL NAME HERE OR ON THEO CHAT!!!! And you have never told me where I can come and hear you preach either you chicken shit! Obviously you have a lot to hide! Marlene thinks you've been in Guelph, but that hospital couldn't deal with the likes of you...you belong in Penatanguishinne! And what's more, don't go near a newspaper today, as the Hubbel telescope got some close ups of a new star being formed, and the paper just might be rife with scientific information which would probably make your little brain explode. - 22:20:52 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette making light conversation only as a way of getting Quake's jibberish off the screen...:-->ADAM..did you listen to Howard Stern this morning? Good hunting ground for Kennedy y Bono jokes! Also, did you see SP this week? Any new episodes on the horizon. - 22:27:54 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

ADAM..the last line was meant to be a question (?) as opposed to a statement (.) Lo siento for the poor grammar. - 22:30:16 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette..somebody stop me..:o):-->anybody have a chance to read the "Dumbeth News" in the new issue of _Skeptic_. Hilarious! - 22:33:28 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:Bumping exercise-- A midde-aged couple pull up in front of the house of a friend. The wind is blowing. She steps out of the car. A large tree branch breaks, sounds like a gunshot. He screeches off in the car, leaving her standing in the open. Several years have passed. She is still really pissed. Do you blame her? - 23:25:26 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:Bump bump-- Two guys hiking in the woods come accross a huge bear which gives chase. First man says "It's no use. We can't outrun him. Bears can run 40 mph. Pant, pant." Other guy says "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you." - 23:25:53 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->a man was hunting one day, and a beautiful naked woman runs up to him and declares "I'm game!", so he shot her. - 23:32:19 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PAPASAM: I thank you immensely for your response. Iam impressed with one who has the ability to make such dogmatic assertions about another person's character traits based on a few paragraphs.However, please remember that this is your opinion, and opinions differ from things of a factual nature. I'm sorry if I have that effect on you, and it certainly is not my intention to come off as a pompous ass. Perhaps you are misinterpreting my words. Claiming that my business is philosophy was not meant to be one of arrogance, but rather it was me sharing with you one of my innermost loves. Perhaps, in the midst of your psychological prowess you can help me to see if this too is yet another delusion. After all, papa, there are many deluded people running rampant and I'm touched that you are out to save them with such evangelical fervor. Incidentally, I did not interpret your desire to rid me of my delusions as pompous, because after all papa, we must be candid about our abilities, and I assume that you were just speaking what you would consider to be, a statement of fact. Whether you have this ability, however could itself be very much of a delusion. Tis would be an awful thing to have the delusion that one can assist someone else in ridding delusions. At any rate, I'm looking forward to the therapy(by the by, are you a Freudian?)and would like to make an appeal to your most inherant sesiblities: Please try not to misinterpret my remarks as pompous or arrogant , even though I know I may appear that way at times. The fact of the matter is that I am very argumentative, and if you don't like that trait in a person , then it's safe to say that in all probability you will not like me. But, please papa, do not take it personally, as my job is to dissect truth claims, not the individual holding them. I wish you a good day and am looking forward to any future dialogue that I might share with you. - 23:36:29 on 9 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- The "Bobo" to Adam was supposed to be Bono. As though Adam didn't "get it"?!?! Yup! I've read dumbeth news, what ya want to comment on?? It's a blizzarding here in Manitoba. I have to drive my daughter back to the city in a half an hour and I'm shittin! Under the snowpacked highway is a sheet of ice thanks to the freezing rain I drove in last night. Yuck! Sometimes I hate this climate! That hospital you mentioned, is it somewhere near Inuvik?? - 0:06:47 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..your attitude does not become you:ANSELM- Your mealy mouth approach is actually quite visible as well as your self-elevated opinion of your "business/job". Those well versed in philosophy can be just as delusional as someone like Quake, take John Mack for starters. You don't impress me in the least, in fact you sound like every other self-deluded theist that posts here. - 0:15:02 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--Marlene's assessment of you may sound somewhat harsh and judgemental, but I can see where she is coming from with some justification. It has been my experience that participants who announce themselves accompanied by a flourish of past accomplishments and lofty positions, are only asking to approached with distrust and suspicion. If one does in fact possess all these wonderful assets which are worthy of the reverence a declarer is searsching for, let the contents of his posts speak for themselves. Often in the midst of being on very thin ice while defending a certain position, I often hear some suddenly blurt all the degrees they have earned. As much as these accomplishments are a sign of certain quality traits--bringing them to the attention of others, as you should certainly know, does nothing to advance their arguments. On the internet, most are aware that one can also be whoever they want to be, which renders such claims of scholastic achievement, will be met almost immediately with mocking disbelief. I am sure you now have gained the tools which you can determine if someone knows what they are talking about--or if they do not--regardless of their past accomplisments, whatever they may be. - 1:06:39 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Marni...:OUCH - 1:13:16 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. Let's get back to basics. Before we resume our discussions let's clear the the air. I would like to clarify what we are debating, so please tell me in plain English what you believe. I will then be able to show you what I consider the errors of your beliefs. You are the religionist and you are making a statement. I am the disbeliever. Present your case. - 1:40:21 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUACK. Rather than posting your vacuous comments on our site and wasting our time, you should type your remarks on a roll of toilet paper. You could then put them to good use. - 1:44:16 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ooohhh Adam...still waiting for the answer to the Kennedy/Woodward riddle.... - 2:07:39 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Adam NANNY, NANNY, NO!--->:THEIR THEIR, MARLENE---> I got it. I was poking fun achoo. Sonny jokes will be rolled out when I deplete the Kennedy material, which, as you know, is largely pulp fiction. JOKETTE AL., The difference between Michael Kennedy's death and the Louise Woodward incident was that when M.K. died, the baby sitter was shaken. No, I missed Parque last week, but it'll be rerun over the weekend. I understand that there are only 11 original episodes (I can name 7, how bowchoo?), to be rolled out slowly this Winter, and then all reruns until next fall. You know, M. Kennedy is portrayed as a vapid playboy with no substantive accomplishments, but I think that in his waning moments, he made one hell of an impression. Does anyone know how to tell whether Michael was a TRUE Kennedy? - 2:39:17 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- Need a bandaid, yuck!? - 8:17:10 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- So, like, I'm waiting for the Bono-ers...I knows you won't like this one, but I don't like Kennedys. Corny says they all suck big time! - 8:21:27 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE and PETER- I hear your into a freeze now. Were you affected by the storm? It took me two hours to make an hour drive home tonight. It's slippery, snowing and the visibility was about zero. Do just we Canuks experience this weather or does anyone else here have something similiar, (and we don't want to hear how nice it is in Texas!). - 8:25:58 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I was harsh to Abdul or whatever he calls himself? Realistic but I don't think "harsh"?? Actually, that was the soft side of me. - 8:29:47 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..yup, it's January again...:( - 14:51:41 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..here's something I read in the paper yesterday that is going to get your socks in a knot: "The Manitoba government is contributing more than $2.6 million a year to create and operate a new Mennonite university in Winnipeg. The provincial support is a hefty increase from the current level of approx. $250,000, but Manitoba Education Minister Linda McIntosh said she isn't throwing open the doors to private univerisites." Now, do you think the fact that Art DeFehr is chairman of the Mennonite College Federation has anything to do with this generosity towards the school? I think something is pretty rotten here. What do you think? - 18:01:31 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:MARLENE:I appreciate you candor., but one thing you must be cognizant of is that you could be just as deluded as those you claim to have delusions. Throwing psychological terms around relally does not argue for anything, but rather shows your abilty to share subjective feelings and empty opinions rather than showing objective truths. Feelings do not determine truth, Marlene, and if your opinions are to be anything other than emotional utterances, I would implore you to stray from your subjectivism. Like many others in this room(Peter excluded, since he gave a rational objective reason for his opinion), you are sharing bits of autobiographical information which can be entertaining, but unfortunately is lacking in philosophical cogency. PETER: Thank you for your response. I view Marlene's opinion not so much as "harsh", but rather I think it was an existential leap. I'm trying to understand these huge leaps to the conclusion that I am somehow elevating myself based on the fact that I shared a personal interest in philosophy. I have not said ANYTHING about past accomplishments or scholastic achievements. - 18:10:29 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ANSELM-- Is all this leading up to something? Are you going to venture any actual opinions or conclusions regarding religion, superstition, gods, etc., or are you only trying to criticize the thinking process for individual atheists? It's relatively easy to find fault in other's thinking, but not quite so easy to reveal your own? I would be interested in a brief statement of your beliefs if it's not one of those "pearls before swine" things. - 18:23:27 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PAPASAM: My position is that of a theist. I would define God as an intelligent being, creator of and distinct from the universe. That is my claim and will defend it, but I'm suspicious that perhaps you think you are not making a claim. Implicit in your remark seems to be the assumption that you are without a case to defend. Well, the philosophical world does not work that way. ANY claim to knowledge is a claim in need of defense and atheism is just as much a claim to know something as theism is. You are making the claim that the theist is deluded, and thus, you too will need to not only present a NEGATIVE case against theism, but a POSITIVE case for atheism as well. In closing, please do not be offended if it takes a while for me to get back to you, as I do not always have the opportunity to visit this site as much as I would like. Good day. - 18:26:03 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:GRANT: Yes,indeed we should be critical in examining our own opinions, and I hope that you too are a proponent of what you present in this sense. I do not visit many chat rooms(other than philosophy chat), because alot of what I see appears to me as being something akin to a bad Ricky Lake show. I'm soory if I appear to you as a little slow in presenting my positions, but I like to examine the atmosphere before getting into the thick of things...and I am a bit shy, as well. But chances are, I will warm up to everyone eventually and we will then proceed to have the most grandest of times.(oops, perhaps I should not have mentioned Philosophy chat. I would hate to make anyone think that I'm trying to present myself as having attained a "lofty position" :)...) - 18:39:24 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:GRANT: also Grant, is it a crime for someone to talk about anything other than God? Isnt it ironic that the theists and the atheists have that in common? - 18:42:57 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ANSLEM- Well, Anslem...what is objective in a belief in your god. It sound fairly subjective to me. Further, are the feelings your experiencing to have to subject yourself to your illusion. JOETTE- Answer on that one coming up. I have a couple of hours of painting to do then I'm out to shovel snow but I'll check in during breaks. GRANT- See, didn't I tell you, a mealy mouthed, self-elevated, delusional xtian! - 18:43:45 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ANSELM-- From where I sit we are actually talking about two different things. You are talking about God, but I am talking about insecurity and delusion. Don't get me wrong. I welcome you here. I don't believe that atheists are the only ones who can think clearly, and in fact many can't. Objectively, how can I know that I think clearly. That said, I'm hoping that you are here to discuss ideas rather than individual people. In my view you are beginning from a disadvantage since you are a member of that group of which many see the unpalatabilty of non-belief as direct evidence of God.l - 19:11:25 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ANSLEM- Obviously the second sentence in my post didn't get my point across...the feelings you are experiencing, mainly fear, causes you to delude yourself. I've been on this board for some time. Most xtians can not admit to themselves that they are merely animal. It's this lofty delusional attitude that also contributes to a belief in a supernatural creator. Humans think they are special, above all other animals. I say we're not. Being a theist is saying one is above everything but god, who infact, is a man made creator god. Man created god in his image. It's a win, win situation for man as far as theology goes but it's a dangerous and self-defeating delusion. - 19:11:40 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--Before you continue, your implied definition of an atheist is something I would like to bring to your attention. An atheist, as many assume, is not by definition one who outrightly denies the existence of God. Althought hat is a form of atheism; atheism, in its broadest sense simply means someone who does not BELIEVE in the existence of a god. Therefore, being an atheist infers no particular positive beliefs--but rather a lack of one. To demand an atheist to disprove the existence of a god, is asking him therefore to prove a negative. It would be like me calling anyone who does NOT believe in a "gnorf-worf" a "Agnorf-worf". The only way a agnorf-worf could defend his position on NOT believing in a gnorf-worf, is if the person who DOES believe in a gnorf-worf is unable to defend the existence of a gnorf-worf. No information;knowledge can follow the non-existence of anything. The same applies to a theist attempting to defend the existence of HIS claim--which is God.......However, if you are prepared to defend the existence of God, you haven't even reached this stage yet. Before you attempt to prove the existence of god ( or anything else ) First you must present an intelligible description of god. Until you do so "god" will make no more sense than a gnorf-worf; both are cognitively empty, and any attempt to prove god exists is logically absurd. Nothing would qualify as evidence for god's existence unless we have some idea of what we are looking for. This is not an optional to be undertaken at your convenience. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility--and must be done so to the NON-BELIEVER'S satisfaction--not your own--in other words you may even have to spend maybe weeks answering questions here--so be prepared . Assuming that you do not believe theism is nonsense, you have the responsibility of explaining the content of your belief. Failing to do so, to say that "god exists" is to communicate nothing at all; it is as if nothing has been said. - 19:15:41 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- You should write books on atheism. Your able to put thoughts into words quite well! - 19:38:13 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ALL: Howdy Heathens! Trust you all had a good one. Bear with me whilst I catch up on the news (BTW, I have a PC now, so no more withdrawal symptoms pour moi). Anyone care to pluck out the festive saliencies for me, or has it all been turkey talk while I've been gone? Must go unpack... see you all later. - 21:56:41 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:PETER: "Althought hat is a form of atheism" -This isn't a reference to the ubiquitous "Cat in The Hat" is it? ANSELM: Forgive me if I've missed anything- I've been on hols and only just returned to my "lofty" instituion (I'm on the second floor). Just a quickie: What information (if any in particular) lead you to your view on God? - 22:17:09 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ROB--Hey, you're a pretty sharp cookiet, here Rob, andt hat is thet ruth. Good to see you came back--just like the "Cat in the Hat" did! - 23:11:08 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:PETER: Malheureusement, I never read the aforementioned text. Still, there's plenty of ime after tea... ANSELMeanother: And I'm hoping that there won't be any subjective existential leaps in your reasoning, as I am sure Marlene will be keen to learn from you. - 23:40:38 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Yo! Rob! I'm glad your back too. Did ya get the PC for mythmas? - 23:42:04 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Was I leaping to conclusions with An-salem? I don't think so! It's always the "Same old, same old" approach theists take. Haven't you noticed by now? Did ya get your mum a Mother T handbag for mythmas? - 23:46:43 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE: Yes I did get the PC (no thanks to Santa though). With regards to Anselm, what did you post to him? I'll have to go back and see... FYI, Mother Rob did not get a Mother T handbag, she got wine (which was promptly turned to water) and a medical encyclopedia (I'm on every other page). - 23:52:41 on 10 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene :ROB- Well! I'm disappointed in you! A genuine Mother T handbag was on every womans gift list! As to what I posted to Anselm, I "guessed" (it's just so hard) that he was an xtian and that his job/philosophy/specialty didn't prove that his belief in "god the creator" wasn't a delusion. Not only that, his holier than thou attitude stunk. So I'm the bad cop on the page, I'm good at it! - 0:55:49 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE: I sympathise. You can spend hours in debate with one theist, then have to go over the same old ground when talking to another (as they don't share the same view as the first theist). That, coupled with frequently aloof tones is why so many atheists/whatevers lose their rag and choose to vent their emotions (which I'm sure we've all done now and then). But we're only animals, so I guess we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves ;) - 1:05:52 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. I make no claims to knowledge. I am an empty shell. I know nothing. You have to teach me. You have defined 'God' as "an intelligent being, creator of and distinct from the universe." Now tell me about "God". Is it male or female? Who were his/her parents? Where did he/she come from? What does he/she look like? Also, since you stated "God" was intelligent, what is his/her IQ and what test was given to determine it? What material did he/she use to create the billions of galaxies? I would appreciate honest and open answers. As for myself, I promise to answer any questions you may ask of me pertaining to my thoughts on the origin of the universe, life, or evolution. I will not lie or attempt to equivocate. I await your reply. - 1:28:01 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:Rob: I hear more emotional utterances in this room than anywhere else.GRANT: No, I dont think atheism is a theistic proof. Its just that I cant hide my intrigue at a philosophical position that denies the coherency of God talk while simultaneously talking about God. I see Ayn Rand's objectivistic atheism as being much more consistent with itself. She wonders, as do I , why an atheist would waste so much time talking about belief in God.It is really very hilarious when you consider the irony.PAPASAM: I think male/female are terms used in this finite realm, but neither apply to God in an anthropomorphic way.I think one could apply male/female characteristics to this deity as a cause will in some way resemble the effect...God did not have parentsn nor did God come from anywhere since God is infinite and there is no before infinity...I have not seen God, so I cannot tell you what God looks like. I might add in passing that to say God "looks like something" is to apply anthropomorphosize again...what material did he use? The material of which the universe consists.Thank you for your openness, papasam. - 4:47:08 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: When one explores the etymological origins of the word "atheism" they find that it consists of two words conjoined: 'A', being equal to "without", and "theos", being equal to "God". The word literally means "without God". Where does the word "belief" enter into the etymological framework? "ism", so far as I know is not a greek word, so it seems that atheists have arbitrarily added "belief" into the framework, so that they are free of making a universal negation. However, taking this view of the word does not free you from giving a reason for your lack of belief in a deity. You stated that "being an atheist infers no particular positive beliefs". This statement collapses all over itself, for it is obviously a particular positive belief from an atheist that atheism infers no particular positive beliefs. Moreover, lack of belief in something implies the belief that the lack of belief is justified and is thus a belief in need of justification. Peter, is atheism true or false? Should I accept it as valid and if so, why? To not answer is to make a claim without substance, and that is not argumentation, it is dogmatism. This has nothing to do with proving a universal negation. Also, concerning the gnorf-worf scenario: You see, Peter, atheism,theism and pantheism come with philosophical implications for our morality, meaning, origin and destiny, and thus all 3 have philosophical significance. Believing in a gnorf-worf, however, does not include any of these implications and thus is devoid of philosophical significance and always has been. Perhaps you can share some views of the gnorf-worfian belief somewhere in the history of philosophy. Lastly, why dont you give me definition of "intelligible description". We can move from there and in the process find out if the definition you give is itself intelligible in the sense that you use it. - 5:17:37 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:MARLENE: Opinions, opinions, opinions, opinions,opinions,ad infinitum... - 5:18:44 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

QuietSun:Peter: Your statement that; "An atheist, as many assume, is not by definition one who outrightly denies the existence of God", is simply false, since historically an atheist has been one to say "there is no god." The definition you use is simply a debating tactic which you "think" gives you the advantage when debating a theist. The same is true of your claim not to know a valid description of "God". Also the theist has no more obligation to explain the "content of his/her belief", then does the atheist. - 10:12:40 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM: Eh? Was that a response to my question or just an emotional statement? And no-one is forcing you to stay here if you no likey. Also, I should point out that both your's and Quietsun's etymological endeavours are not the way forward. There are varying types of atheists, but they usually all use the same title as there is not the diversity of vocabulary in use to distinguish their particular view. In this sense then, I might suggest that you find out what it is that the person you are talking to means by their use of the word atheism. I'm sure Wittgenstein would turn in his grave were he to hear of this ;) And besides, "without god" is a very open term, and I don't for one minute believe you are suggesting that the only valid interpretation of this definition is that an atheist claims that god does not exist. For me, atheism means that I do not believe in a god type deity thing (excuse my use of the vernacular here), in the absence of convincing evidence for one (or two, or three...). So I ask again, what is this convincing evidence that you speak of? - 12:13:21 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM: BTW, I forgot to mention, in the meanime I am "without god". N'est-ce pas? - 12:16:18 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Atheist...:If a theist contends that there is life after death, he must show evidence and prove the assertion he his making. If however an atheist contends that nothing exists after death he is not required to support his contention. Why is this? Both are positions that make an attempt to make statements of fact which require evidence. While it can be argued that theists have not provided proof that life does exist after death, it can be further argued that atheist have not proven there is nothing after death. Which is, as you know, your contention as well as your responsibility to prove. Heart monitors, brain activity and the like tell us quite a bit about the physiological nature of life but do not prove that nothingness exist after death. Would one of you who believes nothing without proof explain to me why you believe nothing exist after death? - 14:17:05 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:James: I believe there to be nothing after death as I have yet to see convincing evidence for life after death. Just like I don't believe in gnorf-worfs -I am not saying I have ruled out the possibility of their existence completely, but life is full of decisions which are ultimately gambles, and in this case my money is on them not existing. In effect that is what I mean when I say "I believe" in something- I mean it is where I am putting my money. There is, then, no need for you to drag in this "proving a negative" line of talk with what I have said here. - 14:41:00 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..same old same old:JAMES, ANSELM, and QUIET SUN (?)---Evidence, evidence, evidence, ad infinitum. BTW, I rarely discuss your god as I also think this non-exsistent enity of your imagination is not worth the time to discuss. I'm much more interested in keeping delusional people from intruding in my life by trying to introduce laws based on that sheep-herding piece of fiction called the bible. I am also very interested what makes believers tick. Believers make a fantastic claim when they state "god exsists". That fantastic claim needs to be backed by evidence for it to have any validity. Of course, all believers have is "faith" LOL. My brand of atheism is that I do not accept the supernatural but I will accept a claim if concrete tangible evidence is presented to support it. - 14:43:57 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Goldfinger:Good to see UK Atheists taking off, though our American cousins have set a great precedent. May I suggest that references to specific religious beliefs (Like Christianity) are kept for specific examples rather than when discussing the inanity of religious belief itself. Good on you Marlene - very refreshing! - 15:01:40 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

wilson--jaywilson, whose word is his Bond-o:Goldfinger--are you the Auric-le of infiDel-phi? - 15:15:32 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ANSELM-- Since we're all being so open and all, I think that your personal philosphy (lest you think I speak of all philosophy) is based on a preconception and is therefor suspect. If you don't feel that this is true then I hope you will share with me the objective evidence, physical or otherwise, that led to the conclusion that there is a supernatural being (or non-supernatural being) You have revealed precious little of your beliefs. Sure, I can be patient, but your arrogance about atheists talking about theism, especially on an atheist board, which is one of the few places where an atheist can vent about heavy-handed and often stupid behavior of theists, is somewhat irritating. Are atheists unworthy of expressing emotion? Is this somehow different than theists expressing distaste for atheists? I would have hoped that you would be aware of the pervasiveness of theism and superstition in society, and the contempt and constant ignorant confrontation of atheists by superstitious self-righteous people such as yourself. Does it surprise you when people don't respond graciously to condescension? Did you expect an atheist board to exist for swapping recipes or something? For expressing awe of you remarkable theists who are able to reach out into the void and bring back the real truth, version 39,667,454? If you have some non-xtian or especially some new and improved god beliefs I would be interested in hearing about that as well. After all God must evolve too, or have we only not correctly comprehended him in his unchanging state until you came along? I have to admit, religion is tempting to me. I'd like to be able to make shit up as I go that fits my present conclusions. Why are you posting here? I talk about theism with theists to learn what I can, of course, but mainly to try to get them to comprehend atheism. Not that I wish to convert them or anything, I'd just would like to have them understand it well enough to repeat it back to me. Sadly they always think they already understand but don't. Your goal is? - 15:21:02 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- And just where have you been?! - 15:23:35 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:-ANSELM--Good response. You are attempting to place the burden of proof on both the atheist and the theist, and this has been a recent tactic I have seen being used by theists who know they will hit that obstacle, and they know it is there, so by some playing with words they attempt to circumvent that obstacle. Well anselm, I'm not buying it and here is why: The theist is the one making the positive proposition. The atheist makes no such proposition. You took issue with the statement "being an atheist infers no particular positive beliefs"? I don't see what the problem is here. There is limitless ways to arrive at atheism. Some do so by adhereing to any one particular philosophy, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Marx, Rand etc.---some have their own philosophy or a combination of others, some just don't LIKE church, some are atheists just because thier wife ran off with the preacher etc. They being an atheist is simply an APPLICATION of some other wider set of beliefs--hence to say "He is an Atheist" cannot possibly infer any POSITIVE beliefs at all---only a NEGATIVE one--NOT believing in GOd. So in the end , the burden of proof lies with you, any further debate on this matter cannot possibly continue if this is not recognized. - 15:34:29 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:GRANT: Dealing with the weather; we in northern VT got one heck of an ice storm, as no doubt you've seen on the news. However, looking at past posts, I'm glad I wasn't here; I don't have the patience or presence of mind--as shown so well by you, Peter, and Marlene-- to deal with mealymouthed jailhouse lawyers like Anselm. Good show. - 15:48:22 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM..your response to Papasam about where god came from, what he/she looks like leaves me puzzled. You are an intelligent, articulate person, so why is it that you are willing to believe in something that, by your very own words, has no physical properties, seems to have appeared out of nowhere, and cannot be explained intellectually? If you read your post again, does it not remind you of a mentally ill person who sees people who really aren't there? - 15:56:04 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- You go guy!!! I'm putting down flooring so I can't stay for long. - 16:09:15 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:---ANSELM---To continue with my last post, and to address some of your concerns. You were reading far too much into the gnorf-worf analogy. The particular traits of God/gnorf-worf here are irrelevant to the analogy ( which always break down at some point, and I admit guilt here for not specifically indicating the limitations.) I was attempting to demonstrate where the burden of proof would lie. The same analogy could be applied to Santa Claus, UFO sightings, ghost sightings, LOch Ness monster. With all of these the burden of proof still lies with the one making the positive claim. It is not possible to make a positive claim for NOT believing that God exists. In any declaration of not believing in God, there always appears a word implying negativity. Conversely, any proposition declaring the belief in God will never contain any word implying negativeity. Anselm, if you are now unwilling to accept these minimal parameters for further debate--that is your prerogative. However, if you do not, these arguments, analogies I have used so far, are just the tip of the ice-berg of any the entire body that I am prepared to use if necessary. Nonetheless, as I had mentioned, you aren't even at this point yet. Getting ahead of ourselves settles nothing....Intelligible description? Well, the word "intelligible" is somewhat vague admittedly, but I am sure it does point you in the right direction. Lets say a non-contradictory identification of certain attributes your postulation exhibits. What I want to establish here is an initial description from you--and then demanding you not fluctuate from it in any way, whether by ad hoc assumptions, or applealing to our initial "misunderstanding" or any such tactic. In other words, tell me what it is--and then show me it exists - 16:23:32 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:OOPS! I forgot, welcome GOLDFINGER! This is no longer an "across the pond" based discussion. Ron from Texas now hosts it and three of us are from Canada. - 16:44:26 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--QuietSam--One could go on forever debating definitions. As Anselm pointed out A-means without and "theo" is equivelent to "God". However, if one takes the word "Theism" which is defined in "belief in agod or gods"--which it means today, "Atheism" means "WITHOUT belief in a god or gods". This nowhere implies "denial" of belief, as you stated, but "without". It does not address any "possibility" of the existence of a god, as many will concede to varying degrees, calling themselves "agnostics". But the dividing line that is now recognized ( if this means anything ) is either one believes--or he does not. If he believes, he is a theist--if he does NOT--he is an atheist. Agnosticism, which is not a philosophical, but rather a "social" position, usually taken by those who do not want to be called an "atheist" and be associated with all its traditional negative implications applies to those, on both "sides" who change their minds frequently, either day by day, second by second, but at no one given ime can one believe that there is--or there isn't..... As for the "description". Of course the theist is responsible for making the intelligible description here. If I said to you I had an invisible blue fairy living on my shoulder. You in all liklihood would not believe me. The reason you do not believe is because, you do not detect it with any of your senses--so why sholu you believe it is there. I would then have to explain certain traits as to why it is invisible, why I KNOW it is there etc. Now at this juncture, how raional would it be for me to demand YOU describe this fairy, and then subsequently prove to ME it does not exist? However, this is what you and Anselm are demanding. You aren't qualified to set special parameters and conditions of debate which would apply in any other area of inquiry ,that apply to something, you have yet been able to identify, let alone show to exist at all. I would feel it responsible for me to inform you that you are skating on some very very thin ice over a deep pond of circularity--and as long as you insist in remaining in this area, the ice does not thicken. - 16:52:51 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

QuietSun:Peter: Please see my web page where I discuss this topic (definition of atheism) in detail...(http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5412/2aa1.html). If we can't come to a basic agreement about the definition of the word "theist" and "atheist" we will never get to any "deeper" issues. My main contention with the way you want to define "atheist" is your desire to shift the burden of proof solely to the theist (something earlier atheist NEVER did), and then, as you have already admitted, you (the atheist) decides what constitutes "proof". When you "rig" the debate in this way you have not *won*, for the debate cannot even begin. If you insist on using your definition, then my standard practice is to ask the atheist, "Does God exist?". If you say "no", then you need to offer a basis for your position. - 17:27:34 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAYWILSON: ThankQ for your Pearceful insights. Will you be staying long, or do you have some es-Pi-onage to attend to? Which reminds me, JAMES: You Only Live Twice??? Goldfinger: Allo my friend- I sink you vill find I am zee only (Sub)Limey here (On Her Majesty's Service). Where are you from? - 17:32:10 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:ROB: Though Brosnan is a pro, I much prefer Con-nery; Pierce only feeds his IRA with this most recent 'Sean' Fein-t. - 17:54:57 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:QuietSun: I only got to take a quick squizz at your page, but one thing seems to shout out at me. You seem to miss the point that words are merely devices used to convey ideas, but it is the ideas themselves that are important, not the words. Otherwise things become highly unmanageable when we start confusing "common meanings", "dictionary definitions" and "what is actually meant". I think you'd agree it is the latter that is important, and that is what I tried to make explicit in my last post to you. Furthermore, Peter is not "rigging" anthing. What we believe in is governed by what we find convincing. Either you have evidence that is capable of convincing me of god's existence, or we conclude that you have less strict criteria for what constitutes "convincing". If so then we could go on to examine our criteria, but first might we see if what you have to say is convincing? - 18:00:08 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAYWILSON: Sure Sean was a hit with the ladies, and he did get to Roger Moore ;) Trust a J-ock-to-pussy-foot around whilst his country's in danger. But I think we should keep acting and politics separate, RUCing my point? - 18:10:26 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson:ROB: You forget US politics of the 80s, when we had Star Wars and Rea-guns. But mine is a filmsy excuse, and I should screen my comments further, lest they be deemed Representative. Still, acting and politics make for such camera-derie. - 18:25:36 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: I still maintain that you are engaging in linguistic revision, and even though I find it arbitrary and completely eroneous, I can allow you your little bubble of protection from those who challenge the validity of your position. However, you did not answer my questions. Should one be an atheist? If so, why? I assume that all of you think your position to be valid otherwise you wouldnt here. So then, if you maintain the validity of of your philosophical position, you must give reasons for your position. Historic atheists have never maintained this position of not having anything to debate. All of your false anologies such as proving the existence of a gnorf- gorf are not germain, becaause as I explained, it and other items of make believe such as santa clause, have not yielded any significance within the philosophical world. Theism, atheism and pantheism are worldviews that produce various presuppositions about life> Atheism genarelly brings naturalism as its pervading presupposition. Peter, should I be a naturalist? Should I believe that natural processes produced all of the specified complexity around me? Was the universe caused, uncaused, or self caused? Like it or not, Peter, you have to answer question such as these if your position as an atheist is to be anything other than an empty leap of faith. - 18:59:30 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:GRANT: I am posting here because I would like to hear some good reasons to be an atheist. Do you have any? - 19:04:40 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Rob...:What is living? - 19:16:39 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Anselm...:You'll probably hear that it's good therapy - 19:25:59 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Atheist...:Question: What happens to a human beings collective intelligence, creativity and emotional energies when you die? - 19:28:50 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAMES: ..A prerequisite to posting here (alledgedly ;) ANSELM: Whilst on the subject of not answering questions... But I suppose I should add that IMHO, no-one "should" be an atheist. "Should" implies some objective purpose, unless you are referring to "Should, if you want such and such to happen". But I am a curious human (perhaps in both senses), and as such I like to compare and contrast my views with others', which is most productive when you attempt to defend your view (and ammend it if it doesn't stand up to your standards of rigour). Also, with regards to the universe questions to Peter, science is currently working on answering these and more. But just because a completed theory is not yet available, it is no reason to decide to believe in god. FYI, though, I do believe that natural processes produced the surrounding complexity, and I would hedge my bets that the universe was uncaused. Now what was this evidence... - 19:38:50 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAMES: Oh I dunno. Give us a clue... do they cease to be? - 19:41:52 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

ANSELM:--ANSELM--Burst my liitle bubble? Apparently this little bubble seems to bother you, and I really cannot see why. If you are so confident in being able to defend the existence of something you have yet to identify ( I'm still waiting ) do it. I don't have to tell you HOW, or by what means I will demolish every one of these arguments, systematically--any more than a consortium of scientists would have to if you decided to submit a paper defending your claim. You don't demand to them to DISPROVE you are wrong--until you FIRST give them something to digest and pick apart. Anselm. the position you are in now, like it or not, is precisely THIS: I believe "A" is true. Now until you give us an idea what "A" is, and start demonstrating its validity, there will be no debate. Quiet Sun mentioned that historically, the atheist has never had the burden of proof. Well, too bad. Regardless of your denying my analogies to demonstrate that this isn't necessarily the case is not going to work here. The theist always has, and will always assume the burden of proof, simply because HE is postulating the existence of something--and the atheist is not. Whatever any particular atheist has used as arguments in the past in such debates, is of no relevance to you here. You have not yet earned that distinction. As soon as you begin to GIVE AN INTELLIGIBLE DESCRIPTION of what you are trying to show to exist, is the only way this discussion can commence, and this would apply to any forum of rational discussion or debate. I cannot comment on anything at this point, because I really am not qualified to assume trait associated with your postulation, until you make it. Now Anselm, and QUIET SUN--is this beginning to sink in? If not I am guilty of not expressing myself adequately, but it would seem that all but you seem to know what I am trying demonstrate here. I could say "nice try"--but it is not even that. I am sure you know as well as I do, that as soon as you do, your argument is sunk dead in the water like a cement boot. But if you think otherwise, let us start hearing this non-contradictory identification ( which you very well know is impossible ) --but I'm listening. ...Oh, almost forgot. Why should one be an atheist? Because he sees no reason to be a theist. Atheism is just an corollary, an application of reason. I'm glad you asked those last questions in that last post Anselm, as I can now demonstrate a re-inforcement of my argument: What does this entity you postulate ( God ) have to do with any worldview. What qualified you to make this jump? As much as I appear to be playing dumb here, you are not qualified to make any assumptions about what I may or may not know about something you have yet to tell me what it is--any more than I can assume what you may know/not know.... NOW..are you getting it? You are at square one--starting from scratch. Now, unless you want to avoid me filing you under "not rational --further discussion is futile case"--start scratching, because if you take another step in the direction you have been going so far--I I can promise , you will be. - 19:43:43 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Rob...:Allegedly, maybe, but not necessarily. I could set my computer up with very little effort to post here yearly, weekly, daily, hourly, etc. Unless of course you consider a computer to be a life. - 19:47:36 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ANSELM-- You just can't get it. Atheism is what remains after you reject unverifiable assumptions. (IMHO of course) - 19:49:07 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Rob...:I don't know either. That is why I come to the place that has all the people who have all the answers. I know what my answer would be and I think I know what yours should be. But, like many things, I quess I just won't know your answers until I hear them. - 19:50:51 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Grant...:NO, atheism is a lack of belief in a supernatural deity responsible for creation and life. What your describing is science. Atheist and scientist are entirely different. It's an atheist claim to a monopoly on scientific objectivity that really pushes my buttons. - 19:55:45 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: The issue of burden of proof is always determined by the format of the debate. If the resolution is in the form of a positive or negative statement, then the burden of proof falls on the one making the positive assertion. I still maintain that you indirectly make a positive claim in not having a belief in God, but if you refuse to aquiesce, fine the resolution is in the form of a question: Does God exist? In a formal debate where the resolution is in the form of a question, the burden of proof lies on both sides. So, I ask you once again...does God exist, and if you answer in the negative, then please present some alternative hypothesis. My thesis is that I believe the existence of God can be inferred when one examines the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" If you deny God as a useful explanation for this question, then how would you answer the question? ROB: Based on your approach then it really shouldnt matter how I define God since, as you state, " I'ts not the word that is important, it is the idea." Are you willing to carry this out consistently?nselm - 19:59:56 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Anselm--Sorry to again give the illusion of you talking to yourself. That post is from me, addressed to you. - 20:00:40 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:GRANT: Is it not condescending to label one's belief system as "delusion"? Not that I see that as a useful explanation as anyone can toss psychological terms around. This proves nothing.I am a sceptic toward atheism and I am dependent upon all of you to assist me out of my doubt. Can you help me? By the by, what is the evidence for first life? Is it intelligible? - 20:03:46 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:JOETTE: Would it be your contention then that the only thing worth believing in should have physical properties? - 20:05:40 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Hello, ANSELM....goodbye, Anselm....into the file you go. - 20:06:40 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:GRANT: Is the statement, "atheism is what remains after rejecting unverifiable assumptions" itself a verifiable assumption? - 20:08:46 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:I have given what I think to be an intelligible description of god on many counts. I contend that god is everything. Would you deny that everything exists? - 20:10:32 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: Thus, I should have FAITH that these ultimate questions will be answered by science? - 20:11:04 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAMES: That might explain why so many of my questions remain unanswered! But my money again is on them disappearing. Et Qu'est-ce que Vous Pensez? ANSELM: For a start, I didn't insist that you define your definition of god, but anyway, my point was that I am not trying to bind you to any etymological definition of god, but that I would rather you state in your own words what your "idea" of god is, and defend that. Now (again), what about this wonderful evidence? - 20:12:14 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: I am dissapointed as I had tought you to be one of a polemic nature. You have made it clear how much your atheism means to you. Or perhaps you are just not up to date on the rules of formal debate? - 20:16:52 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:Anselm: Nice try, but no, you needn't have faith. They may be unanswerable, but this is irrelevant to my not believing in god in the absence of convincing evidence for him/her/it. James: I like that definition. Can I define god as chocolate brownies. Yippeee! At last I believe god exists! - 20:17:30 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--JAMES--If God is all that exists, why give existence another name? Kind of superflous I think, and actually reducing God to a triviality. OK James, if you want to call all that exists "God", I can also call all that exists as " Gooby-dadda"... Hey, any one else wanna call it something? This is fun, thank you James!!! - 20:18:35 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:Point of objection, no-one here tought Peter to be polemic. He's been like that since we've known him ;) - 20:19:12 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: I'll use this approach to evidence since it seems to be such a popular methodology in this room: I am a theist because I cannot not believe in God, thus theism has won by default. Will you accept this as evidence? - 20:21:53 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:JAMES: Nice assessment. I do feel this to be quite therapeutical. - 20:23:32 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:Anselm: If that's you're evidence, then fine (but it's getting awfully close to what one might term a delusion). But no, you have not "won" (a distasteful term), and I am still left unconvinced. Was that all you came here to say? - 20:25:40 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:Anselm: BTW, I don't recall anyone here saying they cannot believe in god (which is what your statement implied). - 20:27:53 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: I like your little non-sensical terms. Is gooby-dada in any way analogous with what we see around us(creativity, passions, feelings, joy? can you explain any of these in purely material terminology?)? well, chaps, I must depart for now. I have not really moved any closer to atheism I am afraid. Maybe next time. Cheerio. - 20:28:58 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--Reasonable thought, and its applications such as rational behavior is something that means something with me, and if you are disappointed in my actions--so be it. I outlined the guidelines which are necessary for rational debate, and you chose not to comply by them. Unless the concept of "rational behavior" is revised, I cannot see how the rules of formal debate can "change" when it deals with who assumes the burden of proof. I have yet to encounter any forum ( including all the judicial systems of the western world )--other than coincidentally those attempting to defend theism--where a negative must be proven, nor hopefully shall I ever have to encounter it anywhere. - 20:29:11 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Anselm...:Being labeled delusional by an atheist is an immediate and involuntary reaction common to the atheist point of view. Since my first visit to this page a couple of years ago I have watched every theist who has ever posted here be labeled delusional or simply living in a fantasy. I of course have had my own experiences with them. I just keep coming back for more though. :-) . What's funny is that they make these generalizations and implied insults without any real concept of how that rates in terms of what impact it has on the receiver. So when you get defensive, despite the fact that you shouldn't, they start blaming your for making ad hommium attacks. They don't even realize that that's how they started the conversation. "So why do you believe in pink unicorns?" etc. etc.. Then of course they all pile on in their own little ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining. I find it annoying, but mostly amusing especially considering the point of view most of them claim to have. Despite Peter's claim to variety, the reality is that they all have many common traits. Makes sense this is an atheist chat page..hehehe. Anyway, your post to Joette gave me an opportunity to say something I've said many times before but never seems to sink in. - 20:29:19 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: P.S. that was sarcasm in the last statement I gave to you. - 20:30:33 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:Some call it nature as well. - 20:32:29 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Ok, one more thing, then I REALLY have to go. Peter, 1st you create a definition of atheism and now you create the rules of formal debate? Tremendous power you have. What are you going to arbitrarily create, next time? I'll stay tuned. Good-bye all. - 20:34:03 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Rob...:No, chocolate brownies is already taken. - 20:35:54 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:Many cultures have different names for what they call god. - 20:37:35 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAMES: If that's a reference to me, then you are missing the point by a mile. I never "involountarily" labelled Anselm a delusional. I merely pointed out that his evidence really was as he suggested it could be, then it would share many similarities with a case of someone who is suffering from delusions. No "ad hommium" attacks, but maybe a little self-pity on your part. - 20:38:22 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:JAMES: Another nice assessment. I'll see you again. - 20:40:27 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. I had a little glitch with my equipment so I was unable to get back to you sooner. Now, you state that your "God" is infinite, that god did not come from anywhere. You also say that you have never seen your god. If you did not discover your god by any physical sense how did you come to know of his existance? By what manner of reasoning did you come to that conclusion? I await your reply so that we can carry on this discussion in a friendly manner, without the vituperation which is so common among our cohorts on both sides. - 20:40:46 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM: Yes, but you were trying to use it to discredit my opinion, so I nipped it in the bud. JAMES: So is everything. - 20:41:03 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAMES: So if "everything" is the same as "nature", and god is "everything", do you contend that god is supernatural? - 20:43:33 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: I think you misunderstood my statement. You are correct. Itwould be wrong for me to use that argument. That is precisely why I find it intriguing when atheists say(some atheists) that they are atheists due to the fact that there is no evidence for theism. It is atheism by default, and I find that to be a cop-out. That is what I meant. A good day to you. - 20:44:40 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM: There seems to be a discrepancy between what you said, and what you think you said. What you said was in effect "Is cannot not believing in god existence evidence for his existence?", to which with both agree "no". But this does not say anything about the atheist position, as the atheist does not argue that he has evidence that god does not exist, which is "that he cannot believe that god does exist". A subtle distinction, I know, but an important one. And might I add that the atheist (well, at least this one) does not claim to have any evidence, but rather a lack of it. Fine, you can say that he doesn't have evidence as to god's inexistence, but I am afraid that just not the way we think (might I refer to Peter's example of the legal system). We don't as this approach would put us in an impossible position. "I am not going to get out of bed today, as I have no evidence that the strain of getting up will not induce a heart attack in me". Is this the way we think? No, as we would say "there is insufficient evidence to suggest that getting up would give me a heart attack". - 20:59:29 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PAPASAM: I'm sorry you came as I'm departing. I'll be back tomorrow. If you or anyone else would like to contact me vai E-mail, please do: s012jks@discover.wright.edu - 21:01:48 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Peter...:Actually Peter, before I was a high school drop out, I spent 4 years while in school learning and participating in formal debate. I competed in local, regional, state and national events in Lincoln Douglas, classic and cross examination debate. Credentials aside, or lack thereof (take your pick), in those debates we had a resolution put in the form of a question. For example, "Should the Federal Government institute general safety guidelines on consumer goods to guarantee safety." Keep in mind this was high school about 1982. Anyway, the affirmative team presented its case which typically meant picking a consumer good, showing it was harmful and had impact and presenting a plan to fix the problems indicating your plans many advantages. I had a pretty good case that year involving DNA research. Key elements of the debate had to be won in order to assure victory; Topicality, significance, the three levels of inherency, and a plan that works. This was true regardless of which side of the issue you were taking for a particular round. Obviously, the negative team was at a disadvantage as, except for the resolution, you could never be sure what you were going to debate next and your plan has to work too. Three days of competition consisting of 8, 2.5 hr debates was mentally exhausting. Back to the point. Burden of proof was an element of every debate. As the negative team, we continually contended it was the affirmative teams responsibility BUT, had we not offered a negative case built to disprove the affirmative contentions on a line for line basis. We would have lost every round. - 21:03:43 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Rob...:What is supernatural? - 21:10:59 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

James--->atheist...:Here is how I would answer James' question. I don't know what happens to all these things and until I experience it for myself, I never will. This is also how I think an atheist would have to answer the question as well. How wrong am I? - 21:14:08 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: I am not asking anyone to disprove God's existence. I am attempting to get them to answer their truth claims, i.e. that it is more reasonable to not believe in God. Atheism is just as much a claim to know something as is atheism. Am I wrong to assume that you assume the philosophical validity of your position as an atheist? I assume that you think your position is the correct one. If it is, I want to join you. Can you tell me why I should espouse atheism rather than theism? When some one asks you if you believe in God and you respond by saying "no", and the person asks you ,"why not?", do you respond by saying , "well, you see, since atheism makes no positive affirmation, I do not have to tell you why." You will not convince many people with that approach. Philosophy demands an explanation to truth claims,Rob, you are probably aware, and if your claim is that atheism is true , then an explanation should be forthcoming. I'm leaving for real this time as I am tired of feeling these hunger pangs. Til next time, I wish you well. - 21:16:39 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ROB__ I did mention to Anselm that "no knowledge can follow from the non-existence of antyhing'--along with a few other examples on how he must, a the theist, assume the burden of proof--all to no avail apparently. Perhaps your last post will be successful in doing that. Well done. - 21:17:07 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

ROB:ROB--Well, I guess it didn't. Anselm seems to show some writing ability, but the usual selective reading, comprehension and integration of other posttraits are beginning to shine through. - 21:27:44 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Man, I'm doing that a lot lately....My apologies, Rob-Rob - 21:30:53 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAMES: Remember high school debating is structured so as to be both entertaining and fun. Supernatural, well I would guess "external to nature" might be a good place to start. I only brought it up as most of the theists I have encountered (including Anselm I think?) claim their god to be supernatural (you'll have to ask them what they mean though by supernatural). ANSELM: You seem to be making a couple of assumptions, such as i)You appear to think that I am out to convince you should be an atheist. Well I am not. It is my point of view, and I come here (amongst other reasons) to "try it out" as it were. If I appear keen to justify my view others, it is down to anthropological reasons rather than than my philosophical outlook. ii)I do not "claim atheism is true" -to do so would only be to claim that "I do not believe in god in the absence...etc" which we are not disputing. But I will shy away from pedanticism, and say that neither am I claiming that to do so (i.e, not believe in god in the absence...) is what one should do. I'm saying it is what I do do in reality, and if you want to change that (as most theists do, as it is part of what they believe), then this is how you need to do it. And I feel I should point out that philosophy is not the be-all and end-all. It lies within the realm of human conciousness, and not vice versa. PETER: Well I can see what it is you are trying to express, but I guess it all depends on where you decide to start from. BTW, ANSELM: If I think my atheism is philosophically valid, why would you want to join me, as I thought you had convincing evidence of god's existence? And it is a non-sequitur to then start bringing in the "convincing others" question. - 21:54:23 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob ("There's only one..."):PETER: Maybe Anselm *was* a visionary that dies years ago but set up his computer beforehand. My only question is who's paying his electric bill? - 21:58:12 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob ("There's only one..."):PETER: Maybe Anselm *was* a visionary that dies years ago but set up his computer beforehand. My only question is who's paying his electric bill? - 21:58:16 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:Aw gees, now you've got me at it too! - 21:59:01 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. I would like to ask you the same question I asked of Anselm. He didn't have the time to answer me. How did you become aware of God's existence? Was it something you were taught as a child or did you discover it on your own? Thank you. - 23:43:41 on 11 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:This is the first time that I've been on this discussion page. I am a Bible believing Christian. I was just wondering what would be the purpose of an atheist demanding positive proof for the existence of God if that assertion doesn't matter either way? If there is no God than why all the wasted effort on the atheist's part to discredit a belief that would obviously have no effect or affect on those who hold it? After all, if there is no substance behind believing in God then why all the books and periodicals from organizations that do virtually nothing else but justify their unbelief? Is there such a great need for someone tell the world about something they don't believe? There doesn't seem to be any positive evidence for many beliefs and actions that stem from an atheistic point of view. It seems that the greatest 'so-called' justification for a naturalistic or secular view is based on the negative assumption that their is no God. Where is the positive evidence for such a belief? Living life based upon a negative assumption is far from reasonable. The Christian lives his life based upon the belief that God exists and created the universe and has the right to govern His creation in any fashion He wishes. God created man for a purpose and has made His will known. The burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion. Then why is it that many atheists give no proof for their assertions. A Christian has not been given the impossible task of offering evidence that must meet the approval of an atheist. The atheist certainly doesn't meet with the approval of God, and God won't be the one who changes for him. The proof for believing something is one thing. The justification for not believing in something can't be because, 'someone can not give proof to the contrary which satisfies me'. It would be intersting to hear a debate 200 years from now concerning whether Bill Clinton really existed, not to mention the actions he performed as president. If anyone wishes to respond you may write: David Race c/o Prove All Things P.O.Box 431 Dayton, Oh 45401-0431 24 hr recorded message (937)264-3150 I don't have internet access on a regular basis, but will try to interact when I can. Thank You. - 0:44:47 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--PROVE--There has been this recent onslaught of "thestic pholosophical judo" in an attempt to avoid that stumbling block that they know the atheists are constantly. and rightfully so, throwing in their face--and your post shows you are just another one of these on the same band wagon. Actually, it reminds me very much of the "scientific judo" creationists use when attempting to discredit evolution. Well alright, I'll tell you what I am going to do here. I will go along with your little game here and demonstrate the utter irrationality of the assertions that you, Anselm and QuietSun have made. First just answer one question here. Is God composed of any matter, or is God completely spiritual, without dimension or substance? In other words would he be equivalent to that of "soft-ware" in a computer? Even though I don't have to--it won't take me long to DISPROVE his existence, as all you are so insistent that I do. - 2:34:38 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->PROVE..if you don't like the fact that there are certain among us who don't believe that your god exists, why are you even taking up space on this page? As far as so many books, periodicals etc., do you also believe everything you read in The National Enquirer? - 2:42:15 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->PROVE..so you live your life for god? Why not trying to live it for yourself? - 2:43:57 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- You are whining! - 3:24:42 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:PROVE. As a bible believing Christian, do you nelieve everything in the bible is true or only parts of it? Did God make Adam out of dust? Did he make Eve by breaking off a piece of Adam's rib? Did the snake carry on a conversation with them? Did a burning bush really talk? Also, is God all powerful and all knowing? Is he a kind and loving god? I would appreciate answers to these questions so that I can learn about your religion. Thank you. - 3:34:23 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- You asked me about the college the mennonites are being funded on. The rc's already have the St. Boniface College but it's hidden behind francophone camouflage. The liberals are dead in Manitoba but the Conservatives (now in power), the Reform and NDP are still around. The Consevatives had the votes all wrapped up here for years until Preston and his Reform came on the scene. Most farmers vote consevative, always have, many ethic groups vote NDP. Since the Reform has come in the Consevatives have lost much of the votes of the mennonites and hutterites. Much of southern, western, Maniotba and the Interlake are of both these religions. IMO, the government is funding this college to try to hang onto their votes. Reform is gaining strength in these herd societies. - 3:34:57 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PROVE- Your god changes to suit the times, don't give me that shit that your god is constant. - 3:42:40 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..the atheist's court:Since I'm the "bad cop" here, I sat back during everyone's good cop "debate" with Asselm. The interrogation concludes that Asselm is charged with aggravated faith and failure to present evidence of his god. Court will begin Monday with the honorable Judge Carl, presiding. - 3:54:03 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL BELIEVERS. I will email a copy of "An Atheist's Prayer" to those requesting it. It's a 'must read' for you. To prevent any charges of religious discrimination I will also email a copy to non-believers. Address is: PapaSam@webtv.net No rush. The supply is unlimited. - 3:57:20 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Wow, there's still the same amount of hogwash there was when I last left this place. It's good to be back! All thanks to Ron for taking over this page! Good job. Where to start, where to start? Maybe I'll wait a bit longer... - 5:23:54 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: There is a statement that you made that has stuck with me and I would like to examine it. You stated that, "no knowledge can follow from the non-existence of anything." As I reconstruct your argument, it seems to say "I cannot know anything about something that doesnt exist." In syllogistic form: 1.noone can know about nothing 2.God is nothing 3. thus, God cannot be known. Nothing is nothing, not something, and IF God is nothing, then nothing about him can be known, except the knowledge of his non-existence.However, I maintain that God IS something and thus, I can have knowledge of him. Your assuming the truth of your minor premise, mainly that "God is nothing". But, you see, that is the issue under debate. I could formulate my own argument to say: 1. One CAN know about SOMETHING. 2.God is something 3. Thus, God can be known. Aaah, but it looks as though I too have assumed my minor premise. It seems that the minor premises in both arguments take us back to the question at hand: "does God exist?" I'm sorry that you have equated my wanting justification for your atheism with disproving God. They are not the same thing. Asking one to present answers for their worldview is not tantamount to placing the burden of proof on them. ANY philosophical system will bring with it certain pressupositions that need to be defended. I will defend mine, and would have done so already had you not piqued my curiosity with your interesting approaches toward giving answers for one's views. It would seem as though you think that your presuppositions are the ultimate standard by which all other systems must be judged, and thus you need not defend anything, even though you've spent 2 days defending why you need not defend anything. You see, defending is inevitable, and even you will defend your tyrannical stance on the format of the debate. But, you see, we cannot just conveniently decide what we want to defend. We will move on soon enough, but try to be patient. first things first, my good man. Philosophy is not just about atheism vs. theism, you know. Investigation must be undertaken in matters concerning epistemology and other issues leading to the issue at hand. I'm sorry if it takes a bit of time, but the philosophical world does not operate by your every whim. Remember what Voltaire said about tyrrany? Oh, and yes, peter, God is a spirit. ROB: I was glad to hear you say that, "noone should become an atheist." I agree, wholeheartedly. One last thing: PETER, How do you explain the origin of the universe? P.S. I'm sorry this is so lengthy. I'll try not to do that in the future. - 5:29:17 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: Is the statement,"philosophy is not the be-all and end-all", a philosophical statement? - 5:39:22 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Other than the length, I think Anselm raised some positive points. I'm interested in hearing the responses. - 5:43:20 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm :PAPASAM: I became aware of God's existence as I investigated the causal conditions of the world around me and saw it as an amalgamation of contingent entities, none of which have an explanation of their existence in themselves. "Perhaps, the contingent causality extends infinitely into the past", said I. Then, I thought, "no, for that would entail traversing an actually infinite number of events to reach this present moment, and that seems as unlikely as an infinite chain of contingent effects actualizing themselves", and so I concluded that there must Be a first cause which is pure actuality and which actualizes all potentialities. That was my first experiece of God. Then came the experience of God, which I really do not use an argument since it is a totally subjective experience, but nevertheless undeniably real to the one experiencing it. EVERYONE: If it takes me a while to get back to you, please do not take it the wrong way. I am falling behind on my homework, and none of you would want me to get bad grades, would you? - 5:53:00 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Actually, Peter, a better for the arguments might be, 1. nonexistent things are things that can't be known 2.God is a nonexistent thing 3. thus, God is a thing that can't be known. And then to change it: 1.EXISTENT things are things that CAN be known. 2. God is an existent thing. 3. thus, God is a thing that can be known. Again, minor premises in both arguments are assumptions. After examining more closely, I wanted to add that. - 6:33:26 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. I'm afraid that I couldn't follow your argument. It didn't make sense to me, but then, it doesn't have to. So where did your first cause, or god, as you call it, come from, and why only one? With the univrse consisting of billions of galaxies it would be just as logical to postulate a god for each galaxy and perhaps one for each life form. Man would have one god, apes another, and so forth. Don't you agree? Or was it the subjective contact with your god - perhaps an epiphany of some sort - which caused you to rule out a pantheon or plurality of gods? I look forward to your reply. - 7:13:18 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. I'm still waiting to hear from you on how you came to realize there was a god. PROVE I would like to hear from you as well. - 7:18:05 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:PapaSam, I'm sure that Anselm will make adequate reply, but I feel like offering my own answser to the question of why only one first cause, and not multiple. Anselm stated his case fairly well- the cause cannot regress infinitely- try jumping out of a bottom-less pit! What would you push off of? But what he didn't quite lay out was that the first cause would have to be outside the system... - 7:34:29 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Whether you believe in God or in Atheism, there is a common premise that at one point the universe was at rest. From the theistic perspective, that's because it wasn't yet created(conceptualized), from the atheistic perspective it's because the Big Bang had not happened. So, assuming the universe was at rest, we can deduce from the laws of physics that an object at rest remains at rest, and cannot set itself in motion. NO, an object at rest depends on something outside of itself to set it in motion. Therefore, whatever set the universe in motion had to be outside the universe. But that doesn't explain why only one mover... - 7:40:05 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:But that one is put to rest by a simple slice with Occam's Razor. For one thing, the concept is already laid to rest in referring to infinite movement without initial cause- it can't happen. So who moved the first mover? Well, isn't that an absurd question. Why not say, "This statement is false" ? It is an equally absurd question. There are only two options- either there has been an infinite regression of causalities, or not. If you agree not, then you have to have it end somewhere. Occam's razor would seem to be best applied by saying that the regression stops with the creator of this universe. So what is the 'world' like that God experiences? We don't have that information, nor any hope for access to that information, since it is outside of the system, so be wary when speculating. - 7:48:10 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM: Your brevity speaks volumes. First let me pick you up on your little piece of linguistic trickery- I did not say that people should not become atheists, as I think you tried to imply I did. I said that I did not have a reason why they should. Secondly that statement was a philosophical statement. Both in the sense that its subject matter was philosophy, and in the sense that philosophy -as it stands as an academic branch- does not deal with the entire spectrum of human experience. That is not to say that there is anything that is not fair game for philosophical study. Now enough of these smoke screens- how about some evidence? PROVE: It would appear that you weren't listening to the previous conversation- ask someone to show you how to look at past posts. TONY: I could get picky with the physics here: First, "An object at rest....". Which law of physics is this? Perhaps you are getting confused with Newton's first law? (otherwise why do particles decay?) Next, I think the answer to your question (but this is still an area of physics that is quite young) may lie with quantum uncertainty. Quantum fluctuations occur throughout our universe, causing little particle-antiparticle pairs to pop in and out of existence in the blinking of an eye. Now our universe may have been a similar fluctuation in some higher dimensional medium (which may have been there forever, like your god), which then grew by a process known as inflation. This might turn out to be the wrong theory, but I think it shows that the matter is not as cut-and-dry as you seem to think it to be. ALL: I gotta go revise too, but I shall pop back at regular interval throughout the week- hopefully there will be a little less procrastination by the time I return. - 10:07:41 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:TONY-- I am forced to view everything from my vantage point, as are you. I have yet to be able to explain to a theist what my vantage point is in a form to which the theist is able to say "I understand what you are saying, but I disagree because..." I'm not sure why this is. I'm beginning to think that the attempt is futile. I do not believe in anything supernatural. The only argument for the supernatural that I can see is "I can't see how it could be otherwise." For me this, in this context or any other, is not sufficient or reliable evidence of the existence of a thing. For this reason, in the case of your first cause argument, for example, I would say that assuming that there must be a first cause, the assumption that this first cause must be outside of the natural is suspect. (natural as opposed to supernatural) In my view it is more reasonable to keep the first cause question in the "unknown" file for now, because to settle the question with a supernatural being closes the door to further inspection. This is why I can say in good conscience that atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods rather than a positive position that must be defended. The requirement necessary to convince me of the existance of a god would be to pruduce some direct (rather than induced) evidence of it's existance or to show me the error of my thinking. Since I am not asking you to modify your beliefs I don't assume any burden of proof. It would be impossible for me to prove the nonexistence of a thing with no physical properties anyway. How does one set out to prove that a thing with no physical properties is not there? Isn't it more reasonable to require a person who claims that something with no physical properties is present to produce some evidence? - 10:19:34 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:That should be "inferred" rather than "Induced" - 11:38:54 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..speaking of hogwash (your word), I just took a look at your homepage. Your opening statements do little to enhance your argument. Instead having some support for theism, you come right out slamming atheists, as though you are some sort of expert on the subject. You say there is only one god, so how do you explain why billions of people believe in a different god from yours? Are you a modern day Moses? Has your god spoken to you personally, and given you this information? Or, are you one of those that follows blindly, because you read the bible? - 12:14:36 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--Ok, fine have it your way. I have no explanation other than the "Big Bang" Theory to explain the origin of the universe. If God is purely spirit could one then assume he is simply pure consciousness, like a "cosmic intelligence"? - 12:44:39 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:TONY- Well for your god's sake, if you aren't back for some more. Are you still committing the ultimate horror of leading young sheep to slaughter? Oh, the Borgishness of it all! - 14:52:45 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- If this is the same Tony that has been here in the past, yes, he thinks he's a modern day Moses. He's a religion teacher. He has subjected his poor little sheep to the discussion to show them how evil we are and to further their indoctornation into realm of delusion. Bad enough people spread the empty word of god but to teach it to children is the ultimate crime. - 14:57:21 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: the "TONY" is that the same who was in charge of youthful minds? Checked his site and it began like any other seeking to validate a theistic position. His like any other such, would do well if they would keep in mind they relate only their words and ideas and also, a good line to toe up to, "There is no authority except facts." While that was said before xtanity, it is still a valid point to keep in view when dealing with other humans. His site reminds me of some medieval philosophic position. The light? is it physical, intellectual, spiritual? - 17:27:46 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:Prove. My objection to your religious beliefs lies not in your beliefs per se, but in the fact that you are trying to force them upon others. If you want to pray, do so in your church and at home. Don't try to bring your prayers to schools or to public assemblies. I don't ask or expect you to support my my atheist clubhouse with with your tax dollars. Yet your tax exempt status is causing me to contribute to your beliefs. Is that fair? Why should my tax money go to support government paid chaplains? - 19:09:51 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY,ANSELM,PROVE et al. You are continually avoiding the burden of proof of the existence of your god by asking us to prove its non-existence.Very well. Here is a positive statement. The term 'kind and loving all powerful god' is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Let me know if you want proof, either from your bible or today's newspaper. (ALL - here comes the 'free will' excuse) - 19:20:07 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. I have always been an admirer of Occam's razor, but I'd hate having to get a shave from you. Your hand (argument) is a little shaky. - 19:23:26 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:PROVE. I dislike quoting authorities to back up my opinions, but to avoid any charges of plagiarism I am forced to do so, since it mirrors my views.The following is by H.L. Mencken. "The effort to reconcile science and religion is almost always made, not by theologians, but by scientists unable to shake off altogether the piety absorbed with their mother's milk." - 19:33:31 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Adam Don't Know Much About Fizzics--->:Tony of Torque, is it not true that when you discuss inertia and the laws of physics, you actually are applying the laws of the universe to a pre-universal scenario---in itself, a paradoxical thing to do. I would love to hear your basis for assuming that such physical laws would aplly under such circumstances. From what I have heard (and, I admit, I am a language & law maven, and no great shakes on the hard sciences), scientists are not in agreement as to what happens to physical laws in the context of the extreme conditions of a black hole; that the early universe may indeed have resembled a black hole; and thus, it would be a stretch to assume that known laws would apply under such conditions. - 19:54:36 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Adam ALTHOUGH I DO LIKE COMET-Y...:Leftover from Friday....To determine whether Michael was a TRUE Kennedy, just check the family tree.Now, what do Micheal Kennedy and his cousin's magazine, George, have in common? - 19:56:59 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: I've read the views of a few educated people to expand my own understanding of the god thing. One of the more recent was by Keyser, "The New Infinite and the Old Theology" and while it provided a few different points, when I finished it I could not but see it as an act of conciliation to that idea of god. No god but, I guess he was tryin'to keep the peace. I am of the opinion that such real thinkers yield to acts of conciliation out of exasperation related to the range depth of the humans preferred ignorance. - 19:58:06 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:Ay Carramba,,, man I miss two frigging days, and miss all the fun!!!!! - 20:06:54 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:STEVEN-- Sorry you missed the parade, but I think they are getting their costumes on and will be marching past again. - 20:50:09 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--" When rejecting counter-evidence, the creationist restores his belief, and the evolutionist forfeits his integrity. - 21:13:02 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:...and this could also apply to theists and atheists respectfully. On a level playing field? Nahh, don't think so. - 21:16:17 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: The god types approach any communicative exchange from a position that begs the question. Most likely these creatures got that processed into them from their dear ol'moms and dads. The TONY pseudonym is a clear example of one already knowing the answer,e.g., with his "conceptualisation" instead of considering that perhaps that word could also mean "choice" so what if it is just some chemical or electrical thing at some very small remidial like level. He may just as well say at the start of his presentation "No" to that natural prospect instead presuming, [pretending?] to ask hard questions. Hell, he already had an answer, what kind of dialoque did he or these other god types really think they wanted, except to bend our will to theirs. If there was a god[s] what would our will matter for who of humans, would really know what this\these god[s] want? These good ol'boys just mean to control things for their particular favor, otherwise they'd opt for atheism, which is to pursue to choose of and for all things. - 23:17:12 on 12 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- Did they at one time not believe in God? Was their search begun with the advantage of answers already in hand? Maybe efficiency is the goal? "I can reach a conclusion before you can." - 0:00:03 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Adam HE SAID "WOOD" (Uh, huh huh, uhhh-huh)<<<<>>>>:The common ingredient in Michael Kennedy and his cousin's magazine, George, is WOOD PULP....M. Kennedy's beauty tip in Cosmo magazine: Skiing can be very flattering for the complexion.....M. Kennedy was still horny at the time of death, as evidenced by his most gigantic woody.....What type of holiday event did M. Kennedy last attend? - 0:08:48 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:KEEPERS OF THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. I am waiting for one of God's Children to refute my statement that the term "all knowing and kind and loving god" is an oxymoron. What's taking so long? You've been prattling your psycho-babble and your attempts to rationalize your illogical conclusions for some time. You continually exhort atheists to attempt to prove the non-existence of your 'god' creation. I, as an atheist have made a statement about your alleged god. Demand that I prove it. Don't forget your 'free will' defense. - 0:34:40 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson--who will neither pine nor balsam over his loss:ADAM: A bark mitzvah? - 1:10:03 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ADAM-- Decorating the tree? - 1:15:35 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson of the Birch John Society:ADAM: Leaving his presence [sic, sic, sic] under the tree? - 1:23:57 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

jaywilson--Bono-parting is such (fill in blank):ADAM: Filing an environmental impact statement? - 1:30:41 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: If you posit the big bang as your hypothesis, would you then maintain that the universe had a beginning? Wold I describe God as pure consciousness or cosmic intelligence? I suppose they are acceptable descriptions, although I would more than likely desribe God as pure form or actuality. He is that upon which all contingent beings are dependent. When I explore the intricasies of the universe and am cognizant of the delicate nexus of causal conditions that brought the universe into being, I find it difficult to accept that it all just "popped" into existence devoid of intelligence, especially since in our experience intelligence precedes complex information. Moreover, we are able to apply the rules of mathematics in order to figure out the inner workings of our complex universe. How reasonable is it to think that we can use these intricate rules of mathematics and science in order to discover the complex ordering of a universe that was brought about through purely natural processes and by sheer chance? 1. All complex information is preceded by intelligence. 2. The universe is composed of complex information. 3. Thus, the universe was preceded by intelligence. Which premise will you challenge? PAPASAM: Why do you maintain that an all loving, kind and knowing God is an oxymoron? Is it your contention that God has acted wrongly in the past, and if so, are you establishing a moral law? - 1:50:24 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--So at one time God existed, by himself, as pure consciousness, with nothing around him--and this consciousness ( God) was all that existed? - 2:02:12 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: are you going to "pop" in as the result of a quantum fluctuation? Do you always argue so quickly from the micro to the macro level, especially, since scientists are stumbling all over themselves with regard to quantum indeterminacy? It sounds as if you are ready to delve into the answers to questions of an ultimate nature ,using what is currently a very speculative area of physics. Futhermore, you are playing around with the word,"nothing". Nothing is nothing, Rob, so why do you talk about nothing as if it were something, when in reality, something is not nothing,but rather it is something, and from something(quantum particles), something can come, but from nothing, nothing comes. - 2:03:22 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM---And as an addendum question--Does God have any unlimited attributes? Is he omnipotent? - 2:05:55 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: That is affirmative. I must depart. I'll talk to you tomorrow, hopefully, depending on the amount of assignments I will have to attend to. Just imagine...When summer arrives, we shall be able to do this for hours upon end. - 2:11:00 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: I believe in a three-omni deity. - 2:17:15 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--Could God make an object too large for him to move? - 2:42:29 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. If you could prevent it, would you stand by and watch a little girl be raped, sodomized and nurdered? Your 'all knowing and kind and loving god' does. Happens every day. In Algieria Moslem guerillas sweep down on villages butchering the inhabitants inluding the children. Would you prevent it if you could? I like to think so. But your all powerful god who could prevent these things from happening does not. Therefore your god is hardly kind and loving. So my statement holds true. I have only given you two instances. One would have been enough to prove my point. If you want more, just say so. Next time I'll go to your favorite book for examples. I think I have proven that the term " An all knowing, all powerful AND a kind and loving god" is an oxymoron. - 3:18:01 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. The universe is a story in a Science Fiction magazine. We know a minute part of all there is to know in the field of science. The theists have created the fiction. The primitive people had their gods of the volcanoe, the spirits of their ancestors, or of the forests or animals. Later peoples thought up families of gods such as the Greeks, Romans and Norse. The Egyptians had their own versions, some half human and half beast. Then some efficiency expert downsized them into one god. After a while some sharp operators decided there was money to be made and decided to get into the act so they developed a priesthood. And that's how religion began. But any way you look at it, it's still Science Fiction. - 3:41:07 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Wow, I missed a bit, too, and it was only one day. One problem seems to exist here: Ya'all think the god types grew up fed on this stuff (per Carl) and that we use this to gain control (also per Carl) and he'd be dead wrong in my case at least for sure. But it's always safer and easier to reject an argument based on your own idea of where the other person is coming from. I believe that's the integrity that Peter was mentioning. - 3:42:56 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:But I'd like to answer the charge: There was a day when my mind was open, but I weighed the facts and arguments on both sides and came up with theism. Christianity specifically. It is not like I WANTED to be a theist, I HAD to be because reason demanded it. One key reason was the prime mover, or the first mover if you like. You can't get around it- it's not my fault. There are two options: 1. The universe was once at rest. 2. the universe has never been at rest. It just so happens that scientists can't be sure which, but most of them hedge their bets and go with the Big Bang (option 1). Yes, option 1 plays right into the theist's hand, because the obvious question is what set the chain reaction in motion? It had to be something outside of the system, something which I've heard atheists admit, even, although they went the way of "The Celestine Prophecy" in order to speculate about what set it in motion. So, you can choose option 1, with it's logical problems for the atheist, or option 2, which no fool in the universe accepts- not the philosophist, or the scientist. Again, it's not my fault that logic demands only two options in this particular case. If you don't like it, deal with it, but don't STICK me in your preconcieved notion of what a theist is and expect that to somehow reject logic. Thanks. - 3:52:59 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:And on to PapaSam. Your statement regarding a loving God as oxymoroncish is lovely. Frankly, by even saying such a thing you add to the argument that there IS a God. Why? As an atheist, you are not allowed to make moral statements. Now, I'm not saying your immoral people- of course not, you certainly are. But there's no reason you should be! If atheism were true, you ought say that there is no such thing as good or bad, etc., etc. If you wish to raise the issue you'll have to go about it a whole lot differently with thinking theists (you may get away with that poppycock with nonthinking theists, of course. You're right in agreeing that there are a great many of those!) As soon as you make a moral statement, I'm going to demand the standard you are appealing to. I'm going to ask where you got your standard. I'm going to ask why your standard is right. - 4:11:42 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony: I don't care that you say God is unloving. I want to know by what standard do you declare him unloving (the Christian's own standard? Well that won't do, because our answer is that God is Just and Merciful, and begets free will for a reason, and, if there is a God, who are you to judge the Judge? I don't mean that derogatorily. The fact would remain, assuming there is a God, that he happens to know more than you, therefore you would not have the right information to make a right judgment.) - 4:12:28 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:I apologize for leaving many of the above questions unanswered, for I had to increase the show before I saw them. If you'll permit me to take up some more space to answer them now, I'd apprecieate it. - 4:33:01 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Yes I am that Tony you speak of. I am not presently teaching, my new wife got a job and I followed. As to your resounding review of my web page, there weren't any slams intended, but other than that- referring to some of the philosophical questions immediately raised- it was an INTRODUCTION. It therefore doesn't say everything. Presently, the body of the work doesn't say much, but that will change with time. On to more important stuff: - 4:37:13 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:I think, Grant, and whom it ever it was that referred to the possiblity of quantum fluctation for the beginning of the universe... in this room three years ago my first mover argument was thrown out of court based on the existence of quantum mechanics- which I had known all about but was unaware of it's implications (supposedly) for the big bang. I think that the atheist demonstrates his integrity if and when they put this in the file of the unknown. God knows many don't. I think, though, that I can tie this in with PapaSam's question about whether I came to the conclusion there is a God young or old. I was brought up in the church, but it wasn't until college that I became more than a lambkin. I threw out my faith completely and rebuilt it as objectively as I knew how, considering all options. The first mover argument convinced me that there was a God. - 4:46:48 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:TONY of the Borg...it's obvious your delusional but don't we also come across as kind of manic tonight? - 4:49:31 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Tony--Science can back-track the universe to a singularity, and before that--they will usually leave that question to the philosophers. The prime mover or "first cause" argument ( A branch of the Cosmological Arguments )was first outlined by Aquinas in 1275--but was refuted fully by Hume in 1776. I find it remarkable that it is still being used today, and it is by far the most commonly one used today by theologians and laymen alike--despite its glaring fallacies and ambiguities. The main thrust of this argument asserts the impossibility of an infinite regress. Without a first cause, there could be no second cause; and no second, a third ad infinitum. We would then reach the absurd conclusion that nothing presently exists. But since things DO exist, we must reject an infinite regress and conclude that a first cause exists, a cause which is called "god". This causal argument rests on two main assumptions:that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation, and that we cannot provide an adequate explanation within the context of the universe itself. Therefore we must posit a TRANSCENDENT first cause, a being that transcends natural cause-effect relationships. Since the universe is not causally self-sufficient, we need to reach beyond the universe to account for the basic of the universe; a fact that it exists. If an atheist denies the existence of a supernatural being, how can he then explain the existence of the universe? Surely it cannot just "happen" to exist; there must be a causal explanation. Well we got problems here. Major problems. Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume this first cause exists--which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach. This objection alone demolishes the temporal version of the causal argument, but it is not only objection that can be raised in this context. For example, this argument cannot establish that the first cause was ( or is ) alive, nor can it establish the first cause was ( or is ) conscious. An inanimate, unconscious god is of little use. Also, if we were to accept this argument, the most that it can possibly demonstrate is that something has existed which is itself uncaused. The theist may object to this last point, claiming that not only must there be a first cause, but this first cause CANNOT BE PART OF THE NATURAL UNIVERSE. The universe does not explain the reason for its own existence, but a supernatural first cause does provide us with an explanation. This transcendent first cause, therefore, explains the previously unexplained. Assuming the universe requires a causal explanation, does this provide a causal explanation in any meaningful sense? No it does not. To posit god as the cause of the universe still leaves two questions unanswered: WHAT caused the universe, and HOW did it cause the universe? To say that a god is responsible for the existence of the universe is vacuous without knowledge of god's nature and the method used in creating existence. If god is to serve as a causal explanation, we must have knowledge of god's attributes by virtue of which he has the capacity to create matter from non-existence, and knowledge of the causal process involved in creation, by virtue of which god is designated as a cause. To posit the supernatural ( a self-contradictory concept to begin with ) explains nothing--it merely asserts the futility of rational explanation....This post is becoming too lenghty, and the arguments I have so far raised are just the beginning of the flaws of the "first cause" argument, and they are by no means the strongest arguments against it--but they are more than adequate. However, those arguments should not be necessary at this point. - 4:52:25 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:TONY- and you left those poor lamkins to fend for themselves? Now you have them in "herd mentality" , do you not feel responsible for what happens to them. What if they fall into the hands of the rc's or worse yet, THE MORMONS! How can you live with yourself? - 4:54:37 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON--A barkmitzvah, that's good! - 4:55:56 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:(Last Post) The supposed singularity the pre-big bang world was (defying classical physics) was, in my determination, a cop-out (you may inquire why, if you wish). What the first mover did for me was establish there was a God. It did not establish me God's nature as loving. In fact, I don't think the first mover does anything except allow you to get past some of the moral dilemas of theism. In other words, it may be easy to look at the world and say, "How can a good God allow this?" but with the first mover in place as a foundation, I couldn't use my disgust to dismiss that idea outright. Rather than appeal for theism based on emotion, the first mover is a case based on logic- which I perferred. I'm going to stop and await comment. - 4:58:29 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Since I've been over all this with Tony before, I shall say, goodnight atheists! Oops, forgot, PAPASAM. I really liked your post on science. - 4:58:56 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..vinyl or genuine elephant hide??:Hummm..the "first mover"? I would have thought that Lucy would have been, but then again, she hadn't invented the suitcase yet, did she? Yes, yes, I'm leaving now. - 5:04:18 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Oh, there is response. Peter, I think you did a good job of laying out the first mover argument. As for Hume, it could be that I think he's wrong. That's possible, right- you think I'm wrong! Anyway, you also pointed out something I concede- the first mover can say nothing about God's character. And I don't make conclusions about his character from it. - 5:07:41 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--The singularity point isn't a cop-out at all. It's a rational observation. Science has no further evidence beyond this point--they aren't qualified to go further. This is where philosophy takes over. Did you read all of my last post? Must I return to my arsenal to keep thumping this into the ground? I certainly hope that you don't use a quick "faith" exit in order for you to restore your belief, but it looks like you may have to--and THAT is a cop-out - 5:11:40 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Peter, as for the WHAT and the HOW, I think there is a danger of using the fact that the first mover does not answer these questions to refute what it does answer. Simply, whatever set the universe in motion was outside the universe. That is, of course, by definition, supernatural, but one can use that word in a technical sense without fearing the connotations. I think the HOW question has been answered by the field of Quantum Mechanics. The paradox of that cat has produced tremendous amounts of crap. There is a better answer then the far-flung junk they espouse (many universes, etc.) Occam's razor can make light work of that, too. Goodnight! - 5:20:50 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Peter, on this one I see no reason to resort to a faith answer. I would agree that more often enough, a faith answer is a cop-out. You will have to thump for a long time to get one outta me, and most certainly not in this topic. I fully agree with your rational observation- I don't contest it. I am thankful that you concede that science is helpful only to a point- I did read that. You question the benefit of the argument if all it can do is establish that there was a supernatural force. Since most atheists don't even allow for it from the outset, a logical argument that establishes only that can be helpful, and is probably the reason it is still popular. - 5:29:02 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Last sentence should read: Since most atheists don't even allow for it from the outset, a logical argument that establishes that a supernatural force (used here by definition only) is likely can be very helpful, and is probably the reason it is still popular - 5:36:39 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Anyone know how I can get in touch with Ron? - 6:01:57 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE,JOETTE,ALL<<>> My wife and I are going to have a baby!!!!!!! - 13:41:58 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..what happy news!!!!!!!!! When will the blessed event occur? - 13:47:56 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->TONY..several posts back you asked someone what moral standard they would use, being an atheist. Many theists assume that there was no morality before the 10 Commandments were allegedly carved in stone. Are you one of those that believes that? - 13:51:09 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>We just confirmed it today. We are thinking around September. Kerry will be going to the physician this morning to get the exact date (right!). I haven't been this happy in some time. - 13:56:09 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Oh but Tony, you ain't outta the woods yet. The last refutations were based solely on the assumption that the premises of the first cause argument being true,( which they are not ) and that the concept of the supernatural is valid ( which it is not ). Also, since ANSELM also appears to think the first-cause argument is his "ace-in-the-hole", you also should take note, as well as considering the previous arguments I made concerning this matter......The first-cause argument is flawed at its roots. Theists seem to think it is a legitmate, proven and valid argument as they are asking the question " But, if God doesn't exist, what caused the universe?"--or " If there is no God, how does one account for design in nature". The problem here, when asking these two questions is that they pre-suppose the universe REQUIRES a causal explanation and that it exhibits design--which would automatically infer a first cause, or master designer. However this is not the issue of debate here. The first question is not " Who is the cause of the universe" Rather, we must ask"Does the universe require a causal explanation?". Similarly, the question is not "What is responsible for the design in nature?" Rather, we must ask " Does nature exhibit design?" The theist posits God as a solution to a metaphysical problem, but no consideration is given to whether a problem exists in the first place. Theists construct the problem in such a way that the only solution in natural terms is unacceptable, thus clearin gth epath for the supernatural. These assumtions of a supernatural designer cannot logically be made unless one can demonstrate that a causal explanation is necessary, and that the universe exhibits design.....If one then proceeds to defend the first cause argument however, one contradiction immediately stands out. The first premise of this argument states that everything must have a cause, and the conclusion asserts the existence of an uncaused supernatural being. But if EVERYTHING must have a cause, how did God become exempt? I will quote John Hospers who addresses this point......." the causal argument is not merely invalid, but self contradictory: the conclusion, which says something (God) does not have a cause, contradicts the premise, which says that everything does have a cause. If the premise were true, the conclusion cannot be true: and if the conclusion is true, the premise cannot be true. Many people do not at once see this because they use the argument to get to God, and then, having arrived where they want to go, they forget all about the argument...if the conclusion contradicts its own premise, we have the most damning indictment of an argument that we could possibly have: that is is self-contradictory"....... Also, a causal explanation is possible only within the context of existence, which is outlined by Nathaniel Branden....." Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. All actions presuppose the existence of entities--and all emergences of new entities pre-suppose the the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of SOMETHING THAT ACTS AS A CAUSE. To demand a cause for all existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence:if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause... Causality presupposes existence, existence does NOT presuppose causality. Therefore, EXISTENCE--not "god"--is the First Cause...." This last quote then renders the question : " What caused the universe" as absurd, because before something can act as a cause, it must first exist--i.e.--it must be part of the universe. The universe therefore sets the foundation for causal explanation and cannot itself require a causal explanation. Again, this post is getting too long, but this still does not exhaust all the fallacies of the first-cause argument by any means. - 13:56:16 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--STEVE--A big, big congrats on that one. I certainly am happy for you, as well as your kith and kin. - 14:02:03 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>> Thank you Peter. Tear into those theists, I love your debate skills. It is quite obvious that you have researched atheism just a tiny bit. Did you learn your skill in school? - 14:25:11 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:I am not being rude when I say it feels like I am trying to communicate with retarded goldfish here. Even if I do manage to convey something that is not misinterpreted, it seems to get forgotten straight away. (Sigh). Try again... ANSELM: You ask: "Do you always argue so quickly from the micro to the macro level?" well I might ask "Do you ever respond to what was written or do you always adopt strawman tactics?". Incidentally- "jumping from macro to micro?" -well wouldn't the universe have existed on the micro level just after the big bang?????? But more to the point, I was using this to illustrate that this is still an open file for me, and no way can you conclude with certainty that "god" started it all on the premise that you can't think of any other way it could have happened. Now this is my favourite, and will hopefully highlight both to you and everyone else what "smoke screening" you employ. You say, I quote: " Futhermore, you are playing around with the word,"nothing" ". But I haven't even mentioned it! Would you care to point out exactly where I "played around" with it??? And now TONY: (Excuse me if I don't have the time or stamina to pick you up on every point right now, but please don't misinterpret this). You said " I think that the atheist demonstrates his integrity if and when they put this in the file of the unknown" -Well I agree (and so should you if your belief in god is based upon this first-mover proof). You might have noticed this if you had actually read what I had written. Furthermore, what is this singularity cop-out you speak of??? Oh, and you can put your Occam's razor away, as I never mentioned Everett's multiverse theory, or Schrodinger's ubiquitous cat (in the radioactive hat). Don't believe all you read in (especially popularist) science books. Nice talking, I really have to go though now. - 14:32:24 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:Ooops, nearly forgot: Last but by no means least, congrats Steve. - 14:34:04 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:PETER: Nice post- the need for design/ causal stuff is the stuff I was hoping we would get onto next. Any takers? I'm not sure whether science is not qualified to go beyond the singularity though- perhaps not yet but it is my belief we will do soon. - 14:43:08 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:One last thing; I think quote of the day goes to Tony: "There was a day when my mind was open, but I weighed the facts and arguments on both sides and came up with theism." - 14:46:25 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Goodmorning STEVE, congrats from me too! BTW this particular theist was a "religion teacher". One can argue with theists until they are blue in the face. It goes like this...there is this little kid with a blue wooden ball. He imagines a flying read ball and pretends his blue wooden one is the one he imagines. He prestends so much that he actually believes his blue wooden ball can fly and appears red. His game of let's pretend turns from a game to delusion and he lives in that delusion. He has no idea why others see his ball as just a blur wooden ball. Would you argue with the kid until your blue in the face? - 14:50:53 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB..is that considered an "oxyquote"? - 14:52:31 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:YIKES! STEVEN, lots of typos in that last post, excuse'. - 14:54:51 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:TONY-- There are a few of refreshing things about your posts. You are willing to openly state what your beliefs are and how you arrived at them. You seem to include atheists on your list of those who you should be honest with. You are responsive to replies. A couple of thoughts: Like Joette, I have a few problems with statements like "As an atheist, you are not allowed to make moral statements." Cultural anthropologists or evolutionary psychcologists, or whatever you choose to call them, and some ethicists are noticing traits in animals that look remarkably like empathy and sympathy. They are wondering if these traits are a result of an evolutionary advantage to individuals who are by this means able to be detect and respond to the the needs of their offspring. They are also considering whether the survival advantages of an individual in a group over an individual not in a group necessitates some kind of cooperation, which not being able to be based on reason, must or could be based on a genetic disposition for behavior beneficial to others in the group. In other words, there may be a genetic tie to how we treat others. In humans, empathy and sympathy can be observed in individuals too young to speak and presumably to reason. I personally am not able to detect moral differences in people based on their beliefs. After all, atheists are not a human subspecies, contrary to popular belief. I have seen people drastically change their religious beliefs but could see no change in how they interact with others. I suspect that we may be more likely to develope or choose beliefs that fit our "morals" than to have our morals shaped by our religious beliefs, after all, have you not seen immoral Christians? Moral atheists? The other point: You say that putting the first mover argument in the unknown file displays an atheist's integrity. Would it not then display integrity for the theist? How is this different? - 15:03:53 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..Peter learned everything he knows from me. - 15:04:19 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:Joette--Yes dear..and speaking of delusions.......GRANT--This moral issue that theists take upon themselves based on their circular reasoning--and nothing else, dealing with atheists, as you might know, makes my blood boil (due to my inevitable immorality perhaps? ). Your post was excellent in dealing with it--particularly your last point - 15:34:16 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Grant, just a few words on this medium: Sometimes things don't come out how we mean them. As we form our relationship I'd like you to be willing to clarify anything. I will also ask you for clarification. Sometimes if we just know what the other person is talking about agreement can be found. First, the first mover. I think Peter summed up the problem accurately. The question is, "Does the universe require a causal explanation?" I don't usually go with the design argument, myself. I mean, I see the strength in it, but also the weakness. So, dealing with the first question as Peter laid it out, I think the answer is Yes. As you probably all know, we do not quite have a unified physical theory that takes into account both the macro and micro world- nontheless, both have been shown true on virtually every point. The reason I feel that declaring the pre-big bang universe is a singularity and therefore an unknown is a cop-out because the declaration is at best a hopeful answer, not THE answer, but one possiblity- perhaps all that matter squished in together DID act according to macro rules. But it may be helpful to realize that I side with Einstein when I say that I believe even the quantum world is ordered, and not random, so, if you follow me, I believe that even 'singularities' follow rules of nature, even if we don't know them yet. You may inquire as to why, if you like. - 16:13:11 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony: As to the self-contradictory premise that there has to be a first mover (who moved God), I reply that we are talking about systems. Now science is useful within the physical system. Philosophy is useful only within a certain system as well: The world of known concepts. Since we conceptualize based on our sensory input, even our thoughts are restricted to thoughts about the physical system, therefore, we cannot know about the supernatural. Therefore from this argument, I declare that for our system there is a first mover who is outside of our system. I cannot declare more than that. But I can declare at least that. The argument is not invalid if for some reason the first mover of our universe is not the first mover in his (which we cannot know). We can know so much about our system scientifically and philosophically. Logic, I believe, requires that the universe has a beginning, also evident by certain evidences- the observed move of the universe towards thermal equilibrium, perhaps the expansion of the universe. Your next question is how can we know God, then, if there are limits. I believe the answer is that he would have to make himself known through other routes. That is to say, God contacts us, not the other way around, revelation if you will. And that's a different argument. As to my integrity (why I just don't leave it in the file of unknown) I believe we're coming to that. - 16:19:44 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Grant, to answer your question about the moral code: I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that atheists do not have morals, or act morally. Conversely I would not deny that Christians often act immorally. What I am saying is that logically, atheism allows no foundation for one to have a moral standard. It's not personal, it's a logical implication of atheism. For example, if a+b=c, you can logically conclude that a=c-b. I'm just working with the equation of atheism. So my point is that atheism declares that a+b=c, but then argues often (read makes moral judgments) a=b+c. It doesn't add up. So, even if animals seem to be exhibiting human characteristics, I would argue that for the free-thinker, it is at their discretion which, if any, moral code they adhere to. That is why I did not deny that atheist have morals, but wondered rather what code they were using, and why they're code should be considered right (if that's possible). Feel free to ask for clarification. - 16:20:22 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Somewhere in your last to post to TONY perhaps you could have referred him to Dawkins "The Selfish Gene". While he yielded up his natural open mindedness that he was born with[TONY said so], he seems to suffer from that problem I read elsewhere that a D'Holbach said,"Religeon is the art of occupying limited minds with that which it is impossible to conceive or understand." As for your other question about those writer\thinkers, several do not believe in supernatural things. The single point of that is the lack of fact; consider the following. Are ghosts supernatural? Are spirits supernatural? Is the spirit of xmas supernatural? Is zeus supernatural? Is god supernatural? Clearly, you can see that none of these things are rational. So I can, you can, and TONY can simply say they are real, true? - 16:21:57 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:--Wish I could stay around but I gotta go. - 16:32:07 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>> who me? typo? never.... hahahahah - 16:42:03 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>> ahhh, I see that I am rubbing off on someone. - 16:45:42 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:TONY: Well I for one have not said that the pre big bang universe, being a singularity is unknowable. How can we not say that our known physical laws are not just a limiting case of the physical laws outside of the universe? In this case, we need not the supernatural. (And I don't see why you refer to this as the "cop out"- I wasn't aware that anyone here's arguments rested upon it). As for your declaration of a first mover, who says that the universe and the physical system within which science is useful are the same thing? And if philosophy is only useful within the world of known concepts (as you say), how do you use it to make a conclusion about something which (at present) lies outside of the universe? I might well be in agreement with you on the matter of the quauntum world not neccessarily being random though (maybe time will tell), and there are already models for singularities being physically comprehendable (see Hawking's imaginary time). I might well have something to say about the existence of the supernatural, but I oughta go revise now... - 16:54:30 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--You are now in the unfortunate position where now every attempt at rescuing the first-cause argument results you falling deeper into the realm of irrationality--on several fronts. You assert that God is supernatural hence unknowable. Therefore you are now attempting to solve the mystery of the universe with another mystery--which is God. You are solving a mystery with a mystery. Put in another way, you now attempt to explain the known, by the unknown--which is nothing short of theological lunacy. By your very admission of "which we cannot know" your own beliefs cannot rise any higher than agnoticim, therefore making the leap to being a "theist" is not rationally qualified, and therefore a leap of that "f" word is required--therefore excluding you immediately from realm of applying reason, as you previously claimed you had done. You have not. Also what is "super-nature"? Etymologically, it means that which is above or beyond nature. "Nature" in turn, denotes existence as viewed from a certain perspective. Nature is existence regarded as a system of interconnected entities governed by law; it is the universe of entities acting according to their identities. The "Supernatural" would have to be a form of existence BEYOND existence; a thing beyond entities; a some thing beyond identity. The idea of the "supernatural" is an assault on everything a man knows about reality. It is a contradiction of every essential of a rational metaphysics. It represents a rejectiopn of the basic axioms of philosophy ( existence, consciousness, identity ). Also, another glaring problem exists. If God as a "spirit" ( which has no other meaning other than "pure consciousness" )--and he preceded all existence, he could not be in fact, conscious. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious OF is a contradiction in terms. Some may then argue that God could be conscious of himself--but this also results in a contadiction of terms. before it could identify itself AS consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.If one claims to perceive something that does not exist--one does not possess consciousness. - 16:55:51 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Several days past I mentioned that to drop off the assorted prefixes of religeous writings and you'd end up with words that have no meaning. In my last post, drop the "super-" and you'd have rational in its nakedness. None of the words have meaning in that simpler form, they become instead the sguare circle thing who without facts would accept that? - 16:56:43 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: The ANSELM poster, is he/she pretending to be the St.Anselm? Next, someone will want to be god. sheesh! - 17:23:06 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--Of course atheism has no moral codes. Atheism is not a belief system at all. Atheism is simply one of countless philosophical positions in countless belief systems that, when dealing with the existence of an entity such as God, it claims a lack of a belief. Therefore, it is impossible to ever say an atheist believes in "x"--because he is an atheist. Therefore, the only qualified statement that could be inferred from someone being an atheist is: "an atheist does NOT believe in 'y' because he is an atheist" NOT believing in "y" is the only thing that qualifies him to be an atheist--and nothing else. - 17:58:41 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Oft times, I inscribe that theist/mystic religeon types only desire is control- that TONY seemed to shy away from, but for that point, consider that their religious action is based on only psychological reasons and certainly not for intellectual reasons. The examples for this thought are many, but just consider the supposed astronomy or geology of the bible. Some say "it" is a god's words. Also, their choice may be related to a statement purporedly uttered by Lucretius, "However many years you may prolong your life you can not diminish by a single jot the length of time you will be dead." Does that frighten them into the folds of their thoughts- the brain, where they can "think" there is a savior, a god? - 18:15:56 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->PETER: speaking of that "d" word you threw in my direction, isn't the correct spelling "D-I-V-O-R-C-E"? - 18:18:32 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Just read a brief composition of R.Dawkins who has said that god is a product of natural selection. It is a brief reading piece and for it to mean something, some background-like reading would help. Part of the title says that the god thing is a virus. - 20:33:20 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

jay:ANYONE: coul someone tell me how to read old posts from days back, if there is a way? thanks. - 20:57:23 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: You two cool it. Allow me to speak from painful experience, it's not worth joking about. - 20:59:00 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. I have been wading through all the posting on First cause, causality, macro, micro and quantum but with all the verbiage the plain fact is that none of us knows a damn thing about where it all came from. The only argument i make is that the theist attempts to cover his ignorance by creating a god and then passing the buck to god when asked questiions he/she cannot answer. I consider this irrational and a cover up to protect the theist's ego. It is akin to a child caught dipping into the cookie jar - "God made me do it", and the theist finds comfort in believing "God works in mysterious ways his wonders to behold." - 21:09:00 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

RON...(a.k.a. page owner)...--->jay..: Greetings Jay, if you would go to the bottom of this page and click in the "Show old?" box and then the "Add" button...the page will refresh...in the Address box above you'll find the text "...?show=30&user=....", if you'll change that number 30 to say, 100, you'll see the last 100 posts. - 21:09:54 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. There is no relationship between atheism and character.I use the term character rather them morals because it more clearly indicates what we are discussing. I am an atheist. I am a law abiding citizen and the epitome of what is considered a fine family man. I served my country in the military in times of war and peace. I tell you these things not to pat myself on the back, but to point ou the fact that atheists differ in character as do theists. Now Joseph Stalin was also an atheist, but he was not my role model. As theists go, you have your Jim Baakers and your Billy Grahams. So please don't try to pin the bad boy label on us. It reflects unfavorably on you and shows your illogical reasoning. I am looking forward to your apology or excuse. - 21:37:03 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: As you must have noted TONY did what all theistic types must do in order to have a god, they, this includes TONY too, give up being responsible for themselves, they have accepted the "authority" of that god. That is the basis for TONY not wanting to accept that an atheist says he or she is responsible for their everything,i.e., is moral. Voltaire said something along the lines that for some, if god was unknown then somebody would invent it. I think that this means pure and simple that some do not want to be responsible for themselves in any way. - 21:46:01 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TO WHOEVER WROTE THE A+B=C etc. I checked my algebra book and couldn't see how you reached your conclusion, except that you took it upon yourself once again to tell the atheists what they were thinking. Is mind reading on of your skills? If you want kow what I think, ask me. If by now, you haven't figured out that an atheist denies the existence of your self-created god, you're in sad shape. Hie thyself to a monastery/nunnery for reinforcement. Perhasps your kindred souls will comfort you. - 21:52:59 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..:PAPASAM- I just hate cliches but you've said it all "in a nutshell" in your last three or four posts. I see no need to get caught up in the theists attempt at justifying their belief. If god were real, there would no need for all this justification. - 22:11:10 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:TONY: Let's bury this first cause argument once and for all. Forgetting all the arguments beforehand (for the sake of argument), let's look at what happens if we say the universe did need a cause, and that cause was god. We have no reason whatsoever to suggest that said god still exists, so we may not conclude that there is a god. - 22:13:53 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ROB: These religeous and theologic types go through certain fits, and seizures, of contention. In a writing by a theist from around the turn of the century he said it was very important to xtianity that the story in genesis be accepted. Then in another writing from around the 50's it said that the resurrection was very important to xtian belief, nowadays since other vistas beckon humans, the TONY types must address the next impossible. This must be why that one church partiarch said he believes because it is impossible. Human truth finding of facts is the only answer that will spell the ruin of ignorance and superstition in all their quises, including the symbolism of churches. - 23:29:50 on 13 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:What is the matter with you people? Do you find some sort of pleasure cramming me into your little stereotype of what you believe a theist is? Snobbery is what it is. Not all of you, of course. PapaSam- forget the algebra book, get out a grammar and dictionary, and perhaps a introduction to english syntax because I don't think you understood what you read. I'm going to bed- I've had a hard day. Real people sometimes have those. Of course, you have never met a theist that's had a bad day, since the theists you envision are very hard to find in nature. Good night. I will reply to Peter and Rob tommorrow. - 2:42:06 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Adam YOU'RE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE--->:BlueJayWilson and the other birds...those were some REAL fine guesses, but I was going simple. The last holiday event that M. Kennedy attended was a New Year's bash. Now, for the easy one: what type of play were the Kennedy clan running when the accident occurred? - 3:14:47 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Adam TONY TONI TONE--->:Your premise that morality must be based in some fixed code handed down from some mythical watery tart is preposterous. There is no globally agreed-upon moral code---indeed, behavior deemed acceptable or unacceptable varies a great deal among cultures---rather, morality derives from the implied social contract among people. When man created the fictional moral "code" handed down by a fictional being, man was merely promulgating a codification of the societal moral code more or less already in existence at the time. - 3:21:14 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Can God make a stone so big that he can't move it? (you pose this question after wondering why people still use the cosmological arguments?) The answer is no, because if he did, he could destroy it and place it wherever he wanted. Omnipotence does not imply the ability to do what is actually impossible, for to do this would be for God to go against his very nature.Omnipotence entails only the ability to do what is actually possible. To say that this "limits" God is to misuse the word,"limit". Also, to say that God is pure consciousness is to say that God possesses consciousness in an infinite way, therefore he does not nees consciousness outside of himself in order to be conscious of something. Is it possible that your projecting finite attributes onto an infinite God? Moving on, you mentioned the cosmol. argument and stated that Hume had refuted it. What he really challenged was the scientific method with regard to matters of induction. Will you follow his lead in this matter as well? Anyway, this really seems to be an argument from authority, which proves nothing except that Hume thought a certain way. I should add in passing that while Hume thought that causal connections cannot be known(only believed), he made it clear in other writings that he,"never asserted anything so absurd as that effects can occur without a cause." Also, I think it's important to remember that there are several versions of the cosmol. argument, and the one you mentioned is not one that I espouse. I do not argue that every THING needs a cause, for to go from there to God would indeed be fallacious, since God should be included. Rather, my argument is formulated in this way: 1. Everything that comes to be has a cause. 2.The universe came to be. Thus, the universe had a cause. God did not come to be. God is a necessary being who cannot not be, while the universe by it's very nature is contingent and came to be. The universe is not uncaused, because it came to be, and one can argue this scientifically(the big bang), or philosophically(the impossibilty of crossing an actually infinite number of past events to reach this present moment). God is the first, uncaused cause, and a first, uncaused cause does not need a cause, only caused causes need to be caused. To ask what caused the 1st cause is like asking how blue tastes. You state that the 1st cause is mysterious, and perhaps you are right to an extent, but I should say it is no more mysterious than postulating a 1st uncaused primordial pond. Something exists, which has the potential not to exist and at one time, didn't exist. Nothing COULD have been, yet something is, so why is there something rather than nothing? You may say that it means nothing to posit God as the answer, but it seems even more unreasonable to join Bertrand Russel in asserting,"the universe is just...there...and that's all. Either the series of contingent beings as a whole is a sufficient ground for all contingent beings or it is not. If not, then there must be some being outside the series on which the series is grounded. No amount of effects equals a cause. I ask you,Peter: If I undeniably exist and if my nonexistence is possible, and there was once a time when I did not exist, what is it that is actualizing my existence? Sorry, so long...the subject matter is deep.Oh, one more thing...I know that atheists are capable of being moral. My question is, what rationally compelling reason do they have to be so? What is the point of reference? - 4:41:33 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Finally someone who agrees with me that there is not a world wide moral code. Different cultures have different moral codes. Some, most especially theists think this is the planet North America. BTW, I likes JayWilson's answer better, the barkmitzvah one. - 5:04:22 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..:TONY- Just what do you think, I think, my vision of an xtian is? I'm sure you have many bad days, your human. I just finished listening to the news out of Erie,PA. Seems the lambkins there have turned to satanism because god didn't answer them when they prayed. I doubt they would have turned to satan if they had not been taught about god. - 5:09:42 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM With all your talk about cause and uncaused cause all you are doing is weaving a web of words. You claim to espouse logic and then create an exception - God. Would you say that 2+2=4, except when god makes it 5? I have said it before and I will say it again. You have created a god as a cover-up for your ignorance. You defy all the laws of logic and use your god as an excuse to justify it. What you call the "first uncaused cause" or "God" is a figment of your imagination, and no matter how thin you slice it it's still 'baloney'. - 5:23:30 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. You petulant old thing. I took your advice and looked in the dictionary and found the word which fits you to a 'T' - based on your last posting. I know you were just tired so I won't hold it against you. Read my previous posting to Anselm, since it applies to you and all theists as well. Now that you have taught us how not to do algebra will you go on to trignometry and calculus? Perhaps when you've polished up your version of god you'll take time out to teach me how to parse a sentence. It's been over 70 years since I learned it in the 8th grade. - 5:39:11 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PAPASAM: What law of logic am I breaking in asserting that:Everything that had a beginning had a cause...the universe had a beginning...thus, the universe had a cause? I realize that one can respond by saying that this doesn't take you to God, but if that is so, then what caused the universe to be? A problem arises only if one has assimilated all reality to physical reality, and this seems to beg the question. To me, it is like saying,"physical reality is all there is because thats all I see, therefore physical reality is all there is." Is it really that simple? I liked your response about noone really knowing what they are talking about in matters such as what things were like before the singularity, yet, people keep searching, they keep asking, and I don't want to get maudlin or anything but why do we ask these things? Why do we , as bags of biological components,continually search these ultimate questions? We die in the same way as a rat or an insect, under the non-theistic postulate, so why do we seem to care so much about the birth of a child, or the death of a loved one, when in the great scheme of things, we come to be and pass away like any other animal.? - 6:00:41 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. As stated above, moral codes are a product of the local culture. The moslem fanatics in Algeria who raid villages slaughtering women and children are acting in accordance with their moral code, praise be to allah. The Incans who sacrificed young women to their gods did so in accordance with their moral code. It is interesting to note that all of the bloodthirsty rituals are to propitiate a deity of some kind. In our own country, (USA) some bible thumping fundamentalists want to use the punishments in the bible, including stoning people to death. They don't even have to use stones, they could butt them to death with their heads, because they've all got rocks in their heads. - 6:02:02 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PAPASAM: If that is true, then these acts really are not wrong, but just social inconveniences? I'm assuming that you find these acts to be wrong, like you find the acts in the Bible to be wrong, or the acts of the muslims to be wrong, but if you do, what standard are you using, and if there is no standard, then why go on about how "wrong" these things are? If man is the measure by which all acts are considered unethical, then which man will decide? The one who has the power to do so?It is late here, papa,so I'm going to hit the sack. I'll get your answer next time I'm here. PETER: A few additions: you stated that "if something precedes all existence, it cannot be conscious." If something preceded ALL existence, then that would include the existence of that very thing, since to not exist is to be unconscious. But if the thing in question is eternal, then to speak of it preceding it's own existence is nonsense. If nothing exists,there can be no consciousness, because nothingness entails no consciousness, but if something exists eternally, and is eternally conscious of this very fact within it's own existence, then this existing being is not devoid of consciousness, but rather is the actualizer of consciousness with regard to all potential consciousness(ours). We participate in this actualizing consciousness. Moreover, how can there be consciousness with nothing to be conscious of? Either I'm misreading this or this statement self destructs, for consciousness of any kind would at the very least entail consciousness of the very fact that nothing else exists. So long as one has existence, one has consciousness, for even if I'm the only one in existence, I can be conscious of that very fact. If one claims to perceive something that does not exist, are the not conscious of making that claim, wrong as it may be? - 7:00:20 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

ANSELM. You break the laws of logic ny making exceptions to suit yourself. "The universe had a beginning. The universe had a cause" Everything, that is, except your pet invention - "God" You can rationalize all you wish, but you can't make a fact out of a fiction. Physical reality IS real. Your concept of a supernatural being is unreal. You ask "Why do we as bags of biological components continually search these ultimate questions?" What do you mean 'we'? I'm not searching. You came to us to try to convert us to your way of thinking. I'm just showing you that your reasoning is wrong.As for life and death, we care about them because we have emotions. You seem concerned that we die just like rats and other lower forms of life and will become worm food. It doesn't bother me in the least, but it does show that you fear mortality. You crave an afterlife, and have dreamed up a god to provide one for you. Sorry, Anselm. When we're dead, that's it. Poof! It's over. - 8:02:41 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM-Good to see you again, just the man I want to talk to. You assert: "God is the first, uncaused cause, and a first, uncaused cause does not need a cause, only caused causes need to be caused" I have already addessed this assertion in that to posit the supernatural explains nothing, it merely asserts the futilty of rational explanation being explaining events by natural means. "to say that God is pure consciousness is to say that God possesses consciousness in an infinite way, therefore he does not nees consciousness outside of himself in order to be conscious of something" I know--he needs existence, and this is what I said ( which you conveniently misquoted ). As I said to Tony yesterday, something cannot be conscious if there is nothing to be conscious of. To be conscious means to be conscious of something. Now, like it or not Anselm, amongst all the other arguments exchanged from all of us, this one was I all I really needed to say, to put the question of first-cause argument, and the existence of God ( as the Creator, prime mover) to rest. It is inescapable, regardless of all the infinities which one may associate with God. Now you may see why I initially requested you give an intelligible description of what God, actually IS. You see, the more you slap on all these infinities associated with God, you may feel you are escaping arguments which prove the irrationality of such a claim. However, I have yet to encounter any theist willing to identify God specifically, as he feels this would then limit his ability to make any ad hoc assumption to rescue his position. However, when adding all these wonderful qualities to God, what is happening is that they begin to contadict themselves, and as you know, nothing can exist as a contradiction. Also, to assert that something exists automatically puts limitations on that existent. To be identifiable is to possess finite qualities--but the theist wants to avoid finite qualities associated with God. He is then in an either or situation. If God, or anything else exists, it must have limitations--or it has no limitations which renders it then identical to non-existence. But the theist wants his cake and eat it too, and assumes both choices, rendering his argument as not really an argument at all. Two days ago Anselm, you were quick to concur that God was both omniscient and omnipotent, as all theist are eager to do, without realising that the idea of omniscience contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. If God knows the future with infallible certainty, he cannot change it--in which case he cannot be omnipotent. If God can change the future however, he cannot have infallible knowledge of it prior to its actual happening--in which case he cannot be omniscient. This is just one such contradiction associated with the atributes slapped onto the concept of God, and believe me, I could go on and on. Adding more qualities, all by ad hoc assumption, just adds fuel to the fire, rather than going the other way, which is to set limitations on EVERY attribute associated with God. I also did ask the question "Does God have any unlimited attributes?" --which you didn't answer specifically, but you implied agreement with all the questions I asked that day. However, you did not take note of something. You see, like a mama-bull, or a married bachelor, or a square circle, there is no such thing as an "inlimited attribute" It is a contradiction in terms, and you didn't catch that, or were unwilling to concede that. To specify characteristics is to specify determinate qualities, and these qualities cannot be divorced from limitations.....So in the end, you can either start removing all the "infinities" as a MINIMAL requirement to render the concept of God to be identifiable--which most theists are reluctant to do, as this destroys their notion of what God is or should be, OR you can continue to assert all these wonderful infinities associated wih God, in order to rescue the defense of his existence, and subsequently define him into a mire of contradiction and hence into being identical to that of non-existece. - 14:07:27 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..who refuses to argue till the cows come home..:ANSLEM- To state that god is the cause of all things is jumping to a fantastic conclusion that has absolutely no evidence to support it. Yes, I'm always searching for information on how the universe works but I most definately don't go jumping to conclusions and most especially not a conclusion that as no evidence to support it. Your answer is 99.99% unlikely. It's the reason you and Tony come up with such a wild answer that intrigues me. Of course, that reason is scientifically and psychologically explained. - 14:45:02 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

RON...(smirk)...: Excuse me but, aren't you xtians getting back to the "all things must have been manufactured" argument? I thought that dog was dead. To create for a purpose is to manufacture. So, I must assume you see the universe as just another toaster. I must protest. Before we can go anywhere with the argument you xtians must see the universe as a constant, both in time and space. - 15:07:12 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:ANSELEM<<>> I have meant to ask you this so here it goes. You have listed all the attributes of what you think god is, (i.e. Omnipotence does not imply the ability to do what is actually impossible, for to do this would be for God to go against his very nature.Omnipotence entails only the ability to do what is actually possible. To say that this "limits" God is to misuse the word,"limit". Also, to say that God is pure consciousness is to say that God possesses consciousness in an infinite way, therefore he does not nees consciousness outside of himself in order to be conscious of something. Is it possible that your projecting finite attributes onto an infinite God), where exactly did you come to posses this knowledge. Next you be giving us Santas attributes as if you have met him. If you know so much about god (lol) then ask him to come down and let himself be known. I personally think you are an idiot, but once again IMO. - 16:14:20 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..to my fellow "bad cop"..:STEVEN- I suppose we shouldn't call these theists idiots, nutcases, etc. lest we be labelled by the rest of the politically correct, "crude" (as though I f-in care). I suppose the nicest adjective we could apply would be "delusional". - 16:23:02 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:ANSELEM<<>> atheists realize that they are responsible for their actions, good or bad. christians put the burden of everything they do, or others do, on an imaginary being, hence security blanket. So, if a christian looses their child, ohhh it was god's will. If a christian wins a track race, or catches a touchdown, ohhh god gave me the strength. Give me a frigging break. An atheist know that if he accomplishes a task that he/she will pass or fail on their own merit, not some gods. Anslem, I will bore the rest of the atheist here with something I have said a million times. ANYONE who puts thorough research into believing in a god or gods will realize and find that gods are man made security blankets, i.e. "i don't understand why the lightening came from the sky, so god must have done it". Mabey Anselem you are insecure in what you can accomplish with out your petty belief in a fairy tale. Also, we could always get into the literary garbage you call a bible! Why put faith into an imaginary being. It is ridiculous to say that, "well the the universe is to complex and orderly, so there must be a god". This is the same bullshit reasoning that people used when they believed the earth was flat, or the sun revolved around the earth. I even think people were executed/murdered because they stated otherwise against the almighty church and their piss ant beliefs. ramble ramble ramble ramble........ - 16:35:32 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENES<<>> opions are like assholes right. Anyway, who ever said I was opionated. lol lol lol - 16:37:26 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:MARLENE and anyone who thinks there is no evidence for God. Such a statement is as funny as someone from the pseudoscientific community saying that evolutionary theory has anything which could be considered positive evidence. Let's go back to elementary school. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Evading such a simple question with philosophical rhetoric is not the answer. A direct answer please. Which came first, man or the woman? Answer please. Which came first, theism or atheism? Which came first, the universe or the earth? Which came first, eternity or time? If eternity exists in contrast to time then anything within the realm of eternity can not even be realized in terms of time. The universe is composed of space, time and matter. As far as I know, a person can believe that the universe is either 1).Uncreated and eternal(in terms of time) 2).Uncaused out of nothing(which has no practical definition)without any sort of intelligence or design 3).Created by a being who "inhabiteth eternity" with absolute intelligence and purpose The first concept of the universe is held by Mormon apologists who believe that the God of the earth used to be a man who had a God, who used to be a man, ad infinitum. In terms of the physical or natural universe, the question then would be what many atheists ask, namely where did the first God(cause)come from? Mormon apologists cannot answer, nor could anyone who holds such a concept of the universe. Anyone who defines infinity or eternity in such a light cannot explain where a first cause came from. The second concept of the universe is also quite unbelievable. To say that the universe popped into existence out of nothing(whatever that may be) without cause, purpose, direction or intelligence is like saying that a working model of our solar system in some museum just popped into existence without any materials, designer or manufacturer. Takes more faith to believe this concept than it does to believe that the universe was the product of an intelligent creator. The third concept is the most reasonable explanation, but many people will continue to reject such a concept not based on lack of evidence but on ones desire not to be subject to his/her creator. Evidence afterall is only a basis for faith. The evidence for God is far greater than any evolutionary postulate or idea of how the universe came to be. Those who don't feel the necessity to explain where the universe came from but content themselves in their ignorance can not fully attempt to understand how it works. To consider the foregoing argument as one piece of evidence for God is valid and far greater than any atheist's attempt to prove otherwise. Thank you. Questions or comments write: David Race c/o Prove All Things P.O.Box 431 Dayton, Ohio 45401-0431 24 hr recorded message (937)264-3150 - 16:38:18 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: the religeous believer TONY should keep in his mind that his views are based on him clinging to the enclosures of his god's pen. If he'd let go, and say there is no god, and of course refuse to kiss anyones ring, he might not feel so unwanted and he'd be in control not seeming hysterical. That was such a lonely post he made prior to his retirement. ANSELM, tho', while he's still ducking and dodging the distemper of bombast, he enjoys though his tropes and figure of words. Matter or words, ANSELM likes words for now. Since he thinks in terms of one god, as said by others- he is but one step away from atheism. Leave the dark side ANSELM. - 16:43:55 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:PROVE<<>> don't you find it just as ridiculous to believe that some omnipotent being created everything. What came first the chick or the egg? Everything has a cause, and everything has beginning. Where did your god begin? - 16:53:16 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:"I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil befor mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:4/////// 1 World War I never happened. 2 Man never went to the moon. 3 The holocost is a made up fairy tale 4 Their is no God/////// What do the above four statements have in common: They all deny witnesses who testify to the contrary. They are also statements made by ignorant and deluded people who can't back them up. - 17:05:48 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:"I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil befor mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:4/////// 1 World War I never happened. 2 Man never went to the moon. 3 The holocost is a made up fairy tale 4 Their is no God/////// What do the above four statements have in common: They all deny witnesses who testify to the contrary. They are also statements made by ignorant and deluded people who can't back them up. - 17:06:06 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:"I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil befor mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:4/////// 1 World War I never happened. 2 Man never went to the moon. 3 The holocost is a made up fairy tale 4 Their is no God/////// What do the above four statements have in common: They all deny witnesses who testify to the contrary. They are also statements made by ignorant and deluded people who can't back them up. - 17:06:21 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:ANYONE "I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil befor mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:4/////// 1 World War I never happened. 2 Man never went to the moon. 3 The holocost is a made up fairy tale 4 Their is no God/////// What do the above four statements have in common: They all deny witnesses who testify to the contrary. They are also statements made by ignorant and deluded people who can't back them up. - 17:09:05 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PROVE- I can honestly say that I don't have all the answers. Time will tell. I can also say that you don't have them either. Why DO you need something imaginary to believe in? Anyone buy the latest _Skeptic_? There's a little illustration in it by Alain Durangean. It suggests Cro-magon's wild artistic imagination. It reminds me of the xtians and their bible and their imaginations...graffiti, graffiti, graffiti.. - 17:14:38 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:STEVEN Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. If everything has a cause, where did the universe come from? Answer please. If you cannot see the difference between a timeless state, and one which is inseperable from time, then you need help. Thank you. - 17:14:48 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..grammer school..:PROVE- It's strange that you have chosen such an oxymoronic adjective for yourself. Wouldn't "resloved" be more descriptive? - 17:19:44 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PROVE- In your above over posts, "4" should read, there is a god. With this changed, I'd have no arguement with your post. - 17:25:16 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:STEVEN If you cannot fathom the difference between a timeless state, and one which is inseperable from time, then that's your problem not mine. Your existence according to your belief rests on something far more unfathomable than the idea of a transcendant being who created what is termed as the natural universe(time included). How's your safety blanket holding up? - 17:26:16 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:STEVEN If you cannot fathom the difference between a timeless state, and one which is inseperable from time, then that's your problem not mine. Your existence according to your belief rests on something far more unfathomable than the idea of a transcendant being who created what is termed as the natural universe(time included). How's your safety blanket holding up? - 17:26:19 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:STEVEN If you cannot fathom the difference between a timeless state, and one which is inseperable from time, then that's your problem not mine. Your existence according to your belief rests on something far more unfathomable than the idea of a transcendant being who created what is termed as the natural universe(time included). How's your safety blanket holding up? - 17:26:47 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:STEVEN If you cannot fathom the difference between a timeless state, and one which is inseperable from time, then that's your problem not mine. Your existence according to your belief rests on something far more unfathomable than the idea of a transcendant being who created what is termed as the natural universe(time included). How's your safety blanket holding up? - 17:28:26 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..ain't I courteous:PROVE- I truly think it is you that needs help, your welcome. - 17:28:37 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--Upon looking at a later post, you seem to be having problems with what is called "The Primacy of Existence Axiom" , and I apologize for accusing you of mis-quoting it previously. You feel that it "self-destructs". What you are actually experiencing here is that the concept of God self destructs when it is applied. This is cold hard reality punching you squarely in the jaw, and the personal benefits you can gain by accepting this fact as soon as possible are countless. I understand the difficulty one encounters in a situation like this. Its like knocking a crutch out from someone, but one soon learns that they not only can survive without the crutch, they eventually do so even better than they did WITH the crutch. - 17:42:07 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:MARLENE Thanks, but I already have the help of God not some imaginary theory which provides no answers for our existence. Please stick to answering, not sidestepping the issue. Thank you and YOU'RE welcome. - 17:42:40 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Prove:ALL I have to go Catch you some other time Sincerely, David Race - 17:45:27 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Biblical references invariably convey to me,e.g., PROVE, some have "chosen" to accept something as true without a full investigation of content. There are at least two sources that I'm familiar with that give verifiable accounts that PROVE's bible is simple forgery. As for its antiquated idiocy, the idiocy being that it was written by and for ignorant savages, who with any contemporary intelligence cannot but smile at its infantilism. The PROVE obviously does not clearly understand the significance of the word selected for his/her pseudonym. If PROVE read contrary views and PROVE is aware of the facts that many others know- which is another can of worms, then PROVE would not impress any with ignorance- which is the lack of knowledge. - 17:46:17 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--PROVE--In case you haven't seen this before, I am re-postong a summary I made yesterday refuting the first-cause argument. I apologize to the board for again taking too much space, but I feel prove should at least consider these arguments, even though I do not anticipate agreement from him, or any other theist whose integrity and vested interest lies strongly with their adherence to believing that God exists.......The first-cause argument is flawed at its roots. Theists seem to think it is a legitmate, proven and valid argument as they are asking the question " But, if God doesn't exist, what caused the universe?"--or " If there is no God, how does one account for design in nature". The problem here, when asking these two questions is that they pre-suppose the universe REQUIRES a causal explanation and that it exhibits design--which would automatically infer a first cause, or master designer. However this is not the issue of debate here. The first question is not " Who is the cause of the universe" Rather, we must ask"Does the universe require a causal explanation?". Similarly, the question is not "What is responsible for the design in nature?" Rather, we must ask " Does nature exhibit design?" The theist posits God as a solution to a metaphysical problem, but no consideration is given to whether a problem exists in the first place. Theists construct the problem in such a way that the only solution in natural terms is unacceptable, thus clearin gth epath for the supernatural. These assumtions of a supernatural designer cannot logically be made unless one can demonstrate that a causal explanation is necessary, and that the universe exhibits design.....If one then proceeds to defend the first cause argument however, one contradiction immediately stands out. The first premise of this argument states that everything must have a cause, and the conclusion asserts the existence of an uncaused supernatural being. But if EVERYTHING must have a cause, how did God become exempt? I will quote John Hospers who addresses this point......." the causal argument is not merely invalid, but self contradictory: the conclusion, which says something (God) does not have a cause, contradicts the premise, which says that everything does have a cause. If the premise were true, the conclusion cannot be true: and if the conclusion is true, the premise cannot be true. Many people do not at once see this because they use the argument to get to God, and then, having arrived where they want to go, they forget all about the argument...if the conclusion contradicts its own premise, we have the most damning indictment of an argument that we could possibly have: that is is self-contradictory"....... Also, a causal explanation is possible only within the context of existence, which is outlined by Nathaniel Branden....." Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. All actions presuppose the existence of entities--and all emergences of new entities pre-suppose the the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of SOMETHING THAT ACTS AS A CAUSE. To demand a cause for all existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence:if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause... Causality presupposes existence, existence does NOT presuppose causality. Therefore, EXISTENCE--not "god"--is the First Cause...." This last quote then renders the question : " What caused the universe" as absurd, because before something can act as a cause, it must first exist--i.e.--it must be part of the universe. The universe therefore sets the foundation for causal explanation and cannot itself require a causal explanation. Again, this post is getting too long, but this still does not exhaust all the fallacies of the first-cause argument by any means. - 13:56:16 on 13 Jan 98 GMT - 17:58:07 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: On a real note, none of this kid, e.g., PROVE, TONY, ANSELM, et.al., stuff...death visited this morn. A colleague didn't make it to the office. The sudden and sobering effects of one being here and gone, is quite a thing to see. At moments like this it is easy to recognise how a religeous type would step in to take advantage of anyone. The director even offered a prayer, which did not concern a god, but as it formed it appeared more so that it concerned those of us who knew the deceased. Is it a truism, that as long as one is above ground everything is okay? - 18:07:44 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--Very sad news indeed. My condolences extend to you and your colleagues family, friends and co-workers.. - 18:26:27 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PROVE- You just had to leave when you knew you were down for the count. I told you, I don't have absolute answers to the questions you've asked me. It's you, in your little mind that has the absolute answer. What I think of your assertion of god.....is that it's bullshit. - 18:32:39 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I'm sorry to hear about your co-worker. It really is a strange feeling for those left behind when someone dies. As you say, this is a very vunerable time for the grievers and it's also the perfect time for jesus and the crew to go fishing. How many widows have given their life savings to churches? A few good words about the person who died seems to be much more fitting than praying for his/her imaginary soul. - 18:40:44 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: None of those aquainted with the deceased hold negative thoughts for the person was good. MARLENE, are you caught in that power outage or how close is it to your neck o'the Canadian woods? - 19:16:09 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- No, I'm not near it but Joette and Peter are. I live directly north of Minnesota(sp) and North Dakota, about 100 miles into Manitoba, Canada. We had the big flood here last year. The east helped us out a great deal with the flood and it's time now, to help the east back. I understand it may still be weeks until power is restored in the east. We normally don't have those types of ice storms as the humidity is relatively low here compared to there. We do get -30F temps here as we did last night. It's warmed up today to about -10F. - 19:22:37 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene, while on our geographical locations:CARL- The area hit in the east is north of PA, and New York States. I understand the worse areas are around Ottawa, Ont. and Montreal, Quebec. Joette and Peter live about 100 miles west of the area, I think. I live about 1800 miles north-west of them. - 19:30:43 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..and even more:And Quake, bless his demented soul (lol) lives about 50 miles or so from Peter and Joette. This is why Joette keeps asking him on which corner of Torontotown he preaches but for some reason he doesn't want to tell her. You'd think xtians would not fear a mere atheist listen to their drivel? - 19:35:01 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: perhaps one o'the religeous visitors can dig into their bag o'tricky words and communicate with their god for some help, since it loves and provides for humans. Surely something as great as the visitors say it is, omnipotent etc.etc., it won't hold a grudge against all because some few of the humans ain't buyin'that stuff. It has been awhile since the likes of such nonsense has appeared on MMM for a response. The really sad part about their utterances is that if someone does not respond, these individuals will trapse on elsewhere "assuming" they in their ignorance are ok. The virus that they are only ruins sound reason and thought, that is for sure. The cure is dare we think it is us? - 19:46:31 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:PROVEPROVEPROVE..REPETITION IS POINTLESS Do you feel that repeating your posting makes your inane prattlings any more believable? Regardless of the issue involved here such action reflects unfavorably on the author. To get back to the subject at hand. You use your creative imagination and invent a god to explain those things which are unexplainable. I have said it before and I will say it again. I don't have the vaguest notion where or how owhy it all began, but I cannot accept the cop-out of a sourceless god which seems to fill your emotional needs. If one were to accept your premise of your 'god' one might ask "Why only one god?" Any management course teaches that there is a practical limit on how many people a manager can supervise. Considering the immensity of the universe i would feel there should be billions - at least one for each galaxy. But, hey, it's your fiction so you can set your own rules. You already have, by exempting your delightful deity from cause and effect. In short, you are playing a game by your rules with yourself serving as judge and referee. Sorry, UN-PROVE, You don't cut the mustard. The only thing you've proven is your ability to SPAM our site with your repetitive rantings and sales pitches for your web site. Get lost. - 20:10:44 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--PAPA SAM--That pretty well sums it up inasfar as PROVE is concerned, and to some degree Anselm and Tony. But there is really no need to tell them to get lost. Unless one's name is "James" who I am convinced is a masochist, they won't be here long. - 20:41:24 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: The PROVE individual wanted and has invented for himself and for the purposes of his god a "timeless" state, which if such a thing were- it would be that square circle thing, for at least one reason. Time, as you and I and most others know it, that is where life exists, but things desired for the sake of PROVE's god and probably for PROVE's mind too, the requirement must be a static state wherein both their impossibilty might exist. So, STEVEN don't inform PROVE that there is no S.Clause. PROVE may be in that infantile formative stage whereat he may become a deranged adult. - 21:01:25 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>> good advise. PAPASAM<<>> couldn't have said it better. It is difficult to debate with someone when they are living in a fantasy world. - 21:34:11 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ALL: I am pretty disappointed to tell you the truth, to find that all there is behind these wonderful claims are premature conclusions, misleading arguments and perhaps most importantly human beings. I have to say I agree with the advice that atheists should have faith in "god". Not in his existence though, but that if one day we do come to a point where some tangible evidence for such an entity is produced, we don't dismiss it on the basis of having heard so many people "cry wolf". - 21:47:56 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: The Texan female killer now god inspired, the bible types sure would like to get her off the hook. Can any imagine the poster-child value she would become for these religeous-kinds of creatures? They got just a bit less than three weeks in order to have their way, so the clock is ticking. She sure is staying verbally close to the god thing. It is all "his will" etc.etc. STEVEN, have you sent any cash relief for this effort? I jest - 23:16:52 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Adam INCOMPLETE!------>:No one got the "easy one"...at the time of his accident, Michael Kenndy was, of course, running a "post" pattern. Answer me this: I can say with confidence that another celebrity soon will die in a skiing incident. How can I be so sure? - 23:20:59 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Adam REVERSE PSYCHOLGEE, WHY NOT?--->:People who begin with a presupposintion and then go on to engage in logical gymnastics to prove the same almost invariably are wrong and will learn nothing. Religion has been, and will continue to be, the great anchor on the ship of human intellectual enlightenment. - 23:24:00 on 14 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ADAM: (If that post was aimed at me) I should have perhaps clarified that which you picked on, in that I was not saying we should go looking for evidence of god. I was saying that if, in our great intellectual argosy we should reach a point where t'would appear a theoretical "god-like" entity were a good explanation, we don't reject it purely on the basis of the amount of shit that has been spouted in this are. But - I still have to say I find this scenario unlikely. - 0:23:56 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ADAM (You're making me See Sic)... Oops- "area", not "are". Also, I agree wholeheartedly with the religion comment. - 0:27:38 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROB. You say atheists should have faith in "God" but not in his existence. I find that a little difficult to do. How can one have faith in something which he does not believe exists? Does this mean that I should have faith in "invisible purple elephants" even though I know that they do not exist? After all, some day we may have tangible evidence that these intangible beasts exist and we shouldn't disbelieve that they exist just because somegody used to say that they didn't exist. What amazing powers of reason you possess. A five year old child couldn't do better. You should write a book. - 0:40:22 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Adam ON A MATCH--->:The reason I can say with certainty that one more celebrity will die in a skiing incident is that these things ALWAYS happen in trees. Latest bumper sticker guffaw: Kill a Kennedy--Plant a Tree!....Can anyone here point to the single greatest failing of Sonny Bono's (or, for Marlene, Bobo's) tenure in Congress? - 1:12:57 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- He was on a downward slide?? ROB- I understand what your saying. If ever the very very slight possibility that god exsists, they likely won't recognize it anyway. The human attributes they adorn their god with may be exactly the opposite of what they imagine. Maybe it with loathe xtians and cause a great plague to come over them and kill all their little children and babies. Maybe it'll allow creations from another planet to abduct all these homophobic men and shove probes up their asses. Maybe it will fall in love with the daughters of man and place them in government office. I think I like the idea of god! - 3:11:09 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Adam GOING OUT ON A LIMB-OH!:----> Actually Marlene, the greatgest shortcoming of Bobo's tenure in Congress was that although his desire and ability to serve in government were great, ultimately he went into the wrong branch. HAR! Hey, what did M. Kennedy get for New Year's? - 3:46:05 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- Har! I dunno? - 4:16:57 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:It's amazing how more willing to banter you are when you are well- rested. A post far above, Peter's I think, said that omniscience and omnipotency were contradictory. I thought about that for a moment or so- I'll reiterate the jist of it: If you know completely the future, you are powerless to stop it, if you have all power you cannot know completely the future. This is an excellent and logical statement, if, if applied to the right system. Do you see what I mean, Peter? One will always lose something in the translation. Or, more precise analogies: a painting of an apple will not taste nearly as good as a real apple, an autobiography can never fully detail the events of one's life, an author cannot impart to his characters free-will. - 5:22:42 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Your statement, Peter, is all very true in our own system referring to our own experience. If we were to write a story, the characters would by and large be in our image. But they would lack the depth that we have. Interestingly, from your character's perspective- you are all-powerful. Of course you're not- you cannot grant them free-will. It's lost in the translation. You see, I'm actually not trying to argue about whether or not its possible for omniscience and omnipotence to coexist in one being. I'm asking you to consider things from a different perspective. I have one question Peter, and I think it's a fair one. Have you ever considered all of your arguments and ideas and thoughts about this matter from a higher perspective? Let me elaborate: ( You'll need to assume for perspective's sake that there is a God) Consider for a while, and then get back to me, whether or not many of your arguments would in all practicallity fall flat if the truth was that this 'creation' lost some important details/depth in the 'translation.' It may be impossible for US as authors to be simultaneously all-knowing and all-powerful- do you think it's logical to think that OUR creator would be just because we are? - 5:23:14 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:This will be the third time I will have said it, and I believe that Anselm has made mention of it as well. In regards to morality- we are not questioning whether or not all people have morals. As far as we can tell, there seems to be a great diversity in morality, too. I'll come out, however, and say I believe that much of that diversity has been exaggerrated. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. THE POINT FOLLOWS: (again) A person of a religious persuasion will be able to point to why he thinks something is wrong, or right. He will be able to evalutate and measure the extent of a transgression by a standard, and he will be able to lay out in reasonable detail what that standard is. IN CONTRAST, the atheist believes that morality is in reality relative. There is no such thing as right and wrong, most certainly no universal standard. YET in practical terms, as admitted by many atheists even lately on this page, atheists are moral; that is, they seem to obey SOME moral code even though they openly say there is no such thing. Anselm and I are wondering why atheists adhere to any standard? Based on what reasons, for example should an atheist favor one action over another? We are not accusing, we are inquiring. Yes, there is a point to our questions. But since atheism is true, I don't expect anyone will be afraid to answer this question and help a wannabe atheist out in his real life, away from the abstractions. Surely it's easy to say there is no right and wrong. Is it as easy to live that way? - 5:35:45 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Breif statement of the point: 1. Religions have moral codes, it's practicioners (Sp!) make moral statments. 2. Atheism professes there is no absolute moral code. They still make moral statements. The inquiry: Why do they make the statements? Why should their statements be considered valid? - 5:38:42 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Brief rewrite of the point: 1. Religions have moral codes, it's practicioners (Sp!) make moral statments. 2. Atheism professes there is no absolute moral code. They still make moral statements. The inquiry: Why do they make the statements? Why should their statements be considered valid? - 5:39:20 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:By the way, PapaSam. I don't think Prove meant to repeat it over and over. If you were to ask him, I'm sure he'll tell you that he couldn't figure out if it was working or not. He'll say something about his server being slow, and he had no way of knowing that just because his server was slow the MMM server was working fine. So do you make jumps in reason like you jump to conclusions? - 6:51:52 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Ron- could you email me? SntJohnny@aol.com Night! - 6:53:15 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ADAN. A FUNERAL? TONY. Omce again you take it upon yourself to tell us what we believe. Before I do, let me tell you what you have overlooked. You imply that religious values are good. Values differ in different religions and there are even differences within the religions themselves. Do you consider the protestants and catholics killing each other in Ireland examples of religious values? Do you consider the mutual slaughter in Bosnia by christians and moslems examples of religious values? Do you consider the inquisition one of your religious values? I won't even mention the hypocrisy of the pediophilic priests who are supposed to be the standard setters for the RC church or thr money grubbing televangelists who suck the crumpled dollar bills from their poor listeners. Now I will tell you what we atheists believe. These are the principals of secular humanism as shown in "Free Inquiry" magazine, and they are the principles I try to follow. " We must be commited to moral principles, which are derived from critical intelligence and human experience, and we must pursue positive ideals. We should observe the common moral decencies: integrity, humanitarianism, truthfulness, trustworthiness, fairness and responsibility. This means caring for one another, being tolerant of differences, and striving to overcome divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, creed or class. Constitutional democracy is the best known means for protecting the rights of all people to form worldviews and live out their commitments in a free and mutually respectful way. Governments should promote open societies, ensure universal human rights, and be secular, having no bias against any religious or non-religious group. Secular humanism aims to bring out the best in people so that all can achieve fullness in life. Thus we must strive to to realize personal potential, maximize creative talents and artistic expression, and choose joy and hope over despair, guilt and sin." I would appreciate it if you would cut and paste this posting so that you could refer to it rather than once again drawing upon your idea of what we think. Please note that I do not claim it speaks for all atheists because there may be some small differnces in opinion on some matters, but it should be enough to set you straight. - 7:22:29 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. It's nice of you to take up the cudgel in defense of your colleague PROVE. Once again you exhibit your mind reading powers by knowing that he did not deliberately repeat himself. Perhaps it was an error, but I do feel he is capable of speaking for himself. Obviously he hasn't as yet. And it happened on two occasions, which does make it appear a little odd. It seems to me that being unable to prove your premise you have descended to nitpicking. I await your next attack, but beware! I carry the shield of reason. - 7:49:59 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:PapaSameoldsameold... It would appear my post went straight over your head (perhaps shining it on the way). Let me try again. When I say we should have "faith in god", I am using figurative speech (as in your "atheist's prayer") to highlight the fact that we shouldn't claim to know things (with certainty) when all we have is an absence of evidence (and I contend that you don't know with complete certainty that there are no such things as invisible purple elephants). Thus I was appealing that we do not neglect possible theories in the future on the basis of past abuses of a concept, but instead merely respond to the evidence we do have, with an open mind. This is consistent with my position as an atheist. And your little analogy "After all, some day we may have tangible evidence that these intangible beasts exist and we shouldn't disbelieve that they exist just because somegody used to say that they didn't exist." is inconsistent with what I said. I wish I could reciprocate your compliments, but I'm afraid I have little more respect for your reasoning than that of the theists I have seen here. Maybe I will write a book- about you. I could call it "One Foot In The Grave... And The Other In His Mouth". TONY: Nice to see you failed -against your word- to respond to my post about your first mover argument not proving god's existence. But nevertheless, I'll try and respond to your question about atheist morals. My response would be that atheists exhibit morality due to anthropological reasons. Not so much because they "should", but rather because they realise that certain actions are associated with certain consequences. - 11:54:34 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:ROB-- Well said, but come on now. You and PapaSam; shake hands and make up. --TONY-- I don't have much time but a couple of points: I can't help but notice that I bear remarkable similarities to everyone else. Therefore it is hard for me to imagine that I have special significance and are deserving of being treated differently than everyone else. Therefore, I have to conclude that any treatment or rights or respect or fairness or justice that I feel I have am entitled to, everyone else must be entitled to as well. It then only remains to work out the details, which are mostly pretty straightforward.--It is unnecessary to ask us to suppose there is a god, so that we may understand your reasoning. (By the way, this is exactly what you have done.) I can fully follow your reasoning, but I recognize it as circular, and based on what I feel are unverifiable assertions. It surprises me that you and Anselm hold fast to this claim that god can be logically proven to exist when most theologions recognize the requisite leap of faith. Anselm went so far as to recognize this in regards to which particular god is THE god. - 13:21:36 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..same old same old:TONY- Morals are relative to the society in which we live. You insist on refering to atheism as if it had some kind of doctorine like a religion. For the zillionth time, atheism is only a non-acceptance of the supernatural! - 14:04:13 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PETER----Tony:--Very interesting question you asked, wondering if I had thought about God from a higher perspective. And I am glad you asked it. Let me assure you Tony, I certainly have tried to. However there is one immediate obstacle right from the beginning--and that is that I can only imagine myself being an extrememely vague idea of an entity, as there seem to be endless ways of describing what endless people imagine God to be like. One thing comes to mind though. I do so looking at it objectively, and will think things through, whereas a theist could reverse his thoughts or ignore them while engaging in a similar excercise because he may not like where he is going with those thoughts. In other words, I would not fear the prospect of concluding there is a God afterall, whereas a theist would fear discovering there is no God. If the theist does encounter a contradiction, he will attempt to reconcile it in some manner, rationalize it, hence paying more heed to be able to continue believing, than being objective. As I explained to Anselm yesterday, slapping on more and more infinite qualities to God, only renders it unintelligible and indistinguishable from non-existence. Here is one conclusion I have made, using sound logic, while contemplating the concept of omniscience. There are many more but one should be sufficient. If God were omniscient--he also could not be all loving, in fact he would be incapable of any emotion at all. Emotions are the result of perceiving, then identifying, evaluating and finally reacting. To perceive, is to use one's senses to gather information around him. The act of desiring implies that one does not yet possess what he desires. However since God is omniscient, and already posseses ALL knowledge, would never desire it, therefore there would be no need for him to engage in the act of perception ( Which would also eliminate him from performing any sensory functions such as seeing, hearing, )he would therefore never identify. as he has already done this--apparently eternally, he would never evaluate information as it comes known to us on a daily basis--he already knows it--therefore he would be without emotion. One may still argue he does, and they would be greater due to his vast knowledge, but his omniscience has nullified the necessary functions in order to have emotions. Also Tony, my conclusion that omniscience contradicts omnipotence, was done so with the application of reason. To dismiss it as being a truthful conclusion, simply means that one must reconcile the contradiction by another "system" --as you suggested-- could only mean a system outside the province of reason. However, your initial claim was to demonstrate the existence of God by reasonable methods--which is incidentally the only method by which one CAN recognize reality. Again, this is another example of unidentified conditions slapped on to save your belief, but being unaware that it is doing nothing but increasing the intelligibility of the initial claim. I do have to commend you for being persistent. At this point, most theists become very angry with me because I am trying to "destroy their beliefs"--and they know I am. Often they begin to gasp and shake with fear when the prospect of there NOT believing in God, and realizing that the notion his existence is so fraught with contradictions, the idea that He is There is some thing they will hang on for dear life, and they eventually discover to do so, renders the concept of Him existing meaningless--AND that their beliefs have been incorrect all these years. I am often criticized by others for sabotaging another's "faith"--but to me, I see this ultimately as doing someone a great favour--probably the biggest epistimological favour I could ever do. The closest thing I could compare it to is being and obstetrician slapping the feet of a baby to make him cry for the first time. The baby cries--his cozy nine months in the womb is over--he has been suddenly and violently disrupted as he has never been before, yet he needs to have this done; he "awakens" to life, and reality. - 14:31:47 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--MARLENE--Kind of like banging your head against the wall isn't it. And the sad thing is, we know there will be more banging ahead of us! GRANT--Good morning sir--excellent post on "non-religious morals" I find this line of debate the most exhasperating of them all. - 14:39:49 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:Hello PETER-- I've given this a lot of thought, but I can't figure out why the theists consider only their moral beliefs as valid. It begs the question though, are they only moral because God requires it? Gotta go. - 14:46:50 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: As I regularly point out about religeous believers, they mean to control, your reference to TONY's mind reading as an example, is an obvious example of my assertion. These kinds of individuals like the child of a bullying parent, so likewise do these creatures exercise a similar license. Watch, if the TONY again denys his need to control he will claim it was something else [lie?]. As for his confusion of the moral question it seems safe to say he ignores all those points you mentioned. Afterall, morality is not really his target. He means only to argue for the existence of a god. Elsewhere other times, I read and copied down this, "Mature people are comfortable with the relativism of humanism since it provides a consistent, rational and flexible framework for ethical human behavior--without a deity." This statement seems to apprehend the relativity of social matters as they are, not the grasp at and arm waving and pointing at the etherialness of some absolute. - 15:51:53 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Peter--CARL--Anselm, Tony and Dave also take note--:--The inevitable manouever into the forum of ethics is what most theists tend to do--in some last-gasp attempt to rescue their arguments. Inasfar as defending the existence of God's existence. At this junture we all know--including themselves--the arguments they initially claimed were able to defend are sunk. The notion of His existence is by far the most relevant and influential in their lives, and at this point the point of contention being addressed is " Well, if you do not believe in God, what is your reference point of morality?" Even if the theist were to outline a comprehensive, reasonable code of ethics here, it would do nothing other than insist that all those who were committed to adhering to these "rules" would have to BELIEVE that God exists. Obviously, this puts the concept of God on the same level as the realization that Santa Claus exists. If one THINKS they exist , they assume that certain consequences will occur, depending directly on what an a PERSSON OF ALLEGED AUTHORITY-not the entity themself says directly --and strangely enough, they never do. Obviously, from the perspective of ethics, the defence for God's existence lies only in the realm of threats if one does NOT believe and adhere to a set of arbitrary commands. In other words--believe--or else. One then is intimidated into adhering to the commands ( to varying degrees, depending on the denomination, and the interpretation) of some bizzare collection of alleged " divinely inspired "source , and adhere to them . according to which area one lives in, and how their peers interpret the text. - 17:32:57 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

I am doomed. Or am I?:- I find defending ethical concerns within the context of its being necessary only when recognizing the existence of a god, or any supernatural "cosmic policeman" so frustrating--and in the end--futile and pointlesss. In the case of our latest wave of theists ,namely Anselm, Tony and Prove, their sudden switch into the area of ethics as some manouever to justify their claim that God exists is one that illuminates several realities. One of them is that they are becoming aware that their defence of the initial area of argument is being shown to be just a big ile of pahooey, and they quickly revert to an area where previous arguments that have been effective to themselves to demonstrate the validity of the existence of a god. For the sake of rescuing their initial claim--its a bad one--but no worse than any other area they chose top go into. Defending the existence of God from this perspective is as about as useless as an ashtray on a motorcycle. All it does is demand that one BELIEVES in God in order to reap all the knowledge one would require to recognize the ethical code for not only living on earth to its fullest ptential of what every individual desires, but also to ensure that his soul be immortal and reside in a place ( heaven ) which promises a utopia which is unimaginable in terms of mortal man. However when the theist enters into this area of concern, all he does is defend the NOTION of a god existing. His defence is intimidation of eternal damnation,( which the Bible proclaims ), ambiguous threats that may occur to one, while living on earth, if he does NOT believe--and so on. It's just an excercise of once again demonstrating that if one is to "believe" from the perspective of "faith" --some force---whose motives will be unknown forever, and conveniently from mankind--will be able to---by again vague, yet terrifying methods--PUNISH those who do not necessarily do wrong to his fellow man--but DENY the the EXISTENCE ( regardless of how irrational it would be for one to assume He exists ) - 17:51:40 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Who said that last one? - 17:54:44 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:You guys are hilarious. I cannot see the difference in the mind-reading insights you have into the mind of the theist and what I have been accused of. In truth, PapaSam, I did not read Prove's mind at all- I made a logical deduction based on prior experience and basic knowledge of the internet. I think that when Prove does arrive, he will say something similar to what I described. The funny thing is that I worded that statement with you in full expectation of how you would reply. It was a chess game, so to speak, and check-mate for this game is mine- you're so predictable! Tell me, can you objectively read the posts following mine and not see that the atheists are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing? I await your next post. Of course, my reply is ready. You have such obvious openings that I expect the next game to end in the same manner. - 18:01:01 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PETER--Tony-:--The post you were inquiring about was mine. Originally, I thought I lost it, but found it later. It does retrace much of the previous post, but I thought I'd post it anyway if for no no other reasons than making the time I spent writing and thinking about it, not being all for nought, but also for purposes of re-emphasising a particular perspective. - 18:06:58 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Peter, I apprecieate your reply. I will warn you, my friend, against placing me with other theists you have known, you know reading my thoughts and providing the reasons behind my every move. I say this only in light of PapaSam's continued accusations that I am doing such a thing. I say this also because your evaluation doesn't quite fit with me at all. In the spirit of seeking common ground, let me tell you about my journey to theism. I will try to keep it brief. - 18:16:22 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony: I grew up going to a Xtian school, 1-12. My senior year in HS I decided to be a pastor. My freshmen year in college (also a xtian college) I found my beliefs so shaken that I dumped everything, including my faith, and attempted to rebuild. My belief was shaken for the precise reason that no one could answer my questions. I was getting crap for answers- for example, the common, 'just have faith' answer. I started reading- alot. It was the first time I'd heard the first mover argument, and I pondered that one for a bit before I concluded that there was something outside of the system. That didn't demonstrate much, though. It left alot unsaid. From there, there were three things that allowed me to return to Xtianity: 1. Quantum Physics, 2. The amount of presuppositions and unknowns, and the conclusions made from them found in evolution, and 3. If there is no God, and we evolved, how exactly can we be sure our arguments are logical which say there is no God? From these three items I found enough evidence to pursue theism, and eventually come around to Xtianity (my coming back though caused me to decide not to be a minister, for I realized that my particular denomination did not have sound reasoning for anything). One of the key concepts to come out of this is the concept of the 'observer' that comes out in quantum physics. A great deal of crazy ideas came out to explain the apparent role of the observer. It seeemed much more likely that the role of the observer was all-important, the error was assuming that we were the only beings with the ability to observe. So sown were the seeds that led to my question to you above. Hmm. That wasn't brief at all. lol - 18:17:57 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Rob, to get to you now. In the post I planned on replying to you said, assuming that there was a first cause/God, there is no evidence he still exists. Rather than dwelling on the self-contradiction that more or less is, let's take the assumption that there is a first cause and that for the sake of discussion it is God. My question is, "What kind of evidence do you want?" Part of my problem in talking with atheists is that I have difficulty discerning what evidences they are using and what kind they will allow. Please help me understand ya'll by answering this question. - 18:34:49 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--If I grouped you into a category of other theists in an irresponsible manner as you insisted--I apologize. The brief history of your past inasfar as your area of personal enlightenment is concerned is indeed interesting. I certainly do admire one who never exhausted his desire in searching for answers--as you have said you have done. However, as much as I find it admirable for you to briefly outline your personal foundations to arrive at the conclusions you have made, any such recounts are just that--recounts. However, when addressing particular arguments, the simple retelling of your reading ab=nd studying history are of no relevance, until those arguments are addressed directly, nor do they reconcile any contradictory arguments you impilicitly or explicitly arttempted to defend. - 18:41:47 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:Good ol'TONY still at his game of authority,e.g., chess moves deduction, etc., upon a second viewing of his site the thought fired up that he sougt after some kind of superhuman thing. Afterall, he chose not to allow or take seriously, i.e., accepted at a lesser value, the value of things said/written by others dispite that in these times when the creation of new knowledge soars. Now, he switches the game, sees things as hilarious but still leaves things addressed at his etherial position without a response. This guy does not have any other target but to make an annoyance of himself. Like any religeous thing, he'll contribute nothing but want to be considered the most important matter of concern. If he could prove that his concern was here and not some ineffective idealism, who could deny such? He deny's matter here, what does he offer, is it fact- as this is the only authority, does he offer facts obtained by accurate observation, and finally does he offer deductions made only from facts? These are old ideas, as I said even older than his three headed god and by the way these words were said by humans for humans. What can he put forward for his three headed god? Would its measure exceed that for humans, and if yes, who would be wise enough to know so? - 18:42:40 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:TONY: Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what you refer to when you say this is "more or less a self contradiction". But I don't think the question of what evidence I want is needed. The point to be noted is that it is a non-sequitur to conclude that god exists even if he were required to "get the ball rolling" as it were, on the grounds of this argument (do you disagree, and if so, why?). Thus, the first mover argument does not prove the existence of god, which is (I think) what you claimed it did. But to respond to the question about "what evidence I want", I don't "want" evidence. What I "want" is that we only employ a *theory* involving something "godlike" if and only if it is reasonable to do so, and to remember that it would be a theory. - 18:53:43 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Much thanks to Rob and Grant for starting to grasp my question. As a side-note, however- Grant, you misunderstood my question to Peter as assuming that there is a God in order to understand reasoning. Firstly, I was not trying to demonstrate from the premise that there is a God that there is a God. I was wondering if starting from the premise if many apparent contradictions fall away if you actually start from the premise and don't wander off. Peter, if he was honest, answered fairly admirably. But now to the morality thing. I think you are still confused about what I am asking. For one thing, I have said nothing about what I feel morality is: (I cut and pasted the following statements) "You imply that religious values are good," from PapaSam; "You insist on refering to atheism as if it had some kind of doctorine like a religion," from Marlene; "I can't figure out why the theists consider only their moral beliefs as valid," from Grant; of course there are many more. But you are all coming around, I think, to what I am asking. I am not trying to use morality as a proof for God. I am wondering why atheists who feel they have the right and authority to select their morality (PapaSam, Grant, and Rob all laid out how they choose their actions) can say that their choices are 'better' than others? Let me demonstrate this by adding replies to Papasam's earlier post (in parenths): - 18:53:46 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:We must be commited to moral principles, which are derived from critical intelligence and human experience, and we must pursue positive ideals (positive as opposed to what? It's all relative, right?). We should observe the common (common? I thought it was fairly established in the atheistic community that there are no common moral decencies!) moral decencies: integrity, humanitarianism, truthfulness, trustworthiness, fairness and responsibility (What is wrong with being corrupt, egaltarian, deceitful, biased and irresponsible?) This means caring (is caring morally better than hating?) for one another, ........ Secular humanism aims to bring out the best in people so that all can achieve fullness in life (who establishes what is best in people?). Thus we must strive to to realize personal potential, maximize creative talents and artistic expression, and choose joy and hope over despair, guilt and sin. (why is joy and hope better than despair, guilt and sin?)" In otherwords, now that you have given me your standard, how do we know your standard is better than another? By the way, if you now bring up MY standard, you are straying from the question, since the question is about YOUR standard's validity, whatever it is. - 19:01:31 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Rob, we are finally reaching some common ideas. Firstly, the first mover the way I understand it and have worked it is good if one is completely unbiased either way. It is the only argument that I know of that allows a completely unbiased person to use reason to reach a conclusion on the matter. Other arguments often require that you start from a premise. So, in all truthfulness, I don't use the first mover argument to prove a premise, I use it to provide one. The reason I asked Peter to suspend for argument's purpose the premise that there is no God is becuase it is a common practice in logical discourse for one to follow a premise and statements derived from them to their logical conclusion. So, there was no way for him to understand what I was saying if he held both premises true (even though they were contradictory) during the course of the discussion. It is a fair thing to ask, and I believe I would be decent to return the favor at some point. But this leads to my question about what kind of evidence do you want. Just as it is important to understand biases and premises, it is also important to understand which evidence is admissable. Basically, you said that there was no evidence that a God still exists. But if you only considered evidence from an empiracle realm, do you think that is fair? Would you accept evidence from a historical realm? A literary one? A metaphysical realm? I need to know this before going further. That was long, too! Sorry - 19:15:43 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--TONY--In reply to your morlity question inasfar as atheists are concerned. Christian morality is derived from ARBITRARY commands from God, and Jesus. Although the 10 comandments outline certain obvious ethical guidelines--Such as honesty,--not killing, or stealing---none of them are backed up with any reason. Same with Jesus. Love thy neighbour. That's nice, but WHY should we love him? No reasons are ever given. An arbitrary command can be neither true nor false--it is worse than false. By their very nature, they are devoid of evidence, hence unconnected to reality. They may coincidentally be the same as a code based on reason and using man's life as a minimal ethical standard, but there is no method of verification. One is to accept at face value--or faith--which is a call to deliberately to snub one's nose and consciously defy logical conclusions. This is a rational code of ethics? Its historical record speaks for itself. - 19:15:45 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Tony:Er... Peter? You talked about my standard though my question was about yours. I believe to take what you said and answer the question I am asking is to demonstrate why your standard is not arbitrary, and perhaps even why arbitrary morality is 'worse than false.' Thanks. - 19:19:31 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

ROB.All your talk boils down to one thing. "I am an atheist, but maybe--" You.ve misplaced the position of my feet. Old and doddering as I may be, I still have both feet on the ground. I was an atheist beffore you were born. I became an atheist because of ny own reasoning, not because someone converted me. Everything on this web site is a rehash of what has been said before. Your pathetic attempts to hide behind the cloak of atheism while expressing doubts about it is sheer hypocrisy. It brings to mind the old expression - pardon the language - "Either shit or get off the pot." There is no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant." would also apply. In short, either you are an atheist or you are not. Don't try to hedge your bets. Since you seem to enjoy making personal remarks I feel tempted to say that your so-called open mind is a symptom that your brains are leaking out, but I won't say that because it would be mean of me to do so. To show you that I have no hard feelings you can keep my invisible purple elephants. Did I remember to tell uou that they can fly? - 19:24:10 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:TONY:(I'll respond to you first, and forgive me if I'm brief, but I have 2 exams tomorrow). First let me remind you that I have not accepted your argument (except for the case of argument). Next, your 1st mover does rely on a premise, i.e that everything has a cause. And As for your other types of evidence, I haven't got time to go into depth, but I would add that I would be very skeptical of them, and would point out that they can be riddled with misleading avenues. Now PAPASAM: You seem to be missing the point. For me, atheism means I don't believe in god (in the absence of convincing evidence for one). Now do you know the difference between believe and know? Beliefs allow for error. Knowing does not. I don't doubt my atheism, as you seem to think is the case. (BTW, you may be forced to use a pot, but I prefer a toilet). With regards to personal remarks, I was happy sticking to the debate until you decided to start getting shirty with me. And you feeble attempt at humour was synonymous with your views: severely lacking in originality (Bill posted that "open-mind" quip months ago, and it wasn't funny then). - 19:49:59 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. When one plays chess with hinself one is always the winner. Apparently you enjoy playing with yourself. In you story about yur circular path from theism to theism it appears you were begining to doubt. You were getting crap for answers. Did your god perform a miracle and turn the crap to gold? Your three reasons for continuing the circle are 1. Quantum physics. Unfortunately, I know nothing about quantum physics. I thought it had something to do with various mathematical and wave flow theories but i guess I was mstaken. 2. Boils down to doubs about evolution. One of the critcisms I have read about evolution is the many gaps in the fossil records. Considering the many millions or perhaps billions of years involved, the earthquakes, ice age glaciers chewing up the ground, volcanoes and other natural happenings such as meteorites striking the earth, it is surprising that we have found as many as we have. 3. "If there is no god and we evolved how exactly can we be sure our argiments are logical which say there is no god?" Your first five words do away with any further discussion. If there is no god there is nothing further to discuss. If we already grant that there is no god the subject is moot. You further go on to say that you came around to Xianity again but not enough to be a minister because of a lack of sound reasoning. Is this your idea of logic? You'll buy it but you don't believe in it enough to preach it? What it all comes down to is that you were unable to overcome the religion you sucked in with your mother's milk, and was hammered into you in your childhood years. - 19:56:01 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:---TONY--ANY arbitrary declaration is worse than false--as I said earlier any such declaration has no connection to reality, and is devoid of evidence. Do you require more reasons than that? It is a brazen assertion, based neither on direct or indirect observation nor any attempted logical inference therefrom. For example, a man tells you that the soul survives the death of the body. If you ask him " WHY?" he offers no argument, other than such statements cannot be proven, NOR disproven. Rationally, one dismiisess such claims without discussion, consideration, or argument. It has no relation to man's means of knowledge. Since the statement is detached from the realm of evidence, no process of logic can asses it. I could go on for quite some time, if you are not yet convinced. - 20:06:03 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

" If there is no god and we evolved how exactly can we be sure our arguments are logical which say there is no god?" - 20:12:50 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

RON...--->Tony...: I have emailed you. You may email me at "walker@flex.net" - 20:13:50 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

RON...--->if there is no God...: The same way any logical person knows to use toilet paper on his ass instead of his tongue. We are the beholders of our own logic. PETER has summed it up perfectly above. - 20:19:57 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Awhile back, maybe a year or so ago didn't someone here post some sites that outlined the method and manners some cults use to envelope others? I recall that one of the points said that, these cult promoters require of the captive the yielding of ones' mental usage. TONY has been cleverly urging his declawing neutering lets all be alike in mind, and think nothing, review his sentence above that goes, "It is the only argument that I know of that allows a completely unbiased person to use reason to reach a conclusion on the matter." Take a look at this "only argument" and "allows a completely UNBIASED person" and next "to use REASON..", who recalls what the spider said to the fly? - 20:50:43 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ALL: If atheist-A decided to kill off an entire group of people, and atheist-B claimed this to be wrong, how does atheist-B make a differentiation between his own ethic and that of atheist-A? In the atheists worldview ethics is completely arbitrary, because after all, what one animal does to another animal is ethically irrelavant. What is your point of reference,please, and if there isn't one, how can you claim that ANY act committed in the Bible is wrong? By making the claim, you seem to be saying,"well,I think I'll borrow the theist's worldview for a while, impose it on him, and then go back to atheism where all ethics are relative." PETER: In your arguments you've shown the ability to so anthropomorphize God, that whatever attributes you possess, you think God should possess, and you are applying them,not in an anological way(as you should do), but rather in a univocal way,i.e. if I am this way, so God must in all ways be like me. You state that,"If God knows the future w/ infallible certainty, he cannot change it, in which case he is not omnipotent." However, this applies only to a being IN TIME. God cannot change the future because for him, there is no future, only an eternal NOW. To speak of God as not being able to change the future, or not being able to tell a lie is not only to commit a category mistake, but to label something as a limitation that is not a limitation. If someone said,"Peter cannot utter an illogical word."? Or, "Peter can never be wrong"? Would it do away with your omniscience simply because the word "cannot" was applied? The fact that an omnipotent God cannot do certain things does not disprove his omniscience, rather it merely shows that some activities are incompatible with omnipotence. You also state that, "qualities cannot be divorced from limitations." Could it be that the limited qualities that you possess are limiting you somewhat in this assessment? Your argument seems to run as follows: 1) All people with determinant qualities have limitations. 2)God has determinant qualities. 3)Thus, God has limitations. It seems as though your inserting a term that is out of place which makes it guilty of the fallacy of 4 terms, just like your previous arguments that equate an infinite God with Finite creatures. God is unchanging, Peter, yes,but this does not make him unable to do changing things. Think of a dot with 3 lines coming down from it. The lines are the past, present and future. God is the dot, so he is not past, present and future because everything to him is one eternal NOW. God is the absolute center of a wagon wheel that remains the same while the rest of the wheel turns. It is all a matter of proper perspective, Peter. Also, I'm not sure you understood my response to the primacy of existence axiom. Let us try it again. Are you maintaining that there had to have been a TIME when God IDENTIFIED himself as consciousness? If so, then yes, your argument would smack of validity, for in order for something to claim to have consciousness AT A PARTICULAR TIME, it would had to have HAD some semblance of what consciousness WAS, but does the theist assert this? There are several past tense words included, but how does an eternal being speak in the past tense. Again, your applying timely concepts to a timeless being. Lastly, the cosmological argument I've been presenting has been consistently misunderstood. The big bang or the actual infinity argument postulates the beginning of the universe. Would you classify this as an event? yes. Do events need causes?yes. Is God an event?no.Do you wish to rule out the supernatural a priori, well if so, based on the nature of the case, what do you postulate? I have heard many profess their ignorance about the answer to what caused it, but yet so certain about what DIDN'T cause it. Like many other atheists, they profess their ignorance about things only when it fails to accomodate their anti-supernatural bias, but this bias, like so many other aspects of the atheists presuppositions, is nothing but an assumption, based not on science, but on a philosophical position called naturalism. - 21:02:05 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: had to tun but back again, I see ANSELM is still confused and speaks so, anyway back to the charms of TONY. With his "only" does this word convey to anyone that they would have a choice? a "..completely unbiased person.." does this mean one has to do the three monkey thing? Then finally he appeals to "reason" but how does that happen how would that follow from having no choice and playing with nothing? The actual points I briefly mention here can be more involved, but why waste the energy, this individual means only to control. - 21:14:43 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:STEVEN: I know God's nature to be what it is based on the impossibility of the contrary, For if God were not the ultimate standard of say, morality, for instance, then objective moral values wouldn't exist. If there were not an absolute standard of truth, or logic, then it would be arbitrary for me to say someone is thinking or doing anything wrong for any judgement assumes an absolute standard by which what falls short is to be judged. If God were illogical, then none of us should be able to judge his action as illogical since ontologically, logic flows from his very nature. Oh, and I don't believe I've mentioned the Bible, Steven, so enough of the red herrings , okay? The Bible is just one of your worries,after all, since not only must you deal with the Bible, but since you are an atheist, you also must deal with the Koran, The Midrash and Mishna, the Hindu Vedas, and the Tao te ching just to name a few. Please do not minimize your task by focusing on merely one religious text, when all of the others I mentioned also believe in God and your fundamental duty should be to deal with ALL who posit a creator. Do not start D, without having dealt with A,B, and C. You have quite a task ahead of you, so I shall let you commence. NO NAME: "We live and we die and,poof.That's it"? Well, aside from the fact that I find this debatable, I think it would be a great title for a type of Gettysburg address for atheists. You mentioned emotions? What are these strange things, and how did they come from pure matter? - 21:22:26 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:CARL: Well, I see Carl is confused about the fact that Anselm is confused. Is this really argumentation? - 21:29:09 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: Sorry about the passing slap shot, but so as to mince words with you, the ideas you seek unload are in some disarray, maybe later I'll see if you have some order for some target, or whatever.. - 21:38:18 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM..I will ask this of you, as no other theist has ever answered this question for me: Do you believe that there were no rules, laws, morals or ethics in existence before man made god? - 21:50:34 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: I read you again, you lack good reading material. As said by another observer, since it appears you are a bible thumper, for one to earn a living the bible is useless it doesn't tell one how to make at least shoes. Hope you are not a xtian! - 21:56:25 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: Did you know that in India they have 'prophets' appear regularly and that many say these hucksters bring the dead back among the living? Have you read what either confucius or maybe buddha said on their death bed, "I am only a man not a god" that to their followers and of the infantilism o'the xtian scripture, well you gotta be one ignorant thoughtless irresponsible individual to buy that nonsense. - 22:14:06 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--Earlier today I was commending Tony for his persistence in attempting to defend his position, and I extend the same kudos to you as well. "To God, everything is the eternal now" Apparently my warnings that your arguments can only collapse on themselves when one continues to add infinities to God. If something is said to exist a dimension of an identifiable time is a necessary prerequisite. God again would be non identifiable--therefore non-existent as existent IS identity, the two cannot exist without the other. What you have managed to do here is, through some sloppy circular reasoning, special pleading and hoc assumption. This also brings in a scientific concern. Regardless of all its philosophical flaws, such a claim could never be tested, or falsifiable, which is part of scientific method. The omniscient/omnipotent contradiction is simply an application of sound logic--it is unconditional, and to accept otherwise disqualifies one from the province of reason. "The fact that an omnipotent God cannot do certain things does not disprove his omniscience" If he cannot do certain things, he is not omnipotent, rather it merely shows that some activities are incompatible with omnipotence."--In other words, it restricts both these qualities, hence the prefix "omni" no longer applies". The thing about "unlimited qualities" was actually "unlimited attributes"--again just aplay on words more than anything else--its is unconditional, and to defy it, is to defy reason. The same can be said about the "Primacy of existence" axiom. So in the end, God who was conscious before anything exists--which is impossible, was ominscient ( a concept that collapses on itself--see a previous post I made to Tony earlier--is supernatural--a concept that defies existence, consciousness and identity and resides in all of time, past present and future--rendering his concept meaningless is about as ludicrous a claim that is imaginable. You asserted, that by purely logical means, you could prove the existence of God, then balked at assuming the burden of proof, started doing it anyway, and then postulate the existence of some mish-mash of slip-shod contradiction, faulty logic and now a product of your own inability to admit defeat in this debate. The results are beginning to be embarassing to witness, as they are beginning to become practically impossible to address within the context of reason. - 23:09:46 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: As a continuation of my last post regarding some of those other religeons, the point now before us has become the question, how far do we "pursue" that task you mentioned? In a very short time their idiocy stacks up too quickly, in just a short time investigation of any one will result in so many false apparitions that any reasonable person would naturally stop and declare them unfit for a healthy mind\person. Perhaps, the god thing is not real? - 23:10:05 on 15 Jan 98 GMT

Louis Wood Jr.:I'm a Psychology student in the U.S. at Sinclair College here in Dayton, Ohio. As a man of science, I believe religion is a by product of humans. Much of it was made up because we are afraid of whats going to happen when we die. My family members see me as "delusional." With 400 billion stars in our galxy, and 300 billion other galaxies out there, there has to be life out there. Just imagine, if there was one planet with life around one out of every thousands stars, there would be millions of other civilizations out there. Do you think a culture a thousand years ago has heard of the man Jesus Christ. Religion is created by man, not God. There is so much to discover, why jump to a conclusion that some God created everything? Our minds are so valuable, we are fooling ourselves. We're cheating ourselves, and imagination. We have so much to learn, and explore. I'm sick of being labeled "delusional." I've never met, nor seen God. I wish other humans could open their minds to the universe, or maybe just our own solar system. e-mail me at: louisjrtrekkie@hotmail.com - 1:50:25 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->LOUIS..given your e-mail address, I hope your knowledge of the universe includes more than what you have learned on Star Trek! Welcome to the page! - 2:42:21 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Adam ALL I WANT FOR NEW YEAR'S IS MY TWO FRONT TEETH---->:What M. Kennedy got for New Year's was Sonny Bono. BBC, does anyone know what Sonny Bono and a squirrel have in common? - 3:08:27 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY. You ask "what is wrong with being corrupt, egalitarian, (how does that fit in?) deceitful,biased and irresponsible? Why is joy and hope better then despair, guilt and sin?" I'm sure question is a rhetorical one, in a not too subtle attempt to entrap me, laying out the rules of don't ask me - I'm the only one who can ask questions here. However, if you ask that all in earnest, you are sick in mind. Commit some corrupt and irresponsible act which will land you in jail- the Shangri-La of like thinking people. After your fellow soul-mates got through with you I feel sure your doubts would disappear and you would prefer my kind of environment. Notice that I played your game and didn't ask what your standards are, but I would bet my last nickel that you are glad to be where there are fire and police departments, ambulances and 911 services. - 3:53:45 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Adam SUITE!--->:Sonny Bono and a squirrel both crack their nuts on a tree. What do the Democrats and Republicans have in common? - 4:03:21 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. It is apparent that the holy rollers, having been rebuffed in their attack on logic, have decided to digress to a discussion of ethics. Such discussion is fruitless. There is no code of ethics for atheists, who range from secular humanists to the Joseph Stalin types of mass murderers. ANSELM. I hope this clears matters up for you. Please stop telling me what my beliefs are in any area. The only way to find out is to ask me, and unlike TONY, give me the courtesy of being allowed to question you in return.You ask "How can you claim that any act in the Bible is wrong?" I don't have the time and space to list them all, but don't you agree that rape, murder, the slaughter of women and children are wrong? Please answer this one question. - 4:31:54 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Since your so intent on convicing yourself that I've engagrd in fallacious reasoning, why don't we compare just 2 of our arguments and see for ourselves which ones remain erect after dissection. My argument: premise 1)Everything that comes to be has a cause. premise 2)The universe came to be. Conclusion)The universe had a cause. Like it or not, Peter, this is a SOUND argument because the conclusion flows from the premises. What you assert is that it is not COGENT, but you think this only because you approach the argument with your naturalistic presuppositions, which as I stated previously, are without foundation, and you did not dispute this, but at any rate, let us now bring one of your arguments to the screen: Premise 1) Anything that exists is identifiable. Premise 2) God is non-identifiable. Conclusion) God is non-existent. Now, not only does this argument commit the fallacy of FIVE terms(unlike the previous one that I mentioned in the last post which was guilty of 4 terms), but you also make am arbitrary universal affirmation in premise 1, you've also assumed the truth of your second premise without giving evidence, AND throughout the entirety of the argument you've maintained a false tautalogy(existence=identity). Not only is this argument fallacious, it's non-sensical. It could be equated with &%*&$^%$*^RR%^&$$. When you mention logic, are you referring to logic of a purely formal kind, symbolic logic,Boolean logic, or Peter's special brand of logic? After comparing these 2 arguments, I ask you: Who is being illogical? There is much more to add, but I must go. I think next time I'm here, we're going to delve into epistemology again, because I think this is the crux of the matter at hand. - 4:43:55 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:JOETTE: Would you maintain that morality, ethics, rules and laws(including the laws of logic) are conventional? ROB: Why could we not infer God as a theoretical entity to explain a certain set of effects? Also, if we are the beholders of our own logic, then why all the fuss about theism being irrational? I could have my logic and you could have yours. Are the laws of logic relative, like the laws of morality? Is logic really a personal possession, or do we operate from some standard? - 4:49:36 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROB. The difference in believing and knowing is purely subjective. When one believes in something strongly it becomes a 'fact'. The believer 'knows' it is a fact. There is no room for doubt. Thus my opinion becomes knowledge to me. To me, the idea that an all powerful god could materialize from nowhere and nothing seems so ludicrous that I tend to over-react. I apologize for coming on so strong and getting personal. It was unwarranted. I was guilty of the same fault I find with the theists - allowing emotion to overcome reason. Hopefully, it won't happen again. - 4:50:21 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:LOUIS WOOD:WELCOME! I don't know Louis, is it more reasonable to assert that nothing created something out of nothing? Oh, and please tell me your not classifying Psychology as a science. I think it to be something more akin to pseudoscience, like astrology. Since when is what we know of the mind based on empirical observation? - 4:54:28 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY,ANSELM, and all other like minded individuals in the area. With all your talk, with all your theorizing, with all your hopes and fears and your attempts to rationalize your theory about a nebulous god, the fact remains - you can't make something out of nothing. And don't ak me how the universe got here. I don't have any idea, but I know it's here. I interact with it all the time. Even after I die I will interact with the worms feeding on my carcass. Once they're through that's the end of me and my interaction. Don't be envious. There are plenty of worms to go around. So tell me - how was your conversation with god today? Did you tell him about that mean old atheist who is always picking on uou? Wouldn't it be terrible if he told you he liked me better than he liked you? Now there's a nightmare for you! Give him my regards the next time you see him. - 5:11:35 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--More on your last post......An "anti-supernatural bias" Rejecting the has nothing to do with being biased against the supernatural. I have already addressed how the concept of "the supernatural " is flawed at its roots but lets try this. If something were to act out of nature, it would do so apart from nature. If it were known to nature ( and we are part of the natural universe ) any influence it would have ON nature would be undetectable by any consciousness within nature--to remain in the realm of "supernaturalism" If the forces in "the supernatural" were to be known, even in the slightest--it would no longer be "supernatural". So for a theist to insist his god operates outside nature would then imply he has knowledge of the supernatural--which would be impossible--and if he did know the supernatural, it would no longer be the supernatural. Yes, I could be called a "naturalist", but you tag this on to me as if it were some kind of curse. Nature can be explained within its own boundaries. There is no need for an entity such as a god to explain its existence--and again this can be proven by the Law of Causality in that existence can only be explained within the context of the existence of the natural world. To suggest otherwise is , as I have previously explained, is fallacious therefore making the position of being a "naturalist" the only rational one. What do I postulate? To clarify this issue, it is helpful to distinguish between a "first cause" and a "causal primary" A first cause, refers to being which is uncaused, but was caused by the universe to exist at some point in time. For reasons I have already presented, this notion is logically absurd. A causal primary, on the other hand, is the metaphysical basis for the concept of causality. It does not require explanation, because IT MAKES EXPLANATION POSSIBLE; it is the basis of all causal interactions. Existence, the causal primary, is pre-supposed by all causal processes--all motion and change--and therefore must eb regarded as existing externally. While there must be causal primary for there to be causality, there is NO NEED FOR A FIRST CAUSE IN TIME. There is no reason why a succession of changes cannot proceed infinitely into the past. As long as we remember that existence had no beginning in time, there is no problem grasping that change. a natural corollary of existence, had no beginning as well. A theist may argue, without a first cause of change, there would be no second cause, third cause or presently existing causes. But since causal processes are presently occuring, there must have been a first cause. This rejoinder is partially correct. Without a first cause, there cannot be a second, third and so on. In other words, without a first cause, we cannot assign a numerical designation to each causal process. This does not entail, however, that causal interactions could not possibly exist. In order to assign a numerical designation to any causal process, one must presuppose the existence of the first cause. After all, to call something "tenth" means there were nine causes in front of it, so there must be a first cause to this series. Consequently, this tactic, since it relies on the prior acceptane of a first cause, must be rejected as blatant question-begging. From the fact that causal series extend infinitely into the past, it follows that we cannot assign sequential numbers to each causal process. But it does not follow from this that causality will occur. The issue of numerical designation is irrelevant to causality. The temporal version of the first cause argument is must rejected as muddled, contradictory, and irrelevant. If the theist has no difficulty accepting a uncaused god, why does he complain when asked to accpet a uncaused universe? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the natural universe is in any way dependent on a supernatural agency. On the contrary, the concept of causality makes sense only WITHIN the context of the natural universe, and to demand a cause of the universe is nonsensical. - 5:17:28 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:TONY-- You said,--- "Have you ever considered all of your arguments and ideas and thoughts about this matter from a higher perspective? Let me elaborate: ( You'll need to assume for perspective's sake that there is a God) Consider for a while, and then get back to me, whether or not many of your arguments would in all practicallity fall flat if the truth was that this 'creation' lost some important details/depth in the 'translation.' It may be impossible for US as authors to be simultaneously all-knowing and all-powerful- do you think it's logical to think that OUR creator would be just because we are? ---I said,---"It is unnecessary to ask us to suppose there is a god, so that we may understand your reasoning. (By the way, this is exactly what you have done.) I can fully follow your reasoning, but I recognize it as circular, and based on what I feel are unverifiable assertions." You said, ---"Grant, you misunderstood my question to Peter as assuming that there is a God in order to understand reasoning. Firstly, I was not trying to demonstrate from the premise that there is a God that there is a God. I was wondering if starting from the premise if many apparent contradictions fall away if you actually start from the premise and don't wander off. Peter, if he was honest, answered fairly admirably." ---No, I didn't misunderstand you. I take this as an intentional sidestep on your part. I said nothing to indicate misunderstanding. BTW, Since Peter has said absolutely nothing that would indicate dishonesty, I see your "Peter, if he was honest..." remark to be a dishonest and desperate attempt to distract attention from his arguments. ---You said, "Atheism professes there is no absolute moral code. They still make moral statements. The inquiry: Why do they make the statements? Why should their statements be considered valid?" ---I infer from this that you don't consider atheist's moral statements valid. Why else ask the question? I posted why I thought morals were valid outside of a religious context. I then said, "I can't figure out why the theists consider only their moral beliefs as valid," --- You said, "I think you are still confused about what I am asking. For one thing, I have said nothing about what I feel morality is: (I cut and pasted the following statements) ...(snip)..."I can't figure out why the theists consider only their moral beliefs as valid," from Grant."---I'm not trying to nit-pick here. I'm telling you why I consider it fruitless to talk to you. - 5:29:49 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM--- Aw gee, I thought you knew all this stuff about The Law of Identity and all that stuff, since you were a philosophy student. Well, go back to your books, and read up on :The Law of Identity. The Law of Causality. Amidst some frustrated tirade you then accuse me of the committing the fallacy of four AND five terms--and using my own brand of logic. If I were you my friend, before you really embarass yourself here, or any other forumyou wish to debate in---is to hit those books again. Must I have to explain to you WHY and HOW you are fading fast, any more than I have already? - 5:31:32 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:PAPASAM-- I have a lot of respect for you, but a little less than I had yesterday before your haughty response to Rob for not being atheist enough for you. - 5:41:00 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Does Morality Require God?:Grant:--OPEN-- I'm in a pissy mood, but here's an interesting link. - 6:18:29 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- I'm waiting for the answer????? ALL- Of course ole Tony knows what's coming next. He's been here before and argued the same arguements and gotten basically the same answers. He thinks he has something new to add. CARL- I think your seeing the same things as I am, Tony has lots of people playing his game. PAPASAM and ROB- I'm glad to see you two have come to an agreement. Both of you have lots to contribute and IMO you got off on a misunderstanding. GRANT- How's work? I think what Papasam is saying is that an agnostic is not an atheist although IMO(again) Rob is atheist. I think what Rob is trying to say that he will accept a god when evidence is there to support it. To date there isn't any. JOETTE- Where have you been? I've been super busy in the last few days but I'm home for awhile again. - 6:21:56 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:LOUIS WOOD JR.. Welcome and just don't become another Mack! Psychology has made strides in helping people, most especially those who have brainwashed by religion. As a psychology student you should know that it's noy you who'd deluded! - 6:28:02 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Your not alone, I'm in a pissy mood at the best of times. Well time to read a little of Anne Rice, goodnight atheists! - 6:32:22 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:PAPASAM-- My apologies. I missed your last post to Rob. My respect is renewed. - 6:33:30 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:TONY,ANSELM I am continually amazed by how you can 'talk' so much and still say nothing. It's the reverse of what you are trying to do with your 'god' concept. On the one hand you create nothing from something (words) and on the other hand you create something (god)from nothing. Have you ever considered a magic show? - 7:13:14 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM..you are playing the typical game of not answering a question by asking a question. So, may I have please have a straight answer to this question: Do you believe that there were no laws, rules, morals or ethics before the advent of god? - 11:51:35 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..thank you for the link. It is quite good, and I hope that Anselm reads it before he answers my very simple question. I hope that your mood is better today. - 12:06:48 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--Christianity certainly takes a vested interest in ethics. However by its very nature christianiy actually negates the the foundation of rational ethics. Christianity is profoundly anti-life. - 12:23:16 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

QUAKE:Peter so many people prove your reasoning and logic to be faulty, yet you still persist in your rebellion against god, he cares for you, repent and believe the gospel before it is too late and all your Arguments burn with you - 15:03:18 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->QUAKE..for the well-being of your mental health, please leave us alone. - 15:23:11 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--- Yeah, QUAKE sure, whatever you say. Its only faulty logic in that it demolishes all the theists arguments--and stops them dead in their tracks. I am fully prepared for every theist who I repeatedly can show they are wrong to either question MY logic, or logic itself. At that juncture, I don't even bother to defend either, but rather I point them into the direction of brushing up on their knowledge of logic--like I did to Anselm. It happens EVERY TIME simply because you and all the other theists just don't like what you hear, find the prospect of the alternative, a philosophical position that is terrifying to yourselves, and suseptible to all the impending doom that your religion dictates will fall upon you, when that belief is abandoned. Also, I cannot rebel against something that does not exist . And why should I abandon every shred of reason I have and defy the efficacy of my own mind to believe the Bible. And if God truly DOES exist, why would he punish me for my adherence to reason--the "gift" he gave me so I can recognize reality, and detect utter fools like yourself? The sad thing about is Quake is that you don't even realise how foolish you are, and if you actually did--it wouldn't matter to you anyway. - 15:36:42 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:QUAKE: what s'up? kissed any rings lately? groveled in the dirt beneath the blue sky lately? raise-up any dead? Cast out any demons? hows jc and his ma'doin, heard they were seen out and about over the just past month. - 15:38:37 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--hello, little Jojo. - 15:40:05 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:LOUIS: The primative minds of the religeous believer here can say the darndest things! Just pay them the due of their infantilism since they don't seem to think before they speak. - 15:59:11 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Looks like from your advice to the ANSELM, who is a wild and crazy kinda guy, to hit the books again you see someone trying to do and say things without restraint, too? That is, o course, the only cure left for the ANSELM pup, as rubbin'his nose in his droppings does not seem to have the proper results, that being a thoughtful dialogue. - 17:59:31 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:PAPASAM: Sorry not to respond earlier- First let me say I am perfectly happy to stay "above board" from now on- I don't have a problem with personal insults, but I do tend to respond pretty heavily when they are directed in my direction. With that out of the way, I feel I should respond to your comments about belief. It is well documented in philosophy, but I think you will probably realise if you examine the concepts of faith and belief yourself, that they are significantly different. For example, you can believe (with good reasons) that something is so (i.e, the cock believes that seeing the farmer in the morning means he is about to be fed, as this is what it has signified on every occasion in the past). But this does not mean you know that is so (as the cock finds out one day when the farmer wrings its neck). It probably seemed ludicrous to the cock to think that it might be possible the farmer was going to wring his neck one day (after all, why would the farmer bother nurturing him, if then to to kill him?), but my point is that believing something is not the same as knowing it (no matter how convinced you are). If you start confusing beliefs with knowledge, then I fear you are going back into theist territory (and this is what faith, in its literal sense and not my figurative sense, is: "faith n. 1 complete trust or confidence. *2 firm belief, esp. without logical proof.*", Oxford English Dictionary). So seeing as it was me using the word faith that started the argument, you can see why I find it a little ironic that then you told me I am not a real atheist because I don't have (what amounts to) faith (in god's inexistence). I hope this has helped clarify what I mean when I say I am an atheist. - 18:19:14 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. I see you've come back. When did they let you out? It's a good thing you're here. Anselm and Tony needed a third man to play "Ring around a Rosie" oops! I meant 'Ring around a god'.ANSELM. You have failed to answer two direct questions.In response to your query "How can you claim that any act in the bible is wrong?" The answer is simply that I have read the bible. Now I will repeat my question. It is a very simple question, phrased in plain English. Don't you agree that rape, murder and the slaughter of women and children is wrong? I'm still waiting for your answer. - 18:24:49 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: I started to post something really off-color about the quacks' release, but not today- at this time anyway. Later on the quack will say something which will allow for its timelier posting. - 18:42:57 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: That morality site, no fluff pointed and simply said. (Who needs spirits, immaculate conceptions, omnipotence, an all powerful, heaven, hell, demons, purgatory, blessings, saints, lucifer, holy ghosts, son of god, three gods are one god, etc.etc.?) - 20:23:35 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

GOD:I'm God and I am omnipotent and can do whatever I like. So I've decided to remove my being from existence, starting nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnow! - 21:02:54 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..wrong exit line..:GOD- Your an imposter, we all know the real God hails from South Africa and never fails to ZOINK himself out. - 21:07:49 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Philip: Wow, it seems we atheists WERE wrong but now we're RIGHT! :o) <--- smiley for the chuckley-challenged) - 21:09:25 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

GOD:I'm God and I just decided to come back into existence. *poof* - 21:12:25 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Philip:Marlene: OK, my hand's up ... it was me, not God. How could it be? :o) - 21:13:22 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>> the most hilarious job title in the world is: 'christian therapist/psychologist' LOL - 21:15:56 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:--->PHILIP...at least you got the eternal nnnnnnnnnnnnnnow right! - 21:35:31 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..The difference in believing and knowing is purely subjective. When one believes in something strongly it becomes a 'fact'. The believer 'knows' it is a fact. There is no room for doubt Thus my opinion becomes knowledge to me." I have copied this from a previous post and I believe that Rob has already addressed, but I am confused. By that line of thinking, are you saying because you believe something to be true that it IS true, or rather, a fact? As Rob pointed out, how would that be any different than a theist believing so strongly in a god that has become fact? - 21:44:34 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROB. I can accept your reasoning and the semantics involved, but my conceit or ego, call it what you will, makes me feel that when I have reasoned to the best of my ability and reached a conclusion, that my conclusion is a fact. Certainly others using the same data may come to some other conclusion, but I can't help it if they're wrong. (After all, it's my ego.) - 21:44:51 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..looks like we were posting at precisely the same time. I do not find much difference between your line of reasoning and that of a theist. - 21:47:03 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..speaking of GOD, do you think he still lurks here? It would nice if he came back once in awhile (he has a great sense of humour!) - 21:49:55 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PHILIP- Good thing you owned up as God out of Africa would have been mighty upset. We haven't heard from him for some time. Word is, he is having some problems with macrosoft. Stan knows how to fix it but in order for him to do it, God will have to relieve Stan of his burden of Mother T. It's quite the dilemma! - 21:53:47 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- As to my above post, I was just thinking the same thing. He had a "wicked" sense of humor! - 21:55:21 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. I think my previous posting to Rob should answer your question. Here's to Reason! May it always rule. Do you think I'm stirring dissention in the ranks? I hope not. Oh well, someone has to shake things up. The pitiful attempts by Anselm and his motley crew to bring life to this discussion are boring me. They go on and on and on with the same buzz and I find it hard to stay a w ak eeeeeeee - 21:56:53 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- Not only hilarious but oxymoronish! Listen to Dr. Laura and she'll refer you to a theological psychologist. Anyone see X-Files last week, speaking of psychologists??? - 21:58:57 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..at least the course for that job title would be easy! They would only have to read one book! A bird course for bird brains! - 22:07:55 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Actually, I think this is exactly what the discussion is for, discussing atheism and what it is and what it means. I understand where both you and Rob are coming from. So your stand is that there is absolutely no god? I'm not sure that I would classify that stand as "faith". You've come to your conclusion based on the lack of evidence for such a being. I agree with you that it's reason. But then again, I agree with Rob. What we know today may be negated by evidence presented to change it tomorrow therefore the evidence we have of the subject today is not absolute. IMO, due to the lack of any evidence for such a creature as god, I'm 99.99% sure that there is no god. BTW, I'm also bored to tears with discussing with these theists. They aren't open to discussion for one thing. - 22:09:38 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..actually, I was sort of rooting for Anselm. I asked him a simple question, and thought for sure I would get an answer, as he seems to enjoy himself as evidenced by the length of his posts. But alas, I ask again, and no response (he did use the old answer a question with a question trick, but...). I guess he doesn't have all the answers afterall. - 22:23:57 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..I too believe that we should be able to express our opinions, but frankly, I was disturbed by your attack on Rob. There is one thing about disagreeing, but the personal attack was unnecessary. Being the mother-hen type that I am, I would appreciate it if you could keep the insults to a minimum. I remember you wanting the same thing when you first started posting, so obviously we have been a poor influence on your level of intolerance. - 22:28:06 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB...and that goes for you too! No more giving of hard times ;) - 22:29:40 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: are we talkin of a symbolic group hug, instead since we are where we are? - 22:38:58 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- That's just my point. These theists post just to make their garbage heard. They insist their delusion is fact and there is no reasoning done whatsoever them. They use the mysteries of quantum physics, which has just started to be explored, to explain their god. They know all other means have been exhausted. As this area of science is explored, it will also be exorcised of their god. - 22:45:37 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..too mushy for me..:JOETTE and CARL- Hugs! Yuck! Sounds like xtians after one of their testimonies (which BTW, is another absolutely horrendous habit of theirs). Nope, I'll throw out the insults when I see them due but then again, I'll accept them too. - 22:51:22 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...no, I am not suggesting a group hug (remember, I am very anti-collective), but sometimes certain lines get crossed and I was merely pointing out to Papasam and Rob that even a curmudgeon like myself can get her back up at what is being said at a personal level, as opposed to an intellectual one. - 22:54:59 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..sheesh this is a little mushy but..:QUAKE- To whom I've thrown more than a few insults at...Unlike Richard, I think your a person who is capable of empathy and kindness. God didn't make you this way, you have. Why don't you give up the god crap and pour your energies into helping others just because you know it's to the benefit of humanity. You don't need to believe in myth to make yourself a better person. The myth is not real, here and now is real. I'm sure there are a lot of needy people in Torontotown. Use your virtues for some good. - 22:58:38 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Now that's more like it! Have you heard anymore on these millions of dollars coming out of our pockets for to pay for the RC's crimes? - 23:03:24 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..I haven't heard a word, but I think the reason for this is that the only news we get nowadays is about the "ice storm". Bad enough I have to constantly scrape, let alone hear about it! Anyway, maybe the RC's can thank their god for sending this natural disaster to keep them from being in the news again. - 23:08:25 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: The religeous believers are much like men of la mancha, always lookin'for another bigger unknown heretofore unseen windmill. I am certain it is just a symptom of them just clinging to those primitive formed storys said by and for other primitive minds. So far it sure appears that to attempt to make the past live- now, just makes one seem less than whatever they are. Perhaps they should keep it private and personal and not want others to join them in such a stultifying error of the mind. - 23:23:17 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: I'll have more to add later, but for now let me state this: You mentioned a few laws of logic which are fundamental and very basic. This does not rule out other forms of which you obviously are ignorant since again, you did not tell me what was wrong with the arguments that I dissected last night, you merely went on a tirade in the midst of more autobiographical information. I suggest you transcend the intro. course on logic that is on the atheist's web. JOETTE: There was no "before the advent of God", since ther is no before or after infinity. I wish I had more time, but I don't, so I'll return later. - 23:24:16 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ALL: By the way, did all of you know that inside of every true logician is a metaphysician? - 23:25:35 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Oh, and also I was mistaken. The argument was not guilty of 5 terms but rather 4. However, a fallacy is a fallacy. - 23:29:13 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM...but man has not always known a god, so before that time, were there no morals, rules, laws or ethics in place? - 23:54:50 on 16 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:PAPASAM: (Sorry to go on, but this is quite an important topic) I appreciate the openess in your post, but I think you are doing yourself an injustice. If you have reasoned to the best of your ability, it is not imperative that you conclude whether or not god exists. If you don't have enough information either way to know for sure, then you are entitled to hold fire. Maybe the problem lies in what we mean by certain words. When you say "my conclusion is a fact", do you mean there is no possibility whatsoever that you are wrong, or that to all intents and purposes it is as good as certain to you? If it is the latter, then what you are calling a "fact" is what I have been calling a "belief". As for stirring the ranks, it's a pretty healthy pursuit. It's all too easy for atheists to start losing objectivity by just going along with what the other atheists say. There's crap produced on both sides, and it would be doing yourself an injustice to ignore the crap "within your ranks" MARLENE: With respect to your comment "So your stand is that there is absolutely no god? I'm not sure that I would classify that stand as "faith". You've come to your conclusion based on the lack of evidence for such a being.", I refer you back to the definition of faith I posted earlier. As for 99.99% - we both know this is arbitrary ;), but the reason I do not put too much emphasis on such likelihoods is because I have seen how fallible such an approach is (take a look at the various martyrs to mutually exclusive religions- they must have had at least a 99.99% certainty too). JOETTE: Well as for throwing insults, it's not against my "morality", but as I said, I'm happy to live and let live. ANSELM: Looks like you've made a religion out of procrastination, not to mention misleading sales pitches. BTW, did you know that behind every one of your claims there has been a piss poor attempt at justification? - 0:06:42 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM..please ignore the question I asked. Since you probably believe the story of Adam and Eve as one that is true, there would be no point in taking this part of the discussion further. - 0:12:35 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JOETTE: You are forgetting, my child, the "inner witness"! - 0:17:26 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Please allow me to restate what I previously said, as I think now upon reflection that it was unduly harsh, and I apologize. What I want to say is, if you found the reconstruction of your arguments inadequate, then just explain to me where I erred. It would not be beyond the realm of possibility for that to have happened. So, I would just ask you to assist me in finding the flaws within my examination instead of threatening me with "embarrassing myself", or some such what. I enjoy dialoguing with you, and I do not want it to degenerate into something less than epistemic.Joette: nice baiting attempt. Perhaps I'll bite later when I'm starving. We are discussing theism, not Adam and Eve. - 0:25:00 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Adam BURDEN of POOF-->:Did I just read aways back that God is a poof? Does this relate to Peter's Blue Fairies? And does that relate to Lucky Charms™? Does this explain why I can kick God's ass? Not that there's anything WRONG with that. Oh, and BQE, how does this bare on the forbidden fruit thing? Could Moses turn the Nile into mineral water with his staff? Moreover, considering that Moses has a staff, is it subject to ERISA and the Americans With Disabilities Act, assuming that some of them work in the U.S? If Moses' bona fide religious beliefs classify homosexuality as a mortal sin, would his 1st Amendment rights then trump any Title 7 discrimination suit brought by a gay whom Moses refused to hire on his staff? If not, could Moses relegate gay staff members to the less glamourous staff tasks, such as preparing dessert for the Passover feast? If so, would one then say that the poof is in the pudding? - 0:26:17 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:ANSELM: If we are discussing theism, then might I ask how you respond to my post about the "first mover" argument not proving that god exists? Do you agree? - 0:28:05 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Adam DEAD BODY POLITIC---->:The answer to my last joke, to wit: "What do the Democrats & Republicans have in common?", is AN EXTRA LIFT TICKET. Can anyone identify the common thread in the deaths of M. Kennedy, Sonny Bono, and Chris Farley? - 0:31:13 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Huh? I think going on about atheism is exactly what we are supposed to do here, non? Anyway, my "huh?" is that I don't understand what your saying when it comes to...fact-> there is no evidence for the exsistence of god--> therefore at this point I reason that I'm 99.99% in favor of no god. This is much different that say Quake who says ..fact--> in the event there is no tangible evidence, I have subjective faith that there is God--> therefore I'm 100% in favor of God. The difference here is evidence and reason, non? - 0:33:26 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- har!!--I say you rewrite the bible, it would be a best seller! I'm waiting for the next answer to your joke as I've given up on quessing. - 0:38:53 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:---ANSELM---Let's try this: To assert that something exists infinitely into the past and future, perpetually not only from a scientific perspective would be unfalsifiable and untestable--disqualifying it fro the realm of scientific inquiry--it would also be non-identifiable. The Law of Identity ( A is A ) states that existence cannot be divisible from identity. If something is identified--it exists, and if something exists--it exists with identity. Since you assert God. ans specify it not existing in any specific time, would render it unidenfiable --therefore non -existent. Now, I have used a few more than 4 terms here, admittedly, but at no time have I used any of these words in any deceptive or delinquent way to suit my argument, such as any word's alternative meaning or context, as I would have had to do to be accused of committing the fallacy of four terms. All it does is once again clearly demonstrate your argument is fallacious, unfounded, absurd and irrational. If you like, I could also--in a later post re-explain the fallacious nature of "unlimited attibutes". - 0:39:33 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->ANSELM..that was pretty lame. Do mean to say that the Adam and Eve story in not true? - 0:42:42 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE: Huh, huh? I meant sorry to go on about the belief/knowledge thing. What I'm saying is that faith is firm belief without logical proof. We don't have a logical proof, only an absence of evidence. So to claim you know something, without a logical proof fufills the criteria for faith. Then my point to you was merely that how strongly you believe in something is not an infallible guide- and is frequently wrong. - 0:51:50 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. Where the hell are your answers? Your evasive postings simply repeat what you've said before, time and again, but you still haven't answered questions put to you in plain English. JOETTE. I am an atheist because my thought processes - my reasoning, led me to that conclusion. You say that you did not find much difference between my line of reasoningt and that of a theist. How then did I reach an opposing opinion. I like to believe that it was bcause my reasoning was correct and his was erroneous. How did you decide you were an atheist? Didn't you think it over - reason it out - brfore you came to that to that conclusion? I'm sure you did. The difference between Rob's line of thinking and mine is that, solely in the interest of not wanting to have a closed mind, he is willing to give a thought to the possibility that sometime in the future some revelation could possibly take place to change his mind. Perhaps you go along with that. Obviously Marlene considers herself 99.99% pure, which is better than Ivory soap, but I stick to 100%. I see no possibility today, tomorrow or any time in the future of anything happening to change my mind. If no god exists today I cannot envision one coming into being tomorrow. - 1:05:56 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PPapaSam:ADAM They'll all feed the worms - or should I say they'll all be worm food? Is there such a thing as a commom threadworm? - 1:19:37 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:PAPASAM: Just one thing, it's not in the interest of not wanting to have a closed mind that I don't claim to know, it is in the interest of consistency. But at least I think we now have a picture of what how the other thinks. - 1:22:11 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..I was trying to clarify what you meant in that post. I am atheist because I have seen no proof (scientific, substantial or otherwise) of the existence of a god/dess. However, when you say that your belief becomes a fact, I was merely pointing out that a theist uses the same ploy when insisting that a god/dess exists. Obviously, I am missing something, because the things that I believe (like the Jays winning the World Series again in my lifetime) may be disputed as fact by someone else (put Adam's name here..). - 1:36:00 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:mark : papasam,you said you have reached an "opinion" concerning the existence of god. can you give me the basis of that opinion. - 1:57:38 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..the Ivory Girl:PAPASAM- And I can float too! So, your comparable to Zest?? Your opinion has a cleaner break from god than mine? I agree, not in my lifetime, nor in my decendants lifetime, will there likely even be a smidgen of evidence for the proof of a god. - 2:09:29 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..and the twain shall meet..:ROB- So, how's this. There is no god based on a logical absence of evidence. - 2:12:32 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Mark-Mark---what's your opinion? - 2:15:07 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:marlene:My "opinion" is, if i walk in front of a speeding locomotive i wont get hurt. - 2:27:27 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PETER:--ANSELM---I am pleased you are moving in the direction of keeping the discussion civilized. I have stated several times that your repeated attempts at rescuing your arguments by slapping on one wonderful characteristic after another does nothing more than describe as God a unidentifiable mish mash of contradictions, leaving the concept of God indistinguishable from non-existene. Your latest ploy to escape contradiction which was to assert--again without evidence-- that God lives in all times. All this did is pour gasoline on the inferno consuming your argument. This claim is arbitrary. It is neither true nor false. It has no connection to reality, and therefore cannot be imtegrated into any cognitive framework. To imply that anything is "infinite" in anyway is to remove its limitations. As Ludwig Feuerbach said ""Dread of limitation is a dread of existence..A God who is injured by dterminate qualities has not the courage and strength to exist. As George H. Smith says: The phenomenon of the "unlimited attribute" is the central epistimological contradiction of the Christian God"--and from this perspective I have been attempting to drive this point home. Smith continues "Most of these flaws stem from the futile effort of the Christian to endow his God with unrestricted qualities. The result is an insoluable mixture of finite qualities and an infinite being, which transforms the Cristian God into a conceptual mess of unequaled dimensions"...The main point I am attempting to make here Anselm, is that one can defend a certain claim to a certain point--and if one goes beyond that--as soon as something is sais to exist, it must meet certain criteria and conditions--if one removes those conditions in order to keep defence alive, or any other reason--to say then that it exists, is to enter into the world of the absurd. These conditions are necessary as conditions of proof and verification--remove them, and it would then be impossible to prove or verify anything. I would then think that if one then attepted to defend the existence of something like God, REMOVING all these infinities would be the way to go, in oreder to have a chance of doing so. However, etymologically, God cannot have limitations associated with him. You're in a tough spot--but reason would dictate only one choice here. I hopefully, and finally have done here is show that one cannot have it both ways. A is A. - 2:28:01 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Atheist...:It occurs to me that for the longest time now, I have confused hope with faith. Is it possible that most people make the same mistake? I mean really, faith as it is called for in the bible is a seemingly impossible request. "Faith moves mountains..." How much faith is enough faith to move mountains or heal the sick? I don't have a clue and really can't imagine myself capable of having faith such that no doubt exist. It is this doubt that will forever keep a state of pure faith forever out of my reach while at the same time fueling my hopes that something better lies ahead. My vehement defense of faith, and specifically a faith in god, is more realistically represented by feelings of hope. In hindsight, it's safe to say that I could replace the word believe with hope in many of the things I have said on the subject of theism. One of my reoccurring themes is simply that we will never know until we die. I think once again, this sums it up. We can speak of logical fallacies, scientific evidence and pure speculation until the cows come home. The fact is, until we die, each and everyone of us is simply guessing about what lies beyond death or before primordial matter (whatever the hell that is). Atheist say nothingness exist after death, it is a void. They offer no evidence other than brain activity and heart monitors. Theist generally argue that a utopian existence exist after death. They bring even less evidence to the table. The only thing I can be certain of is that I simply won't know until I die and I think the same is true for all of you. Personally, I hope there is life after death and that god is us and we are him. I hope for a lot of things. Surely, if god exists, he will not sentence me to the fire and brimstone of hell for being inherently weak in faith (original sin?)? Surely there is room in this kingdom for someone who has struggled, overcome, hoped, loved, thought, learned, reasoned, and etc.? I guess that puts me on the fence again. Take care everyone. - 2:39:30 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:mark: james,if you return to see if someone is replying to your comment, i would like to know why? i would assume you are not satisfied,i could be wrong. this isnt some last ditch attempt to save your soul thats not the christians cheif end. - 3:14:43 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:mark: james,if you return to see if someone is replying to your comment, i would like to know why? i would assume you are not satisfied,i could be wrong. this isnt some last ditch attempt to save your soul thats not the christians cheif end. - 3:14:52 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene...wonders never cease:JAMES, JAMES!!! This is the most logical post you've ever made!!!! Is this truly you James???!! - 3:22:25 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..overwhelmed actually:JAMES- Logical, is not really the word I wanted to use although it's also the message I wanted to convey. I think "truthful to yourself" would be more like it. Losing faith is gaining self. Maybe makes much more sense than "is". - 3:28:16 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:mark :marlene,can you give an account of the laws of logic? and if so explain, please. - 3:32:20 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..fee, fi, fo, fum:Mark:Mark---why do I smell a theist who's not prepared to make the first move? When your prepared to post your opinion on religion then I will answer your questions. Until then, your questions will be answered, theologically, with another question. - 3:39:27 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Mark:Mark---Only if your walking faster than the speeding locomotive otherwise you'd be track kill. - 3:41:59 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES. Doubt is the beginning of wisdom. Keep it up. MARLENE. You seem to have picked up the other .01 percent when you precluded the possibility of the future arrival of any god. JOETTE. The fact that the theist and I both use arithmetic to figure out that 2+2=4 doesn't fault the method but when he reaches the conclusion that 2+2=5, we have a problem. The problem is not with the method but with his figuring skills. I am an atheist because I rebut the claim made by the deist that there is a god. As you all agree, there is a lack of evidence. Now our 'problem' arises. Do we "think" he's wrong, do we "believe" he's wrong or do we "know" he's wrong? As I see it, since he has not proven his point I "know" he's wrong. To say I "believe" or "think" would leave an element of doubt. I have no doubts, so I "know". Perhaps one of you can think of a better way of expressing my thoughts with a different term than "know". I welcome any comments. Now to wind up my little posting I will repeat what I have said before and will no doubt repeat. I have no idea where or how it all began so I'll fall back on my little G&S tune from those Penanzic Pirates -"A paradox, a paradox, a most amusing paradox." - 4:16:19 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:mark :marlene,im not talking about relegion,im talking about the true and living god of scripture. im not holding to an opinion, quite frankly everbody has one .i say 2 +2 = 10. thats my opinion whats my basis? marlene? can you even prove, or give me tangible evidence that this is the wrong ansewr? you already presuppose the existence of the immaterial laws of mathmatics.and because the true and living god exists, i can account for those laws,engage in reasoning, etc.whats your basis for your woldview and what you believe. im not trying to play dodgeball. - 4:16:19 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PETER---More ponderances of Jesus' alleged return to Earth--when the trumpets blow--exact time unknown-----:When he comes, will he just be born--or will he suddenly appear from nowhere as an adult? Will he wear Armeni suits, or a sweat suit or some "Star Trek" style space stuff? Or will he still look like he does on those Sunday school brochures? God I hope not. The supermarket tabloids willl have a field day. But maybe Jesus will rub them all out. Headline, National Enquirer" JESUS BIT BY ALIEN PIT-BULL WITH HIV VIRUS" SAYS JESUS--"Big Deal, I'll have a cure by lunchtime!"....... The "Globe": JESUS TELLS GATHERING: DAMMIT, I WANT CHER TO BE MY WIFE!!---Cher in tears, replies " I've always loved him, but not like that, and besides he'd always would know where I was" .....THe Examiner ( With photo of Jesus in Sunglasses. ) JESUS SEEN LEAVING GAY BAR---Jesus replies " HEY, LIKE WHO'S THE BOSS HERE, I CAN HAVE A PRIVATE LIFE TOO!" - 4:23:35 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:mark papasam, you said that doubt is the beginning of wisdom. if your going to borrow scripture verses it would be wise to correctly state them. your borrowing from the christians worldview to make your case about atheism . - 4:28:11 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARK The next time you want to change a $10 bill come around to see me. After changing all your ten dollar bills according to your formula 2+2-10 I will take you to a nice railroad crossing where you can demonstrate your locomotive trick. - 4:30:20 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:mark. peter: cynicism is a cheap form of psudeo intellectualism. anybody can be a cynic pete, and engage in name calling,that doesnt change the fact that the true and living god of scripture exists. we dont go to the movies, or the tabloids, or some guy asking you to "accept jesus in your heart". to learn about the god who created us,we learn about jesus christ from his revelation of himself in the bible, and the bible alone. - 4:41:23 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARK.Why don't you tell us all about your true and loving god of scripture. Are you referring to the bible, the one that tells how a god made a man out of a dustball and, having run out of dust, had to break off one of the poor bastard's ribs to make a woman? The one who had a talking snake.? If it's the same one don't bother . We've heard it before. You should ask your boss to give you some new material. We've gotten a little tired of the same old shit. - 4:42:02 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARK-MARK: who initially declared that the bible is holy scripture? Was it a publishing company? - 4:48:32 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->any...this has nothing to do with theism, atheism or squat, but has anyone seen the HBO series "OZ"? - 4:51:15 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:mark papasam: thats actually pretty funny pops, but then we agree, we both knew that i would be to borrow marlenes phrase "track kill" .now that makes opinions pretty shaky ground for formulating beliefs. we all agreed, because we already presupposed that walking in front of a train we be not only stupid but i would killed. my point is you presuppose gods (the triune god of the bible} existence, that train scenerio did not happen in front of our eyes there was no evidence sam, but we all came to the same conclusion, withuot "proof".but by presupposing. - 4:58:18 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..:JOETTE- Yes I've seen Oz! I never missed an episode. It was good! I wish I would have taped it but then again the VCR I had wasn't working. I got a new one for mythmas and I'm awaiting SouthPark...Actually there is a little religion thrown in OZ too. Have you seen the whole series or have you just started to watch it? I mentioned it about five months ago but no one had any idea about what I was talking about. I'm glad you are able to see it. OZ, I think was fashioned after a very good book I read called _Green River_ by Tim Willcocks. - 5:07:18 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I loved your tabloid news!! - 5:08:21 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene, I win, I win!:Mark:Mark- You ARE talking religion adorned with a whole lot of delusion. Like Papasam, have I got a deal for you!! I'll change more than ten for you. Although you think your not playing dodgeball, in reality you are. My worldviews are based in reality, not a horrendous piece of fiction such as the bible. In reality, you've just been hit by the ball, so your out of the game, too bad! - 5:17:13 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:joette: all scripture is given by inspiration of god,and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. second timothy 2:16 joette the bible is self authenticating. - 5:20:33 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:MARK-- Since you're new here, we've already studied this chapter, and the one where there must be a god because life is just too unpleasant to contemplate otherwise, And the one where there has to be a first mover because otherwise what's god's job. We're to the chapter now where our logic is just as bad as yours so there must be a god. - 5:22:07 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:marlene:i would like to know your world view, im not trying to "win" this is not a game. i admit ive been a little light hearted at times. but when you lie down to sleep, or when you get up in the morning, or do a kind thing for some one, laugh, or hug a family member, or whatever you do marlene as much as you would ball up in anger,or deny gods existence, he is inescapebable . he is an ever present reality and he has a claim on you and me and everybody. consider who you are striving against. perhaps lordwilling we can continue our disscussion thanks for your time.. - 5:33:58 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

mark:grant your life is miserable because your in your sin,what are you going to do about? - 5:37:05 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

George:Oh poor poor Mark....spending so much time trying to prove a myth. We Atheists have the monkey off our back and have seen the light. We are born again Atheists. We are cured. Religion is a wide spread form of mental illness(Freud). - 5:44:46 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Mark:Mark--Why do you suggest anger is one and the same as disbelief in your god. It's my observation that fundies may have anger but give it over to their lord. Anger needs to be dealt with by the individual who owns it. To bury in god/subconscious is suppressing it and this is not healthy. - 5:45:12 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:Hey George, where have you been? Most people here have likely at one time been believers. I think Carl and I are the only one's who are missing out on this second birth. - 5:48:53 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

George:Marlene....everyone is born an Atheist. Many are indoctrinated in some sort of myth believing....and then there is the born again Atheists. I was one of the myth believers for many years. Catholic school (12 yrs) can make a staunch Atheist! LOL - 5:55:08 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

George:Well folks....way past my bedtime.(Eastern USA...12:56am) Will have to go say my nightly prayers....barf - 5:58:40 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:MARLENE: A "logical absence of evidence" (I'm not exactly sure how you define this) does not constitue a logical proof. If I pull a card at random from a deck (without looking), there is a "logical absence of evidence" that it is the Ace of Hearts, but do you regard this as a logical proof that it isn't? MARKYMARK (and the Funky Bunch?): So if the only way (as you say) to learn about jesus is the bible, is this tough shit for the blind&deaf people (Well, maybe not the blind). And what's this "all scripture is given by inspiration of god,and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction"? Why would we need to correct the bible???. WRT your "Herald and Tri(b)une" post, what are you on about at the end there? JAMES: It's refreshing to see someone being openly honest about themselves. After all, this isn't a game where we just pick a side and start cheering, but a question that has serious implications for our lives. - 12:18:54 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->GRANT..haven't we told you to cut out all that sin? LOL! - 14:14:14 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..re "OZ". There is a lot of religion thrown in, but it shows how it tends to make non-believers enemies of those that believe, and how someone with a religious connection has strong political connections as well, thus favouritism. I have only seen two episodes so far, but it is quite a show (btw, it is done by Barry Levinson and his team who also make HOMICIDE). - 14:17:24 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- Back when I was a sinless believer, my joy and happiness would often spiral out of control. I had to introduce small doses of sin (at first) to stay in control. Later it began to take more and more sin to "maintain." I finally reached the point where in order not be literally delirious with joy I had to sin practically all of the time. It's a tragic thing. - 15:25:53 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:GRANT: Sounds to me like you invented the sinfast diet... the perfect way to lose those love handles. - 15:40:14 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Just joking...There are odds of 1-52 that the card would be the ace of hearts. In the event that you guess the card (no card tricks), the guess would be random chance. The logic comes in when one ascesses the odds and method, non? There is no evidence that your guess was psychically inspired unless (without tricks), you guessed the right card say 7 out of 10 times in repeated experiments. Is this what your saying? I'm painting and the fumes are rather overwhelming in the house. Maybe the ole brain ain't functioning right. Sorry to go on about this but I'd like to understand. - 15:44:01 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Marlene...:Yes, in fact that was me. But, don't call me logical because I've said something you agree with. I have said many things that were logical but were not properly communicated or understood. We've never really been far apart. This debate has raged in my mind for better than a couple of decades now. I have always HOPEd that there was something better beyond this life to the extent I wanted to believe it. The bottom line is though that it has always been HOPE, not faith. Faith implies a belief in something without doubt. I contend there is not a theist alive capable of showing enough faith in their belief to move a mountain much less cure the sick with a touch. It's a beautiful thought and I HOPE they are right. You see, all this time I have been arguing with you folks trying to defend my position on faith without realizing I was simply imposing my HOPEs on my beliefs. I really am not a whole lot different from you folks. I am a skeptic at heart. I question everything and require proof. Religion teaches that this is a weakness. That human intelligence and reasoning are limited tools in the scope of all things. An argument that I still agree with, but what else do we have? Faith is the ultimate power. But what is faith. Faith is an impossible expectation for any human being. If Mark for example truly believed the bible was holy scripture inspired by god then why would he not take gods advice. If god would provide unto the birds and the beast of the forest, would he not provide unto his greatest creation? Never mind that animals eat each other even though they are not cursed with original sin. Mark, sell all your worldly possessions, rely on no one. God will provide for you. Where is your faith? Why do you still wear those clothes? Why do you still go to work? Why do you still go to the grocery store with money? Will god not provide for his greatest creation? You see what I mean? Faith is impossible for any one, even the most holy amongst us. On the other hand, I think all of these people including myself HOPE something better lies ahead. We HOPE the stories in the bible have some truth to them in regards to our salvation. HOPE is practice I will probably continue. You see, when I pray I am in essence hoping that something good will happen or something bad will be undone. I seldom walk away from a prayer knowing that god would handle the thing I prayed about, but I sure do HOPE so. I also still look at the universe from my insignificant vantage point and am awed. I seek answers to the mysteries through science. I have HOPE that one day we will know its secrets but another part of me feels that its just to much for any human being to comprehend. Thomas Jefferson, a deist, believed that there was in fact a greater power at work in the universe, but that this power played little or no role in a human beings life. I guess that's were I stand today. I HOPE there is a kind, loving and personnel god out there waiting for me to join his collective. Guess I won't know until I get there. - 16:09:23 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

James--->PapaSam...:Doubt has always existed despite the faith. To claim to have faith and no doubt is simply a lie. It is not humanly impossible in a normally functioning brain. Meaning your not normal if you think faith is going to save you from a ten story fall. Let Mark climb to the tenth floor, hold onto his faith and take the leap. Yes, the "devil" tempted Jesus in the dessert with the same request and Jesus refused. He was god, he didn't feel the need to prove himself to any one. Is Mark god? Does Mark have enough faith to move mountains, cure the sick and save himself from a ten story fall? I think not. Therefore he has no faith. Faith and doubt are mutually exclusive. You either have faith or you don't. If you have weak faith, you have doubt and no faith. You can't have it both ways. So if a theist has faith, why do they not take the bible literally? (recognizing that some do..scary thought) Simple, that faith is not faith, it is HOPE. - 16:10:45 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Mark...:Saving my soul is not required. I cannot be certain there is such a thing as a soul. I HOPE your right and there is. If there is, my soul was saved by my works, not my words or my beliefs and that is what the bible teaches me. If Jesus did not die on the cross for people who use the brain in their skull, then he died for nothing. What about the second coming? Does it not say there will be many who come in my name? Are we not supposed to use our brains to figure out the fakes from the real thing? Should we just lie down for everyone who claims to be god? Should we just have faith that we will figure it out? I think not. Are you satisfied to be living in a paradox? Are you satisfied that you have enough faith? Again, what is enough faith unless its pure faith and pure faith is a fantasy. Where does that leave us? Guess we'll know when the lights go out for the last time. Maybe, if I close my eyes, tap my heals together 3 times and whisper there's no place like home, I'll wake up in heaven…If only I could believe it enough, it might just happen. NOT - 16:11:34 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Grant...:No such thing as a sinless believer or non-believer. We are all sinners in the eyes of god. That is what a theist would tell you anyway. - 16:12:10 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

James--->Rob...:I could not agree more. I am open to discovery about myself and beliefs which probably explains why I still post here after so much time. Picking a side and cheering accomplishes nothing. Niether side is right or wrong though the atheist has a distinct advantage from a logical point of view. That is not to say that I have decided anything though. I cannot take the atheist stand as it is to concluded. I am still unconvinced either way, leaning toward the deist out of my own speculation about the universes first moments. I have a hard time with anyone who claims to know for fact the answers to this question and many more. Again, I know, not hope, that none of us will know these answers until we die. - 16:25:47 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Rob:JAMES: Only one thing, but wrt to "the atheist stance being too concluded", I guess it depends on who's definition you take, but as I pointed out, mine is that I don't believe in god, but that I don't claim to know he does not exist. Just out of interest, do you believe there is a god, or is it that you just hope he exists (I'm not leading up to something here, I am just curious, that's all). MARLENE: I don't think that was what I was trying to say. Maybe if I change the analogy slightly- suppose now you pick from a theoretical deck of unknown size (each card unique), in which there may or may not be an Ace of Hearts. Now if you pick a card, you have no evidence that it will be the Ace of Hearts, you can't even state a probability as to whether it could be. But, nerver-the-less, there is no logical reason why you should believe it is the Ace of Hearts, no logical proof. But do you say you *know* it isn't the Ace of Hearts? - 17:13:00 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Is it your contention then, that the law of identity and the laws of causality are identical? Have you been able to identify cause? Also, by what means do you prove the law of identity to be valid? How is existence to be identified, and can you give me an intelligible description of it? Futher, can a deductive argument ever be a non-deductive argument? If not, please explain why. Can logic be logic and not logic at the same time? I was engaging in the philosophy of logic earlier, because many atheists talk about logic without having a clue as to what logic really is. I asked you earlier, and you didnt answer concerning what form of logic you invoke, because it looks suspiciously as if your combining logic with a principle of verifiability that has been butchered in philosophical circles because it cannot meet it's own criteria. It sounds as though you equate identity with something seeable, and if this is so, please inform me as to how you identified the law of identity. You keep using the word,"irrational", and I would ask you to tell me of the standard of rationality by which you judge statements to be irrational. Is it identifiable? Does it exist in the same way that material entities exist, and if not, how is it verified? Further, are all factual questions answered in exactly the same way? "The causal primary doesnt need to be explained", you say in the midst of your explanation. You posit it as ,"that which makes explanation possible." Okay then, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you come to a point where you were able to identify it for what it is, and if so please give a more intelligible explanation than, "my metaphysical explanation requires no explanation." I'm astounded that you would even say such a thing. You refuse to accept my metaphysical actualizer of all potentialities, so why should I accept your arbitrary postulation? I could just as easily maintain that God is the presupposed basis that makes sense out of causality, since God is no more metaphysical than this unidentifiable and unexplainable causal primary. You also stated that," there is no reason why a succession of changes cannot go infinitely into the past." Hmmm, well, doesnt change imply moving from one state to another, and if this is so, how can it regress infinitely? Has evolution been occurring infinitely into the past? How far back are we able to go, Peter? Also, do you think it possible to be able to cross an actually infinite number of concrete points in order to reach the present point? Moreover, you postulate the big bang as the cause of the universe, so does this not imply a beginning of the universe? I have asked you several times whether an event needs a cause, and if the big bang is an event, I would ask you what caused it? And please dont talk about the uselessness of positing God, since you have shown a remarkably metaphysical side of yourself of late. An event needs a cause, Peter, so what was it? "I don't know", is no different than the answer one would get from a religious person who would say, "stop thinking so much. You'll never have all the answers, so just have faith." Did the universe actualize itself out of it's potentiality, and if so, please tell me how this is so, since the universe did not have to be, and is thus, not a necessary entity.Can a chain of effects cause their own existence. The universe cannot be uncaused, because it came to be, and whatever comes to be must have a cause. - 17:21:08 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: You also asserted that, "nature can be explained within it's own boundaries." Really? Where exactly is this unsurpassable line, and how were you able to discern where to draw it? Moreover when you say "nature", are you speaking only in terms of physical reality? - 17:32:08 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Okay Rob, I get it, I think. Using this analogy, what it your answer? I think this is really a good topic at this time. I'm no longer bored to tears. I would say, although I don't know it may be or not be the ace of hearts, nor do I even know that the ace of hearts exsists in the deck, my view at this time, given the overwhelming odds is that the card I picked is not likely the ace of hearts. How about anyone else in this position? Maybe my wording isn't right here? Anyone else want to give it a try? - 17:44:27 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

PapaSam:JAMES . You've made some excellent points. You are certainly entitled to your hopes, and yu do realize that they are just that - hopes. MARK. I feel that I must compliment you on your ability to blather, or do you prefer the term blither? Your ability to find love in the bible is also to be commended, since it is sandwiched in between mass slaughter, rape and similar pleasantries. Almost all the love in the bible is a narcissistic love, required by a jealous god who bodes no competition. If you are as familiar with the bible as you claim to be I shouldn't have to point them out to you. If you want to slide by the old testament as so many do, let me point out to you that your beloved jesus specifically says that he should come first - before love of family. Mothers against daughters, fathers against sons, etc. In plain English it means that a woman should love jesus more than she does the child suckling at her breast. And this so called kind and loving jesus also seems to have a killer instinct as evidenced by Luke 19-27."But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring thither and slay them before me." Your selective reading of your bible seems to have warped your mind since you neglect to recognize your god's faults, to put it mildly. Why any decent minded and intelligent person would would use the bible as a sample of good conduct is incomprehensible. As for your feeble attempts at sarcasm - forget it. You're out of your class. Go back to your fifth grade bible class. It will probably go over big with them. - 17:46:06 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- Maybe not a deist but a fidest? Micheal Shermer, editor(I think) of _Skeptic_ magazine says he's a fidest. He does believe in a creator but doubts a personal god (at least the ones of religions). I think you take an agnostic stance here, no? - 17:49:25 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PAPASAM: "Doubt is the beginning of wisdom"? Very well, then...I doubt that statement. By jove, I never knew it was so easy. Also, I'm not ignoring you, it's just that I enjoy the cogent and levelheaded dialogue such as what Peter is able to give me(wrong as he is), instead of the childish ranting and raving demonstrated by Ms. Marlene and , no offense pop, but you too. Also, I'm afraid I have a life away from the computer, si I am not always able to answer every objection. Plus, many of the objections are so lacking in substance that to call them worthy of response would do an injustice to reason. Speaking of reason, If reason evolved like everything else, what then is your basis for using reason in matters like these? IN other words, do you have a reason for your reason, or is it just your blind faith? Also, the little spat between Rob and Papasam has been rather curious. It reminds me of a dispute between a catholic and a protestant. Is atheism sola fide? Is there a great schism coming within the world of atheism??? Don't let the oppression get to you Rob. Martin Luther was persecuted too. Seriously, though, if Papasams and Robs dialogue has taught us anything, it is that atheists really do not have a clue about what they think or what their position is. Confusion, confusion. - 17:58:12 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Reason coming from non-reason...life coming from non-life...mammals coming from non-mammals...essentially, with evolution you have one thing emerging perpetually from it's opposite. Hmmm...I'm trying to see how the law of identity fits into this great scheme, so perhaps you can identify how it all works together. - 18:04:26 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:ROB: "Prove" is a nebulous term. Do you mean "prove" as in proving quantum particles, or do you mean "prove" as in proving that there are crackers in the pantry? I would ask you what I asked of Peter: are all factual questions answered in the exact same way? - 18:15:02 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: I hope you can see now, that your standard that you have set up rules out not only God, but science as well. Did you see the big bang? Could you identify it? Can you identify the missing fossil links? Can you identify cause , Peter? When was the last time you ran into it? Further, haven't you used an immaterial process in order to arrive at the conclusion that all of reality should be explained in material terminology? I could say more, but will instead refer you to the writings of Hume. Peter, can you identify induction in the way that you seem to be demanding God to be identified? I am interested in knowing just how consistent you will be with this dogmatic position concerning identity. - 18:32:31 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Marlene..:ANSELM- You haven't heard any ranting and raving, yet, asshole. - 18:43:49 on 17 Jan 98 GMT

Anselm:PETER: Actually, your standard rules out most of what we know of reality. By the way, Peter, could you please define reality in an intelligible and non-circular way? Oh, and one last thing: The "fallacy of 5 terms" was meant to be somewhat of a joke. I was trying to demonstrate how easy it is for someone to misrepresent an argument by reconstructing it in a way to make it fall apart, as had been done repeatedly with the cosmological argument.I could have set up your argument in this way: Premise 1)all non-identifiable things are non-existent. 2)God is a non-identifiable thing. Conclusion>God is non-existent. This argument, so far as I can tell, breaks no rules of fo