I've noticed the thread, " How do you solve a problem called...Tony?".

I've taken careful consideration, I've gained insight to his method, "sarcasm" which he calls humor, it's passed the deadline, it's Dec.18, 2001 now. I wonder did it work?

Could anyone here avoid his smart aleck remarks?, how many were just dying to set him straight?.

There's no hope for my friend Tony, he's gone in the cave, and the rock has been placed shut!. He does not understand simple metaphor, his rationality is based on relicks, I bet he even speaks in tongues at his church. Yup!! this guy is truly gone.

So do we avoid him?. I say Nay, though many atheists get kicked out of christian/catholics/babtist & many other thiests boards. Should atheists be the same?. I don't think so. Is this sciforums mostly athiestic?. It seems like it, however i don't know.

I don't mind tony1, in fact is fun having a clown on these boards, every board has one!, so our dear tony is the sciforums clown. Can every one agree with that?. Perhaps not, I bet our clown runer up will stand up for him!. And I don't even have to mention his name, most of you know who it is. :D ;)

However some of us have learned from Tony1. Tiassa claims that he has learned his assumptions of christianity are re-enforced by dealing with tony, though Tiassa lets not judge all christians as harshly as we would tony, he's just more lost than some. Chris has learned to avoid him, though he takes a look to see if he is making some common sence every now and then.

Tony1 is a little more coherent than our truly lost friend, the Loon this guy is truly Loon!. he never argues anything or even answers anyone, however tony, though he never ever starts his own threads at least answers us, even though we might not like the way he answers. Tony does not have to be nice, nor keep his sarcasm, which he believes to be humor. I accept him as he is, any other way we would miss his stupidity around here!:rolleyes: :D :D

Godless,

No I don’t think it had any effect, mainly because the period was not long enough. T1 only posts at weekends and the ban started towards the end of a Sunday, so most of the week T1 wasn’t posting anyway. But judging from his comments I think he really enjoyed the attention and if anything he spread himself across more threads than usual.

But you raise some good points.

If you want a serious discussion about the issues then there is no point talking with t1. If you enjoy the game of one-upmanship then feel free to play with t1, knowing of course that he will always insist on the last twisted word.

Since this is primarily a science board then I would expect to see more atheists here. I see religion and science as being opposites, but there are a good many theists here to make religious debates worthwhile. Theists are attracted to science as I think they hope that science will at some point prove their claims for them, whereas when we look at history it is the opposite that is occurring.

I would recommend avoidance if serious discussions are your goal, but as for a ban, which we do not have the power to enforce, then no. The USA already has more censorship than all other western countries and I am not in favor of adding to that. T1 is a reminder that there are people with extreme views and we need to learn how to deal with them and control our own emotions when he directs his vitriol towards us.

He is certainly the clown of sciforums but it is frustrating that so many potentially good threads die because of his attitudes and behavior.

Take care
Cris

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
No I don’t think it had any effect, mainly because the period was not long enough.

What effect were you hoping for exactly?

Since this is primarily a science board then I would expect to see more atheists here.

I’m surprised to see any atheists here (religious forum) at all, especially as they think the idea of a God as pathetic. But then it just proves my theory that atheists who passionately spend their time arguing about the existence of God, believe in God, but try their best to deny Him. Pretty much like woman who claims her love affair over, but tries to start over by seeing other people, but all the time not being able to get him out of her mind.

I see religion and science as being opposites…

What do you know about religion?

… but there are a good many theists here to make religious debates worthwhile.

You don’t want a religious debate, you want prove that God does not exist. Then you get frustrated when you don’t get your way. This is when the name calling and disrespect of religion comes in.

Theists are attracted to science as I think they hope that science will at some point prove their claims for them, whereas when we look at history it is the opposite that is occurring.

There is ‘science’ and there is ‘SCIENCE.’ personally i’m attracted to ‘SCIENCE.’
As for hoping that one day ‘science’ will prove our claims, is like saying, one day we will understand everything that makes up a blade of grass, then we will be able to create one. Wake up man! It has already been made, ‘SCIENCE’ is more interested in ‘WHO MADE IT.’


T1 is a reminder that there are people with extreme views….

You make him sound like a terrorist. Did I miss something?

Love

Jan Ardena.

"T1 is a reminder that there are people with extreme views….

You make him sound like a terrorist. Did I miss something?"

So you say tht Tony has not got extreme views. Sorry, but I think you need to read Tony's replies more closely.

It would help if tony knew what he was talking about when he uses science as examples for things.

Thanks for the view, I was rather late for the last argument "on ignoring tony1 for a week" so I started this one, this way he has plenty of time to sum up what he's going to say, and he can literally see how many people like or dislike him. I don't think that would bother him in anyway. He would probably answer that "he is not here to be liked, but to do the lords work!"

Jan: I'm supprised at you, I know that you are coherent enough to understand why this disscussion is taking place, the game to be played was to see if one "could" ignore tony1's smart aleck responces which are full of sarcasm. And just leave him rant for himself with out anyone here answering him.

He has gotten to arguments with catholics, and other theists on these boards who don't totally agree with his views.

All in all I wondered if anyone could resist! this is why this thread was started by me.

I can't, I like to play with tony1, lol, it makes me laugh, perhaps I'm getting to see through his sarcastical humor, I also thanked him when he made his condolences when my girlfriends x-hubby died. I believe that there was only two people here, who responded, & tony1 was one of them. Even though we've been having heated arguments back and forth.

I do believe that you've missed something, Jan, or is it that you too agree with tony1's assertions. Do you believe he casts out demons? He claims that he does, have you really kept up with his answers?, his style "kibbles & bits" cuts & paste mere sentences to respond?, oh!! yes and who can forget, he quotes the bible as his holy quide, that he walks with everyday of his life. He once claimed that atheists are boring, I told him is probably because he comes after them with a bible under his arms. LOL!! :D

Anyhow I think that you may be jumping to conclussions without really searching for evidence!

Pretty much how religion has worked, jumping to conclussions without "discovering" any evidence.

Jan,

What effect were you hoping for exactly?

I did not have any pre-conceived ideas on the matter. I merely noted that there was no change.

I’m surprised to see any atheists here (religious forum) at all, especially as they think the idea of a God as pathetic.

No that is not correct. You need to study at least something about atheism before you make comments about the subject. It is the IRRATONAL BELIEF in gods that atheists find pathetic. Many atheists would find the IDEA of a god to be quite acceptable if such beings could be shown to exist.

Irrationality stems from lack of reason and logic, techniques which I know you do not understand based on your earlier admission that you are ignorant of such disciplines.

But then it just proves my theory that atheists who passionately spend their time arguing about the existence of God, believe in God, but try their best to deny Him.

You need to be a little more precise about what you say and this highlights the need for you to study a lot more about what atheism means. Atheists passionately argue about the apparent NON-existence of gods and find it very frustrating when theists insist on believing something without any factual basis. Atheists seek a more rational world based on knowledge and reality. Theists, such as yourself, depend entirely on ignorance and superstition.

I see religion and science as being opposites…

What do you know about religion?

It would seem a great deal more than you. There are hundreds of religions and I have studied parts of many. The first observation is that they are all very different from one-another, except for their consistent expectation that they can cheat death. It makes no sense to say that someone understands or doesn’t understand ‘religion’, for that would imply that they would have to study all aspects of all religions; a practical impossibility.

What I think you mean is that I know little of how you have chosen to define your religion, and your view appears to be one very narrow view out of countless possible variations. Your angry tone towards me seems to stem from your realization that I have hit upon a number of truths regarding your irrational beliefs and you feel powerless to prove me wrong without resorting to anger; the emotion of the ignorant. If you choose to study the discipline of reason and logic then you will stand a better chance of being able to successfully debate with me.

… but there are a good many theists here to make religious debates worthwhile.

You don’t want a religious debate, you want prove that God does not exist. Then you get frustrated when you don’t get your way.

It is your tone that seems to be indicating your own frustration. You are clutching at straws trying to see and imagine emotions in me that simply are not there. Again you are emphasizing your total ignorance of atheistic philosophy. Most atheists accept that it is generally impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist since one would need to search every corner of the universe, and that simply is not practical. This is one of the first things you will learn when you choose to study atheism rather than repeat outdated and archaic perceptions and religious propaganda.

The primary atheist stance is to test the theist claims. The tests require that theists demonstrate any truth in their beliefs. And so far, despite thousands of years of trying the theist cannot show that any god can or does exist.

The typical theist, such as yourself, fully aware that proofs do not exist resort to assertions that no proofs are necessary because the existence of a god is obvious. This futile approach simply shows the overwhelming baselessness, feebleness, irrationality, and desperation of your beliefs.

There is ‘science’ and there is ‘SCIENCE.’ personally i’m attracted to ‘SCIENCE.’

There is only one science. What are you trying to communicate with a lower case spelling versus an upper case spelling?

It is admirable that you are attracted to science but you cannot be attracted to religion at the same time. Science is based completely on reason, facts, and logic. Religion is specifically not based on any of these criteria. Science and religion are opposites. You can only choose between the two. To claim you can be both highlights your irrational method of thinking and explains why you hold religious beliefs.

As for hoping that one day ‘science’ will prove our claims, is like saying, one day we will understand everything that makes up a blade of grass, then we will be able to create one. Wake up man! It has already been made, ‘SCIENCE’ is more interested in ‘WHO MADE IT.’

You appear to be as ignorant about the purpose of science as you are about atheism. Science is concerned only with the establishment of knowledge.

Dictionary: Science - the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the physical and material universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.

Science specifically is certainly not about WHO MADE IT.

Your very perverted views on atheism and science come very close to those of tony1, but I might be insulting tony1 here so I will say no more.

Why do you hypocritically end your posts with the word ‘love’ when the tone of your posts clearly demonstrates that you have no love for me? Are you as ignorant about the meaning of love as you appear to be about everything else?

Cris

Cris,

***It is admirable that you are attracted to science but you cannot be attracted to religion at the same time. Science is based completely on reason, facts, and logic. Religion is specifically not based on any of these criteria. Science and religion are opposites. You can only choose between the two. To claim you can be both highlights your irrational method of thinking and explains why you hold religious beliefs.***

I dunno, Cris. I wouldn't advocate choosing between the two. I've heard it said that, if we separate two parts of our brains, one for science and the other for faith then we willingly participate in intellectual schyzophrenia. :D

Seriously, though... If having faith equates to a purely irrational method of thinking, then given the contributions of great scientists of faith, there must be a lot of irrationally developed science out there. Surely, you must know that there have been many great scientists of faith who were able to reconcile faith and science?

***Science is concerned only with the establishment of knowledge.

Dictionary: Science - the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the physical and material universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.***

The common idea which you seem to be presenting here is that science is purely objective knowlege. I sense this to be somewhat of a myth since scientific knowledge is really determined by the outcome of debates about how to interpret the observation, experimentation and measurement. It also contains some structured beliefs which are not directly testable.

In a way, science can be viewed as another religion in that it has developed its own creation myth of sorts and its most fundamental followers seem to believe:

1. That science reveals our true human nature

2. That science promises salvation (material & cultural)

3. That science is the ultimate arbiter of truth

4. That science is the ultimate path to cheating death

And that's my final two cents for now as I have to go rest both parts of my brain.

See ya later.

Chris, wow! a bit of truth may hurt!! LOL, well I hope that Jan will re-consider her "if it is a her?" post of jumping in where she does not have all the info!. Heck it's a mistake I've made as well.

However I was able to tell what she meant by "science & SCIENCE" I think she perhaps was refering to "psedo-science" perhaps? if that is the case, I would totally agree with her/him. Psedo-science would ofcourse include such things as astrology, numeralogy, psychics, UFO's, telekanisis, "is that how you spell that?" lol, anyhow I think that's what she/he meant.

BC, yes I do see your point, of lots of men of faith have been scientists, that's a true statement. However at the time of their work, they were rational on thier observations. "Just as long as they didn't stand by their test tubes "praying" for the outcome. :rolleyes:

Quote BC: "1. That science reveals our true human nature

2. That science promises salvation (material & cultural)

3. That science is the ultimate arbiter of truth

4. That science is the ultimate path to cheating death


1. No! science mainly records human nature, it can't reveal it!, science intreperts how we behave it can never "predict" exactly how we would behave.

2. What kind of salvation, can we get from science?. Science in medicine however has prolonged life, it has never promised a way to cheat death! however it is the main goal to prolong life. (material science, well it's is science that men have used to achieve the modernity of our civilization) (cultural science?. perhaps you mean "political science", anyhow this one falls more in the realm of political philosophy. Science in the political arena is only used for destruction of others, this is Einstein's observation so far he has been correct.

3. Science is the ultimate arbiter of truth, for it uses "honest analogy" rather than rationalized notions of reality.

4. Science is been cheating death for centuries, we now live longer, fuller lives than we did 100 years ago. It has prolonged life, a way of cheating death like you say! However science has a long way to go before it totally discovers a way to prolong life for 100's of years, it is a bigger picture than you can imagine.

BC. on the recognition of two halves of the brain, my favorite subject BTW. I would recomend you a book on the origins of consciousness the title "THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAK-DOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND" By Julian Jaynes. This book precisely talks of the two halves of the brain, this is what is meant by "bicameral mind" I do think you would find the book very interesting.
:cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
You need to study at least something about atheism before you make comments about the subject.

Study?
You deny the existence of God.
What more is there?

Many atheists would find the IDEA of a god to be quite acceptable if such beings could be shown to exist.

Do you want to see God?
I have requested you to read the BG with an open mind, but obviously you choose not to. If you cannot even do this simple task then how can you possibly see God.

Irrationality stems from lack of reason and logic, techniques which I know you do not understand based on your earlier admission that you are ignorant of such disciplines.

What admission?


Atheists passionately argue about the apparent NON-existence of gods and find it very frustrating when theists insist on believing something without any factual basis.

Do you not have ‘any’ common sense?

Atheists seek a more rational world based on knowledge and reality.

Atheists are envious of God in the same way some people become envious of success in others, but on a deeper level. This envy clouds their judgement then they become angry and just want to kill, kill, kill, in whatever way they can.


There are hundreds of religions and I have studied parts of many.

That is where you are wrong, there is only one religion. To serve God.

The first observation is that they are all very different from one-another, except for their consistent expectation that they can cheat death.

Please name one scripture where it shows how to ‘cheat death.’

It makes no sense to say that someone understands or doesn’t understand ‘religion’…

That is why you think the way you do. How can you know what religion is unless you understand its source.

What I think you mean is that I know little of how you have chosen to define your religion…

Your thoughts are wrong.

Your angry tone towards me seems to stem from your realization that I have hit upon a number of truths regarding your irrational beliefs and you feel powerless to prove me wrong without resorting to anger….

What anger?
You or any atheist cannot show any truths.
From the very beginning you are wrong.

If you choose to study the discipline of reason and logic then you will stand a better chance of being able to successfully debate with me.

So you are saying that reason and logic falls outside the human understanding and therefore has to be studied independantly. What nonsense.
I do not need to argue with you, because there is nothing to argue about, I’m interested in seeing what you are gonna come up with next.


It is your tone that seems to be indicating your own frustration.

My tone is cool, check your own tone.

Again you are emphasizing your total ignorance of atheistic philosophy.

No, I am emphasising that the atheistic (philosophy/theory) is total ignorance.

Most atheists accept that it is generally impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist since one would need to search every corner of the universe, and that simply is not practical.

And what is wrong with accepting knowledge from the creator of this universe.
If you choose to believe that scriptures are mans invention, that is up to you. I bet you cannot even prove that theory.

This is one of the first things you will learn when you choose to study atheism rather than repeat outdated and archaic perceptions and religious propaganda.

Are you saying that atheist theories should be taken seriously?

The primary atheist stance is to test the theist claims.

Then study the BG.

The tests require that theists demonstrate any truth in their beliefs.

As above.

And so far, despite thousands of years of trying the theist cannot show that any god can or does exist.

Can you show me air? Yet you believe it exists. Why? Because you could not live in this world without it. God exists, we cannot see His form, but without Him there would be 0.

The typical theist, such as yourself, fully aware that proofs do not exist resort to assertions that no proofs are necessary because the existence of a god is obvious.

Of course its obvious, you know and I know it.


This futile approach simply shows the overwhelming baselessness, feebleness, irrationality, and desperation of your beliefs.

Oh! And the theory that all this life and design came about by chance, from an explosion, is a sound, base and rational proposal.
Wake up sleepy head!

There is only one science. What are you trying to communicate with a lower case spelling versus an upper case spelling?

You are right, there is only one science, but like religion atheists like to carve things up to the point they don’t even know what is what anymore. So lower case indicated modern science and the upper indicated Science, the quest for knowledge and truth.

It is admirable that you are attracted to science but you cannot be attracted to religion at the same time.

Typical atheist, telling me what I can and cannot be, without knowing what he is.

Science is based completely on reason, facts, and logic. Religion is specifically not based on any of these criteria. Science and religion are opposites.

Once you come to the understanding that this universe was created by a Superior intelligence, then you try and find out more about Him. This is where religion comes in. So science is meant for the atheistic class of men to get to the point of religion.

…both highlights your irrational method of thinking and explains why you hold religious beliefs.

Yaaaawwwwnnnnnn!!!!!

You appear to be as ignorant about the purpose of science as you are about atheism. Science is concerned only with the establishment of knowledge.

The dictionary description of science is a general and modern interpretation, just like its interpretation of the term religion.
You may get full marks in a school exam, but in reality it has no value. You must try and discriminate for yourself.

Science specifically is certainly not about WHO MADE IT.

Scallywag science maybe, but not real science.

Your very perverted views on atheism and science come very close to those of tony1, but I might be insulting tony1 here so I will say no more.

That’s it, let your true atheist nature slip out.

Why do you hypocritically end your posts with the word ‘love’ when the tone of your posts clearly demonstrates that you have no love for me? Are you as ignorant about the meaning of love as you appear to be about everything else?

Perhaps I should get topped up on the chemicals that react in my brain and produces love, as claimed by scallywag scientists eh?


(chemical) Love


Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
You need to study at least something about atheism before you make comments about the subject.

Study?
You deny the existence of God.
What more is there?

Many atheists would find the IDEA of a god to be quite acceptable if such beings could be shown to exist.

Do you want to see God?
I have requested you to read the BG with an open mind, but obviously you choose not to. If you cannot even do this simple task then how can you possibly see God.

Irrationality stems from lack of reason and logic, techniques which I know you do not understand based on your earlier admission that you are ignorant of such disciplines.

What admission?


Atheists passionately argue about the apparent NON-existence of gods and find it very frustrating when theists insist on believing something without any factual basis.

Do you not have ‘any’ common sense?

Atheists seek a more rational world based on knowledge and reality.

Atheists are envious of God in the same way some people become envious of success in others, but on a deeper level. This envy clouds their judgement then they become angry and just want to kill, kill, kill, in whatever way they can.


There are hundreds of religions and I have studied parts of many.

That is where you are wrong, there is only one religion. To serve God.

The first observation is that they are all very different from one-another, except for their consistent expectation that they can cheat death.

Please name one scripture where it shows how to ‘cheat death.’

It makes no sense to say that someone understands or doesn’t understand ‘religion’…

That is why you think the way you do. How can you know what religion is unless you understand its source.

What I think you mean is that I know little of how you have chosen to define your religion…

Your thoughts are wrong.

Your angry tone towards me seems to stem from your realization that I have hit upon a number of truths regarding your irrational beliefs and you feel powerless to prove me wrong without resorting to anger….

Please name one scripture where it shows how to ‘cheat death.’

If you choose to study the discipline of reason and logic then you will stand a better chance of being able to successfully debate with me.

So you are saying that reason and logic falls outside the human understanding and therefore has to be studied independantly. What nonsense.
I do not need to argue with you, because there is nothing to argue about, I’m interested in seeing what you are gonna come up with next.


It is your tone that seems to be indicating your own frustration.

My tone is cool, check your own tone.

Again you are emphasizing your total ignorance of atheistic philosophy.

No, I am emphasising that the atheistic (philosophy/theory) is total ignorance.

Most atheists accept that it is generally impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist since one would need to search every corner of the universe, and that simply is not practical.

And what is wrong with accepting knowledge from the creator of this universe.
If you choose to believe that scriptures are mans invention, that is up to you. I bet you cannot even prove that theory.

This is one of the first things you will learn when you choose to study atheism rather than repeat outdated and archaic perceptions and religious propaganda.

Are you saying that atheist theories should be taken seriously?

The primary atheist stance is to test the theist claims.

Then study the BG.

The tests require that theists demonstrate any truth in their beliefs.

As above.

And so far, despite thousands of years of trying the theist cannot show that any god can or does exist.

Can you show me air? Yet you believe it exists. Why? Because you could not live in this world without it. God exists, we cannot see His form, but without Him there would be 0.

The typical theist, such as yourself, fully aware that proofs do not exist resort to assertions that no proofs are necessary because the existence of a god is obvious.

Of course its obvious, you know and I know it.


This futile approach simply shows the overwhelming baselessness, feebleness, irrationality, and desperation of your beliefs.

Oh! And the theory that all this life and design came about by chance, from an explosion, is a sound, base and rational proposal.
Wake up sleepy head!

There is only one science. What are you trying to communicate with a lower case spelling versus an upper case spelling?

You are right, there is only one science, but like religion atheists like to carve things up to the point they don’t even know what is what anymore. So lower case indicated modern science and the upper indicated Science, the quest for knowledge and truth.

It is admirable that you are attracted to science but you cannot be attracted to religion at the same time.

Typical atheist, telling me what I can and cannot be, without knowing what he is.

Science is based completely on reason, facts, and logic. Religion is specifically not based on any of these criteria. Science and religion are opposites.

Once you come to the understanding that this universe was created by a Superior intelligence, then you try and find out more about Him. This is where religion comes in. So science is meant for the atheistic class of men to get to the point of religion.

…both highlights your irrational method of thinking and explains why you hold religious beliefs.

Yaaaawwwwnnnnnn!!!!!

You appear to be as ignorant about the purpose of science as you are about atheism. Science is concerned only with the establishment of knowledge.

The dictionary description of science is a general and modern interpretation, just like its interpretation of the term religion.
You may get full marks in a school exam, but in reality it has no value. You must try and discriminate for yourself.

Science specifically is certainly not about WHO MADE IT.

Scallywag science maybe, but not real science.

Your very perverted views on atheism and science come very close to those of tony1, but I might be insulting tony1 here so I will say no more.

That’s it, let your true atheist nature slip out.

Why do you hypocritically end your posts with the word ‘love’ when the tone of your posts clearly demonstrates that you have no love for me? Are you as ignorant about the meaning of love as you appear to be about everything else?

Perhaps I should get topped up on the chemicals that react in my brain and produces love, as claimed by scallywag scientists eh?


(chemical) Love


Jan Ardena.

She is just as senceless as Tony!.

Quote Jan: "Please name one scripture where it shows how to ‘cheat death.’

What the hell is Heaven? A false promise that you will go there after death?. A belief based on superstition that you truly dont die but end up in heaven or hell, reward for being good, and punishment for being evil?. Explain!!.

Quote 2 That is where you are wrong, there is only one religion. To serve God.


Oh! really? explain this one to Tony1 who seems to have it in for Catholics. perhaps you should refrase your answer to read "That is where you are wrong, there's many ways to serve god!." every one of them may be right?. :confused: LOL!

If there's only one religion why the hell are they in War?

Originally posted by Godless.
What the hell is Heaven

According to the vedas, the universe is split into 14 planetary systems, these systems are split into 3 different grades according to the 3 modes of material nature, upper, middle and lower (goodness, passion and ignorance). The upper system are the heavenly planets (goodness), the middle the earthly planets (passionate) and the lower, the hellish planets (ignorance). Reincarnation is the transmigration of the soul, at the end of your life you are judged and if in your last life you lived a pious life, you will take birth in one of the heavenly planets. If you have lived a selfindulgent life, you may take birth on one of the earthly planets, such as earth and if you have lived a life of gross ignorance, you take birth in a hellish planet. But in all of this there is no everlasting life.

Oh! really? explain this one to Tony1 who seems to have it in for Catholics. perhaps you should refrase your answer to read "That is where you are wrong, there's many ways to serve god!." every one of them may be right?. LOL!

That is the meaning of religion, it doesn’t matter what Tony1 says.

If there's only one religion why the hell are they in War?

Religion is not at war with itself.
People who say they are fighting ‘in the name of religion’ are at war. There is a difference.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan,

From the tony thread.

From me:

Reason and logic can be grueling disciplines but they represent the best that humans have devised for the determination of truth.

Your response:

Maybe the best that you have, but don’t put me in that hell with you, thanx.

Conclusion:

This is an effective admission on your part that you consider using reason and logic to be hellish and that you want no part of it.

Without the use of such disciplines there can be no meaningful debate between you and anyone else here. At least tony1 recognizes the importance of logic, although he and I might disagree on which of us has the better grasp.

Until you recognize the basics of reasoned debate your posts have little to no value.

As for atheism I recommend you read ‘The Case Against God, by George H Smith’. If and when you eventually learn the basic concepts of atheism then we might have some grounding for continued debate. Until then your obvious total indoctrination and acceptance of religious propaganda leaves you very open to ridicule that I am sure most here can see.

Cris

Godless,

She is just as senceless as Tony!. Yup certainly looks like it. When anyone adopts a single very narrow minded view then reason, tolerance, and the ability to learn new things, are simply discarded. Reason and logic are replaced by hyper-emotions and any meaningful debate becomes near to impossible. At least tony1 has at times read and understood what we have posted.

Cris

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
This is an effective admission on your part that you consider using reason and logic to be hellish and that you want no part of it.

That is a weak way out. Why don’t you use some of that logic you have been taught?

Without the use of such disciplines there can be no meaningful debate between you and anyone else here.

Which roughly translated means I should be ignored until I think like you.

At least tony1 recognizes the importance of logic, although he and I might disagree on which of us has the better grasp.

That’s not what you’ve said in the past, regarding Tony1.

Until you recognize the basics of reasoned debate your posts have little to no value.


Yes Sir.

As for atheism I recommend you read ‘The Case Against God, by George H Smith’.

The title alone appears to be contradictory.

If and when you eventually learn the basic concepts of atheism then we might have some grounding for continued debate.

You pay far too much attention to atheism, you should pay some attention to God, you might just learn something.


Until then your obvious total indoctrination and acceptance of religious propaganda leaves you very open to ridicule that I am sure most here can see.

Rally up the troops why don’t you.

Love

Jan Ardena.

After all, taking the weak way out? The audacity! Oh, how could you? How could you possibly take someone's written word at its simplest, most obvious value? How immoral are you trying to make yourself out to be? Don't you know that to trust someone's communicative integrity is the most sinful and condemning act you can commit?

Er ... something like that. ;)

I feel like I hould be disappointed; strangely, what disappoints me is this continued insistence by Christian-advocate posters that people forego the sentences they write in favor of a subtler, more manipulated context? Although there is a sense of relief accompanying that disappointment. At least we now understand that facet of the scathing distrust shown by some of our posters who refuse to engage a legitimate communicative process.

But really, man, you ought to be ashamed of yourself: what in the world could possibly compel you to trust a poster to say what they really mean? :D

Or am I the only one who thinks it so obviously nuts that we should have to assume the worst in what people have to say? Why should we legitimize Tony1's method of posting?

I suppose I should ask Jan that question, so I'll let this current post stand for that, too. Maybe--just maybe--we'll get some clarification as to why you're expected to ignore the words he presents you in favor of some devious contextual twist. Rather, I shouldn't assume that devious contextual twist; it may be that he's singing his rendition of Barret's Baby Lemonade. But yeah, I kind of wonder about it: if you're not supposed to assess the value of the words given to you, what are you supposed to assess? Maybe this is just one of those occasions when someone can't figure out how to tell you to shut up without sounding like an ass. You know, like breaking dishes: stop making sense and then nobody will pay attention?

Something like that, but since I'm just driving the same point home over and over, I'll let it sit right now.

But remember: Always assume the worst in people so that you can speak for them instead of to them. That seems to be the moral of this ongoing Christian device. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just give them what they want and never pay attention to their ill-devised cult again.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Well thankyou tiassa,

And you are correct of course, silly of me huh? But I try hard for long periods to give others the benefit of the doubt and try to interpret what they mean rather than what they say, but there comes a point when you must conclude that they do indeed mean what they say. But then if you face them with the obvious irrationality of what they say then they deny it.

What is one to do? But in many ways the confusion does make sense. It is very much like telling a lie, the issue tends to cascade into more lies to cover issues that wouldn’t make sense for the lie to be acceptable, and in the end we weave those fabled tangled webs. When religious faith is offered as a truth then the proponents are forced to weave other equally tangled webs to cover all the holes they leave. Should we be surprised then when people like tony1 and jan offer us such weird and wondrous fabrications to explain their absurd perceptions.

Sigh!

Cris

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
...but there comes a point when you must conclude that they do indeed mean what they say.

To me, hell is living a life without knowing God, without understanding who and what I am in relation to God. So to me it doesn’t matter whether I am rich or poor, whether I go to hell or heaven, no matter what my physical condition I consider not having a relationship with God as hell.
You said;
“Reason and logic can be grueling disciplines but they represent the best that humans have devised for the determination of truth.”

I disagree with you when you regard reason and logic as gruelling disciplines. I see them as part and parcel of the mind and intelligence and therefore (can be) part of the process of understanding your real identity (soul). The ‘soul, to me is the best part of understanding the truth because the soul is the truth. If we disregard the soul and spirituality as a whole, then we are using our reason and logic to tr y and fathom this temporary manifestation, a feat which will never be completed, I regard that as a hell.


When religious faith is offered as a truth then the proponents are forced to weave other equally tangled webs to cover all the holes they leave. Should we be surprised then when people like tony1 and jan offer us such weird and wondrous fabrications to explain their absurd perceptions.

Sigh![/I]

Truth is personal, because we live in this world, we access truth through knowledge and understanding. It only becomes a truth when it applies to you personally. There are 2 ways of accessing knowledge, 1) ascending knowledge; 2) descending knowledge.
Ascending knowledge is the process where we understand from experimental knowledge. This is I believe your process of aquirement.
Descending knowledge accepts knowledge directly from the person who knows everything, who is completely perfect, unborn and everlasting. This process has been passed down by the Supreme Person in disiplic succession.
The difference is that using the ascending process you experiment with imperfect senses so therefore the conclusion must be imperfect but the descending process is perfect because the source is omniscient and absolutely perfect.

The fact that you try to put it down just to religious faith just shows how blind you are. By your own process in order to come to a conclusion you must embrace God, it was you that said…The primary atheist stance is to test the theist claims.
Now why don’t you put your reason and logic to what you think they are intended for and practise what you preach, otherwise I’ll have no option but to think you are talking a load of kak (that plus the fact you haven’t actully debated at all).

Oh! You and tiassa are a great double act.

Are you available for barmitzvahs?


Just asking.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Originally posted by Godless.
What the hell is Heaven

According to the vedas, the universe is split into 14 planetary systems, these systems are split into 3 different grades according to the 3 modes of material nature, upper, middle and lower (goodness, passion and ignorance). The upper system are the heavenly planets (goodness), the middle the earthly planets (passionate) and the lower, the hellish planets (ignorance). Reincarnation is the transmigration of the soul, at the end of your life you are judged and if in your last life you lived a pious life, you will take birth in one of the heavenly planets. If you have lived a selfindulgent life, you may take birth on one of the earthly planets, such as earth and if you have lived a life of gross ignorance, you take birth in a hellish planet. But in all of this there is no everlasting life.

Oh! really? explain this one to Tony1 who seems to have it in for Catholics. perhaps you should refrase your answer to read "That is where you are wrong, there's many ways to serve god!." every one of them may be right?. LOL!

That is the meaning of religion, it doesn’t matter what Tony1 says.

If there's only one religion why the hell are they in War?

Religion is not at war with itself.
People who say they are fighting ‘in the name of religion’ are at war. There is a difference.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan, do you have any idea how silly you sound?
Re-read your post then study some astrology, and explain to us were exactly these other planets are? What exactly is earth? hell to some, heavenly for the rich, ok! to the middle income, until unfortunate natural disasters, such as death, volcanos, tornados, hurricanes. Where would earth be in your explanation? I see lots of ignorance in this earth, I see plenty of passion, and also goodness, so where exactly would earth fit?

It seems that we have it all already here!. And religion is at war with itself, it has always been! re-read history, most mayor wars have been caused by religious creeds, the hebrews divided, and were at war with each other, many new religions spun off these wars!.

Explain to a homeless, hungry person that earth is not one of the hellish planets!, explain to a person who saw death of his fellow friends in war that earth is not a hellish planet.

Quote:
"But in all of this there is no everlasting life"
So why promise! heaven for believers?.
Hell for non-believers?
:confused:

*Originally posted by Godless
how many were just dying to set him straight?*

Dying to set me straight?
You would actually die to do that?

* I accept him as he is, any other way we would miss his stupidity around here!*

Hey right back at ya!
I'd miss your mindless rants if you were to quit.

*Originally posted by Cris
But judging from his comments I think he really enjoyed the attention*

I was surprised by it.
Who would think that kind of thing would be happening?
It's like fighting for peace, or fasting to beat hunger, or some such thing.

*Theists are attracted to science as I think they hope that science will at some point prove their claims for them, whereas when we look at history it is the opposite that is occurring.*

What's to prove?
Theists enjoy reading fiction as much as the next guy, and what better fiction is there than science?

Besides, since when has science proven, historically or otherwise, that there is no heaven or earth or beginning, or anything for that matter?

*Originally posted by Jan Ardena
it just proves my theory that atheists who passionately spend their time arguing about the existence of God, believe in God, but try their best to deny Him.*

That's why atheism isn't "no belief in a god," it is "belief in no God."

*Originally posted by avatar
Sorry, but I think you need to read Tony's replies more closely.*

Support from a surprising source.
I knew I wasn't being extreme.

*Originally posted by Xelios
It would help if tony knew what he was talking about when he uses science as examples for things.*

It would help if scientists knew what they were talking about, too, but that isn't stopping them, either.

*Originally posted by Godless
Even though we've been having heated arguments back and forth.*

Heated?
Man, I thought you were in the military, trained in war.

*Originally posted by Cris
Atheists passionately argue about the apparent NON-existence of gods*

Few would be that confused by mere appearances.

*Most atheists accept that it is generally impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist since one would need to search every corner of the universe, and that simply is not practical.*

IOW, even though the odds that you have searched any significant portion of the universe are infinitesimal, you conclude that you have searched enough to make some kind of sweeping extrapolation.

*Science is based completely on reason, facts, and logic.*

As we all know, some movies are "based" on the truth, too.
Science may be based on reason, facts and logic, but it soon leaves them to deal with speculation and hypothesis.

*Your very perverted views on atheism and science come very close to those of tony1, but I might be insulting tony1 here so I will say no more.*

Thanks, but while I think of them as perverted too, our disagreement should stand as a testimonial to the fact that they are very far indeed from mine.

*Originally posted by Godless
Heck it's a mistake I've made as well.*

No sense changing now.

*Originally posted by Jan Ardena
I have requested you to read the BG with an open mind*

It should be obvious to everyone on this forum by now, that "open mind" is code for "stupidity."
I'm guessing that due to the large number of people advocating openmindedness on the other guy's part, that it isn't obvious.

*Originally posted by tiassa
what disappoints me is this continued insistence by Christian-advocate posters that people forego the sentences they write in favor of a subtler, more manipulated context?*

It's the drugs that lead you to a conclusion like that.
You can just read the words.
Really.
It's sort of the opposite of the offense you take when you think of me "reading" people's minds.
All I'm doing is reading the words they write.

*Originally posted by Cris
It is very much like telling a lie, the issue tends to cascade into more lies to cover issues that wouldn’t make sense for the lie to be acceptable, and in the end we weave those fabled tangled webs.*

Wow!
Your perspicacity astounds me!
That is such a simple, straightforward explanation of why there is only one Bible and zillions of science books.
How simple, yet how profound!
Thanks, Cris.

It's Tony allright, look at his post! Kibbles & Bits

That's the way this guy reads!, never mind the content, just kibbles & Bits!

This is how he also percieves! Kibbles & Bits nothing more, nothing less.:rolleyes: :D

It would help if scientists knew what they were talking about, too, but that isn't stopping them, either.
You seem to think scientists are uneducated bums or something. Most know very well what they're talking about. Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it's false.

You use plenty of science every day, and yet you are still deluded into thinking science is actually just fiction. So tell me, when you are typing away another post, is your keyboard fiction? Is the air you breathe made of fiction? Is your room lit by fiction? Science knows how all these work plus much, much more in this world. To say science is fiction is to say all our technology is fiction.

Theists have less idea what they are talking about than do scientists. This is simply because they are taught to blindly believe in a completely mysterious being that they know next to nothing about. Scientists believe in theories devised from direct observation and calculation. Because of this, they will always know what they are talking about far more than any theist.

Not to mention it is against the very religion most theists believe in. If you completely understand what you are talking about (God) then you would have to completely understand God. You have made it repeatedly clear this is not possible.

In order to understand science, one has to have logic & reason! both of which Tony1 & his counterpart Sir Loonytoon have none.

Though mind you, he will conclude that his keyboard was created by some loving christian looking for other ways to spread the word of god!. LOL:rolleyes:

Electricity is something natural, which was discovered by science! So it stands that electricity is god!.

X-ray was also discovered natural phenomena so x-ray is also some form of god:confused:.

Yes, I suppose you're right Godless. But alas, while electricity may be natural, light bulbs are not ;)

*Originally posted by Xelios
You seem to think scientists are uneducated bums or something. Most know very well what they're talking about. Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it's false.*

You're just pissed off because I do understand science.
Since when does "educated" mean knowledgeable, or practical, or anything other than "attended school?"
If scientists knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't come up with stuff like phlogiston or evolution.
You can't be serious if you think that believers in evolution can claim anything more than having attended school.

*You use plenty of science every day, and yet you are still deluded into thinking science is actually just fiction. So tell me, when you are typing away another post, is your keyboard fiction?*

If it had been left to scientists, nobody would have a keyboard.
Engineers are primarily responsible for most of the stuff you think of as science.

*Is the air you breathe made of fiction?*

Air wouldn't exist if it weren't for scientists?
Come on, when I said science was religion, I didn't mean for you to throw your brains away.

*Science knows how all these work plus much, much more in this world.*

Sure, it does, Virginia, and there really is a Santa Claus.
You mistake a guess for an explanation.

*To say science is fiction is to say all our technology is fiction.*

To say science is fiction is to say science is fiction.
If the scientists would quit giving us fiction, then I'd quit calling it fiction.

*Theists have less idea what they are talking about than do scientists.*

Theists know evolution is crap, though.
Except for some misguided "please everybody" types, who think that saying "I have no problem reconciling my faith with science."
All that proves is that they have less faith than scientists who believe in evolution at the merest hint of a failing mark in biology.

*This is simply because they are taught to blindly believe in a completely mysterious being that they know next to nothing about.*

Speaking about blindly, when is the last time you observed evolution?
Don't bother with the crap about having seen it, because you observed mitosis, or meiosis.
Strictly speaking, either would occur with or without evolution, so the existence of either neither proves nor disproves anything.

*Scientists believe in theories devised from direct observation and calculation. Because of this, they will always know what they are talking about far more than any theist.*

You can't even explain the simplest concept about science without resorting to religious terms.
Or did you think that "believe" is a scientific term?

*If you completely understand what you are talking about (God) then you would have to completely understand God. You have made it repeatedly clear this is not possible. *

You must be mistaking me for an atheist.
I didn't say it wasn't possible.
I said it was impossible for you to prove that there is no God.
Besides, scientists don't completely understand what they are talking about, either, since they are still working on it.

*Originally posted by Godless
x-ray is also some form of god*

Does that mean that you don't believe in X-rays, either?

"'open mind' is code for 'stupidity.'" -Tony

I rest my case.



edit: I just turned 21 and im massively sh**faced

Originally posted by Cainxinth
"'open mind' is code for 'stupidity.'" -Tony

I rest my case.



edit: I just turned 21 and im massively sh**faced

I remember twentyone!:rolleyes: It's been more than a decade now, however I got lucky that night!:D :o So I'ts hard to forget her, I mean forget about it, I only wish I could remember her name:confused: :D

If it had been left to scientists, nobody would have a keyboard.
Engineers are primarily responsible for most of the stuff you think of as science.
And if it weren't for scientists the engineers would never have known how to build it.
Air wouldn't exist if it weren't for scientists?
Come on, when I said science was religion, I didn't mean for you to throw your brains away.
Sure it would. We know the exact percentage of air that is nitrogen. The exact procentage that is oxygen, and so on. It is not a theory, it is proven fact. It seems you are so blinded by your religion that you have forgotten what 'fact' means.
Sure, it does, Virginia, and there really is a Santa Claus.
You mistake a guess for an explanation.
No. Sure scientists have to guess at some things, like how the universe formed. They will have to continue to guess until we can travel back throught time and observe the process first hand. There is still, however, a difference between a guess and an educated guess. Scientists don't guess at what the air is made of either, they know it contains nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and various other elements in very small amounts.
To say science is fiction is to say science is fiction.
If the scientists would quit giving us fiction, then I'd quit calling it fiction.
Wake up tony, it already has.
Speaking about blindly, when is the last time you observed evolution?
I can go to the zoo and observe it firsthand. When was the last time you observed God?
You can't even explain the simplest concept about science without resorting to religious terms.
Or did you think that "believe" is a scientific term?
Well then, I didn't know "believe" is a word purely developed for religion. Does that mean atheists aren't allowed to use it? What word would you like be to put in that sentance then tony? Yes, get out your thesaurus and give me a synonym for "believe".
I said it was impossible for you to prove that there is no God.
Besides, scientists don't completely understand what they are talking about, either, since they are still working on it.
No, but they can understand what they have already finished working on, such as the process of fission, or the elements in the air, or what DNA is, or how organic molecules bond, or the characteristics of light. I could go on, but either way science 'understands' more than religion.

As I said, you seem to have no knowlege of what science actually does. It is not only forming theories then setting out to prove or disprove them, but it's also putting together hard facts about the world around us. No matter how much you our anyone else wishes, the molecular content of air will never change naturally. I could trap some air in an air tight container and it would still have the same elements in it 20 years from now. We call this a, brace yourself tony, fact.