Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:38:40 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

*What* evidence? Be specific (and make sure it's a deity someone
actually believes in, not one you invented so that you could
"disprove" it).

The Abrahamic deity is a good example. We can trace its
development from earlier deities.

A deity that can do anything (and that's what omnipotent means) can
change its mind about how to present itself.

Its claimed properties are
logically impossible.

The entity that created the universe isn't bound by its properties.

Actions are attributed to it which are
known beyond reasonable doubt to have not occurred.

Name a few. Or not. (You will now repsond with "but miracles are
impossible!" That's why they're miracles, retard.)

Claiming that an all powerful deity can't exist because it can do
things *you* can't is a particularly stupid tautology.

All of this
amounts to evidence against the existence of this particular
deity.

No. It doens't. It amounts to your insane fantasy that you're a lot
smarter than anyone else who has ever lived.

You're not.

Do you automatically disbelieve in everything that lacks
evidence of existence?

Yes. Why would I believe in anything that has no evidence of
existence?

It's a very, very sad, lonely workd you live in, with no love,
no beauty, with none of the things that actually matter.

Why do you think these things don't exist in my world?

You just *said* they don't.

All of
them objectively exist.

Prove it. Prove you mother loves you, rather than acting like it
out of self interest.


And what major religion today makes claims that out to produce
evidnece?

You're joking, right?

You're the joke here, son. I'm still waiting.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 05:07:58 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

They become one when they are in perfect agreement, and they are.

How do you know that?

You should have copied the part that demonstrates it:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us" -- John 17:21

Jesus claimed that He and the Father are "one." It is illogical to
conclude that they are one individual because He prayed that His
followers might be "one" just as He and the Father are. Unless, of
course, you're idea of "oneness" is to be dissolved in a mass of
squishy semi-entities.

Although the world's largest cult. But it's really several cults -
catholics, orthodox, protestants and some more, and each have
fractions within them.

Which is why most of them can't be right. The Catholic church lost its
way and all the other churches came into existence to try to find the way
back. But since the Catholic church claimed authority from God, the
Lutheran concept of a "priesthood of all believers" rationalized that
authority came from the people, in direct conflict with scriptu

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of
God, as was Aaron." -- Hebrews 5:4

So much for the sins of various religions that you documented.

Do you remember that old Star Trek episode, "Bread and Circuses"?

I didn't watch Star Trek, sorry.

Pity

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:35:56 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

The Abrahamic deity is a good example. We can trace its
development from earlier deities.

A deity that can do anything (and that's what omnipotent means) can
change its mind about how to present itself.

If you allow for magic, there's no point in discussing anything.

Its claimed properties are
logically impossible.

The entity that created the universe isn't bound by its properties.

It is bound by the properties of whatever created it.

Actions are attributed to it which are
known beyond reasonable doubt to have not occurred.

Name a few. Or not. (You will now repsond with "but miracles are
impossible!" That's why they're miracles, retard.)

We have no evidence at all of miracles. They do not appear to happen.
There was no biblical flood. We did not descend from an original pair
of humans. There was no biblical Exodus. The list of claims that are
false is massive.

Claiming that an all powerful deity can't exist because it can do
things *you* can't is a particularly stupid tautology.

I claim that "all-powerful" is a nonsensical and impossible attribute.

It's a very, very sad, lonely workd you live in, with no love,
no beauty, with none of the things that actually matter.

Why do you think these things don't exist in my world?

You just *said* they don't.

All of
them objectively exist.

Prove it.

Prove you aren't a figment of my imagination. Anybody who asks for
proof demonstrates they don't understand rational thinking.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:35:56 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

The Abrahamic deity is a good example. We can trace its
development from earlier deities.

A deity that can do anything (and that's what omnipotent means)
can change its mind about how to present itself.

If you allow for magic, there's no point in discussing anything.

Then stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Its claimed properties are
logically impossible.

The entity that created the universe isn't bound by its
properties.

It is bound by the properties of whatever created it.

But not by the properties of its own creation.

Good of you to agree.

Actions are attributed to it which are
known beyond reasonable doubt to have not occurred.

Name a few. Or not. (You will now repsond with "but miracles are
impossible!" That's why they're miracles, retard.)

We have no evidence at all of miracles.

We have plenty of evidence. You just don't like it, so you
hallucinate a world more comfortable for you.

Which makes you pretty seriously ****ed up, son. Get help. You need
it. Maybe ask a priest for some counseling.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in
news:326480449.546557775.146885.acridiniumester-
:

There is no evidence for the existence of any god.

I'm still waiting for the evidence there is *no* supernatural
deity that has been claimed to exist, several times.

Good thing I'm patient. I'll be waiting for a long, long time.


As I’ve already written I’m an agnostic. Precisely because I
cant prove the non- existence of something which requires faith.


You're not the one I'm waiting for.


Are you sure? By your way of thinking I can work miracles. I can cure
warts.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:52:39 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
We have no evidence at all of miracles.

We have plenty of evidence.

If so, why not present some of it? E.g. a well-documented case of
angels descending from the sky, what about that?

Note though that evidence must be much more solid than rumors.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:31:33 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:41:11 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:
If so, science and religion are mutually incompatible.

In the same way that roses and shoes are incompatible. They're
not related in any way. They do different things, in different
ways.

Science makes claims about the real world. So here you claim
that religion makes absolutely o claims about the real world.

No. On both counts. Science makes scientific claims. Claims that
can
be tested using the scientific method. Religion does not.

Are you saying that science has no relation whatsoever to reality?
T
You clearly have no ****ing clue what science *or* religion is.

Since you revert to name calling, you are obviously out of
arguments...

You know what? I agree with you. Religion is a fantasy which
many people find pleasant - or else they wouldn't be religious.

Since your blind, irrational hatred of religin is, itself, a
religious belief, you have just admitting to being really ****ed up
in the head.

More name calling...

FYI: I don't hate fairy-tale and religion is no exception. They can
at times be quite entertaining.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 05:07:58 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

They become one when they are in perfect agreement, and they
are.

How do you know that?

You should have copied the part that demonstrates it:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee,
that they also may be one in us" -- John 17:21

Jesus claimed that He and the Father are "one." It is illogical to
conclude that they are one individual because He prayed that His
followers might be "one" just as He and the Father are. Unless, of
course, you're idea of "oneness" is to be dissolved in a mass of
squishy semi-entities.

That's the Bible's claim, but how do you know if that is true?

BTW, "being one" is an example of the ultimate dictatorship: the
leader controls everyone else who follows all the wishes of the
leader. What happened to free will which supposedly was given to
humans by God?


Although the world's largest cult. But it's really several cults
-
catholics, orthodox, protestants and some more, and each have
fractions within them.

Which is why most of them can't be right. The Catholic church lost
its
way and all the other churches came into existence to try to find
the way
back. But since the Catholic church claimed authority from God, the
Lutheran concept of a "priesthood of all believers" rationalized
that
authority came from the people, in direct conflict with scriptu

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called
of
God, as was Aaron." -- Hebrews 5:4

So much for the sins of various religions that you documented.

More examples of religious dictatorships. Btw don't all churches
claim authority from God? Without a perceived authority from God, the
reason for their existence would vanish.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:00:54 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:44:42 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

See? You claim these usages are "wrong" and that these words have
another, single, meaning...

No. I claim your usage of "atheist" is wrong, and I claim your usage
of "agnostic" is simply confusing and a poor choice.

That's your opinion. But from this follows that you think the word
atheist has an inherent meaning, independent of its actual usage
among people.

This may be a cultural difference though. I believe the Christian
Right in the US want to call all agnostics, yes everyone who is
anything else but an explicit theist, atheists, because they want
antagonism and controversy. They want to fight a holy war, so far
almost only with words though. And regarding the perceived semantics
of that word, they have won that war.

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:20:33 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:20:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 05:07:58 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

They become one when they are in perfect agreement, and they are.

How do you know that?

You should have copied the part that demonstrates it:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee,
that they also may be one in us" -- John 17:21

Jesus claimed that He and the Father are "one." It is illogical to
conclude that they are one individual because He prayed that His
followers might be "one" just as He and the Father are. Unless, of
course, you're idea of "oneness" is to be dissolved in a mass of
squishy semi-entities.

That's the Bible's claim, but how do you know if that is true?

The same way that Peter knew Jesus was the Christ:

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God.
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which
is in heaven." -- Matthew 16:16-17

There are only four ways to learn. One is described above: revelation
from God. The other three are

“There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.� -- Will Rogers

I'm often the latter type :-)

BTW, "being one" is an example of the ultimate dictatorship: the
leader controls everyone else who follows all the wishes of the
leader. What happened to free will which supposedly was given to
humans by God?

This assertion is an example of a straw-man argument. The false assumption
here is that people are forced into "being one." It is voluntary, a choice
one makes. It's hard to believe that you would come to such a conclusion
since free will is taught throughout the Bible.

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom
ye will serve" -- Joshua 24:15

Paul spoke of three places people will go, based upon God's criteria:

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another
glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
"So also is the resurrection of the dead." -- 1 Corinthians 15:41-42

And then there's a fourth place, but it ain't a heaven!

Although the world's largest cult. But it's really several cults -
catholics, orthodox, protestants and some more, and each have
fractions within them.

Which is why most of them can't be right. The Catholic church lost
its way and all the other churches came into existence to try to find
the way back. But since the Catholic church claimed authority from God,
the Lutheran concept of a "priesthood of all believers" rationalized
that authority came from the people, in direct conflict with scriptu

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called
of God, as was Aaron." -- Hebrews 5:4

So much for the sins of various religions that you documented.

More examples of religious dictatorships.

Nobody has required that you must join a church, and the purpose of
priesthood is to bless people's lives, not rule over them.

Btw don't all churches claim authority from God?

I think most churches never bring that up. Graduating from a seminary
is considered to be sufficient "authority."

Without a perceived authority from God, the reason for their existence
would vanish.

Maybe MY reason and possibly YOUR reason :-)

Churches DO have important functions nevertheless: biblical instruction,
fellowship, civilizing influence (which has not always been the case :-| )