Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

In article ,
says...

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.

And since you revert to name calling, you're obviously
out of arguments.

In article ,
says...

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.

Only in your own flawed mind ....

In article ,
says...

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.

Then why are theists and atheists even arguing with one
another, if it's just a matter of unprovable beliefs
anyway? It is like arguing about e.g. the most pleasant
color instead of just acknowledging that there are
different opinions.

On Thu, 3 May 2018 06:52:27 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Then why are theists and atheists even arguing with one
another, if it's just a matter of unprovable beliefs
anyway?

Provability isn't important. Evidence is. I don't care about atheism.
I don't even identify as one for the most part. But I do care about
reason and evidence-based thinking. Faith-based thinking is at the
root of most of the problems in the world today, and as we become more
and more technologically advanced, it is faith-based thinking that
increasingly puts our existence at risk.

If you are highly rational and are well informed, you'll be an
atheist. That's just a consequence of thinking critically. Theism
demonstrates a failure to think critically, and the inability to think
critically is something I seek to change in people.

I don't tell people they should be atheists, I tell them they should
learn to think.

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:38:49 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

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?

Obviously, God revealed it to Peter. Exactly HOW it was done is a personal
matter, but the REAL point is that ANYONE can have that experience.

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.

I don't either. I was talking about learning from experience.

"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he
suffered" -- Hebrews 5:8

.....

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?

God doesn't "exclude" anyone. They exclude themselves.

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.

It's not as contradictory as some would like to believe, but I should have
said, "following all of Christ's teachings."

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.

Jesus also said they who are not with us are against us, "contradicting"
what he said in Luke 9:50. Life is paradoxical, but context is the key.

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

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

Thanks for that link. Ver-r-ry interesting.

A lot of that is nit-picking ignorance, most likely intentional. For
example, the use of "LORD" by the KJ translators was originally different
Hebrew words. I took a course in college called "The Bible As Literature"
taught by a Jewish scholar. As I understand it, the earliest name for God
is Elohim, not Jehovah.

Another point:

"GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and
darkness.
"GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until
the fourth day."

I was just thinking about this last week. Astronomers believe that the
sun was created in a star nursery. There were lots of stars turning on
in close proximity, some quite large. So as the earth formed out of the
leftovers of the collapsing sun, there was no darkness. Darkness
happened as the new stars moved apart.

Some of the criticisms brought up in your link are translation errors,
but most are due to the ignorance of the critics.

Concerning your reply to someone else:

It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the existense of god.

There is no way to "prove" anything in science. Science is about making
measurements, building models and then confirming that the evidence is in
agreement with the model or that the evidence refutes the model.

I have presented a model of God. It is based upon statistical plausibility,
i.e., based upon our present knowledge of the universe, it is highly likely
that there exists civilizations billions of years older than ours and that
in order to have survived would have developed an exceedingly high moral
code, as well as an extremely advanced understanding of science and
engineering (i.e., technology). Thus it is highly unlikely that God does
not exist. Thus anyone who claims to be an atheist is either ignorant,
dishonest or stupid. Q.E.D.

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

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.

And yet, you argue about it quite a lot.


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...

And atheism is a religious belief. Glad you agree.

--
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...

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.

And since you revert to name calling, you're obviously
out of arguments.

I'm only imitating you, son. If you're embarassed by it, you
shouldn't do 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
:

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.

Only in your own flawed mind ....

I know you are, but what am I?

--
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.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:38:49 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

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?

Obviously, God revealed it to Peter. Exactly HOW it was done is a personal
matter, but the REAL point is that ANYONE can have that experience.

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.

I don't either. I was talking about learning from experience.

"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he
suffered" -- Hebrews 5:8

....

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?

God doesn't "exclude" anyone. They exclude themselves.

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.

It's not as contradictory as some would like to believe, but I should have
said, "following all of Christ's teachings."

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.

Jesus also said they who are not with us are against us, "contradicting"
what he said in Luke 9:50. Life is paradoxical, but context is the key.

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

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

Thanks for that link. Ver-r-ry interesting.

A lot of that is nit-picking ignorance, most likely intentional. For
example, the use of "LORD" by the KJ translators was originally different
Hebrew words. I took a course in college called "The Bible As Literature"
taught by a Jewish scholar. As I understand it, the earliest name for God
is Elohim, not Jehovah.

Another point:

"GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and
darkness.
"GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until
the fourth day."

I was just thinking about this last week. Astronomers believe that the
sun was created in a star nursery. There were lots of stars turning on
in close proximity, some quite large. So as the earth formed out of the
leftovers of the collapsing sun, there was no darkness. Darkness
happened as the new stars moved apart.

Some of the criticisms brought up in your link are translation errors,
but most are due to the ignorance of the critics.

Concerning your reply to someone else:

It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the existense of god.

There is no way to "prove" anything in science. Science is about making
measurements, building models and then confirming that the evidence is in
agreement with the model or that the evidence refutes the model.

I have presented a model of God. It is based upon statistical plausibility,
i.e., based upon our present knowledge of the universe, it is highly likely
that there exists civilizations billions of years older than ours and that
in order to have survived would have developed an exceedingly high moral
code, as well as an extremely advanced understanding of science and
engineering (i.e., technology). Thus it is highly unlikely that God does
not exist. Thus anyone who claims to be an atheist is either ignorant,
dishonest or stupid. Q.E.D.


If you’re following all the teachings of Jesus have you sold all your
belongings and given the money to the poor?

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:57:48 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

It's not as contradictory as some would like to believe, but I should have
said, "following all of Christ's teachings."

If you’re following all the teachings of Jesus have you sold all your
belongings and given the money to the poor?

Two comments on that:

So you believe His remarks to a particular person are to be applied to
everyone? :-)

Or, if you do believe so:

So you believe that I'm perfect? :-)