Atheism vs Christianity Google Group

Re: Oh my, it's a bad week for the Mormons et al.

ornamentalm...@yahoo.com (ornamentalmind) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:58:49 UT

Trance, while I can only guess that we are ‘on the same side of the
fence’ here, I find much to comment about on your most recent post.

The overview of my commentary is that religion is not different from
other groups when it comes to the sense of entitlement. It has always
been the view of most of the elite that they are just that, elite and

Re: Debating the Really Big Question

smwil...@tpg.com.au (philosophy) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:49:50 UT

Joe, what are you on about?
NEIL SAYS
JOE SAYS
NEIL SAYS
JOE SAYS
NEIL SAYS
and JOE SAYS

I do not follow your line of reasoning. You have just contradicted
yourself.
You say, if the mental process was removed
you would be a corpse.
Then when Neil says that the mental process requires a

Re: Determinism & Free Will

chazwy...@yahoo.com (chazwin) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:49:41 UT

I don't think you are on safe ground here. Human consider themselves
to 'be aware' but there brains are highly complex. Insects have no
trace of a cerebral cortex of the kind we have and it is highly likely
that they act autonomically as a complex machine where self awareness
would be of no use.

Re: Definition of a soul

chazwy...@yahoo.com (chazwin) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:44:13 UT

Wrong as per usual. You have given an example of an analytic truth:
where the answer is contained within the premises.

Wrong again. The simple choice of this example has emerged from your
subjective brain. There is nothing 'objective' about it at all.

Once again an analytic truth which relies on a set of Euclidian

Re: Debating the Really Big Question

neil_kel...@hotmail.com (Neil Kelsey) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:41:50 UT

I'll take that non sequitur as a concession.

But you haven't removed the physical part of the human, you've merely
scattered them. I.e. the atoms still exist. As opposed to any thoughts
and memorises the human may have had, which are gone.

Which is an elaborate way of saying they are a dead human being.

Re: Prayer = Magic

mayors...@gmail.com (Observer) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:38:26 UT

And know no what they are! We see the superstitious and wonder why
they are?

Oh yes it is their lack of ability to critique using critical thought
and their self inflicted isolation from any useful education that
would teach them the wonder of critical though the a acquired and
current scientific data form a broad selection of scientific fields

Re: Prayer = Magic

mayors...@gmail.com (Observer) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:28:08 UT

Observer
Prove that the characterization is an oversimplification.

Humanity is not capable of apprehending any objective fact other than
it's own existence.

Observer
Oh but it is,and you are just too stupid to gain from the fruits
thereof. Your requirement for a top magician to mediate the

Re: Debating the Really Big Question

thelemiccatho...@gmail.com (JFG) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:51:28 UT

Were you talking from your penis there, or from your vagina?

A dead human is still a human, even though his physical parts have
been separated from him.

No, you have a corpse. A corpse is not a human being, it is the
earthly remains of a human being who has departed this life.

Re: Dfining God out of existence

neil_kel...@hotmail.com (Neil Kelsey) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:13:56 UT

Hasty generalization fallacy. "Knowledge" of God could just as easily
be attributed to the imagination of the believer. In fact, that's a
rational conclusion, since there's not valid evidence that God
exists.

From Wikipedia: "Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty
generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on

Re: The Manhattan Declaration of November, 2009

duke.of.omn...@gmail.com (Duke of Omnium) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:05:52 UT

I don't know. Eisegesis is such a slippery slope. Once you start
adding words to make the bible say exactly what you want it to, where
do you stop?

It is nothing of the sort. My father talks being forced to be a
"righty" back in his school days, and that was a lot less than a
century ago.

Re: [AvC] Re: Definition of a soul

brockor...@gmail.com (Brock Organ) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:59:15 UT

Much clearer than that. A human-centric subjectivism is not adequate
nor competent to provide an objective basis to disagree with ANY
competing beliefs! Consider how
Roger Scruton put it:

"In From Descartes to Wittgenstein, Roger Scruton says that
Heidegger's concept of inauthenticity and Sartre's concept of bad

Re: Calling "myth" to account

drafter...@gmail.com (Drafterman) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:50:51 UT

I don't understand why this is strange. It seems natural to me that
any story that incorporates a god be considered a myth.

Yes, it can be noted. By why would we note it?

Ok....

Within the context of taxanomy. I'm not aware of any general
application of this law outside that context.

Re: Who does a Christian hate more, a Muslim or an Atheist?

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:44:33 UT

I think the last ones were eaten by the lions at the Roman Circus.

Gandhi and King tried to bring them back, but weren't successful.

Re: Definition of a soul

69black...@gmail.com (xeno) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:40:58 UT

whatever. just half-demented ramblings from a religous nut. you say
god doesn't need human verification. well, the issue is human's needs,
not god's needs. you claim some god exists & yet you can't verify that
god's existence except by pointing at faith based statements that
evidently reflect errors & miscomprehensions of reality. your big

Re: [AvC] Re: Prayer = Magic

brockor...@gmail.com (Brock Organ) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:38:08 UT

Perhaps the question begs the premise. :)

Regards,

Brock