Re: The Myth of Evolution `

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>>>>> Atheists believe in God.  The belief is inherent in the human 
>>>>>>> condition... cognizance demands it. There is no choice in the 
>>>>>>> matter.  
>>>>>>     Can you produce physical evidence of that assertion? Please do 
>>>>>> so if you can. Argumentation is not physical evidence.
>>>>> Every Atheist obsessed with proving to himself that something (God) 
>>>>> he believes does not exist does not exist, is all the evidence 
>>>>> necessary.  That is the mental disorder that accompanies all 
>>>>> Atheists their entire lives.
>>>>     Physical evidence is not everything but it is the only thing of 
>>>> interest to a rational person. Physical evidence is not proof and 
>>>> has nothing to do with proof. For a thing to exist it must leave 
>>>> physical evidence, period. That is the nature of this reality.
>>> What additional physical evidence beyond the scientific fact of the 
>>> existence of the world is necessary?

>>     You mean this dream of the sleeping Vishnu? Why would you choose a 
>> particular thing for it to mean?

> Huh?

>>     Does the scientific fact that **** Happens show  Loki exists?
> 
> Wha?

	Are you really so ignorant of the varieties of religious belief and
experience?

>>     Whatever you choose to believe, who told you what you believe and 
>> how did they know and why did you believe them?
> 
> God is inherent in the human condition.  No one need be told that God 
> exists.  There's no escaping that fact.

	Physical evidence for that mere assertion please.

>>>>>>> The only choice is in choosing to accept or reject Him. 
>>>>>>     What happened to HER and THEM? And what use does a god have 
>>>>>> with a ***ual identity? It dumber than tits on a boar.
>>>>> Irrelevance suits you.
>>>>     I am simply asking after this compulsion of yours to insist your 
>>>> insubstantial god has a ***** and testosterone and XY chromosomes. 
>>>> You claimed it very openly. Why?
>>> If you can cite where I've said any such thing your a better man than 
>>> I am, Gunga Dim.  I never claimed that God is human in any way.  God 
>>> has no need of '***** and testosterone and XY chromosomes'.
>>     You quoted it yourself in the first >>>>> above.

>> The only choice is in choosing to accept or reject Him.

>>     Where does "him" upper or lower case come from?

> Its one way of out of countless millions for describing God.  

	That is in the category of describing light as square. Using gender means
there 
is *** involved, period.

> It just 
> so happens that Scripture describes Him that way, as male essence, not 
> surprising from a patriarchal society.  The physical properties you 
> mention are irrelevant.

	You assume appear to assume they did not mean it literally. But in fact
they 
also had the Goddess Ashara as his consort. Ashara is related to Ishtar
and 
Aphrodite in the region. So your claim is nonsense. We even have very good

reason to believe her temple was where now stands the Al Aqsa mosque. Your
bible 
creators meant it literally. The Old Testament creators were polytheists
and 
made no bones about it.

>>>>>>> This is a moral decision based on the strength of the 
>>>>>>> individual's dependence on their base desires.   Those who accept 
>>>>>>> God are prone to be discomforted by those lower desires and would 
>>>>>>> suppress them when they can.  Those who reject God tend to feel 
>>>>>>> discomforted when they are advised by conscience to put limits on 
>>>>>>> expressing those same base desires freely at their own discretion.
>>>>>>     Other than the stuff a few perverts in 3rd c. BC Palestine 
>>>>>> invented as sins just what is a "base" desire and why?
>>>>> A base desire is on that goes against conscience.
>>>>     Conscience is formed by the culture in which one lives. If there 
>>>> really were people who lived by the morality of the Old Testament 
>>>> the civilized people of the world would have destroyed them for 
>>>> their bestiality and their affront to civilization.
>>>>     Should you ever read Acts you will discover Christians are 
>>>> prohibited from visiting brothels solely for the risk of ***** with 
>>>> the children they sold to the brothels. Some conscience
>>> Human societies are formed to thwart the influence of conscience.

>>     And your evidence of that is what? Please be specific in your 
>> presentation of the physical evidence.
> 
> All that need be done is to look at human societies and judge their 
> propensity to legitimize immorality.  One example is the Aztec belief 
> that murdering/sacrificing humans to their deities is the epitome of 
> morality.

	And we can look at all the gods in all the many Indo-European pantheons
and 
discover not one of them ever demanded war or gratuitous slaughter of
people he 
or she designated as enemies nor ever gave any rules as primitive as the
ten 
commandments. In doing so we put your god slightly above the Aztecs and 
distinctly below the Indo-European gods.

	Are you really this ignorant? In those pantheons humans decided on war
and then 
sought the favor or their gods in fighting it. None of their gods ever
demanded 
war or genocide as your diabolic god did.

	So tell me how does it differ from human sacrifice to command the
slaughter of 
every living thing including their animals? That it is done after the
battle is 
won and not on an altar?

>>>>>>> Formal religions are based on the natural defense mechanism that 
>>>>>>> promotes collectivization of like attitudes toward man's imagined 
>>>>>>> perceptions of his own and the world's fallibility. 
>>>>>>     The motion of objects is never fallible.
>>>>> The operative word I used is "perception".  Try rereading what I 
>>>>> wrote, not what you wish I wrote.
>>>>     That which does not occur cannot be perceived.
>>> I see, abstractions do not enter the mind.  Might as well throw 
>>> science and technology out the window while you're at it.

>>     Science deals with physical evidence. By definition "abstraction" 
>> have no physical existence. You do not appear to have the least idea 
>> what you are talking about.

> Everything that science learns to observe was conceived first as an 
> abstraction.  That's how cognizance and its product invention occurs.

	You are ignorance of science. Science begins with observation of physical

evidence. Trust me. I am a physicist.

>>>>>>> Some religions make their deity so much like themselves that 
>>>>>>> their adherents see themselves as gods, empowered by the 
>>>>>>> convenient but false tenet of Relativism, to do as they will 
>>>>>>> regardless of any constraints imposed by God's absolute 
>>>>>>> morality.  Among the man is god religions is the religion of 
>>>>>>> Atheism.
>>>>>>     All educated people know that the Judeans, aka Jews, first 
>>>>>> appear in history in the 2nd c. BC. There is no prior mention of 
>>>>>> them when there should be. There is no archaeological evidence of 
>>>>>> biblical Israel. Thus Israel is in the same category as Camelot 
>>>>>> and Atlantis. But you are not educated so you do not know these 
>>>>>> things.
>>>>> More ad hoc irrelevance.
>>>>     Those are facts. Deal with them. The Old Testament is an 
>>>> invention like the Book of Mormon, Dianetics and the Koran. Yahweh 
>>>> and his Ashara were in the region for at least a thousand years. Her 
>>>> temple was in Jerusalem even after the temple of Yahweh was 
>>>> destroyed. She was wor****ped by the Jews/Judeans. Idols of her only 
>>>> disappear after Rome rebuilt Jerusalem into a civilized city with 
>>>> running water and sanitation.
>>> Typically flawed Atheist sermon.
>>     A recitation of the facts is not a sermon. That you choose not to 
>> know the facts does not make them disappear.

> When you have some facts not made of whole cloth, present them.

	I did recite the facts that are known. If you can produce any mention of
Judea, 
the bible, the people in the bible (beyond simply similar names), Israel, 
Solomon, David, Moses, Abraham or any of the many events in the OT please
do so. 
No one else has. Be the first. Get all the credit. You can make a great
name for 
yourself if you can be the first.

>>>>     Get over it and get on with real life.
>>> Thanks for the advice.  LOL
>>     But you won't take it.

> Consider the source.

	Please produce the physical evidence beyond vague name similarities that
are 
laughable for any prominent person or event in the Old Testament.
Bibleland 
should be littered with artifacts of the great king Solomon and his
Israel. So 
be the first to produce a single artifact mentioning the Great King
Solomon and 
his mighty Israel.

	I have been through EVERY single claim and find them all no more than 
overactive imaginations. Please post what you believe is true so I can
show you 
what nonsense you have been led to believe.

-- 
Everything ends.
Everyone dies.
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 3789
  nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
  Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml
a4