Is this where I get to refute atheism?:p:p:p:D:D

Lots of Love,
Vinnie

I like this poll thingy :)

I can only vote once in the poll:(

I was going to skyrocket that first option :D

I think its better like this though ;)

Stay tuned for my elaborate refutation of atheism.... :p

Vinnie--

Is this where I get to refute atheism?

It seems to be a fine place to do so. And remember to enjoy yourself while you do so. After all, without a set canon, dogma, doctrine, or catechism, atheism will be a difficult principle to refute. It's not just a theory--it's an adventure. ;)

YVAN EHT NIOJ!

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Vinnie,

Just remember, no quotes from any bibles. :D:

But Vinnie you forgot an important option for your poll - NO.

But I guess the idiot option comes closest right?

Ah what fun we can have.

Take care
Cris

tiassa, i will never join the navy! those bastards, evan though milhouse is strangly attractive.....

... but with this brilliant refutation of atheism, my whole world has collapsed! The only thing left to do now is sign on and die for my nation, which is indivisible under God.

Hmph ... now that atheism has been refuted, I suddenly feel a jihad coming on. I'll be out in the garage with old liquor bottles and some gasoline ;)

But now that atheism has been refuted, I need to do something to honor my God, and what's better than killing? After all, we have historical precedent that it's okay to murder lots of people in the name of God.

And what better way to kill people than smartly dressed in a Navy uniform? :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I voted for number 4. <i><b><u>Because no one else had Damnit!!!!!!!!!</i></b></u>And I'd do it again if given the chance!
:D

<i> "This spam has been brought to you by <b>House Of Blues"</b><u>Elwood has left the building</u></i>:p
<i>digital internet radio, that is</i>

AT,

What a nice thing to do. I bet that if people get to know you better they'll find a wonderful person, right? :D

For Vinnie's poll I would have liked to have seen -

Totally frustrating and exasperating.

Now I can relate to that since I have debated with Vinnie a few times. He simply refuses to see the perfect logic of all my perfect arguments. :D

Time for sleep.
Cris

Originally posted by Cris
AT,

What a nice thing to do. I bet that if people get to know you better they'll find a wonderful person, right?
Cris


<b> VINNIE WHO?</B> <i>Never heard of em'!!!! <b>Chances are I'd whip his T*ASS*A if I saw him out on the street!!!!!!!!!</i></b>

I just voted for #4 because none of these other num nuts had enough originality to do so!!!!!!!!

<i>"wonderful person?"</i> <b> Yeah, I think I'm a wonderful person. </b> <u>Goes without saying.</u>

<i>"I'll Be Back" (Arnold/Cyberdyne model 101)</i>

<i><b>"Live Less & Go Broke" (Anti-Spock)</i></b>

"He simply refuses to see the perfect logic of all my perfect arguments."

You can have a sound methodology but if its based upon a flawed premise . . .

Oddly enough, I was thinking the same thing though :p

That does not look like a tongue sticking out. It looks like an emoticon who has imbibed more psycotropic agents than it should have...

Originally posted by ilgwamh
That does not look like a tongue sticking out. It looks like an emoticon who has imbibed more psycotropic agents than it should have...



Nothing better to do, do you have but to find reasons to bitch at 2:31 AM?<i>
OUTCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" " CHA HERE!!!!!!!!</I>


<i>"Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed /////beyond question."

<b>Yeah Yeah. That Fred thing too.</i>

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments. Their puerile nature delineates your lack of maturity quite well.

And it wasn't 2:31 for me. If you go to the big building down the street called a library or to yahoo.com you can learn all about those magical, relativistic time zones.

Just think about the possibilities! Once you learn Greenwich Mean Time you will be capable of determing if the eta fous is up to date or not.

http://twister.sbs.ohio-state.edu/text/ncep/FOUS61.KWNO

What time is 06z in Seaside Heights New Jersy?

12z? 00z?

Rain or snow for Boston tomorrow?

Come on, you can do it ;)

Peace,
Vinnie

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ilgwamh
[B]Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments. Their puerile nature delineates your lack of maturity quite well.

And it wasn't 2:31 for me. If you go to the big building down the street called a library or to yahoo.com you can learn all about those magical, relativistic time zones.

***********INA A RESPONSA************THE FOLLOWS:

<i>HUH????????????........ I DON'T CARE ABOUT ALL OF THAT!!!!!!!!!!

<B><U> JUST TELL ME WHY EVERYONE IS ALWAYS RUNNING DOWN POOR VINNIE!!!!! :p</B></I></U>

<i>"Besides, I have a special place in my heart for my Italian friendsa (besides all the godawesome Italian Cuisine to date ! ! ! !)</i>

<b>Bartender, what is wrong with me? Why am I so out of breath? The captain said, "Excuse me, ma'am, this species has amused itself to death." (Roger Waters) </b>

jehovah/Aussie(gooday)/atheist.......


ppppssssss??????? o'heell/hell....I like like that one tiassa!!!!!!!

<u>For once, there is at least some agreement ! ! ! !</u>

"But WHO can hope to understand such things?

I like Vinnie's style. What a sharp tongue. And always so in control of the situation...perhaps AT will learn to be nice...
Yeah, and then the world will cease rotating in utter shock...

Originally posted by ilgwamh
Is this where I get to refute atheism?

This is where you get to try.
Quoting Hoyle, BTW, a man who spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince us of the validity of the steady state model, isn't the best way of going about it (if you don't mind me saying).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
[B]Vinnie--



It seems to be a fine place to do so. And remember to enjoy yourself while you do so. After all, without a set canon, dogma, doctrine, or catechism, atheism will be a difficult principle to refute. It's not just a theory--it's an adventure. ;)

YVAN EHT NIOJ!


Cool, post, Simpsons reference and lyrics from Amused to Death. I am impressed.

"This is where you get to try. Quoting Hoyle, BTW, a man who spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince us of the validity of the steady state model, isn't the best way of going about it (if you don't mind me saying)."

The Hoyle quote reflects upon the intelligent design movement. It doesn't really mention anything about the steady state theory which has very little support nowadays regardless. And its my signature! Hoyle, none the less, is a loophole seeker.

Would it be better if I quoted Jastrow?

Better yet, here is a big list for you. I found this online but I am going to add to it soon ;)

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (1)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (2)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (3)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (4)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (5)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (6)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (7)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (8)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (9)

Roger Penrose (mathamatician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (10)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (11)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (12)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (13)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (14)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (15)

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(16)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (17)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."(18)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (19)

1 Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

2 Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Envirnoments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

3 Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

4 Davies, P. 1984. Superforce:The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.

5 Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Atronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

6. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.

7 Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

8 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

9 Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

10 Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Parmount Pictures, Inc.

11 Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.

12 Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.

13 Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. NewYork, W.W. Norton, p. 116.

14 Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.

15 Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

16 Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

17 Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

18 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.

19 Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.


Peace,
Vinnie

It's a good place to start. You are, essentially, engaging history to make your point, which is something that I, personally, prefer over some of the alternatives we've seen at Exosci.

A general consideration: What is the philosophical heritage of these scientists?

* The most common acquisition of faith comes first through rote and propaganda until a psychological basis for faith develops. What I mean by this is that most people learn about God from a subjective tradition of oral communication. For instance, in the case of Christianity: if the Bible is so simply definitive, why can people not agree on what it says? Even if we limit ourselves to people of faith, for the moment, the answer still lies in their individual experiences relative to the faith in question. Crowley, for instance; menacing, vicious, and quite often dangerously profound. What compelled this man, who has been described as the most revered and most hated man of his generation, and who has been likened to the antichrist, to follow the path that he chose? I quote Crowley's Aceldama (1898);
XXXI
Master! I think that I have found thee now:
Deceive me not, I trust the, I am sure
Thy love will stand while ocean winds endure.
Our quest shall be our quest till either brow
Radiate light, till death himself allure Our love to him
When life's desires are filled beyond the silver brim.

XXXII
Here I abandon all myself to thee,
Slip into thy caresses as of right,
Live in thy kisses as in living light,
Clothed in they love, enthroned lazily
In thine embrace, as naked as the night,
As love and lover
More pure, more keen, more strong than all my dreams discover.
Much of Crowley's "black magick" was merely modified Qabalism mixed with various philosophies from Christendom, Egyptian myth, and the Orient. Much of the work of the Golden Dawn, with which he was quite involved, centered around the spiritual path to the god of the tetragrammaton: IHVH. One sometimes gets the sense that a terribly misguided soul is seeking the True God through the only means he knows. This idea comes to sharp focus when we considererd that the primary reason for his dwelling upon God came from his youth and his strict, religious parentage, who belonged to a sect called Plymouth Brethren (I think). At home he was rarely called Aleister, but rather called, "Little 666" by his mother, who also referred to him as "Beast". I find that my take on Crowley is uniquely apologist; sure, his method was perverse, but he was merely trying to come home to God. Or so goes my assertion.

What is important there is that his perceptions of God bequeathed him by his individual slice of the Christian heritage created a universal perception according to God. Thus, I ask, what is the philosophical heritage of these scientists? Without theorizing that any of them were psychologically abused by their parents, we might still inquire how many of these scientists are culturally or parentally conditioned to presuppose God in some way. Like I always note of my exit from Christianity: I still saw the world in "their" (for lack of better) terms; that is, I went straight from the frying pan into the boiler. From Christianity to its opposition, Satanism. It took a while to shake off the Christian template and start to consider them merely another voice in a diverse society. (What template? A friend noted the other day that soon enough pornography might champion itself on the First Amendment grounds that American public prudery finds its roots in a religious idea. It's a broad argument, but it still doesn't mean that I can show Debbie Does Dallas on CBS on Saturday morning at eight. What's so bad about watching people have sex?) If our friend Flash had been raised among a society where Allah was the accepted image of God, and was arguing with Muslims, would she still have converted to Christianity? What are the possibilities of the Universe? Intelligent design, perhaps, but what if the designers are transvestite reverse-vampires?

I argue this because of a few of the quotes regarding the necessity of design. It seems that these men are attempting to calculate out of the finite environment of the brain and its perception. The Universe has infinity, for any practical purpose, to play. For the number of quotes you have provided regarding the "improbability" of a naturally-occurring Universe, or the "probability" of design ... how does that probability figure stack up against infinity? I have before asserted that, of Life, the Universe, and Everything, insofar as we have an infinite playing field, the Universe we know must necessarily occur. All design implies against chaos is a deliberate arrangement of the elements of the composition. That arrangement, when given infinity as the comparison, becomes more than simply possible, but inevitable.

So I wonder if some of those scientists you have noted are predisposed to considering issues of God in the Universe to begin with. In that case, we start considering the criteria by which these scientists reach their assertions re: designer. Furthermore, how many of these assertions you've cited were prompted by someone asking the question? For a believer, one must reconcile what they know to God, and have an even greater stake in reconciliation.

The only other note I wanted to add was re: why steady-state is important to the Hoyle quote. Simply, if Hoyle reaches his conclusions that the Universe has a designer, what happens if he's not looking at the correct model of the Universe? I mean, take the Primum Mobile, or the fixed range of the Universe that many believed for centuries. To conclude the Universe must have a designer because of its appearance as the Primum Mobile is fine, except that the Universe does not behave according to the Primum Mobile. Hoyle may well be basing his conclusion on inappropriate data. That's the only reason, I think, the issue of steady-state is important here.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Picking a quote at random...
Originally posted by ilgwamh
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (6)

There are many hypotheses on the origin of the universe (not to mention its nature); most of these involve multiple universes. Inflation is but one exampe of a theory where many, many universes can form, each with its own laws of physics.
Is life possible in any of these? To refine the question: is hydrogen possible in any of these? Well, we know of one; there may be many more. It's also possible that ours is the only one (this, is suspect, is the more likely).
We're here because it's possible that we're here. With any set of laws of physics, the universe will evolve in its own way. We happen to live in one where the inevitable consequence of the laws of physics is life.

Do I know that there are myriads of alternative universes out there? No. But which is more likely: an explanation that fits the observable facts, or one that would have Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Jesus and L. Ron Hubbard duking it out over who created the universe? And why does the creator have to be interested in us? Why does noone suggest that the universe was created by a divine being for the use of E.Coli, and that we're merely here to provide variety for our microscopic overlords?

Originally posted by ilgwamh
"This is where you get to try. Quoting Hoyle, BTW, a man who spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince us of the validity of the steady state model, isn't the best way of going about it (if you don't mind me saying)."

The Hoyle quote reflects upon the intelligent design movement. It doesn't really mention anything about the steady state theory which has very little support nowadays regardless. And its my signature! Hoyle, none the less, is a loophole seeker.

Would it be better if I quoted Jastrow?

Better yet, here is a big list for you. I found this online but I am going to add to it soon ;)

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (1)


Peace,
Vinnie


Fine, but what do you say? Allowing quote books to speak for you merely suggests you do not have a thorough enough understanding of the topic to make your own statements. Add to that the fact that far too many quotes (especially from theists and YEC's) are out of context, and as such can not even be trusted to be accurate. Darwin's "quote" concerning the complexity of the eye is a classic example.

Why does noone suggest that the universe was created by a divine being for the use of E.Coli, and that we're merely here to provide variety for our microscopic overlords?

This is an excellent question, one which I have never asked directly. Typically I address it from the notion of Why does nearly every religion place itself at the center of God's attention. Typically, I have used the tale of the Cherokee Great Buzzard; the buzzard landed in Cherokee country, not Jerusalem. I cannot think of any religion that says something along the lines of, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but before he created this tribe, he created the Jews, whom he liked best, and decided to get around to our tribe when he could ... or anything else of that sort.

Likewise with the E. coli notion; I had not thought of it on that level before. Thus, I must confess that I have never seen a religious text that implies, In the beginnng, God created the heavens and the earth, and made mankind as a steward for his most-beloved creation, HIV.

You have struck a vital point here, and squarely.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
This is an excellent question, one which I have never asked directly. Typically I address it from the notion of Why does nearly every religion place itself at the center of God's attention. Typically, I have used the tale of the Cherokee Great Buzzard; the buzzard landed in Cherokee country, not Jerusalem.
Thus, even though Christianity is centered on the Jerusalem, and non-Jews are included in God's plan almost as an afterthought, you still appear to claim that American non-Jewish Christians are still at the the center of God's attention.
What kind of "mental" processes pass for thought in that mind of yours?
I cannot think of any religion that says something along the lines of, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but before he created this tribe, he created the Jews, whom he liked best, and decided to get around to our tribe when he could ... or anything else of that sort.
Pssst. Christianity.
Likewise with the E. coli notion; I had not thought of it on that level before. Thus, I must confess that I have never seen a religious text that implies, In the beginnng, God created the heavens and the earth, and made mankind as a steward for his most-beloved creation, HIV.

You have struck a vital point here, and squarely.
tiassa, have you ever considered the inside-out theory?
The theory in which what is normally considered the universe is actually inside of us, and that which is normally considered inside our bodies is actually the known universe?
In this theory, what we would consider our bodies actually consists of an infinite mass of flesh and internal organs, and the external, sorry, internal, universe is perceived as external only by an artifact of perception.
And time?
Your lifetime is infinite, but by the same kind of perceptual inversion, what appears to be historical and future time is actually your lifetime and what appears to be your lifetime is actually infinite.

The proof of this?
You cannot personally perceive any beginning nor any end to time, therefore those cannot exist.
You cannot reach Alpha Centauri with your hand, therefore your hand actually shrinks as it reaches farther into your inner recesses, which you perceive as external.

Thus, in the beginning God created tiassa, and made the entire universe appear to him as though he is surrounded by people and planets. But he isn't, it is all a figment of his imagination!!! Buahh-ha-haaaa!

Of course, if a person's mind is as open as yours, everything just falls out.

Thus, even though Christianity is centered on the Jerusalem, and non-Jews are included in God's plan almost as an afterthought, you still appear to claim that American non-Jewish Christians are still at the the center of God's attention.
What kind of "mental" processes pass for thought in that mind of yours?
No, Tony, you apparently don't have the mental dexterity to connect the fact that the creation story believed by Christians puts them at the center of God's regard, as if the whole Universe is unnecessary without humanity and, specifically, the religion at the center of the tale. There is no reflective witness in any religion; the assumption is that life is created for the people at the center. The notion of the afterthought is well-pointed. Much of Christian response to the peoples of the world has been a mere afterthought.

As has been asked, who's to say the Universe isn't resolving its issues on the microbiological level, or on the celestial level? Who's to say that humanity isn't just a side-effect of the necessary processes of the Universe?
Pssst. Christianity.
Wrong. Christians are only necessary because God kept screwing up. But if I have it correctly, Jesus is descended from Abraham, according to Matthew. Oh! Sorry, I forgot that Matthew was too Catholic for you. But, if we apply that genaeology, Christianity is merely a prevalent splinter faction of Judaism; thus, it is the same tribe or people.
tiassa, have you ever considered the inside-out theory?
The theory in which what is normally considered the universe is actually inside of us, and that which is normally considered inside our bodies is actually the known universe?
In this theory, what we would consider our bodies actually consists of an infinite mass of flesh and internal organs, and the external, sorry, internal, universe is perceived as external only by an artifact of perception.
And time?
Your lifetime is infinite, but by the same kind of perceptual inversion, what appears to be historical and future time is actually your lifetime and what appears to be your lifetime is actually infinite.

The proof of this?
You cannot personally perceive any beginning nor any end to time, therefore those cannot exist.
You cannot reach Alpha Centauri with your hand, therefore your hand actually shrinks as it reaches farther into your inner recesses, which you perceive as external.

Thus, in the beginning God created tiassa, and made the entire universe appear to him as though he is surrounded by people and planets. But he isn't, it is all a figment of his imagination!!! Buahh-ha-haaaa!
I applaud you. This mumbo-jumbo is demonstratively your most extroverted communique at Exosci, which is odd considering the introverted nature of the concept, but oh, well.

I am aware, however, that time as recognized by humanity is a mere fiction; this is not news to me, and thus far it has produced only minimal disturbances on the functions of existence.

However, you seem to be describing a notion described by various writers and philosophers and artists through history. I'm particularly fond of Kurt Vonnegut's take on it, when God advises Dwayne Hoover that he is the center of creation, and that the whole Universe exists to test the Dwayne Hoover unit to see how it responds. I'm sympathetic to those in the throes of this sentiment because I understand the absurdity behind it enough to know how easily one can allow their self to believe such an idea for real.
Of course, if a person's mind is as open as yours, everything just falls out.
That's the point ... at least the garden grows.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
That's the point ... at least the garden grows.

So you admit what's falling out of your mind is manure?

If that didn't take you two weeks to come up with, it still wouldn't be funny. I mean, really ... thirteen days, and you still couldn't come up with anything better than that. :rolleyes:

You're slipping, son. Stop embarrassing yourself.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
If that didn't take you two weeks to come up with, it still wouldn't be funny. I mean, really ... thirteen days, and you still couldn't come up with anything better than that.
You're assuming too much.

When I see your name as the most recent post, I don't immediately dive right in.

I've noticed that a lot of your posts can and do sit for a while, thus I can take my time reading them.

Rah-rah-rah. Do better, Tony.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Rah-rah-rah.

So you decided to cut thru the crap and post the summary of your philosophy?

But that's what happens to you, Tony, when you try so hard to make reality what you want it to be instead of just cope with it.

The point stands: Do better.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
But that's what happens to you, Tony, when you try so hard to make reality what you want it to be instead of just cope with it.

The point stands: Do better.

Cope with reality?
That is so fucking LAME, tiassa.

That is what LOSERS do.

JFK: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask how you can cope with reality.

FDR: We have to cope with fear itself.

GET A GRIP.

Hang up a shingle, tiassa.

"Got problems? Cope with them."
"Call tiassa, certified coper-with-reality"
tiassa, certified loseologist

tony1,

Isn't personal abuse the tactics of the ignorant and desperate? Your posts are becoming offensive and unwelcome.

Crtis, are you saying fear is a good thing?
Originally posted by Cris
Isn't personal abuse the tactics of the ignorant and desperate? Your posts are becoming offensive and unwelcome.
I don't know, let me see...

Originally posted by tiassa
Rah-rah-rah.

Originally posted by tiassa
No, Tony, you apparently don't have the mental dexterity...

Originally posted by Cris
...the utter stupidity...

Welcome to the club, Cris!

BTW, I hope you don't lead your life in the hopeless mire of merely "coping" with reality.
One would hope that your life would have some optimism in it.

JFK: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask how you can cope with reality. Geez, Tony ... even I, who appreciate Jack Kennedy to enough of a degree that you would say I'm too Catholic, am aware that Kennedy is not the originator of the quote you have maligned in order to make some irrelevant point. From approximately "fifty years" (according to the editors' commentary) before JFK's speech:There are today, in the Middle East, two men: one of the past and one of the future. Which one are you? Come close, let me look at you and let me be assured by your appearance and conduct if you are one of those coming into the light or going into the darkness.

Come and tell me who and what you are.

Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; if the second, then you are an oasis in a desert.

Are you a merchant utilizing the need of society for the necessities of life, for monopoly and exorbitant profit? Or a sincere, hard-working and diligent man facilitating the exchange between the weaver and the farmer? Are you charging a reasonable profit as a middleman between supply and demand?

If you are the first, then you are a criminal whether you live in a palace or a prison. If you are the second, then you are a charitable man whether you are thanked or denounced by the people.

Are you a religious leader, weaving for your body a gown out of the ignorance of the people, fashioning a crown out of the simplicity of their hearts and pretending to hate the devil merely to live upon his income?

Or are you a devout and a pious man who sees inthe piety of the individual the foundation for a progressive nation, and who can see through a profound search in the depth of his own soul a ladder to the eternal soul that directs the world? (Kahlil Gibran)Frankly, he goes on and one like this. But the actual point is that you have no clue of that which you write.

As to the rest? Let me know when you have something useful to say. We'll all do The Wave.

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by ilgwamh
Is this where I get to refute atheism?:p:p:p:D:D

Lots of Love,
Vinnie

From what I have read about and by Fred Hoyle, he was an excellent astronomer but a lousy philosopher. His views on Humankind/Religion/gods etc are not worth a light in the darkness of ignorance.........:p :p