Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Tue, 01 May 2018 12:29:13 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

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.

It is my opinion that when you have a choice of two words, and one is
clearer and less ambiguous (e.g. "skeptic" over "agnostic"), it's wise
to choose the clearer one.

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.

Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Mike Collins wrote in

ter 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.

However you wish. My point remains. 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.

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.

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.

--
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.

You should leanr how to quote better, and leave blank lines between
the quoted part and yoru reponse and the next quoted part.

Or not. It's not like you have anything to say.

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

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

Apparently, *you* have no connection with reality. You're
hallucinating again.

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

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

You *started* with namecalling, hypocrite-boy. If you don't like
it, don't do it.

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...

I'm only imitating you.

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

You're a liar.

--
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 Tuesday, 1 May 2018 17:58:23 UTC+2, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha mumbled:

You're a liar.

Have you noticed that all of your posts are 'selfies?'
Only quoting others brings interest to your token "oversize me" textual cowpat.
Your predictability and repetition are surely more suited to Junior Twitter?
Where you could fight it out interlektually.
By quoting infant school bullies like Trumpet.
Before adding your potato stamp rimshot of a naughty little monkey.

Your user name shows that you have already descended to wearing a clumsy mask.
Anything to gain attention with the least effort.
Unmoderated forums must be a blessing for someone like you.
One whom has absolutely nothing interesting or new to add to the conversation.

"Look, Mummy, no handlebars!" must surely pall after a while?
Particularly when repeatedly shouted in the children's section of the local village library.
Most are born to be extras on the stage of life. So get over yourself.
You don't get the walk-on part without at least some spark of originality.

Don't call us... Who's next?

"Chris.B" wrote in
:

On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 17:58:23 UTC+2, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha mumbled:

You're a liar.

Have you noticed that all of your posts are 'selfies?'

I know you are, but what am I?

(Imitation is the sincerest form of flatter, so clearly, you idolize
me.)

--
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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...

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

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". What it lacks most
is thorough confirmation....

If your evidence really was reliable, 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.

But OK, you have no reliable evidence to present.

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.

In article ,
says...

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

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

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.....

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" ....

"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.

Do the churches really agree on that?

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....

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...