Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Evidence, proof, claims, slogans, stock phrases and finally utter mediocrity.

The conversion experience of Pascal is so familiar among the many milestones of each individual Christian journey and like many things in life it resonates with those who have known how that spirit lights up a life including the intelligence of the individual.

https://churchpop.com/2016/04/19/nig...laise-pascals/

It is why I can have such fun with the empirical theorists and their followers who haven't the slightest intellectual ability to scroll through history and spot the different twists and turns in technical and societal terms.


"To know more, one must feel less, and vice versa… Nature, the soul, love, and God, one recognizes through the heart, and not through the reason. Were we spirits, we could dwell in that region of ideas over which our souls hover, seeking the solution. But we are earth-born beings, and can only guess at the Idea — not grasp it by all sides at once. The guide for our intelligences through the temporary illusion into the innermost centre of the soul is called Reason. Now, Reason is a material capacity, while the soul or spirit lives on the thoughts which are whispered by the heart.. Thought is born in the soul. Reason is a tool, a machine, which is driven by the spiritual fire. When human reason … penetrates into the domain of knowledge, it works independently of the feeling, and consequently of the heart." Fyodor Dostoyevsky

In a way it is so funny to see the pretense of speaking to each other when you all should be speaking to your own hearts where, as those Christians have said that God known by the heart is so much different than God guessed at by the brain.

God is mutual love, not for yourself but for all creation.

On Wed, 02 May 2018 13:18:24 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Tue, 01 May 2018 08:09:11 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
It is not a matter of opinion that if you say "atheist" means
"denying
the existence of gods" then you are wrong. The overwhelming majority
of people who self-identify as atheists or who are identified by
others as atheists make no such claim.

Do you have a source for that claim? Some sociological study perhaps?
Preferably a study which is not US-centric...

Well, you could just participate in atheist communities, and you'd
learn that. You could listen to talks, or read articles, coming from
atheist organizations. You could read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris. You
could take a class in religious philosophy.

I have not found there is anything I'd call a U.S.-centric atheist
community. All the forums I've encountered are very international. The
atheists, anti-theists, and humanists I engage with are about half in
the U.S., the rest in the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada.

And none of these claim there are no gods. It's simply not
conventional usage.

If you want to use "atheist" that way, do so. You'll be misunderstood
and your usage won't describe people who don't believe in gods. If
that's your idea of a good way to use language, go for it.

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 2:51:21 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:


Well, you could just participate in atheist communities, and you'd
learn that. You could listen to talks, or read articles, coming from
atheist organizations. You could read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris. You
could take a class in religious philosophy.


Cracks me up, the atheist-in-chief ended up having a Church service and people will end up paying £20 to visit his remains beside Sir Isaac in Westminster Abbey-

http://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/m...holy-saturday/

All insights that highlight creation are spiritual, all theories that are self-promoting are not -

“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.� ― Galileo Galilei

Intellectual anarchy is worse than insanity for it appears to give a follower free will to believe anything and everything but they eventually discover they feel nothing only their own pretense. Only as death approaches does the fear overtake them whereas spiritual people dissolve back into the great spirit that give them life and form.

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

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?

Contrary to your fantasy world, evidence isn't a binary
definition, not in science, and not in any other form of life.
Some evidence is more compelling the other evidence, some more
objective. But it's all evidence.

If so, not all evidence is convincing evidence.

And what is convincing to some isn't to others. And?

Particularly,
claimed first-hand accounts of very unlikely events, accounts
which are not confirmed anywhere else, is not convincing.

To you. It's very convincing to those who experience it.

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

I've posted a link to a first hand account. You don't like it,
so you pretend it's not a firt hand account. But if you're
going to reject first hand evidence out of hand as unreliable,
then no evidence of any kind is possible on any subject,
because you cannot prove that when you measured the temperature
at which water boils you were not hallucinating as you read the
thermometer.

Like I said, there's plenty of evidence. You just don't like
it, so you hallucinate a world where it isn't evidence. Your
religious fantasies are *exactly* as credible as anybody
else's.

I'm far from alone in not accepting your "evidence".

And? There are many that do. Unless you're claiming some special
status as a know-all, your disbelief is not more valid than their
belief.

(And it's not my evidence.)

What it
lacks most is thorough confirmation....

So does fingerprinting as a method of identifying people who
committed crimes. Doesn't make it not exist, no matter how much you
wish it did.

If your evidence

(It's not my evidence.)

really was reliable,

Nice strat man, there, son. I never said it was reliable, just that
it was evidence. You never said there was no reliable evidence (in
yoru view), you said there was not evidence.

then the question of the
existence of God would not be a religious matter. Instead it
would be a matter of serious scientific study - much like when a
new animal species is discovered.

Since it's not a scienfitific claim it'd be pretty stupid of you to
try to apply science to it.

But OK, you have no reliable evidence to present.

And you have no reliable evidence to disprove the existence of said
Deity.

Remember that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary
evidence. That's why anecdotal evidence of first hand accounts
does not account, until they have been confirmed multiple times.

There you go again, trying to apply scientific method to something
that doesn't even pretend to be science. Which is to say, there you
go again, being stupid and proving you don't know what science is.

--
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 Wed, 02 May 2018 09:32:01 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Particularly,
claimed first-hand accounts of very unlikely events, accounts
which are not confirmed anywhere else, is not convincing.

To you. It's very convincing to those who experience it.

So is the sense of flying to somebody who's just taken LSD. That
doesn't mean they can fly.

Subjective mental states are about as weak of evidence as is possible.
Unsubstantiated anecdotes of extraordinary events are equally weak.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Wed, 02 May 2018 09:32:01 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

Particularly,
claimed first-hand accounts of very unlikely events, accounts
which are not confirmed anywhere else, is not convincing.

To you. It's very convincing to those who experience it.

So is the sense of flying to somebody who's just taken LSD. That
doesn't mean they can fly.

Subjective mental states are about as weak of evidence as is
possible. Unsubstantiated anecdotes of extraordinary events are
equally weak.

You've just refuted your own claim.

And you're way too stupid to realize it, and way too ****ing demented
to accept it.

--
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.

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

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.

You clearly have no ****ing clue what science *or* religion is.

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.

WHAT hate?

I don't hate fairy-tales, and religion is no exception...

QED.

--
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 Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 5:35:32 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

Do you claim to have seen Jesus in person, like Peter did?

That's not how Peter learned that Jesus was the Christ. Do you have a
reading disability?

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 :-)

That contradicts your first claim of having seen Jesus IRL.....

I never claimed that. You are really descending into dishonesty, Paul.

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.

If it's voluntary, there will always be some who refuses, and then the
people won't be "one" ....

More straw-man assertion. No one said EVERYONE would be one. There are
those who belong to Christ's church, who are encouraged to be one, and
those who refuse and are not one.

"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!

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.

Do the churches really agree on that?

That's irrelevant since most churches aren't following all of the Bible's
teachings.

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 :-| )

Churches have had that function too, that's correct. But if you remove
any claims about any God from the teaching of some church, it is no
longer a church, instead it becomes a school of some kind. Or a meeting
place of your local club. Or perhaps just a deteriorating building which
soon will become a ruin....

Churches make claims about God and that satisfies some people, but there's
a lot taught that is incorrect. However, if they aren't antithetical ...

"And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is
for us." -- Luke 9:50

In article 609cd8ec-48b7-4c1e-9016-
,
says...

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 5:35:32 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

Do you claim to have seen Jesus in person, like Peter did?

That's not how Peter learned that Jesus was the Christ. Do you have a
reading disability?

But just saying "revaled by my father" doesn't say very
much about what really happened, does it?

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 :-)

That contradicts your first claim of having seen Jesus IRL.....

I never claimed that. You are really descending into dishonesty, Paul.

Sorry, but I don't consider electric fences as prof of
god's existence.

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.

If it's voluntary, there will always be some who refuses, and then the
people won't be "one" ....

More straw-man assertion. No one said EVERYONE would be one. There are
those who belong to Christ's church, who are encouraged to be one, and
those who refuse and are not one.

Doesn't God want EVERYONE to follow his commands? Or
does he exclude some persons - if so, which ones?

"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!

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.

Do the churches really agree on that?

That's irrelevant since most churches aren't following all of the Bible's
teachings.

You cannot follow all of the bible's teachings since the
bible contradicts itself. And that applies to
individuals as well as churches.

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 :-| )

Churches have had that function too, that's correct. But if you remove
any claims about any God from the teaching of some church, it is no
longer a church, instead it becomes a school of some kind. Or a meeting
place of your local club. Or perhaps just a deteriorating building which
soon will become a ruin....

Churches make claims about God and that satisfies some people, but there's
a lot taught that is incorrect. However, if they aren't antithetical ...

"And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is
for us." -- Luke 9:50

A quote from George W. Bush in Sept 2001 ...... ;-)

And this is one point where the bible contradicts
itself: did Jesus come to bring war or to pring peace?
Different parts of the bible says different things about
this.

Here is a collection of a large number of self-
contradicions in the bible:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/..._morgan/contra
dictions.html

In article ,
says...

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

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?

Contrary to your fantasy world, evidence isn't a binary
definition, not in science, and not in any other form of life.
Some evidence is more compelling the other evidence, some more
objective. But it's all evidence.

If so, not all evidence is convincing evidence.

And what is convincing to some isn't to others. And?

Particularly,
claimed first-hand accounts of very unlikely events, accounts
which are not confirmed anywhere else, is not convincing.

To you. It's very convincing to those who experience it.

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

I've posted a link to a first hand account. You don't like it,
so you pretend it's not a firt hand account. But if you're
going to reject first hand evidence out of hand as unreliable,
then no evidence of any kind is possible on any subject,
because you cannot prove that when you measured the temperature
at which water boils you were not hallucinating as you read the
thermometer.

Like I said, there's plenty of evidence. You just don't like
it, so you hallucinate a world where it isn't evidence. Your
religious fantasies are *exactly* as credible as anybody
else's.

I'm far from alone in not accepting your "evidence".

And? There are many that do. Unless you're claiming some special
status as a know-all, your disbelief is not more valid than their
belief.

(And it's not my evidence.)

What it
lacks most is thorough confirmation....

So does fingerprinting as a method of identifying people who
committed crimes. Doesn't make it not exist, no matter how much you
wish it did.

If your evidence

(It's not my evidence.)

really was reliable,

Nice strat man, there, son. I never said it was reliable, just that
it was evidence. You never said there was no reliable evidence (in
yoru view), you said there was not evidence.

then the question of the
existence of God would not be a religious matter. Instead it
would be a matter of serious scientific study - much like when a
new animal species is discovered.

Since it's not a scienfitific claim it'd be pretty stupid of you to
try to apply science to it.

But OK, you have no reliable evidence to present.

And you have no reliable evidence to disprove the existence of said
Deity.

I never claimed I had. It is impossible to prove, or
disprove, the existense of god.


Remember that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary
evidence. That's why anecdotal evidence of first hand accounts
does not account, until they have been confirmed multiple times.

There you go again, trying to apply scientific method to something
that doesn't even pretend to be science. Which is to say, there you
go again, being stupid and proving you don't know what science is.

Here I agree with you - religion is a fairy-tale. And
like other fairy-tales it should not be taken as a true
story...