"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
snip---

I'd say you got it right Harold, for those who don't have faith in God,
there is no evidence of him. They are on their own.

I've been busy, with not much free time at my disposal, thus my delayed
response.

Sorry, but all of your proclamations do nothing to prove anything aside
from, perhaps, you believe. It's clear to me, from my experiences in
life, that good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good
people, even those that pray. How one interprets results is up to their
personal beliefs, but choosing to *think* that a wish has been granted in no
way proves it has been.

We have a neighbor that fancies himself a religious person. He described
how they all prayed when he was having trouble with his stomach, and swears
his prayer was answered. I told him to his face he was nuts. If his
prayer was answered, why is it he carries a quart jar of antacids with him
at all times? He chose to think he was healed, but if he was, it wasn't
much of a job.

I, too, have had difficulties with my stomach. I had heartburn that would
light a small city, and it was ongoing for years. My problems were
controlled by visiting a doctor, who prescribed antibiotics to control
helicobacter pylori, which is known to cause ulcers. I take no antacids
now, although I used to live on them. Could it be that medical science
has some say in my "cure"? Is it reasonable to conclude that John, the
neighbor, wasn't cured at all?

How convenient that so many don't mention the huge number of wishes that
were not answered, or the number of negative experiences that came, in spite
of praying, yet one incident occurrence that may be easily explained without
the supernatural and it's the work of God. Sorry, Roger, all you've
proven to me is you believe, and no amount of evidence that could be
provided will sway you from your chosen belief. You don't believe
because you have proof, you have "proof" because you believe. What you
hold dear as evidence is, to others, nothing more than coincidence,
something you choose to interpret as evidence.
I'm not trying to destroy your faith----I'm just trying to have you
understand that what you believe in may suit you well, and may, or may not,
be true. When you can provide evidence that it is, I will welcome it
with open arms. Sadly, I doubt you would return the same consideration.
Folks that "know" there's a creator will not be denied, regardless of the
amount of contrary evidence. It's one of the reasons they are so easy to
screw over. As long as someone does it in the name of God, the deed is
endorsed. It appears to have been that way as long as recorded time. The
difference is the name of the god in question.

Oh, yeah------all those quotes? ***Valueless****. Anyone can put words on
paper. That you choose to believe them means nothing in the way of
supporting your position. They're all just a part of your arsenal, and are
not fact. If they were, it could be proven. Bible thumpers think
they're true-----but ten million people believing a given notion that isn't
true won't make it so.

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

Oh, yeah------all those quotes? ***Valueless****. Anyone can put words
on paper. That you choose to believe them means nothing in the way of
supporting your position. They're all just a part of your arsenal, and
are not fact. If they were, it could be proven. Bible thumpers think
they're true-----but ten million people believing a given notion that
isn't true won't make it so.

Harold

I agree with most of what you say. But what you say applies to you too. No
amount of evidence that could be provided will sway you from your chosen
belief. There are those in churches that believe in handling snakes and
drinking poison based on a single Bible verse that isn't even in the
earliest and most reliable texts. If you want to prove that there is
nothing to their belief then grab a rattler and take a good swig of what
they say is poison. They believe and act on their faith and get results.
Believe and act on your faith and see if the snakes act unnatural in your
hands too, you might want to bring a snake bite kit with you though. :-)

There was a college law professor that always taught his students to examine
the evidence. That was his big thing, examine the evidence. One day he
found out that some of his students were Christians. The professor said he
didn't believe in that stuff, much like you. They asked him if he examined
the evidence. He was embarrassed that he had to admit that he had not. He
then examined the evidence and guess what, he became a Christian. The
difference between him and you is that he examined the evidence. The
Professors name was Simon Greenleaf, he was famous in case you want to do a
search.

You have no quotes or anything of value that supports your world view. You
have some moral values that are from the Bible but what good is that since
you don't believe in the Bible anyway? You believe in hard work but many
people with more than you don't believe in hard work. You don't want to
cheat people but many that do cheat people are more successful than you.
So, what do you base your (Moral/Biblical) beliefs on?

One of the most well known and outspoken Atheists is Richard Dawkins. He
has been called Darwin's Rottweiler but it would be more fitting to call him
Darwin's Chihuahua. He makes a lot of noise but when you see what it's all
about you see that all he needs is a good kick to shut him up. A little
light examination will reveal his science theory is though up with the goal
of supporting Atheism. He barks all kinds of BS about the God he knows
nothing about. Now Atheism is the religion with the agenda. Mans desire to
not be held accountable for his sin is as old as sin and guilt. To be free
from accountability, the God of the Bible must not exist, hence mans
desperation to believe there is no God, and therefore come up with any kind
of scientific sounding explanation of How without a Cause. Anything Science
can come up with that supports our existence without a God, the Atheists
jump all over it, did we come from brown sea weed or one of the other two
theories? Or have they made up other theories now?

Ever wonder why Richard Dawkins is so popular among colleges? Could it be
because they don't want to be accountable to the God of the Bible for their
orgies? I've watched some of the debates on youtube and Mr. Dorkins says
something totally stupid and tries to fit it to believing in God and all the
immoral applaud him. If Mr. Dawkins or anybody came up with a scientific
theory that we all came from Marvin the Martian the college students would
jump on it, it's the natural thing for sinners to do. Want proof, just look
at those who jump all over me but don't squawk about that much about all the
political OT posts.

Like I said, since you think there's nothing to it go to a church and grab a
handful of cottonmouths, copperheads, and rattlesnakes with one hand and a
glass of poison with the other hand and show them stupid believers that you
can do anything they can. Years ago I saw video of this on TV, I think it
was Hardcopy with Maury Povich or something like that, they showed the snake
handling in the churches and the drinking poison, they sent some of the
poison to a lab to have it tested and found out it really was poison. Must
have been slight of hand, go prove them wrong. Make sure you document
everything so we can read about it and learn in case you don't survive.

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...
snip---

I agree with most of what you say. But what you say applies to you too.
No amount of evidence that could be provided will sway you from your
chosen belief.

You're wrong on that one. I damned well can be swayed, but it takes more
than words that can not be proven. Evidence, Roger, **Real evidence**, not
just a bunch of words put on paper. Anyone can write a book. Show me one
shred of evidence that we are here because of a supreme being. One shred.

ONE, Roger.

Look at it like this, Roger. You believe in God. You *know* he/she/it
exists. Trouble is, so does the other guy, and he's every bit as
dedicated as you are, perhaps even more so. If there is a creator, why is
it that people can't agree on one? Seems to me, each sect creates one
that fits their criteria, so they can control others to their liking.

There are those in churches that believe in handling snakes and
drinking poison based on a single Bible verse that isn't even in the
earliest and most reliable texts. If you want to prove that there is
nothing to their belief then grab a rattler and take a good swig of what
they say is poison. They believe and act on their faith and get results.

Nonsense.

Cites, if you have them.

He then examined the evidence and guess what, he became a Christian.

____There is no evidence to examine. That's the problem. ________

You have some moral values that are from the Bible but what good is that
since you don't believe in the Bible anyway?

See what's wrong with religious people?

Are you suggesting that unless a person is religious that he/she is wasting
their time doing the right thing?

You believe in hard work but many people with more than you don't believe
in hard work. You don't want to cheat people but many that do cheat
people are more successful than you.

For starters, this isn't a competition. I am what I am, and I am not the
least bit concerned with the success, or lack thereof, of others. As for
those that cheat people being more successful than am I, how so? Money
does not make a man------nor does being underhanded. There's one thing I
do very well, Roger, and that's sleep at night. I don't have to look over
my shoulder, wondering who may be catching up to me.

So, what do you base your (Moral/Biblical) beliefs on?

Something you may not understand. It's called personal pride. I try to do
to others that which I'd like done to me. I don't steal, I don't cheat, and
I am faithful to my wife. Oh, yeah, did I mention I don't like religious
people?

I do these things so I can be proud of myself, not because I fear some force
will strike me down. I do it because it's the right thing to do. The
action of doing the right thing is my reward. Are you telling me that
were it not for God, you'd be an asshole? See what I mean? I'd rather, by
far, keep company with a common whore than a religious person. At least
she'd be honest about herself.

Mans desire to not be held accountable for his sin is as old as sin and
guilt. To be free from accountability, the God of the Bible must not
exist, hence mans desperation to believe there is no God, and therefore
come up with any kind of scientific sounding explanation of How without a
Cause.

More nonsense, Roger. More nonsense. None of that fits my description,
and I have no interest in pursuing this to that end.

Anything Science can come up with that supports our existence without a
God, the Atheists jump all over it, did we come from brown sea weed or one
of the other two theories? Or have they made up other theories now?

I'm a little troubled with anyone that finds it insulting to consider that
we may have evolved from simple life forms. Why? What's so special about
humans? Evidence supports the concept that we sprang from lesser life
forms. Why would that be so hard to accept? How is that demeaning to
you? Why are you insulted by the concept------especially when it may well
have been the vehicle of choice for man's creation-----a choice made by this
God you worship.


Like I said, since you think there's nothing to it go to a church and grab
a handful of cottonmouths, copperheads, and rattlesnakes with one hand and
a glass of poison with the other hand and show them stupid believers that
you can do anything they can. Years ago I saw video of this on TV, I
think it was Hardcopy with Maury Povich or something like that, they
showed the snake handling in the churches and the drinking poison, they
sent some of the poison to a lab to have it tested and found out it really
was poison. Must have been slight of hand, go prove them wrong. Make
sure you document everything so we can read about it and learn in case you
don't survive.

Tell you what we can do, smart ass------lets the two of us go to one of
these churches and I'll watch you drink the poison. After all, you're the
one that believes-----*I do not*. Surely, with all your faith, you'll
walk away unscathed.

****Surely.****

Of course, you're not going to take me up on the challenge, because your
faith isn't what you proclaim it to be. You don't REALLY believe that
you're not going to die if you accepted the challenge.

You can knock off the bull**** and get on with real issues. It is common
for those that deal with reptiles to take regular doses of their poisons to
build a tolerance. I have no way of knowing is that be the case with these
morons you speak of, nor was I there to witness anything you claim, nor have
I read any reports that support what you claim. It's just more of the smoke
and mirrors used by religious nuts to prove they're stupid. No need,
really----most of us already understand they are.

Show me some evidence, not showboat stuff. This conversation has degraded
to nonsense-----you have nothing to provide in support of your position
aside from your unsubstantiated claims. This conversation has worn out
its welcome.

Harold

“The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is
that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,
wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by
their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this
flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to
bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least
productive industry in all history.” -- Robert Heinlein

A lot of people want their children to love them, is that so preposterous?
A lot of parents enjoy giving their children things that they want. Ol Bob
Heiny just took the long way to say he doesn't know squat about God or the
Bible. :-)

RogerN

"Terry" wrote in message
...
"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is
that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,
wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by
their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this
flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to
bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least
productive industry in all history." -- Robert Heinlein

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...
snip---

I agree with most of what you say. But what you say applies to you too.
No amount of evidence that could be provided will sway you from your
chosen belief.

Ok, suppose you got in a Delorean with a flux capacitor and went back in
time a couple hundred years. While talking to the people in the early
1800's you tell them about things you know about from the future for them.
You mention radio communications and they don't believe you because they
can't see it and since you don't have a transmitter and receiver, you can't
provide any proof that radio communications is even possible. Would you let
them move you from your position that radio communications is possible? If
you seen the Statue of Liberty, would you let others convice you that it
doesn't exist just because they haven't seen it?


Look at it like this, Roger. You believe in God. You *know* he/she/it
exists. Trouble is, so does the other guy, and he's every bit as
dedicated as you are, perhaps even more so. If there is a creator, why
is it that people can't agree on one? Seems to me, each sect creates
one that fits their criteria, so they can control others to their liking.

Even the Koran mentions Jesus having the power to heal but doesn't make this
claim for Mohammad. Google for people raised from the dead through faith,
notice they are all Christian. God follows the truth with signs and wonders
as he always has. The Bible way to test a prophet is by their propehesies
come true. Did you read about the Prophet in the Bible trying to get the
false prophets to summon their God. The true prophes asked the false
prophets if their God was on the toilet. Then when the true prophet prayed
God answered with fire.


He then examined the evidence and guess what, he became a Christian.

____There is no evidence to examine. That's the problem. ________

There are writings, both the Bible and other writings. Many stories in the
Bible were thought to be false and then archeology discovered the ancient
cities that was written about in the Bible that was thought to be false.
According to archeology, the writings of Luke (wrote Luke and the Book of
Acts) have proven to be very accurate as to the early Christian beginnings.

You have some moral values that are from the Bible but what good is that
since you don't believe in the Bible anyway?

See what's wrong with religious people?

Are you suggesting that unless a person is religious that he/she is
wasting their time doing the right thing?

Not at all, just what makes you think it's the right thing?

any kind of scientific sounding explanation of How without a Cause.

More nonsense, Roger. More nonsense. None of that fits my description,
and I have no interest in pursuing this to that end.

Not your description Harlod, but their are many that are motivated by such.


Tell you what we can do, smart ass------lets the two of us go to one of
these churches and I'll watch you drink the poison. After all, you're the
one that believes-----*I do not*. Surely, with all your faith, you'll
walk away unscathed.

****Surely.****

Geez, one minute I'm a dumb ass now I'm a smart ass :-) I know about the
verse in Mark chapter 16 that they get this from but I don't see anywhere
else in the Bible where it mentions handling snakes and drinking poison in a
church service. But, it is in the Bible and they believe in it and it seems
to work for them. Suppose there is a God for a minute. If they genuinely
believe in their heart that God is ordering them to do this, then God might
honor it and protect them. If I were to do the same thing not believing God
orders it, would God protect me in the same way? If God does order those
things, why do them in church with a bunch of others that believe the same
thing, that's not benefiting anyone that I can see. I think their efforts
would be better to demonstrate the powers of God to unbelievers.


Of course, you're not going to take me up on the challenge, because your
faith isn't what you proclaim it to be. You don't REALLY believe that
you're not going to die if you accepted the challenge.

You can knock off the bull**** and get on with real issues. It is common
for those that deal with reptiles to take regular doses of their poisons
to build a tolerance. I have no way of knowing is that be the case with
these morons you speak of, nor was I there to witness anything you claim,
nor have I read any reports that support what you claim. It's just more
of the smoke and mirrors used by religious nuts to prove they're stupid.
No need, really----most of us already understand they are.

If they are building up an immunity to the poison then I don't see why some
would die from it. Perhaps it would be more likely that they have some
hidden sin in their life and think they can fool God? Like the couple that
agreed to lie in the book of Acts, and both fell dead.

Show me some evidence, not showboat stuff. This conversation has
degraded to nonsense-----you have nothing to provide in support of your
position aside from your unsubstantiated claims. This conversation has
worn out its welcome.

Harold

Agreed, Harold, let's talk metalworking. I'll let you know if I get
anything I think God has a hand in. I have many health issues that need
miracles. I've had Diabetes since 2001 as a result of Pancreatitus and
Pancrease surgery. I have to take 2-3 shots of insulin a day and pancreatic
enzymes, in other words my Pancrease has been dead for over 7 years now.
The doctors can do nothing but prescribe me insulin and enzymes. If I
became well and no longer needed Insulin or enzymes after praying, would you
consider that as evidence? What if I were to deteriorate until an
amputation was necessary. If I lost my foot, then prayed and a new foot
grew to replace the amputated one, would that be evidence? I don't know
what you consider evidence.

RogerN

It's not at all preposterous for parents to want their children to
love them. But for those who missed the points Heinlein was making:

-Stipulating a creator of this entire world in all its complexity, and
the other myriad worlds large and small in this solar system, plus the
sun, and the four hundred million other suns (some with planets) in
the Milky Way galaxy, and the other millions of galaxies in the
universe.... the relationship between a purported creator and a
microspeck person on this speck called Earth would not be described by
"parent and child." "Person and molecule" or "person and atom" are
much closer to reality (person to subatomic particle is probably even
closer).

When was the last time you wanted the particular chromium atom that's
at the very tip of the last thumbtack you used to love you? Probably
not something that happens very often.

-According to the bible, Yahweh got so ticked-off at a couple of
cities of people that he torched 'em. Except for Lot and his family.

Do you get angry when you feel that the few millions of iron atoms at
the tip of the threading tool aren't properly adoring of you? Ever
been so ticked-off at the oxygen atoms on the top of your beer bottle
that you wanted to destroy those atoms? (Except for the five or six
that do your bidding.) No, I didn't think so.

I do not expect to convince anyone of anything in particular with this
discussion; it is awfully tough to take an objective look at any
religion, whether it be the one you grew up with or the myriad
religions outside that one. But I thought a little perspective was in
order.


On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:03:09 -0600, "RogerN" wrote:

A lot of people want their children to love them, is that so preposterous?
A lot of parents enjoy giving their children things that they want. Ol Bob
Heiny just took the long way to say he doesn't know squat about God or the
Bible. :-)

RogerN

"Terry" wrote in message
.. .
"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is
that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,
wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by
their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this
flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to
bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least
productive industry in all history." -- Robert Heinlein

"Terry" wrote in message
...
It's not at all preposterous for parents to want their children to
love them. But for those who missed the points Heinlein was making:

-Stipulating a creator of this entire world in all its complexity, and
the other myriad worlds large and small in this solar system, plus the
sun, and the four hundred million other suns (some with planets) in
the Milky Way galaxy, and the other millions of galaxies in the
universe.... the relationship between a purported creator and a
microspeck person on this speck called Earth would not be described by
"parent and child." "Person and molecule" or "person and atom" are
much closer to reality (person to subatomic particle is probably even
closer).

Well, the very subject is brought up in Psalms and Hebrews

Psalm 8:4 (King James Version)
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou
visitest him?

Hebrews 2
6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art
mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? 7Thou madest him
a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour,
and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

When was the last time you wanted the particular chromium atom that's
at the very tip of the last thumbtack you used to love you? Probably
not something that happens very often.

-According to the bible, Yahweh got so ticked-off at a couple of
cities of people that he torched 'em. Except for Lot and his family.

Do you get angry when you feel that the few millions of iron atoms at
the tip of the threading tool aren't properly adoring of you? Ever
been so ticked-off at the oxygen atoms on the top of your beer bottle
that you wanted to destroy those atoms? (Except for the five or six
that do your bidding.) No, I didn't think so.

As far as I know atoms don't decide to rebel against their creator. The
a_holes tailgating me and acting like they own the road, that's a different
story. People are free will and have a choice, that makes them different
than atoms that just do what they are supposed to do. Many people say all
kinds of bad things about God and he doesn't destroy them. After many years
of people doing things like sacrificing their children to idols, God might
decide to destroy them. This is much different then the atoms properly
adoring something or someone as in your comparison. Sort of like comparing
someone slitting your tires with an accidental flat tire.

RogerN

I've been following this thread with considerable interest and
amusement. Looks like you all are having a lot of fun. As well, many
intriguing points have been raised.

Howsomever, there's really no resolution to the issue for: One who
believes requires no proof and one who does not believe will accept no
proof.

It seems to me the debate admits of no scientific or logical proof
either way. No one can incontrovertibly negate the existence of a god,
God, or gods. Neither can any one prove the existence of a being or
beings that supposedly transcend experiential reality.

Ocham's Razor, still shaves fine. Do not unnecessarily multiply
entities. If a god, First Cause, etc. is unnecessary to a proof or
theory, leave it out. If it is necessary to a proof or theory, the
theory is fundamentally incomplete as it's character requires something
that, in itself, cannot be proven -- and may not be possible for a
finite mind to know.

Sir Arthur Eddington said: Not only is the Universe stranger than we
imagine, it is stranger than we _can_ imagine.

I find that somehow comforting. A little mystery makes things so much
more exciting when that mystery is pushed back a little more, made a bit
more explicit.

And, anyway, far too soon for most of us, we will know with absolute
scientific certainty one day -- or we will know nothing at all because
there will be no we to know.

"John Husvar" wrote in message
...

I've been following this thread with considerable interest and
amusement. Looks like you all are having a lot of fun. As well, many
intriguing points have been raised.

Howsomever, there's really no resolution to the issue for: One who
believes requires no proof and one who does not believe will accept no
proof.

It seems to me the debate admits of no scientific or logical proof
either way. No one can incontrovertibly negate the existence of a god,
God, or gods. Neither can any one prove the existence of a being or
beings that supposedly transcend experiential reality.

Ocham's Razor, still shaves fine. Do not unnecessarily multiply
entities. If a god, First Cause, etc. is unnecessary to a proof or
theory, leave it out. If it is necessary to a proof or theory, the
theory is fundamentally incomplete as it's character requires something
that, in itself, cannot be proven -- and may not be possible for a
finite mind to know.

Sir Arthur Eddington said: Not only is the Universe stranger than we
imagine, it is stranger than we _can_ imagine.

I find that somehow comforting. A little mystery makes things so much
more exciting when that mystery is pushed back a little more, made a bit
more explicit.

And, anyway, far too soon for most of us, we will know with absolute
scientific certainty one day -- or we will know nothing at all because
there will be no we to know.

It shouldn't be an issue up there, John. There's no way that God would ever
make it up to the UP. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



It shouldn't be an issue up there, John. There's no way that God would ever
make it up to the UP. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Naah, He just needs to take the I-75 North and cross The Mackinac
Bridge. No problem, He's there! Or, He could take the western route and
go by way of Wisconsin.

But, well, maybe not by choice in January. I suppose one should expect
God to have better sense. Yoopers on the other hand....

"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:



It shouldn't be an issue up there, John. There's no way that God would
ever
make it up to the UP. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Naah, He just needs to take the I-75 North and cross The Mackinac
Bridge. No problem, He's there! Or, He could take the western route and
go by way of Wisconsin.

But, well, maybe not by choice in January. I suppose one should expect
God to have better sense. Yoopers on the other hand....

I think I told you that I've hunted snowshoes just south of Copper Harbor in
January -- wearing snowshoes myself. It was a half-section of land right on
the shore of Lake Superior, where it caught the full force of the
lake-effect snow. I think there was ten feet of snow on the ground at the
time. Jeez.

In May, I visited the same place. The trees were *much* bigger then. g

--
Ed Huntress